Gun Stun

Maybe there’s a simple explanation I haven’t thought of, but do you find it strange that Chicago police officers have to pay for their guns? I mean, do baseball players have to buy their own bats? (Actually, I think they do . . . but still.)

At any rate, this nugget caught my eye in a Sun-Times story over the weekend about the mayor’s plan to arm cops with assault rifles: “Timing and logistics of the change in firepower have not yet been ironed out. First, the weapons must be purchased – and it’s not yet clear who is going to pay. Officers currently choose from a list of authorized handguns and pay out of their own pockets.”

Meanwhile, the paper also notes that officers will have to be trained to use the new assault weapons, saying that it would be a “logistical nightmare” to send large numbers of the force back to the academy. And who would get the guns and under what circumstances would they be approved for use? This proposal may have a long way to go. Or maybe it’s more of a scare tactic than a policing strategy.


One response to “Gun Stun

  1. Unindicted Co-conspirator

    Watch for this to get cut back to just a few sergeants & other cops with long & proven service.
    The only time I can think of when such heavy weapons have been needed by any city’s police was that extremely bizarre bank robbery years ago in Los Angeles. The LAPD borrowed large caliber rifles from a nearby gun shop.
    Of course that’s not an option in Chicago as there are no gun shops in the city.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s