Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
A Barrett .50 and a laser range-finder would have indeed been Good Things on Charlie Whitman day.
Art
Art
Dallas cops get needed firearms by donation
- Thread starter LAR-15
- Start date
- Status
Donated rifles? Fine. No big deal.
So long as the bigshots in the Dallas Police Department haven't come out against "assault weapons" or ".50 caliber sniper rifles" in non-LEO hands, I don't care if they've got 'em.
I doubt the .50bmg rifles will come in handy very often. Indeed, it would surprise me if any of us live to see them used in a situation where they would be a better solution than a more conventional rifle. But so what?
So long as the bigshots in the Dallas Police Department haven't come out against "assault weapons" or ".50 caliber sniper rifles" in non-LEO hands, I don't care if they've got 'em.
I doubt the .50bmg rifles will come in handy very often. Indeed, it would surprise me if any of us live to see them used in a situation where they would be a better solution than a more conventional rifle. But so what?
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Correia is making some fine points. Lone_Gunman, you are an amazing person. Here I have seem some of your posts how you think gun control is wrong and you don't like the idea of somebody else telling you what guns you should or should not be able to have and yet you feel completely comfortable with stating what guns you think the police should or should not have.
Basically, you are playing both sides of the gun control issue from a self centered perspective. You don't like gun control applied to you but you feel fine in applying gun control to others. That sort of contrary notion does little for promoting your credibility on the issue since it is apparent you are operating on a double standard.
You know, gun grabbers have cried about the .50 BMG, particularly Barrett's guns, for quite some time. As Ronnie Barrett has said, a .50 BMG isn't something your street thug is going to use to rob the local convenient store. Similarly, the .50 BMG isn't something a cop is going to whip out during a traffic stop. In the US, there have been very very few instances where bad guys have used .50 BMG caliber guns in violent crimes. I seem to recall that it is something like less than 7 in the last 50 years. Somebody else may have that tally still, but I don't. There won't be a lot of instances where the cops will truly need a .50 BMG either. When the need does arise, not having it can have horrible results.
Similarly with gun ownership or cops carrying guns. Why should anyone be allowed to carry a gun when there is very little chance they will ever actually need to use it? My father was a cop for 21 years and never fired his gun in the line of duty outside of the gun range. That isn't uncommon. As a person enforcing the law, such cops would be much more likely to need to discharge their weapons in battling crime, but still manage decades of work without firing them.
In the North Hollywood bank robbery, one of the first responders to the shootout was a motorcycle cop. He was something like 3 months from retirement and outside of the range he had never fired his gun in the line of duty. I have to hand it to the guy as he carried high cap mags totally something like 68 or 86 rounds (sorry I don't remember which, but probably the former). He was involved in trying to get to the downed officer with the shotout femur. After never having fired his gun in the line of duty, the motorcycle cop shot every round he had and as he noted, he needed a lot more.
Gun grabbers don't think folks like you and me need guns. They are dangerous and pose a risk, but you and I both feel we need guns for protection. However, you don't think the cops need .50 BMG rifles because you can't perceive a need where one might be used. That just doesn't make sense unless you also apparently don't see any reason for anyone to have one. Hell, if the cops don't need such weapons, having no known valid uses, then obviously there is absolutely no reason why ANYONE in the public does - or do you not feel that way?
Just how often does a platforn need to be needed before you think it is justified for the cops? How about for citizens?
Basically, you are playing both sides of the gun control issue from a self centered perspective. You don't like gun control applied to you but you feel fine in applying gun control to others. That sort of contrary notion does little for promoting your credibility on the issue since it is apparent you are operating on a double standard.
You know, gun grabbers have cried about the .50 BMG, particularly Barrett's guns, for quite some time. As Ronnie Barrett has said, a .50 BMG isn't something your street thug is going to use to rob the local convenient store. Similarly, the .50 BMG isn't something a cop is going to whip out during a traffic stop. In the US, there have been very very few instances where bad guys have used .50 BMG caliber guns in violent crimes. I seem to recall that it is something like less than 7 in the last 50 years. Somebody else may have that tally still, but I don't. There won't be a lot of instances where the cops will truly need a .50 BMG either. When the need does arise, not having it can have horrible results.
