America's police are looking more and more like the military; program transfers military-grade weapo - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;42460379]A SWAT Team's uniform isn't based off that of the department they work for. We have SWAT Teams's rockin' the old blue and black, while others wear digital camouflage. It's all up to the department managing that particular team, there's no national standards for what a SWAT Team should wear or use or even what it should be called.[/QUOTE] Also the color of the uniforms has absolutely nothing to do with the lethality of a SWAT team. If anything, it's for morale.

[QUOTE=Apache249;42460332]Australian Police Tactical Groups [IMG]http://l.yimg.com/ea/img/-/110423/230411gentrg1_16r4ot3-16r4ot7.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://securityscholar.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/ct-police.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://www.nachohat.org/albums/police_tactical_response_group/police_trg_02.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] Sorry, guess I was a bit unclear. I'm saying there are much fewer cases of assault with high power weaponry, and nobody is shit-scared of police with such weaponry.

[QUOTE=areolop;42460340]You kidding me? Do you realize how strapped departments are for getting equipment to protect their assets (officers, property, citizens)? Newsflash: They're broke. These programs allow for departments to get equipment at a lower cost. Theres nothing bad here. We dont have "grenade launchers", or "tanks". We have tear-gas launchers and bearcats. We dont even have true "assault rifles". Before you even go about complaining about this think about if you worked for a city that you love till death, but they cant afford to buy you a vest, a long rifle, a taser. These are luxury items for departments, but are considered the "standard" look for police officers by the public.[/QUOTE]They are considered the standard look for police by overly complacent morons. I know how funding for the police works in this country, considering I used to want to be one, and have done research on that kind of stuff before. That doesn't mean they need all the shit they are buying these days, they are wasting more money than they need to, and they are just getting sold the idea that they need this equipment from the same shills that sold us the last couple of wars. Literally, the same people. Don't forget, this is taxpayer money that is going into every one of these purchases in one way or another.

[QUOTE=Mr. Magoolachub;42460411]Sorry, guess I was a bit unclear. I'm saying there are much fewer cases of assault with high power weaponry, and nobody is shit-scared of police with such weaponry.[/QUOTE] I would love to say that nobody is worried about "police militarization" here, but because of yellow-ass journalism, I can't.

[QUOTE=a203xi;42460418]They are considered the standard look for police by overly complacent morons. I know how funding for the police works in this country, considering I used to want to be one, and have done research on that kind of stuff before. That doesn't mean they need all the shit they are buying these days, they are wasting more money than they need to, and they are just getting sold the idea that they need this equipment from the same shills that sold us the last couple of wars. Literally, the same people. Don't forget, this is taxpayer money that is going into every one of these purchases in one way or another.[/QUOTE] So they dont need long rifles, duty pistols, armored vehicles? They do need it. You're the ignorant one to think that they dont. The taxpayer money is going to be spent anyway, so you might as well spend it in a way that your assets are protected.

[QUOTE=Mr. Magoolachub;42460411]Sorry, guess I was a bit unclear. I'm saying there are much fewer cases of assault with high power weaponry, and nobody is shit-scared of police with such weaponry.[/QUOTE] In that case, shouldn't you be more worried when you police still have "militarized" stuff like in those pictures, even though you have "much fewer cases of assault with high power weaponry?"

[QUOTE=Apache249;42460404]Also the color of the uniforms has absolutely nothing to do with the lethality of a SWAT team. If anything, it's for morale.[/QUOTE] [del]I never said [I]anything[/I] like that, what are you doing?[/del]

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;42460567][del]I never said [I]anything[/I] like that, what are you doing?[/del][/QUOTE] Yeah I was just adding onto your post.

[QUOTE=Mr. Magoolachub;42460359]Right, my political career which doesn't exist, and if it did would likely not be based in the Sensationalist Headlines section of Facepunch, as that in and of itself would be political suicide. Hence why I don't understand your usage of the term. Allow me to rephrase: I understand the term, and you used the term wrong. And it's really not irrelevant as your 'gun culture' would likely go away/change with gun control.[/QUOTE] You think I meant "here" as in facepunch? I was referring to the US. It is irrelevant due to your nation is water locked, you have no land borders, thus restriction and banning of guns is quite simple, as the only methods of entry are by water. We have 2 huge borders going to Canada and Mexico, along side massive water borders with other countries around the gulf coast. Putting gun culture in quotes to some might even be considered insulting as it can be inferred you believe it it doesn't really exist or is nonsensical. You literally do not understand what you are arguing.

