Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Here's a picture that illustrates the modern US approach to policing.

Spoiler:

(C) Jonathan Bachman of Reuters, used for the Fair Use purpose of review and discussion.

Regrettably this heavy armed, aggressive approach, which began in the LAPD, has spread out across the world, leading to some shocking incidents at various protests and demonstrations in the UK and Italy for instance.

The police here are not protecting the public. They are protecting their authoritah.

Is.... she a witch or something? it looks like they are getting force pushed backwards.



I can see the equipment being justified.

Well considering she was peacefully detained and afforded all legal protections despite breaking the law, and no one was injured, doesn't that mean they were doing it right?

Precaution != abuse. The body armor is in context of numerous officers recently being shot.

Not that such armor would do anything against a bullet

Thats melee fighting armor.

In Northern Ireland, all the 'Peelers' are armed, unlike their mainland UK counterpoints. Everyone has a handgun (I think it's a Glock of some description) and some carry carbines too. And I think that they should have them because of the political landscape here. Dissident republicans are still out there looking to kill them with car bombs and ambushes. It''s why they also still routinely patrol the streets in these:



They looked more intimidating in the old RUC era battleship grey. That's why they were changed.

Anyway, take away their guns, and they will come under attack more often. They're strong deterrents. And yet they're almost never drawn let alone used. The system we have here is, unless they are actually threatened with a gun (and I mean aimed or shot at), they have to ask for permission from HQ to even draw their own.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Here's a picture that illustrates the modern US approach to policing.

Spoiler:

No that is not reflective of a standard patrol cop, full body armor is only rolled out for when there's a riot going on or a high threat level event requiring swat. US police will have a standard issue bullet proof vest and a pistol, but certainly not body armor. They are likely to have a shotgun in their patrol car but it's very rarely carried, some cities have their patrol cars equipped with an AR-15 or high power rifle after events like the LA bank robbery just in case. For standard patrol duty the public does not respond well to cops carrying anything heavier than a pistol. What you are citing above it is a response to a potential riot situation and where the lives of officers had been directly threatened (and several killed), lets not pretend it's their everyday bloodthirster wear simply so you can demonize them.


Also note that even though they are in riot armor neither of those cops are armed with a weapon heavier than a pistol, nor are any of the cops in the background. They aren't even brandishing clubs or riot shields. Which is likely intentional due to awareness of how the LA style riot tactics are connected to racial tensions.

 Desubot wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Here's a picture that illustrates the modern US approach to policing.

Spoiler:

(C) Jonathan Bachman of Reuters, used for the Fair Use purpose of review and discussion.

Regrettably this heavy armed, aggressive approach, which began in the LAPD, has spread out across the world, leading to some shocking incidents at various protests and demonstrations in the UK and Italy for instance.

The police here are not protecting the public. They are protecting their authoritah.

Is.... she a witch or something? it looks like they are getting force pushed backwards.



I can see the equipment being justified.

Thats funny. In actually they were doing a dance routine for the next Mel Brooks film. Step kick...shuffle shuffle..step kick...shuffle shuffle.

 djones520 wrote:
The vast majority of gun crimes are committed by illegally owned firearms in the first place. As has been pointed out rather extensively, our means of cutting off the flow of illegal guns is quite different from say Britain, which is an Island nation, that doesn't share an extensive border with a nearly-failed state.

On the other hand, those illegal firearms are mostly coming from within the USA. The mexicans themself don't usually have any access to firearms - the cartels employ US citizens to buy AR-15 clones, Barrett .50s and the like that they then smuggle into Mexico. All accomplished by the (yes, illegal) practice called "straw purchases", ie having someone with no criminal record buy a gun for someone else. Same goes for US criminal gangs. Why bother getting a crate of guns from outside when you can buy them all legally, right here, as long as someone not you does the buying? Or stealing them from someone with the right to store and sell them?

Spetulhu wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
The vast majority of gun crimes are committed by illegally owned firearms in the first place. As has been pointed out rather extensively, our means of cutting off the flow of illegal guns is quite different from say Britain, which is an Island nation, that doesn't share an extensive border with a nearly-failed state.

On the other hand, those illegal firearms are mostly coming from within the USA. The mexicans themself don't usually have any access to firearms - the cartels employ US citizens to buy AR-15 clones, Barrett .50s and the like that they then smuggle into Mexico. All accomplished by the (yes, illegal) practice called "straw purchases", ie having someone with no criminal record buy a gun for someone else. Same goes for US criminal gangs. Why bother getting a crate of guns from outside when you can buy them all legally, right here, as long as someone not you does the buying? Or stealing them from someone with the right to store and sell them?