Similarly with gun ownership or cops carrying guns. Why should anyone be allowed to carry a gun when there is very little chance they will ever actually need to use it? My father was a cop for 21 years and never fired his gun in the line of duty outside of the gun range. That isn't uncommon. As a person enforcing the law, such cops would be much more likely to need to discharge their weapons in battling crime, but still manage decades of work without firing them.
In the North Hollywood bank robbery, one of the first responders to the shootout was a motorcycle cop. He was something like 3 months from retirement and outside of the range he had never fired his gun in the line of duty. I have to hand it to the guy as he carried high cap mags totally something like 68 or 86 rounds (sorry I don't remember which, but probably the former). He was involved in trying to get to the downed officer with the shotout femur. After never having fired his gun in the line of duty, the motorcycle cop shot every round he had and as he noted, he needed a lot more.
Gun grabbers don't think folks like you and me need guns. They are dangerous and pose a risk, but you and I both feel we need guns for protection. However, you don't think the cops need .50 BMG rifles because you can't perceive a need where one might be used. That just doesn't make sense unless you also apparently don't see any reason for anyone to have one. Hell, if the cops don't need such weapons, having no known valid uses, then obviously there is absolutely no reason why ANYONE in the public does - or do you not feel that way?
Just how often does a platforn need to be needed before you think it is justified for the cops? How about for citizens?
Lone_Gunman
Member
Double naught,
I am not trying to play both sides of the issue at all. I am just trying to figure out how police officers would use the 50 caliber. No one has really offered a good explanation of what it would be used for.
This is an entirely different question than whether or not private citizens should have 50 caliber rifles.
I believe the rights of the citizens to own 50 caliber rifles would be protected by the second amendment, and therefore justified. This would apply to police officers that own the guns personally also. This is not based on need, it is based on constitutional rights. Private individuals dont need to justify anything that is constitutionally protected.
However, for police departments, the need to own 50's is not a 2nd amendment issue, it should be based on the actual needs of the officers. They are funded by taxpayer dollars. Even if the guns are free, training, ammo, liability insurance, etc, are not. And the money they spend on these things could have been spent on things that they might need more often.
To me, the idea of police departments owning 50 caliber rifles is no different than owning Ferraris. There are probably theoretical situations where a Ferrari would be a better choice than a Crown Victoria, but these events would occur so infrequently that I don't see spending tax payer money on it.
So, to answer your questions:
No, I dont feel that way. The government needs to justify ownership of the weapons because they are tax payer expenses. The public does not need to justify ownership, because it is constitutionally protected.
For citizens, frequency of use is not a criteria for justification. Its a right. For police, I am not sure what the answer is, but I would think if they could show a need to use the 50 caliber rifles once every few years, I would be happy. I don't think that is a very strict criterium to have to meet.
I am not trying to play both sides of the issue at all. I am just trying to figure out how police officers would use the 50 caliber. No one has really offered a good explanation of what it would be used for.
This is an entirely different question than whether or not private citizens should have 50 caliber rifles.
I believe the rights of the citizens to own 50 caliber rifles would be protected by the second amendment, and therefore justified. This would apply to police officers that own the guns personally also. This is not based on need, it is based on constitutional rights. Private individuals dont need to justify anything that is constitutionally protected.
However, for police departments, the need to own 50's is not a 2nd amendment issue, it should be based on the actual needs of the officers. They are funded by taxpayer dollars. Even if the guns are free, training, ammo, liability insurance, etc, are not. And the money they spend on these things could have been spent on things that they might need more often.
To me, the idea of police departments owning 50 caliber rifles is no different than owning Ferraris. There are probably theoretical situations where a Ferrari would be a better choice than a Crown Victoria, but these events would occur so infrequently that I don't see spending tax payer money on it.
