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

[QUOTE=Mr. Magoolachub;42462704]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.[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre[/url]

[QUOTE=Apache249;42462723][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre[/url][/QUOTE] I am aware of the Virginia Tech massacre, I'm not saying mass shootings are now impossible in Australia, they're obviously not, but it's pretty clear that they're a hell of a lot less likely.

[QUOTE=Mr. Magoolachub;42462736]I am aware of the Virginia Tech massacre, I'm not saying mass shootings are now impossible in Australia, they're obviously not, but it's pretty clear that they're a hell of a lot less likely.[/QUOTE] Look at the murder weapons. [editline]8th October 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr. Magoolachub;42462704]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.[/QUOTE]

Before you go arguing about having too much equipments, at least its not this: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRt1aNsNM0c[/media] Look at how horribly equipped this fuckers are

[QUOTE=Apache249;42462748]Look at the murder weapons. [editline]8th October 2013[/editline][/QUOTE] Yes they were handguns, I get it, I am aware of the Virginia Tech massacre and it's details. That's why I said it's obviously not impossible but a lot less likely as the statistics clearly show. As long as you have any kind of gun it's pretty obvious you can achieve a mass shooting, but it's a lot less likely with a handgun than an assault rifle, and it's even less likely when it's harder to easily get a handgun.

[QUOTE=Mr. Magoolachub;42462766]Yes they were handguns, I get it, I am aware of the Virginia Tech massacre and it's details. That's why I said it's obviously not impossible but a lot less likely as the statistics clearly show. As long as you have any kind of gun it's pretty obvious you can achieve a mass shooting, but it's a lot less likely with a handgun than an assault rifle, and it's even less likely when it's harder to easily get a handgun.[/QUOTE] Him being incompetent made it less likely. The handgun(s) was more than capable of a mass murder event.

[QUOTE=Apache249;42462774]Him being incompetent made it less likely. The handgun(s) was more than capable of a mass murder event.[/QUOTE] ??? What part of 'it is not impossible to achieve a mass shooting with a handgun' have I not made clear. I get it, I'm not debating it, it is simply a lot less likely compared to being equipped with a weapon such as an assault rifle. And when it is made harder to get even a handgun, it then becomes even LESS likely. Statistics demonstrate this.

[QUOTE=Mr. Magoolachub;42462792]??? What part of 'it is not impossible to achieve a mass shooting with a handgun' have I not made clear. I get it, I'm not debating it, it is simply a lot less likely compared to being equipped with a weapon such as an assault rifle. And when it is made harder to get even a handgun, it then becomes even LESS likely. Statistics demonstrate this.[/QUOTE] What statistic are you citing, exactly?

[QUOTE=Apache249;42462807]What statistic are you citing, exactly?[/QUOTE] The one I posted on the previous page? [img]http://guncontrol.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/1995-2006-1.png[/img] the graph is made from info from the Australian Beareau of Statistics just in case you're wondering, so it's not biased

[QUOTE=Mr. Magoolachub;42462824]The one I posted on the previous page? [img]http://guncontrol.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/1995-2006-1.png[/img] the graph is made from info from the Australian Beareau of Statistics just in case you're wondering, so it's not biased[/QUOTE] How is that supposed to prove that a assault rifle would likely have led to a more devastating outcome in a mass shooting?

[QUOTE=Apache249;42462847]How is that supposed to prove that a assault rifle would likely have led to a more devastating outcome in a mass shooting?[/QUOTE] It's not, it's meant to prove that the harder it is made to obtain a gun the less likely there is to be a mass shooting at all. The handgun vs an assault rifle just seems like common sense to me, especially if you're a bad shot, more bullets in less time probably = more deaths. The only thing that could possibly back me up in terms of statistics is that pre-2003 it was basically impossible to get anything but a handgun, which continued to lead to drops in firearm homicide, and then when it was made harder to get even a handgun the number dropped harshly again.

