| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
On November 27 2014 15:49 GreenHorizons wrote: Hell of a lot cheaper than apc's, teargas, etc... Not too many arguments against them other than 'we don't want you to see what happens'... Apc's get a unfair rap as expensive. They're often given for free from military. Still dumb as fuck police have access to it, but it doesn't cost the police much to get it. | ||
|
Jaaaaasper
United States10225 Posts
On November 27 2014 16:23 wei2coolman wrote: Apc's get a unfair rap as expensive. They're often given for free from military. Still dumb as fuck police have access to it, but it doesn't cost the police much to get it. The point of things like apc's or assault rifles being handed out to police departments is that while a militarized police is not ideal, there are criminals with access to military grade hard wear, meaning your options in dealing with them break down to a militarized police, sending in under prepared police officers, which will lead to a blood bath, or actual military units being deployed in a police action, which is not ideal either. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23671 Posts
| ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
On November 27 2014 16:34 GreenHorizons wrote: Neither of those are arguments against cameras though so you guys support them too? I don't think anyone is against them. They're good idea, that should have been implemented a long time ago. On November 27 2014 16:26 Jaaaaasper wrote: The point of things like apc's or assault rifles being handed out to police departments is that while a militarized police is not ideal, there are criminals with access to military grade hard wear, meaning your options in dealing with them break down to a militarized police, sending in under prepared police officers, which will lead to a blood bath, or actual military units being deployed in a police action, which is not ideal either. I don't think that's the line of thinking for a lot of these police counties that get this stuff. Most of it is decommissioned from the military, so even in small peaceful mid-western towns with a small ass population with low crimerates these police counties still have m16's, and apc's, and a whole bunch of decommissioned military wear. I think it's as simple as "hey free shit". Seriously, if someone was like "hey kiddo, want some free m16's and an APC?" Guess what a reasonable response would be? "HELL THE FUCK YES, THAT SHIT LOOKS LIKE FUN." Obviously in the communities with high crime rate, the threat to use the military gear seem more real, but that doesn't explain why small towns with low crime rates have the same gear. It's just a matter of the gov't doing a poor job of handling how decommissioned military gear is used (or given to for that matter). | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On November 27 2014 16:26 Jaaaaasper wrote: The point of things like apc's or assault rifles being handed out to police departments is that while a militarized police is not ideal, there are criminals with access to military grade hard wear, meaning your options in dealing with them break down to a militarized police, sending in under prepared police officers, which will lead to a blood bath, or actual military units being deployed in a police action, which is not ideal either. When was the last 'blood bath', outside of the movies I mean. | ||
|
Jaaaaasper
United States10225 Posts
On November 27 2014 16:41 Sub40APM wrote: When was the last 'blood bath', outside of the movies I mean. Well to cherry pick to the "best" source available http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/fall/sovereign-citizen-kane Thats not exactly a major area that you would think would need military grade hardwear, but a routine traffic stop ended with two dead cops after someone opened up with them with a actual assault rifle. | ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
On November 27 2014 17:03 Jaaaaasper wrote: Well to cherry pick to the "best" source available http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/fall/sovereign-citizen-kane Thats not exactly a major area that you would think would need military grade hardwear, but a routine traffic stop ended with two dead cops after someone opened up with them with a actual assault rifle. Now that you mention it, the North Hollywood Shootout in '97 was actually a huge reason why LAPD got a huge upgrade in weaponry right after this incident. But, I would definitely say these are rare incidents that drive individual counties to become militarize, while majority of militarization of the overall police force across the nation stems from "hey free shit from gov't? why the fuck not?!" | ||
|
Dapper_Cad
United Kingdom964 Posts
