Dallas cops get needed firearms by donation

[Creeping Incrementalism]

The issue here isn’t the monetary cost, but the opportunity cost of the rifles. Dallas Swat could have received 5-10 ARs for each 50 BMG, or instead sell their big fifties and use the money to buy ARs, which are actually used with some frequency.

The examples of where a 50 BMG would come in handy are mostly bogus.

Charles Whitman: Art “Hell, I was there" Eatman may have felt better hearing a 50 BMG shooting, but the people on the other side of the tower would not have felt better. The police would have had to demolish the entire top of the tower with it to be sure the gunman was dead. Considering how worried police departments are about over-penetration, I just can’t see them using a 50 BMG here. I think the actual response is pretty close to the ideal.

North Hollywood: They didn’t have level IV body armor, they only had soft body armor. Even had they had Level IV plates, that stuff is only required to take one hit from 30-cal AP (IIRC). So just shoot them more than once, or go for the head, with existing 30-cal sniper rifles.

Rampaging truck: use spike strips.

The rampaging armored bulldozer/tank: this is the only example where a 50 BMG might be the best tool. Seriously, in that case, something like a LAW rocket would be better. But consider that this happens once per decade, I think the only solution that comes close to being economical is to only equip the state police with a few 50 BMGs. When something like this happens, have them fly out there in a helicopter. This is so rare that its just a waste for city departments to own them.

Saying that the LAPD has them as a justification of how law enforcements needs these tools is about the worst argument you could make. The LAPD is known for excessive force and acting like an occupying army. My favorite example of this is the time their Swat team busted a house, then spray painted “LAPD rules” on it.

Machineguns are also a waste. Spraying bullets all over the place in a city by a police force? Just get a couple guys with semi-auto 30-cal rifles and you’d do better.

I think armored cars are something big cities should own, however to use as cover when retrieving wounded officers.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

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.

Nah, they will just ask for more of my taxpayer money in next year's budget.

 

[ArmedBear]

The .50's can't easily be hidden in trenchcoats.

What good are they if they can't be used to help arrest bar patrons for drinking?

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

Good job guys, go ahead and give the JBT's .50bmg's...that is exactly what they NEED to enforce the law!


Think of all the crimes that can be prevented with a .50bmg.


The assault rifles are great too. They are designed to spray mass quantities of bullets inaccurately to kill many people at once. Which is exactly why the police need them to enforce laws


Sorry Art Eatman, that is no justification for law enforcement using such weapons. Law Enforcement used C4 explosives in Philadelphia against religious extremists...does that justify the use of explosives? Why not tanks? Oops. Been there done that at Waco. That type of thinking can justify the use of ANY military weapon for the purpose of "law enforcement"...Why not Police A-10's? They could use that 30mm cannon to cut down felons on the run during car chases. Might save a child here and there due to less car accidents.

I guess that depends on what the meaning of law enforcement is. The police becoming ever more militarized does not serve the people, it serves the government. See Germany 1930's-1940's. There's far too much love of police-power around here, and far too many apologists.

Note that I am not anti-police. I like the police, but I only like them when they serve their designated purpose, not when they overstep their bounds.

 

[antarti]

Allow me to take the "middle road"...

Every time the police have "armed up", so have the criminals, lots of times from the officers own cruisers.

Before I get "blasted from the badged" because I'm not wearing patent-leather shoes, allow to me say I've witnessed at least 4 cruisers stolen, then bombed or set-afire or driven down a boat ramp. The common denominator is that they were all stripped of all arms beforehand. No, I was not a participant in the festivities either.

I have no problem with the police "keeping up" with the criminal element. I DO have a problem with being both outgunned by criminals (who can steal or make whatever they choose) on the one hand, and by the police (who don't have to deal with NFA regs on the department level) on the other.

When the current laws only effect is to make sure the law-abiding citizenry are the least able to arm themselves, then I look upon both the criminal and the police the same way, as an "elite" class that are above the law. I personally think this is a sad state of affairs.

Lest the police harangue me with differences between the two armed camps (and there are major differences), let me point out a glaring one:

At least the criminals aren't yet putting their mob bosses next to mayors at press briefings to gather support for their latest victim disarmament measure.

 

[Powderman]

The examples of where a 50 BMG would come in handy are mostly bogus.

With all due respect---how do you know?

The assault rifles are great too. They are designed to spray mass quantities of bullets inaccurately to kill many people at once. Which is exactly why the police need them to enforce laws

Ever fired an M16 at close quarters targets? How about an MP5? Maybe a Thompson SMG? All three will hold the 10 on a B27 with 3-5 round bursts.

