As he encourages them to spray fire from the hip at multiple targets :
The said it understands the moves to assault weapons. "Police officers need to be able to defend themselves and the rest of us, and they need the weapons to do so," said spokesman Peter Hamm.
This is a change in their stance that have no use in a defensive situation and that the police are not wanting or needing weapons that would harm innocent bystanders.
How are the police able to use "assault rifles" "with bullets designed to break apart on impact " yet in civilian hands "In a conventional home with dry-wall walls, I wouldn't be surprised if it went through six of them."
So is Peter saying that it's now OK for police to be more lethal and more dangerous to civilians or is he following the claim that "Assault Weapons" magically transform into less dangerous "Patrol Rifles" in the hands of "Only Ones"?