• Knusper@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        1 year ago

        They might not sell it, but they probably wouldn’t get funding for buying another one.

      • Pons_Aelius@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, once every person in the USA voluntarily hands in every semi-auto rifle…the cops will decommission the tanks.

        • snooggums@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sure they will, because most police forces have used them in situations that require an armored vehicle and aren’t just doing it to cosplay being the gestapo.

          • Pons_Aelius@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            25
            ·
            1 year ago

            sorry. I thought once every person in the USA voluntarily hands in every semi-auto rifle. made it obvious I was not talking about reality.

      • hansl@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is a bit more obscure than that, but mostly yes.

        The real problem is that the army doesn’t want more tanks. They’ve asked congress to stop building armored vehicles. Don’t need money for tanks, want money for R&D.

        Congress love building tanks because it falsely creates jobs in their districts. So more tanks. Most of these factories are located in red districts.

        Too many tanks and they have to sell them. That’s how police can buy tanks.

        Sell all your AR15? Most AR15 owners are in red states. There are direct correlation with voting republicans and owning firearms. So if you decide to sell you AR15 it might indicate you’d switch vote? It’s a stretch but less republicans, more jobs from other types of factories (e.g. Green energy related), less money to build tanks, less armored vehicles being auctioned off to police.

    • Franzia
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yes, they justify it. Do they need it? No.

  • Leviathan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    84
    ·
    1 year ago

    I can ask both. I can even ask if maybe one of the reasons cops have that is that people are more heavily armed?

    • lennybird@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      What’s more is thanks to the gun ban there, the black market cost for a glock handgun not counting ammunition is around $12,000 cash versus what, 10x less in the US?

      Now my conservative acquaintances who adore supply-side economics should understand that increasing cost inhibits demand.

      • jscummy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        You can buy a glock new for $500. In Chicago you can probably get a second hand one free off a car tire if you really need it, just don’t worry about it’s history

    • Shapillon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Or a revolution ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

      (agreed we’re not there but that’s another use of civilians owning warfare weapons)

      • Kage520@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s exactly the argument that conservatives always give for gun ownership. But like, how would they possibly overrun the largest military in the world with their personal arsenals?

        Maybe they could take a city but I can’t see it being a long lasting victory.

        • Uncaged_Jay@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          If anything, the US’s engagements in Vietnam and, more recently, the Middle East have shown that eradicating an insurgent force is incredibly difficult, to the point of being almost impossible. On top of that, there are weapons used during the GWOT that wouldn’t (shouldn’t(?)) Be used against American citizens, unless their goal is to be rulers of the ashes. On top of that, there are plenty of American Servicemembers that would straight up refuse to attack American citizens, and would potentially aid the insurgency with things like vehicles and ammo.

          Add on top of that the extensive gun culture and sheer number of veterans in the general US population and I’d say they have a fighting chance.

          I say this all as a former military intelligence analyst myself.

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You were slackin at your job if you don’t understand that the majority of people would oppose these insurgents, by definition, since that is how democracy works.

            There is no situation in which domestic insurgents would not be crushed utterly. They’d be heavily restricted in movement, denied resupply, theyd lose contact with their families, friends, etc as well as all cellular communication. They would not have air superiority. They wouldn’t even be able to contest air superiority. The most advanced counter-terrorism force in human history would be tracking them. When caught, they will absolutely land in Gitmo, at best, and will absolutely give up everything because these are not hardened fighters, these are your neighbors.

            The US is a fucking fortress. This is a complete non-starter. We haven’t even touched on actual military engagement yet. I’m not convinced it would even ever get to a point where it was necessary.

            If it ever was, the US would have to show the world that a challenge to its supremacy on its territory by (now non-)citizens in open rebellion absolutely will not be allowed to happen.

            The affected areas will completely locked down. The insurgents will lose all access to travel, because the entire area will. Then it’s just counter-terrorist procedure practiced over 20 years thousands of miles away.

        • CADmonkey@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          The biggest military in the world seems to have trouble with insurgents. See Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.

          • GladiusB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            The bigger problem will be staffing. Who they are you going to get to take on your own town or state? No one wants that job. They want easy criminals that “choose” to act up.

