Trump expected to lift ban on military gear to local police forces

a reply to: face23785

Feel free to continue ignoring the ACTUAL intent and meaning behind that post, as I shall now feel free to ignore your attempts to cause trouble.

originally posted by: kyleplatinum

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: kyleplatinum

The right to have access to this stuff doesn't mean you've militarized your agency.

No, but if/when they DO decide to accept the equipment, as many have done, then they ARE militarised.

A militarised police force, advocated for by the very same people who cry loudly about the right to bear arms against that very kind of tyranny - because "leftists".

It's hypocrisy at it's absolute finest.

Again, the use of some military equipment does not classify an agency as militarized.

This order is to help in protecting public safety and supporting state and local police.

Some people need to calm down a few notches.

This is another great point. Police departments weren't running around with grenade launchers and slicing people up with bayonets before Obama did this. It was nothing but a political stunt that accomplished nothing besides making it harder for LE to get the proper gear for responding to certain types of situations. It was the right move to undo it.

a reply to: Kryties

You're gonna ignore me because I'm calling you out for being a dishonest person. His wording was clear. He was talking about shooting someone who was attacking another person. Everything else you've insinuated then was you dishonestly making # up. That's a scumbag move and a lot of people don't appreciate it.

originally posted by: kyleplatinum

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: kyleplatinum

The right to have access to this stuff doesn't mean you've militarized your agency.

No, but if/when they DO decide to accept the equipment, as many have done, then they ARE militarised.

A militarised police force, advocated for by the very same people who cry loudly about the right to bear arms against that very kind of tyranny - because "leftists".

It's hypocrisy at it's absolute finest.

Again, the use of some military equipment does not classify an agency as militarized.

This order is to help in protecting public safety and supporting state and local police.

Some people need to calm down a few notches.

It IS militarised mate. They are using military equipment, dress like soldiers and use violent tactics on protesters before trying any other methods. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck - guess what - IT'S A DUCK. Not a swan, or a tiger, or an elephant - a DUCK.

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Kryties

You're gonna ignore me because I'm calling you out for being a dishonest person.

No I'm going to ignore you because you are deliberately misconstruing what I said and trying to fit it into your own agenda. I have no interest in participating in that.

Have a great day.

a reply to: Kryties

The only one misconstruing things around here is you. You can't have an honest discussion on this topic, so you have to make # up. You know most reasonable people are ok with shooting someone in self defense, so instead you had to pretend he was talking about shooting an innocent person. That's false. You're a liar.

originally posted by: Kryties


That's not what I said at all. You are also making the wrong assumption that I "run a risk of dying" on a regular basis. YOUR society may be like this, many others AREN'T.

Ill reiterate what others have said here: don't lie.

Figures Show Biggest Crime Increase In A Decade

Police-recorded crime has risen by 10% across England and Wales – the largest annual rise for a decade – according to the Office for National Statistics.

The latest crime figures for the 12 months to March also show an 18% rise in violent crime, including a 20% surge in gun and knife crime. The official figures also show a 26% rise to 723 in the homicide rate, which includes the 96 cases of manslaughter at Hillsborough in 1989.

More alarmingly, the statisticians say the rise in crime is accelerating, with a 3% increase recorded in the year to March 2015, followed by an 8% rise in the following year, and now a 10% increase in the 12 months to this March.

The accelerating rise in crime comes as Home Office figures show a further fall of 924 in the past year in the number of police officers, to 123,142 in England and Wales. This is the fewest officers in England and Wales since 1985. Police numbers have fallen by 20,592 since 2010.

You run the risk of death every single day just like the rest of the world.

None of which fit the bill for the definition of "mass murder". This has been talked about extensively.

Ya'll talked about it enough until you were able to move the goalposts to support your argument? Keep moving that goal post and eventually only Mao and Hitler will be mass murderers, and you Brits can believe you live in the land of unicorns.

Yes, we still have murders, but not ANYWHERE near the rate you have over there, by whatever means AND accounting for population differences. These statistics are easy to find.

Yeah, but you don't share a southern border (that is largely unguarded) with Mexico. In fact, if you look at the top 3 countries by murder rate, and all 3 lie just to the south of the US in central America. Mexico is 16th, guatamala is 10th, belize is 7th....we aren't doing so bad considering we share this hemisphere with a bunch of psychos and don't bother to control access on the thousands mile long border that is their entry point.

You should compare the northern states not sharing this border. The murder rate of non southern states is roughly the same as the UK. It does wonders surrounding yourself with civilized people, that is for sure. But it speaks nothing about America.

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: kyleplatinum

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: kyleplatinum

The right to have access to this stuff doesn't mean you've militarized your agency.

No, but if/when they DO decide to accept the equipment, as many have done, then they ARE militarised.

A militarised police force, advocated for by the very same people who cry loudly about the right to bear arms against that very kind of tyranny - because "leftists".

It's hypocrisy at it's absolute finest.

Again, the use of some military equipment does not classify an agency as militarized.

This order is to help in protecting public safety and supporting state and local police.

Some people need to calm down a few notches.

It IS militarised mate. They are using military equipment, dress like soldiers and use violent tactics on protesters before trying any other methods. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck - guess what - IT'S A DUCK. Not a swan, or a tiger, or an elephant - a DUCK.

You are very wrong, and you know it, you are also dense.

The military itself is completely different in so many ways than a police agency using some military equipment.

Keep your looks like this and that stuff for someone else mate, lol.

