Advertisement

Archive for Tuesday, November 22, 2011

Police chief presses city for rifle program

November 22, 2011

Advertisement

Lawrence Police Chief Tarik Khatib has a saying he uses to illustrate why the city needs a program to make it easier for Lawrence police officers to carry semi-automatic rifles in their patrol cars.

“Everything is good until it is not,” Khatib said. “In this line of work, you do not want to be caught unprepared.”

On Tuesday, Lawrence city commissioners delayed taking action on a proposal that would make it easier for police officers to purchase semi-automatic rifles that could be carried in their patrol cars.

But Khatib said the program is needed. He said college communities aren’t immune to violent crime, and that more-advanced weaponry may be needed by police to protect the communities from criminals who could be heavily armed.

“We have just as great a likelihood for a major incident to happen here as it would anywhere else,” Khatib said. “We hope that it never happens, but if it does we want to make sure that we have the tools and training to deal with the situation.”

City commissioners at their weekly meeting did not express opposition to the program, but deferred the issue to their Dec. 6 meeting after a resident asked for the item to receive more discussion.

“I’m in favor of the program, but I think it is important to give the public more opportunity to talk about if they have concerns,” City Commissioner Mike Dever said at Tuesday’s meeting, which was lightly attended by the public because it was a special 9 a.m. meeting because of holiday schedules.

City police officers have had the ability to carry “patrol rifles” since 2003, if the officer purchases a rifle that meets department regulations. But Khatib is seeking a program that would allow police officers to purchase patrol rifles through the city.

The lease-purchase program would allow the city to buy the rifle, and then the officer would repay the city through 26 automatic payroll deductions. The city has a similar program in place that allows officers to purchase their patrol pistols. The police department requires officers to purchase their patrol weapons because it believes officers will be more likely to practice with the weapons if they own them, and also will maintain them better. The city is estimating each patrol rifle will cost about $1,600.

The city received one letter objecting to the program. Laura Routh, a frequent critic of the police department, said the department had not made the case that the weapons were needed.

“So-called patrol rifles may greatly increase the city’s liability, and will inherently exacerbate the militarization of the Lawrence Police Department,” Routh wrote. “Such a purchase does nothing to increase the public’s trust in the police department.”

Khatib said the idea of patrol rifles as standard equipment for officers has long been considered a best practice in the industry. He said the Douglas County Sheriff’s Department, the Kansas University police force and the Kansas Highway Patrol issue the rifles to officers. In addition, several law enforcement agencies in Johnson County use rifles.

“If you look at the Columbine shooting, that changed the paradigm of what police departments do,” Khatib said. “In that incident they waited for special units to arrive.”

Khatib estimated about 35 of the department’s 141 officers have the patrol rifles. He said all department personnel who carry a rifle — they’re typically a .223 caliber weapon that is a civilian, semi-automatic version of the rifle used by the U.S. military — must go through a four-day training course.

Comments

RoeDapple 3 years, 1 month ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 1 month ago

Instead of AR15s, the police should buy wearable cameras for the whole department--everyone would be safer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8a_T3U1rg2I

Council gives OK for police body cameras http://www.kansas.com/2011/11/02/2086757/council-gives-ok-for-police-body.html

somebodynew 3 years, 1 month ago

Larry, while I think that is a good idea and am for it, there is one difference.

With the cameras the City is on the hook for all the money and upkeep; with the program the Chief is proposing the City is just 'fronting' the money to the officers until they pay it back.

To me they should do both, but the cameras are a big chunk of money the City does not get back.

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 1 month ago

Digital cameras have no moving parts and are basically maintenance free.

Accountability and transparency will cure what ills our 'just us' system. Wearable digital cameras are a great leap forward in achieving this.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7362027n

This version of camera costs $60. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXI67U...

You could buy cameras for the entire department for the cost of a few AR-15s.

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 1 month ago

AR-15s cost a lot of money to purchase and maintain.

Missingit 3 years, 1 month ago

Cameras are a goo idea, but thy are far from maintenance free. There would be server space and having been in the military I am guessing a 60 dollar camera would break down regularly. There is also buying equipment to download the video on to a pc, plus you have to pay someone to maintain the system!

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 1 month ago

The cameras will break, because police work is the same as combat infantry? Please. Even if one was to break, they're cheap...go buy another. Server space could be an issue, but memory is cheap and getting cheaper. Equipment to download? Do you mean A USB chord? They're cheap as well, and I'm sure the police station has them already. If they don't, I could scrounge up at least three at my house. I'll give them to LPD. And I didn't realize the police have no computers or a computer network at this time...and no IT specialists to maintain them. Wow. That's gonna take at least 750 mL of Maker's Mark for me to accept. There is no good reason for them not to have these cameras, and I predict they will have them within a year (no more than two).