[QUOTE=Mr. Magoolachub;42462668]I am quite sure I just stated that the definition is exactly the same as America's.[/QUOTE]It's the "not quite" part I was referring to, which came off as some ridiculous, holier-than-thou "my country is better than yours," remark that is neither appropriate nor accurate.[QUOTE=Mr. Magoolachub;42462668]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.[/QUOTE]So? I'm not disputing that, and I never was. Per capita, national homicide rates in the United States are higher than Australia's.[QUOTE=Mr. Magoolachub;42462668]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.[/QUOTE]Adorable, I can cut your sarcasm with a knife. Anyway, the real issue with gun control is safety and saving lives. Unfortunately for Australia, your firearm homicides have been almost directly traded for fatal stabbings. [img]http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/aic/research/homicide/stats/weapon_trends.png[/img] Taken from: [url]http://www.aic.gov.au[/url] Yeah... On the upside, violent crime is slowly and steadily decreasing worldwide, and Australia's no exception! So there's that.[QUOTE=Mr. Magoolachub;42462668]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][i]Holy shit, really?[/i] I was totally not aware of that, wow, thanks for letting me know. You are truly a scholar and a gentleman, and I'm so glad I've decided to join in this discussion.

What I've never understood about american "beat" cops, is why they don't wear body armour of any kind, but still carry a fire arm. If you give them a side arm because you expect them to have to use lethal force to protect themselves, then why not give them something that will actually protect them if shot at/stabbed.

The reason Australia has so little fire arm violence is because of the Port Arthur massacre where 35 people died, shortly after that guns because super hard to get. "The Port Arthur massacre remains one of the deadliest shootings worldwide committed by a single person" [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)[/url]

This is bullshit, its an armored car, big whoop. It's not like its got weapons mounted on it. This is like when police commissioned old APCs with the guns removed and people started screaming about having TAAAAANKKKSS Couldn't care less about swat getting better protection. What would be nice on the other hand is to stop hearing about every department with a good budget using SWAT for anything and everything. I don't know wether its some retarded logic about a need for a show of force or dominance, but why are swat being used for situatons that used to be solved just by gumshoe police work, and solved much less violently? Because this shit, and no knock warrants leads to this shit: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQvDn9MEtNo[/media] Seriously? You had to blow his fuckin door up and invade his family's home in the dead of the night to arrest him? You couldn't have just waited till he went to get some groceries or some shit? SWAT is supposed to be tactially minded, and idk, it seems to me blowing up someones door and charging in with guns and screaming isnt good tactics, it isnt going to make the guy think "oh its the police, i better surrender" its going to make him think "oh fuck people are here to kill me and my family, wheres my fuckin gun". You can see in the video once he realizes its the police he gives up and is communicating quite clearly. Swat may as well be called Gunz And Loud Noises because thats what most departments do now. Blow everything up, dont announce yourself until you're kicking in doors and then wonder why people shoot you. Rush into an unknown area to grab a guy who doesn't need to be removed and then wonder why your guys get shot. Meanwhile that whole situation could've been circumvented by just waiting for him to go down to the store for some milk. With half the cost, and none of the risk.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;42463097]It's the "not quite" part I was referring to, which came off as some ridiculous, holier-than-thou "my country is better than yours," remark that is neither appropriate nor accurate.So? I'm not disputing that, and I never was. Per capita, national homicide rates in the United States are higher than Australia's.Adorable, I can cut your sarcasm with a knife. Anyway, the real issue with gun control is safety and saving lives. Unfortunately for Australia, your firearm homicides have been almost directly traded for fatal stabbings. [img]http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/aic/research/homicide/stats/weapon_trends.png[/img] Taken from: [url]http://www.aic.gov.au[/url] Yeah... On the upside, violent crime is slowly and steadily decreasing worldwide, and Australia's no exception! So there's that.[i]Holy shit, really?[/i] I was totally not aware of that, wow, thanks for letting me know. You are truly a scholar and a gentleman, and I'm so glad I've decided to join in this discussion.[/QUOTE] I am unsure why you think that when you reply like an asshole to me you don't deserve a reply like an asshole back. Also that is very hardly a direct trade.