Nah, they will just ask for more of my taxpayer money in next year's budget

Ever heard of RICO? This, and other procedures implemented by individual jurisdictions, allow police agencies to confiscate money and valuable goods from criminals. Not stolen goods, by the way--they are returned to their rightful owners. The money seized belonged to the criminal who was arrested--fruits of the criminal enterprise. This money, in turn, is used to buy equipment for the department that seized it.

Your money is not being used here.

The police becoming ever more militarized does not serve the people, it serves the government.

OK, here's a question for you:

About three weeks ago, we received an officer safety message. It stated that a known gangbanger (NGB) had stolen a scoped rifle. We have had dealings with him before.

He has let it be known that he will NOT be taken peacefully--and that his targets of choice are officers from our agency.

How would YOU prepare for this eventuality?

They didn’t have level IV body armor

How sure are you about that one? I have it on excellent authority that both gunmen were wearing Level IV, which can take multiple hits from centerfire rifle rounds.

I don't feel any safer, and would rather my money not be wasted like that.

Let's see if we can make it plain.

Suppose I have a boatload of money (which I don't). I decide to buy my daughter a house, a car, pay for her college education, and give her $100K for pocket cash.

Is this your money? No.

Let's say that I buy my hometown police department 10 new fully equipped Crown Vics, 2 new Camaros for traffic control, also fully equipped, all new duty guns and long guns, with free body armor to boot.

Is this your money being spent? No. It's mine, to do as I please. If I have the world's biggest supply of Federal Reserve toilet paper, it's my business.

If a private organization buys a police department 10 new Barret .50 rifles, it's their money to give away. Not yours. Not mine. THEIRS.

Is it all clear now?

 

[Powderman]

(who don't have to deal with NFA regs on the department level) on the other.

For the purposes of information, here's how we "don't have to deal with NFA regulations":

If we desire to purchase NFA/Class III (using our recent purchase of four suppressors as an example), we must first find a vendor. Then we make a request for purchase; this, along with the appropriate paperwork is sent to ATF. WHEN they decide that it's OK for our department to make the purchase (took us over 6 months) the approval is sent back, we provide it to the vendor, who then transfers the items to us.

Police officers are NOT allowed to own individual Class III/NFA (full auto) firearms, unless they follow the exact same guidelines as everybody else. For private ownership, we can only have pre-1994 fully transferable--just like everyone else.

Post 94's are the property of the Department, and are NOT available for individual sale. If we do acquire one, sure, we can pay for it, and it's ours--right up until we leave the Department, then it's transferred to the Department. WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO KEEP IT. And, guess what? We can't even to this in the State of WA, since full-auto is illegal. In short, I can't even buy one here to give back to the Department!!!

And, in answer to the police "arming up", please check the history of American criminal justice. When police departments first started forming--back in New York City--cops were NOT armed--in most cases, not even with billy clubs. It was only after they started dying in tremendous numbers from criminal assaults that it was decided to arm the police.

In all cases throughout history, police agencies have armed themselves in response to heightened threats from criminal elements. The "Super .38"--.38 Super cartridge--was available in large numbers, and was used against police officers right after its introduction. In answer to this threat, what did the police do? Police administrators still insisted on officers carrying the .38 Special six shot revolver, with only one or two reloads. The ammunition issued was always 158 grain lead round nose, the handguns were either the Smith and Wesson Model 10, or the Colt Police Positive. It wasn't until the early sixties that law enforcement officers even had the option of carrying the .357 Magnum revolver--which was often loaded with .38 +P.

Criminals had been using high powered firearms for years before the Illinois State Patrol became the first law enforcement agency in the nation to issue semiautomatic pistols to their officers. (Other agencies had made it optional; not too many officers opted for different firearms; pay was then and now a factor).

As a matter of fact, let's put one thing to rest, here and now:

Most of the time, when you see officers from smaller agencies gearing up, the money for the gear comes from their own pocket.

Example:

I am a Reserve Officer. The only thing I carry on duty that is Department issued and paid for is my badge and my radio. Everything else--uniforms, jumpsuits, nylon gear, boots and shoes, duty firearms (2 primary handguns, two backup guns, shotgun, AR15, bolt action scoped rifle and semiauto rifle) were purchased by ME, and at MY expense. Most other Reserve Officers go through the same thing.

Some smaller agencies require the full time officers to purchase their duty gear themselves, too!

