8

Newsmax reported on the USDA buying submachine guns.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is seeking to buy submachine guns — but isn't saying why it needs them.

According to a solicitation filed on May 7, the department has a detailed list of specifications for its "commercial acquisition of submachine guns."

Later, it mentioned

The USDA isn't the only federal agency to seek weapons or ammunition in recent months.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Postal Service joined the list of federal agencies seeking to purchase what some Second Amendment activists say are alarmingly large quantities of ammunition.

Is there any evidence that the rate of ammunition purchases by the US government for 2014 is higher than previous years without explicit justification?

Community
  • 1
ike
  • 4,950
  • 1
  • 20
  • 52
  • 1
    possible duplicate of [Is the US Government buying extra ammunition in order to deny it the Civilian Population](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/16010/is-the-us-government-buying-extra-ammunition-in-order-to-deny-it-the-civilian-po) – Chad Sep 09 '14 at 18:56
  • 1
    @Chad I'm quoting a Newsmax article from May 2014. That question was more than a year earlier, and the claims are different. My question specifically addresses the past few months, so it's not even the same scope as the other one. – ike Sep 09 '14 at 19:26
  • Its the same claim though... – Chad Sep 09 '14 at 19:42
  • Wouldn't ANY amount over "zero" be "excessive" given that USDA is US Department of Agriculture and not a law enforcement agency? – user5341 Sep 09 '14 at 20:02
  • @DVK: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQMbXvn2RNI On a more serious note, there probably are farmers willing to chase off interlopers with shotguns and the like. – Sean Duggan Sep 09 '14 at 20:05
  • 2
    @SeanDuggan - if the USDA agent needs an assault rifle, he's not doing his job. He's doing a Sheriff's (or other LEO) job. – user5341 Sep 09 '14 at 20:35
  • A surprising number of US federal agencies have their own armed police forces. Why? Who knows? – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Sep 09 '14 at 22:15
  • 3
    @DVK: That's inaccurate. For example, the USDA includes the Forest Service, which administers a huge amount of federal land and has a law enforcement unit (like rangers) to enforce the law there. They are sworn LEOs and carrying weapons is precisely their job. – Nate Eldredge Sep 09 '14 at 23:10
  • 1
    @NateEldredge - you are correct. But LEI office isn't all that large. I don't have 2014 data, but in 1997, the Forest Service's law enforcement program included 708 agency staff (including 479 law enforcement officers; 149 special agents; 41 reserve law enforcement officers; and 39 administrative staff). – user5341 Sep 09 '14 at 23:55
  • @NateEldredge - even if they raised that to 1000, we get 320 rounds per Forest Service LE officer in the linked requizition. – user5341 Sep 09 '14 at 23:57
  • 1
    @Dvk: Which seems like not a totally unreasonable number for an officer to fire over a year for training and practice. Conversely, it'd be woefully insufficient for putting down a rebellion. I can try to collect more data and add an answer, but I think the numbers are reasonable to within an order of magnitude. – Nate Eldredge Sep 10 '14 at 00:20
  • I'm not asking just about the USDA, I'm asking about the whole government. – ike Sep 10 '14 at 01:34
  • 1
    IMHO, this all sounds quite normal for the US. The US (government, defence, citizens, etc) are hugely excessive in their acquisition of weapons. – hdhondt Sep 10 '14 at 03:45
  • 1
    I think having the question focussed on whether it is "excessive" just leads to opinion-based discussion. If we change the question to "Is it larger than previous years?" we cut down on the subjectivity. Is that acceptable, @ike? – Oddthinking Sep 10 '14 at 05:52
  • 2
    @Oddthinking - At which point it is a duplicate of the question I asked earlier last year – Chad Sep 10 '14 at 13:38
  • @Chad We're asking for different time-periods. It's like saying "did humans land on the Moon in 1969" and "did humans land on the Moon in 1970" are duplicates. – ike Sep 11 '14 at 15:14
  • I do not really care about the time period in my question. And it really seems that the time period is irrellavent to your question. You do not have a claim that the governement bought more this year than last. Just that they are buying more than they really need. – Chad Sep 11 '14 at 15:18
  • @Chad The article is clearly implying that the amount bought "recently" is more than previously. – ike Sep 11 '14 at 15:21
  • So if the increase happened in 2012 you would say the answer is no even may have been dramatically increased in 2012? And now the stock piles due to the increased order quanties are more than they will need? – Chad Sep 11 '14 at 15:24
  • @Chad Then the article would be incorrect in saying "The USDA isn't the only federal agency to seek weapons or ammunition in recent months." If they've all been doing it for years, then that is inaccurate. – ike Sep 11 '14 at 15:30
  • It does not say they wanted more than normal just that they put in an order. This could be a similar order to what they put in for the last several years or for the last 50 years. – Chad Sep 11 '14 at 15:32
  • @Chad 'Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Washington-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, said in April that his organization is seeing a highly unusual amount of ammunition being bought by the federal agencies over a fairly short period of time. To be honest, I don't understand why the federal government is buying so much at this time."' Should I add that quote from the article to the question? – ike Sep 11 '14 at 15:47
  • @ike - That the claimant does not understand why they ordered soo much isnot the same as saying they ordered more than the normal amount. – Chad Sep 11 '14 at 16:38
  • 1
    There seems to be an implied claim in the source that the weapons are being stockpiled for some secret nefarious purpose. Therefore, perhaps a reasonable question would be, "Is this level of acquisition consistent with the acknowledged regular operational needs of those departments"? – Nate Eldredge Sep 12 '14 at 00:10
  • 1
    One more bit about this garbage: The contracts were for "up to" a certain number of rounds. That's not the same thing as them actually buying that many. – Loren Pechtel Nov 12 '14 at 01:38