No, the Cartels are not mostly arming themselves through straw purchases. Most of their guns come from the Gov't of Mexico or Central America.

s we discussed in a previous analysis, the 90 percent number was derived from a June 2009 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report to Congress on U.S. efforts to combat arms trafficking to Mexico (see external link).

According to the GAO report, some 30,000 firearms were seized from criminals by Mexican authorities in 2008. Of these 30,000 firearms, information pertaining to 7,200 of them (24 percent) was submitted to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) for tracing. Of these 7,200 guns, only about 4,000 could be traced by the ATF, and of these 4,000, some 3,480 (87 percent) were shown to have come from the United States.

This means that the 87 percent figure relates to the number of weapons submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF that could be successfully traced and not from the total number of weapons seized by Mexican authorities or even from the total number of weapons submitted to the ATF for tracing. In fact, the 3,480 guns positively traced to the United States equals less than 12 percent of the total arms seized in Mexico in 2008 and less than 48 percent of all those submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF for tracing. This means that almost 90 percent of the guns seized in Mexico in 2008 were not traced back to the United States.

https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110209-mexicos-gun-supply-and-90-percent-myth

 CptJake wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
The vast majority of gun crimes are committed by illegally owned firearms in the first place. As has been pointed out rather extensively, our means of cutting off the flow of illegal guns is quite different from say Britain, which is an Island nation, that doesn't share an extensive border with a nearly-failed state.

On the other hand, those illegal firearms are mostly coming from within the USA. The mexicans themself don't usually have any access to firearms - the cartels employ US citizens to buy AR-15 clones, Barrett .50s and the like that they then smuggle into Mexico. All accomplished by the (yes, illegal) practice called "straw purchases", ie having someone with no criminal record buy a gun for someone else. Same goes for US criminal gangs. Why bother getting a crate of guns from outside when you can buy them all legally, right here, as long as someone not you does the buying? Or stealing them from someone with the right to store and sell them?

No, the Cartels are not mostly arming themselves through straw purchases. Most of their guns come from the Gov't of Mexico or Central America.

s we discussed in a previous analysis, the 90 percent number was derived from a June 2009 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report to Congress on U.S. efforts to combat arms trafficking to Mexico (see external link).

According to the GAO report, some 30,000 firearms were seized from criminals by Mexican authorities in 2008. Of these 30,000 firearms, information pertaining to 7,200 of them (24 percent) was submitted to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) for tracing. Of these 7,200 guns, only about 4,000 could be traced by the ATF, and of these 4,000, some 3,480 (87 percent) were shown to have come from the United States.

This means that the 87 percent figure relates to the number of weapons submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF that could be successfully traced and not from the total number of weapons seized by Mexican authorities or even from the total number of weapons submitted to the ATF for tracing. In fact, the 3,480 guns positively traced to the United States equals less than 12 percent of the total arms seized in Mexico in 2008 and less than 48 percent of all those submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF for tracing. This means that almost 90 percent of the guns seized in Mexico in 2008 were not traced back to the United States.

https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110209-mexicos-gun-supply-and-90-percent-myth

Or they could have come from the Underground Empire of the Mole People. All those numbers tell us is that the vast majority of the guns were untraceable by the ATF, and that the vast majority of the guns that were traceable were from the US.

So... you're saying there is a massive firearm manufacturing ring in the US that builds weapons to be untraceable? 7,000 of those 30,000 seized exhibited evidence of being built in the US, that is why some of them were traceable. Those other 23,000 were not turned over because there was no proof they were built in the US.

Of those that are traceable, I've got to wonder how many of them are weapons that we sold to their government for use by their military/police, and have been stolen/sold/etc... to the cartels.

It does seem more likely that untraceable firearms are made in corrupt Central/South American states than the US.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I hope it never happens, but out of interest, if the gak really hits the fan in the USA (100 terrorists take over an office block, hostages/suicide vests/booby traps) then who gets the call in the USA to deal with it?

Navy Seals? Delta force? Regular army or Marines?

Probably just some lowly beat cop with a bad attitude who isn't even in his jurisdiction, and is only in that office block because they are visiting their estranged spouse for the holidays...

 jmurph wrote:
I think this is a very important point. Perception and culture are strong drivers of behavior. That's why this whole "police v. blacks" narrative is very dangerous.

