Is this truly necessary?

[Jim675]

I stand by my earlier preference for 50,000 armed spectators.

What is the nature of the threat? Bad guy with a gun starts shooting? Lots of unhappy armed people nearby might convince him of his error just a quickly as a sniper who can't see who's shooting. What if 30 bad guys are shooting?

If the threat is more severe, say a small plane diving in and presumably full of explosives, the sniper is of no assistance. (Wait, did I just say metro police departments need AAA?)

I'd rather have 50,000 on my side than 6 (or whatever the sniper count was).
Arm everyone who wishes to be armed.

 

[PALO]

I stand by my earlier preference for 50,000 armed spectators.

What is the nature of the threat? Bad guy with a gun starts shooting? Lots of unhappy armed people nearby might convince him of his error just a quickly as a sniper who can't see who's shooting. What if 30 bad guys are shooting?

If the threat is more severe, say a small plane diving in and presumably full of explosives, the sniper is of no assistance. (Wait, did I just say metro police departments need AAA?)

I'd rather have 50,000 on my side than 6 (or whatever the sniper count was).
Arm everyone who wishes to be armed.

which is great, but it's a false dichotomy. it doesn't have to be either/or

i love the fact our nation has an armed citizenry. it makes us imo much freer

i love the fact that in the last few decades firearms rights have VASTLY expanded concomitant with a concomitant lowest homicide rate in 40 yrs, and crime rate been dropping for decades, proving that more guns does not mean 'blood in the street'

but you are ignoring reality of practical combat and threat neutralization if you can't see that SNIPERS present specific advantages (and not just in threat neutralization but also in intel dispersal and gathering) that people walking around with handguns can't

every single general in the history of warfare has recognized that snipers are effective.

i am not going to go into the literally hundreds of examples, but a sniper can do effectively what armed leos or nonleos CANNOT do in many situations, and do it more quickly, more effectively, and with less risk of collateral damage

i really can't believe somebody is going to argue against the tactical benefits that snipers offer. it's just RIDICULOUS

and again, the irony that OC advocates are getting their panties in a bunch (well a few of you) because OH NOES THE COPZ ARE GOING TO HAVE SNIPERZ AT THE SUPERBOWL!!!

it's SO ridiculous.

again, hopefully they won't be needed, and if they are needed, they won't have to use deadly force but can help deter a threat with intel, obs, etc

regardless, i'm glad that whoever made these decisions understands the tactical advantages, and furthermore ADVANTAGES THAT INFRINGE ON NOBODY's privacy, freedom of movement, etc. - that snipers offer at the SB

 

[thebigsd]

It is somewhat silly that some are applying the classic anti argument that they don't NEED snipers. Antis would argue that we don't NEED our handguns. It's all about be prepared. Most of us will never use our handguns in self-defense but we're damn sure still going to carry them just in case.

 

[PALO]

It is somewhat silly that some are applying the classic anti argument that they don't NEED snipers. Antis would argue that we don't NEED our handguns. It's all about be prepared. Most of us will never use our handguns in self-defense but we're damn sure still going to carry them just in case.

thank you. this is what i refer to as 'the need canard'

it's a CLASSIC that libs use to attack RKBA. some others are the "penis canard" (gun as substitute for penis rubbish), and they usually sprinkle in a lot of stuff about FEELINGs.

it is just amazing to me, and thank you for noting it as well, that as soon as alleged rational, freedom loving OCers (some of them) are presented with COPZ WITH RIFLEZ, all of a sudden the same "logic" starts stampeding around

snipers are, like conceal carry handguns, almost always NOT needed, but WHEN they are needed... man... ARE THEY NEEDED !

cheers

 

[TechnoWeenie]

I enjoy playing counter sniper.

I've been to some major events (used to live in DC)...

I used to love bring binoculars, and being the ONLY guy not paying attention to the other stuff going on..

Instead, using the optics to 'spot the sniper'...

