A militarized police force

Seems to me what’s good for the goose is good for the gander (“Police rifles won’t be secured,” Page 1, yesterday).

The draconian D.C. gun-control law requires law-abiding citizens to keep their rifles and shotguns locked up, disassembled and unloaded. Why should the police be allowed to do any less? If they want more guns on the street, this is the way to do it. Put them in minimally secured trunks of vehicles and advertise it so all the criminals know where the rifles are.

Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier doesn’t seem able to justify having these firearms except to say the officers should have the same level of firepower the criminals do. I agree, but she is unable to point to any specific example of criminals having used these types of firearms in an act of violence.

Next question: What happened to all the shotguns with extended tube magazines and the high-capacity semiautomatic handguns; why aren’t these firearms good enough? Through her spokesperson, Traci Hughes, Chief Lanier tries to calm politicians’ fears by saying police have security measures they will take to safeguard these weapons while waiting for the mounts, but she doesn’t elaborate on what these measures are.

Is crime so bad that we have to militarize our police departments? If that’s the case, there is no common-sense reason to keep law-abiding citizens disarmed. You are always going to have high crime when you have a politically induced victim-rich environment.

ROBERT E. BRAND

Frederick, Md.