 

[antarti]

If we desire to purchase NFA/Class III (using our recent purchase of four suppressors as an example), we must first find a vendor. Then we make a request for purchase; this, along with the appropriate paperwork is sent to ATF. WHEN they decide that it's OK for our department to make the purchase (took us over 6 months) the approval is sent back, we provide it to the vendor, who then transfers the items to us.

Police officers are NOT allowed to own individual Class III/NFA (full auto) firearms, unless they follow the exact same guidelines as everybody else. For private ownership, we can only have pre-1994 fully transferable--just like everyone else.

Post 94's are the property of the Department, and are NOT available for individual sale. If we do acquire one, sure, we can pay for it, and it's ours--right up until we leave the Department, then it's transferred to the Department. WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO KEEP IT. And, guess what? We can't even to this in the State of WA, since full-auto is illegal. In short, I can't even buy one here to give back to the Department!!!

Umm... I already understood all that. When on duty you carry whatever the department issues. Does the department pay the same taxes on each NFA item as private individuals? Do you get to carry around (openly and in public, loaded and ready for use) full-auto/new-manufacture weapons when/where issued? Who issues mine, since I myself am prohibited from paying the tax on it (just like you)? Guess I can go to an (PD) armory and just draw one too....

FYI There have been threads here about policemen who kept department FA weapons in their private cars/homes (and got caught) for long periods, so I guess it does happen. In those instances, it is the police who also complain loudest that "a simple paperwork consequence is enough".

Funny how that isn't the response a civilian with an otherwise clean record would get.

Criminals had been using high powered firearms for years before the Illinois State Patrol became the first law enforcement agency in the nation to issue semiautomatic pistols to their officers.

I don't believe I said a single word about how police should be banned the use of any firearm.

What I did say was that anything used by police will sooner or later be stolen, and either used against them or civilians. In the case of .50's (which I also didn't mention) it makes no difference, since I can get one tomorrow if I so choose, and so can everybody else (outside of CA). Things are different with NFA weapons though. The civilian supply is strictly limited, the departmental supply (at every level or govt) just a matter of finances.

And, in answer to the police "arming up", please check the history of American criminal justice. When police departments first started forming--back in New York City--cops were NOT armed--in most cases, not even with billy clubs. It was only after they started dying in tremendous numbers from criminal assaults that it was decided to arm the police.

I think I understand the old model you speak of: police on foot patrol with nightsticks, when overwhelmed, out come the paddy wagons full of police with Thompsons.

In that case (as opposed to the thread going on right this second about some poor shlub who wanted to sulk for a couple hours at home, and got tear gassed and home-invaded for his trouble) there had to be some prior violence to justify the heavily armed response, not just "we got a call, and there's a gun in the house" or "we need to serve a warrant on a jaywalker" or "it's all for officer safety".

I (personally) like the old way better. And I have no problem with you having a nice, new drummed Tommy while on duty. I'd like one myself. Difference is, right now, I get to pay for others to spray.

 

[Powderman]

Does the department pay the same taxes on each NFA item as private individuals?

I honestly do not know.

Do you get to carry around (openly and in public, loaded and ready for use) full-auto/new-manufacture weapons when/where issued?

No, we do not. And, to the best of my knowledge, no other police department does either. Full-auto/select fire weapons are usually restricted heavily; they only come out for very high risk situations, and then ONLY at the personal approval of the Chief of Police or a designated supervisor (Commander/Lieutanant or above). They are NOT used for routine police work. And, in our Department, if the Chief hears that you trotted out that mighty fine MP5 during the day, you will probably be looking for another job before the end of the shift--in addition to facing possible criminal charges.

I think I understand the old model you speak of: police on foot patrol with nightsticks, when overwhelmed, out come the paddy wagons full of police with Thompsons.

Respectfully, not even close.

"In 1845, New York City abandoned its earlier system of constables and watchmen and instituted the first London-style police department outside the British empire, but even by outward appearances, there was a sharp distinction between the two forces. Initially, the New York City policemen did not wear uniforms, because of a combination of both official indifference and the individual officer's opposition to appearing in what he termed "subservient livery".

"Only after pressure from above, coupled with commissioners and commanding officers wearing the uniform to social events, did the policemen accept the uniform, and even then it was customary to wear the heavy woolen coat only in inclement weather.

"For their mark of authority, the New York policemen relied upon a simple copper badge mounted on a leather circle; from this, they gained the popular name of copper, later shortened to "cop".

