It never ends. The mentality never ends.
Boston Mayor-elect Martin Walsh announced this past weekend that he
opposes a plan to provide specially trained Boston police officers
“Mayor-elect Walsh is opposed to the AR-15 rifles,” his spokeswoman
Kathryn Norton said in a short statement yesterday. “Unless
otherwise convinced by the Boston Police Department, he does not
think they are necessary.”
After everything that has gone on over the past twenty years, how can this
mentality still exist?
It gets better. From the same piece:
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.
Former cop or not, these comments cannot go unchallenged.
Exactly how is an AR-15 secured in a locked vault inside the locked
trunk of a police car going to undermine the effort to build trust
with our communities?
That is just preposterous.
Such arguments reveal that the conversation is not about arming law
enforcement; it's about gun control. Such arguments reveal that some will put
their own anti-gun agenda over the need for police officers to
And that is reprehensible, especially when
the topic at hand is protecting a city.
“If the cops have these machine guns, they’re going to use them.
Someone is going to get hurt, someone is going to get killed," Mr.
Ladies and gentlemen, the sheep have spoken.
Yes, someone is going to get hurt. That would be the cops, the good
guys, if they are outgunned.
Mr. Nolan makes it sound like BPD will be the first to get AR-15's.
These weapons have been part of the patrol officer arsenal in
thousands of agencies for decades.
And how many deaths have we had from stray AR-15 bullets? I'm quite
sure if there was a case of an officer's errant bullet injuring
someone, the story would have spent weeks in the headlines.
The real question here is this: In 2013, how can a major metropolitan law
enforcement agency not have patrol rifles for their first responders?
How can a city that has experienced terrorism first hand not provide
their first line of security with the tools necessary to combat
terrorism, active shooters, bank robbers, barricaded suspects, and
gang members armed with assault weapons?
We've seen video after video of criminals wearing body armor while using fully automatic
assault weapons on police, and some want actually want to prohibit police from going any
further than a handgun.
Regarding Mayor-elect Walsh saying that AR-15's are not necessary
for police, we say good luck to the Boston Police Department. It
sound like its' going to be a long four years.
How ironic that this is taking place in a city where ordinary
citizens used their guns to rise up against an oppressive
government. Now the government doesn't want to arm themselves
to protect their ordinary citizens.
Maybe bizarre is a better word.
Use the scroll box below to share your thoughts or view those of