Discussion in 'User Topics' started by djfly, Sep 6, 2016.
Oh I'm all for TAZER usage too, all for it. But we're talking about handguns. XD
You're trying to pound a square peg into a round hole.
Firearms are lethal weapons. Period. You never pull the trigger unless you intend to kill the target. Period. Any belief to the contrary is a juvenile fantasy.
If the problem is that police are causing unnecessary deaths, then they should be trained with a different threshold to deploy their sidearm. Simple as that.
Edit: You're also using American events and I'm Canadian.
9mm bullets are lethal implement when they strike vital organs, but outside of that when they're hitting limbs they're sub-lethal. And yes that's a real term look it up if you don't believe me. If police are armed with small calibre rounds and they're not aiming for center mass, then they're not shooting for lethality theyre shooting TO WOUND. I really don't appreciate being called juvenile but I guess I'll let it slide because you're djfly and I understand where you're coming from.
Any larger of a round can be called automatically lethal because larger rounds do more damage. I remember reading a report on 9mm ammunition though and about how it was proving to be remarkably non-lethal. If police were trained to use this bit of knowledge, lives could be saved by aiming bursts at the extremities. Call me sick folks but it's called shooting to wound and it would save lives.
People get wounded and not killed by guns all the time, thusly they are not solely lethal. End rant.
You're really not listening.
Sure, they can be non-lethal, just like a a baton can be lethal. A LEO has many tools available, from a baton, strobing flashlight, OC spray, Taser, pistol. Though it has the potential not to be, though it might not always cause a fatality, the pistol is considered lethal.
If you have an issue with police deploying lethal force when they do, that's a fair position to take, but to distort the the use of force discussion with the fact that a pistol might not kill is either naive or uninformed.
Also, many police forces don't carry 9mm. If you really wanted to change the casualty rate with police involved shootings, you'd disallow hollowpoint rounds (they're banned in war per the Geneva convention, but not for Law Enforcement purposes)...
Lol what the **** man why are you resorting to namecalling and attempting to denegrade my character? I've proven that pistols do not always necessarily kill and should be used as such, where's the counterpoint? Oh yeah, there isn't one, so you're resorting to name calling and outright ad hominem!
And yeah using hollowpoints on civilians is not cool. Maybe this entire time I've been thinking of regular solid-tipped rounds and not hollow-point people killers, because they do less damage.
At no point did I call anyone names. I did suggest that the argument was naive (as it lacks consideration for so many immediately relevant factors)
Answered 3 times, but I'll try again:
The firearm is *the* lethal tool the police are issued. They are trained that it is the lethal option. Since there are so many other non-lethal and less-than-lethal options immediately available, there is no value in making the pistol dual duty. The cop is trained to react with the correct tool for the threat, not to use the tool in a different way depending on the threat. Attempting this would simply complicate the deployment of the pistol. If there's a problem with lethal force, the solution is to train to use non-lethal force, to choose a different tool, not to train the cop to shoot for a leg.
Well they should be trained in all aspects of their tools should they not? Solely using pistols to deliver lethal force is wrong in my books and futher strategies should be examined, although I'm pretty sure they won't be, even though things are heading down the crapper in some places in the US for policing in the public eye.
In other words, I fully understand what you are saying to me, but believe a re-examining of fundamental Police Sciences should come about as a result of what we've learned and seen recently and even not so recently in the news.
When you consider that the firearm is intended to be the lethal weapon, it makes absolute sense to use hollowpoint rounds.
Think about this: In Canada, police involved shootings are exceptionally rare. I think there are almost as many deaths-in-custody from non-firearm related events. Our line is different. The accepted use of force is different. It's not that Canadian police only shoot at legs.
You're unfortunately lumping a whole pile of factors (none of which have anything to do with firearms) in without addressing them. In the US, police are generally underpaid and under trained, primarily due to the lack of budget in many jurisdictions. Understaffed, underpaid, under-trained, under-equipped... This eventually boils over. I honestly think these guys are scared on the job. They didn't go out on shift planning on killing someone. Subject pushes back a bit, perhaps drunk, perhaps feeling harassed. Cop, knowing they have little backup, draws their weapon to discourage the subject from attacking. Tensions high... we know where it goes...
I still maintain that the pistol should be considered lethal. Even the CFSC teaches you this. Every gun is loaded. You don't point at it unless you want to kill it. The suggestion that they anyone should consider a firearm less-than-lethal is ludicrous.