Missingit 3 years, 1 month ago

My point is you buy cheap you get cheap. They will break, I guarantee. As far as memory goes I bet the cameras run the entire short which is 8 hours, what's that 4 gigs of space times a minimum of ten officers per shift times 3 shifts. So at least 120 gigs a day bare bones. You said it is a cheap system with little backend cost which is a lie. The cameras for like 20 cars the liqueur said cost like half a million so 160 body cameras etc will not be that cheap. I am fine with having them but nothing is cheap. The cameras currently marketed to police on several websites start at over 500 dollars each!

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 1 month ago

Ahhh yes, the mythical liberal mindset. FYI, I'm an army veteran and I love weaponry. Qualified as an expert rifleman 6-years in a row while in the army (40 for 40 only once tho). Regularly scored over 270 on my PT tests...sit ups are my weakness. I have about 20 pistols and long guns at the compound. The M4-type AR-10 is my fav. The mini-14 is fun too. I have my CCL and carry a Glock 27 every day... I'm a lifetime member of the NRA and belong to two gun clubs. I just ordered me up a Kel Tec Sub 2000 off gunbroker.com. Hoping it will arrive by Friday next week. Let's go shooting sometime...I'll bet a thousand dollars you can't out shoot me.

The cameras don't lie...police do.

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 1 month ago

I should have said people, not police. I know every LEO isn't a creep. (protecting creeps makes you a creep tho) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzjUjN...

TopJayhawk 3 years, 1 month ago

Larry, I would love to go shooting with you. My eyes aren't what they used to be so you will win the rifle competition. I can't even see the target through a peep sight anymore. However, I will take you on with handguns and shotguns anytime. Targets at Capital City Gun Club. Clays at Ravenwood lodge. Back channel me if interested.

Missingit 3 years, 1 month ago

What's more accurate?? A .223 rifle with 1 piece o lead or a old shotgun firing 8 pieces of lead. I choose .223. Let them buy them it is nothing out of my pocket

imastinker 3 years, 1 month ago

They both have their advantages. The shotgun has a lot of takedown power and is pretty accurate at a reasonable range. I've never shot a .223, but it seems small for it's intended purpose.

Kerry Putthoff 3 years, 1 month ago

I would say that the .223 is not small for it's intended purpous. Otherwise the military would not have so many of them.

imastinker 3 years, 1 month ago

I had the same thought about the military. It just seems like a small projectile. I would think that a larger projectile would have more stopping power and less of a propensity to go through the target, possibly causing collateral damage.

I have no idea though, that's just my musings.

TopJayhawk 3 years, 1 month ago

Actually they learned in WWll that larger caliber weapons like the widely used 30-06 was often too powerful, it would go right through and not transfer a lot of the bullets energy.

the .223 on the other hand makes up for smaller bullitt mass with kinetic energy,. It has a muzzle velocity of over 3,000 fps. It also travels and yaws about ten degrees of of it's axis.

this combined with the kinetic energy and the bullits light weight make it very deadly, it transfers all of it's energy, and tumbles once it hits the body. It can go in your shoulder and come out your foot, damaging tissue, organs and blood vessels all along it's path.

werekoala 3 years, 1 month ago

A .223 is NOT the.22LR you might remember from plinking cans and varmits as a kid. It's a slightly larger bullet, on the end of a ton more gunpowder. If you've ever compared them, a .22 sounds like a single firecracker, a .223 sounds like a stick of dynamite.

Why this matters:

Kinetic Energy = (Mass x Velocity^2)/2

In other words, as an object's mass increases, its energy grows linearly; as an object's velocity increases, its energy grows logarithmically.

In layman's terms, it's why being hit by a baseball going 50 mph is less dangerous than a marble going 500mph.

imastinker 3 years, 1 month ago

I know all that - it's what happens on the other end that I'm questioning.

A large bullet will mushroom and transfer a lot of it's energy to the object it's hitting while doing less penetrating. It will apply more force to the object over a larger area, resulting in more stopping power and less tendency for the bullet to go through the body.

I'm not criticising, just commenting. It seems that the situations that an officer might need this weapon and that a guy in the army might are very different. The intended effect and risk of casualties is a lot different too.

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 1 month ago

The AR-10 is what the military was originally presented with as replacement for the M14...it shoots a 7.62 mm (.308). The Army wanted the .223 round due to it's lightweight and, probably, cost. Infantry can carry more rounds of 5.56 vs 7.62. Lighter weight in ammo means more ammo being able to be carried or same ammo for less weight..any 11-B can tell you, less weight to carry is a good thing. Here's a good discussion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-7i-s...