It's kinda funny when you have 5 people watching you, because you're watching them..... instead of a 'real' threat.....


I would so be that guy not watching the game, but waiting for the spotters to spot me spotting them.....

Maybe get on a MURS or FRS channel and start speaking Arabic or Farsi or something... Watch them watch me speak Farsi into a radio after 'spotting' them..

It'd be a blast..

 

[Gil223]

people here are getting hysterical over nothing.

Hysterical is the normal condition for some people. For others it is paranoia... and for yet others, it is a special blend of hysterical-paranoia.

JFK's security detail could have used a counter-sniper, but I suppose that (since there hadn't been a president assassinated in 60 years) it was just too infrequent an occurrence to consider increasing security. There seem to be several here that follow that rationale, so we should wait until there has been a Grand Scale catastrophe until we begin planning how we can avoid another one. (I can almost hear the ex post facto police chatter on their radios- "Cleanup on rows 17-75 at the Superbowl"). Gimme a break! Pax...

 

[MilProGuy]

I enjoy playing counter sniper.

I've been to some major events (used to live in DC)...

I used to love bring binoculars, and being the ONLY guy not paying attention to the other stuff going on..

Instead, using the optics to 'spot the sniper'...

It's kinda funny when you have 5 people watching you, because you're watching them..... instead of a 'real' threat.....


I would so be that guy not watching the game, but waiting for the spotters to spot me spotting them.....

Maybe get on a MURS or FRS channel and start speaking Arabic or Farsi or something... Watch them watch me speak Farsi into a radio after 'spotting' them..

It'd be a blast..

Different strokes for different folks...but it sounds like a good way to get yourself arrested...or worse. :exclaim:

 

[ncwabbit]

Palo, et al., nowhere did I express any type of paranoid, hysterical, or even anxiety or combination therein about the alleged sniper(s) at the super bowl or similar populated public events per se but rather questioned the rational for surreptitious use of said snipers and who they represented. Last time I heard, the police are not there to protect the populace but rather the state’s interests.

I have heard various posturing by members this is the police protecting the public (see above) from the nebulas bad guy; heard the snipers are bound to abide by society’s constitutional laws, etc.; heard ‘every single general in the history of warfare has recognized that snipers are effective; heard cops in LA, Chicago, Seattle, Denver, DC, NO, ad nausum, were woefully unprepared for a myriad of events and so forth. (seems to me Homeland Security Grants have significantly armed our community’s law enforcement population to counter these contingencies, even to the point of having drone cameras flying over the community’s populace).

Like folk who OC, and as stated by this membership, research has shown the visible/concealed firearm is a crime deterrent for the community’s well being and reduces violent crime! Therefore, if O/CC is a viable deterrent, why the need for surreptitious use of snipers and why not flatly advertise the fact…”hey we have snipers in the rafters.” As Jim stated…if, as research has shown, civilian carrying firearms is a crime deterrent, do not make these events a free zone for firearms. The nation’s citizens will protect the VIPs better than the surreptitious sniper who might be ‘watching’ the other way during the violence.

yes techno, I also search the skyline/windows/etc. to see how sloppy/complacent the security actually is…Milpro, for this I can get arrested ?While you are probably right in our Patriot act environment but it shouldn’t be allowed nor tolerated!

Palo, et al., if you feel comfortable our society requires surreptitious use of snipers and other state sponsored surveillance so be it and I will allow your complacency to this increased state oversight. But, unfortunately, my original questions remain unanswered…WHO (do not insult my intelligence again by saying the police they lack the overall give a xxx ) and WHY (do not tell me it is needed to protect the VIPS/or other folk as police, per se, do not care about them) and finally and most importantly WHAT accountability is being leveed on this ‘state’ oversight?