So, to answer your questions:
No, I dont feel that way. The government needs to justify ownership of the weapons because they are tax payer expenses. The public does not need to justify ownership, because it is constitutionally protected.
For citizens, frequency of use is not a criteria for justification. Its a right. For police, I am not sure what the answer is, but I would think if they could show a need to use the 50 caliber rifles once every few years, I would be happy. I don't think that is a very strict criterium to have to meet.
Bigjake
Member
I agree with lone_gunman on this one to an extent.
I'd take it a step further, the cops drag out thier new toy, you know they will be looking for a good excuse to drag it out. (if your only tool is a hammer...)
The cops need a .50 about as much as they need a Bradley fighting vehicle or an Abrams... you can't get it done with .308 sharpshooters, time to call in the pros.
(border cops are excluded from that equasion, they might have a ligit. use for such hardware)
I'd take it a step further, the cops drag out thier new toy, you know they will be looking for a good excuse to drag it out. (if your only tool is a hammer...)
The cops need a .50 about as much as they need a Bradley fighting vehicle or an Abrams... you can't get it done with .308 sharpshooters, time to call in the pros.
(border cops are excluded from that equasion, they might have a ligit. use for such hardware)
Creeping Incrementalism
Member
Private citizens are not analogous to government agencies. Citizens have rights. Agencies exist only to serve needs of the people. So the question is, when would a police department need a 50 BMG rifle?
The things a 50 BMG can do that a 30 cal can't is (1) punch through walls, (2) penetrate slightly thicker armor, (3) hit targets at the 1000+ yard range, after 30 cal rounds go subsonic and their accuracy suffers, while the 50 hasn't hit that buffeting yet, and (4) leave a bigger hole through someone.
For the police, these needs are:
(4) 50 BMG is way more than you’d ever need for a person. 308 Win is probably enough, and maybe somewhere in the 30-40 cal magnum range if you’re really concerned about it.
(3) Superfluous, as police snipers are always closer than 1000 yards.
(1 & 2) Nearly always superfluous, as police virtually never shoot at targets they can't see anyway.
Charles Whitman is the only example where a 50 BMG might have been useful, as the situation was desperate enough to shoot through walls even though someone couldn't have been seen. But then you would have had 750 grain projectiles flying all over town. In reality, citizens used more normal rifle calibers as suppressive fire while cops went up the tower. A SWAT team, had they existed back then, could have done the same thing, and the rest of the team could have gone up with pistols, ARs/SMGs, grenades, and body armor.
I would like someone to name a realistic scenario where a 50 BMG would be a better choice than existing weapons. Name a scenario where the 50 BMG would actually solve the problem (note: a 50 BMG will not penetrate tank armor) better than existing police tools. As someone said, cops use spike strips on moving vehicles anyway, and for standoffs in buildings, its better to smoke ‘em out or go in with grenades.
I think the 50 BMG just occupies a useless middle ground for police. For anything bigger than what they can handle with up to 30 cal, they'd call the National Guard or the FBI anyway.
The DPD would be better served by receiving more ARs, and training more on those. These departments have limited resources, and even if the rifles themselves are free, training and ammo is still just a waste, even if it’s a smaller waste than other things gov't agencies spend their money on.
The real reason why Dallas SWAT wants 50 BMGs is obvious. It's what all go-fast, high-speed low-drag operators have, so they want some too.
The things a 50 BMG can do that a 30 cal can't is (1) punch through walls, (2) penetrate slightly thicker armor, (3) hit targets at the 1000+ yard range, after 30 cal rounds go subsonic and their accuracy suffers, while the 50 hasn't hit that buffeting yet, and (4) leave a bigger hole through someone.
For the police, these needs are:
(4) 50 BMG is way more than you’d ever need for a person. 308 Win is probably enough, and maybe somewhere in the 30-40 cal magnum range if you’re really concerned about it.
