|
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. |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 27 2014 17:03 Jaaaaasper wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2014 16:41 Sub40APM wrote:On November 27 2014 16:26 Jaaaaasper wrote:On November 27 2014 16:23 wei2coolman wrote:On November 27 2014 15:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 27 2014 15:42 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
Can we start some sort of push for police bodycams? At the very least, if something like this happens again we'll have substantive evidence. 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. 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. Well to cherry pick to the "best" source available http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/fall/sovereign-citizen-kaneThats 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.
seems like an argument against assault rifles but oh no muh militia
|
On November 27 2014 11:25 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2014 11:18 wei2coolman wrote:On November 27 2014 10:36 Doublemint wrote:oh my. sorry for dp, but things just got interesting. In addition to his duties as the county prosecutor, Robert McCulloch is also the president of The Backstoppers, Inc., an organization used to fundraise for the men and women in uniform in both Missouri and Illinois. And, in August, his organization was affiliated with a t-shirt drive featuring a picture of Missouri and the statement “I SUPPORT OFFICER D. WILSON” which was set up to raise money for the Darren Wilson Defense Fund as well as The Backstoppers. Regardless of the situation, there now exists an argument that Prosecutor Robert McCulloch was in a conflict of interest in the case. That he proceeded anyways should tell us of the ethical standards by which he operates, and how valid his prosecution before the grand jury is. http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/11/25/prosecutor-fundraising-wilson/ This would have some merit if the GJ investigation/hearing was held in typical hush hush manner, but since transcripts are released to public, it'll become apparently obvious that the hearing was pretty non-biased. read it more carefully/completely before jumping to conclusions. Show nested quote +The National Bar Association put forth reasons why a special prosecutor was needed for this case. This evidence demonstrates clearly that they were right to be concerned. Is this why he failed to actually prosecute before the grand jury, and instead engaged in character assassinations against Michael Brown? Is Bob McCulloch a mere stooge for the police department, enabling them to get away with a wide variety of abuses? Or does he just have so little respect for the position he holds that he sees no issue with shielding those who must uphold the public trust against any accountability for their actions?.....
Now we need to have an investigation on Prosecutor McCulloch to discover if this is an isolated incident, or something more widespread. This might be why the t-shirt sales were done in the first place, to create such a scenario and poison trust in the prosecution’s case as presented. The actual case it turns out did enough of that, but back in August, it may have seemed a good idea to someone seeking to hide the truth. It needs to be uncovered who did this, and to put steps in place to prevent similar incidents in the future. That Prosecutor McCulloch’s organization has already rejected any such investigation leaves open the question – what it is that they are afraid to uncover? Are these ties far deeper than just a random t-shirt sale? from the link I posted. these are no trivial questions, and very relevant.
Off the front page of 'The Back Stoppers':
DISCLAIMER:
The BackStoppers, Inc. does not organize, sponsor or control any fundraising efforts. We are sincerely grateful on behalf of the families of the fallen for the efforts of those who organize fundraisers.
The phrase 'grasping at straws' is coming to mind...
|
Pointing to a toothless disclaimer as evidence of anything could also be construed as "grasping at straws."
|
On November 28 2014 00:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2014 11:25 Doublemint wrote:On November 27 2014 11:18 wei2coolman wrote:On November 27 2014 10:36 Doublemint wrote:oh my. sorry for dp, but things just got interesting. In addition to his duties as the county prosecutor, Robert McCulloch is also the president of The Backstoppers, Inc., an organization used to fundraise for the men and women in uniform in both Missouri and Illinois. And, in August, his organization was affiliated with a t-shirt drive featuring a picture of Missouri and the statement “I SUPPORT OFFICER D. WILSON” which was set up to raise money for the Darren Wilson Defense Fund as well as The Backstoppers. Regardless of the situation, there now exists an argument that Prosecutor Robert McCulloch was in a conflict of interest in the case. That he proceeded anyways should tell us of the ethical standards by which he operates, and how valid his prosecution before the grand jury is. http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/11/25/prosecutor-fundraising-wilson/ This would have some merit if the GJ investigation/hearing was held in typical hush hush manner, but since transcripts are released to public, it'll become apparently obvious that the hearing was pretty non-biased. read it more carefully/completely before jumping to conclusions. The National Bar Association put forth reasons why a special prosecutor was needed for this case. This evidence demonstrates clearly that they were right to be concerned. Is this why he failed to actually prosecute before the grand jury, and instead engaged in character assassinations against Michael Brown? Is Bob McCulloch a mere stooge for the police department, enabling them to get away with a wide variety of abuses? Or does he just have so little respect for the position he holds that he sees no issue with shielding those who must uphold the public trust against any accountability for their actions?.....
