Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: State universities to arm police with assault rifles. The Arizona Republic

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...uguns0305.html

    Police departments at Arizona's three universities plan to arm their officers with military-style assault rifles within the next year, officials said Tuesday.

    The new rifles would give campus police officers long-range shooting capabilities, allowing them to hit targets at the end of long hallways or atop tall buildings, officials said.

    Arizona State University will be the first of the three schools to use the weapons. Officers there will be trained to use the rifles in the next few months, said ASU police spokesman Cmdr. Jim Hardina.

    Officers will undergo 40 hours of training before using the weapons.

    "We don't want to just throw rifles out there," Hardina said.

    Eight officers at the University of Arizona will get similar training before a rifle program launches there in four to five months, officials said. Northern Arizona University officials said a rifle program was in the works, although a specific start date was not immediately available.

    ASU has bought four of the new rifles at $700 each, and is looking to find money to purchase four more. One challenge the department is facing: finding ammunition for the rifles. Increased military operations mean that the police department and the armed forces were competing for the same ammo, Hardina said.

    Assault rifles are useful in "active shooter" situations in which there may not be time to wait for a SWAT team to arrive on campus, officials said.

    They added that the plan has been in the works for a couple of years and is not related to recent shootings on college campuses, including last year's massacre of 32 students at Virginia Tech by a student with a history of mental illness.

    Pistols that campus officers currently use aren't ideal for long shots, said Sgt. Eugene Mejia, UA Police Department spokesman.

    "Beyond 50 feet, you lose a lot of accuracy," Mejia said. "You can take a longer, more accurate shot (with the rifles)."

    ASU officers will store the new guns in their patrol cars while on duty, taking them out only when a situation warrants their use, Hardina said.

    Jan Kelly, an ASU faculty member, said she understands why officers have a need for weapons with increased capabilities. She said she feels comfortable with campus officers' access to the rifles.

    "I don't think the police are going to target students," Kelly said. "If they (the guns) aren't visible, most won't really know about them.

    "Hopefully we'll never know about them."

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    So much to say...

    If guns suddenly become not so evil about 40 hours of training, why are they still evil in the holsters of carry-licensees who have similar training?

    When was it problematic that campus security officers were out of range with their pistols? If I recall correctly, the reason campus security was ineffective against shooters was due to response time, not weaponry...

    My knowledge of college campuses says that most campuses have few roads on them. Therefore, for campus security to effectively patrol, they'll need to be on foot... and away from their nifty new assault rifles that are hidden in their patrol vehicles. Add another few minutes to the response time...

    If they were truly concerned about increasing the reach of campus police officers' guns, the most economical answer would be to issue Kel-Tec Sub-rifles (<$300) that fold into a 16"x4"x1", lightweight (4lb) package that uses the same mags as their pistols. Alas, those are only semi-auto, so they wouldn't be cool new toys for the soldier wannabees.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:

    If they were truly concerned about increasing the reach of campus police officers' guns, the most economical answer would be to issue Kel-Tec Sub-rifles (<$300) that fold into a 16"x4"x1", lightweight (4lb) package that uses the same mags as their pistols. Alas, those are only semi-auto, so they wouldn't be cool new toys for the soldier wannabees.
    This would make a lot more sense financially and in practicalityif they went this route becauseIthink those little kel-tec carbines definitelyhave their advantages.But I have a problem with this whole idea in the first place. In principle, I think going the "police-state" route and giving the campus soldiersever greater power projection is just another cop-out and feel-good move designed to repel the notion that students possessing the ability to defend themselves may actually be the best solution to an ever growing issue...
    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    I wonder how long it's going to take for some punk with a crowbar to pick up a nifty new toy.....

