• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Boston Mayor-elect: Police do not need AR-15s

Texashiker

Texashiker

Lifer
According to the new incoming mayor, Boston police do not need AR15s.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/30/incoming-boston-mayor-police-clash-over-ar-15-proposal/

"Mayor-elect Walsh is opposed to the AR-15 rifles," she was quoted as saying. "Unless otherwise convinced by the Boston Police Department, he does not think they are necessary."
Click to expand...

Didn't the LA police go through this with the bank robbers who had full-auto AK-47s and were wearing body armor? The police found themselves outgunned by criminals.

Liberalism at its finest. When the need to stop an active shooter arises, just use harsh language.
 
Only SWAT teams need rifles.

The ongoing militarization of the police force needs to stop.

And actually it isn't "liberal" to avoid wasting public resources.
 
Given the number of incidents police start where they then proceed to shoot at unarmed Americans... I've got to pause a moment and wonder if this Mayor isn't right.
 
Mayor is right. Police don't need more ways to escalate the situation with more firepower that they are all too happy to use. Besides, as we already saw, Boston has practically a standing army at the ready, and a population all too ready to cower before their commands, why do they need regular plain jane officers at all?
 
Texashiker said:
According to the new incoming mayor, Boston police do not need AR15s.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/30/incoming-boston-mayor-police-clash-over-ar-15-proposal/



Didn't the LA police go through this with the bank robbers who had full-auto AK-47s and were wearing body armor? The police found themselves outgunned by criminals.

Liberalism at its finest. When the need to stop an active shooter arises, just use harsh language.
Click to expand...

LA is Boston? Oh wait, you're just a stupid troll.

Oh, I also live in the city and don't own a gun. Oh Noes!!!
 
The mayor is right. SWAT can get there about as fast as a cop can return to his car to fetch his AR. Get rid of SWAT and then they can carry an AR.

In the case of the Boston bombing and the school massacres an AR wouldn't have been a huge help, but could easily be a liability. The Sandy Hook shooter killed himself, without exchanging gun fire. With the bombing suspects, they were never shooting at each other at over 50 yards. Having a gun that can shoot > 400 yards at level and > 1.5 miles when elevated is not always a good thing when in a school or a neighborhood.
 
OCGuy said:
Only SWAT teams need rifles.

The ongoing militarization of the police force needs to stop.

And actually it isn't "liberal" to avoid wasting public resources.
Click to expand...

/signed

And I'll raise 'It's also not necessary to have SWAT performing no knock raids on non violent offenders'

and '... I'll be convinced the police are on the right track with their special teams when they actually go into situations, rather than waiting outside the school/theater/mall for the shooter to run out of ammo and/or kill himself'
 
Last edited:
While I agree that the ongoing militarization of our police force needs to stop, I don't think AR-15's are a problem for police forces. If private citizens can carry them in their cars, we should at least allow police to do the same. Maybe take away their fun switch though... In the city I'm from, police have had m4s/ar15s sitting between the driver/shotgun for at least the last 10 years. I've never read anything in our paper where they were actually involved in an incident (not to say it didn't happen though). The city isn't that big, so it didn't have its own swap team until just recently. A repeat of the LA shootout isn't really necessary to remind people what high powered rifles are for.

MRAPs or whatever/tanks on the other hand...
 
Texashiker said:
According to the new incoming mayor, Boston police do not need AR15s.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/30/incoming-boston-mayor-police-clash-over-ar-15-proposal/



Didn't the LA police go through this with the bank robbers who had full-auto AK-47s and were wearing body armor? The police found themselves outgunned by criminals.

Liberalism at its finest. When the need to stop an active shooter arises, just use harsh language.
Click to expand...

Listen, I live outside of Boston and spent several years working in Boston. Barring special events, I have never seen a Cop walking around with an AR15...ever....so they may have them now but apparently there isn't much use for them other than big events. How about we wait to see what the Police think about this?
 
Texashiker said:
Criminals are different between LA and Boston?

Please explain how a mass shooter with an AR is different in Boston than LA.
Click to expand...

Do people still actively engage you in debate on this forum? You have the logic and reasoning skills of a 17 year old. And I am being serious, not trying to flame you.
 
Tibetans used to be a profoundly gentle people. Perhaps what we need is a culture that teaches folk how to be evolved humans.
 