(3) Superfluous, as police snipers are always closer than 1000 yards.
(1 & 2) Nearly always superfluous, as police virtually never shoot at targets they can't see anyway.
Charles Whitman is the only example where a 50 BMG might have been useful, as the situation was desperate enough to shoot through walls even though someone couldn't have been seen. But then you would have had 750 grain projectiles flying all over town. In reality, citizens used more normal rifle calibers as suppressive fire while cops went up the tower. A SWAT team, had they existed back then, could have done the same thing, and the rest of the team could have gone up with pistols, ARs/SMGs, grenades, and body armor.
I would like someone to name a realistic scenario where a 50 BMG would be a better choice than existing weapons. Name a scenario where the 50 BMG would actually solve the problem (note: a 50 BMG will not penetrate tank armor) better than existing police tools. As someone said, cops use spike strips on moving vehicles anyway, and for standoffs in buildings, its better to smoke ‘em out or go in with grenades.
I think the 50 BMG just occupies a useless middle ground for police. For anything bigger than what they can handle with up to 30 cal, they'd call the National Guard or the FBI anyway.
The DPD would be better served by receiving more ARs, and training more on those. These departments have limited resources, and even if the rifles themselves are free, training and ammo is still just a waste, even if it’s a smaller waste than other things gov't agencies spend their money on.
The real reason why Dallas SWAT wants 50 BMGs is obvious. It's what all go-fast, high-speed low-drag operators have, so they want some too.
Powderman
Member
And, who would that be? Not the Armed Forces. Can't be used in a regular law enforcement role. The pros you mention are already there.
A mention was made earlier about the guy who stole a tank from a Nat'l Guard Armory and went rampaging through the streets of a city in CA with it.
No, a .50 will not defeat frontal tank armor--but, the .50 API will sure play havoc with the road wheels, tracks, final drives and the engine on the tank. 4-5 rounds into the road wheels on one side will pop the track and disable the tank.
There have also been incidents where drivers of tractor-trailers have gone rogue. If they're on a highway, a shooter with the big .50 on an overpass can start engaging the vehicle as a frontal approaching target as soon as possible. Those big slugs will make tossed salad out of the engine, and bring the truck to a halt.
In the North Hollywood shootout, when the bank robbers went to get into a car, one .50 right in the center of the hood would have finished the car. And, since these guys were wearing Level 4 body armor, one shot apiece, center mass. Done deal.
Do these happen all the time? No. But they DO happen.
And if you are one of the extremely unlucky ones who happens to be staring at an M60 MBT coming up in your rearview mirror, or if you're on a highway with a berserk trucker about to run you off the road; or if you are waiting outside a bank that has a robbery in progress--with someone you love working inside--you'll be very, VERY grateful for that ol' nasty John Law with that .50 Browning cartridge in that Barrett, waiting for the shot.
Bigjake
Member
Powderman
I'm a betting man, and I'd wager the likelyhood of that happening is only slightly higher than the likelyhood of LEO's pulling off any of the scenarios you mention with a .50
not a good enough reason for the cops to have that kind of hardware.
I'm a betting man, and I'd wager the likelyhood of that happening is only slightly higher than the likelyhood of LEO's pulling off any of the scenarios you mention with a .50
not a good enough reason for the cops to have that kind of hardware.
This is the only thing that stuck out in my mind. Why is it so difficult for people to understand the desire for non-LEO's to carry firearms? It's a tool that you hope you'll never need, but could be critical to your own safety under certain circumstances.
Love the double talk.
Donated .50 cals? Donated AR's? So what?!
B-
Lone_Gunman
Member
Yea, but wasn't that an episode of the A-Team?
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Sorry, Bigjake, but I already gave an example of a good use for a .50.
Gotta disagree with you.
Art
Gotta disagree with you.
Art
Lone_Gunman
Member
Art, that occurred in 1966. Using a 50 caliber once every 40 yrs seems pretty infrequent to justify having one in the budget.
