Right now in Boston, there is a dispute going on between the mayor-elect and the police department. Boston Police want to get approval for having 2 officers in each district during each shift armed with AR-15s, totaling 100 officers using 33 rifles. The mayor-elect and city council, like typical politicians, feel the urge to comment on something they know nothing about (calling AR-15s "machine guns"). However, this provides an opportunity to debate the use of AR-15s by standard patrol officers, so I'm marking this thread as a debate.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/30/incoming-boston-mayor-police-clash-over-ar-15-proposal/?goback=%2Egde_2759183_member_5823490533804244994#%21

 

In my opinion, most PDs don't need as many AR-15s as they have, with a lot of agencies today having them as standard issue. The only time I can see this approach as acceptable is when backup can be 10+ minutes away, like most rural agencies. Because what are commonly labeled as "assault weapons" are only used in .2% (that wasn't a typo) of all shootings in the United States, the use of AR-15s should be limited to a select few officers, whether they are part time SWAT team members or simply cops with additional training.

 

Regarding this specific case, I'm ambivalent. While it meets what I believe is acceptable with only some officers using them, the state has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, including an Assault Weapons Ban. If the civilians, who don't have several hundred backup respondents should something happen to them, don't have the ability to defend themselves with an AR-15, the cops shouldn't either.

There's many different ways to go about it, every police force in the western world has some kind of specialist or paramilitary unit,  SWAT in the US, AFU's in the UK. Denmark has "Aktionssyrken" (The Action Force), Germany has GSG-9 on a federal level and Spezialeinsatzkommando (Special Action Unit)  on state level policing.

 

Of course there's some variations among these groups, but overall it's the same thing.

 

 

The best applicable solution in my opinion in regard to special firearms in the field is the UK approach, the UK police force is unarmed, however every UK force has a specialist Armed Response Team that carries firearms ranging from regular sidearms, tasers up to G36 assault rifles. They carry their service pistols on their person while the G36's are locked in the boot of the ARV, leaving them easily accessible when needed without inhibiting the AFO's.

 

The Norwegians do somewhat the same, their police force is unarmed, however every patrol car has two pistols stored safely in a locked compartment.

The Danish Police does the same with Kevlar vests, the vests cannot be worn by officers at all times due to work safety and officer comfort, cops over here don't have the luxury of getting extensively modified police cars. Officers can't wear seatbelts when wearing vests.

 

 

Backup can be more than 10 minutes away here, some times 20-30 minutes depending on various factors, however our officers does not patrol alone, all patrol cars are double-crewed, exceptions are given for traffics officers and other specialist teams whose main role isn't front line response work. These officers only carry a baton, handcuffs, pepper spray and a sidearm as use-of-force tools.

Of course, comparing Denmark to the US is not possible due to the difference in our culture, but there's more to rural policing than giving them big toys.

 

 

Back to the BPD, they already have SOU so I can't see why they need regular cops to carry specialist equipment, instead the BPD should look at re-purposing SOU so it can provide aid the beat cops need, in this case it's having SOU cops on patrol in each district or across districts, not only would the beat cops have specialist firearms on short response, they would also benefit from having the expertise of SOU in the field.

AR-15? why not a .40 SMG?

I would probably say go for giving these Officers assault rifles if there wasn't so much corruption within the Police Community, but every PD has bad apples EVERY one, my problem would definitely be a trust issue, half of them think because they HAVE a gun and a badge that they're untouchable, which in a lot of cases, they are, don't get me wrong the RCMP are far from angels..

I personally don't see the reasoning why if a civilian can't have an assault rifle, a cop shouldn't, that makes no sense, if people won't bother you only because you can fill them full of holes than what does that teach people? to live in fear.. which is not any way for anyone to live, if someone pulls a gun on me I'll beat you to death with it before I shoot you with it..

