this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2023
505 points (84.4% liked)

Political Memes

5282 readers
3183 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] charliespider@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I think it was in California in the 90s that some guys tried to rob a bank, but they had full body armour and helmets, and were armed with assault rifles and high capacity magazines. The cops were useless against them as all they had were squad cars, pistols, and a few shotguns. It was a huge wake up call for police forces across America and it didn't take long for them to start acquiring better equipment.

If you don't like the militarization of your police, then you need to do something about the militarization of your general populace.

[–] flying_monkies@kbin.social 22 points 1 year ago (4 children)
[–] charliespider@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thnx for the link. Didn't know their body armour was home made. That's some pretty good dedication to one's trade. Too bad they couldn't have put that talent into something constructive.

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

They just stitched bought armor together, basically.

[–] butwhyishischinabook@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

How dare you point out that this is an example of weapons that have been federally prohibited for a century! Now how can people moderation fallacy their way into sounding reasonable?

[–] uis@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

illegally modified

So let's make more things illegal because it will fix everything for sure

[–] flying_monkies@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not sure what has your panties in a wad over that.

The converted rifles in that crime were not ATF Form 2 weapons, so calling them "illegaly modified" is a true and factual statement.

[–] uis@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

I don't have gun context. Just saying that banning sething(i.e. making it illegal) will only increase amount of illegal. Things that are banned will not just "have you seen the law? Well, it seems I shouldn't exist" and disappear.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You can now prosecute people doing harm with new charges. I don't know why that isn't significant. Why does every action have to "fix everything?"

[–] uis@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Aaaand? They are already charged with, you know, killing people.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not necessarily. Not if they were stopped before they could kill anyone.

[–] uis@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, trying to kill is already illegal.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You really don't understand how adding charges results in longer sentences? Really?

[–] uis@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, you can just increase sentence for killing if you want what you claim

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's not how laws work. There are already maximum and minimum sentences for each offense.

[–] uis@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes. And both of them can be changed.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Or you can just add to the charges. What difference does it make to you?

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

What point are you trying to draw, here?

  • Taking reliable existing semi-automatic firearms and modifying to fully automatic still would not be feasible for these dunces if they were starting out from scratch (at least not with any semblance of reliability from an engineer's standpoint). Finally, should be noted that there's little reason the outcome would've been different had they been semi-automatic, considering ammunition waste and less attention to accuracy. If their goals were that of the Aurora shooter, then that would be different.

  • "home made body armor" implies they made it from scratch. No. They used several vests worth of manufactured body armor to make full body armor.

[–] flying_monkies@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What point are you trying to draw, here?

None, I linked the wiki entry for the person who "remembered there was an incident" because I remembered the incident.

What point are you trying ro draw here?

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You included more than simply a link to a wiki page.

Pretty sure my points are self-evident by context.

[–] flying_monkies@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, I provided a link to the wiki page with the tldr from the article on the weapon/armor for anyone who didn't want to click on it.

The fact you believe there's some sort of point I'm trying to make by linking the wiki article that covers the bank robbery and includes the information on the weapons, tactics and outcome and think "I'm trying to make a point" speaks volumes about you.

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ah, so indeed it was more than just a link. An emphasis on armor and weapon, curiously, despite that already being mentioned by the original user. Interesting.

Tell me, how does it "speak volumes?" when I'm merely providing obvious context and correcting misconceptions?

[–] flying_monkies@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because that was the persons comment I linked to was regarding the weapons and armor.

I'm sorry you don't like what the wiki says and you apparently feel the need to read more into an article and a direct quote of statements from the article. Maybe you could try linking documents you approve of that answers a persons question in the future?

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

My apologies if I misunderstood. There are just a lot of gun nuts out there who would twist the two points you coincidentally highlighted in order to claim that regulation of these things is pointless when that simply is not the case (especially when "home made" is a half truth). Since you clearly agree, then again, my apologies.