Which completely ignores the obvious question – why does a domestic police agency need a 50 cal sniper rifle? Heck, within my lifetime, the military didn’t see enough of a need for a 50 cal sniper rifle to develop one.
My brother-in-law is a county sheriff in the PDRK, and he said that they were looking into .50 cal BMG rifles, but ultimately decided against it. This happened right about when the Guvenatuh signed the .50 ban. When I asked him who they were buying from, he said, “Barrett”. I laughed, and said, “You didn’t decide against it; Barrett told you guys to pound sand!”
My brother-in-law is a county sheriff in the PDRK, and he said that they were looking into .50 cal BMG rifles, but ultimately decided against it. This happened right about when the Guvenatuh signed the .50 ban. When I asked him who they were buying from, he said, “Barrett”. I laughed, and said, “You didn’t decide against it; Barrett told you guys to pound sand!”
What the #!%#ing @#%@ does the NYPD need with .50 sniper rifles, anyway?
Is there seriously anything they ever need to shoot that a .223 won’t handle? (Or in the worst case a .308?)
(I reject the “language of need” when referring to bans on private anything, but it’s absolutely appropriate to questions of a Public Entity spending Other People’s Money.)
(Though contra AndyN, ‘Heck, within my lifetime, the military didn’t see enough of a need for a 50 cal sniper rifle to develop one.‘ …
Well, unless you’re posting from beyond the grave, you’re off a bit.
The US Army and USMC have been using .50 BMG sniper rifles* since 1990. Admittedly, they didn’t develop the M82, but they never technically “develop” any of their light arms, so that hardly matters.
* Okay, they pretended they were anti-material/EOD rifles. But nobody was fooled; they were and are sniper rifles in every honest use of the term.)
To be fair, there are a lot of foreseeable situations in the greater NYC area where the ability to stop a vehicle, or punch through barriers, or simply have a heavy round for fighting drift on a longer shot could be useful/necessary. While need doesn’t apply to us, and does to government, we need to be realistic about their potential needs on our behalf.
To be rational people we need to stop letting emotions override reason, when the subject is someone/something we justifiably dislike. We need to focus that the problem isn’t necessarily NYPD getting .50s, or a lot of other “tactical” equipment, NYC does have potential problems Duluth may not, after all; the problem is NYPD supporting politicians who want to deny the same equipment to non-LEOs.
We need to punish them for the latter, not misstate the very real former.
I seem to recall 60 minutes episode that the gun blogs covered back in 2011 or so where the NY Police Commissioner claimed the NYPD had the ability to take down an aircraft. He would not go into details but I believe it was determined that NYPD had a .50 they could take up in a helo and attempt to shoot down a “Terrorist” aircraft.
March 24th, 2013 at 2:51 pm
Nor will Ronnie Barrett, who started this trend several years ago.
March 24th, 2013 at 6:12 pm
Which completely ignores the obvious question – why does a domestic police agency need a 50 cal sniper rifle? Heck, within my lifetime, the military didn’t see enough of a need for a 50 cal sniper rifle to develop one.
March 24th, 2013 at 7:27 pm
What Andy said! Why F$#^ would cops in a densely crowded city want a .50? (Other than the fun factor – which has been taken away from civilians.)
March 25th, 2013 at 12:17 am
Has there even BEEN a single police use of a .50 sniper rifle in the US as of yet?
March 25th, 2013 at 1:14 am
My brother-in-law is a county sheriff in the PDRK, and he said that they were looking into .50 cal BMG rifles, but ultimately decided against it. This happened right about when the Guvenatuh signed the .50 ban. When I asked him who they were buying from, he said, “Barrett”. I laughed, and said, “You didn’t decide against it; Barrett told you guys to pound sand!”
March 25th, 2013 at 1:14 am
My brother-in-law is a county sheriff in the PDRK, and he said that they were looking into .50 cal BMG rifles, but ultimately decided against it. This happened right about when the Guvenatuh signed the .50 ban. When I asked him who they were buying from, he said, “Barrett”. I laughed, and said, “You didn’t decide against it; Barrett told you guys to pound sand!”
March 25th, 2013 at 11:50 am
The agencies that I know of bought them to stop armored vehicles. How big of a threat that is I sure do not know.
Well done to Serbu and Barrett.
March 25th, 2013 at 11:51 am
Now when will the ammo makers STOP SELLING TO THE DHS? I mean seriously they need to be cut off from the ammo.
March 25th, 2013 at 4:32 pm
What the #!%#ing @#%@ does the NYPD need with .50 sniper rifles, anyway?
Is there seriously anything they ever need to shoot that a .223 won’t handle? (Or in the worst case a .308?)
(I reject the “language of need” when referring to bans on private anything, but it’s absolutely appropriate to questions of a Public Entity spending Other People’s Money.)
(Though contra AndyN, ‘Heck, within my lifetime, the military didn’t see enough of a need for a 50 cal sniper rifle to develop one.‘ …
Well, unless you’re posting from beyond the grave, you’re off a bit.
The US Army and USMC have been using .50 BMG sniper rifles* since 1990. Admittedly, they didn’t develop the M82, but they never technically “develop” any of their light arms, so that hardly matters.
* Okay, they pretended they were anti-material/EOD rifles. But nobody was fooled; they were and are sniper rifles in every honest use of the term.)
March 25th, 2013 at 5:17 pm
To be fair, there are a lot of foreseeable situations in the greater NYC area where the ability to stop a vehicle, or punch through barriers, or simply have a heavy round for fighting drift on a longer shot could be useful/necessary. While need doesn’t apply to us, and does to government, we need to be realistic about their potential needs on our behalf.
To be rational people we need to stop letting emotions override reason, when the subject is someone/something we justifiably dislike. We need to focus that the problem isn’t necessarily NYPD getting .50s, or a lot of other “tactical” equipment, NYC does have potential problems Duluth may not, after all; the problem is NYPD supporting politicians who want to deny the same equipment to non-LEOs.
We need to punish them for the latter, not misstate the very real former.
March 25th, 2013 at 8:55 pm
I seem to recall 60 minutes episode that the gun blogs covered back in 2011 or so where the NY Police Commissioner claimed the NYPD had the ability to take down an aircraft. He would not go into details but I believe it was determined that NYPD had a .50 they could take up in a helo and attempt to shoot down a “Terrorist” aircraft.