zlacker

Yea... but let’s dive into the statistics. 1,200 deaths from cops - some unknown number justified (a shootout or whatever) and quite literally millions or tens of millions of interactions.

I think we need police reform. As a military veteran I think there is no reason that an MRAP should be on American streets, but I also think the police have pretty large responsibilities and need more training too.

We also (and I’ll say that I am a 2nd Amendment proponent - within reason) have police who have to enter into situations where the other person may be armed, which adds to the stress level.

Frankly, if you look at the stats I’m not even sure we have a police brutality problem; instead we have more of a police abuse of power problem.

Solutions that come to mind:

More training

More pay

More strict hiring requirements

Abolition of police unions

Requiring police to carry insurance

No-hire once fired or terminated from a department (generally but there are specifics here to be discussed)

Sell off and no more spending on war equipment (MRAPs, assault rifles, smoke grenades, whatever)

Mandatory body cams, lack of use results in immediate suspension without pay while an investigation takes place, and if the camera is intentionally turned off immediate termination and no ability to be rehired anywhere in the country

That’s what I would start with

>>ericma+(OP)
Police reform stopped during the current administration as the Department of Justice backed off from enforcing various court orders on some truly inept police departments. It will probably start up shortly after the current administration departs. How well it will be done remains to be seen.

>>ericma+(OP)
> no reason that an MRAP should be on American streets

It's not _on_ American streets. I lived in the US for 20 years and I've never seen one. Likely some SWAT teams purchased them for pennies on the dollar, but I'd argue SWAT teams need them, to reduce casualties when getting close to violent action.

> assault rifles

To the best of my knowledge assault rifles are not in use by US police. AR15 is not an assault rifle.

I saw plenty in London though.

But that's nuance - people younger than, say, 35, won't understand any of it. Literally nobody is interested in the actual reform at the moment. If they were, we'd see some serious proposals by now.

>>ericma+(OP)
There's a whole host of tasks given to the police that they're completely unsuitable for. People keep getting shot when armed police attend wellness checks. Same with traffic stops. A lot of police interactions are with homeless, mentally ill people and/or addicts in need of care, not a damned bullet. The rare cases of active shooters do justify an armed response, but let's be honest, cops rarely respond quickly enough to make a difference in many of those situations.

>>m0zg+M4
> But that's nuance - people younger than, say, 35, won't understand any of it.

Check yourself, pot, that's an awfully broad brush to be calling a kettle incapable of nuance with.

>>Animat+s3
Interesting it just stopped during this administration after not having been 100% fixed in previous ones.

>>isoske+291
There is no "100% fixed", only forward progress or regression. Forward progress was being made before the current administration; forward progress was stopped during this administration.

>>m0zg+M4
> AR15 is not an assault rifle

Means you don't know what and assault riffle is.

>>Gibbon+E42
Assault rifles have selective fire (i.e. they can fire multiple bullets with each pull of the trigger). An AR15 is semi-automatic, which means only one bullet for each pull of the trigger.

>>lliama+ka2
Assault weapons are light weight short barrelled rifles designed to be used in close quarters. That's it.

>>Gibbon+oo2
That is a carbine. Actual assault rifles have selective fire and are heavily regulated.

>>lliama+Ss2
You spouting politically motivated revisionism here. You can do that but I'm not signing up.

>>infogu+3r1
That’s such a vague characterization that I don’t even want to bother finding out what the person who says it thinks “progress” is.

>>Gibbon+hv2
The terms I am using are defined pretty clearly on Wikipedia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbine

You may be confusing "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" which are different categories. The AR15 does usually qualify as an "assault weapon". The definition of assault weapon is looser, and includes a number of features (such as barrel shrouds and flash suppressors") the sole purpose of which is to make the gun safer to use, and have nothing to do with making them actually more dangerous.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

If you have different sources, feel free so share.

>>Gibbon+oo2
Assault weapon != assault rifle. Former is a generic term w/o commonly agreed definition, latter is a rifle with the characteristics the GP listed, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

>>pandam+rG2
Is there anything in the definition of assault weapon that has to do with a shorter barrel though? I'm genuinely curious where this person came to the conclusion that it was relevant.

>>lliama+VT4
Probably some local law? There are 50 states and much more cities, every one of them can have an "Assault Weapon" legislation with whatever definition they want, starting from the color and ending with the "shoulder thing that goes up".

Also, barrel length is one of the most common theme in firearms bans. Usually those consist of legal limits on the minimum barrel length in an effort to prevent people from concealing it, I guess.