Illinois Police to mow down crowds
Since assault weapons are weapons of war, designed to be sprayfired from the hip as a bullet hose to kill as many people as quickly as possible, why are police in Chicago getting them?
44 Responses to “Illinois Police to mow down crowds”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
July 17th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Because they learned the lessons of ’68, and want to massacre some hippies if it ever happens again?
July 17th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
because they are cowards who want to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time, but feel like they need and even bigger edge than they already have over their disarmed targets.
July 18th, 2008 at 8:04 am
straightarrrow: Cops are cowards? How original. And how moronic. Get one too many speeding tickets, did you, son?
As to the post:
Okay, since when did semi-automatic rifles become controversial? They aren’t machine guns, so the spray-fired from the hip comment is both inflammatory and a lie. Semi-automatic – one pull, one shot – you know that right? A bullet from one of these isn’t gonna hurt any more than one from a 40 caliber semi-auto handgun.
And they are safer, both for the officer who has more stand-off range and for innocent bystanders because they are much more accurate than shooting buckshot which sprays out in a wide pattern.
And as to street officers being armed with them. Well, look to Columbine where under-gunned officers had to sit outside waiting for SWAT to go in while people were being killed. These guns give officers the capability to act in such situations.
Finally, I don’t read this blog and I see a lot of gun links so maybe you are being sarcastic and I apologize if I am missing that, but if you are serious get a clue.
July 18th, 2008 at 8:12 am
Ok, this post proves that internet commenters are, well, retards. Satire is officially now impossible. Great post, though. Although, I see no problem with competent police having varmint guns, and I doubt you do either, the Chicago police department is idiotic. Idiots don’t need assault rifles. The end result of banning guns, the cops have to get assault rifles.
July 18th, 2008 at 8:12 am
TRO,
The point is that when the assault rifle ban happened it was because they were portrayed in the same manner that SayUncle is portraying them, that they were devices for mass killing and nothing else.
However, I do have a problem with cops receiving AR-15s to replace shotguns, they are two wildly different weapons with completely different applications. The AR-15 has a very long range and good penetration qualities, which are not qualities you want for a weapon for a peace officer, those are qualities that get innocents killed.
July 18th, 2008 at 8:14 am
TRO said: I don’t read this blog and I see a lot of gun links so maybe you are being sarcastic and I apologize if I am missing that
Um, yeah, that would be it.
July 18th, 2008 at 8:14 am
TRO, yes, they are being sarcastic. They’re playing off the way the gun banners portray the AR platform as a weapon so massively destructive that no person outside the military could possibly ever find a use for it. It’s black and scary and looks like an assault rifle, it therefore MUST BE an assault rifle. Let’s take it away from the little people. And now here they’re putting this massively destructive weapon in the hands of police in a city that should be populated by unarmed sheep. Chicago does have a gun ban after all.
July 18th, 2008 at 8:37 am
Oh I don’t know you gun-crazy loons, maybe because of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout
July 18th, 2008 at 8:44 am
north hollywood shootout involved machine guns not semi-autos. Thanks for playing, though.
July 18th, 2008 at 8:46 am
But…Chitown has banned all guns! And gun bans must work, because no one would ever ignore the kindly and wise advice of The Government. And since no civilians could have guns, the police shouldn’t need anything more than batons….right?
July 18th, 2008 at 8:49 am
I’m all for cops carrying 50 BMGs if it’s what they need to do their job. I wouldn’t expect them to use their pistols to stop jaywalking, I wouldn’t expect them to use a 50 when their service pistol would suffice.
As for the Hollywood Shootout, one instance doesn’t quite make an epidemic that must be fixed by arming the entire police force of the United States with laser guided missiles.
July 18th, 2008 at 8:49 am
Perhaps they’re just emulating their European counterparts. The CRS in France and the Bereitschaftpolizei in Germany commonly carry submachineguns or machine pistols for use when riots get to be Too Much. Since there isn’t a separate force of riot police in Chicago, doesn’t it make sense to issue AR-15s? I would have gone with Tommy guns myself, for historical reasons, but .223 rounds are a lot cheaper than .45.
July 18th, 2008 at 9:10 am
Congrats on your Instalaunch, Unky You’re famous.
July 18th, 2008 at 9:12 am
I was in a New Mexico gun shop recently and noticed people looking at AR-15s (Bushmaster). I asked one of the clerks whether they sold many. He said “during election years, we can’t keep AR-15s in stock.” The police may be arming themselves with modern weapons. It seems the public is as well. Maybe every election is about potential “change,” and some voters aren’t convinced it will be change for the safer.
