Boston Mayor says no to ARs Deja vu

General General Discussion
1

If the title gives you Deja vu, it’s because Mayor Menino, “Mayor against illegal guns” charter member and gun expert, prevented Boston PD from being given 200 free rifles. Source HERE

The FBI agent in charge questioned the wisdom of that decision in a rare public criticism. Source HERE

The Mayor is at least consistent, he’s against guns, legal or illegal it seems, unless it’s his personal detail… Per usual, it will only be a problem 'till after an event showing it was a problem. Or, one could argue it’s an unneeded step and militarization of BPD, although it would be in line with other major PDs.

Fast forward to today, before even taking the Mayor’s office, Martin “Marty” Walsh has blocked the purchase of AR rifles for Boston PD.

Thomas Nolan, a former BPD lieutenant and now a criminal justice professor at the State University of New York, said Walsh is making the right decision because arming beat cops with high-powered rifles is counterproductive to establishing trust with residents. He noted firing a round from an AR-15 can launch a bullet two miles.

“If the cops have these machine guns, they’re going to use them,” Nolan said. “Someone is going to get hurt, someone is going to get killed, an innocent bystander is going to get caught in the crossfire and there is going to be a tragic result,” he said.

Of course, there’s no plan what so ever to have beat cops walking around with ARs slung over their shoulder, they are not machine guns, etc, etc, but letting any facts get in the way of an agenda, is par for the course.

2

Howe many of the 9-11 fock sticks got on the planes at Boston Logan, and how many people got blown up in the Marathon bombings and man hunt?

Idiots.

3

Well people are always whine’in about the “militarization” of police…there you go, hope you’re happy.

4

I am. If the citizens aren’t allowed to posses them then the cops shouldn’t have them either.

5

Thomas Nolan, a former BPD lieutenant and now a criminal justice professor at the State University of New York, said Walsh is making the right decision because arming beat cops with high-powered rifles is counterproductive to establishing trust with residents. He noted firing a round from an AR-15 can launch a bullet two miles.

I agree. It’s a good start.

6

How would M-16’s have prevented either of those incidents?

7

So if the citizens could have them you’d be ok with the Police getting them?

8

M16’s are cool

EDITING MY POST BECAUSE WE ARENT ON AN INTERNET FORUM FOR DISCUSSION

9

Following the dystopic logic & the profundity of it, how did we as a society ever co-exist as a functioning society w/ having M16’s / AR15’s since Stoner’s design approx. 57’-59’ (Armalite) & really into US mass production IIRC around 65’ (Colt) or so ?
Keeping in mind the facts, that more people are killed by Iatrogenesis / Iatrogenesis Effect (medical misdiagnosis / medical error), vehicles et al etc than guns…

It’s almost like someone passed out stupid & crazy pills & some OD’ed on em & some didn’t get em…
Has to be some of the most epic dysfunctional “Whiskey Tango Foxtrot” moments I have ever seen…

10

In what respect?

11

I say good on him. The police should be no better armed than the citizenry they serve.

Police depts like to get all sorts of expensive toys (M16s, MRAPs, ect) so they can perform Security Theater for the Mayor’s Office and the Press. Terrorism will not be thwarted by expensive toys but by good strategy.

Sun Tzu put is this way:

“All war is deception.”

“There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare.”

“Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.”

“Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.”

The militarization of police depts is the clearest example of Tactics without Strategy.

12

So it is better to have an incident where the need was present, but the weapons were not, and THEN re-visit the idea?

13

That’s how the process generally works :frowning:

14

I’d agree with the bold section to be sure, but you feel the disarming the citizenry and the PD is the right approach? That’s the approach he appears to favor, not including of course the detail that protects him and protects his residence. I still consider most LEOs the good guys and prefer them to have the tools they need to deal with threats a side arm will not.

15

I find it laughable how some will lick the boot of a liberal sack of garbage, as long as said sack of garbage shits all over the P.D.

Laughable.

16

To rolling this back:

17

Such as?

Ah yes, the mythical “contingency” that must be planned for. The source of so much unnecessary govt spending.

Again, good strategy (good police work/intelligence) will usually answer the mail. So how would M16s improved the outcome of the Boston Bombings? What threat should Boston be preparing for that will require M16s?

I would hazard to guess that your average Boston cop has trouble doing his basic qualification on the weapon he has. I am not sure the Mayor is not too interested in giving them another weapon to qualify on - incurring additional costs in ammo, training, manpower, and OT. Not to mention civil liability. And, you have to consider the sort of city Boston is. Bostonians really don’t like the idea of police armed with Assault Rifles. I can see this being used against the Mayor in the next election.

18

This may come as a shock, but most likely the Mayor of Boston won his office in an election and his views most likely represent the majority view in Boston. I don’t really have a problem with this. What I don’t like is when these mayors go on a campaign to tell other cities and counties how to live.

I am not sure how you see this as dumping all over his PD?

19

I’m confused – were they proposing getting select-fire M4/M-16s, or semiauto AR-15s?

On one hand, I love the idiocy of thinking that one type of rifle is somehow more lethal or more dangerous than another, but on the other I’m all for rolling back the militarization of police forces.

20

BPD has the same reputation as most big city PDs: Used as the mayor’s personal military force when needed, then thrown to the wolves when convenient. I don’t see how BPD officers are going to be any more trigger happy with their ARs than all of the surrounding cities’ PDs which issue, or allow, patrol rifles. And also, this is Boston we’re talking about. A bad guy could be firing mortars into Fenway Park during the World Series and get shot and killed by BPD, and the chain of events will be the same: The family will claim he was a good boy who just got his GED and was turning his life around, sue the city for millions and win. The papers will claim that “experts agree” that the officers who shot the guy should have tried harder to talk to him, then fired a warning shot, then try to shoot the mortar round out of his hand and had acted rashly by shooting the guy so quickly. Then the media and politicians would say that, even though the guy was using a mortar stolen from a military base, a tighter ban on assault weapons would prevent this from happening again. Then the officer who shot the guy would get fired and probably tried for manslaughter. I don’t think any officer in that city feels invincible enough to just start shooting an AR willy nilly.