Quote:
Originally posted by Hack&Lube+Jul 16 2005, 02:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Hack&Lube @ Jul 16 2005, 02:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Claeren@Jul 16 2005, 02:51 PM
I always find the machine guns comical (from experience in NYC). Are terrorists really scared of those big guns? No 'terrorist' has EVER been confronted directly in a first world nation with a fully automatic machine gun to my knowledge, let alone been killed by one.
Bomb sniffer dogs, undercover cops, xray and metal detecting machines, and random searches all seem FAR more effective. Every dollar spent on heavy weapons is a dollar not spent on other forms of protection.
Claeren.
|
They're not machine guns. They are almost always simply a shotgun or an automatic rifle.
What the tax dollars go toward are the appearance of an armed force as a a deterrent from entering an area and doing something that would be conspicuous.
But it's true, armed police officers can't stop a guy with a bomb in his backback. [/b][/quote]
That type of response is the entire goal of terrorism and that is why it is so effective against the American-mindset.
Every soldier in the street is a reminder to the American people of how scared they need to be. (Regardless of any small benefit of an illusion of safety)
Terrorists are about the only people NOT scared of the joke-soldiers in the streets with big guns.
And regardless of the actual gun type, it is always excessive and will/could never be used in repelling a non-conventional attack. Again, that would go against everything that terrorism trys to achieve and the means they use to do to so.
Claeren.