I was going to link a picture of a square peg and a round hole to illustrate how your evidence relates to your conclusion Vermi, but I couldn't find the right type of picture.
But... all of the stories you linked involve police-related shootings that appear unjustified (and I tend to give police the benefit of the doubt) based on the stories you linked. However, those shootings -- as unjustified as they may be -- have no relation to the police use of armored personnel carriers (I don't know the correct terminology, so G-First correct me if I'm off). One or two of the stories mentioned (I only read a few, not all) that the police rode to the scene in an armored carrier, but the shootings themselves took place outside of the carrier. So I'm not seeing the connection. I agree that they look tragic, but I don't think they support what you're attempting to argue.
But it did seem to me that there was a connection between the presence of assault rifles -- by both the police and civilians -- that resulted in unnecessary violence/death. If you want to argue about the symbolism of a police department owning an MRAP, go for it. Arguing about symbolism is a hamster on a wheel. I'm interested in this discussion because the same people arguing for an individual's right to own military grade equipment under the 2nd Amendment are the same people arguing against the need for LEOs to obtain military grade equipment [Note: This is a separate topic].
G-Fist]I think grenades and Mk-19's should be legal and unregistered.
I'm not sure if you believe in the individual right to own assault rifles Vermi, but I'm just curious if you've given any thought as to
why police departments feel the need to upgrade their equipment? Do you think it has anything to do with your position that individuals have the right to own bigger, more powerful, and more deadly weapons? Do you think that perhaps police departments are obtaining more powerful weapons/equipment because individuals are arming themselves with more powerful weapons and equipment?