TopJayhawk 3 years, 1 month ago

not true of humans. Especially if you use armor piercing rounds.

For instance, to a human, a .44 special is more deadly than a .44 magnum.

Jock Navels 3 years, 1 month ago

for about $130 one can purchase a New England Firearms 12 gauge "street sweeper" short barreled cylinder choke shotgun. You can fire off from a73 caliber rifled slug, down to a couple ounces of bb sized shot. Terrific stopping power at short range (it is the preferred 'pepper spray' bear protection in Alaska along with the 44 magnum pistol). But note, the cost is 8% of the 1600 mentioned and one has a wide choice of rounds, from extremely lethal to non-lethal.

Liberty275 3 years, 1 month ago

lol. a .223 will kill a man at 500 yards.

Hong_Kong_Phooey 3 years, 1 month ago

Why would a LEO be shooting someone from a distance? Seriously? How about because someone is holding a person (or persons) hostage, and talking that person down has failed. How about when there is someone actively shooting people in a school, and they need the accuracy and precision such a weapon provides, instead of the "spray & pray" of a shotgun. There are multiple real-life examples, such as the ones I mentioned above, that document the need for officers to be better equipped than the bad guys.

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 1 month ago

They don't need an AR-15 for long distance accuracy, they need a Remington 700. And every officer doesn't need one. They will have maybe 4 people trained to use the 700 (two teams of two).

Question: How many times in the last 20 years has the Lawrence PD had a need for high-power weaponry?

Missingit 3 years, 1 month ago

Crazy Larry your previous post about you having more guns then a 3rd world country show why police should at least keep up. They are not asking for SAW's they just want semi automatic rifles. The past is no predicter for the future.

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 1 month ago

The number or weapons an individual owns has nothing to do with it. I can only shoot one at a time. And size doesn't matter (that much)...shot placement does.

This article isn't about the police buying rifles they don't have. They have been buying rifles and carrying them on patrol since 2003. This article is about the police wanting the city to give new officers loans (basically) to buy more rifles for their personal use on duty, and off.

Happy Thanksgiving to you. Give someone a hug. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vr3x_R...

Missingit 3 years, 1 month ago

No it says the officers will own them and I see nothing about the police department owning a bunch of rifles. Next the amount of guns does matter. So guns loaded next to each mother with 30 round magazines means no reloading for 600 rounds, yes you can only shoot one at a time. Also on 35 officer have the rifles the department implemented the rifle program in 2003 and 35 people currently carry them. Happy Thanksgiving

Liberty275 3 years, 1 month ago

He probably wouldn't. But he could take out someone in body armor from 100 feet. Their little girly 9mms won't quite handle that.

Also, with some training, any cop could step up and be a 200 yard sniper if needed.

As for killing at 500 yards, that was just to give perspective on the power of a .223 nato round.

I was fairly proficient at 300 yards after a day of practice and sighting in my M16 during boot camp. I liked the M60 more, and the .50 cal a whole lot more.

TopJayhawk 3 years, 1 month ago

The .223 can also kill instantly with all of its kinetic energy. If it hits a major blood vessel, it can cause a hydrolic shock wave of blood that can blow out the heart and brain.
If it hits a nerve center, the kinetic energy will transform into electricity and can short circuit your brain causing instant death. A good caliber. But still for urban use, I think I still prefer a good 'ol 12 gauge.

Kerry Putthoff 3 years, 1 month ago

I could not agree more, however, it is not out of the officers pocket since they are paid by the citizens of the community. They are merely paid in hardware instead of coin. NEVER take a stick to a gunfight!

somebodynew 3 years, 1 month ago

tongie - my argument against your line of thinking was always - the officers are ALSO taxpayers (and probably pay more than a lot of the citizens they protect), so that theory does not fly with me. It comes out of their paycheck AFTER the taxes are paid.

imastinker 3 years, 1 month ago

Actually if it's part of their uniform, it's before tax money.

rousseau108 3 years, 1 month ago

That is a ridiculous statement. Are you kidding me? "it is not out of the officer's pocket since they are paid by the citizens of the community." Really? So by that logic the money that police officers earn for doing their job isn't theirs? The city is lucky the officers are only asking for a loan program to buy their own rifles. The city should provide this equipment for the officer to do the job they are being asked to do, just like a car, bullet-resistant vest, uniforms, any other piece of equipment.