July 18th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Duke, trends show he AR is currently the most popular sporting rifle in the country.
July 18th, 2008 at 9:25 am
“But…Chitown has banned all guns! And gun bans must work, because no one would ever ignore the kindly and wise advice of The Government. And since no civilians could have guns, the police shouldn’t need anything more than batons….right?”
Nice try slick – everyone knows batons were designed to be fired from the hip too.
July 18th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Meanwhile, Los Angeles police have been required to turn in their Maglites, because they might, you know, hit someone with them, and the officer can’t be trusted to make the call in that regard.
…but they they have an arsenal in the trunk…
July 18th, 2008 at 10:04 am
“Ok, this post proves that internet commenters are, well, retards.”
Like I said, I don’t read this blog so I apologized ahead of time if I was misreading the sarcasm. And since Glenn Reynolds rarely (ever?) posts anything that is complimentary of law enforcement I honestly did expect the worst when I linked over from him. The two comments before mine only reinforced that expectation. I’m not a retard, though, so bite my Dylan. 🙂
“However, I do have a problem with cops receiving AR-15s to replace shotguns, they are two wildly different weapons with completely different applications. The AR-15 has a very long range and good penetration qualities, which are not qualities you want for a weapon for a peace officer, those are qualities that get innocents killed.”
Not if the officer is well-trained. If they aren’t any gun they use can get innocents killed. Unfortunately this type of weapon is necessary these days.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:10 am
For the record, I’m all for arming cops. Give them the best tools to do their jobs.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Uncle:
As long as we civilians can legally own and possess the same things the cops legally own and possess.
We currently can’t, and you know it.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:16 am
You’re supposed to spray from the hip? Damn, the Corps taught me all wrong. I will have to try that at the range and see what lind of shot pattern I get at 300 yards.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:36 am
The only thing that concerns me about this — the only thing — is that penetration of rounds from an AR15 is going to be much different than a shotgun, or even the submachine guns that someone else brought up. I hope that the police are trained properly in their use, which is far from a sure thing.
There IS a big difference between firing a rifle and a pistol, particularly in an urban environment. Pistol rounds have less energy and are (somewhat counterintuitively perhaps) less dangerous.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:46 am
The linked article is a weirdo, for sure. Chicago police are replacing their shotguns with AR-15s because they’re “better”. This makes about as much sense as replacing their squad cars with Caterpillar tractors because they’re “better.”
Different jobs call for different tools, which is why even the Army hasn’t “replaced” its shotguns with rifles.
If they have a legit use for both, they should have both. Weird. The use of shotguns in police work is well established. The use of what is basically a spiffed-up varmint rifle is less obvious, but I won’t automatically assume that the Chicago police are lying when they say they have a need for such.
Another complication to this story, this time due to sloppy terminology, is that the belief that the AR-15 is a semi-auto is a popular misconception. “AR-15” was Armalite’s designation for its fifteenth design. The US military adopted the AR-15 as the M-16. The gun, whether called an AR-15 or an M-16, is a real, honest-to-gosh “assault rifle” (i.e., a sort of an underpowered version of a light machine gun).
It appears from the article that the guns Chicago is buying are semi-autos.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:46 am
What is interesting is that the AR-15 is described as being accurate “out to 100 yards” in the article.
In the Army Reserves, if I can’t reliably hit a target with an M16A-something at over twice that range, I’m not considered qualified.
The M16A-something is effectively the same weapon, with an auto-fire mode the cops won’t have, as an AR-15.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:56 am
I haven’t lived in Chicago for years, but I do know something that the commenters seem not to know–Schaumburg, where this new policy is being launched, is NOT Chicago. Schaumburg is a suburb that’s out near O’Hare Airport. It’s an affluent region, with a low poverty rate, and I’m surprised that its cops think they need assault rifles. Does it have the same tough gun laws as Chicago? I dunno. It is partly in Cook County, the same county as Chicago, so maybe gun restrictions there are fairly tough. In any case, Schaumburg is NOT Chicago. Thank you.
July 18th, 2008 at 11:36 am
“north hollywood shootout involved machine guns not semi-autos. Thanks for playing, though.”
SayUncle:
I think his point was that the Police had to go to a gun shop and borrow weapons heavy enough to respond to the criminals. They didn’t have any rifles with them.
