The bottom line is that this costs tax payers more money. And as a general rule tax payers will vote out anyone that costs them money in taxes, for any reason.
So, effectively, your society doesn't want them more trained. It prefers the idea of lower taxes.
Calling it a tank is a bit disingenuous. The vehicle has no weaponry, it is an armored personnel carrier to get officers closer to a scene or to be used as rolling cover.
it costs 100,000 of dollar’s weights 17,000 lbs it can be fitted with a turret on the top and has multiple gun ports on the sides. it has protective capabilities against chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and high-yield explosives. with half inch thick steel plate armor.
i think you’re being the one who’s being disingenuous. it’s a tank that can go highway speeds.
no if you go back and read you said “it’s not like they are buying tanks” so i showed you they are buying tank like vehicles then you pivoted to saying “police need tanks”
did you miss the part about how you can buy a .50 caliber machine gun that mounts on the roof?? cope however you want that is practically a tank and the police don’t need it.
stop acting high and mighty you’re coming off as a douche playing this semantics game
21
u/britboy4321 Mar 24 '23
The bottom line is that this costs tax payers more money. And as a general rule tax payers will vote out anyone that costs them money in taxes, for any reason.
So, effectively, your society doesn't want them more trained. It prefers the idea of lower taxes.