Edit: Removed comment unnecessarily insulting to ugly strippers
The ATF is busy 4am porch-stepping on law abiding gun owners, shooting their women, children, and dogs in the process.
I don't like it when police get exempted from these laws. Why are they allowed to buy post-86 machine guns? The rest of us have to buy machine guns registered prior to 1986 or get a machine gun manufacturing license. Pre-86 machine guns are very expensive at auctions, but since the police are exempt from this they are allowed to buy comparably dirt-cheap machine guns brand new. Make the same rules apply to them, and if that means they can no longer afford machine guns, so be it. And all the better if that excess paperwork stops them from using grenades too.
If there's anyone that's time-proven competent at tactical equipment handling, it's law enforcement. It's sad to see the guys on the frontlines denied equipment when soldiers can fire $50k missiles at mud huts and request air support. This is coming from a 2A supporter.
And you might think it's sad, but I'm not shedding a single tear for the police who don't have access to $50k missiles and air support. This too, is coming from a 2A supporter.
> "If there's anyone that's time-proven competent at tactical equipment handling, it's law enforcement"
This in particular is a strange claim. Most cops spend the bare minimum time at gun ranges that is required of them. If there is anyone that is well trained with any sort of grenade, I expect it to be soldiers not police officers. And on that note:
> Methods: Ten years of data were extracted from Dallas Police Department records. LEOs who were involved in a shooting in the past 10 years were frequency matched on sex to LEOs never involved in a shooting. Military discharge records were examined to quantify veteran status and deployment(s). Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the effect of veteran status and deployment history on officer-involved shooting involvement.
> Results: Records were abstracted for 516 officers. In the adjusted models, veteran LEOs who were not deployed were significantly more likely to be involved in a shooting than non-veteran officers. Veterans with a deployment history were 2.9 times more likely to be in a shooting than non-veteran officers.
> Conclusions: Military veteran status, regardless of deployment history, is associated with increased odds of shootings among LEOs. Future studies should identify mechanisms that explain this relationship, and whether officers who experienced firsthand combat exposure experience greater odds of shooting involvement.
I want police to have access to simple technology without crappy paperwork. I want most influential civilian paper work like silencer tax stamps and the NFA to be invalidated, too. It makes no sense.
I don't think technology is the solution to these problems. Not this sort of technology anyway. At the end of the day police will still have to physically interact with suspected criminals. And in America, where common people often own guns, that means risking their lives. But just how risky is it actually? I think we need more training to put these risks into perspective. The odds of any particular cop ever getting shot are quite low, but cops who consume cop media on cop websites and hang out on cop facebook groups or other cop echo chambers created by social media algorithms will naturally be exposed to more headlines about cops getting hurt. I believe these fear-mongering echo chambers induce an unjustified level of fear in the police officers who participate in them. Giving the police more high tech toys won't assuage these irrational fears; if anything I think it will might validate those fears. If you're a well-meaning cop who spends half your weekend watching videos of police in shootouts with criminals, then on monday your boss gives you a bunch of high tech body armor and drones, wouldn't that validate your perception of having an exceptionally dangerous job?
> I want most influential civilian paper work like silencer tax stamps and the NFA to be invalidated, too.
Here we agree, particularly with respect to silencers, which are safety devices. But for as long as those laws exist for the common people, I oppose police having exemptions to them.
[0] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ex-georgia-deputy-acqui...
If all else fails, the officer has to explain in detail why he shot an unarmed man holding his eyes in pain, "in the heat of the moment".
Sheesh
Police aren’t well trained.
Because of this when they use any lethal or non lethal device innocent bystanders are frequently hurt maimed and even killed, especially when police use flash bangs.
I shot $30k missiles at mud huts, AMA.
Daunte Wright would disagree