pOliCe MiLiTaRiSaTiOn

[Bert]

Thread is pretty self-explanatory. I am curious about everyone's thoughts on the growing debate over "police militarisation" which is more often seen in the US but can also be seen in countries across the globe. In the US specifically, individuals complain about the use of armoured vehicles such as MRAPs and in rare cases (most often on a state level) Bradley's (These were seen after the Boston Marathon bombing and people really had a fit about this). Personally speaking, I think people who whine about this are just stupid. I feel safe at night knowing that my relatively small local police force has the resources that are equal to a small private army, and can respond to any threat that may arise. But I know this is not the case for everyone here, as I know policing across the world can take up different forms. So I am generally just curious on everyone's thoughts and opinions on this topic.

 

[Bert]

Also on a side note, the Department of Defense gives away or gives drastic discounts on military gear such as camouflage, long guns, and armored vehicles. So in the US, your local department has to spend nothing, to put their officers in a better position to take action against any threat that may arise.

 

[CensoredExe]

The U.K. doesn’t need MRAPs and Bradley’s because our firearm laws aren’t retarded

 

[Generic Twat]

I feel safe at night knowing that my relatively small local police force has the resources that are equal to a small private army, and can respond to any threat that may arise.

I'll do you one better: I feel safe at night knowing that my police force doesnt need the resources equal to that of a small private army, because my laws (even though my country is far from the best nation ever) make it so the cops will never need to respond to a situation of such magnitude that an armoured car is necessary - because my country has regular laws for regular people.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

I think it should be countries such as Afghanistan or Iraq the have that type of equipment for the police. They are the ones most likely to come across RPG attack or something not in America.

A police officers greatest weapon should be his voice.

 

[Puma]

where r the cops when u need em LMAO

 

[Generic Twat]

Oi mate i ope you got a license for that bradley

 

[Bert]

Even with stricter firearms laws, this doesn’t prevent people from getting firearms. Or attacking without the use of firearms, and instead using something like a car, which has the ability to kill people.

 

[Generic Twat]

Even with stricter firearms laws, this doesn’t prevent people from getting firearms.

Yeah but it sure as hell makes it a lot harder to get a gun.

Or attacking without the use of firearms, and instead using something like a car, which has the ability to kill people.

Yeah but you can dodge a car, you cant dodge a bullet.

 

[Bert]

@Generic Twat I would lobe to see anyone try to dodge a car going 20 - 30 MPH that comes out of no where and drives down a sidewalk. Police are heavily armed to be able to take out the threat quickly without having to wait for swat n shit. I sure as hell won’t be dodging any cars anytime soon. Also keep in mind, bullets don’t always kill. Cars moving that fast will, due to severe head trauma amongst a variety of different reasons.

 

[Cole]

True, while the voice part stops working when a person that is mentally ill approaches you with a deadly weapon

 

[Alliat]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. (with guns)

 

[Generic Twat]

@Bert bert buddy I feel like you're cherrypicking scenarios here. You could hear a loud ass car coming from a mile away, you can't hear a supersonic bullet until it's too late - it's easier to dodge a car than it is to dodge a bullet and this is a fact.
Also, if you get shot up with an AK-47, a fully automatic rifle by some maniac I'd really like to see you survive after you take a dozen rounds to the body, and even if you were treated I bet you'd get a heart attack from the medical bills you'd receive anyways.

Police are heavily armed to be able to take out the threat quickly without having to wait for swat n shit.

Everywhere else in the modern world the cops aren't nearly armed as much as american cops, and they get the job done regardless. I don't think America sees that it DOES NOT NEED TO BE THIS WAY. I don't know WHY ANY civilian population would need such sophisticated weaponry. Keep in mind that I'm not saying guns should be fully banned, I'm just saying that civs do not need access to fully automatic and high caliber weapons in general. Who do you intend to fight with assault rifles anyways? I doubt a burglar, who is so desperate to turn a profit that he'd risk breaking into somebody's property, would have any kind of weapon that would warrant an assault rifle to be used as a countermeasure.

 

[Generic Twat]

guns sure as hell help people kill people

 

[Bert]

These puny Europeans forget that knives bars and chairs can be just as deadly as a firearm in the arms of certain individuals. Not sure what your department had access to in the US but I would assume it was a step up from German departments? Especially in Texas lmao

 

[Bert]

Just like any other weapon, knives, chairs, baseball bats, machetes. Can all be just as dangerous if the wrong person gets em

 

[Generic Twat]

@Bert you don't need to be very skilled to point and shoot someone, you need to have at least some skill to machete a dozen people to death.

 

[Bert]

@Generic Twat false. The reason there are less mass shooting than there actually are because it is extremely difficult to fire at a moving target from a variety of distances away. Often times these targets are fighting for their lives throwing objects and such at the shooter. A great deal of skill is required in most instances. Although there are some situations where you can just point and shoot, for the most part this argument isn’t valid

 

[Generic Twat]

and it's piss easy to come up close to a crowd of people and machete them to death? You'd get tackled and would have the shit beaten out of you before you even swung. If you aproached a crowd of people with a rifle you'd be able to shoot down at least two people before anyone actually did anything.

 

[Bert]

Why would anyone with a knife attack a crowd of people. Your argument is flawed because of the fact that attacks like this aren’t limited to one specific setting. Dozens of people could be murdered in a spread out setting picked off one at a time by a gun or a machete. Normally larger crowd setting have better security, especially after recent events