"Originally, the new police force, called the Municipal Police, carried only a truncheon, but by 1850 the policy against firearms was weakened by the number of officers killed or seriously injured by armed criminals"

--Johnson, Herbert A. and Nancy Travis-Wolfe (2003). History of Criminal Justice, Anderson Publishing Company, Cincinnati, OH.

Although the proportion of Thompson submachine guns misused by Prohibition-era gangsters and Depression-era bandits was minuscule compared to the thousands used by American soldiers and lawmen, it is their lurid employment by hoodlums that is perhaps best remembered.

In part we can thank the likes of Jimmy Cagney and Edward G. Robinson for this (personally I prefer Robert Taylor defiantly blazing away at the Japanese in the final scene of "Bataan"). Another reason is that the Thompson saw the most misuse in a day and age when some bandits actually sent out press releases (Remember "The Ballad of Bonnie and Clyde"?). The bandits loved the notoriety and a Depression-weary public ate it up.

The fact that the Thompson featured in a few spectacular front-page crimes did nothing to help its image. The best known of these is no doubt the notorious "St. Valentine's Day Massacre" of 1929 when henchmen of the sinister Al Capone, who had conveniently alibied himself to Florida, mowed down seven members of the "Bugs" Moran gang in a Chicago garage.

The truth was, the tommy gun was no more popular during the Beer Wars of the Twenties than "assault weapons" are with criminals today, for much the same reason -concealment (The tommy-gun-in-the-cello-case ploy probably worked for about a week). Gangland assassins, then as now, generally preferred a pistol at close range, or if silence was needed, an icepick or garrote.

The Thompson was popular with most of the Depression-era bandits; most, but not all. The Barrow gang preferred 1918 BARs looted from National Guard armories, which they used to hose down pursuing police cars. Their nemesis, Capt. Frank Hamer of the Texas Rangers, preferred the model 8 Remington, and when his posse shot down the murderous couple in 1934, only one Thompson, wielded by a Louisiana deputy, was in use.

--Smith, Charles M.B. Making the Twenties and Thirties Roar. Exerpted from: http://www.auto-ordnance.com/ao_ao.html
(Emphasis added)

To the best of my knowledge, there was never an instance where any number of Tommy gun wielding cops responded to an incident.

 

[Correia]

I'm seeing a trend here. Some folks are just really worried about the idea of being "outgunned" by the cops. They worry about it, but most won't say it, so they justify their opposition in this thread by talking about budget, official use, over penetration, need, etc.

Look, equipment has jack squat to do with being outgunned. The fact that cops work as a team and have radios means that you are outgunned, even if they are all armed with Model 10s. Not being outgunned is a factor of mindset, training, and team work. I hate when law enforcement says it, and I hate when regular people say it. You are only outgunned if you don't know how to use your base level equipment, and you don't know how to work with others.

 

[Creeping Incrementalism]

Powderman

You responded to quotes from a number of different people in your responses. For mine:

When I said police needing 50-cal is mostly bogus, I explained why in my previous post (#76). Basically, of all the reasons set forth, I think that disabling the track of an armored vehicle was the only use where a 50-cal would be the best tool.

Regarding the body armor of the North Hollywood gunman, my source is the excellent documentary the History Channel did on the event. It part of their "Shootout" series, which gives basically blow-by-blow accounts of famous gunfights. It went into detail on the gunmen's body armor. One had taken Kevlar and sewn it himself so that it covered not only his chest, but also his legs and arms. When some sources said, "head to toe body armor", that's what they were referring to. The other gunman just wore a normal soft armor vest. If you can find any document source that they had hard body armor, I'd be interested, but if they had worn it, I'm sure the History Channel program would have mentioned it. Hard body armor is not mentioned in any other account of the even I've read, either.

 

[antarti]

"For their mark of authority, the New York policemen relied upon a simple copper badge mounted on a leather circle; from this, they gained the popular name of copper, later shortened to "cop".

"Originally, the new police force, called the Municipal Police, carried only a truncheon, but by 1850 the policy against firearms was weakened by the number of officers killed or seriously injured by armed criminals"

So it appears only (5 years) after the police donned uniforms they became targets, or am I reading your post wrong? Maybe a return to civilian dress and more civilized tactics would behoove the police; I think the idea has merit, please expound on it. I'd like to hear more.

I'm seeing a trend here. Some folks are just really worried about the idea of being "outgunned" by the cops. They worry about it, but most won't say it, so they justify their opposition in this thread by talking about budget, official use, over penetration, need, etc.

I respectfully disagree. I am worried about being outgunned by both police and criminals, when I am neither. I make no bones about it.