Now we need to have an investigation on Prosecutor McCulloch to discover if this is an isolated incident, or something more widespread. This might be why the t-shirt sales were done in the first place, to create such a scenario and poison trust in the prosecution’s case as presented. The actual case it turns out did enough of that, but back in August, it may have seemed a good idea to someone seeking to hide the truth. It needs to be uncovered who did this, and to put steps in place to prevent similar incidents in the future. That Prosecutor McCulloch’s organization has already rejected any such investigation leaves open the question – what it is that they are afraid to uncover? Are these ties far deeper than just a random t-shirt sale? from the link I posted. these are no trivial questions, and very relevant. Off the front page of 'The Back Stoppers': Show nested quote +DISCLAIMER:
The BackStoppers, Inc. does not organize, sponsor or control any fundraising efforts. We are sincerely grateful on behalf of the families of the fallen for the efforts of those who organize fundraisers. The phrase 'grasping at straws' is coming to mind...
at least we know you made up your mind.
|
I don't see assault rifles as being useful tools for policing, even for emergency situations; it'd be much more useful to have high-powered sniper rifles in such situation
Also, if anything gets really bad you can call in the national guard; who do have all the gear they'd need to beat any criminal.
|
On November 28 2014 01:02 zlefin wrote:
I don't see assault rifles as being useful tools for policing, even for emergency situations; it'd be much more useful to have high-powered sniper rifles in such situation
Also, if anything gets really bad you can call in the national guard; who do have all the gear they'd need to beat any criminal.
or any army on earth lol.
|
On November 27 2014 20:27 Simberto wrote:
So why does no other (western) country have that problem? Apparently there are ways to run a civilized country without giving tanks to the police. It mostly involves preventing the criminals from getting those enormous guns in the first place. But of course that conflicts with the holy second amendment.
No other (western) country has such a divide across social groups as the US. Looking to the 2.nd amendment for an explanation for the arms race between police/outlaws is rather silly.
|
On November 28 2014 00:58 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 00:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 27 2014 11:25 Doublemint wrote:On November 27 2014 11:18 wei2coolman wrote:On November 27 2014 10:36 Doublemint wrote:oh my. sorry for dp, but things just got interesting. In addition to his duties as the county prosecutor, Robert McCulloch is also the president of The Backstoppers, Inc., an organization used to fundraise for the men and women in uniform in both Missouri and Illinois. And, in August, his organization was affiliated with a t-shirt drive featuring a picture of Missouri and the statement “I SUPPORT OFFICER D. WILSON” which was set up to raise money for the Darren Wilson Defense Fund as well as The Backstoppers. Regardless of the situation, there now exists an argument that Prosecutor Robert McCulloch was in a conflict of interest in the case. That he proceeded anyways should tell us of the ethical standards by which he operates, and how valid his prosecution before the grand jury is. http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/11/25/prosecutor-fundraising-wilson/ This would have some merit if the GJ investigation/hearing was held in typical hush hush manner, but since transcripts are released to public, it'll become apparently obvious that the hearing was pretty non-biased. read it more carefully/completely before jumping to conclusions. The National Bar Association put forth reasons why a special prosecutor was needed for this case. This evidence demonstrates clearly that they were right to be concerned. Is this why he failed to actually prosecute before the grand jury, and instead engaged in character assassinations against Michael Brown? Is Bob McCulloch a mere stooge for the police department, enabling them to get away with a wide variety of abuses? Or does he just have so little respect for the position he holds that he sees no issue with shielding those who must uphold the public trust against any accountability for their actions?.....
