I bet that steel ball would fracture your skull, spine, ribs, or any point of contact that isn't heavily guarded by fat. Based on the ballistics gel footage, a direct hit to the chest with that would probably be enough to simultaneously break your sternum and stop your heart, no penetration required.
As an above poster said, it's a relatively low velocity cannon ball, and claiming to be less lethal than a bullet isn't saying much about what someone will look like after being on the receiving end.
aren't officers trained to shoot more than one shot if they are forced to fire their weapons? there's no warning shots.
Cops usually fire multiple rounds with their gun cause they intend to end the suspect's life before he or she harms someone else. If you had this on your gun you won't fire more than the first round if it's not needed. The video even says this is for situations where the officer has the time to determine whether or not it's use is a good decision. But it's better than a taser in a situation where you might need to kill your target if the less-than-lethal method fails. Cause the transition from taser to pistol is takes a relatively long time if you have to make a split second decision. If you have this on your gun. You know that it's very likely you will have to kill him. But would like the chance to save his life before having to possibly resort to ending it.
Also. As for firing more than one round "accidentally". I've been shooting guns ( including pistols) on a regular basis for years. You're a terrible shooter if you can't control your finger. And shouldn't be a cop if you can't selectively fire your weapon.
Honestly without trials I can't see how the effectiveness of this can be properly judged. Just let departments try it out. And if it fails. Then stop using it. And if works out then great.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;47161668]You do realize what will happen as to the balance and aim with the sudden shift in weight from that thing being on to that thing being off, correct? Police officers do not get to wait when it comes time to fire. Not half of a second. It does not take much time for a bystander to die from a slow response. All this does is hamper the accuracy of the officer and introduce more risk to the officer and bystanders.
[/QUOTE]
At handgun ranges, it's really not that big of a deal. If someone is rushing you with a close range weapon(basically all cases where this would be used), there would either be enough distance between you and them to readjust your aim, or you'd be so close that any change in weapon handling wouldn't affect accuracy to any major degree.
Not to mention that the ball is likely made of aluminium and not heavy enough to shift the weight that much.
[QUOTE=Keelwar;47161782]aren't officers trained to shoot more than one shot if they are forced to fire their weapons? there's no warning shots.[/QUOTE]
If the cop goes through the effort to put this thing on they can probably resist firing more than one shot. It's still a retarded idea, though, since a cop shouldn't be firing their gun unless it's to kill.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_KJ1R2PCMM[/media]
Yeah, let me put this little ball thing on my gun so I can try and use less lethal force against someone who is using lethal force.
Guns are for deadly force, if the situation does not require deadly force then why pull out a firearm, place this goofy device on it and use it? If the situation needs deadly force why try and use less lethal?
Here is an idea, i know people hate cops and want to blame them for all their woes. But if you don't present yourself as a threat to an officer you're not going to get shot. Listen, Comply, and use the courts to fight your case. The street isn't a court room and the cops #1 priority is safety and control.
Most cases it takes two to tango, cops only react to your actions.
You can go into the realm of shit cops who shoot people unjustified, well that is just that they're shit people and deserved to be charged as such.
I cant even begin to express how stupid this shit is.
This is just another tool in their arsenal, if they determine that they can put it to use and observe the result before they're in any danger it's an option. Could it still kill their target? Of course, but a large steel ball travelling at less than the speed of the bullet that would otherwise be fired likely wouldn't do as much damage - the intent is to incapacitate, not kill; that's why it's called "less-lethal". If they're under immediate threat once they've attached it they can just as easily fire the ball and follow up if necessary. If they're getting shot at or something they need not attach the.. thing in the first place
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;47161956]This is just another tool in their arsenal, if they determine that they can put it to use and observe the result before they're in any danger it's an option. Could it still kill their target? Of course, but a large steel ball travelling at less than the speed of the bullet that would otherwise be fired likely wouldn't do as much damage - the intent is to incapacitate, not kill; that's why it's called "less-lethal". If they're under immediate threat once they've attached it they can just as easily fire the ball and follow up if necessary. If they're getting shot at or something they need not attach the.. thing in the first place[/QUOTE]
Easy follow up? So what they're suppose to carry more of these stupid things and be expected to do follow up shots with these things?
Its funny that people are liking this idea but they hate the idea of rubber bullets. This is the same exact thing as a rubber bullet except bigger (Rubber bullets are just steel cores wrapped in rubber.)
It would prolly be easier for a cop to just carry one magazine filled with rubber bullets.
