301–310 of 336 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s not much technical difference in “military rifles” from civilian AR15 other than military version has an extra pin and the finger groove
On the other hand, there's presumably a significant technical difference between police cars and mine-resistant vehicles created for military operations in the Middle East.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> APCs are purely defensive. Many APC's seem to have significantly powerful weaponry, compared to civilian/infantry weapons anyway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_personnel_carrier In Western nations, APCs are frequently armed with the .50 calibre M2 Browning machine gun, 7.62mm FN MAG, or 40mm Mk 19 grenade launcher. In former Eastern bloc nations, the KPV, PKT and NSV machine guns are common options.
You're looking at actual APCs. OP was saying APC but police actually get the MRAP varients similar to the Lenco Bearcats that they buy. Those have no offensive weapons. Its just armor and bullet resistant glass on a heavy truck frame. Thats it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
is the catalyst for all of this I think excuse is the word you're looking for. As someone else pointed out, the 2 people that died were the robbers.
It's not just deaths that count.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The military also exists to enforce law. No it doesn't. It exists to protect national interests. The rare exemption is when a state decides to deploy the Army National Guard or Coast Guard. The Posse Comitatus Act is very specific about this, and the U.S. Army Military Police Corps were slapped with administrative actions for violating the act when they intervened in murder spree in Alabama.
> No it doesn't. It exists to protect national interests. This is meaningless, and to the degree that it has meaning, ridiculously overbroad. Almost all activities that "protect national interests" are not military. The definition you purport to provide here does not distinguish the military from anything else. What actually defines the military is that it achieves its goals through the use of violence. And the polic…
Using your logic I can prove many different things that are pretty silly. For instance, since a gun can be used to kill people, and so can a pillow, the pillow must be an “assault weapon”.
I have a question for you, have you ever needed the police for anything?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Absolutely not. The military does not handle issues like this on US soil. In what sense are the police not military?
In the literal sense. Police like to blur the line by calling everybody else 'civilians', but they are civilians too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are picking one particular attack and are attempting to use that single, outlying instance to argue for things that will not be necessary in the 99% case. And the problem with military gear -- as we're currently seeing, plain as the day -- is that cops will not just save it for the truly dire situations; they'll use it more and more until it becomes a part of routine operations.
There have been numerous attacks like that in other countries, some far more extreme. I chose a single example to illustrate my point, but that doesn't mean a single example is all that exists. Anyway, the cops aren't using these armored vehicles to kill people, they primarily do that with guns. It isn't the use of these vehicles that concerns me, but rather the role these vehicles play in recruiting macho edgelords…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The robbers were head-to-toe in kevlar and had armor piercing bullets, the police didn't.
> The robbers were head-to-toe in kevlar and had armor piercing bullets, the police didn't. No, that's not true. They didn't have head to toe armor, but they were armored where the police where trained to shoot : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout#Death... : > After retrieving [a pistol that had been shot out of his hand], [Phillips] placed the muzzle under his chin and fired; he was simultaneousl…
Also why are you questioning police owning an APC but it civilians owning body armor, which is most definitely legal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No it doesn't. It exists to protect national interests. This is meaningless, and to the degree that it has meaning, ridiculously overbroad. Almost all activities that "protect national interests" are not military. The definition you purport to provide here does not distinguish the military from anything else. What actually defines the military is that it achieves its goals through the use of violence. And the polic…
Except the police lack a lot of the training that would be useless in urban environments. Your average cop is also trained with a handgun as their primary, instead of a rifle as primary and handgun as secondary. Your average military personnel is more fit than your average cop as well. Not to mention the military doesn’t have jurisdiction inside the US to enforce laws. If you believe they are the same then how come m…
For what it's worth, your average soldier isn't equipped with a handgun at all, and as such, handgun training is minimal to non-existent. Your average soldier is more likely to need to know how to operate the squad's crew-served machine gun, a grenade launcher, or a door-busting shotgun, so to the extent that there is cross-training, it'll focus more on that kinda stuff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the literal sense. Police like to blur the line by calling everybody else 'civilians', but they are civilians too.
Just like military are also civilians? Your comment makes no sense, what should they call themselves?
> Under international humanitarian law, civilians are "persons who are not members of the armed forces" and are not "combatants if they [don't] carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war".
(from Wikipedia)