No, no, no. This vehicle isn't about an armed response to students who cook up bombs in the lab. Its purpose is to deploy medical supplies and teddy bears.
Honestly, with no turret or gun, it's not much more than a very durable, very fuel-inefficient truck, regardless of its "military heritage." If having one sends a message that the school district is "at war with the streets," what message does private citizen ownership of military-derived (but not actually military-grade, without fully automatic fire) rifles send to their neighbors?
I'm more concerned about the cost-benefit analysis of owning one. It may have been free to initially obtain, but anything that heavy is a monster gas guzzler, and you sure as heck can't get it worked on at the local dealership. Both expenses will add up fast. I don't think there's anything the school district could use it for that would justify the expense. Just leave the MRAPs with the local bomb squad. For a school district, it's a white elephant gift from the Feds, no matter what color they paint it :)
There's really no problem with military vehicle sales to private citizens, even: if you really want (and can afford) a Humvee, for offroading or whatever, that's on you. I can't imagine why anyone would want an MRAP for anything except actual war, though -- the V-shaped chassis makes for a sickening ride.
I imagine it's hard on the pavement, too. Plus, as you say, incredibly expensive to own and operate. Why would any community agree to pay the taxes for one, unless they have bombs going off on the streets?
I suspect the prospect of "Monster truck, free to a good home!" speaks way too loudly to the inner child of many an administrator, short-circuiting outright any consideration of the cost of care and feeding for such a beast until it's actually sitting in your parking lot. And I'll bet they have no idea about how an MRAP rides. (What is the ride like, anyway, and do you know how the V-hull drives that effect?)
What sort of taxes would be assessed on such a vehicle, anyway? I doubt there's a Blue Book value for the annual depreciation of a slightly-used MRAP, and the resale value may well be nil given the absence of a genuine market for such vehicles (short of selling it to another government, or the state Guard, or something).
Or do you mean the citizens paying the taxes to operate it, rather than the school district paying some sort of taxes on the vehicle itself? I doubt they even had a say -- "discretionary funds" or whatever.
9 comments:
Caimans were always my least favorite of the MRAPs.
Well, you know. Some of those students are pretty good at ginning up explosives in the school's chemistry lab.
Or at least we were, in my high school days, back when chemistry labs had, you know, chemicals in them.
Eric Hines
No, no, no. This vehicle isn't about an armed response to students who cook up bombs in the lab. Its purpose is to deploy medical supplies and teddy bears.
Ah. So the authorities are the ones on the attack, now, with poisons and bombs.
Or is this the new Ritalin-mobile?
Eric Hines
And counselors.
Heh. Even NPR is starting to notice.
WAKE UP, SHEEPLE!
Honestly, with no turret or gun, it's not much more than a very durable, very fuel-inefficient truck, regardless of its "military heritage." If having one sends a message that the school district is "at war with the streets," what message does private citizen ownership of military-derived (but not actually military-grade, without fully automatic fire) rifles send to their neighbors?
I'm more concerned about the cost-benefit analysis of owning one. It may have been free to initially obtain, but anything that heavy is a monster gas guzzler, and you sure as heck can't get it worked on at the local dealership. Both expenses will add up fast. I don't think there's anything the school district could use it for that would justify the expense. Just leave the MRAPs with the local bomb squad. For a school district, it's a white elephant gift from the Feds, no matter what color they paint it :)
There's really no problem with military vehicle sales to private citizens, even: if you really want (and can afford) a Humvee, for offroading or whatever, that's on you. I can't imagine why anyone would want an MRAP for anything except actual war, though -- the V-shaped chassis makes for a sickening ride.
I imagine it's hard on the pavement, too. Plus, as you say, incredibly expensive to own and operate. Why would any community agree to pay the taxes for one, unless they have bombs going off on the streets?
I suspect the prospect of "Monster truck, free to a good home!" speaks way too loudly to the inner child of many an administrator, short-circuiting outright any consideration of the cost of care and feeding for such a beast until it's actually sitting in your parking lot. And I'll bet they have no idea about how an MRAP rides. (What is the ride like, anyway, and do you know how the V-hull drives that effect?)
What sort of taxes would be assessed on such a vehicle, anyway? I doubt there's a Blue Book value for the annual depreciation of a slightly-used MRAP, and the resale value may well be nil given the absence of a genuine market for such vehicles (short of selling it to another government, or the state Guard, or something).
Or do you mean the citizens paying the taxes to operate it, rather than the school district paying some sort of taxes on the vehicle itself? I doubt they even had a say -- "discretionary funds" or whatever.
Post a Comment