This is a good point. Discussion of police shootings and the racial disparity is necessary, but it is dangerous if it moves in to a simplistic narrative of ''black people vs police'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:
Population density is a major factor. Oz and the Uk have a similar culture with regards to gun violence and a similar progression on gun culture. However I think them ain reason austrailian cops are universally armed and Uk ones are not is due to geography. US and Oz rural policing is likely to be handeld with very limited backup and that backup might not be timely due to distances involved. Have a gun incident in the UK prettyy much anywhere and specialist persons either from special forces or the police can be there reasoanably quickly. I think it will be rather different in rural Queensland or Montana.

I do think geography plays a major part.

Possibly, but it has to be remembered that while Australia is a very big place with a small population, almost all of us live in a handful of very big cities. Australia is sold for tourism as the big outback, but life here for almost everyone is life in big cities. So yeah, I'd understand that country police would be armed because they can be hours from back up given at times. But most policing is in the cities, and they're armed identically to country police.

And in Europe I think police are armed in just about every country. It might be better to see the UK as unique in having so many unarmed police, and the US as unique in having so many shootings. The comparison is interesting, but it should be understood in terms of one very unusual circumstance against another.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
I wouldn't ascribe it to the gun culture at all. The vast majority of gun crimes are committed by illegally owned firearms in the first place. As has been pointed out rather extensively, our means of cutting off the flow of illegal guns is quite different from say Britain, which is an Island nation, that doesn't share an extensive border with a nearly-failed state.

I'm getting really bored with this 'Mexico as a failed state' thing. Living standards there are improving massively year on year. The country is undergoing a quiet economic revolution. But the only thing seen by so many people is cartels and violence, and so they assume that's all Mexico is.

Also, most crimes are committed with illegally owned firearms, but they weren't purchased or made as illegal firearms. It shouldn't be too hard for anyone to notice that the country with the most legal firearms by a long way is also the country with the most illegal firearms and figure out the connection.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:
I'm not sure any police force 'protects' its citizens, armed or unarmed. You don't protect an assault victim. You don't protect a robbery victim.

There is little actual intervention, where a policeman actually stops a mugging that's underway, that's true. But one of the best ways of driving down crime is with effective policing - increasing the conviction rate reduces the rate of crime. If you've got a 2% chance of being caught for a mugging you've got little disincentive, but if the chance is 20%...

That's the protection offered by police. And it's a major reason, alongside education and living standards, that people are lot less likely to be impacted by crime in the UK, US or Australia, than they are in Brazil or Papua New Guinea.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
This is a pretty salient point, and, at least in the US, is codified by the courts. A police officer in the US is under no obligation to protect anyone, their obligation is to investigate and arrest, not to provide service or protection, despite whatever motto's they may have stenciled on their cars

I think this is a point that is often mistakenly interpreted. Sure, police have no legal obligation, but this basically means they can't be sued for failing to prevent a crime. This is a legal necessity, imagine if every victim of crime had a legal means to sue police for failing to stop their house getting broken in to. Police depts would need more lawyers than police.

But while they don't have a strict legal obligation, that doesn't mean it isn't something police target as a primary aim. Policing is all about protection, about reducing the rate of crime. Ultimately there's two key indicators in whether a police strategy or dept has been effective, alongside the clearance rate for crimes the other primary measure is whether the rate of crime is declining.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Here's a picture that illustrates the modern US approach to policing.

Spoiler:

(C) Jonathan Bachman of Reuters, used for the Fair Use purpose of review and discussion.

Regrettably this heavy armed, aggressive approach, which began in the LAPD, has spread out across the world, leading to some shocking incidents at various protests and demonstrations in the UK and Italy for instance.

The police here are not protecting the public. They are protecting their authoritah.

Is.... she a witch or something? it looks like they are getting force pushed backwards.



I can see the equipment being justified.

Thats funny. In actually they were doing a dance routine for the next Mel Brooks film. Step kick...shuffle shuffle..step kick...shuffle shuffle.

Nah, the furthest guy is definitely slipping on a banana. It may or may not have been placed there by Mel Brooks though. We don't really want to say, worried they will shoot him for it.