Plenty of individuals have military equipment and they definitely are not militarized.

I can have the best cooking equipment in the world to help me cook, but I would not be classified as a top chef.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan


Ill reiterate what others have said here: don't lie.

I live in Australia. Those figures are for the UK. I am not lying - do I get an apology?

You run the risk of death every single day just like the rest of the world.

Those UK figures, do they come ANYWHERE NEAR the crime rate figures for the U.S. - even with population taken into account?

People in my country generally don't fear the possibility that someone around us may hurt us as it just doesn't happen as often. We don't feel the need to carry guns to "protect" ourselves because we simply don't feel threatened.

Ya'll talked about it enough until you were able to move the goalposts to support your argument? Keep moving that goal post and eventually only Mao and Hitler will be mass murderers, and you Brits can believe you live in the land of unicorns.

I was referring to the OFFICIAL DICTIONARY DEFINITION of mass murder which specifies 4 people or more killed in a violent act. No goalposts have been moved.

en.wikipedia.org...

Mass murder (sometimes interchangeable with "mass destruction") is the act of murdering a number of people, typically simultaneously or over a relatively short period of time and in close geographic proximity.[1][2] The FBI defines mass murder as murdering four or more persons during an event with no "cooling-off period" between the murders. A mass murder typically occurs in a single location where one or more people kill several others.[3][4] Many acts of mass murder end with the perpetrator(s) dying by suicide or suicide by cop.

You should compare the northern states not sharing this border. The murder rate of non southern states is roughly the same as the UK. It does wonders surrounding yourself with civilized people, that is for sure. But it speaks nothing about America.

Do you have some figures showing that the murder rates in the northern states are comparable to those in the UK - or even better yet my own country Australia?

a reply to: kyleplatinum

It's equally about appearances mate.

For a police force to show up in military hardware, using military weapons and armour, to dispel say a crowd of protesters is shocking to anyone who thought you lived in a free society where freedom of speech is allowed and freedom from tyranny is apparently upheld.

I can have the best cooking equipment in the world to help me cook, but I would not be classified as a top chef.

This is an important point because they are NOT the military, they're more dangerous because they are trying to ACT like the military. Take into account that police work is one of the best options for returning vets for employment as well...

It was weapons grade pepper spray they used on sitting protesters in Berkeley, too, so let's not pretend like it's just better helmets they're getting.

originally posted by: face23785

This is another great point. Police departments weren't running around with grenade launchers and slicing people up with bayonets before Obama did this. It was nothing but a political stunt that accomplished nothing besides making it harder for LE to get the proper gear for responding to certain types of situations. It was the right move to undo it.

A lot of gear including boats and the big tire trucks being used down in Huston are 1033 equipment. T%his all is basically free gear for the police to use their funds for other things too.Clinton started it in 1997, so nothing new here other than Obama trying to please the anti-cop protesters he had to deal with.

a reply to: Kryties

What is classified as murder varies, especially statistically. In the US our government likes to hide stuff under their politics, so we get ridiculous stuff like hispanic folks being called "caucasian" on the stats.

That said, you can see the per capita by state here:

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Cool, but that's not what I asked. Can you provide some comparison statistics to back up your claim that the murder rates in the northern states are comparable to those in the UK (or Australia)?

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Cool, but that's not what I asked. Can you provide some comparison statistics to back up your claim that the murder rates in the northern states are comparable to those in the UK (or Australia)?

Can i? Probably. Am I going to? Nope. Got other stuff to do.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Cool, but that's not what I asked. Can you provide some comparison statistics to back up your claim that the murder rates in the northern states are comparable to those in the UK (or Australia)?

Can i? Probably. Am I going to? Nope. Got other stuff to do.

OK then don't bring it up next time if you couldn't be bothered posting the evidence.

On one hand... I think we've been going waaaay to easy on violent street gangs...so I can see how this can be tempting.

On the other hand, the chances for abuse of authority, mistakes, corruption, theft, etc., are too high. We can crack down on gangs without doing This.

I am Not for this! It's too risky and it puts the constitutional rights of every citizen in the crosshairs of a rather arbitrary system.

a reply to: 3n19m470

But.....but.....

Leftists! Antifa! Hillary!

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Cool, but that's not what I asked. Can you provide some comparison statistics to back up your claim that the murder rates in the northern states are comparable to those in the UK (or Australia)?

Can i? Probably. Am I going to? Nope. Got other stuff to do.

OK then don't bring it up next time if you couldn't be bothered posting the evidence.

The evidence was posted...you just want me to compile it for you. Ain't got time for that. Feel free to look through the list. 2 things Ill point out:

- States in the north tend to have lower murder rates
- states with less population tend to have lower murder rates.

The first dynamic has a possible explanation (lax border security against countries with the higest per capita murder). The second...seems logical. More people crammed into a smaller space with more lead contamination yields more violent crime. You can Google up the maps that show (on a neighborhood level) how lead contamination in large US cities has effected violent crime.

consequently, the higher crime areas in the US (cities) have the strictest gun laws.

Make of all that what you will.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Mate. Seriously. You DID NOT post the comparison statistics to back up your claim that the murder rate in the northern states is comparable to that of the U.K. All you did was provide a link to American murder stats with no comparison to prove your claim. When asked again to provide the evidence - you say that you're too busy to find it.......then come back in the thread and keep posting sizable posts.

I simply don't believe you now. I was willing to go along with you when you made the claim, provided you could show evidence, but now, after watching what you just did, I simply don't trust you any more.