You must log in or register to comment.
The cops justify needing that because you have an ar15.
Yeah, it’s really not that complicated!
If everyone gets rid of their ar-15’s, do the cops sell this vehicle?
They might not sell it, but they probably wouldn’t get funding for buying another one.
Doubt
Yes, once every person in the USA voluntarily hands in every semi-auto rifle…the cops will decommission the tanks.
Sure they will, because most police forces have used them in situations that require an armored vehicle and aren’t just doing it to cosplay being the gestapo.
sorry. I thought once every person in the USA voluntarily hands in every semi-auto rifle. made it obvious I was not talking about reality.
deleted by creator
This is a bit more obscure than that, but mostly yes.
The real problem is that the army doesn’t want more tanks. They’ve asked congress to stop building armored vehicles. Don’t need money for tanks, want money for R&D.
Congress love building tanks because it falsely creates jobs in their districts. So more tanks. Most of these factories are located in red districts.
Too many tanks and they have to sell them. That’s how police can buy tanks.
Sell all your AR15? Most AR15 owners are in red states. There are direct correlation with voting republicans and owning firearms. So if you decide to sell you AR15 it might indicate you’d switch vote? It’s a stretch but less republicans, more jobs from other types of factories (e.g. Green energy related), less money to build tanks, less armored vehicles being auctioned off to police.
Yes, they justify it. Do they need it? No.
Your statement applies to both the ar15 and the MRAP…
I can ask more than one question. They’re both valid.
I can ask both. I can even ask if maybe one of the reasons cops have that is that people are more heavily armed?
how else are they gonna arrest shop lifters?
Whoa! Great point!
Boy, if I was a school shooter, I’d hate to see this thing parked up outside at a safe distance with the engine off.
All the better to observe the children being slaughtered in their safe armored vehicle.
Exactly. One of the big outcries to upgrade police weaponry started with the North Hollywood shootout.
What the point if everything is lethal?
The police aren’t a part of the community they serve, it’s explicitly trained into them to treat every situation as “us” vs “them”. If “they” have rifles then “we” need armored vehicles.
Edit: to be very clear, I am not in support of police militarization.
No one commonly owns AR15s in Australia. None of our cops have this stupid shit.
What’s more is thanks to the gun ban there, the black market cost for a glock handgun not counting ammunition is around $12,000 cash versus what, 10x less in the US?
Now my conservative acquaintances who adore supply-side economics should understand that increasing cost inhibits demand.
You can buy a glock new for $500. In Chicago you can probably get a second hand one free off a car tire if you really need it, just don’t worry about it’s history
Because people have ar15s
came to say this
It’s probably because nutters are running around with ar15s!
They are but the bigger problem is, the cops driving the war machine are part of the nutters.
Thank you for stating the obvious. I am not being sarcastic. There is really a need nowadays to state the obvious.
Own an ATGM for home defense, since that’s what the founding fathers intended. Police APC column rolls toward my house. “What the devil?” As I grab my powdered wig and Stugna-P. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first car, it’s dead on the spot. Draw my mortar on the second car, miss it entirely because it’s smoothbore and nails the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the MT-12 mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with APFSDS, “Tally ho lads” the tungsten dart shreds two cars in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix FPV drone and charge the last terrified rapscallion. He Bleeds out waiting on the more police to arrive since multiple fragmentation wounds are impossible to stitch up. Just as the founding fathers intended.
“Because you’re allowed to have an AR15”
Correct. This is one part of the price of our shit gun control.
Zero civilians need AR15s unless they’re planning a mass shooting.
Or a revolution ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
(agreed we’re not there but that’s another use of civilians owning warfare weapons)
That’s exactly the argument that conservatives always give for gun ownership. But like, how would they possibly overrun the largest military in the world with their personal arsenals?
Maybe they could take a city but I can’t see it being a long lasting victory.
If anything, the US’s engagements in Vietnam and, more recently, the Middle East have shown that eradicating an insurgent force is incredibly difficult, to the point of being almost impossible. On top of that, there are weapons used during the GWOT that wouldn’t (shouldn’t(?)) Be used against American citizens, unless their goal is to be rulers of the ashes. On top of that, there are plenty of American Servicemembers that would straight up refuse to attack American citizens, and would potentially aid the insurgency with things like vehicles and ammo.
Add on top of that the extensive gun culture and sheer number of veterans in the general US population and I’d say they have a fighting chance.
I say this all as a former military intelligence analyst myself.
You were slackin at your job if you don’t understand that the majority of people would oppose these insurgents, by definition, since that is how democracy works.
There is no situation in which domestic insurgents would not be crushed utterly. They’d be heavily restricted in movement, denied resupply, theyd lose contact with their families, friends, etc as well as all cellular communication. They would not have air superiority. They wouldn’t even be able to contest air superiority. The most advanced counter-terrorism force in human history would be tracking them. When caught, they will absolutely land in Gitmo, at best, and will absolutely give up everything because these are not hardened fighters, these are your neighbors.
