When you give a police force military weapons, they are no longer a police force.

[kentuck]

They are a special military unit. It can come to no good end.

The politicians should stop arming policeman with military weaponry.

It's been going on for decades now. Their excuse was that the "thugs" on the street were more heavily armed than they. It is not true.

Removing military hardware from policemen should be in any bill that is proposed or passed.

[Iliyah]

1. No.

In this age, especially in Los Angeles, we need our police prepared, i.e. terrorist attacks, etc.

2/28/1997 - North Hollywood bank robbery. The two suspects were fully armed and ready for a gun fight and the willingness to die. LAPD did not have the equipment nor fire power nor safety vests/armor to counter.

Finally, they did have the numbers and these suspects were eventually taken down.

Overall tho, police should have regular oversight, i.e. mental, physical, training, etc.

[kentuck]

5. The fallacy is that you have to have an AK-47 to take out someone with an AK-47...

Or an anti-tank weapon to take out a tank?

A sniper rifle could take out someone with an AK-47 or AR-15.

I think it is a mistake to arm them like a military combat unit.

[Kaleva]

6. No military in the world agrees with you.

It'd be a slaughter forcing police armed with only .38 special revolvers and shotguns to take out someone hell bent on death and destruction who is armed with a semi-auto weapons and hundreds of rounds of ammo

[kentuck]

7. There is a difference fighting an armed enemy of many as opposed to an individual with an AK-47

That does not justify arming every police dept in America with military weapons, in my opinion. By the way, how many shooters that used assault weapons to kill people were killed by assault weapons used by the police? I don't recall even one??

[Kaleva]

8. What military weapons are police departments armed with?

Handguns and so-called sniper rifles are used by every military in the world.

Your comment:

"There is a difference fighting an armed enemy of many as opposed to an individual with an AK-47"

Not really. the goal is the same regardless of how many or few are involved.

Your comment:

"By the way, how many shooters that used assault weapons to kill people were killed by assault weapons used by the police?"

No military uses so-called assault weapons .

[malaise]

2. The ReTHUGs?

[treestar]

3. If it's not true, what is the support for that?

I think they have that because of hostage situations and the wars on various things - drugs, crime, terrorism. Everyone seems to forget more recent history. Clinton campaigned on 100000 extra officers on the streets. That era was one of fear of crime. 30 years later, it's like the PD did it themselves.

[Kaleva]

4. Disarm the civilians first and then think about doing the same to the police.

[Baclava]

9. That could be a losing argument

[Kaleva]

12. Could have accomplished the same thing with a lever action.

[kentuck]

10. Make assault weapons illegal again.

Then take them from the police. They don't need the Humvees, the armed personnel carriers, the tear gas, the flash grenades, or any of the military weaponry, in my opinion.

[Kaleva]

13. I don't have an argument with that.

[EX500rider]

14. "Make assault weapons illegal again." They never were illegal.

They restricted certain cosmetic features like flash guards or bayonet lugs but you could always buy a semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine. (ie "assault weapons&quot

[sarisataka]

11. What a difference a month can make

From when it was proposed the police should have more military equipment.