    ...and maybe start using it on campus.
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Flintlock wrote:
    imperialism2024 wrote:

    If they were truly concerned about increasing the reach of campus police officers' guns, the most economical answer would be to issue Kel-Tec Sub-rifles (<$300) that fold into a 16"x4"x1", lightweight (4lb) package that uses the same mags as their pistols. Alas, those are only semi-auto, so they wouldn't be cool new toys for the soldier wannabees.
    This would make a lot more sense financially and in practicalityif they went this route becauseIthink those little kel-tec carbines definitelyhave their advantages.But I have a problem with this whole idea in the first place. In principle, I think going the "police-state" route and giving the campus soldiersever greater power projection is just another cop-out and feel-good move designed to repel the notion that students possessing the ability to defend themselves may actually be the best solution to an ever growing issue...
    Oh, I definately agree with the latter part. The point I was trying to make is that this is clearly a case of getting cool toys for the campus paramilitary, not just trying to increase the "reach" of the officers' guns.

    IMHO, the only thing that full-auto guns are good for is to lay down cover fire or kill herds of people. Presumably the campus police will be engaging in neither with their shiny new assault rifles (unless the article meant the political and not technical "assault weapons"), and semi-auto should suffice.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    I think we can all agree that campus policewere never armed with rifles in the past, right?

    But now with so many students killing others on campus... the campus policeneed to be able to shoot from a distance or down long hallways.

    So it is not like the campus just decided on day..... "Hey! Let's get rifles so we can be more paramilitary just in case students ever decided to go on killing rampages all over the country."

    Obtaining the rifles was done long after many attacks had taken place. So it is reactionary and was not done out of desire.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Imperialism2024 wrote:
    Oh, I definately agree with the latter part. The point I was trying to make is that this is clearly a case of getting cool toys for the campus paramilitary, not just trying to increase the "reach" of the officers' guns.

    IMHO, the only thing that full-auto guns are good for is to lay down cover fire or kill herds of people. Presumably the campus police will be engaging in neither with their shiny new assault rifles (unless the article meant the political and not technical "assault weapons"), and semi-auto should suffice.
    +1

    As to what the author meant as by "military-style assault rifles", given the state of the modern MSM, they could be getting anything from Daisy BB guns to BARs and the author and his editors wouldn't have a clue as to the difference. My guess is that what they are really getting are semi-auto AR-15s.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    I think we can all agree that campus policewere never armed with rifles in the past, right?

    But now with so many students killing others on campus... the campus policeneed to be able to shoot from a distance or down long hallways.

    So it is not like the campus just decided on day..... "Hey! Let's get rifles so we can be more paramilitary just in case students ever decided to go on killing rampages all over the country."

    Obtaining the rifles was done long after many attacks had taken place. So it is reactionary and was not done out of desire.
    Point taken. But...

    I agree that being armed with a rifle is a good idea. Hell, any LEO should have either a carbine or a shotgun readily accessible.

    The main objection I have is the overkill in the campus PD's presumed choice of long arm. When I read "assault rifle" I read "automatic"... ya know, like the real military definition of "assault rifle". Nonetheless, even a semi-auto AR-15 or knockoff is overkill when the same task could be accomplished with an inexpensive bolt-action (or semi-auto for that matter) rifle, especially one with more readily available and inexpensive practice ammo. Best and most practical would be a carbine that uses the same magazine and ammo as the PDs' handguns.

    I don't think any of us are going to argue that campus PD doesn't need anything more than a pistol. It's just a matter of what guns and the reasons they're picking those guns. Do they feel that an AR-15 provides them a significantly larger advantage over a more practical carbine for the task of shooting down a long hall? Or do they merely want to be more like the military? My guess is that they're using the fomer to justify the latter.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    No idea what they are getting. Full Auto M-16 rifles are sold by the Government at a low cost but are limited in availability. Many departments are getting AR-15 rifles and they also have a pump action .223 rifle available now.

    I do not see the campus policewalking aroundslung up. It is nothing more than a tool that can be used should a shooter show up. Most departments are figuring out now that they need rifles too as pistols have a limited range with any accuracy. Many bad guys are bringing rifles and are able to kill officers at a distance.

    Just having a rifle does not mean your are more para-military now. It is just a tool that can be used when necessary.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    Most departments are figuring out now that they need rifles too as pistols have a limited range with any accuracy. Many bad guys are bringing rifles and are able to kill officers at a distance.

    Just having a rifle does not mean your are more para-military now. It is just a tool that can be used when necessary.
    Apparently most departments are slow learners then. I think if I were in LE I could have figured out the need for a rifle back in 1966 when Charles Whitman killed 14 people with a rifle from the tower at U of T Austin.