The US is a fucking fortress. This is a complete non-starter. We haven’t even touched on actual military engagement yet. I’m not convinced it would even ever get to a point where it was necessary.
If it ever was, the US would have to show the world that a challenge to its supremacy on its territory by (now non-)citizens in open rebellion absolutely will not be allowed to happen.
The affected areas will completely locked down. The insurgents will lose all access to travel, because the entire area will. Then it’s just counter-terrorist procedure practiced over 20 years thousands of miles away.
My friend, I don’t know your qualifications, but I can tell you that the Viet Cong and AL Qaeda won against the most advanced COIN force in the world.
Except no they definitely did not.
Insurgent forces are always scary. They know where to hide and they get creative with weaponry. This isn’t the revolutionary war with people marching side by side taking shots at the other side.
Besides, that’s assuming the military is 100% cohesive in war operations inside this country and against other Americans.
Oh, and ignoring that it might just be the conservatives in power that would be the aggressor and the rest defending themselves from fascists.
Your last point is the one that gets me, the left needs firearms as much as the right does if shit hits the fan.
Amen to that.
In my country (France) we got single payer healthcare, legally enforced number of work hours in a week, annual PTO, etc because about 25% of the population were card carrying commies with guns.
The biggest military in the world seems to have trouble with insurgents. See Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.
The bigger problem will be staffing. Who they are you going to get to take on your own town or state? No one wants that job. They want easy criminals that “choose” to act up.
This is the meal team six we’re talking about lol. One of them would pull out a gun, get shot, then the others would give up right there to go back watching their fox news and drinking diet coke.
Ask Vietnam, or Afghanistan.
…both sides live here though and speak the same language. It’s hardly a fair comparison.
Just look at how well the largest military in the world held onto Afghanistan.
This is a really dumb comparison that implies you know Jack shit about warfare btw.
Because they’re all Rambo. Didn’t you know that?
Meal team 6 ain’t going to put up a fight lmao. There is zero chance these dumb random civilians have the ability or desire to kill all the cops. These are the same chuds that want police more heavily armed too and “back the blue”. It would literally never happen.
Lol. Try to shoot the hellfire missile with your AR 15
Good thing we had hellfire missiles to establish a permanent and stable government in Afghanistan
yeah it would be like a group of settlers going up against the greatest army in the world and somehow winning. absolutely no way that ever happens, or has ever happened, to my knowledge twice at least
Did that army have hellfire missiles and nukes? Or was it maybe the case that this army you mean back then was occupied with more important matters and the settlers had help of powerful other countries? Lets be real, if there ever was a full on authocracy in america it would be celebrated by half your population, usually the gun owning population. All the dictator would need to do is promise to hurt some kind of minority.
i dont know, did the us army have hellfire missiles and nukes in the vietnam war? which they pulled out of because farmers with guns was too much for them to face?
Oh god what a dumb take. Vietnam was an aggressive war in unknown terrain. A civil war in the own country against your military is completely different. That scenario is so completely stupid, because half your population would be on the governments side. Meanwhile your fear of a hypethetical scenario kills your kids.
What a dummy take. “You’re helpless against missiles and jets, so why fight back in the first place”
More “Why do you use this excuse even though it has no merit at all, when the thing you want to keep is killing your children in the thousands each year?”
Do you really believe this? Lmao. You think the reason most support the second is so children will be killed? Clearly you don’t, so why comment that?
I’ve got no horse in this race, but I’ll tell you, the amount of time people spend fixating on AR-15s, when rifles in general (including AR-15s) are only responsible for 3% of gun deaths…it really doesn’t give the impression that people are in command of the facts. And it doesn’t seem like pretty much any characteristic of a gun being effective for a mass shooting doesn’t also carry over to the gun being effective for self-defense against more than a single person. Or even a single person, for that matter. I feel like people just kind of dug their trenches on this one and nobody’s really thinking too hard about it.
deleted by creator
What’s a good reason why anyone needs one of these killing devices
Nukes are also incredibly safe you look at the total amount out there and the percentage that actually blow up on cities
Clearly you feel that way but you definitely don’t speak for everyone.
Because you have an AR15.
I feel like this is the logical next response. Shit meme.
Yes, but they use these in Europe as well.
In which country?
Germany:
State Police of Berlin, Brandenburg, Hamburg, NRW, Sachsen, Bayern, MV, RLP have or plan to get Survivor R (Sonderwagen 5).
Federal Police have TM170 (Sonderwagen 4).
France:
RAID of the National Police have Petit Véhicule Protégé and Nexter Titus.
Italy:
Carabineri have RG-12 and VM90.
Seems fair to ask both questions.
Why I need an AR-15? Because I want one.
Why the cops need tanks? They don’t.
IMO “they don’t” is an answer to both.
So don’t get a rifle.