Finally, sorry, I do not see my questioning surreptitious use of highly specialized weaponry (surveillance per se) at ‘public’ events’ (not politically generated events where the President et al. require protection) by governmental agency(ies), who’s publicized sole purpose is to preserve themselves and their concept of the ‘state’ as paranoid or hysterical but rather the sign of an informed yet concerned citizen!

wabbit

 

[HKcarrier]

Hmm, I see many good points posted here, but all views are valid none the less. My opinion is who cares if there are snipers on the roof? Besides these pics I have NEVER heard anyone say they saw a sniper @ the Superbowl, or any other major event. I have also never heard of anyone starring down the barrel of said sniper rifles(probably because of the former). Situations like the superbowl(as someone else pointed out) make FANTASTIC targets for terrorists or nut-cases. To me knowing there are "eye's in the sky" so to speak makes me feel a little bit better. Especially when I go to say Safeco Field in seattle and see overweight old police with guns that appear to have collected dust.

Regarding the DHS, aren't those the guys all over the news/radio for purposely allowing mexican cartel to purchase firearms illegally? The same firearms used to shoot federal agents, civilians, and police? Not very comforting IMHO. Someone mentioned we would be safer if DHS acted on every what if scenario, I really hope that was joke. Saddam Huessein did that, shot his own family and cabinet members to avoid the what if scenario's. If DHS acted on every what if scenario martial law would be declared and Radio shack's, and firearms would go bye bye.

[video=youtube;EvTd4F3yVEc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvTd4F3yVEc[/video]

 

[Gil223]

Now, let's all join hands and sing Kum-by-ah! There were so many lovely socialist sentiments expressed there that I lost count. I didn't hear the part about supporting the "United Nations Small Arms (Gun Confiscation) Treaty" though, and I'm sure they would all support that. Pax...

 

[XD9mmFMJ]

sorry, but this is not even a remotely logical argumenT

first of all, snipers aren't (generally speaking) pointing their weapons at YOU unless they have identified you as an active threat.

if and when you can point to all these rampant examples of police snipers slaughtering your wife, daughters, etc. then get back to me
sure, on exceptionally rare occasions, police snipers have been problematic (see: randy weaver's wife), just like on exceptionally rare occasions, lawful CPL holders/open carriers hjave committed crimes with their guns

you are being as reflexively hysterical about police snipers, as the average anti-gunner is about open carriers. i can smell the IRONY

iow, tough for you. your right to carry should not be infringe because some whiners feel uncomfortable about it.

don't like snipers at the super bowl? tough. having them there doesn't make this a police state, and if you spent 10 minutes in an actual police state, you would recognize the absurdity of your statements

i just find it hilarious that your FEELINGS based argument (for loose definition of "argument") is a funhouse mirror version of those used by anti-gunners against us

it really is ironic, alanis

I agree with the first word of your reply. You are sorry. How does a sniper scan the crowd? Oh right, by looking down his scope. You sound like a commie, because no red blooded American worth his salt would ever argue FOR snipers at a sporting event. Nothing you said is anywhere near logical. The very definition of a police state is being under the gun. You are the one who is hysterical here, bordering on psychologically unstable, because nobody in their right mind would ever think snipers at public events are constitutional or acceptable for any reason.

You even cited an instance where a police sniper murdered an innocent woman and her baby in cold blood, and still have the nerve to say we should have snipers watching over us? Tough to you mister.

I don't swing my gun around over crowds of people claiming to be their security. I carry it for my own security, and that of my family. If we're all open carrying, why do we need snipers?

Giving up freedom for security is a sure way to lose both. I can't believe someone who is pro freedom (yeah right) is arguing to have snipers watching over us.

 

[XD9mmFMJ]

Hysterical is the normal condition for some people. For others it is paranoia... and for yet others, it is a special blend of hysterical-paranoia.

JFK's security detail could have used a counter-sniper, but I suppose that (since there hadn't been a president assassinated in 60 years) it was just too infrequent an occurrence to consider increasing security. There seem to be several here that follow that rationale, so we should wait until there has been a Grand Scale catastrophe until we begin planning how we can avoid another one. (I can almost hear the ex post facto police chatter on their radios- "Cleanup on rows 17-75 at the Superbowl"). Gimme a break! Pax...