Separate issue, same trending overall topic. It seems like total bull how Police involved in shootings often claim to be Non Guilty of the murder or death of the victim involved - when the only proof everyone needs is the cadaver with the matching bullets in the corpse. Like seriously it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the simple math behind who killed who. Matching prints on the weapon and the bullets in the body, with even one digital feed should be enough to close these cases in approximately an hour, Yet the nonsense goes on in the News and Media for an average of years before anything happens. It is another generalization of how stupid the public is to actually believe this type of information on what is really going on. Like when media relations are compounding over and over that investigations are taking place, I think to myself with over half of these scenarios, WTF was there to investigate.
And yeah most pistols and handheld firearms under any type of physical strain are almost impossible to fire into a target accurately. The adrenaline and other factors make the retention of the sights in one's forward view almost useless. And factor in how many people are actually in physically good shape these days, when we speak about physical strain. This could easily take place these days from walking or jogging a very short distance.
I never said consider firearms as less than lethal, I said USE them as such. It is different, and you're being incredibly narrow-minded about it.
There are still police involved shootings in Canada, there's not much difference between Canadian and American overall. Same tools, same training, same language, same problems. Less guns in Canada sure, but officers still shoot to kill when faced with a weapon, which is what I'm talking about. One Canadian incident I can think of saw multiple officers pump dozens of rounds into a Somali man wielding a knife when they could have just as easily tazered him or shot-to-wound. Just last week another man was gunned down for welding a knife after a fight with a relative near where I live. I'm thinking of giving police more options and strategies than just "shoot center mass".
I'm thinking about reducing police lethality, you're obviously a proponent for the current system as it is. I don't think we're going to get anywhere here lol
And cibernaut, shooting a gun isn't about looking down the sights, it's about placing a round where you want it. It becomes instinctive when you accept a firearm as a tool that becomes a part of your body and you just know in any situation how to use it. It's not my fault if you can't shoot lol but some people can use weapons very effectively and the police are supposed to be one of those types of people. A person who can handle a weapon safely and effectively.
For the record, I think this is a spirited debate and cooler heads have mostly prevailed. Good stuff, Nexopia! Good points on all sides. It's a complicated, nuanced topic and there are no easy answers.
I find your statement to be completely ineffective then Skullpirate01 how many actual people in society are smart enough or well trained enough in an overall bias of everyone to get the job done when it needs to be completed. Police are the same, only the very few of each and all of them are going to be able to perform to even the slightest amount of their so called training. Only about 10% of the population is actually skilled enough or has training to be able to rationalize or effectively use what is mostly book learning or simulated taught abilities in the real world. Really now, Police work is hugely underpaying and not the greatest of all work available to those skilled upper level citizens with cognitive motor vehicle based athletic skills. It's just percentages and math, of all Police what is the overall number of accurate shooters that are going to place the target right on 100% of the time, now how about 50% of the time or 30% of the time. The number from all collected data is most likely very low, which still doesn't solve the fact of how these people, that even it they could shoot an arm or a leg, get away with killing someone when the overall scenario is so simple. Like people without water or food = death. So how does a bullet into someone's head not equal murder, when no outside forces are prevalent.
I realize there are moral issues with everything, and yes some people are very skilled with machines and they become extensions of their overall self to accomplish great aptitudes. Yet, what about everyone else that didn't even learn how to speak english to a Grade A level or all the other shortcomings of the average man or women. 35-50K a year isn't really a great paying job when, these people have families - car payments - house payments and all other sorts of nonsense additions into their budgets. I'd be interested to know if their training is even rated based upon learning or is just a guaranteed pass based overall attendance. When you place the overall skill level needed against other types of work that pay the exact same, it's the general ratio of society that are not overachievers. I hate people who are abusive and all other types of bullying personalities out there, although I do not hate all of the Law in itself. Only the certain overzealous connotations that are driving up the actual criminal behaviours and lowering the chances everyone has a fair life in itself. So in summary It seems only human to say that under most circumstances of daily life, if not like you and I. They are not partially robotic in their ways of getting everything done effectively and safely. The average human is burdened by random nonsense every moment of the day on their subconscious, and the tasking of outside of work issues. So I would harshly say that most people are not going to be able to make a leg shot or arm shot accurately in most situations, given the overall shifting environments and physicalities of.
@Cib3rNaut I pretty much give up on this thread. You have some good points but I don't know how to balance a fair discussion against emotion...
Sick-ass accuracy with that platform, nice grouping!
That group is about 6 MOA. I'm pretty sure that if I switched optics and ammunition that this would be a 2-3 MOA rifle when shooting inside of 100m. Not too bad for 9x19mm.
(1 Minute Of Angle is approximately 26mm at 100m)
This is probably the best 5 round group; 35mm at 50 meters or 2.7MOA:
Separate names with a comma.