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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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?"
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
The fat fucks parading around in their plate carriers frothily screaming "shall not be infringed" at traumatised school children aren't going to fire on a tank.
Most of them won't even wear a mask in a pandemic to protect their countrymen, they're definitely not going to die in battle for them. It's who they want to be in their fantasies, not who they actually are.
You know what a lot of them would do though? Enthusiastically vote a fascist and then fire into crowds of people protesting fascist policies.
That they're terror weapons, not a reasonable counter to small arms, which have existed for decades in the form of armored SWAT vans and reinforced patrol car bodies for a fraction of the price.
I always find the self righteousness of bootlickers fascinating.
Why are you more interested in excusing the boot and disarming the people rather than asking why the funds can't be spent on stopping the circumstances that create violence before it starts?
This highlights a weird side effect of weapons rights. The right to own weapons by the citizens to protect themselves from government tyranny, combined with the need for law enforcement to arm themselves adequately against heavily armed citizens breaking the law, becomes an arms race between the citizens and their country, with whoever is better funded being the winner.
Telling the citizens to drop their weapons doesn't mean the cops drop theirs. Telling the cops to stop arming themselves against citizens just sends them to their death during confrontations.
Most of that hysteria was about GTA, which in hindsight is really a pretty deep satire of the violent American mentality. Kinda the classic "freaking out about how we should censor a creative work we don't understand" thing.
Wasn't these basically donated because the military had too many? I understand them completely. The SWAT units needs armored trucks, even in Sweden they have Sandcats. The options were these extremely cheap former military MRAPs that are bulletproof, or buy armored civilian vehicles which costs multiple hundreds of thousands.
I'd bark up the tree of military spending rather than the police accepting hand-me-downs.
Police militarization is not because of citizens having arms. Rather, overproduction by the military trickles down into surplus sales to domestic police, and they eagerly gobble it up for various reasons such as "they like power", "they like to feel like big men", etc. They aren't outgunned against anything besides a civilian uprising.
My best guess is that this is just one of many things they were able to grt acceas to using federal subsidy programs. The very famous Obama-era 1033, but also The Department of Homeland Security's "Urban Areas Security Initiative".
We all know that they can be used by SWAT, ATF, etc. When it may be needed - but they also get used to intimidate protestors and violate their rights.
Apart from that one vehicle they have some mini busses and such for transporting. But they arent really special, or built specifically for the police or whatever.
The guys in white robes bought a gun just as easily and they're thrilled to hear you're armed because it's all the excuse they need to execute you in the street.
Because they won't actually be wearing white robes. They'll just look like any other generic white American male, and they're going to kill you long before you find out their political opinions.
You've sold your minority group out to the gun lobby and now you're doing their astro-turfing for free.
You don't just support but advocate laws that arm those men in white robes.
You escalate the problem for everyone else and then have the gall to jump online and tell people its cool, because you've got your gun to keep you safe.
You're not a hero. You're the reason black children get shot in the face for ringing doorbells.
No. Black children get shot in the face for ringing door bells because of right-wing fear mongering and deeply entrenched bigotry that exists whether or not minorities arm themselves. You can make the case that bi_tux isn't making anything better and is possibly making it worse but saying they are the cause is a disgusting lie that takes the blame off those that truly deserve it.
No. Black children get shot in the face for ringing door bells because of right-wing fear mongering and deeply entrenched bigotry that exists whether or not minorities arm themselves. You can make the case that bi_tux isn't making anything better and is possibly making it worse but saying they are the cause is a disgusting lie that takes the blame off those that truly deserve it.
So you openly admit that some people are incapable of controlling their emotions and that they can be manipulated into murdering vulnerable people including children... But they still get your big rubber stamp of approval to buy all the semi-automatic weapons they want?
If you're disgusted by the idea of "taking the blame off those that truly deserve it", then your own behaviour should sicken you.
Most gun owners just try and pretend that responsibility begins and ends with the shooter and that their own words, actions and votes had nothing to do with it. You however, just lean right into open hypocrisy.