JFK's security was told to step down right before he was shot. Hysterical is the people saying it's ok to have snipers watching over public events. That's pure insanity.

 

[PALO]

JFK's security was told to step down right before he was shot. Hysterical is the people saying it's ok to have snipers watching over public events. That's pure insanity.

why is it insanity?
why?

give an actual reason, not just "derp derp derp cops with rifles derp derp"

 

[PALO]

I agree with the first word of your reply. You are sorry. How does a sniper scan the crowd? Oh right, by looking down his scope. You sound like a commie, because no red blooded American worth his salt would ever argue FOR snipers at a sporting event. Nothing you said is anywhere near logical. The very definition of a police state is being under the gun. You are the one who is hysterical here, bordering on psychologically unstable, because nobody in their right mind would ever think snipers at public events are constitutional or acceptable for any reason.

You even cited an instance where a police sniper murdered an innocent woman and her baby in cold blood, and still have the nerve to say we should have snipers watching over us? Tough to you mister.

I don't swing my gun around over crowds of people claiming to be their security. I carry it for my own security, and that of my family. If we're all open carrying, why do we need snipers?

Giving up freedom for security is a sure way to lose both. I can't believe someone who is pro freedom (yeah right) is arguing to have snipers watching over us.

lol. i "sound like a commie".

come for the histrionics, stay for the "lulz"

 

[marshaul]

every single general in the history of warfare has recognized that snipers are effective.

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize the Super Bowl counted as "warfare".

i am not going to go into the literally hundreds of examples, but a sniper can do effectively what armed leos or nonleos CANNOT do in many situations, and do it more quickly, more effectively, and with less risk of collateral damage

Hence the trepidation with government wielding this potentiality as a matter of course and without clear and present danger.

i really can't believe somebody is going to argue against the tactical benefits that snipers offer. it's just RIDICULOUS

What's ridiculous is that someone could be so enamored of the state that they can't possibly imagine why this bothers anybody.

and again, the irony that OC advocates are getting their panties in a bunch (well a few of you) because OH NOES THE COPZ ARE GOING TO HAVE SNIPERZ AT THE SUPERBOWL!!!

No irony. Our country would be better off, and the people freer, if only the citizenry were armed as a matter of course. There have been places and times where this was the case, and it's always been to the benefit of the people and their freedom.

The government ought never to employ paramilitary agents in a situation which does not absolutely warrant it.

Edit: Which kind of apologist are you? The professional kind? Or just the hoodwinked?

first of all, we very well MAY HAVE HAD thwarted attempts at such mass events before. you rarely read about it when the cops prevent it before it turns bad

I'm guessing the former.

 

[ncwabbit]

PALO as you were asked in another thread on this site...what agency do you work for that you feel and defend law enforcement needs these highly specialized personnel w/their high cost weaponry to defend the general public from harm?

you are concerned about the defence of the general public against harm aren't you?

wabbit

 

[Aknazer]

which is great, but it's a false dichotomy. it doesn't have to be either/or

i love the fact our nation has an armed citizenry. it makes us imo much freer

i love the fact that in the last few decades firearms rights have VASTLY expanded concomitant with a concomitant lowest homicide rate in 40 yrs, and crime rate been dropping for decades, proving that more guns does not mean 'blood in the street'

but you are ignoring reality of practical combat and threat neutralization if you can't see that SNIPERS present specific advantages (and not just in threat neutralization but also in intel dispersal and gathering) that people walking around with handguns can't

every single general in the history of warfare has recognized that snipers are effective.