[QUOTE=Explosions;42460562]In that case, shouldn't you be more worried when you police still have "militarized" stuff like in those pictures, even though you have "much fewer cases of assault with high power weaponry?"[/QUOTE] No? There are also no cases of the police being fuckheads with the weapons, and I have no reason to be paranoid that there would be. I can't say as much about America, but I don't remember reading anything along the lines of "American police shoot civilian with assault rifles for stealing slurpee from 7-11, 10 dead in crossfire, martial law enacted" in the headlines either. I said there were much fewer cases, not nil. Why should I automatically be scared that specialised sections of the police have better weapons than I readily have access to just because they have them and I don't? [editline]9th October 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=deadoon;42460645]You think I meant "here" as in facepunch? I was referring to the US. It is irrelevant due to your nation is water locked, you have no land borders, thus restriction and banning of guns is quite simple, as the only methods of entry are by water. We have 2 huge borders going to Canada and Mexico, along side massive water borders with other countries around the gulf coast. Putting gun culture in quotes to some might even be considered insulting as it can be inferred you believe it it doesn't really exist or is nonsensical. You literally do not understand what you are arguing.[/QUOTE] Oh, you say I don't understand what I'm arguing? Okay guess that's that then time to pack my shit in, that's just too solid for me. I [b]literally[/b] don't understand too, I mean shit, a non-literal lack of understanding would be bad enough, but a literal one? Shit.

[QUOTE=Mr. Magoolachub;42460699]No? There are also no cases of the police being fuckheads with the weapons, and I have no reason to be paranoid that there would be. I can't say as much about America, but I don't remember reading anything along the lines of "American police shoot civilian with assault rifles for stealing slurpee from 7-11, 10 dead in crossfire, martial law enacted" in the headlines either. I said there were much fewer cases, not nil. Why should I automatically be scared that specialised sections of the police have better weapons than I readily have access to just because they have them and I don't?[/QUOTE] Population of australia: 2013 estimate 23,207,702 Population of united states:2013 estimate 316,823,000 Of course we have more cases. [QUOTE=Mr. Magoolachub;42460699] Oh, you say I don't understand what I'm arguing? Okay guess that's that then time to pack my shit in, that's just too solid for me.[/QUOTE] What basis is feasible to be used to restrict gun access in the US and would be accepted by the majority of the general populace and not cause immense amounts of violence towards those trying to enact it?

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;42459000] You're forgetting town police, who even less funded than the Uni / Sheriffs are. My town relies on the state police to provide support for anything that requires more than 2 officers to deal with.[/QUOTE] They are police departments like any other. They tend to only appear in special circumstances. West Yellowstone, for instance, is a small town with a high tourist volume, necessitating local PD. They are not a factor in this equation because they do not serve high risk warrants or deploy their own SWAT teams because they literally do not have enough people in the department to create a tactical team. Other situations can create an extremely small police department, such as an underfunded sheriff's department or unusually high crime in a small region. Again though, not tactical response, and still generally above a sheriff's department in the cases of overlapping jurisdiction.

[QUOTE=deadoon;42460721]Population of australia: 2013 estimate 23,207,702 Population of united states:2013 estimate 316,823,000 Of course we have more cases.[/QUOTE] Wow who would have guessed! With your obviously superior intellect, maybe you could also extrapolate that I meant relatively, as I am quite aware your country has more people in it! [QUOTE=deadoon;42460721]What basis is feasible to be used to restrict gun access in the US and would be accepted by the majority of the general populace and not cause immense amounts of violence towards those trying to enact it?[/QUOTE] What you're asking me for a reason to enact gun control? I think that's what you're asking me. Cases of mass shootings in Australia before gun control: Not zero. Cases of mass shootings in Australia after gun control: Zero.

Heard talk that some Police have a habit of power tripping when they put on military gear. All the fancy special forces tactical shit goes to their heads. Not sure what to think about that.

[QUOTE=Apache249;42460354]-Picture-[/QUOTE] Well there we go. Make sense, as I would rather have police running around looking like police as opposed to looking like, or trying to look like, the military.

[QUOTE=Camundongo;42460887]Well there we go. Make sense, as I would rather have police running around looking like police as opposed to looking like, or trying to look like, the military.[/QUOTE] It's nothing more than a fashion trend. Military units look different than their predecessors. SWAT teams are doing the same thing. When a SWAT unit decides to wear green instead of black, what real difference does it make?