DRsmith 3 years, 1 month ago

Columbine? Isn't that where the police just sat back until the shooters ran out of ammo or killed themselves? Not sure how a rifle would have helped them there. Didn't officers responding to the Va Tech massacre have rifles? Not sure what the chief is trying to argue.

nekansan 3 years, 1 month ago

Yes it is where the police sat back until the shooters ran out of ammo, because they were not properly equipped (Like Rifles and the proper training) to respond. The Chief is simply asking that the LPD be prepared if something that used to be unthinkable, but is now certainly possible were to happen.

DRsmith 3 years, 1 month ago

Yeah, because all their other weapons weren't firing? No one had the balls to push in, plain and simple. Weaponry had nothing to do with it.

DRsmith 3 years, 1 month ago

So how did you see it all knowing burger boy?

DRsmith 3 years, 1 month ago

Absolutely. The manpower and the weapons/experience they had should have been enough. At least enough to not just sit around with their thumbs up their butt. If it were always easy, everyone would be a cop right? Protect and serve.

Missingit 3 years, 1 month ago

That is a blanket response from someone who has never seen combat. When someone has a firepower advantage you do not charge. Also from the reading I have done the officers were ordered to set up a perimeter and wait for a SWAT team.

DRsmith 3 years, 1 month ago

And the rest of the responses are the blanket ones who don't think police should earn their pay.

Missingit 3 years, 1 month ago

I guess soldiers who don't run blindly into gun fire dont earn theirs either??

DRsmith 3 years, 1 month ago

How often are soldiers running in somewhere in order to save hundreds of children? I get it, you think it is ok to sit around and wait for the ammo to run out. I don't. Difference of opinion is all.

Missingit 3 years, 1 month ago

All "balls" and no brains. Going into a fire fight with out a plan, please remember police "active shooter" training came in response of Colombine. So police who were trained for decades to wait for other officers or a supervisor to tell them what to do cannot be faulted. As far as running in all "balls" your gun winds up in their hands and the most important thing they get now is your radio so they know when and where you are coming from. I let Dr's operate let soldiers fight

Hong_Kong_Phooey 3 years, 1 month ago

At that point in time the only officers that had received any training on how to deal with "active shooter" situations were those in specialty units (e.g. SWAT, CRT). That is the major reason why they were ordered to establish a perimeter and wait. Do you really believe that not a single officer in the department had kids in that school? Of course some of them wanted to go in, but officers are trained to follow orders. If they didn't, you'd bitch about that then...

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 1 month ago

DRsmith is right. The troll hamburgler is wrong--as usual. The Columbine shooters had improvised explosives, shotguns and a 9 mm carbine and pistol.

During the shootings, Harris carried a 12 gauge Savage-Springfield 67H pump-action shotgun (serial no. A232432) which he discharged 25 times and a Hi-Point 995 Carbine 9 mm semi-automatic rifle with thirteen 10-round magazines, which was fired 96 times. Harris committed suicide by shooting himself in the head with his shotgun.

Klebold carried a 9 mm Intratec TEC-9 semi-automatic handgun manufactured by Navegar, Inc. with one 52-, one 32-, and one 28-round magazine and a 12 gauge Stevens 311D double-barreled sawed-off shotgun (serial no. A077513). Klebold's primary weapon was the TEC-9 handgun, which was fired 55 times. Klebold committed suicide via a shot to the left temple with the TEC-9.

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 1 month ago

The "lack of training" and "just following orders" points of reasoning are valid. It's hard to believe the upper echelon would tell the troops to sit and wait for swat. They had to know it was 2 high schoolers shooting up the place and not highly trained commandos.

It's ancient history anyway and not a good argument.

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 1 month ago

They have the tools...they want another way of purchasing more of the tools they already have.

Missingit 3 years, 1 month ago

Apparently Crazy Larry does not read. 35 officers have rifles! Of which the officers had to buy. They just want everyone on the same level of training!

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 1 month ago

Put a red-dot on the rifles they already have and train the other officers....I want to see the specs for the rifle the PD is prescribing. There's no need to spend that kind of money for an AR-15. Change the specs to something that is affordable. They don't need an an M4 style LWRC AR with an ACOG or EOTECH. Give me a break. You can, right now, go to Cabela's and buy a fine AR-15 with Bushnell red-dot optics for $600 and easily shoot 2 MOA all day...

Hong_Kong_Phooey 3 years ago

Except for the 35 officers that bought their own, the LPD doesn't have rifles: they have shotguns.

BlackVelvet 3 years, 1 month ago

The cops at Columbine did exactly as they were trained (at the time). And a lot of mistakes were indeed made. More recent training has changed the way they respond to incidents such as Columbine. And with different training comes the need for different tools.

