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.