You've got no problem casting the blame wider. Your post opened with the idea that it was "right-wing fear mongering" to blame for gun violence against minorities. Fox News to blame? Completely reasonable!
But blaming the "responsible gun owners" whose unsecured firearms arm thousands of criminals and suicidal teenagers? A gun-lobby that doubled their donations to Republicans to $16 million a year following Sandy Hook? People spreading bullshit hero fantasies online?
You made up a lot of stuff there. You are grasping because you don't want to own your shameful behavior. Base your comments on what I actually said and on reality.
The flipside of that argument is folks who wear pointy white caps on weekends really don't like when minorities also have rights to gun access and it makes them squirm a little. A lot of racist people are all bark and no bite and just like to put on a tough guy persona (but of course there's a lot of racist people who will kill someone if given the opportunity)
As long as there's as many weapons in this country as there are, I think it's more important to breed a culture of gun safety before gun restrictions ever have a chance of taking hold
The flipside of that argument is folks who wear pointy white caps on weekends really don't like when minorities also have rights to gun access and it makes them squirm a little
A left-wing, pro-gun fantasy instead of a right-wing, pro-gun fantasy but a fantasy nevertheless.
Racists today are feeling more emboldened than they have for 40 years and minorities are no safer.
The guns did nothing and the promises were just hollow propaganda designed to sell guns to both racists and people scared of armed racists.
Too bad that (1) doesn't make you any safer in reality, (2) increases several vectors of risk to you and your family disproportionately, (3) just benefits gun lobbyists and muddies the water of national debate.
But see, I live in Spain, most of Spain is "rural areas" except on the coast and a few larger cities inland:
USA: 120.5 guns per 100 people, 17.3% living in rural areas
Spain: 7.5 guns per 100 people, 18.8% living in rural areas
There are maybe 1 gun per 3 people in rural areas in Spain, probably fewer because some city folk also have them, yet those are enough to protect against the wildlife.
What kind of aggressive wildlife would the US have, that would require 6 guns per person? A velocirraptor infestation? 😉
(actually... wasn't one of the dangers in the US, to meet a bear or a cougar... which guns do nothing against?)
“We found zero evidence of any kind of protective effects” from living in a home with a handgun, said David Studdert, a Stanford University researcher who was the lead author of the Annals of Internal Medicine study.
It is quite literally more likely that:
(1) You'll use that firearm on yourself.
(2) You'll use that firearm illegally on somebody else, homicidally.
(3) The firearm will be stolen and drop into the hands of a criminal
(4) The firearm will be accidentally discharged by your kids or yourself, either maiming or killing.
(5) The firearm will be wrongly used to harm someone in perceived but wrongful self-defense.
... By the way. America has by far the highest firearms per capita and yet still has some of the worst statistics. They are not deterrents. They do not make people safer. Neither was the Wild West a utopia — in fact Tombstone and Dodge City implemented gun control laws near the end of the era and reduced homicides. Neither are inner-cities when gangs know other gangs are armed.
Statistics don't lie. Every single person who had these things happen to them thought they were more responsible and wise, etc.
I’m not a child or mentally challenged. I don’t require every tiny minute thing around me to be idiot proof.
If you were, would you know? I've known so many people who claimed they were good drivers but were absolutely horrible. False confidence runs rampant in America.
Sorry brother, but this reads like you want the world to be this perfect safe space. And it never will be. Work with what you got, and do what you can. I would much rather have some “statistical risk” in my home, than face a situation where I had no tools to protect myself because I was relying on an organization to do that for me.
The math doesn't lie. You aren't safer. Even in an emergency, there are a range of options that don't involve cops that improve your odds of surviving, including fleeing, hiding, and even cooperating. Funnily-enough, all lead to a better outcome than thinking you're some kind of badass hero.
You want to protect yourself? Get good locks, some cameras, and a large dog or two. Convicted burglars note they were deterred more from a large dog.