I don't see why it's more serious giving a cop an AR-15 than a Glock. My understanding is a rifle is basically a superior weapon to a pistol or shotgun, both of which are generally standard issue. If shotguns are fine, why not rifles? Unless something is really odd, the AR-15 they'd be issued is semi-automatic only, so yeah. Not sure why a shotgun is more acceptable than one.

I don't see why it's more serious giving a cop an AR-15 than a Glock. My understanding is a rifle is basically a superior weapon to a pistol or shotgun, both of which are generally standard issue. If shotguns are fine, why not rifles? Unless something is really odd, the AR-15 they'd be issued is semi-automatic only, so yeah. Not sure why a shotgun is more acceptable than one.

I'd say a shotgun you can disable someone with one shot, an AR-15 someone could get a little trigger happy.

Giving a police officer an AR-15 Is declaring war against American Citizens IMO. There is no war going on out in the American Public. Unless there is a big riot outside who needs AR-15's.And with how trigger happy boston police are hell no.

Right now in Boston, there is a dispute going on between the mayor-elect and the police department. Boston Police want to get approval for having 2 officers in each district during each shift armed with AR-15s, totaling 100 officers using 33 rifles. The mayor-elect and city council, like typical politicians, feel the urge to comment on something they know nothing about (calling AR-15s "machine guns"). However, this provides an opportunity to debate the use of AR-15s by standard patrol officers, so I'm marking this thread as a debate.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/30/incoming-boston-mayor-police-clash-over-ar-15-proposal/?goback=%2Egde_2759183_member_5823490533804244994#%21

 

In my opinion, most PDs don't need as many AR-15s as they have, with a lot of agencies today having them as standard issue. The only time I can see this approach as acceptable is when backup can be 10+ minutes away, like most rural agencies. Because what are commonly labeled as "assault weapons" are only used in .2% (that wasn't a typo) of all shootings in the United States, the use of AR-15s should be limited to a select few officers, whether they are part time SWAT team members or simply cops with additional training.

 

Regarding this specific case, I'm ambivalent. While it meets what I believe is acceptable with only some officers using them, the state has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, including an Assault Weapons Ban. If the civilians, who don't have several hundred backup respondents should something happen to them, don't have the ability to defend themselves with an AR-15, the cops shouldn't either.

 

Don't be fooled by the Massachusetts "Assault Weapons Ban"

It only bans Fully Automatic rifles with 3 or more "Assault Features" such as a Pistol grip, scope, etc.

It also bans the use of collapsible stocks, flash hiders, silencers, and a few other things.

And of course, no Massachusetts resident with the exception of Law Enforcement are allowed to own any new magazine deemed "High Capacity" which is 11 rounds or more. If your high capacity magazine was produced before a certain cut off date (somewhere in 1994 i think), then it is perfectly legal. There are tons of pre-ban 30 rd STANAG magazines kicking around Massachusetts. Same thing goes with pre-ban rifles. They can have more than 2 assault features.

 

That being said, Semi-Automatic rifles such as the Smith and Wesson M&P Sport 15 are completely legal in Massachusetts. I can go down to the store right now and purchase an AR15 for around $800. I just can't put more than 2 "assault features" on the rifle. Because they all generally come with a pistol grip, that only leaves me 1 slot for something extra.

 

So yes, there are plenty of Semi Automatic, 30rnd rifles out there. Not to mention just because a MA resident may not be able to get a gun, doesn't mean someone who is already planning to break the law by going on a shooting spree, won't go buy one just across the border illegally.

 

I don't see why it's more serious giving a cop an AR-15 than a Glock. My understanding is a rifle is basically a superior weapon to a pistol or shotgun, both of which are generally standard issue. If shotguns are fine, why not rifles? Unless something is really odd, the AR-15 they'd be issued is semi-automatic only, so yeah. Not sure why a shotgun is more acceptable than one.

 

Most AR15s issued to Police Departments are Fully Automatic, but only time will tell what they will be issued.