I actually prefer my police able to neutralize people who have AR-15s, thanks.
Bootlicker
Frankly I think you’re crazy so call me whatever
Mass shooters already exist and I’d prefer a professional force be prepared to stop them.
We disarm police and they lose the arms race, full stop. People will tribe up for protection, because all it takes is one psycho demanding that be status quo and it becomes that - check literally any developing nation for all the proof you need there. Living in a revenge-killing gang war zone is not my idea of a good time.
Just Google “Haiti” and tell me my deeply purple state wont degrade to open conflict.
Yeah, but the can have all the equipment they want and it doesn’t matter if they won’t go into situations (like, for example, an elementary school shooting) because they’re cowards.
Yeah there we definitely agree.
Probably. No normal person would expose themselves voluntarily to you.
Can’t I ask both?
They probably need it because you have an AR15.
I mean… “¿Porque no los dos?” Neither should exist in civilian hands. A MRAP has no use for civilian police nor does an AR15 have any use for a civilian.
I think it was in California in the 90s that some guys tried to rob a bank, but they had full body armour and helmets, and were armed with assault rifles and high capacity magazines. The cops were useless against them as all they had were squad cars, pistols, and a few shotguns. It was a huge wake up call for police forces across America and it didn’t take long for them to start acquiring better equipment.
If you don’t like the militarization of your police, then you need to do something about the militarization of your general populace.
Thnx for the link. Didn’t know their body armour was home made. That’s some pretty good dedication to one’s trade. Too bad they couldn’t have put that talent into something constructive.
They just stitched bought armor together, basically.
How dare you point out that this is an example of weapons that have been federally prohibited for a century! Now how can people moderation fallacy their way into sounding reasonable?
illegally modified
So let’s make more things illegal because it will fix everything for sure
Not sure what has your panties in a wad over that.
The converted rifles in that crime were not ATF Form 2 weapons, so calling them “illegaly modified” is a true and factual statement.
I don’t have gun context. Just saying that banning sething(i.e. making it illegal) will only increase amount of illegal. Things that are banned will not just “have you seen the law? Well, it seems I shouldn’t exist” and disappear.
You can now prosecute people doing harm with new charges. I don’t know why that isn’t significant. Why does every action have to “fix everything?”
Aaaand? They are already charged with, you know, killing people.
Not necessarily. Not if they were stopped before they could kill anyone.
Well, trying to kill is already illegal.
You really don’t understand how adding charges results in longer sentences? Really?
What point are you trying to draw, here?
-
Taking reliable existing semi-automatic firearms and modifying to fully automatic still would not be feasible for these dunces if they were starting out from scratch (at least not with any semblance of reliability from an engineer’s standpoint). Finally, should be noted that there’s little reason the outcome would’ve been different had they been semi-automatic, considering ammunition waste and less attention to accuracy. If their goals were that of the Aurora shooter, then that would be different.
-
“home made body armor” implies they made it from scratch. No. They used several vests worth of manufactured body armor to make full body armor.
What point are you trying to draw, here?
None, I linked the wiki entry for the person who “remembered there was an incident” because I remembered the incident.
What point are you trying ro draw here?
You included more than simply a link to a wiki page.
Pretty sure my points are self-evident by context.
No, I provided a link to the wiki page with the tldr from the article on the weapon/armor for anyone who didn’t want to click on it.
The fact you believe there’s some sort of point I’m trying to make by linking the wiki article that covers the bank robbery and includes the information on the weapons, tactics and outcome and think “I’m trying to make a point” speaks volumes about you.
Ah, so indeed it was more than just a link. An emphasis on armor and weapon, curiously, despite that already being mentioned by the original user. Interesting.
Tell me, how does it “speak volumes?” when I’m merely providing obvious context and correcting misconceptions?
Because that was the persons comment I linked to was regarding the weapons and armor.
I’m sorry you don’t like what the wiki says and you apparently feel the need to read more into an article and a direct quote of statements from the article. Maybe you could try linking documents you approve of that answers a persons question in the future?
-
This is the stupidest thing I’ve ever read on the internet. Sure give up all your rights as a citizen based on one (probably fake, but either way) story about a single supposed situation where someone outgunned the police
Fucking bootlicker
Ah yeah, I remember giving up my rights as a citizen in 1996 when Thomas Hamilton outgunned a bunch of children in a primary school
We seem to be doing just fine here without our rights, oddly enough, along with the rest of modernity
I think having some higher power weapons for law enforcement in case it ever comes to that is (while related) a different problem than police militarization. I think the best bet would to be have specialized units for those extreme cases they could reasonably deploy in a timely/effective manner. Every cop having access to surplus military gear is a huge problem and I wish weren’t to a point where having specific units was even a necessity.
deleted by creator
These deluded right-wingers don’t care about what’s true, unfortunately.
Pointing out the likely catalyst that triggered all of the police militarization makes me a bootlicker?
Well that’s one way to missinterpret things!
