8 ms·

Now imagine what the Tuesday afternoon strippers at the ATF, DEA, etc. etc. are up to. The ATF is busy 4am porch-stepping on law abiding gun owners, shooting t

Now imagine what the Tuesday afternoon strippers at the ATF, DEA, etc. etc. are up to. The ATF is busy 4am porch-stepping on law abiding gun owners, shooting their women, children, and dogs in the process.

Bancakes 5y ago
Fun fact: the ATF regulates even flashbangs in local/state police. You have to register them and report each used grenade. What a tumorous agency.
- wavefunction 5y ago
  I am in favor of that. Anything that provides more independent oversight of police since they can't seem to self-regulate.
  - JohnWhigham 5y ago
    How about we disallow municipal police forces from owning fucking military-grade equipment instead?
- freshair 5y ago
  That's fine by me, I like it when cops have to follow the same laws as the rest of us. If one of us wanted to fuck around with grenades, we'd have to do the paperwork for each one. Why should that rule be any different for the police? 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.
  - Bancakes 5y ago
    It's a life-saving grenade that produces a 180-190dB shockwave and flash, incapacitating bad guys for a few moments. It's misclassified as a 'high-explosive ordnance', even though it produces no shrapnel and can safely go off at your feet. 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.
    - freshair 5y ago
      If it's truly for a life-saving purpose then a little bit of paperwork shouldn't stop them from using it. 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. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30281075/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30281075/
      - 5y ago
TOSSAWAY_1 5y ago
You're not wrong.

Bancakes 5y ago

Fun fact: the ATF regulates even flashbangs in local/state police. You have to register them and report each used grenade. What a tumorous agency.

wavefunction 5y ago
I am in favor of that. Anything that provides more independent oversight of police since they can't seem to self-regulate.
- JohnWhigham 5y ago
  How about we disallow municipal police forces from owning fucking military-grade equipment instead?
freshair 5y ago
That's fine by me, I like it when cops have to follow the same laws as the rest of us. If one of us wanted to fuck around with grenades, we'd have to do the paperwork for each one. Why should that rule be any different for the police? 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.
- Bancakes 5y ago
  It's a life-saving grenade that produces a 180-190dB shockwave and flash, incapacitating bad guys for a few moments. It's misclassified as a 'high-explosive ordnance', even though it produces no shrapnel and can safely go off at your feet. 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.
  - freshair 5y ago
    If it's truly for a life-saving purpose then a little bit of paperwork shouldn't stop them from using it. 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. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30281075/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30281075/
    - 5y ago

TOSSAWAY_1 5y ago

You're not wrong.