I wish government officials would stop talking about terrorism like the mere infinitesimal possibility of it is the single greatest threat to our safety and well-being.
Not shutting up about it, thereby keeping it in the forefront of peoples' minds and making them unnecessarily fear a terrorist attack, is a greater threat to our safety and well-being.
Also, just because NY and LA officials have gone insane and decided arming their police with automatic weapons is a good idea doesn't mean that Boston has to follow their lunacy.
we would be pissed off at our crappy assault rifles which can't shoot into the water, and we would yearn for a simple shotgun which would git the suckers under water!
;)
this factoid brought to you by mythbusters, episode 34 on bulletproof water.
That's not to say there isn't a need. Police in Florida are issues with AR-15's, but they're under lock and key in trunks and are only used when given authority.
I don't have a problem with police keeping arming themselves with these in the rare case they need them, such as what happened in
I believe these are just semiautomatic rifles. The idea of a patrol rifle isn't new around here. The one thing that hasn't been discussed in all these news reports is what kind of ammunition they plan to use.
Frangible bullets are available that will break up on impact, instead of passing through walls. If so, they are more accurate and can be safer to bystanders than a shotgun. Hopefully they have the sense to reserve the full metal jacket for situations where the assailants are wearing vests.
These aren't machine guns. I believe the M-16s in the surplus program have the sear removed so they aren't capable of automatic or burst fire. And the others are Bushmaster AR-15's, which is a civilian model. I think there is even a bubba'd version you can get in Massachusetts.
Besides, it's hardly terrorists they'd be needed for. Could be barricaded suspects, could be a "North Hollywood Shootout" bank robbery. And we've seen the recent news articles about people arrested for heavy weapons they weren't supposed to have.
If they want to arm police with weapons to match the would-be terrorists, wouldn't it make more sense to outfit the cops with box cutters and flight lessons?
I wouldn't have a problem with properly trained offices having access to these weapons when they're needed, but to send them on patrols with m16s under the guise of fighting and preventing terrorism is complete BS.
Comments
FBI agent warns of terrorist attacks unless Boston arms now
By adamg - 8/19/09 - 8:28 am
Says choosy terrorists would choose Boston because the word is out there are no carabinieri on our streets.
Can we all thank the FBI in
By anon (not verified) - 8/19/09 - 8:58 am
Can we all thank the FBI in their help for legitimizing the these same terrorists?
Sorry, but I'm not scared enough to warrant this and neither should anyone else.
Can you say innocent bystander?
By anon (not verified) - 8/19/09 - 9:29 am
The police can't even handle pellet guns.
I wish government officials
By tape - 8/19/09 - 9:40 am
I wish government officials would stop talking about terrorism like the mere infinitesimal possibility of it is the single greatest threat to our safety and well-being.
Not shutting up about it, thereby keeping it in the forefront of peoples' minds and making them unnecessarily fear a terrorist attack, is a greater threat to our safety and well-being.
Also, just because NY and LA
By tape - 8/19/09 - 9:42 am
Also, just because NY and LA officials have gone insane and decided arming their police with automatic weapons is a good idea doesn't mean that Boston has to follow their lunacy.
If everyone else jumped off a bridge, etc.
if everybody jumped off a bridge...
By bandit - 8/19/09 - 9:54 am
we would be pissed off at our crappy assault rifles which can't shoot into the water, and we would yearn for a simple shotgun which would git the suckers under water!
;)
this factoid brought to you by mythbusters, episode 34 on bulletproof water.
That's not to say there
By anon (not verified) - 8/19/09 - 11:43 am
That's not to say there isn't a need. Police in Florida are issues with AR-15's, but they're under lock and key in trunks and are only used when given authority.
I don't have a problem with police keeping arming themselves with these in the rare case they need them, such as what happened in
But kept them off regular patrols, and for the love of god, don't be giving them military issue M79 grenade launchers.
overpenetration
By zmgmeister (not verified) - 8/19/09 - 10:06 am
I believe these are just semiautomatic rifles. The idea of a patrol rifle isn't new around here. The one thing that hasn't been discussed in all these news reports is what kind of ammunition they plan to use.
Frangible bullets are available that will break up on impact, instead of passing through walls. If so, they are more accurate and can be safer to bystanders than a shotgun. Hopefully they have the sense to reserve the full metal jacket for situations where the assailants are wearing vests.
These aren't machine guns. I believe the M-16s in the surplus program have the sear removed so they aren't capable of automatic or burst fire. And the others are Bushmaster AR-15's, which is a civilian model. I think there is even a bubba'd version you can get in Massachusetts.
Besides, it's hardly terrorists they'd be needed for. Could be barricaded suspects, could be a "North Hollywood Shootout" bank robbery. And we've seen the recent news articles about people arrested for heavy weapons they weren't supposed to have.
To fight terrorism?
By The Lion (not verified) - 8/19/09 - 11:09 am
If they want to arm police with weapons to match the would-be terrorists, wouldn't it make more sense to outfit the cops with box cutters and flight lessons?
I wouldn't have a problem with properly trained offices having access to these weapons when they're needed, but to send them on patrols with m16s under the guise of fighting and preventing terrorism is complete BS.
Er, no
By Stewart - 8/19/09 - 1:30 pm
Yeah, the idea of a fuckwit like Officer Justin Barrett packing heavy firepower does not instill me with confidence.
He'd sue
By Trixie - 8/19/09 - 4:11 pm
All Barrett would do is shoot someone erraneously and then sue the city for providing him with such a high-powered weapon...
So Boston tax payers should
By anon (not verified) - 8/19/09 - 8:19 pm
So Boston tax payers should fund som kind of para military super swat just in case every line of defense is penetrated? Brilliant
I misread that
By Stewart - 8/19/09 - 9:43 pm
"Paramilitary Supertwat"? Is that going to be Brigitte Nielson's comeback vehicle?
I like your way better
By eeka - 8/20/09 - 12:59 am
:o)
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com