        • brygphilomena@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Insurgent forces are always scary. They know where to hide and they get creative with weaponry. This isn’t the revolutionary war with people marching side by side taking shots at the other side.

          Besides, that’s assuming the military is 100% cohesive in war operations inside this country and against other Americans.

          Oh, and ignoring that it might just be the conservatives in power that would be the aggressor and the rest defending themselves from fascists.

          • Uncaged_Jay@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            Your last point is the one that gets me, the left needs firearms as much as the right does if shit hits the fan.

            • Shapillon@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Amen to that.

              In my country (France) we got single payer healthcare, legally enforced number of work hours in a week, annual PTO, etc because about 25% of the population were card carrying commies with guns.

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            This is a really dumb comparison that implies you know Jack shit about warfare btw.

        • Bgugi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Good thing we had hellfire missiles to establish a permanent and stable government in Afghanistan

        • BigBananaDealer@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          yeah it would be like a group of settlers going up against the greatest army in the world and somehow winning. absolutely no way that ever happens, or has ever happened, to my knowledge twice at least

          • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Did that army have hellfire missiles and nukes? Or was it maybe the case that this army you mean back then was occupied with more important matters and the settlers had help of powerful other countries? Lets be real, if there ever was a full on authocracy in america it would be celebrated by half your population, usually the gun owning population. All the dictator would need to do is promise to hurt some kind of minority.

            • BigBananaDealer@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              i dont know, did the us army have hellfire missiles and nukes in the vietnam war? which they pulled out of because farmers with guns was too much for them to face?

              • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Oh god what a dumb take. Vietnam was an aggressive war in unknown terrain. A civil war in the own country against your military is completely different. That scenario is so completely stupid, because half your population would be on the governments side. Meanwhile your fear of a hypethetical scenario kills your kids.

          • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            More “Why do you use this excuse even though it has no merit at all, when the thing you want to keep is killing your children in the thousands each year?”

            • FluorideMind@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Do you really believe this? Lmao. You think the reason most support the second is so children will be killed? Clearly you don’t, so why comment that?

    • dx1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’ve got no horse in this race, but I’ll tell you, the amount of time people spend fixating on AR-15s, when rifles in general (including AR-15s) are only responsible for 3% of gun deaths…it really doesn’t give the impression that people are in command of the facts. And it doesn’t seem like pretty much any characteristic of a gun being effective for a mass shooting doesn’t also carry over to the gun being effective for self-defense against more than a single person. Or even a single person, for that matter. I feel like people just kind of dug their trenches on this one and nobody’s really thinking too hard about it.

  • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    1 year ago

    Own an ATGM for home defense, since that’s what the founding fathers intended. Police APC column rolls toward my house. “What the devil?” As I grab my powdered wig and Stugna-P. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first car, it’s dead on the spot. Draw my mortar on the second car, miss it entirely because it’s smoothbore and nails the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the MT-12 mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with APFSDS, “Tally ho lads” the tungsten dart shreds two cars in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix FPV drone and charge the last terrified rapscallion. He Bleeds out waiting on the more police to arrive since multiple fragmentation wounds are impossible to stitch up. Just as the founding fathers intended.

  • Richard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    1 year ago

    Maybe because of people like you, armed to the teeth for no rational reason whatsoever?

  • Heisme@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean… “¿Porque no los dos?” Neither should exist in civilian hands. A MRAP has no use for civilian police nor does an AR15 have any use for a civilian.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I actually prefer my police able to neutralize people who have AR-15s, thanks.

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Frankly I think you’re crazy so call me whatever

            Mass shooters already exist and I’d prefer a professional force be prepared to stop them.

            We disarm police and they lose the arms race, full stop. People will tribe up for protection, because all it takes is one psycho demanding that be status quo and it becomes that - check literally any developing nation for all the proof you need there. Living in a revenge-killing gang war zone is not my idea of a good time.

            Just Google “Haiti” and tell me my deeply purple state wont degrade to open conflict.

            • Thaumiel@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yeah, but the can have all the equipment they want and it doesn’t matter if they won’t go into situations (like, for example, an elementary school shooting) because they’re cowards.