Change can come, but we need to advocate for what other countries already have: A reduction of firearms on the streets. Reducing supply increases cost. Reducing firearm concentration means the effective lethality of the average criminal drops. Simple economics.
By the way: Offensive Gun Uses ALWAYS have the advantage over Defensive Gun Uses.
Let's pretend we're in a game and all armed with squirt-guns and I just so happen to be playing the ""bad guy with a squirt-gun."" At any given moment, it's my interest to (a) rob you, or (b) squirt you in cold blood. Now maybe...Maybe 1 in 100 or 1,000 times I'd fumble somehow. But seeing how I have the element of surprise (and determination to use) at any given moment of any given day of any given year, and (2) you more or less must wait for me to be a threat in the first place means the defender is always at a MAJOR disadvantage. Which means it's a losing race no matter how much you saturate the market.
Even if you got the drop on me in that 1 in 100 times, it doesn't matter because it still benefits the offensive individual an order-of-magnitude. I mean if I'm being mugged with or without my family, I'm just going to give them my stuff. It's meaningless compared to my life or loved ones and now I run the risk of making myself a target as opposed to my property. Do I really think I can react even if I have my firearm holstered on my side while someone else already has the draw on me? If you feel this confident, I'd love to play that game with you and and make a betting-game out of it.
If I am a mass-squirter (don't.), then a weapon with greater range of spray, more water in the reservoir, and a squeeze-and-hold would amplify my capacity to spray others. (Case-in-point: see the 1997 North Hollywood shootout)
Now you understand why our firearm-related homicides are higher than any other Western OECD nation.
Now you understand why our total homicides are an outlier among Western OECD nations.
There is no correlation with reducing homicides and firearm possession / ownership
Again, statistically, you and your family are more likely to survive a violent encounter by (a) fleeing, (b) hiding, (c) cooperating, and/or (d) calling law-enforcement.
By mitigating the proliferation of firearms in society, you're addressing the problem from the opposite side. This has the added benefit of lowering impulse-related rage-induced homicides (e.g., bar fights, domestic disputes), reducing child-safety accidents, and suicides. It also has the added benefit of moving the illegality to a precursor to homicide and be proactive about stopping a bad guy before they harm someone, as opposed to having to wait reactively.
And when minorities are threatened by cops, what's your solution then? What is the exact moment you're advocating that people fire on police?
Gun owners don't give a fuck about minorities, they just want to sell more guns and look cool on the internet with their "need it and not have it" catch phrase.
How do your family members rate on the "not needing" scale? Because a record number of teenagers are blowing their brains out with daddy's gun that he wanted to "have but not need".
Because a record number of teenagers are blowing their brains out with daddy's gun that he wanted to "have but not need".
How would not having a gun at home have prevented it? You don't need a gun to kill yourself and assuming, that those people would have lifed a happy life if they wouldn't have had acces to a gun is simply wrong.
All you're doing is demonstrating how little you know (or care) about how suicide works.
Of course, it's not exactly uncommon for gun owners to just assume the world aligns to their "gut feeling", no fact checking required.
Means reduction is a huge part of suicide prevention. Methods that require more planning or are more survivable result in thousands of lives saved every year, with only 1 in 10 people who survive a suicide attempt going on to die by suicide.
But what's a few more bodies for gun owners to sweep under the rug right? Surely it will never be your children. It's just another consequence that other people have to suffer for your hobby.
So don't worry about the actual studies or statistics. Just go with how you reckon it works -- it's not like it will kill anyone.
Edit: Quick reminder for the pro-gun community that votes are public on Lemmy and instance admins can see your sock puppets. Reddit style brigading isn't going to work here.
Again a foolish answer, I know of more than one case, where people who failed at their suicide attempt just tried it a second time. You can't really blame guns for social factors. No one pulls the trigger by accident.
