Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: 'D.C. to arm police with assault rifles' The Washington Times Metro

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

    Post imported post

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/...970320295/1001

    The Metropolitan Police Department has joined other major U.S. cities in arming patrol officers with assault rifles to protect them against criminals with high-powered weapons, weeks after being released from a federal program that monitors the use of excessive force.

    "We want to be as accurate as possible and have more stopping power," Assistant Chief Patrick Burke said yesterday.

    The department already has 500 semiautomatic AR-15 rifles, which were converted from fully automatic rifles, and has trained 340 officers to use them.

    Chief Burke said the weapons will go in service after the department decides how to rack them in patrol cars, but gave no specific start date.

    The Chicago Police Department is making similar plans and the City of Miami Police Department is already using such weapons.

    "We need to be equally equipped with the firearms that are being used against the police," said Monique Bond, a Chicago police spokeswoman. "If officers cannot protect themselves, they cannot protect residents."

    Last month, Chicago had one of the most violent crime waves in recent history — 36 shootings in which nine people were killed and an AK-47 assault rifle was used to shoot up a plumbing-supply store.

    Miami police began giving patrol police assault rifles in September, about a week before a Miami-Dade County officer was killed by a suspect with a high-powered rifle.



    Miami Police Executive Assistant Delrish Moss said officials were reluctant to make such a decision but felt it was necessary.

    Concerns about D.C. officers using excessive force surfaced after the city lowered standards in police recruiting in 1989 and 1990.

    On April 7, the department qualified to end a seven-year, voluntary Justice Department oversight of incidents in which officers used their weapons or other forms of force in the line of duty.

    City officers fatally shot 12 people in 1998, and the department led the country in fatal shootings in the 1990s.

    However, the number of fatal police-involved shootings was five or fewer each year from 1999 to 2006, according to a report from the D.C. police department.

    Last year, eight people were fatally shot by city officers, compared with two in 2006.

    City officers fired 219 rounds last year, up from 64 in 2006. The department is now investigating the conduct of two officers who this month were exonerated by federal investigators in the fatal shooting of 14-year-old DeOnte Rawlings, whom they suspected in the theft of a mini-bike.

    Ronald Moten, co-founder of the youth-advocacy group Peaceoholics, acknowledged that criminals, including youths, are getting their hands on powerful weapons that "you cannot buy in the store" but said giving police bigger guns will not solve the problem.

    "If I was a police officer, I would want to be as equipped as the criminals," he said. "But I don't think it's the answer."

    Prince George's County and Montgomery County police representatives said they have seen more powerful weapons used in recent years and have given officers the option to carry assault rifles.

    City police did not have statistics yesterday on the types of weapons being used in crimes.

    The department's SWAT already has such weapons. A spokesman for the Baltimore Police Department said only SWAT officers have assault rifles because the department has seen mostly handguns used in crime.

    "It's a specialized weapon for specialized units," said Officer Troy Harris, a Baltimore police spokesman.

    D.C. Council member Jim Graham said he would "be inclined to support" the use of assault rifles because he sees no alternative in the war on guns.

    "When the criminals are armed better than the police, there's a problem," said Mr. Graham, Ward 1 Democrat, who last year dealt with hundreds of shootings between rival street gangs in his district. "What are we going to do?"

    POLICE SHOOTINGS

    A month after being freed from intensive federal monitoring of shooting incidents, D.C. patrol officers will be issued assault rifles to match the increasing firepower of violent criminals.


    Year Discharges* People Shot People Killed

    1999 34 7 4

    2000 20 6 1

    2001 29 14 3

    2002 24 5 5

    2003 28 11 5

    2004 28 10 2

    2005 23 7 4

    2006 13 6 2

    2007 31 12 8

    * Intentional firing at people [reformatted]


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

    Post imported post

    But wait, the subjects of DC can't own guns. Why do the police need guns? Unless... wait... they're admitting to the failure of their gun laws?

  3. #3
    Regular Member IanB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    1,896

    Post imported post

    D.C. Council member Jim Graham said he would "be inclined to support" the use of assault rifles because he sees no alternative in the war on guns.
    Ohhhhhh.... wow.





  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX, ,
    Posts
    496

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    "We need to be equally equipped with the firearms that are being used against the police," said Monique Bond, a Chicago police spokeswoman. "If officers cannot protect themselves, they cannot protect residents."
    "If I was a police officer, I would want to be as equipped as the criminals," he said. "But I don't think it's the answer."
    "When the criminals are armed better than the police, there's a problem," said Mr. Graham, Ward 1 Democrat, who last year dealt with hundreds of shootings between rival street gangs in his district. "What are we going to do?"
    #1: Wasn't DC the defendant in a case where the SCOTUS decided that police DO NOT have the responsibility to protect citizens?