On November 27 2014 16:26 Jaaaaasper wrote: The point of things like apc's or assault rifles being handed out to police departments is that while a militarized police is not ideal, there are criminals with access to military grade hard wear, meaning your options in dealing with them break down to a militarized police, sending in under prepared police officers, which will lead to a blood bath, or actual military units being deployed in a police action, which is not ideal either. If you militarise the police then you no longer have police. A militarised police force means you have "actual military units deployed in a police station" which you call "police" but which are, in fact, an occupying force. That's what militarisation of the police means. The training, tactics, equipment and work of a functioning police force has almost nothing in common with the military other than the fact that they wear uniforms and use guns. It's like advocating for the nijification of chefs because they both use knives. The problems that the Police and the Army exist to solve are entirely different. The police exist to keep the peace and enforce the law. The army exist to win wars. The fact that you can't seem to tell the difference is an indictment of the U.S. education system or at least the American conversation. Not a particularly damning one mind as you're only one guy on a message board, but I suspect -perhaps wrongly- your ignorance is a mirror of popular ignorance in the U.S. at large. On November 27 2014 16:36 wei2coolman wrote: I don't think anyone is against them. They're good idea, that should have been implemented a long time ago. I don't think that's the line of thinking for a lot of these police counties that get this stuff. Most of it is decommissioned from the military, so even in small peaceful mid-western towns with a small ass population with low crimerates these police counties still have m16's, and apc's, and a whole bunch of decommissioned military wear. I think it's as simple as "hey free shit". Seriously, if someone was like "hey kiddo, want some free m16's and an APC?" Guess what a reasonable response would be? "HELL THE FUCK YES, THAT SHIT LOOKS LIKE FUN." Obviously in the communities with high crime rate, the threat to use the military gear seem more real, but that doesn't explain why small towns with low crime rates have the same gear. It's just a matter of the gov't doing a poor job of handling how decommissioned military gear is used (or given to for that matter). Would it be reasonable for truck drivers, if offered m16s and apcs to say "FUCK YES"? How about fishermen screaming "THAT SHIT LOOKS FUN" when offered a trailer of dynamite? Or is the principle simply "Free stuff is good stuff"? If that's the case it's not really an argument for police accepting military equipment. It's more of an argument that thoughtless consumption of whatever happens to be put in front of you trumps behaving like a thinking human being. | ||
|
Jaaaaasper
United States10225 Posts
On November 27 2014 19:28 Dapper_Cad wrote: If you militarise the police then you no longer have police. A militarised police force means you have "actual military units deployed in a police station" which you call "police" but which are, in fact, an occupying force. That's what militarisation of the police means. The training, tactics, equipment and work of a functioning police force has almost nothing in common with the military other than the fact that they wear uniforms and use guns. It's like advocating for the nijification of chefs because they both use knives. The problems that the Police and the Army exist to solve are entirely different. The police exist to keep the peace and enforce the law. The army exist to win wars. The fact that you can't seem to tell the difference is an indictment of the U.S. education system or at least the American conversation. Not a particularly damning one mind as you're only one guy on a message board, but I suspect -perhaps wrongly- your ignorance is a mirror of popular ignorance in the U.S. at large. The fact that you don't seem to understand that criminals with weapons more dangerous than what the police have prevents the police from enforcing the law is a indictment of the British education system. | ||
|
ahswtini
Northern Ireland22212 Posts
On November 27 2014 19:40 Jaaaaasper wrote: The fact that you don't seem to understand that criminals with weapons more dangerous than what the police have prevents the police from enforcing the law is a indictment of the British education system. it's because our police force are not routinely armed until a copper gets shot dead by an armed criminal, then it revives the debate around whether or not the police should be armed. | ||
|
Jaaaaasper
United States10225 Posts
On November 27 2014 19:45 ahswtini wrote: it's because our police force are not routinely armed until a copper gets shot dead by an armed criminal, then it revives the debate around whether or not the police should be armed. So what your saying is that different countries have different situations and you can't force the laws or standards of one country on another blindly with out considering circumstances differing? Maybe its just the British school systems that are failing, not all in the UK. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10854 Posts
But well... More sold guns = more profits = happy days! | ||
|
Jaaaaasper
United States10225 Posts