i am not going to go into the literally hundreds of examples, but a sniper can do effectively what armed leos or nonleos CANNOT do in many situations, and do it more quickly, more effectively, and with less risk of collateral damage

i really can't believe somebody is going to argue against the tactical benefits that snipers offer. it's just RIDICULOUS

and again, the irony that OC advocates are getting their panties in a bunch (well a few of you) because OH NOES THE COPZ ARE GOING TO HAVE SNIPERZ AT THE SUPERBOWL!!!

it's SO ridiculous.

again, hopefully they won't be needed, and if they are needed, they won't have to use deadly force but can help deter a threat with intel, obs, etc

regardless, i'm glad that whoever made these decisions understands the tactical advantages, and furthermore ADVANTAGES THAT INFRINGE ON NOBODY's privacy, freedom of movement, etc. - that snipers offer at the SB

Snipers at a super packed place expecting to be able to drop a "threat" before they do something bad, oh and without any collateral damage. Additionally this militarization of our police is in essence a "loophole" in regards to the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act (I believe I have the right one) which bans the use of the military from police actions. Additionally our police force doesn't need to use military-style tactics against the citizens and doing so helps to further increase the "us vs them" mentality and the treating of citizens as enemy combatants instead of as citizens. This isn't an issue of infringing upon the rights of the people, it is one of the things that in the bigger picture leads to the cops treating the citizens as second class.

Think of it as the straw that broke the camel's back. You can't really point to any one straw and say "OMG YOU DID IT, YOU BROKE THE BACK!!!!" but all of them together are the cause. And these snipers are an effect of the bigger issue which is militarization of the police, which DOES lead to the "breaking of the back."

 

[.40S&W]

Police snipers are not some new thing. They've existed for quite awhile. Some of them are former Marine and Army snipers.

 

[PALO]

PALO as you were asked in another thread on this site...what agency do you work for that you feel and defend law enforcement needs these highly specialized personnel w/their high cost weaponry to defend the general public from harm?

you are concerned about the defence of the general public against harm aren't you?

wabbit

again, with the need canard

i never said LEO's NEED to use snipers at the superbowl any more than you or i NEED to OC or CC

when you start with the "need" premise, you poison the argument

my claim is that it is net benefit for there to be snipers at an event such as the superbowl.

iow, do the cost-benefit analysis

most every argument against snipers at the super bowl have fallen into the exact same logical fallacies and appeal to emotion as anti-gunners use against OUR decision to carry firearms as members of the public.

"why do you NEED to carry a firearm?"

etc.

and yes, it IS paranoid to be afraid of a cop with a rifle at a sniper post. why is that more scary than the hundreds if not thousands of armed LEO's (both uniformed and plainclothes) who will be present at the superbowl except for this EMOTIONAL aversion to knowing there is god forbid a cop(s) acting in a sniper role

sniper's role is multi factorial. they can provide intel from a unique vantage point, as well as help coordinate ground response to incidents, they can offer an immensely more accurate method of delivering lethal force when and if needed and sometimes are the only realistic way to end a threat vs. ground officers with handguns (the latter being inaccurate and largely useless at long distance).


cops had snipers at the WTO (good), N30 (good), and pretty much every presidential public event ever over the last few decades

the only negative incident i can ever recall involving police snipers is the randy weaver incident (which imo was murder, but i digress)

i can also point ot incidents of people lawfully carrying concealed who have committed murder with their lawfully carried firearms, but that doesn't vitiate the policy argument for an armed citzenry

again, when and if somebody can come up with an actual argument against police snipers at the superbowl that is not an appeal to emotion , paranoia without statistical backup, etc. then get back to me

 

[marshaul]

again, with the need canard

i never said LEO's NEED to use snipers at the superbowl any more than you or i NEED to OC or CC

when you start with the "need" premise, you poison the argument

The difference is, I have rights, and the government does not. The citizens have the authority and right to demand that government do nothing which the citizens have not decided there is a need for. And, if we were smart, we'd decide there is no need for this crap.

You never did reveal whether your apologia is professionally-inspired, although I think the answer to that is increasingly clear.