On equipment being the sole factor, you are correct:

There are people on this thread claiming that 2 or 3 incidents in the past coulda/woulda/shoulda justify the use of a long range, heavy penetrating rifle in urban scenrios. By the same logic, the what... 50-100 Pronuff AD's and bad shoots chronicled in print and video (and linked to in various threads, not hypotheticals) similarly argue for the disarmament of the police for both officer and public safety. I won't even get into the taserings/beatings/broom-stickings that have taken place.

Somehow, because honest citizens want what firearms local/state/fed agencies have access to, or as expressed in the 2nd Amendment, they are "part of the problem" or "jealous", or maybe "just don't get it". I reject that. You don't have to like it either.

It's that exact mentality plus the equipment that have me wishing the playing field were levelled.

 

[Powderman]

Regarding the body armor of the North Hollywood gunman, my source is the excellent documentary the History Channel did on the event. It part of their "Shootout" series, which gives basically blow-by-blow accounts of famous gunfights.

An excellent series; I really enjoy it myself, and watch it when I can.

Unfortunately, they have the majority of the story, but not the whole thing--at least that's what I believe.

My source is a 25 year veteran of LAPD, who retired as a Detective--and who responded that day.

So it appears only (5 years) after the police donned uniforms they became targets

Actually, no. Cops were targets long before that. It was only around that time that the departments in existence at that time started giving permission to go armed. Note: there was a police presence in America long before that time period. NYC was the first organized, metropolitan police force.

Maybe a return to civilian dress and more civilized tactics would behoove the police; I think the idea has merit, please expound on it. I'd like to hear more.

OK.

There are a few police agencies who actually take this approach; it would be well served for a smaller community with a low incidence of criminal activity.

Unfortunately, the majority--the VAST majority of police--should be uniformed. Why?

1. It makes officers instantly recognizable. Consider responding to a high stress situation--how do you tell the good guys from the bad guys? By their uniforms.

2. The uniform, when properly worn, serves as a criminal deterrent. Can you think of anyone except a REALLY hardened criminal who would not think twice about committing a crime is a uniformed officer is visible?

3. The uniform acts and assists in ensuring compliance from a criminal.

It has been proven that crooks usually don't see the COP--they see the uniform. And, that uniform is ten feet tall--even if the cop who wears it is only 5'2".

There are people on this thread claiming that 2 or 3 incidents in the past coulda/woulda/shoulda justify the use of a long range, heavy penetrating rifle in urban scenrios.

Can YOU tell us, within a 24 hour period, when the NEXT incident that would be of this nature will occur?

Neither can I.

respectfully disagree. I am worried about being outgunned by both police and criminals, when I am neither. I make no bones about it.

You're not.

You, as a citizen of this Nation, can buy and shoot anything (well, almost anything ) that you want. The same firearms that are available to us are available to YOU. Yes, you have to pay a LOT of money for some of them--but they ARE available.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Some folks are just really worried about the idea of being "outgunned" by the cops. They worry about it, but most won't say it, so they justify their opposition in this thread by talking about budget, official use, over penetration, need, etc.

That certainly makes it easier for you to dismiss our viewpoint, Correia, but feeling "outgunned" has nothing to do with it, and I find your conclusion an almost laughable attempt to silence legitimate discussion.

I am not in fear of the police, and don't consider myself in competition with them in any way.

Budget, liability, and need are the reasons police don't need 50's. I know it must be fun to spend public money on fun toys, though, so I can understand where you are coming from.

 

[Correia]

Lone, a laughable attempt to stifle discussion. Huh? Give me a break. If I wanted to stifle discussion I would just lock the thread. I wasn't addressing any poster in particular, but if you feel so offended by what I said, perhaps the shoe fits.

I don't get to spend public money. Sorry. I'm a tax payer just like you. I'm a small business owner. However I do in fact outgun my local police department. By several orders of magnitude.

Budget - Once again. These were free.
Liability - Already shown, not an issue. No more than any other tool.
Need - We've been arguing about this for several days. Maybe you should take a step back and think that maybe, just maybe, there might be people out there who know as much, if not more about this stuff than you do. And maybe they can envision a need.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Budget - Once again. These were free.

So, if they weren't free, would you be against it?

As for the people who are able to "envision the need", I would rather they stick with solving practical rather than theoretical problems with my money.

I still haven't seen anyone explain why police don't need Ferraris. After all, if I am ever in Texas and Charlie Whitman re-takes the bell tower, I want the police to be able to get to the scene ASAP with their 50 Caliber rifles..