On November 27 2014 19:55 Velr wrote: If your Police starts an Armsrace with your Criminals something is seirously wrong... But well... More sold guns = more profits = happy days! So if the criminals started the arms race, the police should let themselves become unable to enforce the law? | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8718 Posts
On November 27 2014 19:40 Jaaaaasper wrote: The fact that you don't seem to understand that criminals with weapons more dangerous than what the police have prevents the police from enforcing the law is a indictment of the British education system. lol. what a waste of a comment. On November 27 2014 19:59 Jaaaaasper wrote: So if the criminals started the arms race, the police should let themselves become unable to enforce the law? ever heard of SWAT? it says special weapons and tactics. you can't expect go give ordinary police men the same weapons, without the tactics and training and expect similar results. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23671 Posts
On November 27 2014 19:59 Jaaaaasper wrote: So if the criminals started the arms race, the police should let themselves become unable to enforce the law? What kind of difference in arms are you imagining the parties reaching? I'm genuinely curious what weapons the criminals are going to be getting and cops losing/not having where you think this is a big enough issue that suddenly "The police...will be unable to enforce the law"? | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10854 Posts
Yeah, there will be the occasional nutjob, but for these guys exist swatteams, you know, "cops" that actually have specialised training to use the "bigger" stuff... Your average policemen shouldn't be and shouldn't have the possibilty to be armed like a soldier. Thats just not his job. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11759 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23671 Posts
Your normal criminals have APC's and openly wear M16's? I don't think so. Well... Not exactly criminals and no APC but I get wanting to have assault rifles even for 'cops' (mine isn't going anywhere). But not every officer needs one and they should all be trained better on all of their firearms especially the less traditional police weapons, and probably work on some of their hand to hand skills too. But if a group armed like this turned on the town I wouldn't want to be stuck in a department with nothing but pistols and shotguns. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/a9Vu0Yc.jpg) Ironically I think those (the visible ones) are mostly AK's/SKS's (which I personally think are more dangerous in your average urban combat range, 7.62's are vicious)The flags, they are in Texas, and yet barely any American guns... C'mon Maaaan! | ||
|
Jaaaaasper
United States10225 Posts
On November 27 2014 20:26 GreenHorizons wrote: What kind of difference in arms are you imagining the parties reaching? I'm genuinely curious what weapons the criminals are going to be getting and cops losing/not having where you think this is a big enough issue that suddenly "The police...will be unable to enforce the law"? Responded to the wrong comment, well played on my part. And I don't for see a need for most of these things to be used more than once or twice. A APC isn't actually a tank, its basically a truck or van with armor, so I don't really see why people have a issue with the police having them. Body armor should be widely available, because its purely defensive. And I don't forsee a need to assault rifles to become police standard issue, but I think they should be made available for use under certain circumstances and have police officers trained on them. But I do not understand the outrage against military grade defensive capabilities being made available to the police, or the police having the ability to respond to more dangerous weapons being used against them. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23671 Posts
On November 27 2014 21:51 Jaaaaasper wrote: Responded to the wrong comment, well played on my part. And I don't for see a need for most of these things to be used more than once or twice. A APC isn't actually a tank, its basically a truck or van with armor, so I don't really see why people have a issue with the police having them. Body armor should be widely available, because its purely defensive. And I don't forsee a need to assault rifles to become police standard issue, but I think they should be made available for use under certain circumstances and have police officers trained on them. But I do not understand the outrage against military grade defensive capabilities being made available to the police, or the police having the ability to respond to more dangerous weapons being used against them. Mostly because that's not how they are being used/brandished. They are using/brandishing them on offense, against unarmed, innocent, civilians and low-level, non-violent offenders and then occasionally using them for defensive or reasonable purposes. | ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
The PondCast
KCM Race Survival
WardiTV Winter Champion…
Replay Cast
Ultimate Battle
Light vs ZerO
WardiTV Winter Champion…
Classic vs Nicoract
herO vs YoungYakov
ByuN vs Gerald
Clem vs Krystianer
Replay Cast
CranKy Ducklings
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