[QUOTE=MR-X;47161992]Easy follow up? So what they're suppose to carry more of these stupid things and be expected to do follow up shots with these things?
Its funny that people are liking this idea but they hate the idea of rubber bullets. This is the same exact thing as a rubber bullet except bigger (Rubber bullets are just steel cores wrapped in rubber.)
It would prolly be easier for a cop to just carry one magazine filled with rubber bullets.[/QUOTE]
Easy follow up as in an easy transition from one less lethal attempt to usage of lethal ammunition. If the steel ball breaks his hip and he goes down bringing his gun up, you can immediately fire your weapon rather than having to switch from the less than lethal option to the gun.
[QUOTE=archangel125;47161513]An inert rifle grenade will probably kill you if it hits you. Those things are heavy.[/QUOTE]
Nah
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-EFlA3i6oo[/media]
[QUOTE=FreakyMe;47162013]Easy follow up as in an easy transition from one less lethal attempt to usage of lethal ammunition. If the steel ball breaks his hip and he goes down bringing his gun up, you can immediately fire your weapon rather than having to switch from the less than lethal option to the gun.[/QUOTE]
I misunderstood. I Thought he was talking about following up with another less lethal round.
This is absolutely brilliant
its not perfect, it could still kill, but this is going to reduce deaths massively
I thought the justification for always shooting to kill once you fire at somebody was that if you aim for the leg or something (other than being much harder to hit and still dangerous), you're using potentially lethal force on a target which you clearly considered to not warrant lethal force. If that's the case, then wouldn't these fall into the same boat? Like, if you need lethal force, use lethal force. If you don't need lethal force, using potentially lethal force is excessive. idk, maybe I'm misunderstanding the issue here.
police shoot to stop the threat, not kill
[QUOTE=Code3Response;47162049]police shoot to stop the threat, not kill[/QUOTE]
I think that's the thing people need to realize
lethal force results in death, but that isn't the point of using it. it's because all else has failed in a scenario where they've tried verbal and taser/spray warnings. the only thing you can do is use a gun.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;47162049]police shoot to stop the threat, not kill[/QUOTE]
Er... Police shoot to kill. It's common knowledge both within the law enforcement community and without. You never shoot without intent to kill. Never.
because currently thats what guns do...
[QUOTE=Xyrec;47161588]This has to be the dumbest thing ever. If you shoot someone with this thing, you already have your finger on the trigger, which mean there's a change you might accidentally fire another bullet :v:[/QUOTE]
The Glocks they give to police aren't the automatic ones you know
[QUOTE=archangel125;47162065]Er... Police shoot to kill. It's common knowledge both within the law enforcement community and without. You never shoot without intent to kill. Never.[/QUOTE]
No. We are never trained to kill. We are always trained to stop the threat. That does not mean they die.
[QUOTE=archangel125;47162065]Er... Police shoot to kill. It's common knowledge both within the law enforcement community and without. You never shoot without intent to kill. Never.[/QUOTE]
There's a difference between intent and a possible (or perhaps even likely) outcome; police shoot to stop a threat, the act of shooting has the possibility of killing the person they are shooting, however the intent isn't to kill the person, it's to stop a threat.
I don't see a ton of use for this, it's something that's to be used in a very few situations that could have been also fulfilled by a taser. I do see it working for a lone officer type of situation, but even then generally things are so close and happen in such a small time frame it would be useless.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;47162117]No. We are never trained to kill. We are always trained to stop the threat. That does not mean they die.[/QUOTE]
Are you telling me your department trains you to not always shoot for center mass? Sounds completely ridiculous to me. Our departments up here in Canada train us to acknowledge that if we ever have to use a gun, we've no option but to use lethal force to stop a threat. An officer who shoots for an extremity like an arm or a leg to neutralize a threat is acting against that training. We're taught that guns are designed to kill, and if things have gotten to the point when there's no other option but to kill, we employ them. Once the threat is neutralized, whether the person is alive or not, CPR is started and an ambulance is immediately called for a trained medic to make that call and/or provide treatment. (Since police officers, at least over here, are not qualified to determine whether a person is alive or dead, unless they're cut in half or beheaded)
[editline]17th February 2015[/editline]
They're not considered 'an option' for neutralizing a threat, they're considered the last resort when there's nothing else left. Officers are trained to aim every shot fired from a sidearm to kill.
The reason this training is in place is to get officers to keep the gravity of what they're doing in mind whenever they have to draw their gun, to drive home the fact that if you're forced to fire it, you're trying to kill.