 

[Powderman]

I still haven't seen anyone explain why police don't need Ferraris. After all, if I am ever in Texas and Charlie Whitman re-takes the bell tower, I want the police to be able to get to the scene ASAP with their 50 Caliber rifles..
__________________

1. Too hard to maintain.
2. Parts not readily available.
3. Too durned small for equipment storage.
4. They cost WAY too much.
5. Lack of aftermarket goods suitable for police use.
6. Lightbar won't fit.
7. Neither will the plastic seats.
8. Can't carry a cuffed prisoner.

How's that?

 

[Correia]

Lone, I leave that up to the department in question. It depends on how they want to spend their resources.

Your Ferrari point is just a strawman argument. Even addressing it to dismiss it gives it more legitimacy than it is worth. But since you won't give it up, and since I don't want to "stifle legitimate discussion" (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean) here goes.

First off, if the Ferrari is a free gift, good for them. Paint that sucker up for Dare and have fun.

Now if they have to buy something, they need to weigh the pros and cons of everything they want. Cost vs. benefit analysis. A Caprice or a Crown Vic can go faster than most anybody can realistically drive anywhere anyway, and I know that is the kind of parable you are trying to draw here.

But there is a difference between a $250,000 automobile, and a $6,000 (did the article even say if it was a M82, because if it was an M99, then it is only 3K). Once again, benefit vs. cost. Sure I can buy several ARs for the price of one .50, BUT if I have a department that is already well stocked with equipment, more officers have what they need, and my Tac guy says that he really wants/needs a Barrett, then the Barrett is going to go on the budget.

I know you really want to draw a parrallel between the Ferrari and the Barrett, but a more realistic comparison would be between an armored vehicle for the SWAT team and a Barrett. Armored vehicles are seldom needed also, but a case could be made for the potential need for one. Both are large, and expensive, and rarely going to get used. But when you need one, you really need it.

Your Ferrari argument would apply if I was trying to say that they needed some Perazzis for door breaching. Both are works of art. And here is where your analogy falls apart, the Ferrari was never designed to be a general useage police car. It is a race car. It can't hold crooks in the back seat. And you can't ram somebody off the road with it. Now if your department feels the need for something that goes real fast, that is what police package Camaros are for.

The Barrett is a dedicated heavy counter sniper/anti material weapon. I swear you guys are trying to give them like magic voodoo powers or something. They are just a big freaking gun. Don't buy into the anti's hype about the .50. If your local cops have them, they don't suddenly have the power to call down the hammer of Thor and smite whole city blocks with it.

 

[seeker_two]

I still haven't seen anyone explain why police don't need Ferraris. After all, if I am ever in Texas and Charlie Whitman re-takes the bell tower, I want the police to be able to get to the scene ASAP with their 50 Caliber rifles..

Curious....would you load a .50BMG rifle into a Ferrari or would you load a Ferrari into a .50BMG rifle?...

Personally, I'm OK with the LEO's having access to any type of firearm or equipment that they need...AS LONG AS CIVILIANS CAN OBTAIN THEM LEGALLY, TOO.

LEO-only equipment that is forbidden for civilian ownership is an oxymoron in itself... :banghead:

 

[Powderman]

A HUGE +10 Million to that!

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Your main argument against the Ferrarri, then, is benefit versus cost, which is exactly my argument against the 50 caliber rifle.

I hope that whatever elected officials oversee police spending take the time to do a cost/benefit analysis of the 50 caliber before outfitting their departments with them.

 

[Powderman]

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

I hope that whatever elected officials oversee police spending take the time to do a cost/benefit analysis of the 50 caliber before outfitting their departments with them.
__________________

OK!!!

Let's reiterate:

1. Cost of Barrett caliber .50 rifles, as provided to the Department: 0
2. Cost of training ammunition: 0*
3. Maintenance and repairs, while the rifles are under warranty: 0

Total cost to the taxpayers of that Department's jurisdiction: NOTHING!!!

Are there ANY more questions? Or are you so determined that this--or ANY other Department--should be stripped of .50 rifles that you cannot listen to reason?

Do the police exist to serve YOU and only YOU?

(*--Training ammunition can be procured by individual Departments upon request from training stores maintained by Uncle Sam.)

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Are there ANY more questions? Or are you so determined that this--or ANY other Department--should be stripped of .50 rifles that you cannot listen to reason?