Now we need to have an investigation on Prosecutor McCulloch to discover if this is an isolated incident, or something more widespread. This might be why the t-shirt sales were done in the first place, to create such a scenario and poison trust in the prosecution’s case as presented. The actual case it turns out did enough of that, but back in August, it may have seemed a good idea to someone seeking to hide the truth. It needs to be uncovered who did this, and to put steps in place to prevent similar incidents in the future. That Prosecutor McCulloch’s organization has already rejected any such investigation leaves open the question – what it is that they are afraid to uncover? Are these ties far deeper than just a random t-shirt sale? from the link I posted. these are no trivial questions, and very relevant. Off the front page of 'The Back Stoppers': DISCLAIMER:
The BackStoppers, Inc. does not organize, sponsor or control any fundraising efforts. We are sincerely grateful on behalf of the families of the fallen for the efforts of those who organize fundraisers. The phrase 'grasping at straws' is coming to mind... at least we know you made up your mind.
Lol, you're the one scouring the internet for whatever flimsy criticism you can find.
On November 28 2014 00:57 farvacola wrote:
Pointing to a toothless disclaimer as evidence of anything could also be construed as "grasping at straws."
Nope.
|
On November 28 2014 01:04 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2014 20:27 Simberto wrote:
So why does no other (western) country have that problem? Apparently there are ways to run a civilized country without giving tanks to the police. It mostly involves preventing the criminals from getting those enormous guns in the first place. But of course that conflicts with the holy second amendment. No other (western) country has such a divide across social groups as the US. Looking to the 2.nd amendment for an explanation for the arms race between police/outlaws is rather silly.
I would not completely rule it out, though there are many factors obviously. Nobody specifically named the military industrial complex for instance, and in this case.
|
On November 28 2014 01:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 00:58 Doublemint wrote:On November 28 2014 00:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 27 2014 11:25 Doublemint wrote:On November 27 2014 11:18 wei2coolman wrote:On November 27 2014 10:36 Doublemint wrote:oh my. sorry for dp, but things just got interesting. In addition to his duties as the county prosecutor, Robert McCulloch is also the president of The Backstoppers, Inc., an organization used to fundraise for the men and women in uniform in both Missouri and Illinois. And, in August, his organization was affiliated with a t-shirt drive featuring a picture of Missouri and the statement “I SUPPORT OFFICER D. WILSON” which was set up to raise money for the Darren Wilson Defense Fund as well as The Backstoppers. Regardless of the situation, there now exists an argument that Prosecutor Robert McCulloch was in a conflict of interest in the case. That he proceeded anyways should tell us of the ethical standards by which he operates, and how valid his prosecution before the grand jury is. http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/11/25/prosecutor-fundraising-wilson/ This would have some merit if the GJ investigation/hearing was held in typical hush hush manner, but since transcripts are released to public, it'll become apparently obvious that the hearing was pretty non-biased. read it more carefully/completely before jumping to conclusions. The National Bar Association put forth reasons why a special prosecutor was needed for this case. This evidence demonstrates clearly that they were right to be concerned. Is this why he failed to actually prosecute before the grand jury, and instead engaged in character assassinations against Michael Brown? Is Bob McCulloch a mere stooge for the police department, enabling them to get away with a wide variety of abuses? Or does he just have so little respect for the position he holds that he sees no issue with shielding those who must uphold the public trust against any accountability for their actions?.....
Now we need to have an investigation on Prosecutor McCulloch to discover if this is an isolated incident, or something more widespread. This might be why the t-shirt sales were done in the first place, to create such a scenario and poison trust in the prosecution’s case as presented. The actual case it turns out did enough of that, but back in August, it may have seemed a good idea to someone seeking to hide the truth. It needs to be uncovered who did this, and to put steps in place to prevent similar incidents in the future. That Prosecutor McCulloch’s organization has already rejected any such investigation leaves open the question – what it is that they are afraid to uncover? Are these ties far deeper than just a random t-shirt sale? from the link I posted. these are no trivial questions, and very relevant. Off the front page of 'The Back Stoppers': DISCLAIMER:
The BackStoppers, Inc. does not organize, sponsor or control any fundraising efforts. We are sincerely grateful on behalf of the families of the fallen for the efforts of those who organize fundraisers. The phrase 'grasping at straws' is coming to mind... at least we know you made up your mind. Lol, In my opinion you're the one scouring the internet for whatever flimsy criticism you can find.
fixed.