Relevant article:I Was A Cop In A Country With No Guns

 jmurph wrote:
Relevant article:I Was A Cop In A Country With No Guns

I love the phrase "diet mace".... and I have no idea why

One thing that I found of particular note in that article, was the recurring theme of community... Most of these cops live where they work and definitely seem to think differently because of it. I'm reminded of the old phrase, "don't gak where you eat" and it still rings true. I also think many of them in that area realize that they can run into people they have had prior dealings with, and, at least the author treated them accordingly and he didn't have issues. That resonates with me because while I've not suffered abuse from US cops, my dealings with them haven't been nearly so cordial as this bloke made things sound.

 djones520 wrote:
So... you're saying there is a massive firearm manufacturing ring in the US that builds weapons to be untraceable? 7,000 of those 30,000 seized exhibited evidence of being built in the US, that is why some of them were traceable. Those other 23,000 were not turned over because there was no proof they were built in the US.

Well, what it shows it that the cartels can't get enough guns without making illegal purchases in the US and smuggling the guns over to Mexico. Especially the higher-end stuff like assault rifles and .50cal snipers. Even if all guns became illegal in the US right now the Mexican cartels have nothing to sell your criminals. Their own criminals need guns to fight other criminals and the Mexican police. Only when guns become worth more than drugs will they even consider that as a possible article to smuggle into the US.

Spetulhu wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
So... you're saying there is a massive firearm manufacturing ring in the US that builds weapons to be untraceable? 7,000 of those 30,000 seized exhibited evidence of being built in the US, that is why some of them were traceable. Those other 23,000 were not turned over because there was no proof they were built in the US.

Well, what it shows it that the cartels can't get enough guns without making illegal purchases in the US and smuggling the guns over to Mexico. Especially the higher-end stuff like assault rifles and .50cal snipers. Even if all guns became illegal in the US right now the Mexican cartels have nothing to sell your criminals. Their own criminals need guns to fight other criminals and the Mexican police. Only when guns become worth more than drugs will they even consider that as a possible article to smuggle into the US.

No, that is not what it shows at all. Most of what they use is full auto stuff from their own Gov't and Central America (a lot from Guatemala).

 sebster wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
This is a pretty salient point, and, at least in the US, is codified by the courts. A police officer in the US is under no obligation to protect anyone, their obligation is to investigate and arrest, not to provide service or protection, despite whatever motto's they may have stenciled on their cars

I think this is a point that is often mistakenly interpreted. Sure, police have no legal obligation, but this basically means they can't be sued for failing to prevent a crime. This is a legal necessity, imagine if every victim of crime had a legal means to sue police for failing to stop their house getting broken in to. Police depts would need more lawyers than police.

But while they don't have a strict legal obligation, that doesn't mean it isn't something police target as a primary aim. Policing is all about protection, about reducing the rate of crime. Ultimately there's two key indicators in whether a police strategy or dept has been effective, alongside the clearance rate for crimes the other primary measure is whether the rate of crime is declining.

I don't necessarily disagree in theory, however, in practice however what this means is that policing is increasingly about enforcement of the law and suspect apprehension, which is not necessarily the same thing as protecting and serving the community, and why there's usually very little reason for most people to favorably view directly interacting with the police.

Spetulhu wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
So... you're saying there is a massive firearm manufacturing ring in the US that builds weapons to be untraceable? 7,000 of those 30,000 seized exhibited evidence of being built in the US, that is why some of them were traceable. Those other 23,000 were not turned over because there was no proof they were built in the US.

Well, what it shows it that the cartels can't get enough guns without making illegal purchases in the US and smuggling the guns over to Mexico. Especially the higher-end stuff like assault rifles and .50cal snipers. Even if all guns became illegal in the US right now the Mexican cartels have nothing to sell your criminals. Their own criminals need guns to fight other criminals and the Mexican police. Only when guns become worth more than drugs will they even consider that as a possible article to smuggle into the US.

A big problem in Mexico is the defection of army personnel and the theft of army property to and by the Cartels. Yes, a portion of cartel owned firearms -do- come from the US but claiming that our gun laws put military grade firearms in the hands of criminals that wouldn't otherwise have them is a grossly inaccurate generalization.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Here's a picture that illustrates the modern US approach to policing.

Spoiler:

(C) Jonathan Bachman of Reuters, used for the Fair Use purpose of review and discussion.

Regrettably this heavy armed, aggressive approach, which began in the LAPD, has spread out across the world, leading to some shocking incidents at various protests and demonstrations in the UK and Italy for instance.