I am not speaking about the Dallas situation in particular. All other police departments would have to buy them, assuming other benefactors do not come forward. And I am not talking about "stripping" police of their 50s, I am talking about not equipping them in the first place. Stripping would imply that I favor removing a tool the police need, which is not my point at all. I am simply opposed to adding an unnecessary tool. As I have pointed out, the Dallas PD themselves apparrently didnt think they needed these guns, or they would have bought them already, and not relied on a donation.

To suggest ammo acquired from the federal government is "free" indicates a lack of knowledge of where old Uncle Sam gets his money. Government money is not free, it comes from you and me.

Even if the 50 caliber guns were free, I still don't think the police need them any more than they need hand grenades, bazookas, or Ferrarris. However, if there truly was no cost to the taxpayer, I would not protest police having them, any more than I would protest them getting free Ferrarris, assuming they did not inappropriately use them and cause more harm with them than they help, or subject the taxpayers to additional civil liability from collateral damage. Bottom line though, for most departments, these guns will not be free, and I dont think cost-benefit analysis would justify them.

Finally the police serve us collectively. And you probably don't need police protecting you with a 50 caliber rifle any more than I do.

Maybe I was wrong, and a little moderator-induced stifling of discussion might be called for here, since all minds seem to have been made up on this matter.

 

[antarti]

Honestly, I can't see the money debate being valid. A single lawsuit, police helo, 6-wheeled APC, etc. costs a department enough that they could fill a warehouse with NFA items, kevlar, and .50 BMGs (and hire armorers for them).

I also don't begrudge LEOs access to whatever mil-style stuff they want. Even off duty or in their homes, owned by them personally and bought at steep departmental discounts.

If the LEOs are to be believed 100%, then a few things are in play:

1) Criminals have armed up (leave aside where they got them from as irrelevant)
2) LEOs need mil-type weapons to ensure that they can respond adequately
3) LEOs will use this equipment to save innocent lives, and send the guilty to either jail or their just rewards
4) LEOs are altruistic, and will use everything at their disposal to "serve and protect"

So if the police who, as Correia pointed out, have as their main strength being organized and self-supporting need these weapons to respond to civilians in distress...

... why don't these same departments, unions, and various organizations spend their public outreach or TV budgets lobbying on behalf of the lawful citizens caught up in the crossfire (taxpayors), armed only with tools the LEOs have found wanting against these scum?

Why not take the TV ad of the policeman sticking his finger in my face saying "Buckle up, or else!" off the air, and instead have him say "Take the streets back, vote yes on xxxxxxx" which would effect some positive change by removing the stupid post-86 ban?

When I was a kid, I loved checking out the 1911s and nickeled pump shotguns the local LEOs carried around. If those tools are found wanting, why let Joe citizen (armed like that stone-age policeman by todays standards) be victimized like the police perceive themselves to be?

Just so you know where I'm coming from, where I grew up there was a tremendous (and that's an understatement) amount of drug crime/importation, but the violence I saw (directed at civilians not involved in drugs), although rare, was 10-1 police to criminal. To be fair, it was almost never the local PD, and almost always "outsiders" like FDLE, Tampa PD Swat/Bombsquad, ATF, DEA, FBI... I even got into a shouting match with an FAA agent once (yeah, the airplane guys, looong story) for simply standing in my own yard. Anyway, being caught in the middle of that mess simply wasn't conducive to liking/trusting either side, nor wanting to be at their mercy.

BTW, I was wrong in my first post, the politician calling for gun control, invariably standing next to the duplicitous policeman, is a criminal. So you get both sides on the same stage.

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

The Barrett is a dedicated heavy counter sniper/anti material weapon. I swear you guys are trying to give them like magic voodoo powers or something. They are just a big freaking gun. Don't buy into the anti's hype about the .50. If your local cops have them, they don't suddenly have the power to call down the hammer of Thor and smite whole city blocks with it.

The .50BMG does not offer any advantage over the .308 winchester for ANY law-enforcement purpose. Again, how do you enforce the law with a .50BMG? You arbitrarily and randomly shoot at a wall hoping to hit some crazed gunman? You rush it out at 100mph on the highway to make a miracle shot on a moving tank's treads in the futile hope of breaking them?

The question here is not really about the .50bmg in particular, but rather the incrementalism taking place, and the further militarization of the police.

I also don't begrudge LEOs access to whatever mil-style stuff they want.

I believe LE should have any weapon that can be reasonably used to enforce the law. Just because some nut-job can single out a once in a lifetime extreme situation doesn't create a justification for acquiring greater and greater weaponry. What if some lunatics take a helicopter, fly it around Los Angeles during rush hour at low-altitude, and begin firing into cars and at people with AK-47's? Would this be an excuse for the LAPD to secure themselves a couple of Stinger missles? They would be powerless to stop them until they ran out of fuel, or the police on the ground could get lucky by firing enough shots at them. Doubt it, as a moving target will not stay in a vacinity long enough for police to accumilate.

