Should U.S. police be given excess military weapons?

[Czarcasm]

@Loach

What do you mean by “carrying guns?” A Prius can carry guns. A tank has a weapons system incorporated into the design. It’s primary purpose is the main gun. Armored personnel carriers can “carry guns” but the are designed to carry personnel. Remove the gun from an APC and it still works.

What I mean by “carrying guns” is that was the terminology used by several dictionaries, not me. Once again, if there is an official definition I’d be happy to use it.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Czarcasm

The definition of tank is “a heavy armored fighting vehicle carrying guns and moving on a continuous articulated metal track”, right? I just want to make sure that I use the correct words when it comes to this subject.

Your definition would seem to cover things like the Bradley or M113 that most knowledgeable people would not call a “tank”.

[Czarcasm]

@HurricaneDitka

Your definition would seem to cover things like the Bradley or M113 that most knowledgeable people would not call a “tank”.

Not MY definition-the DICTIONARY definition.

edited to add: I Googled “definition tank” and got this.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Czarcasm

I was just going off of several dictionary definitions. If there is an official government definition, please post.

Government definitions are probably FUBAR, but try looking at this page on the Army’s website to give you an idea of what we’re talking about. The first one, the Abrams, is a “tank”. The others are various forms of armored vehicles.

[RTFirefly]

@HurricaneDitka

Government definitions are probably FUBAR, but try looking at this page on the Army’s website to give you an idea of what we’re talking about. The first one, the Abrams, is a “tank”. The others are various forms of armored vehicles.

Whatever. In a civilian context, all but maybe the last two would be considered ‘tanks’ by most people.

You’re welcome.

[HurricaneDitka]

@RTFirefly

Whatever. In a civilian context, all but maybe the last two would be considered ‘tanks’ by most people.

You’re welcome.

Is ‘the vast majority of people are ignorant on such matters’ ever a good reason for ignoring reality and coddling their ignorance?

[Chimera]

@HurricaneDitka

Is ‘the vast majority of people are ignorant on such matters’ ever a good reason for ignoring reality and coddling their ignorance?

Can you see a reasonable civilian police use for an armored vehicle like that?

[DinoR]

@Czarcasm

Not MY definition-the DICTIONARY definition.

Even by that definition the vehicle pictured at the top of the article you cited pretty clearly is not a tank.

• It’s not tracked. (Not clear in the picture they posted but I’m pretty sure it’s the vehicle on the left. if you look at the picture there’s two separate vehicles which seem to fit this announcement from St Louis County Police Department that purchased them for their Tactical Operations unit.*
• It’s not heavily armored. It can stop up to .50 caliber. Light anti-tank weapons like an RGP-7 would cut through it like butter. When the front slope offers significant protection against things like Hellfire missiles then we’re talking about heavily armored.
• It may or may not have any capability to be armed. If you look at my picture there’s a rifle on a tripod. Maybe there’s some fixed connection but it sure looks like it could just be resting on top of the vehicle. If I lay on top of my car with my shotgun it’s not suddenly “carrying guns” by all but the loosest application.

*Incidentally those two vehicles were purchased new. They were not military surplus. They were funded by a grant from DHS but DOD wasn’t involved and the policy change isn’t related to the vehicle pictured. Take a look at some of the justifications provided for why they purchased the truck. It includes things like carrying all of their gear for a range of threats (to include CBRNE terror attacks) and operate as a command post in an area where they might come under small arms fire.

[Velocity]

So is the argument:

1. “All surplus military equipment can go to police, except the truly military-only ones, like battle tanks,” or

2. “Most surplus military equipment should not go to police, except for things like vests, helmets, etc.” or

3. “No surplus military equipment should go to the police?”

[Oakminster]

Here is a pretty good argument for police having some military equipment.

[Czarcasm]

@Oakminster

Here is a pretty good argument for police having some military equipment.

Can’t do The Tube at work-Can you give me a brief rundown?

[Reddy_Mercury]

No. Only riot police, SWAT, and the national guard should be allowed that level of weaponry. Your regular beat cop should just have his cap and pistol.

[Johnny_L.A]

@Oakminster

Here is a pretty good argument for police having some military equipment.

As I said earlier, I think this is where the militarisation started, when they had to borrow AR-15s from B & B Sales.

[Reddy_Mercury]

@RTFirefly

In an era where crime is down to the levels of 50 years ago, and job-related deaths to law enforcement officers have declined even more so, it strikes me as quite insane that anyone sees a need for police to get all this high-powered stuff.

Trump watches Fox News, and thinks that crime is at an all-time high and that our country is being overrun by foreign invaders. Statistics are for dumb, egghead Ivy League people. Smart people get told what to think by Fox News.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Chimera

Can you see a reasonable civilian police use for an armored vehicle like that?

Yes, in some rare cases I can see a a reasonable civilian police use for an unarmed APC / MRAP type armored vehicle.

[Oakminster]

@Czarcasm

Can’t do The Tube at work-Can you give me a brief rundown?

It’s the famous shootout after a bank robbery in California. Two armed robbers wearing body armor and using fully automatic weapons engaged in a prolonged fire fight with law enforcement. The cops had nothing to get through the body armor on the bad guys, and were largely kept at bay by vastly superior firepower until they were able to get some AR-15s from a local gun store. As **Johnny L.A. ** notes, this is probably the start of the movement to upgrade police equipment.

[Czarcasm]

@Oakminster

It’s the famous shootout after a bank robbery in California. Two armed robbers wearing body armor and using fully automatic weapons engaged in a prolonged fire fight with law enforcement. The cops had nothing to get through the body armor on the bad guys, and were largely kept at bay by vastly superior firepower until they were able to get some AR-15s from a local gun store. As **Johnny L.A. ** notes, this is probably the start of the movement to upgrade police equipment.

Thank you.
Any word yet on the text of Trump’s executive order?

[HurricaneDitka]

@Czarcasm

Any word yet on the text of Trump’s executive order?

I linked directly to it in post #45.

[Johnny_L.A]

@Czarcasm

Can’t do The Tube at work-Can you give me a brief rundown?

North Hollywood shootout

[Czarcasm]

@HurricaneDitka

I linked directly to it in post #45.

Thank you-I don’t know how I missed it.
To put it in perspective, here is a link to the original Order 13688 that this new order revokes. That should give us at least a rough idea of what is or isn’t allowed now.