San Diego School District's New 18-Ton Armored Vehicle Creates Stir

[derspiess]

And steel helmets with death cards in the band too plz.

[DGuller]

Bring back the M79

Isn't that single-shot?  Can we afford to under-equip our police forces with single shot grenade launchers?

[derspiess]

Bring back the M79

Isn't that single-shot?  Can we afford to under-equip our police forces with single shot grenade launchers?

You can reload those sumbitches fast.

[garbon]

Yeah, the grenade launchers get a bad rap because of its name, but it's great when it comes to gas for crowd control.

I don't think we should be gassing students.

[DGuller]

Yeah, the grenade launchers get a bad rap because of its name, but it's great when it comes to gas for crowd control.

I don't think we should be gassing students.

What's the alternative, high explosives? 

[Malthus]

Yeah, the grenade launchers get a bad rap because of its name, but it's great when it comes to gas for crowd control.

Kindergarden must be more exciting in your country. 

[grumbler]

I am eager to learn why a school board needs an armoured car ... but I am delighted to hear that they no longer require grenade launchers. 

  Tear gas grenades fired from grenade launchers make some degree of sense.  Mine-resistant, ambush-proofed "armored cars" that tip over easily... a lot less.

[grumbler]

Yeah, the grenade launchers get a bad rap because of its name, but it's great when it comes to gas for crowd control.

I don't think we should be gassing students.

Under no circumstances? 

How about people who are holding students or administrators hostage, or who are attacking a school building.  Do you think we should gas them?

[Malthus]

I am eager to learn why a school board needs an armoured car ... but I am delighted to hear that they no longer require grenade launchers. 

  Tear gas grenades fired from grenade launchers make some degree of sense.  Mine-resistant, ambush-proofed "armored cars" that tip over easily... a lot less.

Why the "  :"? I said I'm "eager to learn why a school board needs an armoured car". The implication is, I don't know any good reason why they would want one.

[grumbler]

I am eager to learn why a school board needs an armoured car ... but I am delighted to hear that they no longer require grenade launchers. 

  Tear gas grenades fired from grenade launchers make some degree of sense.  Mine-resistant, ambush-proofed "armored cars" that tip over easily... a lot less.

Why the "  :"? I said I'm "eager to learn why a school board needs an armoured car". The implication is, I don't know any good reason why they would want one.

So, your post and my response only, in your mind, addressed the "armoured car" issue?  Neither of us said anything about grenade launchers, as far as you can see?

[Malthus]

I am eager to learn why a school board needs an armoured car ... but I am delighted to hear that they no longer require grenade launchers. 

  Tear gas grenades fired from grenade launchers make some degree of sense.  Mine-resistant, ambush-proofed "armored cars" that tip over easily... a lot less.

Why the "  :"? I said I'm "eager to learn why a school board needs an armoured car". The implication is, I don't know any good reason why they would want one.

So, your post and my response only, in your mind, addressed the "armoured car" issue?  Neither of us said anything about grenade launchers, as far as you can see?

I said I was delighted to hear that they no longer require them (commenting on the news story, that they were giving them up).  Your point being? 

As far as I know, I never said anything like 'it makes sense to have armoured cars but not grenade launchers', which appears to be what you thought I was saying, given your response.

In point of fact, I think neither makes much sense for school police, but if I was pressed, I would agree with you that armoured cars make less sense, since there is at least some theoretic possibility of rioting students requiring tear gassing. 

[grumbler]

I said I was delighted to hear that they no longer require them (commenting on the news story, that they were giving them up).  Your point being? 

The school system was giving up the grenade launchers, not eliminating the need for them.  I'm not sure why that is such a delightful thing.  That was the point.

...here is at least some theoretic possibility of rioting students requiring tear gassing.

So, tear gas or smoke could only ever be used on students?  There is no "theoretic possibility" that tear gas or smoke could be used to protect or rescue school students or staff?

[Malthus]

The school system was giving up the grenade launchers, not eliminating the need for them.  I'm not sure why that is such a delightful thing.  That was the point.

As you saying that the fact that they made the decision to give them up isn't a reasonable basis to believe that they themselves decided they weren't needed? What exactly are you basing this apparently irrational action on their part on? 

So, tear gas or smoke could only ever be used on students?  There is no "theoretic possibility" that tear gas or smoke could be used to protect or rescue school students or staff?

Sure. So?

[grumbler]

As you saying that the fact that they made the decision to give them up isn't a reasonable basis to believe that they themselves decided they weren't needed? What exactly are you basing this apparently irrational action on their part on? 

I'm assuming nothing.  I am merely questioning your assumptions.  Sometimes people or organizations give things up because they are too expensive, not because they don't serve a purpose.  The US Navy gave up 31 Spruance class destroyers with an average of a decade of service life left; not because they didn't have a need for the ships, but because the decision sacrificed the least capability for the  budget reduction needed.  That sort of trade-off isn't even remotely "apparently irrational."

[Malthus]

As you saying that the fact that they made the decision to give them up isn't a reasonable basis to believe that they themselves decided they weren't needed? What exactly are you basing this apparently irrational action on their part on? 

I'm assuming nothing.  I am merely questioning your assumptions.  Sometimes people or organizations give things up because they are too expensive, not because they don't serve a purpose.  The US Navy gave up 31 Spruance class destroyers with an average of a decade of service life left; not because they didn't have a need for the ships, but because the decision sacrificed the least capability for the  budget reduction needed.  That sort of trade-off isn't even remotely "apparently irrational."

Something they allegedly got for free is "too expensive" now? 

From thec article:

Los Angeles schools' police said on Tuesday it would give up three grenade launchers it acquired for free through a federal program ...

[emphasis]

You are not exactly undermining the assumption they did not need them with that argument.