EDIT: I think it's also important to note, that I think people who really want to kill themself will just choose the most effective way.
people who really want to kill themself will just choose the most effective way
Guns are only about 80% effective at suicide attempts. There are some 100% effective ways that are barely more complicated... yet pulling a trigger is still the most popular in the US.
Again a foolish answer, I know of more than one case, where people who failed at their suicide attempt just tried it a second time
Thank you for this perfect answer -- I couldn't have asked for a more perfect demonstration of how deeply flawed and self-centered pro-gun logic is.
There is an entire world's worth of suicide statistics and study out there, because it's allowed to be studied without an American death-cult opposing it. In most countries, that research is actively encouraged since it saves lives.
But don't worry about those mountains of evidence, you "know a couple of people" so it must all be wrong.
No one pulls the trigger by accident.
Sure they do. In America, legal gun owners routinely kill people by accidentally pulling the trigger. From toddlers getting hold of a gun and killing themselves to hunters throwing a loaded gun into the back seat and blowing away a passenger, it happens about as often as mass shootings do.
EDIT: I think it's also important to note, that I think people who really want to kill themself will just choose the most effective way.
I was worried that people would claim my "they're just doing it for attention" comment was putting hyperbolic words into your mouth but nope, you're just going to actually say it.
itt: those in the priveledged position to rely on the state for defense of self and community would rob others of the ability to enforce their bodily autonomy and community defense.
'only the [fascist] cops should be armed' brain worms,
enforcing the capital owning class' monopoly of violence (against ourselves),
The only thing keeping the American government from full on tyrany is the first amendment. The only thing keeping the American government from abolishing the first amendment is the second.
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.
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.
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.
Because people have ar15s
came to say this
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
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.
You're right, sorry I meant the Taliban
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.
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.
Ask Vietnam, or Afghanistan.
....both sides live here though and speak the same language. It's hardly a fair comparison.
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.
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.
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.
It was North Hollywood, with illegally modified weapons and home made body armor
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?
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.
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?
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.
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!
They probably need it because you have an AR15.
Can't I ask both?
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.
But why do you need an AR-15? That wouldn't do much against a tank. Why not get artillery instead? 🤔
You've got a good head on your shoulders friend.
Yeah like a literal civil war cannon, or a modern missile system.
The fat fucks parading around in their plate carriers frothily screaming "shall not be infringed" at traumatised school children aren't going to fire on a tank.
Most of them won't even wear a mask in a pandemic to protect their countrymen, they're definitely not going to die in battle for them. It's who they want to be in their fantasies, not who they actually are.
You know what a lot of them would do though? Enthusiastically vote a fascist and then fire into crowds of people protesting fascist policies.
Why not ask both?
The person who made the meme can only think of one thing at a time. Probably hormones.
Maybe because of people like you, armed to the teeth for no rational reason whatsoever?
Yes, cops need tanks to beat AR-15s, not because they're an occupation force that exists to ensure the oligarchy can't be threatened.
You don't need an APC to beat rifle fire.
That they're terror weapons, not a reasonable counter to small arms, which have existed for decades in the form of armored SWAT vans and reinforced patrol car bodies for a fraction of the price.
I always find the self righteousness of bootlickers fascinating.
Why are you more interested in excusing the boot and disarming the people rather than asking why the funds can't be spent on stopping the circumstances that create violence before it starts?
This highlights a weird side effect of weapons rights. The right to own weapons by the citizens to protect themselves from government tyranny, combined with the need for law enforcement to arm themselves adequately against heavily armed citizens breaking the law, becomes an arms race between the citizens and their country, with whoever is better funded being the winner.
Telling the citizens to drop their weapons doesn't mean the cops drop theirs. Telling the cops to stop arming themselves against citizens just sends them to their death during confrontations.
I suggest we all go play video games instead
But didn't you hear? Video games is the root cause of all of this!
Yep there were never shootings before violent video games.
None with high scores, at least.
Most of that hysteria was about GTA, which in hindsight is really a pretty deep satire of the violent American mentality. Kinda the classic "freaking out about how we should censor a creative work we don't understand" thing.
