‘Expert’ on police arms at the Violence Policy Center

I guess it’s not surprising that Tom Diaz at the VPC would say something like this:

”Because the bad guys have assault rifles, law enforcement officers
should?” asks Tom Diaz, senior policy analyst for the Violence Policy
Center, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit organization that advocates
gun control.

“I don’t see the rationale behind that type of thinking. What’s
next? Cops in armored cars and tanks? This is moving toward the
militarization of law enforcement.”

The problem for Diaz is that if he concedes police have a
need for rifles to defend themselves and other innocent life then he is
put in the uncomfortable position of private citizens making a claim
for the need of similar defensive tools.  But what annoys me is
that the Miami Herald would preface the Diaz statement with:

 But some experts say arming officers with rifles is a knee-jerk reaction.

Diaz is an expert on gun control and victim disarmament in
general–not on the equipment needs of police officers.  If he is
the expert then let him take point on the arrest of the next criminal
armed with rifle to show everyone how it is done.  In that same
article is a prime example of the type of person I would like Diaz to
demonstrate on:

Deputies point to Ralston Davis as an example of the potential danger police can face when they aren’t adequately armed.

Davis, accused of killing three people, sent officers a chilling
message when he was arrested Dec. 2 with a knock-off version of the
high-powered AR-15 rifle:

”Hand me my [rifle] and a bullet, and I will kill you all,” Davis
told BSO deputies.  “Stand in front of me, and I’ll put a bullet
in your face.”

Here are your handcuffs and pepper spray–you’re The Man Tom.  Show us how it’s done.

3 thoughts on “‘Expert’ on police arms at the Violence Policy Center

  1. Didn’t we all learn something about this back in the 1990s after the famous LA bank robbery shootout? The police were pinned down for ages because they didn’t have the weaponry needed to do the job. It was after that incident that police and Sheriff’s departments all over the country began stocking up on M-16s and other handy rifles.

    Note to criminals – Well, I’m not going to say it and give anything away. Heh!

  2. Yet, the only deaths from all the “scary” bullet hose firepower being used was the death of the two criminals involved.

    I’ll take Joe with a pistol and an old boltie rifle against that “knock-off version of the high-powered AR-15 rifle” any day. (And no Joe, you don’t get your laptop, and range finder to use. You would still do fine without them).

    Not to say police shouldn’t be allowed to play soldier with whatever weapons they “feel” they need. In a very limited number of situations M-16s and such could be more affective. But any properly condition shooter and hunting rifle is equally effective in most all situations. Really, how many head shots from an M-16 would be needed to drop those LA robbers?

  3. You are correct – A 100+ year old Springfield model of 1903 could have solved the problem with two shots. One for each perp.

Comments are closed.