[QUOTE=MR-X;47161992]Easy follow up? So what they're suppose to carry more of these stupid things and be expected to do follow up shots with these things?
Its funny that people are liking this idea but they hate the idea of rubber bullets. This is the same exact thing as a rubber bullet except bigger (Rubber bullets are just steel cores wrapped in rubber.)
It would prolly be easier for a cop to just carry one magazine filled with rubber bullets.[/QUOTE]
By follow up I meant with real bullets.
Also as for rubber bullets, as far as I'm aware while still potentially lethal they're not powerful enough in pistol calibres to be worth using over real bullets or something like this. That and apparently they do not cause the action to cycle on a semi-auto pistol, which would lead to problems with the whole rate of fire thing.
Nice thought, but it doesn't really matter when police shootings routinely involve dumping an entire magazine at somebody. I'd rather they just stick to the taser.
[QUOTE=archangel125;47162149]Are you telling me your department trains you to not always shoot for center mass? Sounds completely ridiculous to me. Our departments up here in Canada train us to acknowledge that if we ever have to use a gun, we've no option but to use lethal force to stop a threat. An officer who shoots for an extremity like an arm or a leg to neutralize a threat is acting against that training. We're taught that guns are designed to kill, and if things have gotten to the point when there's no other option but to kill, we employ them. [B]Once the threat is neutralized, whether the person is alive or not[/B], an ambulance is immediately called for a trained medic to make that call and/or provide treatment. (Since police officers, at least over here, are not qualified to determine whether a person is alive or dead, unless they're cut in half or beheaded)
[editline]17th February 2015[/editline]
They're not considered 'an option' for neutralizing a threat, they're considered the last resort when there's nothing else left. Officers are trained to aim every shot fired from a sidearm to kill.[/QUOTE]
It seems like you're agreeing with him.
The point isn't that being shot until the person isn't considered a threat anymore is very detrimental to that person's health, the point is that the police aren't taking such an action with the goal of killing that person. That person's death may be a likely outcome, but it isn't the reason the police are shooting them and it isn't always the outcome for any number of reasons.
[editline]18th February 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47162189]Nice thought, but it doesn't really matter when police shootings routinely involve dumping an entire magazine at somebody. I'd rather they just stick to the taser.[/QUOTE]
Employing a taser is a lot more dangerous than using this (to the user) simply because following up after deploying a taser takes a lot longer.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;47162194]It seems like you're agreeing with him.
The point isn't that being shot until the person isn't considered a threat anymore is very detrimental to that person's health, the point is that the police aren't taking such an action with the goal of killing that person. That person's death may be a likely outcome, but it isn't the reason the police are shooting them and it isn't always the outcome for any number of reasons.[/QUOTE]
Sometimes intent to kill in the line of duty is acceptable, even if it is not, and never will be, desirable. If someone draws a gun on you or rushes at you with a knife, yes, you want to stop the threat, naturally, but firing a bullet from a gun at them is lethal force. Lethal force means that you have made, or been forced to make the deicision to take an action that is almost certain to end the life of the person you're shooting at. To simply say that you don't fire a gun at someone with the intent to kill them is ridiculous and a dangerous way to think because it distracts from the purpose the weapon was designed for. Police officers should respect and fear their guns. They're designed to kill, and employing them means you must intend to kill. If you don't like thinking about things in that way, you're not responsible enough to wear a badge.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that an officer's state of mind counts for a lot. It's important that the gun they carry isn't treated as a symbol of status or an object of pride, but a deadly tool that they hope they never have to use.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;47162136]I don't see a ton of use for this, it's something that's to be used in a very few situations that could have been also fulfilled by a taser.[/QUOTE]
Well to be fair, transitioning from a pistol to a taser probably takes longer than attaching this thing, that and while doing so you could probably keep the pistol aimed at the threat. I don't see why they don't have under-barrel tasers for pistols, is it currently impossible to get them that compact?
I think it's a good idea. It'd be better than a taser in some situations because say your taser doesn't take the suspect down, you'd have to drop the taser and unholster your weapon then fire, this would allow an attempt at less lethal, and then a switch to lethal if need be without any additional movements.
You can also still carry a taser. Get the best option for a given situation.
[QUOTE=ZakkShock;47161548]Or.. you know.. shoot people less?[/QUOTE]
A suspect is coming at me with a large knife intending to kill me, I better not defend myself in any way.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.