Absolution75 said:
While I agree that the ongoing militarization of our police force needs to stop, I don't think AR-15's are a problem for police forces. If private citizens can carry them in their cars, we should at least allow police to do the same. Maybe take away their fun switch though... In the city I'm from, police have had m4s/ar15s sitting between the driver/shotgun for at least the last 10 years. I've never read anything in our paper where they were actually involved in an incident (not to say it didn't happen though). The city isn't that big, so it didn't have its own swap team until just recently. A repeat of the LA shootout isn't really necessary to remind people what high powered rifles are for.

MRAPs or whatever/tanks on the other hand...
Click to expand...

chris dorner?
 
Moonbeam said:
Tibetans used to be a profoundly gentle people. Perhaps what we need is a culture that teaches folk how to be evolved humans.
Click to expand...

You are right.

Rather than focusing on returning violence with violence, we need to treat people with compassion.


OCGuy said:
Do people still actively engage you in debate on this forum? You have the logic and reasoning skills of a 17 year old. And I am being serious, not trying to flame you.
Click to expand...

I do not understand your comments.

If you want to throw insults to someone, let it be towards Capt Caveman.

Between the sandy hook shooting and the LA bank robbery shootout, which police force was best armed for the situation?
 
I have a question. The .223 is a small round, great for coyotes at close range. Why is it the ideal choice for use against someone with body armor and a full auto 7.62? Is an AR effective against body armor? Police use frangible rounds last time I checked. I can't believe an AR-15 would have been very effective unless special rounds were used.
 
moonbogg said:
I have a question. The .223 is a small round, great for coyotes at close range. Why is it the ideal choice for use against someone with body armor and a full auto 7.62? Is an AR effective against body armor? Police use frangible rounds last time I checked. I can't believe an AR-15 would have been very effective unless special rounds were used.
Click to expand...

AR-15 can also shoot 5.56, which has the same dimensions of .223. While 5.56 has received criticism for stopping power on the battlefield, the standard civilian police officer does not need such a round.
 
Texashiker said:
I do not understand your comments. - I know

If you want to throw insults to someone, let it be towards Capt Caveman. - I'm not insulting anyone

Between the sandy hook shooting and the LA bank robbery shootout, which police force was best armed for the situation? - See below
Click to expand...

I understand you are passionate about expressing your views on the internet, but debate is not your strong point.

I have read several of your threads, and they are packed full of logical fallacies, much like the False Dilemma you are presenting in this thread. If you responded the same way in actual conversation, you would be considered disabled.
 
Texashiker said:
According to the new incoming mayor, Boston police do not need AR15s.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/30/incoming-boston-mayor-police-clash-over-ar-15-proposal/



Didn't the LA police go through this with the bank robbers who had full-auto AK-47s and were wearing body armor? The police found themselves outgunned by criminals.

Liberalism at its finest. When the need to stop an active shooter arises, just use harsh language.
Click to expand...

I would think only the SWAT teams would need such heavy duty artillery and guns. But occurrences like what happened years ago in LA are very rare. But my stance on that is "better gun control" methods... and doing thorough background checks, and not allowing people to sell guns online without having a background check done or other measures. This would decrease the possibility of a nut job, or robbers getting AK-47 or armor piercing rounds.
 
OCGuy said:
Only SWAT teams need rifles.

The ongoing militarization of the police force needs to stop.

And actually it isn't "liberal" to avoid wasting public resources.
Click to expand...

/this

does every cop need a AR15? hell no. Swat members? sure.

Also i would love to see the reduction of swat usage.
 
Oldgamer said:
I would think only the SWAT teams would need such heavy duty artillery and guns. But occurrences like what happened years ago in LA are very rare. But my stance on that is "better gun control" methods... and doing thorough background checks, and not allowing people to sell guns online without having a background check done or other measures. This would decrease the possibility of a nut job, or robbers getting AK-47 or armor piercing rounds.
Click to expand...

Oh geez
 
OCGuy said:
AR-15 can also shoot 5.56, which has the same dimensions of .223. While 5.56 has received criticism for stopping power on the battlefield, the standard civilian police officer does not need such a round.
Click to expand...

I was wondering why someone would think its useful against body armor. Also, I think if I was a cop I would be very uncomfortable with only a pistol. I'd want something that I could actually hit someone with beyond 50ft or whatever range a pistol is reliably good at (basically very close range only).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top