The real winner, are weapon manufacturers.
Pretty sure the answer to both is little peepees.
Cool it with the toxic masculinity
Wasn't these basically donated because the military had too many? I understand them completely. The SWAT units needs armored trucks, even in Sweden they have Sandcats. The options were these extremely cheap former military MRAPs that are bulletproof, or buy armored civilian vehicles which costs multiple hundreds of thousands.
I'd bark up the tree of military spending rather than the police accepting hand-me-downs.
If I remember correctly pretty much every small town in the US has a ridiculous SWAT team like this. I think this kind of equipment is rare in Sweden.
why not both?
Probably one is because of the other, dontcha think?
Police militarization is not because of citizens having arms. Rather, overproduction by the military trickles down into surplus sales to domestic police, and they eagerly gobble it up for various reasons such as "they like power", "they like to feel like big men", etc. They aren't outgunned against anything besides a civilian uprising.
My best guess is that this is just one of many things they were able to grt acceas to using federal subsidy programs. The very famous Obama-era 1033, but also The Department of Homeland Security's "Urban Areas Security Initiative".
We all know that they can be used by SWAT, ATF, etc. When it may be needed - but they also get used to intimidate protestors and violate their rights.
Something something Killdozer something something...
https://youtu.be/8OzKxKdsBq8
Okay, but why do you need an AR-15?
The wildest thing the police in Denmark have is a slightly modified old mercedes minibus or something with bullet proof windows and tough tyres etc
https://blog.bilbasen.dk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/MIK-Sikret-indsatsk%C3%B8ret%C3%B8j-Mandskabsvogn.HOLL%C3%86NDER1-1-1024x683.jpg
Apart from that one vehicle they have some mini busses and such for transporting. But they arent really special, or built specifically for the police or whatever.
Det altid spændende når salatfadet sendes ud
That would make a great camper conversion.
Why do I need a gun? Because I'm part of a minority and some guys in white ropes want me dead
The guys in white robes bought a gun just as easily and they're thrilled to hear you're armed because it's all the excuse they need to execute you in the street.
Because they won't actually be wearing white robes. They'll just look like any other generic white American male, and they're going to kill you long before you find out their political opinions.
You've sold your minority group out to the gun lobby and now you're doing their astro-turfing for free.
And you think that me not having a gun would have prevented them from killing me? If yes, in what way?
You don't just support but advocate laws that arm those men in white robes.
You escalate the problem for everyone else and then have the gall to jump online and tell people its cool, because you've got your gun to keep you safe.
You're not a hero. You're the reason black children get shot in the face for ringing doorbells.
No. Black children get shot in the face for ringing door bells because of right-wing fear mongering and deeply entrenched bigotry that exists whether or not minorities arm themselves. You can make the case that bi_tux isn't making anything better and is possibly making it worse but saying they are the cause is a disgusting lie that takes the blame off those that truly deserve it.
So you openly admit that some people are incapable of controlling their emotions and that they can be manipulated into murdering vulnerable people including children... But they still get your big rubber stamp of approval to buy all the semi-automatic weapons they want?
If you're disgusted by the idea of "taking the blame off those that truly deserve it", then your own behaviour should sicken you.
Most gun owners just try and pretend that responsibility begins and ends with the shooter and that their own words, actions and votes had nothing to do with it. You however, just lean right into open hypocrisy.
You've got no problem casting the blame wider. Your post opened with the idea that it was "right-wing fear mongering" to blame for gun violence against minorities. Fox News to blame? Completely reasonable!
But blaming the "responsible gun owners" whose unsecured firearms arm thousands of criminals and suicidal teenagers? A gun-lobby that doubled their donations to Republicans to $16 million a year following Sandy Hook? People spreading bullshit hero fantasies online?
That's apparently disgusting.
You made up a lot of stuff there. You are grasping because you don't want to own your shameful behavior. Base your comments on what I actually said and on reality.
I based my comment on exactly what you said. I'm not going to fall for your awkward emotional manipulation, so save it for your family.
The flipside of that argument is folks who wear pointy white caps on weekends really don't like when minorities also have rights to gun access and it makes them squirm a little. A lot of racist people are all bark and no bite and just like to put on a tough guy persona (but of course there's a lot of racist people who will kill someone if given the opportunity)
As long as there's as many weapons in this country as there are, I think it's more important to breed a culture of gun safety before gun restrictions ever have a chance of taking hold
A left-wing, pro-gun fantasy instead of a right-wing, pro-gun fantasy but a fantasy nevertheless.
Racists today are feeling more emboldened than they have for 40 years and minorities are no safer.
The guns did nothing and the promises were just hollow propaganda designed to sell guns to both racists and people scared of armed racists.
Too bad that (1) doesn't make you any safer in reality, (2) increases several vectors of risk to you and your family disproportionately, (3) just benefits gun lobbyists and muddies the water of national debate.
I would rather... live in a country where cops are there to protect me.
Rural areas... that's reasonable.
But see, I live in Spain, most of Spain is "rural areas" except on the coast and a few larger cities inland:
There are maybe 1 gun per 3 people in rural areas in Spain, probably fewer because some city folk also have them, yet those are enough to protect against the wildlife.
What kind of aggressive wildlife would the US have, that would require 6 guns per person? A velocirraptor infestation? 😉
(actually... wasn't one of the dangers in the US, to meet a bear or a cougar... which guns do nothing against?)
I said not one word about cops, buddy.
When those tools predispose you to a greater risk than the thing it's alleged to resolve, then you're quite literally shooting yourself in the foot.
I'd rather use science and statistics as opposed to these heroic fairy tales not grounded in reality.
You are actually in more danger.
It is quite literally more likely that:
... By the way. America has by far the highest firearms per capita and yet still has some of the worst statistics. They are not deterrents. They do not make people safer. Neither was the Wild West a utopia — in fact Tombstone and Dodge City implemented gun control laws near the end of the era and reduced homicides. Neither are inner-cities when gangs know other gangs are armed.
Statistics don't lie. Every single person who had these things happen to them thought they were more responsible and wise, etc.
If you were, would you know? I've known so many people who claimed they were good drivers but were absolutely horrible. False confidence runs rampant in America.
The math doesn't lie. You aren't safer. Even in an emergency, there are a range of options that don't involve cops that improve your odds of surviving, including fleeing, hiding, and even cooperating. Funnily-enough, all lead to a better outcome than thinking you're some kind of badass hero.
You want to protect yourself? Get good locks, some cameras, and a large dog or two. Convicted burglars note they were deterred more from a large dog.
Change can come, but we need to advocate for what other countries already have: A reduction of firearms on the streets. Reducing supply increases cost. Reducing firearm concentration means the effective lethality of the average criminal drops. Simple economics.
By the way: Offensive Gun Uses ALWAYS have the advantage over Defensive Gun Uses.
Let's pretend we're in a game and all armed with squirt-guns and I just so happen to be playing the ""bad guy with a squirt-gun."" At any given moment, it's my interest to (a) rob you, or (b) squirt you in cold blood. Now maybe...Maybe 1 in 100 or 1,000 times I'd fumble somehow. But seeing how I have the element of surprise (and determination to use) at any given moment of any given day of any given year, and (2) you more or less must wait for me to be a threat in the first place means the defender is always at a MAJOR disadvantage. Which means it's a losing race no matter how much you saturate the market.
If I am a mass-squirter (don't.), then a weapon with greater range of spray, more water in the reservoir, and a squeeze-and-hold would amplify my capacity to spray others. (Case-in-point: see the 1997 North Hollywood shootout)
By mitigating the proliferation of firearms in society, you're addressing the problem from the opposite side. This has the added benefit of lowering impulse-related rage-induced homicides (e.g., bar fights, domestic disputes), reducing child-safety accidents, and suicides. It also has the added benefit of moving the illegality to a precursor to homicide and be proactive about stopping a bad guy before they harm someone, as opposed to having to wait reactively.