    #2: You're durn tootin' I'd want to be as armed as the criminals,but you're also right in that it's not the answer. If you've got ten lawfully-carrying individuals with semi-automatic handguns versus one BG with an AR, even if it's an (illegal) fully-automatic M16A1, my money's on the ten good guys every time.

    #3: See #2 above.

    To all: You mean guns are used in crimes in DC? But I thought DC had a ban on even having a weapon kept in a fireable state! Surely as soon as someone does that, they are arrested?

    OK, guns are used in crimes, and sometimes the weapons are very powerful. How many of the criminals involved are repeat felons? What? that number's not zero? But I thought it was illegal for a convicted felon to own a gun! As soon as the felon picks up the gun, he's arrested, right?

    OK, so criminals can get guns. But as soon as they pull it out and point it, they're taken out right? I mean, police are getting these high-powered assault rifles in orderto protect people from criminals with guns, right? No? You mean there's only 6 officersper 1,000 people and thus the odds of a policeman being among the 100 closest people to a criminal act is less than 1%? And what's THAT? Warren v. DC says that police in facct have no such responsibility to protect civilians?

    How many civilians who own assault rifles DIDN'Tcommit a crime with it in the same time frame as thecrimes involving assault rifles? What? That number isn't zero?You mean that just because a civilian owns an AR doesn't mean he's a menace to society?

    What percentage of lawful gun owners go on to commit a crime with that gun? Less than1%? Really! That's very interesting!

    And what percentage of concealed weapon permit holders, in jurisdictions where it's actually allowed,commit a crime with that weapon other than non-malicious possession in a restricted place? Really? That's one fifth the rate of ordinary citizens to ordinary criminals!

    So criminals can get guns. They can use them with relative impunity because the only other guys who have guns comprise, on average, .6% of the people walking around in DC. The police have no duty to protect individuals. They DO have the responsibility to protect themselves and each other (it's part of their oath as police). Therefore they get high-powered duty weapons to protect themselves and their partners from criminals. Sounds to me like the criminals and police are squaring off in a war that puts the average Joe in no-man's land, unarmed and VERY afraid. But I'm just a layman, not an expert on criminal statistics, so maybe I don't know something that making gun ownership illegaland arming police officers to the teeth would do that would deter or stop criminals from using guns to commit crimes against the now-unarmed population.

    What I DO see as advantageous is allowing people to carry guns for defense of self and others. See, if police are the only lawful gun carriers and only half a police officer is present among every hundred people, if one percent of the DC population made the decision to volunteer to carry a weapon he could use to defend himself and those around him, you've just tripled the chances that a criminal will have to immediately deal with another guy with a gun trying to stop him. And one percent isa pretty good estimateof the number of people who would carry; CHL holders comprise 1% of the Texas population, and the number of new Texas resident CHL holder applications has increased 40%. People want to be armed. They want to protect themselves, their loved ones and those around them. Sounds like a resource that, if I were battling high crime, I would take advantage of.

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

    Post imported post

    Liko81 wrote:
    Doug Huffman wrote:
    "We need to be equally equipped with the firearms that are being used against the police," said Monique Bond, a Chicago police spokeswoman. "If officers cannot protect themselves, they cannot protect residents."
    "If I was a police officer, I would want to be as equipped as the criminals," he said. "But I don't think it's the answer."
    "When the criminals are armed better than the police, there's a problem," said Mr. Graham, Ward 1 Democrat, who last year dealt with hundreds of shootings between rival street gangs in his district. "What are we going to do?"
    #1: Wasn't DC the defendant in a case where the SCOTUS decided that police DO NOT have the responsibility to protect citizens?

    #2: You're durn tootin' I'd want to be as armed as the criminals,but you're also right in that it's not the answer. If you've got ten lawfully-carrying individuals with semi-automatic handguns versus one BG with an AR, even if it's an (illegal) fully-automatic M16A1, my money's on the ten good guys every time.

    #3: See #2 above.

    To all: You mean guns are used in crimes in DC? But I thought DC had a ban on even having a weapon kept in a fireable state! Surely as soon as someone does that, they are arrested?

    OK, guns are used in crimes, and sometimes the weapons are very powerful. How many of the criminals involved are repeat felons? What? that number's not zero? But I thought it was illegal for a convicted felon to own a gun! As soon as the felon picks up the gun, he's arrested, right?

    OK, so criminals can get guns. But as soon as they pull it out and point it, they're taken out right? I mean, police are getting these high-powered assault rifles in orderto protect people from criminals with guns, right? No? You mean there's only 6 officersper 1,000 people and thus the odds of a policeman being among the 100 closest people to a criminal act is less than 1%? And what's THAT? Warren v. DC says that police in facct have no such responsibility to protect civilians?