    But then that probably isn't an example they want to pay much attention to being that civilians using their own rifles helped LE keep Whitman pinned down while 2 LEO and a quickly deputized civilian went into the tower to stop the rampage. Civilians actually got involved and helped LE save their community without hurting any innocents. But that was back when we all worked together for a common purpose and the people were trusted to help beyond "be a good witness". :shock:

    None of the above is intended personal to you LEO229, but rather as comments in general about how many departments approach things.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    LEO 229 wrote:
    Most departments are figuring out now that they need rifles too as pistols have a limited range with any accuracy. Many bad guys are bringing rifles and are able to kill officers at a distance.

    Just having a rifle does not mean your are more para-military now. It is just a tool that can be used when necessary.
    Apparently most departments are slow learners then. I think if I were in LE I could have figured out the need for a rifle back in 1966 when Charles Whitman killed 14 people with a rifle from the tower at U of T Austin.

    But then that probably isn't an example they want to pay much attention to being that civilians using their own rifles helped LE keep Whitman pinned down while 2 LEO and a quickly deputized civilian went into the tower to stop the rampage. Civilians actually got involved and helped LE save their community without hurting any innocents. But that was back when we all worked together for a common purpose and the people were trusted to help beyond "be a good witness". :shock:

    None of the above is intended personal to you LEO229, but rather as comments in general about how many departments approach things.
    So we would agree that even back then they should have had rifles but for 40 years.... Nada!! Pistol and shot gun only.

    But now that the departments are figuring out they need a rifle too... some citizens are thinking the policeare getting them just to have and because they "want" to be more para-military.

    Departments now-a-days ARE para-military. They need to be structured that way as it must be clear that those of higher rank are in charge and their orders are to be followed in times of crisis. It does not mean they want to BE the military. They do not wear camouflage or go camping.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Cincinnati, ,
    Posts
    17

    Post imported post

    At 700 bucks each I doubt they'll be full auto. Never know though.


  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    363

    Post imported post

    I seriously doubt there full auto. If its not bolt action, the media calls it an "assault rifles"... Anyways. Whats next snippers on the roofs?? Maybe they should work on reaction time, hasn't that been the problem?

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    DrewGunner wrote:
    Anyways. Whats next snippers on the roofs??
    Stay back - I have scissors and I'm not afraid to run with them!! :shock:

    :celebrate
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,422

    Post imported post

    My mom always told me, "Never run with a square burger from Wendy's--you'll poke an eye out!"

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327

    Post imported post

    LEO 229,

    But now with so many students killing others on campus...
    Hold on a moment: are you sure there's really a long-term increase in the number of post-secondary shootings? These things have always been, and continue to be, fairly rare events, so the law of small numbers probably applies.

    I suspect that it's more an issue of increased publicity; can anybody find some actual stats to help us out here?


  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327

    Post imported post

    [ edited to remove double-tap due to user confusion about SQL error ]

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    kparker wrote:
    LEO 229,

    But now with so many students killing others on campus...
    Hold on a moment: are you sure there's really a long-term increase in the number of post-secondary shootings? These things have always been, and continue to be, fairly rare events, so the law of small numbers probably applies.

    I suspect that it's more an issue of increased publicity; can anybody find some actual stats to help us out here?
    Don't you be quoting no 'law' to a certified LEO without a citation! They know only the law that they are commissioned and ordered to enforce.

    Great point, the 'law of small numbers' that seems to fit in all of its many guises;

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeonhole_principle
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...&redlink=1
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...&redlink=1

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******

  19. #19
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    deepdiver wrote:
    LEO 229 wrote:
    Most departments are figuring out now that they need rifles too as pistols have a limited range with any accuracy. Many bad guys are bringing rifles and are able to kill officers at a distance.

    Just having a rifle does not mean your are more para-military now. It is just a tool that can be used when necessary.
    Apparently most departments are slow learners then. I think if I were in LE I could have figured out the need for a rifle back in 1966 when Charles Whitman killed 14 people with a rifle from the tower at U of T Austin.