 

As a Massachusetts resident, i definitely want the BPD to have ARs. They're not going to hand them out to just any officer, only those who have been properly trained and certified will be able to use them. Even then, they will most likely be rifles that stay in the trunk or the front seat. They aren't going to be conducting traffic stops with them. The BPD wants these rifles to be available to select officers when they need them.

 

Police officers in general are already out-gunned. Just look at the two officers who stopped a car because it had a broken tail light. The guy gets out of his car with an AK and fires 33 rounds at them. Luckily they survived.

Honetly, i don't mind them having AR15's/m4's

 

Aslong as they don't get m60's or M249's... :p

 

Also i think i'd side with the police who are patrolling the street than people who don't

Edited January 3, 201412 yr by LCPD_OFFICER

Sorry for the double post, but i just had to reply to this.

 

I'd say a shotgun you can disable someone with one shot, an AR-15 someone could get a little trigger happy.

 

A shotgun is not going to take out anyone in 1 shot from 15-20 yards. Especially someone who is pumped up on adrenaline.

 

People have taken multiple Shotgun hits and more than 10 pistol rounds, survived, and killed officers. I'm reading about it in a textbook as we speak. Textbook is called "street survival, tactics for armed encounters" And was a textbook for police officers up until very recently.

Why? I mean, why do BPD even want AR-15s for 100 cops total? What if one of those 100 is off work, will they then have a stand in, eaining actually 101 or 102 or 105 cops?

Rifles have a higher bullet speed than a pistol though and are far more intimidating. You wave a pistol in front of soebody and they may think it's a water pistol or a toy cap gun. Wave an assault rifle around and suddenly you aren't screwing around at all. I am of the opinion that they don't need AR-15s or M16s or Comando rifles at all for the rank and file BPD. Don't they have SWAT teams that are ready to go? SWAT are trained to deal with bad situations.

Knowing the reputation of SOME cops in Mass (disclaimer I spend a fair few months of very year around the Mass/Conneticut state line area):, I don't feel okay with those untrusted cops having high powered rifles. See to my eyes a cop isn't automatically given trust just because they passed a firearms course and got a shiny certificate. They have to earn that trust and if that's by carrying the weapon but not using it unless the siiuation demands it, so be it. Then the trust'd be earned in my eyes.

It's the same, to go off n a small tangent, with regular cops, some cops figure they graduated the academy so the world owes them a favor. THOSE are the cops I do not want having assault rifles. THOSE are the cops I referred to as untrusted.

 

A shotgun, yes because a) pellet spread and b) lower muzzle velocity compared to a military spec rifle. Remember the AR-15 is the civilian equivalent of the M16 military assault rifle.

EDIT: SLIGHT tangent here again but didn't the LAPD only adopt ARs as standard issue post North Hollywood shootout? IIRC prior to that they figured they weren't needed. Then those two nutjobs decided to go into a bank with home made armor and nigh on actual machine guns when all the cops had were standard 9mm pistols.

I'd much, much rather they (the PD/DoD/DARPA/whoever else) put money into LtL methods to bring criminals in alive if possible though, in combination with other methods. There's no magic bullet. For all we know giving the BPD AR-15s may well spur off an arms race, or it may not.

Edited January 3, 201412 yr by celticfang

Why? I mean, why do BPD even want AR-15s for 100 cops total? What if one of those 100 is off work, will they then have a stand in, eaining actually 101 or 102 or 105 cops?

Rifles have a higher bullet speed than a pistol though and are far more intimidating. You wave a pistol in front of soebody and they may think it's a water pistol or a toy cap gun. Wave an assault rifle around and suddenly you aren't screwing around at all. I am of the opinion that they don't need AR-15s or M16s or Comando rifles at all for the rank and file BPD. Don't they have SWAT teams that are ready to go? SWAT are trained to deal with bad situations.

Knowing the reputation of cops in Mass, I don't feel okay with them having high powered rifles. A shotgun, yes because a) pellet spread and b) lower muzzle velocity compared to a military spec rifle. Remember the AR-15 is the civilian equivalent of the M16 military assault rifle.