    How many civilians who own assault rifles DIDN'Tcommit a crime with it in the same time frame as thecrimes involving assault rifles? What? That number isn't zero?You mean that just because a civilian owns an AR doesn't mean he's a menace to society?

    What percentage of lawful gun owners go on to commit a crime with that gun? Less than1%? Really! That's very interesting!

    And what percentage of concealed weapon permit holders, in jurisdictions where it's actually allowed,commit a crime with that weapon other than non-malicious possession in a restricted place? Really? That's one fifth the rate of ordinary citizens to ordinary criminals!

    So criminals can get guns. They can use them with relative impunity because the only other guys who have guns comprise, on average, .6% of the people walking around in DC. The police have no duty to protect individuals. They DO have the responsibility to protect themselves and each other (it's part of their oath as police). Therefore they get high-powered duty weapons to protect themselves and their partners from criminals. Sounds to me like the criminals and police are squaring off in a war that puts the average Joe in no-man's land, unarmed and VERY afraid. But I'm just a layman, not an expert on criminal statistics, so maybe I don't know something that making gun ownership illegaland arming police officers to the teeth would do that would deter or stop criminals from using guns to commit crimes against the now-unarmed population.

    What I DO see as advantageous is allowing people to carry guns for defense of self and others. See, if police are the only lawful gun carriers and only half a police officer is present among every hundred people, if one percent of the DC population made the decision to volunteer to carry a weapon he could use to defend himself and those around him, you've just tripled the chances that a criminal will have to immediately deal with another guy with a gun trying to stop him. And one percent isa pretty good estimateof the number of people who would carry; CHL holders comprise 1% of the Texas population, and the number of new Texas resident CHL holder applications has increased 40%. People want to be armed. They want to protect themselves, their loved ones and those around them. Sounds like a resource that, if I were battling high crime, I would take advantage of.
    You see, that makes too much sense.

    Anyhow, I'd tend to think that more than 1% of Texas's population are CHL holders, as that number seems a bit low. Pennsylvania has about a 6% LTCF-holder rate for those over 21 (i.e. those who can apply for one), so I'd say we're at about 4% overall. Unfortunately, practically none of those LTCF holders live in Philadelphia, so it seems...

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Washington, DC USA
    Posts
    175

    Post imported post

    But, But, But.........The DC Police already carry the evil "machine guns":shock: (Glock 17 and 19). Why do they need the evil "Assault Weapons" too? :what:



    DC Code, DC ST § 7-2501.01

    Definitions:

    (10)"Machine gun" means any firearm which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily converted or restored to shoot:

    (A) Automatically, more than 1 shot by a single function of the trigger;


    (B) Semiautomatically, more than 12 shots without manual reloading.




  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Graham, Texas
    Posts
    313

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    You see, that makes too much sense.

    Anyhow, I'd tend to think that more than 1% of Texas's population are CHL holders, as that number seems a bit low. Pennsylvania has about a 6% LTCF-holder rate for those over 21 (i.e. those who can apply for one), so I'd say we're at about 4% overall. Unfortunately, practically none of those LTCF holders live in Philadelphia, so it seems...
    Texas is a BIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIG place bub. Lotsa people. There may only be 1% of the population that has their CHL but we're working on it. Besides, there are so many places in Texas that one doesn't need a CHL. For example, the little town my father lives in, there isn't much crime to start with, and even if their was, EVERYBODY has some type of rifle in their car. No matter where you're at in town, there's someone there with a gun.

    I wonder if thats a reason there's not much crime....

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,422

    Post imported post

    So the cities that are "gun-free zones" are the ones with the worst problems, and need to arm the police with military weapons--the same weapons that the Feds say people can't own. What a horrible violation of our rights.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    Toymaker wrote:
    But, But, But.........The DC Police already carry the evil "machine guns":shock: (Glock 17 and 19). Why do they need the evil "Assault Weapons" too? :what:



    DC Code, DC ST § 7-2501.01

    Definitions:

    (10)"Machine gun" means any firearm which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily converted or restored to shoot:

    (A) Automatically, more than 1 shot by a single function of the trigger;


    (B) Semiautomatically, more than 12 shots without manual reloading.


    What a bunch of ********* that is. That makes a Beretta 92F a machine gun, insofar as it is designed to take a magazine that big. Glad that's not the federal or state definition here.

    -ljp

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran Nelson_Muntz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Manassas, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    697

    Post imported post

    Legba wrote:
    What a bunch of ********* that is. That makes a Beretta 92F a machine gun, insofar as it is designed to take a magazine that big. Glad that's not the federal or state definition here.