|
On November 27 2014 23:00 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2014 17:03 Jaaaaasper wrote:On November 27 2014 16:41 Sub40APM wrote:On November 27 2014 16:26 Jaaaaasper wrote:On November 27 2014 16:23 wei2coolman wrote:On November 27 2014 15:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 27 2014 15:42 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
Can we start some sort of push for police bodycams? At the very least, if something like this happens again we'll have substantive evidence. 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. 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. Well to cherry pick to the "best" source available http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/fall/sovereign-citizen-kaneThats 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. seems like an argument against assault rifles but oh no muh militia
The civilian-legal AK47 is not an assault rifle. Its not fully-automatic. There have only been TWO occasions since 1934 of a full-auto weapon being used in a crime, and one of those was a disgruntled cop who took one from the department's weapon locker. "Assault weapon" is a made up term that varies state to state. Essentially it comes down to any semi-automatic weapon with some scary-looking cosmetic features like pistol grips or barrel shrouds. Assault weapons are no more dangerous than any rifle or handgun. In fact, many "hunting rifles" use bigger, faster rounds and are even better than that AK47 at punching through police body armor.
|
On November 28 2014 01:07 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 01:04 Ghostcom wrote:On November 27 2014 20:27 Simberto wrote:
So why does no other (western) country have that problem? Apparently there are ways to run a civilized country without giving tanks to the police. It mostly involves preventing the criminals from getting those enormous guns in the first place. But of course that conflicts with the holy second amendment. No other (western) country has such a divide across social groups as the US. Looking to the 2.nd amendment for an explanation for the arms race between police/outlaws is rather silly. I would not completely rule it out, though there are many factors obviously. Nobody specifically named the military industrial complex for instance, and in this case.
Also, wouldn't it in that case be a better idea to try to fix the gap between social strata instead of arming the police with assault rifles and APCs so they can keep them down?
|
The widespread distribution of military hardware to local police departments was not intended to remedy a perceived lack of enforcement capability; it wasn't motivated by necessity at all. It was purely a consequence of how wasteful our military-industrial complex is. We simply make far too many munitions and military vehicles.
|
On November 28 2014 01:46 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 01:07 Doublemint wrote:On November 28 2014 01:04 Ghostcom wrote:On November 27 2014 20:27 Simberto wrote:
So why does no other (western) country have that problem? Apparently there are ways to run a civilized country without giving tanks to the police. It mostly involves preventing the criminals from getting those enormous guns in the first place. But of course that conflicts with the holy second amendment. No other (western) country has such a divide across social groups as the US. Looking to the 2.nd amendment for an explanation for the arms race between police/outlaws is rather silly. I would not completely rule it out, though there are many factors obviously. Nobody specifically named the military industrial complex for instance, and in this case. Also, wouldn't it in that case be a better idea to try to fix the gap between social strata instead of arming the police with assault rifles and APCs so they can keep them down?
And that is where (American) Conservative doctrine comes into play. It is the job of the state/federal government to secure borders/security, but not a minimum standard of living for people. Because that would be redistribution of wealth/socialism and straight from the pit of hell itself.
|
On November 28 2014 02:05 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 01:46 Simberto wrote:On November 28 2014 01:07 Doublemint wrote:On November 28 2014 01:04 Ghostcom wrote:On November 27 2014 20:27 Simberto wrote:
So why does no other (western) country have that problem? Apparently there are ways to run a civilized country without giving tanks to the police. It mostly involves preventing the criminals from getting those enormous guns in the first place. But of course that conflicts with the holy second amendment. No other (western) country has such a divide across social groups as the US. Looking to the 2.nd amendment for an explanation for the arms race between police/outlaws is rather silly. I would not completely rule it out, though there are many factors obviously. Nobody specifically named the military industrial complex for instance, and in this case. Also, wouldn't it in that case be a better idea to try to fix the gap between social strata instead of arming the police with assault rifles and APCs so they can keep them down? And that is where (American) Conservative doctrine comes into play. It is the job of the state/federal government to secure borders/security, but not a minimum standard of living for people. Because that would be redistribution of wealth/socialism and straight from the pit of hell itself.
