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

imported post

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0305asuguns0305.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."

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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...

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

+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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

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

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?

imported post

DrewGunner wrote:

Anyways. Whats next snippers on the roofs??

Click to expand...

Stay back - I have scissors and I'm not afraid to run with them!! :shock:

:celebrate

imported post

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

imported post

LEO 229,

But now with so many students killing others on campus...

Click to expand...

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?

imported post

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

imported post

kparker wrote:

LEO 229,

But now with so many students killing others on campus...

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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?title=Random_sequence_should_reflect_the_proportion&action=edit&redlink=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strong_law_of_small_numbers&action=edit&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 KMA$$

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

+1

Summed it up, for me at least.