    But then that probably isn't an example they want to pay much attention to being that civilians using their own rifles helped LE keep Whitman pinned down while 2 LEO and a quickly deputized civilian went into the tower to stop the rampage. Civilians actually got involved and helped LE save their community without hurting any innocents. But that was back when we all worked together for a common purpose and the people were trusted to help beyond "be a good witness". :shock:

    None of the above is intended personal to you LEO229, but rather as comments in general about how many departments approach things.
    So we would agree that even back then they should have had rifles but for 40 years.... Nada!! Pistol and shot gun only.

    But now that the departments are figuring out they need a rifle too... some citizens are thinking the policeare getting them just to have and because they "want" to be more para-military.

    Departments now-a-days ARE para-military. They need to be structured that way as it must be clear that those of higher rank are in charge and their orders are to be followed in times of crisis. It does not mean they want to BE the military. They do not wear camouflage or go camping.
    Though it is a far inferior solution to permitting adults to protect themselves, having police that are prepared to protect those that cannot or will not protect themselves seems a reasonable measure.

    The issue is not having a rifle in the trunk with a police officer qualified to use it. The issue is the potential shift in the mentality of the police officer when he or she is issued a rifle.






    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Thundar wrote:
    The issue is not having a rifle in the trunk with a police officer qualified to use it. The issue is the potential shift in the mentality of the police officer when he or she is issued a rifle.
    +1

    Summed it up, for me at least.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Dover, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    83

    Post imported post

    Flintlock wrote:
    imperialism2024 wrote:

    If they were truly concerned about increasing the reach of campus police officers' guns, the most economical answer would be to issue Kel-Tec Sub-rifles (<$300) that fold into a 16"x4"x1", lightweight (4lb) package that uses the same mags as their pistols. Alas, those are only semi-auto, so they wouldn't be cool new toys for the soldier wannabees.
    This would make a lot more sense financially and in practicalityif they went this route becauseIthink those little kel-tec carbines definitelyhave their advantages.But I have a problem with this whole idea in the first place. In principle, I think going the "police-state" route and giving the campus soldiersever greater power projection is just another cop-out and feel-good move designed to repel the notion that students possessing the ability to defend themselves may actually be the best solution to an ever growing issue...

    I think it's a good start. I'd like for the campus police to be able to engage at a distance. As the perp may be seen from a distance too far to be effectively engaged with a handgun. If only one life is saved by an earlier engagement, the cost is worth it.

    I do believe this should not be the end point of the issue. The students that have the right to carry off campus should be allowed to carry on campus.


  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    kparker wrote:
    LEO 229,

    But now with so many students killing others on campus...
    Hold on a moment: are you sure there's really a long-term increase in the number of post-secondary shootings? These things have always been, and continue to be, fairly rare events, so the law of small numbers probably applies.

    I suspect that it's more an issue of increased publicity; can anybody find some actual stats to help us out here?
    Yes.... I had viewed a website that posted every similar attack at a school over the past 100 years.

    The years in between each event became shorter and shorter. I suspect the media giving the a shooter his 15 minutes of fame would make this ideal for those that want to be known and remembered by all.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Hence an unfounded assertion of universality, 'posted every similar attack over the last 100 years' and with no opportunity to compare our knowledge to your bald assertion and conclusion. The epitome of 'secret knowledge' argument from authority. What are we, "chopped liver?"

    PENALTY FLAG

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    Yes.... I had viewed a website that posted every similar attack at a school over the past 100 years.

    The years in between each event became shorter and shorter. I suspect the media giving the a shooter his 15 minutes of fame would make this ideal for those that want to be known and remembered by all.
    qft

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    LEO 229 wrote:
    Yes.... I had viewed a website that posted every similar attack at a school over the past 100 years.

    The years in between each event became shorter and shorter. I suspect the media giving the a shooter his 15 minutes of fame would make this ideal for those that want to be known and remembered by all.
    qft
    QFT = Quickly Find Text??

    Here Doug....

    http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html

    http://www2.indystar.com/library/fac...shootings.html

    This link has a recent time-line of only the most recent shootings.


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •