• Trump prepares to lift limits on military gear for police
    81 replies, posted
I don't get why people are scared of the police getting grenade launchers, they already have grenade launchers. Where do people think tear gas grenades get launched from? This repeal of limits doesn't mean police are suddenly gonna just decide "fuck human life" and roll around in tanks and shoot up buildings with machine guns.
The only differences between a lot of surplus mil-spec equipment and civilian equivalents is price and brand names. Police departments can still but AR pattern rifles, tactical plate carriers, and military looking armored vehicles from civilian companies, the only problem is that they are being bought brand-new and are prohibitively expensive for a lot of departments. Surplus programs like this save police departments [i]a lot[/i] of money. And that saved money could go towards better training and things like body cameras or less lethal weapons. And on top of that, what would you guys do with the equipment? If it's not being sold to the police, then it's either being sold to civilians or scrapped, and I'm all for recycling and getting the most value out of equipment that was sold to the government for way more money than it's actually worth. And lastly, it's not like police departments are getting attack helicopters, main battle tanks, and belt fed machine guns. This is all just M113 APCs from the 80's, busted up and repaired MRAPS from Afghanistan, and cheap attachments for rifles. You can buy all of that, or something 90% similar on the civilian market, or from a surplus auction. Hell, I have my own mil-spec body armor sitting right next to my AR pattern rifle.
This is a dumb thing to have a problem with. Realistically it's probably not that much more expensive for a team to pick up a surplus MRAP or APC or something than it is for them to get an up armored command center or something similar. Shields, launchers, and rifles are stuff you literally can't make a reasonable argument for cops not to have access to.
The president and attorney general are avowed white supremacists, we do not need a more militarized police force right now
[QUOTE=Aide;52621663]So the police need more military equipment right.... Because 350 million firearms means we should equip them with equipment that the public can't get.[/QUOTE] Correction: The public can get. If I want, I can purchase or build a live Anti-Tank weapon, 40mm Grenade Launcher, ect. The only thing is that I'll need to pay a tax stamp of $200 per ammunition. The public can also purchase every military vehicle being currently used by the US government. [url=http://www.armyjeeps.net/armor1.htm]I can purchase a Leopard tank[/url], if I had the money to do so. With how much equipment the US Government is gonna need to get off their hands and such with the bring down from conflicts in the Middle East, I suspect we'll see a massive increase of weapons in civilian hands.
I don't see the reason why police would ever need a M113 when they already have those armored cars.
My only problem with giving the police M113's and MRAP's is the shear amount of maintenance that needs to be done to these vehicles on a regular basis. Like giving an M113 to a rural department would completely bankrupt them with maintenance costs. Hell, MRAPs are maintenance nightmares in the military.. I don't want to imagine how much it'd cost a police department to repair and maintain one. Rifles? Fine. Grenade launchers? Fine. Body armor and tac vests? Fine. But vehicles? Those things cost a metric FUCKTON of money to maintain.
[QUOTE=PaChIrA;52622319]I don't get why people are scared of the police getting grenade launchers, they already have grenade launchers. Where do people think tear gas grenades get launched from?[/QUOTE] The police have highly skilled summoners and magicians who can make a flashbang or smoke grenade magically appear at your feet like in Payday 2 :v:
[QUOTE=Judas;52622402]The president and attorney general are avowed white supremacists, we do not need a more militarized police force right now[/QUOTE] As much as I agree with this, local and state police departments aren't beholden to the whims of the President right? I don't really see what he has to do with this save for reinstating the program. Maybe it's a different story with the Attorney General, but I thought he was distancing himself from Trump recently? Or rather, Trump was distancing everyone from himself.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;52621460]So, we give small arms to Police Departments that need them, give them the ability to request MRAPs for their SWAT teams, and possibly get rid of a few military UAVs for simple traffic monitoring purposes. What's the big deal? Do you guys seem to forget that we live in a country with 350 million firearms?[/QUOTE] Militarising the police when the country is getting more politically unstable sounds like someone's getting ready to crack down on political dissidence.
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;52623204]Militarising the police when the country is getting more politically unstable sounds like someone's getting ready to crack down on political dissidence.[/QUOTE] It just goes to show how divided your house is Between democrats and republicans, and between the few in control and the lot in the dirt
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;52623204]Militarising the police when the country is getting more politically unstable sounds like someone's getting ready to crack down on political dissidence.[/QUOTE] Expect this military grade weaponry to be used on "far-left radicals" exclusivley, while neo nazis are allowed to assault and destroy shit on a regular basis because they represent true american values
[QUOTE=Judas;52623213]Expect this military grade weaponry to be used on "far-left radicals" exclusivley, while neo nazis are allowed to assault and destroy shit on a regular basis because they represent true american values[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Alxnotorious;52621506][I]Military state in 5 easy steps! Just add water![/I][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=SteakStyles;52621514]Given the events of the past few weeks this is disturbing to say the least. Bad enough he encouraged police to be 'tougher' on 'illegals', but outfitting them with mil surp seems like it could be bad news down the line.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Judas;52622402]The president and attorney general are avowed white supremacists, we do not need a more militarized police force right now[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Megadave;52621582]The problem is they don't need it. What's the one thing a fascist likes more than most things? A heavily armed police force.[/QUOTE] Are we ignoring that this program existed before 2015? Even Obama had it in its entirety for his first term and 3/4 of his second. Why isnt everyone jumping on his back and calling him a facist
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;52623204]Militarising the police when the country is getting more politically unstable sounds like someone's getting ready to crack down on political dissidence.[/QUOTE] Are we also going to ignore that US police are already militarised and allowing them access to milsurp doesn't change that? If anything it'll help them do their jobs better, and cheaper.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;52623396]Are we ignoring that this program existed before 2015? Even Obama had it in its entirety for his first term and 3/4 of his second. Why isnt everyone jumping on his back and calling him a facist[/QUOTE] Probably because they're not taking this one thing in isolation, this is just factoring in along with everything else trump has done and said.
The last time I remember police using heavy military gear was during the ferguson protests Was it necessary then? E: I think there was a case in Baltimore too
[QUOTE=Alxnotorious;52621506][I]Military state in 5 easy steps! Just add water![/I][/QUOTE] Texas has plenty of that so...
[QUOTE=Vlevs;52621475][t]https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8392/8477200991_f12a80350f_b.jpg[/t] Maybe Trump is just a closet cyberpunk fan.[/QUOTE] Everytime someone posts this thinking it is a real tank, and every time I have to step in and remind everyone it's not. It's a deactivated artillery piece being used for a public relations stunt. You don't think DARE drives around in tricked out sports cars because they brought one to your school once, so don't go thinking the police are blasting criminals with tanks (actually artillery, but everyone thinks it's a tank).
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52623596]Everytime someone posts this thinking it is a real tank, and every time I have to step in and remind everyone it's not. It's a deactivated artillery piece being used for a public relations stunt. You don't think DARE drives around in tricked out sports cars because they brought one to your school once, so don't go thinking the police are blasting criminals with tanks (actually artillery, but everyone thinks it's a tank).[/QUOTE] Well better question, is why the police department even bought a fucking SPG in the first place. PR is great and all, but it's an entirely useless piece of gear for a police department, and is a waste of tax payer's money.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;52621822]But there's still no reason for tracked vehicles or .50 cal weapons.[/QUOTE] Yesterday I read about the Sacramento Hostage Crisis where an angled glass door partially deflected a SWAT sniper's 7.62 bullet, which screwed over the SWAT team's plans by allowing the suspect to escape and kill several hostages. If a 7.62 bullet isn't stable enough to go through storefront glass without changing trajectory, then maybe there is an argument for giving .50 caliber rifles are to SWAT.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;52623396]Are we ignoring that this program existed before 2015? Even Obama had it in its entirety for his first term and 3/4 of his second. Why isnt everyone jumping on his back and calling him a facist[/QUOTE] because our fascist president is rolling back regulations meant to curb the militarization of the civilian police force just because it existsted before doesnt mean it wasnt bullshit then either even if all it did was make it more expensive for depts to obtain at least it was something in place instead of just letting get it on the cheap like why do the police need military equipment honestly what kind of riots are we having that necessitates it because clearly i am out of the loop
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;52621460]So, we give small arms to Police Departments that need them, give them the ability to request MRAPs for their SWAT teams, and possibly get rid of a few military UAVs for simple traffic monitoring purposes. What's the big deal? Do you guys seem to forget that we live in a country with 350 million firearms?[/QUOTE] Closer to 450 million. Not only that, you can legally own a tank with a WORKING GUN. I think the police should have ready access to everything your average citizen has access to, and then a bit more that can defeat it. I don't think street cops should be walking around like a SWAT officer about to breach a lunatic's hideout, but he should have a hefty weapon ready to go if he needs it. PD's should have armored vehicles if they need them. (One came in REAL handy during the North Hollywood shootout) The whole militarized police thing is such a stupid, stupid, concept. The citizens are militarized, in a way. Why shouldn't the police be In a country where a lunatic can go crazy with his AR-15, why wouldn't you want the people tasked to stop him to have access to plate carriers? Put in an extremely simple way: Don't you want the good guys to have what they need to defeat the bad guys? In a country like the USA, that means the police might need some fucking military equipment every now and then. Sorry if they look scary, but that's the way it is, otherwise you get circumstances where two guys hold off an entire police force completely immune to gunfire while the police scramble to gun stores to try and find something that works
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;52621460] What's the big deal? Do you guys seem to forget that we live in a country with 350 million firearms?[/QUOTE] So how are 1500 bayonets helping? [QUOTE=TheTalon;52623907] The whole militarized police thing is such a stupid, stupid, concept. The citizens are militarized, in a way. Why shouldn't the police be [/QUOTE] If you look back at the police worldwide within the last 50 years, having vehicles or weaponry that once served a military purpose now being used for the police is not a new thing at all. [img]http://68.media.tumblr.com/2e782e782a9dab70a819c8cb79435a2f/tumblr_mhczdqbCn51rcoy9ro1_1280.jpg[/img] In 1972, the police of Ireland used multiple "Humbler Pigs", military APCs and many of them are still used to this day. It's not like the concept is new at all, it's just that military vehicles are getting bigger and and more intimidating. Therefore people are more and more aware of them.
Sensationalist as fuck thread.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52623713]Yesterday I read about the Sacramento Hostage Crisis where an angled glass door partially deflected a SWAT sniper's 7.62 bullet, which screwed over the SWAT team's plans by allowing the suspect to escape and kill several hostages. If a 7.62 bullet isn't stable enough to go through storefront glass without changing trajectory, then maybe there is an argument for giving .50 caliber rifles are to SWAT.[/QUOTE] I don't think a .50 would suit police purposes very well due to the weight and bulk of the rifle. They should be using high end marksman rifles built for the role and either set up for high end penetrative .308 or something beefier like .300 WM. I don't think anyone really makes special purpose police sniper rifles anymore, but in the past there was the PSG-1, which is still in use with a few departments in the US. This rifle is specifically designed for the way police departments utilize sniper weapons. A gun like that in .300 WM would be a very good tool for police.