• TheLurker@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    10 months ago

    Technically you don’t need a rifle to beat rifle fire either, if you throw enough bodies at it.

    What’s your point?

    • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      That they’re terror weapons, not a reasonable counter to small arms, which have existed for decades in the form of armored SWAT vans and reinforced patrol car bodies for a fraction of the price.

      • TheLurker@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        Escalation in armed conflict is rarely fair and never in the interest of the public.

        As for it being “cheaper” most of this shit was gifted to the police by the military.

        We don’t have this problem in my country because we have sensible gun laws. If the USA would stop with its ermegurd ma guns equal ma freedum bullshit then your police and politicians wouldn’t have such an easy time selling you fear and terror.

        • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          I always find the self righteousness of bootlickers fascinating.

          Why are you more interested in excusing the boot and disarming the people rather than asking why the funds can’t be spent on stopping the circumstances that create violence before it starts?

          • TheLurker@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            So my country having sensible gun laws makes us all bootlickers?

            Yeah okay. Righto mate, you can fuck off now dickhead. Enjoy ya freedum wrapped up in a .50 cartridge as it blows ya brains out, fucking deluded cunt.