July 18th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Cops like their toys; that’s all the justification that’s needed. (Though they probably also thing they look cool carrying assault rifles.)
Meanwhile, I don’t suppose Schaumburg is Shall Issue?
July 18th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Ah, good point mark. Sorry.
July 18th, 2008 at 11:37 am
sigh — “think”
July 18th, 2008 at 11:39 am
If the Cops get AR-15’s, does that mean they’re going commando? And if they are…where will they put the magazines?
July 18th, 2008 at 11:56 am
“What is interesting is that the AR-15 is described as being accurate ‘out to 100 yards’ in the article.
In the Army Reserves, if I can’t reliably hit a target with an M16A-something at over twice that range, I’m not considered qualified. ”
Army qualification ranges have targets out of 300 yards. And the M16’s effective range is about 600 yards. That is a whole lot of range for a weapon to be used in an urban area by the police.
July 18th, 2008 at 11:56 am
“The CRS in France and the Bereitschaftpolizei in Germany commonly carry submachineguns or machine pistols for use when riots get to be Too Much.”
Fortunately, their rioters are a people trying to install Sharia law in their country and we aren’t facing such here. Yet. Anyway I don’t care if the police carry RPGs, but I do wish the leftists would address the issue of why it is necessary to arm police with such heavy artillery when there is a gun ban in effect. Law-abiding citizens aren’t packing. Are they saying that if you make guns a crime, only criminals will have guns? I thought they laughed when that statement was made. As for Glenn Reynolds never having anything good to say about the police, I’ve never heard him say something bad about a policeman who had not done something bad. The latest episode was a policeman who arrested a man for taking the policeman’s picture, exposing the city to a potentially large lawsuit and denigrating the image of the police in the process. I see nothing wrong about denouncing such behaviour. I wish other policemen would denouce it as well.
July 18th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
The Trib’s nomenclature is incorrect.
When a government employee has an ar-15 it is refered to as a service rifle.
An ar-15 is an assault weapon when possessed by someone not in government employ.
Hope that helps.
July 18th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
I’m going from memory here, but I believe the Chicago papers were recently reporting that the Chicago police were going to get M-4s. I’ll see if I can find an article.
July 18th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Let’s not get all weak and weepy about the way law enforcement is treated here or by Instapundit. I imagine you’ve all observed the stellar character of the most visible member of said group in today’s news.
I personally don’t want cops walking around with such weapons, given the total lack of training most of them have. There’s a little scumbag up here in MA now going to trial for mudering a local cop. There were 3 officers (granted, they were off duty, it was 1 AM and they had been drinking behind a local high school, which is a question for another day), when this punk walked up to them, capped the poor officer in question, escaping when one of the other officers returned fire without hitting anything but fresh air. The third cop ran off with his tail between his legs because he left his service weapon ON THE PASSENGER SEAT OF HIS CAR!!! He’s since been dismissed from the force, but you get my drift.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Anyone remember when the LAPD had to appropriate “several semi-automatic rifles from a nearby firearms dealer” during that 1997 shootout in North Hollywood?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout
These officers were engaged in a full-blown shootout, pinned down behind their cars well beyond the effective range of handguns or shotguns. There are certain situations when a 9mm / shotgun combination are not enough.
Criminal gangs coming up from Mexico are armed to the teeth. I don’t think they’re impressed with 9mm pistols.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Unfortunately, many law enforcement agency’s do not require their people to shoot their weapons enough to be competent in using them. This is why when officers do get into a shooting situation they end up firing hundreds of rounds most of which do not come even close to their target. Wasn’t it in Chicago where the chief of police recently got in trouble for not having qualified with her weapon for over three years ? If the officers who have access to these weapons are required to become qualified with them and practice with them at least once a month on the range all will be well and good. If not it will just be a mater of time before disaster strikes.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
It should be a federal law, hell, a Constitutional Amendment, that police forces are forbidden any weapon that the citizenry is forbidden. If citizens of Chicago or its environs are not permitted to carry firearms, then there is patently no reason for law enforcement to carry them either.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
As civilian owner of an AR-15, any officer that fires one better be sure where that round is going to end up. Someone mentioned how many rounds police officers have been known to fire in a shoot-out…it is something to think about.
July 18th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
One important reason why police have had to use excessive numbers of rounds is that their firearms are sometimes under-powered. The incident in San Diego is an example.