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52624036]I don't think a .50 would suit police purposes very well due to the weight and bulk of the rifle. They should be using high end marksman rifles built for the role and either set up for high end penetrative .308 or something beefier like .300 WM. I don't think anyone really makes special purpose police sniper rifles anymore, but in the past there was the PSG-1, which is still in use with a few departments in the US. This rifle is specifically designed for the way police departments utilize sniper weapons. A gun like that in .300 WM would be a very good tool for police.[/QUOTE] I could think of a million hypothetical situations where existing police arsenals aren't adequate. Truncheon, pepper spray or 7.62 rifle, all can be used irresponsibly or even maliciously. It's not a question of the equipment, but the intention and disposition of those who are responsible for using it, as well as who they answer to. In other words, arbitrary restrictions on police equipment is meant to address a symptom (and fails consistently), not the root cause of why people fear police militarisation. In the ideal world free of corruption, I'd trust a well-trained and selective police force with anti-tank weapons for argument's sake, over fragmented forces with inconsistent but generally low standards with handguns. Basically this [QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52622248]Lol all the knee jerk reactions in this thread. You guys do know they already have or can get the majority of this stuff without it being "military surplus" right? (oooooo scary buzzwords) It's just cheaper for the departments and the town to buy surplus gear from people who don't need it anymore. The problem isn't how they are able to acquire this gear, but more how they intend to use it. The problem isn't going away with a quick bandaid fix of "ban x because it looks scary"[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52624036]I don't think a .50 would suit police purposes very well due to the weight and bulk of the rifle. They should be using high end marksman rifles built for the role and either set up for high end penetrative .308 or something beefier like .300 WM. I don't think anyone really makes special purpose police sniper rifles anymore, but in the past there was the PSG-1, which is still in use with a few departments in the US. This rifle is specifically designed for the way police departments utilize sniper weapons. A gun like that in .300 WM would be a very good tool for police.[/QUOTE] .50bmg would absolutely be over kill for the cops. Expensive ammo, expensive gun, fairly heavy gun. I agree, something like .300wm would probably be suited to police, small enough to still be suppressed, potent enough to negate light armor.
[QUOTE=Spetsnaz95;52621470]Assuming this is unironic, the issue is that the police is being granted [I]military hardware[/I]. You know, [I]weapons and vehicles designed to be used [B]in a warzone[/B][/I], not against thugs.[/QUOTE] Hell, even MY local police department has an MRAP. No idea why either, the last major crime we've had committed was the shootout at the local library, and I doubt an MRAP would have been suitable to deploy there. Learning that they're maintenance nightmares from this thread makes me feel slightly sick. [editline]28th August 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Megadave;52621582]The problem is they don't need it. What's the one thing a fascist likes more than most things? A heavily armed police force.[/QUOTE] There are very few instances where such hardware can be justified, such as the LA shoot-out or potential shoot-outs with drug cartels, but for the most part a normal police force during normal operations has absolutely no requirement of these things. Hell, they can't even seem to use non-lethal bean-bag rounds right. I still remember the homeless guy who was lethally shot because he had a knife he refused to put down, and then [I]after[/I] they shot him with lethal rounds, they hit him with the bean-bag and a K-9 unit. It's absolutely bonkers.
I'm in the category of people who otherwise wouldn't care about this if it weren't for the fact that its backed by President Trump and AG Sessions. [QUOTE=SpaceGhost;52623979]Sensationalist as fuck thread.[/QUOTE] Not really.
Obama's ban had me on the fence, while it banned surplus it did leave the option that police departments could apply for it and with proof they are trained and can operate the equipment safely they can get an order approved. If they misused equipment they could get their access revoked to equipment. However, I thought some of the items that were banned was pure stupidity. The ban was kinda pointless most departments already had equipment and could still get it through retail means. In reality opening this back up saves cities/counties some money. Hopefully the equipment is used responsibly. It challenges the mentality or image of police being warriors or guardians. Sadly you don't want police to be seen as a occupational force and for some communities that is the reality. Warrior mentality promotes the ideal that you are a conqueror and anyone who isn't you is the enemy. Realistically people who see themselves as warriors ignore other issues and make arrests instead of focusing on maintenance and quality of life issues as well. Not a good mentality... It's important we equip our police, but there should be a clause in there that if equipment is misused the DOJ investigates and you can lose access and or the equipment you got from the program.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.