 

They are not handing out 100 rifles.

They are handing out 33.

 

There are 11 precincts in boston, which means each precinct gets 3 rifles. Only 2 will be issued on any given day. That means a total of 22 officers on one day will have rifles.

 

If they train 100, they have plenty of replacement officers if someone calls out sick.

 

Police officers don't "wave assault rifles around" These rifles will most likely stay in their car for their day to day activities. They aren't going to carry them on traffic stops, or around the city. Swat Teams are 10 minutes away at the least. That's on a day with no traffic. You have never driven through Boston on a normal day. I have seen cruisers, responding code 3, stuck in a traffic jam with everyone else. the BPD doesn't have time to always rely on their swat team, who could respond 30 minutes after being needed.

 

Knowing the reputation of Massachusetts police? Seriously? the BPD is one of the oldest, and most respected police departments in the country. The same with the Mass State Police. You sound like someone who had a bad experience with a police officer, and are taking it out on your keyboard.

First of all, I've yet to encounter a police department in the United States with fully automatic rifles. If that's true, that's new to me. But, all the police departments I've encountered maintain semi-automatic rifles. At most, there's a the rifles with burst capacity. But, I've yet to see a police department get approval for a fully automatic rifle. So, if there's something like that, with proof, I'd highly appreciate a link.

Moving on with the topic, officers absolutely need the weapons. Without question, it's an additional method and step in the escalation of force as needed to stop any matching criminal activity encountered. The North Hollywood Shooting proves this fact all-together of how long it took for the SWAT team to arrive, the amount of damage that occurred as a result of well armored and equipped criminals, and the resulting loss of life. All of which could have been immediately solved if the officers had high-velocity rifles with range and stopping power. Those two bank robbers would have been stopped immediately. Semi-automatic weapons are precise, effective, and in trained hands excellent tools for better protecting and defending.

This situation can happen anywhere in the United States. To a large city like LA and Boston, to smaller towns in Montana and North Dakota. While SWAT teams are great for barricaded suspects and warrants, for actions that require immediate response, a patrol rifle is an immediate solution in the hands of a trained professional. I'll cite myself as the perfect example: While in Afghanistan, I utilized my primary weapon against a declared hostile that presented a clear and present danger. I never leveraged my weapon otherwise, and I utilized alternate methods of escalation before resulting in engaging the enemy. While I know this is a combat zone, Police Officers can get thrown into similar situations at a moments notice. To have the option can result in numerous lives being saved. 

In short, It's better have have and not need than need and not have.

Also, in reference to the public opinion of the Mass State Police, just look at "The Departed." There is no such thing as a perfect or flawless police force, ever.

Edited January 3, 201412 yr by ArchangelTwo

First of all, I've yet to encounter a police department in the United States with fully automatic rifles. If that's true, that's new to me. But, all the police departments I've encountered maintain semi-automatic rifles. At most, there's a the rifles with burst capacity. But, I've yet to see a police department get approval for a fully automatic rifle. So, if there's something like that, with proof, I'd highly appreciate a link.

Moving on with the topic, officers absolutely need the weapons. Without question, it's an additional method and step in the escalation of force as needed to stop any matching criminal activity encountered. The North Hollywood Shooting proves this fact all-together of how long it took for the SWAT team to arrive, the amount of damage that occurred as a result of well armored and equipped criminals, and the resulting loss of life. All of which could have been immediately solved if the officers had high-velocity rifles with range and stopping power. Those two bank robbers would have been stopped immediately. Semi-automatic weapons are precise, effective, and in trained hands excellent tools for better protecting and defending.