Nope, not the A-Team. Granby, Colorado. http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=85440&highlight=armored+bulldozer
And once again, just because you can't imagine something, doesn't mean that it can't happen.
I'm telling you. I know how PDs spend money. These 2 weapons aren't going to be a big expense of training, ammo, or liability. "Training" will be for the gunnuts on the tac team or firearms instructors who are basically guys like us, and after the tiny bit of department purchased ammo is used, will probably come out of their personal budgets. Some of these guys will already own their own personal .50s, and others will have used them in the Army. The budget going towards these two oddities will be equivelent to one regions monthly doughnut fund.
You dismiss Art's cite of Charles Whitman. Dude, Art was there.
Rather than pin the guy down with suppresive fire, while you send a team up the stairs into a potential ambush, why don't you just figure out what wall he is using for cover and blast him? What has more collateral damage? A single well placed .50, or how many dozens of rounds of "suppresive" fire sent at an upwards angle?
Face it Lone, no matter what anybody says, you just don't want these guys to have .50s.
And once again, just because you can't imagine something, doesn't mean that it can't happen.
I'm telling you. I know how PDs spend money. These 2 weapons aren't going to be a big expense of training, ammo, or liability. "Training" will be for the gunnuts on the tac team or firearms instructors who are basically guys like us, and after the tiny bit of department purchased ammo is used, will probably come out of their personal budgets. Some of these guys will already own their own personal .50s, and others will have used them in the Army. The budget going towards these two oddities will be equivelent to one regions monthly doughnut fund.
You dismiss Art's cite of Charles Whitman. Dude, Art was there.
Rather than pin the guy down with suppresive fire, while you send a team up the stairs into a potential ambush, why don't you just figure out what wall he is using for cover and blast him? What has more collateral damage? A single well placed .50, or how many dozens of rounds of "suppresive" fire sent at an upwards angle? Face it Lone, no matter what anybody says, you just don't want these guys to have .50s.
Lone_Gunman
Member
Thats true, at least based on what ya'll have had to offer as possible uses. I would say I am against the idea until a need could be shown.
I am curious, don't you think it would be a good idea for police to have Ferraris instead of Crown Vics? I mean, If you had to chase down a guy in a corvette, you definitely could use the Ferrari. Or if you had to really race to the scene of a crime, wouldn't a Ferrari be helpful?
I see no difference between that and police departments with 50 caliber rifles. I have no problem with policemen as citizens owning them, but just don't see the benefit the taxpayers get by outfitting the police with them. Apparently, most police departments agree, because most don't have 50 caliber rifles.
Bigjake
Member
what he said ^
Art, we'll just have to agree to disagree i guess
If the cops must have em', i guess i wouldn't mind seeing Ronney Barrett (SP?) make a small fortune on the effort.
I just don't like the idea of law enforcement having overwhelming firepower. seems them having .50s would open the door to crew served weapons and so forth. next thread we see somebody will be making the case for the law having 249's. I don't like the thought of being THAT outgunned
Art, we'll just have to agree to disagree i guess
If the cops must have em', i guess i wouldn't mind seeing Ronney Barrett (SP?) make a small fortune on the effort.
I just don't like the idea of law enforcement having overwhelming firepower. seems them having .50s would open the door to crew served weapons and so forth. next thread we see somebody will be making the case for the law having 249's. I don't like the thought of being THAT outgunned
mrmeval
Member
Where's the manpad? How can they FUNCTION without a manpad?
Powderman
Member
OK, Bigjake.
You say that the chances of any of my scenarios happening are very, very slim.
OK--perhaps so. One thing that you overlook is this--these scenarios have ALREADY happened.
So, in that thought, do you own guns? Do you CCW? Justify it. If you are observant, and if you stay out of anything that even looks seedy, the chances of you actually USING that CCW are slim and none. So, why do YOU need it?