The police here are not protecting the public. They are protecting their authoritah.

They are only carrying pistols and don't even have them out. I don't see how they are 'heavily armed'.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Here's a picture that illustrates the modern US approach to policing.

Spoiler:

(C) Jonathan Bachman of Reuters, used for the Fair Use purpose of review and discussion.

Regrettably this heavy armed, aggressive approach, which began in the LAPD, has spread out across the world, leading to some shocking incidents at various protests and demonstrations in the UK and Italy for instance.

The police here are not protecting the public. They are protecting their authoritah.

They are only carrying pistols and don't even have them out. I don't see how they are 'heavily armed'.

Nor do I see any aggressive approach in the photos, aside from the posture of the police who are in mid run. The photos taken subsequently after this one show the woman, who had been ordered multiple times to get off the street, quickly escorted off the street she was illegally standing in, without incident. Textbook clean arrest by decisive police, who tried to avoid an arrest, and a compliant arrestee, but it still ends up fodder to fuel a certain narrative.

And also, to "the police here are protecting their authoritah" comment...

More than a 120 police were injured in Baltimore a year ago. They are protecting themselves with that gear in case things go south. I guarantee none of them want to wear that gak in the middle of the day, out in the sun in July, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Ridiculous post, Killkrazy.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

And I guess that's troubling to me. What does the average police officer do when faced with an armed, violent, and noncompliant criminal in the act of committing a crime? Because from what I read, the answer, for british officers, is to call Trojan, their armed forces. And if that is the case, I have to wonder - in that circumstance, what more good is the officer in that situation than a random citizen with a phone, if all they can do is call for help?

If something is truly beyond an officer's abilities, they can help civvies flee, keep them organised when safe, and provide medical experience (1st aid stuff). They are also able to calmly relay useful information to more helpful units.

I think some very good points have been made to answer the question how unarmed (or armed) police force can upkeep the law and intervene:
Better training, different "culture"/approach to aggression and conflict resolution, communal integration.
(Non-)availibility of hand guns is a factor, for sure.

There is also simple socio-economics: None of the European countries mentioned has such high gaps between the poor and rich than the US. They also have functioning social systems that keep most people out of the poverty spiral.

There is a direct correlation between poverty and crime.
Poverty breeds petty crimes, lower education, less identification with and loyalty to a given societal model, encourages parallel societies (gangs), drug abuse. If you mix in easy access to handguns, that quickly becomes a self-reinforcing spiral of crime and violence and an instituionalization of a law of might.

So, long-term poverty generates petty crimes which in turn generate drug crimes, which in turn generate/attract organized crime. Whole city blocks deteriorate, jobs move, backward views and a lack of education and therefore possibility of participation are transferred to the next generation, institutionalizing the problems...
The police force is faced with a high armament in civilians, in "beleaguered" areas of cities, with open and often hostile opposition due to lack of loyalty/mistrust of "racist police" etc., which itself is poorly educated, and trained to respond first and foremost with lethal force to any threat, the constant reinforcement of negative stereotypes and antagonization in the public ("All black/latino are dangerous" vs. "all cops are killers"), the complete failure of the War on Drugs....





This is how it works in Germany:

Policemen are always armed. But availibility of hand guns, and of course semi- and automatic weapons in the civil area is very low.
The only people who have those are shooting ranges (only pistols and sports rifles, and those must be locked at all times) and criminal organizations -who tend not to use them often, and not against the police or civilians.

While I only have theoretical knowledge and anecdotal one from our neighbours (federal police), the training standards and requirements to become a policeman are in general much higher than in the States, though comparison depends on agency and State, as i understand it.

The use of lethal force is only allowed in an immediate threat to the police officer's or someone else's life. Policemen are trained to only use their guns as a last resort. De-Escalation is always the first procedure to dangerous situations, or isolation and call for reinforcement.

Contrary to the US, German civilians carry no guns and the average German trusts the police to do their job properly and without abuse. So there is a relative high level of mutual trust, or at least confidence that an encounter with the other will most likely not lead to your death.
And without basic trust in that, communication is almost impossible, and without communication there can be no de-escalation.


In 2015, a total of 8 people got killed by police forces (that is 8 in a population of 80 mio), all of them in (self-)defense against knife attacks. 1 policeman was killed in a knife attack. In total, 589 persons became victims of murder or manslaughter (including all registered cases of euthanasia).