The wealth gap isn't the primary cause of crime, the War on Drugs is. It makes illegal drugs far too profitable, which encourages gang violence. End the War on Drugs and you cut the funding out from under practically every gang in the country. You also will see a huge drop in recidivism, since petty drug users will no longer be going to jail where they meet and learn from hardened criminals.
|
On November 28 2014 02:13 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 02:05 Doublemint wrote:On November 28 2014 01:46 Simberto wrote:On November 28 2014 01:07 Doublemint wrote:On November 28 2014 01:04 Ghostcom wrote:On November 27 2014 20:27 Simberto wrote:
So why does no other (western) country have that problem? Apparently there are ways to run a civilized country without giving tanks to the police. It mostly involves preventing the criminals from getting those enormous guns in the first place. But of course that conflicts with the holy second amendment. No other (western) country has such a divide across social groups as the US. Looking to the 2.nd amendment for an explanation for the arms race between police/outlaws is rather silly. I would not completely rule it out, though there are many factors obviously. Nobody specifically named the military industrial complex for instance, and in this case. Also, wouldn't it in that case be a better idea to try to fix the gap between social strata instead of arming the police with assault rifles and APCs so they can keep them down? And that is where (American) Conservative doctrine comes into play. It is the job of the state/federal government to secure borders/security, but not a minimum standard of living for people. Because that would be redistribution of wealth/socialism and straight from the pit of hell itself. The wealth gap isn't the primary cause of crime, the War on Drugs is. It makes illegal drugs far too profitable, which encourages gang violence. End the War on Drugs and you cut the funding out from under practically every gang in the country. You also will see a huge drop in recidivism, since petty drug users will no longer be going to jail where they meet and learn from hardened criminals.
I agree, another factor described pretty well actually ^^
|
On November 28 2014 01:50 farvacola wrote:
The widespread distribution of military hardware to local police departments was not intended to remedy a perceived lack of enforcement capability; it wasn't motivated by necessity at all. It was purely a consequence of how wasteful our military-industrial complex is. We simply make far too many munitions and military vehicles.
Pretty much what I said. Who' really gunna say no to free guns and apc's?
|
On November 27 2014 17:03 Jaaaaasper wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2014 16:41 Sub40APM wrote:On November 27 2014 16:26 Jaaaaasper wrote:On November 27 2014 16:23 wei2coolman wrote:On November 27 2014 15:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 27 2014 15:42 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
Can we start some sort of push for police bodycams? At the very least, if something like this happens again we'll have substantive evidence. 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. 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. Well to cherry pick to the "best" source available http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/fall/sovereign-citizen-kaneThats 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.
According to this (http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=702) in 2008 there were almost 18 million traffic stops. FBI data shows that 45 police officers died in the line of duty. There are 780,000 police officers. Obviously the solution is APCs and RPGs.
|
On November 28 2014 03:36 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2014 17:03 Jaaaaasper wrote:On November 27 2014 16:41 Sub40APM wrote:On November 27 2014 16:26 Jaaaaasper wrote:On November 27 2014 16:23 wei2coolman wrote:On November 27 2014 15:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 27 2014 15:42 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
Can we start some sort of push for police bodycams? At the very least, if something like this happens again we'll have substantive evidence. 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. 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. Well to cherry pick to the "best" source available http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/fall/sovereign-citizen-kaneThats 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. According to this (http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=702) in 2008 there were almost 18 million traffic stops. FBI data shows that 45 police officers died in the line of duty. There are 780,000 police officers. Obviously the solution is APCs and RPGs.
And something like half of those killed in action were to handguns. Another big percentage was car accidents. "Assault weapons" aren't the cop-killing deathbeams hollywood and MSNBC would have you believe. The militarization of the police is a symptom of two factors. First, the military simply has too much surplus junk to distribute practically for free, and second, when budget time comes, police pretty much always get what they want. No politician will risk looking soft on crime by denying their local PD that shiny new tank they want. And really, the APC's wouldn't have even prevented that traffic stop from turning deadly because there's no was they're ever going to use APC's to conduct routine traffic stops.
|
On November 28 2014 01:46 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 01:07 Doublemint wrote:On November 28 2014 01:04 Ghostcom wrote:On November 27 2014 20:27 Simberto wrote:
So why does no other (western) country have that problem? Apparently there are ways to run a civilized country without giving tanks to the police. It mostly involves preventing the criminals from getting those enormous guns in the first place. But of course that conflicts with the holy second amendment. No other (western) country has such a divide across social groups as the US. Looking to the 2.nd amendment for an explanation for the arms race between police/outlaws is rather silly. I would not completely rule it out, though there are many factors obviously. Nobody specifically named the military industrial complex for instance, and in this case. Also, wouldn't it in that case be a better idea to try to fix the gap between social strata instead of arming the police with assault rifles and APCs so they can keep them down?
Social spending in the US is comparable to European countries, and police equipment and spending is designed to protect the public, not keep people down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