This situation can happen anywhere in the United States. To a large city like LA and Boston, to smaller towns in Montana and North Dakota. While SWAT teams are great for barricaded suspects and warrants, for actions that require immediate response, a patrol rifle is an immediate solution in the hands of a trained professional. I'll cite myself as the perfect example: While in Afghanistan, I utilized my primary weapon against a declared hostile that presented a clear and present danger. I never leveraged my weapon otherwise, and I utilized alternate methods of escalation before resulting in engaging the enemy. While I know this is a combat zone, Police Officers can get thrown into similar situations at a moments notice. To have the option can result in numerous lives being saved. 

In short, It's better have have and not need than need and not have.

Also, in reference to the public opinion of the Mass State Police, just look at "The Departed." There is no such thing as a perfect or flawless police force, ever.

 

I agree with you.

I never said the MSP were perfect. I only said that they are highly respected. The departed was a remake of a hong kong film, it's not based on a true story.

There are bad eggs in every bunch, and i know that.

 

The North Hollywood Shootout is an excellent example. The police had to shoot these guys hundreds of times before they went down. They estimated over 650 rounds were fired in total just by the police.

Luckily that day, no officers or civilians lost their life, but several were wounded. And yes, it could have been solved a lot quicker, and with less injury, with a Patrol rifle.

 

Also, thank you for your service to the country.

 

edit -

I just did a quick google search to pull up an example, and this article is slightly amusing.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/04/robert-farago/why-do-the-philadelphia-police-have-1356-full-auto-m-16s/

 

that's a lot of Full Auto rifles.

They apparently were going to make them Semi Automatic though.

So I'm not sure which departments specifically, but i have seen articles about it before.

Edited January 3, 201412 yr by Ceril

According to the article, they have full-auto capability because they're military surplus, and were being converted for police use. The department didn't buy full-auto to issue, it bought M16s with full-auto capability from the army (who sells them cheaply), and was making them semi-auto because they didn't want/need officers having fully automatic weapons (also, note that all M16s also have a semi-automatic mode, so presumably any of the rifles that were handed to officers while waiting for the converters to get around to them came with the rule "only use on semi-auto").

tl;dr? Position: Pro

 

Very interesting debate gentlemen. Many sides have been brought up with excellent evidence. 

 

I see both extremes. First being the "Orwellian" view and the next being the North Hollywood shootout where the police were completely outgunned. 

 

As for an opinion, if civilians have access to it, the police should, but not in greater numbers. This may sound harsh, but this country was founded upon the principles of discontent, and discontent in any form is the highest form of patriotism. Recently, with the NSA and the 300 other Law Enforcement agencies, America should be paranoid that the tables have turned against them. Even in light of the Boston Marathon bombing, sure it was an absolutely horrific event and police were justified in what they did, but it's scary to suddenly see a full military police state just come out of the shadows. 

 

I'm a huge supporter of Law Enforcement (Mainly State & Local for the reason stated above), and as a resident of MA, I feel both the MSP and BPD should have access to AR-15's or other variants. And hey, if my small town of 17,000 recently bought an explorer with an Full pimped out M4, why can't a city of 5 million have 33?

 

@Ceril, Do you know if the MSP currently has M4's? Like the patrol officers. I see the MSP a lot, I go to a lot of shows and public events where they're posted, and I've never gotten around to asking a trooper, but I never see them in the standard gun cages between the Front Driver and Passenger seats. MA is very diverse, huge metropolitan cities in one place, vast rural farmland and forrest in another. 

YEs it is old, but look at the North Hollywood Shootout f the 1990's in California, the two armed robbers had military-grade armour, and modified weapons turned fully-automatic, while the LAPD only had Beretta 92Fs, and some Remmington Shotguns, they were out gunned. They had to go down to a gun store and take AR-15s to protect themselves. I think it was 3 years ago, here in Pittsburgh, 3 Pittsburgh Police officers were murdered by a man who barricaded himself in his house with an AK-47. The responding officers didn't have any AR-15s (to my knowledge/reading), and they had to wait for SWAT teams to arrive. If those officers would've had AR-15s, they could have possibly fired back, and pacified the suspect, avoiding the loss of 3 officers. I think *certain* officers should carry the ARs.