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 1 month ago

A nuclear bomb attack is possible too. Should all officers have a fallout shelter to hide in?

Missingit 3 years, 1 month ago

Then if a nuclear bomb went off you would expect to ge to use it, right!

monkeywrench1969 3 years, 1 month ago

At columbine the School Resource officer tried a brief confrontation but the bag guys had more guns and ammo. Guns with longer barrels are more accurate at long range than handguns. The VA Tech was a deal where the guys with the rifles were trying to find a single guy on a large campus. HAve you ever played hide and seek in two yards. Try finding someone on a campus the size of KU.

Missingit 3 years, 1 month ago

I started looking up police involved shootings. How about North Hollywood California where two guys with assault rifles tore apart North Hollywood because the LAPD only had shotguns and handguns.

Missingit 3 years, 1 month ago

Larry maybe you are right. If the officers are allowed to buy RPG's out of their pocket we should allow them! Your tank idea is a dumb comeback. North Hollywood is not the worst case. A person shooting at my kids school is my worst case scenario!! Just so you know LAPD made it worse case because they took away a tool from there patrol officers!

Missingit 3 years, 1 month ago

A totally dumb response. So was the nuclear response. That is like saying does the NYCPD need jetfighters after 09/11. No they don't, they are both very simple and lame retorts.

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 1 month ago

But, there have been nuclear bombs! And there have been people in tanks and souped up bull dozers....and there have been people shoot up high schools. It could happen! That's what the police chief said, anyway.

Your moniker says it all, doesn't it?

Hadley_says 3 years, 1 month ago

The same chief who also had a military-grade Armored Personnel Carrier on his want list for the city to purchase for him....

Missingit 3 years, 1 month ago

Topeka has a armoured personnel carrier, Leavenworth,KC, the KBI, they are used to get people to a destination safely. My windshield gets a crack from a little rock!!

monkeywrench1969 3 years, 1 month ago

You have to remember the cops are the ones who are coming to rescue us in a big event like Columbine or VA. If they can go all A-Team and come and get me or even more importantly my kids out safely I am all for it.

Larry the shows about the Hollywood thing said later the LA cops borrowed guns from a gun store to go after tehse guys. I don't think we can call Bruce Willis and his band of five Navy SEALS to save us like they do inthe movies

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 1 month ago

Does Lawrence have a gun shop? If the unlikely event should occur...LPD could commandeer weaponry from Wal Mart.

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 1 month ago

FYI: If anyone pulls out a gun and starts shooting willy nilly while I'm in the AO, they'll be dead before the police get the phone call. That's the beauty of CCL legislation. We're no longer required to wait for the police to come and take care of the problem.

Charles L Bloss Jr 3 years, 1 month ago

I live in the county, and I am glad the our excellent sheriff's department carries rifles. . Although I have my own rifles, I feel safer knowing that deputy sheriffs have them, too. As a lot of dangerous situations occur in cities, I think that the city police should all carry such rifles, as well. A rifle supplements the standard issue pump shotgun they have carried for years. All the patrol deputies in Shawnee County carry rifles in addition to their shotguns. I do not know if the Topeka Police carry them. If they don't, they should. So should the Lawrence police.

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 1 month ago

Get the camera before spending money on rifles, IMHO. The cameras will protect us long before LPD will protect anyone from the boogieman gangster shows up in Lawrence Kansas for a high power shoot out....I guarantee.

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 1 month ago

And my opinion is worth what you paid for it, doofus.

Lawrence Morgan 3 years, 1 month ago

I am surprised that Chad Lawton violated journalistic practice by putting in his own editorial comment, "The city received one letter objecting to the program. Laura Routh, a frequent critic of the police department, said the department had not made the case that the weapons were needed." That is absolutely unacceptable in a news article. It is a purely personal comment, put in for all to see.

werekoala 3 years, 1 month ago

Thta's ridiculous. You may not like the fact that she has been identified as a frequent critic of the police department, because it weakens the perception that there is some mass community outcry against the idea.

But assuming Chad didn't make it up out of thin air; his statement is completely objective, and in fact enhances understanding of the story for folks like me who DON'T spend all our time attending City Commission meetings.

DillonBarnes 3 years, 1 month ago

Why on earth should an officer be prevented from carrying a rifle that an average civilian can own?