For a population of 320mio like the US that would mean:

32 people killed by cops, 4 cops killed, roughly 2400 people deceased through violent means, per year.

In 2015, the USA had 1,134 people killed by cops, 56 cops killed through violent means (if I counted correctly) and a yet unknown number of homicides (was 13,472 homicides in 2014, but practically all major cities announced a sharp rise in violent crimes in 2015. (the next FBI report is due for september, I believe)

 TheCustomLime wrote:


A big problem in Mexico is the defection of army personnel and the theft of army property to and by the Cartels. Yes, a portion of cartel owned firearms -do- come from the US but claiming that our gun laws put military grade firearms in the hands of criminals that wouldn't otherwise have them is a grossly inaccurate generalization.

Why smuggle in straw purchased weapons when the government runs them to you anyway (tinfoil hat)

 treslibras wrote:



This is how it works in Germany:

Policemen are always armed. But availibility of hand guns, and of course semi- and automatic weapons in the civil area is very low.
The only people who have those are shooting ranges (only pistols and sports rifles, and those must be locked at all times)

Small point note, it is in fact legal for civilians in Germany to own (and keep in their homes) handguns and semi auto rifles, however the requirements to obtain them are much higher than in the US, though it is possible. Last time I was there I got to fondle a couple firearms that a pal who lived there owned, took him almost two years to get all the paperwork however. Carry ability/licensing is the biggest difference, being nearly impossible to get in Germany.

You can't compare international police policies to America. No other country has privately owned firearms as a fundamental part of its culture.

Our police will always need guns. However it would be great if they could use them less.

Hopefully continued use and training of less than lethal methods will decrease use of lethal force.

 SickSix wrote:
You can't compare international police policies to America. No other country has privately owned firearms as a fundamental part of its culture.

Our police will always need guns. However it would be great if they could use them less.

Hopefully continued use and training of less than lethal methods will decrease use of lethal force.

I'm inclined to go with this. Even if America scrapped the 2nd tomorrow, there would still be millions of weapons in the country...

Even if Washington declared an amnesty and bought back every weapon, it would still take years...

I think America is past the point of no return when it comes to gun control. Even if a 2/3rds majority agreed to scrap the 2nd, gun deaths would still continue...

For that reason, police and decent citizens should be armed...

On the other hand, I think the US police could learn a lot from their British counter-parts...

 TheCustomLime wrote:
A big problem in Mexico is the defection of army personnel and the theft of army property to and by the Cartels. Yes, a portion of cartel owned firearms -do- come from the US but claiming that our gun laws put military grade firearms in the hands of criminals that wouldn't otherwise have them is a grossly inaccurate generalization.

But they do run guns from the US for their own use. It could be it's just so much easier to get the gun across one border than moving it across multiple Mexican districts and maybe in from a southern neighbor. And military grade, well - the US is one of the few places where .50cal rifles is just another gun anyone can have. Cheap Chinese pistols is another matter, that's probably something easy enough to get by the cargo container that the cartels wouldn't bother dragging them through the US.

Spetulhu wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
A big problem in Mexico is the defection of army personnel and the theft of army property to and by the Cartels. Yes, a portion of cartel owned firearms -do- come from the US but claiming that our gun laws put military grade firearms in the hands of criminals that wouldn't otherwise have them is a grossly inaccurate generalization.

But they do run guns from the US for their own use. It could be it's just so much easier to get the gun across one border than moving it across multiple Mexican districts and maybe in from a southern neighbor. And military grade, well - the US is one of the few places where .50cal rifles is just another gun anyone can have. Cheap Chinese pistols is another matter, that's probably something easy enough to get by the cargo container that the cartels wouldn't bother dragging them through the US.

You are really not understanding what you're being told and shown.

Spetulhu wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
A big problem in Mexico is the defection of army personnel and the theft of army property to and by the Cartels. Yes, a portion of cartel owned firearms -do- come from the US but claiming that our gun laws put military grade firearms in the hands of criminals that wouldn't otherwise have them is a grossly inaccurate generalization.

But they do run guns from the US for their own use. It could be it's just so much easier to get the gun across one border than moving it across multiple Mexican districts and maybe in from a southern neighbor. And military grade, well - the US is one of the few places where .50cal rifles is just another gun anyone can have. Cheap Chinese pistols is another matter, that's probably something easy enough to get by the cargo container that the cartels wouldn't bother dragging them through the US.

Most of the Cartel "military" weapons comes from Central/South American countries.