[QUOTE=jaegerisacunt;42463423]This is bullshit, its an armored car, big whoop. It's not like its got weapons mounted on it. This is like when police commissioned old APCs with the guns removed and people started screaming about having TAAAAANKKKSS Couldn't care less about swat getting better protection. What would be nice on the other hand is to stop hearing about every department with a good budget using SWAT for anything and everything. I don't know wether its some retarded logic about a need for a show of force or dominance, but why are swat being used for situatons that used to be solved just by gumshoe police work, and solved much less violently? Because this shit, and no knock warrants leads to this shit: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQvDn9MEtNo[/media] Seriously? You had to blow his fuckin door up and invade his family's home in the dead of the night to arrest him? You couldn't have just waited till he went to get some groceries or some shit? SWAT is supposed to be tactially minded, and idk, it seems to me blowing up someones door and charging in with guns and screaming isnt good tactics, it isnt going to make the guy think "oh its the police, i better surrender" its going to make him think "oh fuck people are here to kill me and my family, wheres my fuckin gun". You can see in the video once he realizes its the police he gives up and is communicating quite clearly. Swat may as well be called Gunz And Loud Noises because thats what most departments do now. Blow everything up, dont announce yourself until you're kicking in doors and then wonder why people shoot you. Rush into an unknown area to grab a guy who doesn't need to be removed and then wonder why your guys get shot. Meanwhile that whole situation could've been circumvented by just waiting for him to go down to the store for some milk. With half the cost, and none of the risk.[/QUOTE] Then he'd lawyer up, his partners would destroy everything in the house and half the neighborhood would be threatened.

[QUOTE=Swilly;42465251]Then he'd lawyer up, his partners would destroy everything in the house and half the neighborhood would be threatened.[/QUOTE] Uh he could lawyer up regardless if you have enough evidence for a no knock warrant, you have enough evidence to make a case against him. contrary to popular belief most drug dealers aren't scarface, most are just dudes trying to make extra cash on the side. [editline]9th October 2013[/editline] but hey tell me again about how great it is to make a family fear for their lives just on the off chance he has time to flush the drugs down the toilet in the 5 seconds it wouldve taken you to announce yourself before blowing his door off the hinges

[QUOTE=jaegerisacunt;42465426]Uh he could lawyer up regardless if you have enough evidence for a no knock warrant, you have enough evidence to make a case against him. contrary to popular belief most drug dealers aren't scarface, most are just dudes trying to make extra cash on the side. [editline]9th October 2013[/editline] but hey tell me again about how great it is to make a family fear for their lives just on the off chance he has time to flush the drugs down the toilet in the 5 seconds it wouldve taken you to announce yourself before blowing his door off the hinges[/QUOTE] You clearly don't know how criminal organizations work and think police can solve everything.

[QUOTE=Mr. Magoolachub;42462869]IThe handgun vs an assault rifle just seems like common sense to me, especially if you're a bad shot, more bullets in less time probably = more deaths.[/QUOTE] Common sense is wrong. Both a handgun and semi-automatic rifle (assault rifles have never been legal) fire a single round every time you pull the trigger, but the handgun fires a round much more damaging and likely to result in a fatality at point-blank range, and is much easier to conceal and carry magazines for. There's a good reason why FBI statistics show that 98% of firearm homicides in the US are committed using handguns.

[QUOTE=SKEEA;42455827]The Army has a huge amount of MRAP's that we don't need anymore, so instead of just mothballing them, they give them to other US agencies and whatnot. It helps them get new equipment, and it helps the Army reduce the amount of MRAP's sitting around.[/QUOTE] Take your filthy logic out of here! This a logic-free "Fuck da poleez"/"Omg Police State!" zone only.

