Duncan PD gets $46 Military M-16's, must be nice!

[David2012]

Duncan Police have just bought 45 military surplus M-16's at $46 each. Must be nice! I sure wish the public could get in on deals like this. I'd spring for the class 3 fee if I could get the rifle that cheap.

'According to the chief, the Duncan Police Department currently has 45 officers on staff protecting the citizens. With this purchase, all officers who want to be armed with one of these rifles will be able to. The department holds yearly qualification classes to make sure all officers are proficient with the guns.'






ONLY ON KSWO.COM: Duncan PD purchasing 45 M-16s
Posted: Jul 13, 2012 3:34 PM CDT
Updated: Jul 13, 2012 5:40 PM CDT

By: Jarred Burk - email: [email protected]
KSWO.com Internet Reporter

http://www.kswo.com/global/story.asp?s=19021509

 

[jfssms]

At least the Feds aren't destroying them. I'm not sure advertising every Duncan officer will have a M16 in their possession is necessary.

 

[Fyrtwuck]

At least the Feds aren't destroying them. I'm not sure advertising every Duncan officer will have a M16 in their possession is necessary.

I'd be more afraid of theft now that it's known.

 

[CAR-AR-M16]

Technically, the $46.00 is just to process and ship the weapons. The DOD still retains "ownership" of the weapons. They are just on "indefinite loan" to the department. The 1033 program is a great way for LE departments to get gear on a budget.

 

[SMS]

Technically, the $46.00 is just to process and ship the weapons. The DOD still retains "ownership" of the weapons. They are just on "indefinite loan" to the department. The 1033 program is a great way for LE departments to get gear on a budget.

+1. The taxpayers already bought these rifles...might as well get a few more miles out of them and keep our boys in blue well equipped.

 

[WhiteyMacD]

You know how people will argue that LEOs need these weapons to be able to match what BGs have on the street? Well, I think I should have every bit as good of a weapon as any LEO, serviceman, etc.

 

[bettingpython]

You know how people will argue that LEOs need these weapons to be able to match what BGs have on the street? Well, I think I should have every bit as good of a weapon as any LEO, serviceman, etc.

+1! The police do not need select fire weapons. Militarization of civilian law enforcement is wrong. Restriction of transfer of post 86 title 2 firearms to individuals is asinine.

What they need is more training time with the firearms that we are "allowed" to own. Select fire is fun but it's pretty much a waste of ammo rapid accurate shots on target will overcome spray and pray.

 

[Lone Wolf '49]

Technically, the $46.00 is just to process and ship the weapons. The DOD still retains "ownership" of the weapons. They are just on "indefinite loan" to the department. The 1033 program is a great way for LE departments to get gear on a budget.

Thank you. You are so correct.

 

[SMS]

Yeah, we should go back to unarmed cops just like the Brits....

They shouldn't be denied inexpensive and available long guns just because they are select fire. Getting these rifles through the 1033 program frees up funds for other stuff like body armor AND more training. Like I said, we've already bought them, why shouldn't we get our money's worth out of them.

I'd rather see them go to the Duncan PD than the Palestinian Authority or the shredder.

 

[WhiteyMacD]

+1! The police do not need select fire weapons. Militarization of civilian law enforcement is wrong. Restriction of transfer of post 86 title 2 firearms to individuals is asinine.

What they need is more training time with the firearms that we are "allowed" to own. Select fire is fun but it's pretty much a waste of ammo rapid accurate shots on target will overcome spray and pray.

Yes, but also they say these officers are "protecting the citizens", however, since I am sure there are more than 45 citizens in Duncan, protecting citizens is an impossibility. So if LEOs need these weapons to "protect" us, dont you think we need these weapons to protect ourselves?