Peacemaker452 3 years, 1 month ago

The courts have repeatedly ruled that the police have no duty to protect an individual. Even well meaning and dedicated officers (if there are any left) will likely arrive too late to stop the initial crime(s). Perhaps you should all look at your own ability to protect yourself and not rely on the police. I believe that if you don’t have the means and the training to provide at least basic protection for yourself and those that you are responsible for, you are food for the jackals.

kernal 3 years, 1 month ago

Or, call Laura Roth for protection.

TopJayhawk 3 years, 1 month ago

you are right. Victimhood is 50% mental and laziness. We need to protect ourselves.

But if you get a gun, for God's sake, learn how to use it safely and effectivly. You cannot get your lessons from watching movies. In fact as a rather accomplished pistol shot myself, I can tell you from just looking that 99% of the actors in Hollywood have no clue about guns and could not hit the side of a big red barn. The technique is just not there.

Richard Ballard 3 years, 1 month ago

I think it is foolish in this day & age for police officers NOT to carry patrol rifles in every car.

Fact: The bad guys already carry AK-47's & AR-15's. I have stepped out on my back porch late at night twice in the last few years to hear a full-auto AK-47 (IE Machinegun) dumping a 30-round mag somewhere southeast of where I live. I live about a mile northwest of city hall.

How do I know it was an AK-47 you ask? Fact: Because the distinctive sound they make is very hard to forget once you have heard one being fired at you in combat.

Fact: The .223 is NOT too small. It is in fact ideal for a combination of good stopping power, and precision accuracy. That reduces the risk of multiple rounds from pistols and shotguns missing the target and continuing on thier way to hit unintended targets.

Liability issues? Fact: The risk of over-penetration or errent rounds endangering the public is less with the very accurate high-velocity .223 then it is with the less accurate duty sidearms or shotgun slugs.

I would urge the city commission to approve this simple request to bring our officers equipment up to date with most other progressive law enforcement agencys in the country.

If nothing else, the 4 day training will help our police officers to better understand the capabilities of similar weapons the gang bangers and terrorists are already using.

rc

Pete_Schweti 3 years, 1 month ago

Fact: AKs can be bump-fired. I wouldn't believe it to be full-auto until I saw it myself. Also, if you don't know what bump-firing is, you shouldn't be commenting.

FACT: Not even a .556 has that much stopping power, much less a .223. You're just wrong about that.

Fact: Your grammar also sucks.

Hong_Kong_Phooey 3 years, 1 month ago

Fact: Your grammar sucks as well. The statement "[y]our grammar also sucks" indicates that the object of your statement (rcmodel) is not the only one with poor grammar; however, you obviously intended that statement to serve as an additional insult to rcmodel, thus, your statement should have been worded "Also, your grammar sucks."

Liberty275 3 years, 1 month ago

"FACT: Not even a .556 has that much stopping power, much less a .223."

5.56 MM (thats five point five six millimeters) is the same as .223 cal.

gl0ck0wn3r 3 years, 1 month ago

I was about to point that out but you beat me to it.

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 1 month ago

Exactly, Petey. Fact: If you can't defeat someone's argument, criticize their grammar.

TopJayhawk 3 years, 1 month ago

Fact Pete you are wrong. You should not be commenting.

Fact Pete a .556 and a .223 are identical balistically. You should not be commenting.

Fact Pete an AK can be bump fired, but usually there are small pauses between some of the rounds, and full automatic weapons are now legal as they should be.

formerfarmer 3 years, 1 month ago

"He said the Douglas County Sheriff’s Department, the Kansas University police force and the Kansas Highway Patrol issue the rifles to officers. In addition, several law enforcement agencies in Johnson County use rifles. "

The other agencys ISSUE their officers rifles, Why wouldn't LPD?

Jeremiah Jefferson 3 years, 1 month ago

Why do you need multiple semi-auto AR 15's? One .223 or .308 sniper rifle will do just as much damage with out potentially hurting inocent civilians in the process. I say no to semi-auto rifles. That and they will cost about $1500 each.

BlackVelvet 3 years, 1 month ago

The average "Sniper Rifle" weighs a lot more than an AR-15 and is more cumbersome should one need to move quickly while carrying it. And an accurate "Sniper Rifle" usually costs at least $1500, often much more. An AR-15 is absolutely no more likely to hurt innocent civilians and a "Sniper Rifle" if used by a properly trained person.

irvan moore 3 years, 1 month ago

the only problem i have with the police being properly armed is that we expect the officers to pay for the rifles. i would think we can afford a rifle for each patrol/detective car and if we can't the money should be diverted from something else in the pd budget.

classclown 3 years, 1 month ago

Laura Routh's name sounds very familiar to me. Is she also the Grand Poo Bah of the neighborhood associations or whatever?

gl0ck0wn3r 3 years, 1 month ago

Yeah, if it is a faux progressive project that costs you money then she is usually involved somehow. She is pro-TAYT, anti-SLT, anti-rec center (she dislikes west Lawrence, of course) and generally rears her head whenever there is a police issue.

jayhawklawrence 3 years, 1 month ago

I am all for it but I wish they would give us more information about the specs on the recommended rifles.

