Guns used in the Dallas were a 70 year-old SKS and a handgun.

[pianoman9701]

I was peacetime Regular Army. I've never fired a gun in anger nor have I been purposely shot at. I do train frequently but I have no experience with what cops have to deal with and still, have always been a supporter. I understand that neutralizing a threat is the foremost importance. I also understand that our national political climate is changing rapidly and that we have to start changing the conversations regarding the use of deadly force. Ramping up the deadly force abilities by using explosives to kill doesn't seem to fit with the current trends of examining the possibility that we can accomplish the same goals while killing fewer people. I will stop short of comparing us to Europe because we have gun rights that they don't.

[JLS]

You know as well as I that you can have a department with 300 justified kills in a row and just one creates the BS protests. This isn't just about the militarization of the police and due process, although I am concerned about those. It's about also coming up with solutions which show the public that the police are doing everything in their power not to kill. There are dozens of non-lethal responses that may be able to be deployed instead of using explosives to kill someone.

I don't disagree with you here, and thank you for the civil discussion.

I personally believe that the issue at hand is not so much the police killing someone.  I think it is merely indicative of a much larger problem of real and/or perceived racial and sociological divides.  I think many people direct their political frustrations towards the police, when in reality they are not even part of the equation in many instances.

I would much rather see efforts and money directed towards the low income class families that feel very much disenfranchised by our country.  I would rather see efforts and money directed towards substance abuse treatment and mental illness treatment.  I would rather see communities learn to empower their own and feel that they can legitimately change their circumstance for the better.  All of these would greatly reduce the tensions that are so prevalent in our society today.

[pianoman9701]

 . I agree completely. It's just that the public conversation isn't going in that direction. Thank you Mr. President and Rev.s (cough) Sharpton & Jackson.

[Hi-Liter]

Not to get off base on this thread, But I thought the "AR" was Armalite, not an (A)ssault (R)ifle. I believe the word "assault rifle" is a fancy, scary word the news media and gov't has used for years. There seems to be no actual definition of what a AR 15 (Military-M16) and their variants really are. The AR should be called Armalite.

By U.S. Army definition, a selective-fire rifle chambered for a cartridge of intermediate power. If applied to any semi-automatic firearm regardless of its cosmetic similarity to a true assault rifle, the term is incorrect. Assault Weapon. Any weapon used in an assault (see WEAPON).
NRA-ILA | Glossary
https://www.nraila.org/about/glossary/

[724wd]

The use of the bomb doesn't sit well with me, though I am hesitant to say much because I wasn't there, and have no background in the use of lethal force.  I do wonder if stun grenades, tear gas, and the like might not have been a better choice?  I am a believer in due process and want a person to have their day in court.  If the police or government can eliminate someone they think of as a threat without due process, that seems like a bad idea to me!

[konradcountry]

I know this scenario sounds far-fetched. But, 20 years ago, exploding a device to kill a criminal would've seemed far-fetched, too. I'm concerned about the build-up of military hardware and munitions in our local police, and what that ordinance might be used for down the road in case we have a tyrannical government take over.  Call me paranoid but i don't trust our government and it's less trustworthy every day.

It's actually not the first time it has happened. Read about the MOVE bombing of 1985.

My concern is that police are not getting proper equipment at these protests in an attempt to appear less militarized. I saw pictures of police out there with glocks and no helmets. Why did they not have ARs in their vehicles?

[konradcountry]

I think the key phrase you're missing is this:

Explosives are not as exact as people think they are.  Unintended consequences can have long lasting effects and I don't think we should take that lightly.

We're lucky that the bomb didn't hurt anybody else.  This time.

He was barricaded inside a concrete parking garage and didn't have any hostages. The risk of hurting anyone else was minimal.

But if it makes you feel any better it won't be long until all SWAT teams have robots that can shoot.

[jmscon]

I think the key phrase you're missing is this:

Explosives are not as exact as people think they are.  Unintended consequences can have long lasting effects and I don't think we should take that lightly.

We're lucky that the bomb didn't hurt anybody else.  This time.

He was barricaded inside a concrete parking garage and didn't have any hostages. The risk of hurting anyone else was minimal.

But if it makes you feel any better it won't be long until all SWAT teams have robots that can shoot.

This time.

I have very mixed feelings about this. I support due process but with an active shooter....

The robot needs a can of bear repellant, or wasp killer.

[ctwiggs1]

I think the key phrase you're missing is this:

Explosives are not as exact as people think they are.  Unintended consequences can have long lasting effects and I don't think we should take that lightly.

We're lucky that the bomb didn't hurt anybody else.  This time.

He was barricaded inside a concrete parking garage and didn't have any hostages. The risk of hurting anyone else was minimal.

But if it makes you feel any better it won't be long until all SWAT teams have robots that can shoot.

You may want to check your facts.  Also, you're missing the point.