>APCs are not "purely defensive". They're an intimidating presence
In that case, they can paint them pink.
In that case, they can paint them pink.
If it's a question, probably because of its association with night and darkness, and it's contrast with bright colors.
If it's a challenge, give me a basis because you're fighting common sense. I'm not here to convince you that black is intimidating in a way that pink is not.
If you're really this confrontational about "the color" black being tied to darkness since pre-history (not much of a stretch there) and the significance of darkness being the physical manifestation of something like "evil" (also since pre-history) EDIT: and why "evil" is "intimidating", then nobody should take your contributions to this discussion seriously.
EDIT: I just don't understand how your response of "if black is intimidating, why do they paint them tan for military use" is in any way an honest argument. Did you simply not even think of camouflage? There are more important tactical advantages in warfare than intimidation. And now I feel like I did the job that darkserside was trying to avoid.
I have, in fact if you see my replies to others you’ll see me point out that very thing. But people are going around saying the goal of painting it black is to be intimidating. If that were true then why doesn’t the military use the same tactic when they do want to look intimidating? This would imply it’s used for camo, like you said.
It’s not a race thing, don’t take it there because I most definitely am not.
Let’s make this real simple for you two what makes a black gun more scary or dangerous than one painted pastel? A rational human would say there’s no difference. A gun is a gun. But you have a certain class of people claiming very interesting and dangerous things about the looks of items. It has nothing to do with color, nobody is overtly calling you a racist, it’s a question to find out why you think the way you do because maybe public education on why guns are black is warranted.