    -ljp
    I've got a couple of 30 round mags for my sig. Guess I got a mg too.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,422

    Post imported post

    *

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX, ,
    Posts
    496

    Post imported post

    DopaVash wrote:
    imperialism2024 wrote:
    You see, that makes too much sense.

    Anyhow, I'd tend to think that more than 1% of Texas's population are CHL holders, as that number seems a bit low. Pennsylvania has about a 6% LTCF-holder rate for those over 21 (i.e. those who can apply for one), so I'd say we're at about 4% overall. Unfortunately, practically none of those LTCF holders live in Philadelphia, so it seems...
    Texas is a BIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIG place bub. Lotsa people. There may only be 1% of the population that has their CHL but we're working on it. Besides, there are so many places in Texas that one doesn't need a CHL. For example, the little town my father lives in, there isn't much crime to start with, and even if their was, EVERYBODY has some type of rifle in their car. No matter where you're at in town, there's someone there with a gun.

    I wonder if thats a reason there's not much crime....
    Exactly. It may be a crime to open carry in Texas, but the State law only makes carryinga hangunillegal. You can technically walk down the street with an AR strapped to your back and you're not breaking any law (though if you do so in a city, the police will find SOMETHING to charge you with to get you off the street).

    And besides that, if you're in a little farming community, nobody's going to give two hoots or a handbasket that you have apistol in a holster. You're driving a combine on your land, pistol on hip (The South Plainsis cotton country but it's also 'yote land),andsomething breaks on the harvester,so you have to take an emergency tripto the local tractor supply.No one will care if you forget to remove your pistol.The sheriff knows you BY NAME since he knocked on every door in the county (all 20 of them) to ask you to vote for him, and he knows if there are habitual troublemakers in his jurisdiction.

    The majority of CHLs live in the big cities (and we have quite a few metropolitan areas over1 millionpeople; even Austin has more than that when you count outlying cities like Round Rock and Pflugerville). This is where the cops care how you handle your firearms because there are many more BGs around, but unfortunately it's also where, for similar reasons, a larger percentage of people are frightened of guns and do not own or carry them.

    So, yeah, the most recent data for CHL holders only shows about 1% of the population, because only urban residents who wantto carry really need to have one from a practical standpoint. Everyone else just carries and thepeace officersmore often than not just tip their hat.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Washington, DC USA
    Posts
    175

    Post imported post

    Pointman wrote:
    Actually, any gun that uses magazines could be readily converted to shoot more than 12 rounds by inserting an extendedmagazine. A Ruger 10-22 has a 10-round rotary magazine that cannot hold more than 10 rounds, but 30 (and even 50) round single-stack after-market mags can be purchased. Guess only wheel-guns, single-shot, fixed mag and clip gunsare allowed.
    A couple of years ago I hada conversation with one of my DC Policeman friends. He mentioned how undergunned the officersare since they often find tec-9s, uzi's and other high capacity weapons during the arrests ofgangbangers and drug dealers. I agreed with him. I then gave him a wry smile while pointing to his hip where I know he carries his Glock 19 and said to him "you do know that you're carrying a machine gun, don't you?" He then smiled back at me saying "yeah.......I know, I know."

  14. #14
    Regular Member XD40coyote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    woman stuck in Maryland, ,
    Posts
    709

    Post imported post

    So if I top my XD40 with 1 extra (12 in mag, 1 in pipe), I have a machine gun? LOL



    As to people in cities really being the ones needing a ccw and to carry, that is just one of those ironies that makes you shake your head, that the city people are the ones tending to be afraid of guns, but the country people have almost no crime and have bazillions of guns and no fear of them. Kind of my "why does York county PA have so much less crime than Baltimore city?" question. I include the entire county, along with York city, which has gangs and drug crime like any city. I am willing to bet there are many many more guns in York county than in Baltimore city with all of its extreme thug culture. Yet even York city does not have the extreme crime problem of Baltimore. Gee I wonder if PA being shall issue and full of law abiding gun owners galore has anything to do with this? I'd say clinging to God and guns has its merits...yes it is like everybody in York county owns guns, even teenage girls go to the Izacc Walton league and shoot .22 rifles. Just about every man over 21 with a clean slate has a ltcf. Open carry is legal. Compare to MD!

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    uTAH-life member: NRA, GOA, CCRKBA, ,
    Posts
    291

    Post imported post

    I have 2 family members that are LEO. Standard equipment is a sidearm, with a long gun and a shotgun in the patrol vehichle. To do otherwise is just plain short sighted or stupid.



    Why DC thinks this is "newsworthy" shows just how wrong thier policies are. But at least we're not as bad as England. Yet.

Posting Permissions

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