I might want to buy one myself.

irvan moore 3 years, 1 month ago

it is better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it. every officer should have the proper equiptment to do his/her job.

gl0ck0wn3r 3 years, 1 month ago

There is quite a bit of commentary that brings the lolz. Everyone who thinks the .223 is underpowered please volunteer to take a round in The COM and get back with me. There is absolutely no reason why officers in a major university town shouldn't be prepared for a major incident. Giving them these tools doesn't automatically "militarize" the police any more than giving them body armor militarized them. If Routh had her way the police would be limited to issuing stern, but sensitive, memos when something goes wrong... but no doubt she would also be the first to complain if a VT type shooting occurred and the police were overmatched.

Flap Doodle 3 years, 1 month ago

A BREN in every cruiser! (from a source)

HW 3 years, 1 month ago

I just don't get the $1600 dollar part. Black Friday, Bushmaster AR15 in .223 are $599.99 (Cabelas). I wonder what kind of accesories they are putting on these things. Even if you go with something higher quality than a Bushmaster, you can pick up an AR15 for under $1000 any day of the week.

Hong_Kong_Phooey 3 years, 1 month ago

As far as I know, most departments usually equip each rifle with a holographic sight in an effort to take the individual officer's marksmanship out of the equation. Instead of having to really aim, the officer just has to put the red dot on the bad guy, then squeeze the trigger. Anyway, I'm sure this adds to the base cost.

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 1 month ago

Comes with a Bushnell red-dot, 30-round mag and soft case too.

jjt 3 years, 1 month ago

I wonder how many folk reading this have actually fired a 303 Bren gun on Auto or single shot? When we first went on the range we were shown a piece of steel and what a 303 round could do to it. These things are not toys, they are not fun.

My real question is this, if the Police chief feels that his officers need rifles then should we the citizens not be paying for them? If I am asking someone to put their life on the line for me the least I can do is provide their kit.

Peacemaker452 3 years, 1 month ago

They are not toys but they are indeed fun.

swoodberry 3 years, 1 month ago

My brother is a Police Officer in Lawrence; I would be much more comfortable (for him and our citizens) if his weaponry was equal to that of what he has and will run into on the street.

Sigmund 3 years, 1 month ago

Don't know about the LPD but I have been shopping for a reliable semi-automatic rifle for a few months now and $1,500 sounds a bit pricey. Does anyone know which rifle preferred by the LPD or DGSD and is there a range close by that allows 7.62×39mm or 223 rounds?

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 1 month ago

Right now, Cabela's Black Friday Sale has a Bushmaster AR-15 with Bushnell red-dot scope, soft case, and a 30-round magazine for $600 (normally $700).

http://www.theblackfriday.com/ads/cabelas/cabelas-black-friday-ad6.shtml

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 1 month ago

Capital City Gun Club. You have to be a member, or the friend of one, to get in. You can bring anything but .50 BMG.

TopJayhawk 3 years, 1 month ago

I belonged there for yrs. Best gun club in eastern Kansas. and Larry, they used to allow .50 BMG but some idiots were shooting over the 300yd hill on the high power range. You been there, you know how hard that is to do. some farmer about a mile and a half north of the river rightfully complained so that stopped.

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 1 month ago

You're correct. Club policy for the 300 yard hill now requires anyone wanting to shoot it to get permission from the club first.

Sigmund 3 years, 1 month ago

swoodberry (anonymous) says… "My brother is a Police Officer in Lawrence; I would be much more comfortable (for him and our citizens) if his weaponry was equal to that of what he has and will run into on the street."

Nobody I know in LE or the military is comfortable facing an armed adversary with weapons of equal capability. I would want police to have superior capability in any hostile situations.

Sigmund 3 years, 1 month ago

kansasplains1 (Lawrence Morgan) says… "I am surprised that Chad Lawton violated journalistic practice by putting in his own editorial comment"

You are surprised, really? I didn't think so.

swoodberry 3 years, 1 month ago

Sigmund, thanks for being the discussion "hall monitor' that we all needed. And adding nothing of substance to the discussion.

I think most level headed folks, be their politics right or left, understand that our officers need to be equiped with the necessary tools to accomplish their jobs. And without the passage of this proposal, that will not be the case.