1 Answers1

6

The U.S. Government Accountability Office examined this question and found that, no, acquisition of ammunition by government agencies is not increasing.

The Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) annual ammunition purchases have declined since fiscal year 2009 and are comparable in number to the Department of Justice's (DOJ) ammunition purchases. In fiscal year 2013, DHS purchased 84 million rounds of ammunition, which is less than DHS's ammunition purchases over the past 5 fiscal years....

While this report focuses primarily on the Department of Homeland Security, a comparison to the ammunition acquisitions made by the Department of Justice is made on page 23 of the report (page 28 of the PDF).

Edited:

Regarding justification: "justified" is, of course, subjective. But I will include some context. According to the above-linked GAO report:

DHS's ammunition purchases over the 6-year period equates to an average of 1,200 rounds purchased per firearm-carrying agent or officer per year.

Firearm training classes in the U.S., such as those offered by Alias Security, Combat Shooting and Tactics, or Costa Ludus, can use anywhere from 200 to 600 rounds in a full day's worth of training (look at the course descriptions at each of the links above - they will include a "round count" so that students know how much ammunition to bring to class).

So, if agents attended a day-long class that used 300 rounds of ammunition per day, they would be able to spend four days a year with their firearms training.

Chance
  • 169
  • 1
  • 4
  • 3
    Two government agencies' purchases are not increasing. The whole governments' purchases may be increasing, though. – ike Nov 11 '14 at 21:59
  • 1
    What about the Department of Defense? I'd think they'd want a lot of ammunition. – HDE 226868 Nov 11 '14 at 22:17
  • This does not address the actual point of the question, which is ammunition and weapons acquisition by federal agencies whose officers are usually **not** associated with carrying firearms, like the department of agriculture or the postal service. – Philipp Nov 12 '14 at 15:53
  • 2
    @Philipp The US Postal Service has the Postal Inspection Service, with around 2000 sworn/armed personnel. The USPIS pre-dates the US Constitution. So define "not associated with carrying firearms." – Chance Nov 12 '14 at 20:55
  • @Chance I wasn't aware of that, but when that's the case why don't you post some information about how much weapons and ammunition they are buying and whether or not it's justified for the number of people they have armed? – Philipp Nov 12 '14 at 21:02
  • @Philipp I have edited the answer to provide some additional context. – Chance Nov 13 '14 at 00:53
  • @ike I'm not aware of any rigorous guidelines with regards to terminology, but a "department" usually encompasses numerous agencies. The DoJ for instance has the FBI, the DEA, the ATF, the U.S. Marshals Service and others. – Chance Nov 13 '14 at 01:00