Giving a police officer an AR-15 Is declaring war against American Citizens IMO. There is no war going on out in the American Public. Unless there is a big riot outside who needs AR-15's.And with how trigger happy boston police are hell no.

the dhs bought over a billion rounds of ammo so THEY are obviously preparing for war but not in a foreign country

there is no need for a STANDARD police officer to carry a AR15 on regular duties. that why we have swat, tactical officers, the national guard, the military.

Regarding anyone saying police are outgunned, according to the FBI Crime Statistics, only 0.2% (That's 1 in 500) of all shootings are committed with a rifle of some type, without specifying if those are semi-automatic, bolt action or lever action rifles. Considering that a majority of police departments in the US have some sort of rifle program, the police are already outgunning the criminals.

 

I don't see why it's more serious giving a cop an AR-15 than a Glock. My understanding is a rifle is basically a superior weapon to a pistol or shotgun, both of which are generally standard issue. If shotguns are fine, why not rifles? Unless something is really odd, the AR-15 they'd be issued is semi-automatic only, so yeah. Not sure why a shotgun is more acceptable than one.

The big issue to me is that civilians aren't able to defend themselves with an AR-15 in Massachusetts, while the people that have a massive amount of backup at their disposal (7,000 Feds and cops within 12 hours in 25 blocks during the Boston Bombing manhunt) have less of a need for them because of their numbers.

 

Don't be fooled by the Massachusetts "Assault Weapons Ban"

It only bans Fully Automatic rifles with 3 or more "Assault Features" such as a Pistol grip, scope, etc.

It also bans the use of collapsible stocks, flash hiders, silencers, and a few other things.

And of course, no Massachusetts resident with the exception of Law Enforcement are allowed to own any new magazine deemed "High Capacity" which is 11 rounds or more. If your high capacity magazine was produced before a certain cut off date (somewhere in 1994 i think), then it is perfectly legal. There are tons of pre-ban 30 rd STANAG magazines kicking around Massachusetts. Same thing goes with pre-ban rifles. They can have more than 2 assault features.

 

That being said, Semi-Automatic rifles such as the Smith and Wesson M&P Sport 15 are completely legal in Massachusetts. I can go down to the store right now and purchase an AR15 for around $800. I just can't put more than 2 "assault features" on the rifle. Because they all generally come with a pistol grip, that only leaves me 1 slot for something extra.

 

So yes, there are plenty of Semi Automatic, 30rnd rifles out there. Not to mention just because a MA resident may not be able to get a gun, doesn't mean someone who is already planning to break the law by going on a shooting spree, won't go buy one just across the border illegally.

But do you believe the police will limit themselves to what is legal to civilians? If the police don't trust the people they try to protect (because a 5 minute response time isn't encouraging when in fear for your file), it should make the public question why they are exempt. That is my issue with them having AR-15s.

 

Sorry for the double post, but i just had to reply to this.

 

 

A shotgun is not going to take out anyone in 1 shot from 15-20 yards. Especially someone who is pumped up on adrenaline.

 

People have taken multiple Shotgun hits and more than 10 pistol rounds, survived, and killed officers. I'm reading about it in a textbook as we speak. Textbook is called "street survival, tactics for armed encounters" And was a textbook for police officers up until very recently.

A shotgun is more likely to do damage at that distance, because with each pull of the trigger, it is sending forward 8 33mm pellets. In this type of situation where some one is refusing to go down, the most effective shots are disabling shots in areas critical to movement (spine, pelvis, head). During the Battle of Mogadishu ("Black Hawk Down" was based on it), at one point, an M60 gunner put a dozen rounds into a Somali's chest. The Somali started to move and return fire, so 1 dozen more 7.62x51mm NATO rounds were put into him (The AR-15 platform fires 5.56mm Nato). The guy still managed to crawl around a corner and return fire.