And when minorities are threatened by cops, what's your solution then? What is the exact moment you're advocating that people fire on police?
Gun owners don't give a fuck about minorities, they just want to sell more guns and look cool on the internet with their "need it and not have it" catch phrase.
How do your family members rate on the "not needing" scale? Because a record number of teenagers are blowing their brains out with daddy's gun that he wanted to "have but not need".
How would not having a gun at home have prevented it? You don't need a gun to kill yourself and assuming, that those people would have lifed a happy life if they wouldn't have had acces to a gun is simply wrong.
All you're doing is demonstrating how little you know (or care) about how suicide works.
Of course, it's not exactly uncommon for gun owners to just assume the world aligns to their "gut feeling", no fact checking required.
Means reduction is a huge part of suicide prevention. Methods that require more planning or are more survivable result in thousands of lives saved every year, with only 1 in 10 people who survive a suicide attempt going on to die by suicide.
But what's a few more bodies for gun owners to sweep under the rug right? Surely it will never be your children. It's just another consequence that other people have to suffer for your hobby.
So don't worry about the actual studies or statistics. Just go with how you reckon it works -- it's not like it will kill anyone.
Edit: Quick reminder for the pro-gun community that votes are public on Lemmy and instance admins can see your sock puppets. Reddit style brigading isn't going to work here.
Again a foolish answer, I know of more than one case, where people who failed at their suicide attempt just tried it a second time. You can't really blame guns for social factors. No one pulls the trigger by accident.
EDIT: I think it's also important to note, that I think people who really want to kill themself will just choose the most effective way.
Guns are only about 80% effective at suicide attempts. There are some 100% effective ways that are barely more complicated... yet pulling a trigger is still the most popular in the US.
Thank you for this perfect answer -- I couldn't have asked for a more perfect demonstration of how deeply flawed and self-centered pro-gun logic is.
There is an entire world's worth of suicide statistics and study out there, because it's allowed to be studied without an American death-cult opposing it. In most countries, that research is actively encouraged since it saves lives.
But don't worry about those mountains of evidence, you "know a couple of people" so it must all be wrong.
Sure they do. In America, legal gun owners routinely kill people by accidentally pulling the trigger. From toddlers getting hold of a gun and killing themselves to hunters throwing a loaded gun into the back seat and blowing away a passenger, it happens about as often as mass shootings do.
I was worried that people would claim my "they're just doing it for attention" comment was putting hyperbolic words into your mouth but nope, you're just going to actually say it.
A gun didn't save Philando Castile. A gun didn't save Breonna Taylor. Maybe guns don't protect minorities from cops.
We want an APC but can't you make it look like 40% more Mad Max?
I'm probably wrong, I thought this was an MRAP.
A false dilemma crossed with whataboutisms and cherry-picking.
Did I get it right? There's a lot of bad-faith arguments going on there so I may have missed one.
So Steven Seagal can run over your dog, next question.
lol, I got a tank
Get out of the tank!
itt: those in the priveledged position to rely on the state for defense of self and community would rob others of the ability to enforce their bodily autonomy and community defense.
'only the [fascist] cops should be armed' brain worms,
enforcing the capital owning class' monopoly of violence (against ourselves),
a negative peace at the expense of justice.
you know-- bootlickers.
To defend against the tools with arsenals of weapons based on military ones? I mean, neither should be a thing in this society, but here we are.
they get it for free once the military is not using it anymore
1033 program. Because I guess the police unions weren't acting enough like local occupational juntas, apparently
The only thing keeping the American government from full on tyrany is the first amendment. The only thing keeping the American government from abolishing the first amendment is the second.
Mexico?
That's from Pulaski County Arkansas. Former Confederate State just doing former Confederate State things.