As far as the armored bulldozer incident, here's a quote from the thread:
And, as far as Charles Whitman is concerned, you would send officers against this man, up the stairs without suppressive firepower? Consider this:
You would climb up those stairs and go head to head with a man like this, without special weapons?
And, this is what he had with him. Admitted, the part about the "35mm" is more than likely a .35 caliber rifle, possibly .35 Remington:
Afterward, he went and purchased $250 worth of ammunition. These days, $250 still buys a lot of ammo. Consider the amount purchased in 1966 dollars.
Are you sure now that you don't want that .50?
Saying that you don't think that cops should have access to that type of firepower says also that you should not have access to that type of firepower. I believe it was said a bit earlier, "All men are created equal".
You say that the chances of any of my scenarios happening are very, very slim.
OK--perhaps so. One thing that you overlook is this--these scenarios have ALREADY happened.
So, in that thought, do you own guns? Do you CCW? Justify it. If you are observant, and if you stay out of anything that even looks seedy, the chances of you actually USING that CCW are slim and none. So, why do YOU need it?
As far as the armored bulldozer incident, here's a quote from the thread:
And, as far as Charles Whitman is concerned, you would send officers against this man, up the stairs without suppressive firepower? Consider this:
You would climb up those stairs and go head to head with a man like this, without special weapons?
And, this is what he had with him. Admitted, the part about the "35mm" is more than likely a .35 caliber rifle, possibly .35 Remington:
Afterward, he went and purchased $250 worth of ammunition. These days, $250 still buys a lot of ammo. Consider the amount purchased in 1966 dollars.
Are you sure now that you don't want that .50?
Saying that you don't think that cops should have access to that type of firepower says also that you should not have access to that type of firepower. I believe it was said a bit earlier, "All men are created equal".
Lone_Gunman
Member
I am afraid you are totally confused.
Whether or not police officers should have access to a 50 has absolutely no bearing on whether a citizen can own one.
Citizens have a protected right to own those rifles under the 2nd Amendment.
Bureaucracies don't have a fundamental right. They exist to serve the people, and fundamentally should not waste money and time with toys they don't need. If police officers own and maintain them as personal weapons, that is fine. But they I am not convinced they should be bought and maintained at taxpayer expense. That is all I am saying. I don't think the are justified from a cost and risk/benefit standpoint.
Again, I ask, how is this different than saying police officers should drive Ferraris? In certain obscure situations, a Ferrari would be a better choice of police automobile than the standard cruiser.
Also, very few departments seem to think the 50 caliber is necessary, as very few have equipped with them. I am not sure why you guys think they need 50's so bad; if they need them, I am sure they would have figured out how to budget for them.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Lone Gunman, so what if an event, a need, is rare?
I've never had a major car wreck, but I've carried auto insurance since 1958. I've never had a house burn down nor been sued as a homeowner, but I've carried homeowner's insurance since 1966.
(I had just moved into my first "My house!" a few days before the Whitman thing. I'd gone back to the old apartment to check the mailbox, on University Avenue just south of the campus.)
(The nearest comparable-height counterfire location was at around 700 yards from the tower. I'd suggest a .50 because of wind drift characteristics.)
(I spent about an hour on a hot asphalt street (August) while trying to keep would-be gawkers from getting shot. I would have been DELIGHTED to have heard a Big Fifty at work.)
Like my CHL handgun, a rare need. But, hey, if you can guarantee me I won't need it for some forty years, I can quit carrying. After all, I'm almost 72 years old.
Art
I've never had a major car wreck, but I've carried auto insurance since 1958. I've never had a house burn down nor been sued as a homeowner, but I've carried homeowner's insurance since 1966.
(I had just moved into my first "My house!" a few days before the Whitman thing. I'd gone back to the old apartment to check the mailbox, on University Avenue just south of the campus.)
(The nearest comparable-height counterfire location was at around 700 yards from the tower. I'd suggest a .50 because of wind drift characteristics.)