From http://www.firearmstactical.com/afte.htm
:
Numerous failures due to insufficient penetration have been documented with the 9mm Winchester Silvertip 115gr JHP. One infamous incident occurred on Easter Sunday in 1989, when San Diego Sheriff’s Department Tactical Unit officers were forced to shoot a criminal 27 times over several minutes because their 9mm Silvertips failed to penetrate deeply enough to damage any vital organs and cause physiologic incapacitation, despite solid torso hits.
The 27 rounds sounds pretty bad, until you go around the MSM to get the real facts.
July 18th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
The 5.56 Nato/.223 Remington round does not have to overpenetrate too badly for police use. It’s up to the bullet, a military full metal jacket penetrates deeply, a soft point or hollow point does not. The Hornady company sells .223 ammo made for home defense and law enforcement.
As to why the urban departments gets these guns, it’s because the money confiscated from alleged criminals must be spent on certain items, weaponry is one of those items. You would not believe how much money is confiscated.
We’vecome a long way since rural LEOs like I was would carry an old deer rifle or lever action carbine in the trunk, just in case.
July 18th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Oh, and by the way, it is easy to criticize the marksmanship of LEOs. Especially from civilians who shoot in a brightly lit shooting range at stationary targets that are not shooting back. Try it at two AM, at a guy who is unloading a gun at you. Or check how many rounds the professional soldiers unload, vs how many bad guys they kill.
July 18th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
It is rare that a non-SWAT policeman will need the penetrating power of an AR15 or its automatic fire capability. If the police really need an automatic weapon, then they should consider “street-sweeper” automatic shotguns. They will take out everyone on the block in front of them. This is in contrast to the AR15, which will take out people several blocks away after passing through the perps.
chsw
July 18th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
” Oh, and by the way, it is easy to criticize the marksmanship of LEOs. …Try it at two AM, at a guy who is unloading a gun at you. Or check how many rounds the professional soldiers unload, vs how many bad guys they kill.”
Peter, that’s about the dumbest thing I read among the comments here.
!. The cops in my neighborhood shoot at the same range I do, and some of them are spectacular, especially at rapid fire with nines and tens, which I have never really mastered. Buy it gives me the creeps in Mexico to see the federales wandering around with city streets with 0.308 autos that can go a thousand or more yards with lethal force.
It’s certainly true that once you’re in the sh.. accuracy will go to hell and that is the point. A shower of what is essentially a keyholing varmint round is a clear and present danger to anyone downrange, since accuracy has just gone to hell. Under those circumstances, the longer the range and kinetics of the round, the more dangerous the situation becomes and the 0.223 is one flat and fast round.
As for the 0.223 round, as somebody pointed out here, the type of round is a major influence as well, with a softpoint likely to blow up and spatter out to a couple of hundred yards, due to hitting something like a wall stud. At the same time, a green point 0.223 a.p. will carry with ferocious penetrating force and a standard fmj is nothingto sneeze at either. The argument that the individual cops should carry equivalent firepower to match any possible to criminal weaponry is so bogus it defies reason. That’s what radios are for, to call in the weapons and tactics experts, who will place effective shots with calm accuracy as needs be. The logic here is the same as hot pursuit: A well spread net of LEO’s is a far saner way to bring down a crazy driver than some overheated jackass in blue tailgating the loon, which just doubles the number of kinetic threats to the public (and you LEO’s know what I’m talking about even if you won’t admit it. If there’s more than two guys on your force, especially a kid, at least one of them has suspect judgement). Same thing with weeapons: Aside from the immediate, up-close combat of an unexpected situation, a patrol officer has no business doing anything other than stabilizing asituation, calling in i, and if possible driving a gunner to ground. After that, massed force is the way to go, and it is shown time and time again.
This argument goes to something much more substantive, which is the overall miltarization of the cops. With this process (thatks to the homeland security bs), cops become less and less community, and more and more combatants arrayed agaistthe enemy (a.k.a. citizens). They start to think differently, view anybody who isn’t a cop as an aggressor, and come off in even minor interactions as aggressive a-holes. Now since I shoot with these guys most weeks, we get to know each other a little and they’re not bad guys (as always), but this us-versus-the-enemy mentality is not a good thing and the stuff in these commentaries about any cop being armored up for the battlefiend isn’t either. Not good at all, and it leads to really bad results. When I was a kid, good people didn’t tell me that “cops suck and I hate them” over dinner. Likewise to the cops viewing the populace as the enemy, itflows in both directions.