[QUOTE=Apache249;42460971]It's nothing more than a fashion trend. Military units look different than their predecessors. SWAT teams are doing the same thing. When a SWAT unit decides to wear green instead of black, what real difference does it make?[/QUOTE] To me, police units wearing camouflage or khaki/olive uniforms seems to be starting to blend how they want people to perceive them from police to paramilitary units, but that's just my view on it. If you perceive it to be meaningless then that's equally valid, since this is all about the police are perceived anyway.

While I'm worried that it might all go to their heads (in some cases) if they get too much shit I have to say, I'd rather the cops have them than the gangs

[QUOTE=Camundongo;42461005]To me, police units wearing camouflage or khaki/olive uniforms seems to be starting to blend how they want people to perceive them from police to paramilitary units, but that's just my view on it. If you perceive it to be meaningless then that's equally valid, since this is all about the police are perceived anyway.[/QUOTE] SWAT teams are by definition paramilitary units.

[QUOTE=Mr. Magoolachub;42460735]Wow who would have guessed! With your obviously superior intellect, maybe you could also extrapolate that I meant relatively, as I am quite aware your country has more people in it! What you're asking me for a reason to enact gun control? I think that's what you're asking me. Cases of mass shootings in Australia before gun control: Not zero. Cases of mass shootings in Australia after gun control: Zero.[/QUOTE] I live in Australia, and I think you might be overlooking something. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting[/URL]

It's probably already been said but if the United States didn't have a gun culture as ridiculous as it does then all this 'militarisation' wouldn't need to happen.

CTs are obviously fullbuying pistol round, cash hacks!

Whenever these articles come out about "OMG MILITARIZED POLICE AMERICA POLICE STATE" I always somehow feel the need to point out how much more militarized Russian police tactical units are. [img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-8co130fdTus/T4Zb585MX8I/AAAAAAAAASQ/5jW_0qe0JbY/s1600/ac6b853466d413274dcfe7c00f766e7f.jpg[/img] Those are guys from Moscow SOBR, the Russian equivalent to SWAT. Next time you want to bitch about American police becoming militarized because they wear body armor and carry M4s, remember that Russian cops have belt fed machine guns.

[QUOTE=plunger435;42461217]I live in Australia, and I think you might be overlooking something. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting[/URL][/QUOTE] Officially the Australian definition of a mass shooting is the death of 4 or more, so not quite. (this is also the fbi's definition)

[QUOTE=Mr. Magoolachub;42461625]Officially the Australian definition of a mass shooting is the death of 4 or more, so not quite. (this is also the fbi's definition)[/QUOTE]Australia doesn't have mass shootings, everybody! Ignore these two dead bodies and that pile of wounded people, Huan Yun Xiang can't shoot straight so it [i]doesn't count.[/i]

[quote] Except if someone[b] fleas[/b] the scene of an auto-accident that leaves you paralyzed.[/quote] I'm now picturing some random asshole running up to a car crash and dumping fleas everywhere. But on topic, I don't see a big problem with this. As others have said, civilians can easily get their hands on some dangerous weapons.

I live in a small, rural, deserty town with a decent police force due to all the money from the gold mines. The swat here, ages ago, wore regular blue and black until recently when they got themselves actual camouflage that helped them blend into the environment. There's more than enough tan fields out here to make them looking a little but like the military worth while so they don't get shot by the crazy fucker in a trailer.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;42462092]Australia doesn't have mass shootings, everybody! Ignore these two dead bodies and that pile of wounded people, Huan Yun Xiang can't shoot straight so it [i]doesn't count.[/i][/QUOTE] ? I am quite sure I just stated that the definition is exactly the same as America's. Your number of mass shootings, by your, and our definition, because they are the same, is most certainly not 0. Additionally, after that shooting stricter gun control on handguns was enacted. [img]http://guncontrol.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/1995-2006-1.png[/img] Well shit, there doesn't seem to be [b]any[/b] link between stricter gun laws and less shootings at all in Australia, gun control must be useless, someone still managed to kill two people! Useless crappy laws, one rifle per house I say. Edit: Also I'm pretty sure people who are wounded and not dead don't generally decide to all lie in a pile together, nor are they all placed on one hospital bed in a pile.

[QUOTE=Mr. Magoolachub;42462668]? I am quite sure I just stated that the definition is exactly the same as your country. Your number of mass shootings, by your, and our definition, because they are the same, is most certainly not 0.[/QUOTE] I think we can agree that it was an attempted mass shooting.

[QUOTE=Apache249;42462678]I think we can agree that it was an attempted mass shooting.[/QUOTE] Sure I'd agree to that, but I'd also say that it's far more likely it would have been an actual mass shooting if he had an assault rifle instead of 6 handguns, of which he used one or two.