5 ms·

So your solution is to just keep escalating?

by oneplane 6y ago

almost_usual 6y ago
When there is an active shooter in body armor wielding a high powered weapon you’re deescalating and saving lives.
- numpad0 6y ago
  Terrorists don’t wear body armors, and “power” of guns don’t matter as well. In fact, it gets weaker and weaker as guns improve because the required amount to “stop” a human had been grossly overestimated. .308 hunting rifle cartridge, still deemed necessary to stop charging wild animals, has muzzle kinetic energy of 3.5kJ. .223Rem for AR-15, used in wars against humans, is 1.8kJ, 9mmx19 used in latest “tactical self defense” PCCs is just 0.5kJ. Bullets are all deadly if it hits and when it hits.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- op03 6y ago
  What about if Godzilla is real and shows up?
  - almost_usual 6y ago
    Go back to Reddit. Between the technical incompetence of commenters on here and the substance of dumb comments like these I’m ready to take a break from HN.
  - numpad0 6y ago
    Conventional military weapons aren’t effective against a Godzilla, and nukes only strengthen them. Effective means are strong basic chemicals, another Godzilla class monster, or fricken lasers. It’s kind of a tangible realization of sense of grave defeat from WWII among Japanese population immediately post-war, hence weakened emphasis on militaristic means in its plot.
    - op03 6y ago
      Interesting points. I didn't make those connections, watching the 2019 American version King of Monsters yesterday. Bailed out one hour in feeling too much sensory overload. Might go finish it now.
farseer 6y ago
Do you have a choice? Either water down the second amendment and disarm the population or give the police what they need. I am not taking a side, simply stating the dilemna of law enforcement.
- henriquez 6y ago
  Watering down the second amendment would work to the extent that people wielding the guns were behaving lawfully in the first place, which is not relevant when we’re taking about armed confrontations with police. I have yet to see any statistics showing that militarizing the police makes them any more effective or safe.
  - petre 6y ago
    The obvious solution is to tax ammo proportinal to its military use. You want military grade armor piercing rounds to shoot tin cans at your birthday party? Fine, that's taxed 1000%. Normal 9 mm rounds suitable for handguns should obviously be taxed lower. It doesn't ban firearms, it just creates a supply problem for nutcakes and preppers buiding arsenals. Security companies and firing ranges could recover their ammo tax at the end of the fiscal year. Hobbists could shoot assault rifles at firing ranges, as opposed to their back yard. The police won't need surplus military gear then. Your neighbour won't be wounded from a stray bullet shot from an assault rifle ten buildings away.
    - numpad0 6y ago
      I think you guys have laws forbid civilian possession of military AP rounds in the US.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- tertiary 6y ago
  > Either water down the second amendment ... or give the police what they need That's a false dichotomy and misses the main point of the argument to reduce police militarization. Nobody is upset when SWAT responds to a school shooting or a terrorist act. The problem (I suppose a really good problem to have after all) is that those things almost never happen, even though they are the ones we see on the news and can quickly retrieve in our minds. You're more likely to die in a plane crash than in a terrorist act in the US. That begs the question: if militarized units don't have enough violent crime to respond to, but are still a full time unit then what do they respond to? The answer is why people are upset and it's because we are sending them to respond to drug offenses and to execute search warrants instead. Situations thay they inevitably end up escalating (on average) and killing people in. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2053168017712885 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/20531680177128...

So your solution is to just keep escalating?

almost_usual 6y ago

When there is an active shooter in body armor wielding a high powered weapon you’re deescalating and saving lives.

numpad0 6y ago
Terrorists don’t wear body armors, and “power” of guns don’t matter as well. In fact, it gets weaker and weaker as guns improve because the required amount to “stop” a human had been grossly overestimated. .308 hunting rifle cartridge, still deemed necessary to stop charging wild animals, has muzzle kinetic energy of 3.5kJ. .223Rem for AR-15, used in wars against humans, is 1.8kJ, 9mmx19 used in latest “tactical self defense” PCCs is just 0.5kJ. Bullets are all deadly if it hits and when it hits.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
op03 6y ago
What about if Godzilla is real and shows up?
- almost_usual 6y ago
  Go back to Reddit. Between the technical incompetence of commenters on here and the substance of dumb comments like these I’m ready to take a break from HN.
- numpad0 6y ago
  Conventional military weapons aren’t effective against a Godzilla, and nukes only strengthen them. Effective means are strong basic chemicals, another Godzilla class monster, or fricken lasers. It’s kind of a tangible realization of sense of grave defeat from WWII among Japanese population immediately post-war, hence weakened emphasis on militaristic means in its plot.
  - op03 6y ago
    Interesting points. I didn't make those connections, watching the 2019 American version King of Monsters yesterday. Bailed out one hour in feeling too much sensory overload. Might go finish it now.

farseer 6y ago

Do you have a choice? Either water down the second amendment and disarm the population or give the police what they need. I am not taking a side, simply stating the dilemna of law enforcement.

henriquez 6y ago
Watering down the second amendment would work to the extent that people wielding the guns were behaving lawfully in the first place, which is not relevant when we’re taking about armed confrontations with police. I have yet to see any statistics showing that militarizing the police makes them any more effective or safe.
- petre 6y ago
  The obvious solution is to tax ammo proportinal to its military use. You want military grade armor piercing rounds to shoot tin cans at your birthday party? Fine, that's taxed 1000%. Normal 9 mm rounds suitable for handguns should obviously be taxed lower. It doesn't ban firearms, it just creates a supply problem for nutcakes and preppers buiding arsenals. Security companies and firing ranges could recover their ammo tax at the end of the fiscal year. Hobbists could shoot assault rifles at firing ranges, as opposed to their back yard. The police won't need surplus military gear then. Your neighbour won't be wounded from a stray bullet shot from an assault rifle ten buildings away.
  - numpad0 6y ago
    I think you guys have laws forbid civilian possession of military AP rounds in the US.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
tertiary 6y ago
> Either water down the second amendment ... or give the police what they need That's a false dichotomy and misses the main point of the argument to reduce police militarization. Nobody is upset when SWAT responds to a school shooting or a terrorist act. The problem (I suppose a really good problem to have after all) is that those things almost never happen, even though they are the ones we see on the news and can quickly retrieve in our minds. You're more likely to die in a plane crash than in a terrorist act in the US. That begs the question: if militarized units don't have enough violent crime to respond to, but are still a full time unit then what do they respond to? The answer is why people are upset and it's because we are sending them to respond to drug offenses and to execute search warrants instead. Situations thay they inevitably end up escalating (on average) and killing people in. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2053168017712885 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/20531680177128...