151–160 of 336 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you require a firearm, and you can buy a military surplus weapon which is cheaper than a new "civilian" firearm, wouldn't you?
Based on the study, it seems like the answer is "yes" for violent police departments and "no" for everyone else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are plenty of places. Mexico for example where the narcos have capabilities similar to the mexican military and In brazil we have little kids with automatic rifles roaming the favelas.
You missed the "developed countries" dogwhistle, which usually means rich and white nations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with your first part that there is not necessarily a causal relationship between military equipment and killings. But your "no need, ever, for police to have automatic weapons" part is, to me, just wrong. In general, police should have enough kit to easily overpower the criminals they expect to face. We have been fortunate in many areas (e.g., most of the US, Europe and practically all urban areas) for the po…
I don't know of any developed country where the police can reasonably expect to face better equipped adversaries than they can in the US. This is interesting for two reasons: You may have a point that it is necessary in the US for the police to have automatic weapons, but the US is also the only western country that has put itself in such a situation. Take from that what you will...
Should they use the military to patrol the streets?
The question here, in my opinion, is whether we're looking at actual causation or simple correlation. Is this an example of, "receiving free coyote-colored tacticool gear and MRAPs prompts cops to become more aggressive, detached from the population they are ostensibly there to protect, and likely to unnecessarily end civilian lives in the course of doing their job"? Or is it an example of, "police departments with t…
We should be careful to draw a causal relationship here. It might not be that getting the military equipment causes police to be more aggressive and therefore have more killings. It might instead be that the more aggressive police departments are the ones that more seek to purchase military equipment, and the more aggressive police are the ones with more killings. I tend to think that's the case. Regardless, there is…
> Regardless, there is no need, ever, for police to have the automatic weapons, APCs, and "non-lethal" weapons they are buying from the military. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout is the catalyst for all of this. Police were heavily outgunned. The FBI would take hours to get there as FBI tactical teams are not in most cities and are not on call like normal SWAT teams are. APCs are purely defensiv…
And yet the only two people who died were the two bank robbers. It sounds like the police were able to eventually take control of the situation even while heavily outgunned. So does adding more firepower on the side of police actually provide more safety when this is an example of the worst case scenario?
We should be careful to draw a causal relationship here. It might not be that getting the military equipment causes police to be more aggressive and therefore have more killings. It might instead be that the more aggressive police departments are the ones that more seek to purchase military equipment, and the more aggressive police are the ones with more killings. I tend to think that's the case. Regardless, there is…
> Regardless, there is no need, ever, for police to have the automatic weapons, APCs, and "non-lethal" weapons they are buying from the military. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout is the catalyst for all of this. Police were heavily outgunned. The FBI would take hours to get there as FBI tactical teams are not in most cities and are not on call like normal SWAT teams are. APCs are purely defensiv…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Or departments with more military gear are in more risky areas where the use of force is more likely. Maybe. I know anecdotally where I live has very little violent crime, and the police department is fully militarized with mraps and the like.
Plural? Like one could make sense, in a siege type situation or bank robbery in progress perhaps. The sort of event that might happen once a decade or so maybe. But how many sieges or bank robberies are they expecting to need multiple of these?!
> In Georgia alone, police departments and sheriff’s offices have received more than 2,700 military rifles, night vision goggles and laser gun sights, and literally hundreds of armored vehicles, including more than two dozen mine-resistant vehicles built to fight the war on terror abroad. How else will they protect themselves in the dangerous minefields of Atlanta? /s I’m glad someone has put together the data on thi…
Police in Georgia literally throw hand grenades into the cribs of sleeping babies and get away with it. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ex-georgia-deputy-acqui...
https://www.cnn.com/2014/05/30/us/georgia-toddler-injured-st...
So the suspected drug dealer was using the baby as a human shield.
We should be careful to draw a causal relationship here. It might not be that getting the military equipment causes police to be more aggressive and therefore have more killings. It might instead be that the more aggressive police departments are the ones that more seek to purchase military equipment, and the more aggressive police are the ones with more killings. I tend to think that's the case. Regardless, there is…
> Regardless, there is no need, ever, for police to have the automatic weapons, APCs, and "non-lethal" weapons they are buying from the military. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout is the catalyst for all of this. Police were heavily outgunned. The FBI would take hours to get there as FBI tactical teams are not in most cities and are not on call like normal SWAT teams are. APCs are purely defensiv…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with your first part that there is not necessarily a causal relationship between military equipment and killings. But your "no need, ever, for police to have automatic weapons" part is, to me, just wrong. In general, police should have enough kit to easily overpower the criminals they expect to face. We have been fortunate in many areas (e.g., most of the US, Europe and practically all urban areas) for the po…
The problem with your logic here is it makes the line between police and the military incredibly blurry to the point where police become just another type of military personnel. Maybe if you have criminal activity at the level of needing automatic weapons, then you need military intervention and not police. As many ex-military have pointed out in various forums, even in war situations rules of engagement for soldiers…
Many other countries have Gendarmerie forces that bridge this gap in various ways. The most famous being the RCMP. Other countries mix these responsibilities with varying success, but they do it intentionally. Some have found good success with it.