[img]http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111217200830/saintsrow/images/2/27/STAG_soldier.jpg[/img] wow what's next authorizing the Daedelus?

[QUOTE=a203xi;42458622]Uh, no, its to fill the pockets of military contractors and the people who manufacture this shit. God you are ignorant.[/QUOTE]Yeah, because military contractors are going to get a cut of the money from donating second-hand equipment from the military to local law enforcement :v:

[QUOTE=Mort and Charon;42463397]What I've never understood about american "beat" cops, is why they don't wear body armour of any kind, but still carry a fire arm. If you give them a side arm because you expect them to have to use lethal force to protect themselves, then why not give them something that will actually protect them if shot at/stabbed.[/QUOTE] Most cops (if the department can supply them) wear Kevlar vests with trauma plates. It'll only stop some of the bullets, and most-all of the knives but thats better than none.

Well either you restrict firearms in the country or you have a police force that can actually stand up against them, you can't have your cake and eat it too, unless you want north hollywood to happen every other day

Sometimes, I see these kinds of things and I get irrationally frightened because I imagine these guys ramming my fucking door in, pinning me to the floor and placing a gun at my head all because I used pirated movies. Am I being a little too paranoid? :v:

[QUOTE=Mr. Magoolachub;42465142]I am unsure why you think that when you reply like an asshole to me you don't deserve a reply like an asshole back. Also that is very hardly a direct trade.[/QUOTE]I explained why I chose to reply like I did. Your unwavering devotion to being unnecessarily pedantic to the point of sanctimony aside, note I did say that they're "almost directly," meaning, not [i]quite[/i] directly, but close enough. In fact, it appears your firearm legislation hasn't done anything at all, the violent states (and territories) are still violent. Sure, you don't have as many mass shootings, but you're still left with [i]actual violent crime[/i] and that's just the way things are everywhere, so yeah. Either way, Australia didn't have that many mass shootings to begin with, so you can't claim that firearm laws have made a dent in the short time they've been active.[QUOTE=areolop;42467058]Most cops (if the department can supply them) wear Kevlar vests with trauma plates. It'll only stop some of the bullets, and most-all of the knives but thats better than none.[/QUOTE]Yeah, and ultimately even the strongest armor is only so effective. I'm sure a double-barrel, two trigger shotgun firing slugs at near point-blank range would crush somebody's ribcage even with full level IV protection.

[QUOTE=Flazer210;42467610]Sometimes, I see these kinds of things and I get irrationally frightened because I imagine these guys ramming my fucking door in, pinning me to the floor and placing a gun at my head all because I used pirated movies. Am I being a little too paranoid? :v:[/QUOTE] [media]http://youtube.com/watch?v=yKlxy1ZFhMA[/media]

[QUOTE=SKEEA;42455827]The Army has a huge amount of MRAP's that we don't need anymore, so instead of just mothballing them, they give them to other US agencies and whatnot. It helps them get new equipment, and it helps the Army reduce the amount of MRAP's sitting around.[/QUOTE] The Army spent so God Damn much money on MRAP'. I still remember my last day in the Army, on Ft Campbell (a few months ago). There were a bunch just sitting in the various motorpools. That been said, I'm with SKEEA on recycling military vehicles for other Govt' agencies, despite how much I loathe the .gov.

[QUOTE=Savyetski79;42469836]The Army spent so God Damn much money on MRAP'. I still remember my last day in the Army, on Ft Campbell (a few months ago). There were a bunch just sitting in the various motorpools. That been said, I'm with SKEEA on recycling military vehicles for other Govt' agencies, despite how much I loathe the .gov.[/QUOTE] Yeah man, the 101st is really bad with the amount of vehicles sitting around. 96th ASB here has a billion LMTV's, 1113 Humvees, and a lot of HEMTTs. They use them a total of zero times. You also see all of the tanks and portable bridgelayers in that one motor pool on market garden. Such waste, it boggles the mind.