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 1 month ago

Are you saying that LPD has no long gun capabilities at this time? No sniper team? No ARs? 1 oz slugs in a Remington 870 (prefer the Benelli M4) are fairly accurate out to 100 yards. Not equipped? Surely, you jest.

gl0ck0wn3r 3 years, 1 month ago

Are you serious? I honestly can't tell if you are bringing the lulz on purpose or not.

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 1 month ago

From the article: "City police officers have had the ability to carry “patrol rifles” since 2003, if the officer purchases a rifle that meets department regulations." So, no officers have bought an AR for work yet? It's been 8 years. They have shot guns, pistols and ARs. What else do they need? The article isn't about buying rifles they don't have. It has to do with a new method for purchasing more for officers. A payment plan, yo. They have the equipment...the officers want the city to give them a (low interest?) loan to buy rifles for themselves.

rousseau108 3 years, 1 month ago

It is ridiculous that this is even an issue. The officers should have been provided rifles a long time ago. PROVIDED, not having to buy their own rifle to have a fighting chance against the better-armed criminals out there. Ask any Lawrence officer about the times that they have seized AK-47s, AR-15s, SKS rifles, etc from people--yes, in innocent, little-old Lawrence where nothing bad ever happens (sarcasm). ONE person, who has a history of criticizing the LPD for every little thing, sends an email and the city bows to her. Also, the issue wasn't even whether or not the LPD should carry rifles, but only allowing the officers to use the city's lease purchase program to buy them.

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 1 month ago

I hope you're serious....You e-mail me if you are. Did I read that right? You want to shoot against me, using my AR?!? The one zeroed for myself?!?! LOL! I hope you're left handed! Can we change the bet to $3000?

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 1 month ago

I'm getting a new rifle next week. I'll be at Capital City Friday. Come on by and bring cash money.

pace 3 years, 1 month ago

He should ask for support for the program from the Lawrence Citizens Review Board. OOPS, we don't have one.

pace 3 years, 1 month ago

Don't tag your personal attacks on people on my post. I find your behavior disgusting and bullying.

pace 3 years, 1 month ago

Don't tag you personal attacks on my posts. It is disgusting, bullying and discourteous. Ride your own dime.

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 1 month ago

Final thought: LPD should head to Cabela's and buy up the $600 Bushmaster AR-15s (comes with Bushnell red-dot) Then they could use some of the $900 saved to buy some of those $60 wearable digital cameras. And we'd all live happily ever after. My work is done here. Happy Thanksgiving everybody! May the Schwartz be with you!

Sigmund 3 years, 1 month ago

swoodberry (anonymous) says… "Sigmund, thanks for being the discussion "hall monitor' that we all needed. And adding nothing of substance to the discussion."

You are most welcome and back at you! BTW, which comment were you praising me for exactly?

pace 3 years, 1 month ago

What would really be cool. If they got a good price for a large order, maybe they could include interested citizens, like they did with the reduced price on composters. I would like to buy one. And then take it out to the Dg. Co shooting range if they had open hours for the public. Now that would be a great combination of Gov and private citizen program. I could be an Annie Oakley.

Newell_Post 3 years, 1 month ago

The military adopted the 5.56mm (.223) for three basic reasons:

  1. The cartridges are much small lighter than the .30-06 and 7.62mm (.308) used in earlier weapons, so a normal infantry soldier can simply carry many more rounds on patrol.

  2. The 5.56 is more likely to wound and less likely to kill than the 7.62. A major wound takes several enemy soldiers out of action instead of just one. (The wounded soldier and the others taking care of him.) In combat, it is a more "efficient" reduction in the enemy's capability to wound than to kill.

  3. In combat, soldiers are often firing these kinds of weapons in "burst" mode of 3-round bursts. This is often not precision targeting but is "suppressing fire."

For police work, it seems to me that these same considerations don't apply. If the police need more firepower, they should maybe consider higher-power, lower-volume rounds such as the 7.62 or 7mm magnum. These are rounds used by military snipers.

BlackVelvet 3 years, 1 month ago

Remember that not all Officers are big and burly. Some are recoil sensitive, which is one of several reasons a 5.56 patrol rifle is better (in many situations) than a shotgun. A 7mm mag or 7.62X51 has quite a bit more recoil than the 5.56

Sigmund 3 years, 1 month ago

uglyrumor (anonymous) says… "not needed. end of story"

Please let everyone know right before they are needed so we can buy them just in time. I think the idea is to buy and train with these weapons before they needed in hope they won't be needed. Since prediction is very hard, especially of the future, this seems more prudent than waiting till they are needed and then preparing after the fact.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.