You, as a citizen of this Nation, can buy and shoot anything (well, almost anything ) that you want. The same firearms that are available to us are available to YOU. Yes, you have to pay a LOT of money for some of them--but they ARE available.

Without rehashing the greater-goal of such anti-gun legislation, we all know that banning these weapons would leave a finite amount of them that would someday equate to a virtual ban. By that logic, the government could make a single bullet cost $1,000,000...sure, it is tough to get, but you CAN get it right?

As for the statements above, they are false because civilians cannot get the same ammunition available to LE. Whether people in this thread want to discuss it or not, it is a blatant fact that LE prefers to have a monopoly on the more effective arms out there. They do not want to be undergunned, and they do not want parity with criminals/civilians. They want the advantage. This is where I have a problem.

Look, equipment has jack squat to do with being outgunned. The fact that cops work as a team and have radios means that you are outgunned, even if they are all armed with Model 10s. Not being outgunned is a factor of mindset, training, and team work. I hate when law enforcement says it, and I hate when regular people say it. You are only outgunned if you don't know how to use your base level equipment, and you don't know how to work with others.

I agree with this for the most part. I understand the message; however, it doesn't address the issue of civilians vs. authority in equal numbers. It only addresses the matter of a thug or two vs. police, or individual households vs. police. Like the Patriots at Concord and Lexington, they were less trained, less organized, in lesser numbers...but there was one key difference, they could project almost equal force due to their arms being of equal quality (practically speaking). Imagine a scenario today. Who would you bet on? 20 police officers carrying out tyrannical orders with full-auto M4's, body armor and superior training/organization, or 20 patriots with semi-automatic Bushmasters, little to no armor, and semi-formal training from respected combat carbine instructors? When the first lead starts flying, people will be hitting the deck, moving, and seeking cover/concealment (assuming it won't be an ambush to begin with)...like in all military engagements today, firepower always wins. It is the philosophical basis for the development of the M16 and AK-47. There is no denying that. Sure, if you took the best pro handgunners in America with semi-auto Glock 17's and pitted them against beginners with Glock 18's, I'd go with the pro. However, difference between civilian and authority isn't that great. The type of weapons used may become a factor in a fight. It did become a factor in MANY of the Indian-Wars battle's. Simply having a faster repeater was often the deciding factor. We have to assume we will not be completely incompetent idiots, and therefore we don't want our arms to be the limiting factor to success.

Right now, the authorities have an advantage in the ability to project force due to their select fire weapons, even against superior numbers of armed civilians. The advantage is not great enough to whine about, but if the trend continues on its current pace, it will be an issue someday. What we don't want is the LE community gaining more military weaponry that has no purpose within the scope of law-enforcement.

Can YOU tell us, within a 24 hour period, when the NEXT incident that would be of this nature will occur?

Neither can I.

If I understand correctly, a PD determines that a certain threat might exist; therefore, they should arm up to that potential threat. Using that logic, as described above, I could personally come up with 50 different ultra-deviant crimes that would render the police impotent while I and possibly others rampage on a killing-spree. Say you think the drug runners might deploy shoulder-fired missles someday. Why not prepare for such eventualities and lobby for M1 Abrams tanks for every major city PD?

I know this is an extreme example, but that forces one to concede that there is some "reason" used by departments when accessing what is needed and what might be needed. It is that reasoning which is in question. The trend these days leans towards the greater militarization of the police. This is a frightening issue. Just use that which can be reasonably used to enforce the law, nothing more, nothing less.

---------

It's a complex issue. Look, we've all seen it. Some PD's have ****-ons to get their hands on serious military hardware. Most do in my opinion. It reminds me of that disgusting in-your-face "us vs. them" mentality that many of these LE guys have. A terrible attitude of authority. That "we're in charge" power trip garbage. Just revert back to the behavior of LE during Waco.

OTOH, a few actually reject military style arms because they fear the image they would be setting forth to the community. (Perhaps why that AR-magazine fed Remington pump-.223 is around).

I feel bad for the low-pay cop who has to beat the street in a dangerous and high-stress job. They, like the civilians, are the victims of the criminals and the statist, thug elites that run LE and government who perpetuate the criminal problem while targeting civilians with an ever growing appetite to control and surveil.