(I spent about an hour on a hot asphalt street (August) while trying to keep would-be gawkers from getting shot. I would have been DELIGHTED to have heard a Big Fifty at work.)
Like my CHL handgun, a rare need. But, hey, if you can guarantee me I won't need it for some forty years, I can quit carrying. After all, I'm almost 72 years old.
Art
Lone_Gunman
Member
So you agree then, Art, that police need Ferrarris? or are you still talking about 50 caliber rifles?
The Ferrari is a strawman argument. Set it up to smack it down baby. Besides, a police package Caprice has a 300+ HP corvette engine in it. Trust me, those suckers are plenty fast.
Lone, why do you assume other PDs don't have .50s, and haven't spent the money to get them? Robbie Barrett must be imagining those California LE .50s that he is no longer servicing. I know of a few departments in my area that have them also.
Once again, just another tool in the tool box.
So to summarize your argument:
1. They are expensive - These are free.
2. If they were worth it, other departments would have bought them - They have.
3. Nobody can give me a good example of when they would come in handy - I've given you one, and so has Art.
Lone, why do you assume other PDs don't have .50s, and haven't spent the money to get them? Robbie Barrett must be imagining those California LE .50s that he is no longer servicing. I know of a few departments in my area that have them also.
Once again, just another tool in the tool box.
So to summarize your argument:
1. They are expensive - These are free.
2. If they were worth it, other departments would have bought them - They have.
3. Nobody can give me a good example of when they would come in handy - I've given you one, and so has Art.
Lone_Gunman
Member
We're going round and round here. I still don't think they need them, but a lot of you do.
I don't feel any safer, and would rather my money not be wasted like that.
That's about all I have to say.
I don't feel any safer, and would rather my money not be wasted like that.
That's about all I have to say.
beerslurpy
member
Bravo. I dont understand why restraining the government is seen by some here as being tantamount to restraining citizens. Yes, government agencies are staffed by people that are private citizens at the end of the day. And many of them, like myself, love guns. However, when they are working for the government on my tax dollar, I expect them to be frugal.
It really annoys the hell out of me that I have to pay exaggerated prices for MGs, flashbangs and suppressors while the police agencies get to splurge millions of MY dollars on equipment they dont need.
Yeah, me too. But in this case these were donated rifles.
Donated. Free. Gratis. No charge.
Yeah, I know there are ammo and training costs, but that's up to the department to manage. If they blow their training budget on buying a few dozen cases of ammo for the .50s, they'll be the ones that suffer.
As I said before, I doubt any of us will live to see these rifles used in a situation where they'd be a better choice than a more conventional centerfire rifle, but what is the harm in having them available, considering they were free?
My guess, the ARs will be used to the point of falling apart before one of the .50s fire a single shot in anger. That being the case, I might raise my eyebrows if my local department wanted a couple .50s as budget items, but we're talking about a donation to a large department.
FWIW, I do know that a few cities have M249s and armored vehicles for their SWAT types. Yeah, it's probably a major waste of funds that will never be "needed", but it is possible they might use it and the relative outlay for a LEO M249 is a bit lower than the outlay for Ferrari police cruisers.
Where does the line get drawn? In my book, it should be drawn at what it is legal for me to own. So if it's not legal for me to purchase, own or build a post-'86 squirt gun because it's such a dangerous beast, the Sheriff doesn't need to be buying FN P90s. If I have to pay $200 to register a sound suppressor, I think the local SWAT guys should have registered the suppressors in their trunk for $200 a pop too.
Now, a lot of folks on the board here disagree with me on this. Some folks here think that police officers should live under different laws because of their training or their job requirements or some other hogwash. That said, I'm not going to get all that worked up over the cops being donated something that I could've picked up at the Indy 1500 this past weekend just by throwing down fair market value.
If someone donates .50s to the Los Angeles PD, I'll get huffy, but I'm okay with the Dallas boys sticking them in the armory ... unless the Dallas brass has been speaking out against non-LEOs owning them.
- Status