• New bullet attachment device aims to save lives.
    130 replies, posted
[QUOTE=archangel125;47162149]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.[/quote] Lethal force is always the last option. Some add-on to the last option is a stupid add-on. The point is to prevent us from getting to that last option. Not use it more. [quote]Once the threat is neutralized, whether the person is alive or not..[/quote] Like I said, shoot to stop the threat. It doesnt always mean that the person died/s from it. A single shot to the chest is harder than you think once you're in the situation. With the chemical dump going on its hard to hit anything thats not 1-3 yards away. [quote]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)[/quote] This is an anecdotal response due to differences in policing across the country, but we are required to mend first-aid to anyone we use force against. We do not call death times nor identify the deceased (if thats the case). Thats strictly for the ME to do.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;47162310]Lethal force is always the last option. Some add-on to the last option is a stupid add-on. The point is to prevent us from getting to that last option. Not use it more. Like I said, shoot to stop the threat. It doesnt always mean that the person died/s from it. A single shot to the chest is harder than you think once you're in the situation. With the chemical dump going on its hard to hit anything thats not 1-3 yards away. This is an anecdotal response due to differences in policing across the country, but we are required to mend first-aid to anyone we use force against. We do not call death times nor identify the deceased (if thats the case). Thats strictly for the ME to do.[/QUOTE] We're on the same page here, but what I'm arguing is that firing a gun with any intent but to kill is a dangerous way of thinking, because it seems to cheapen the act of firing the weapon, and lessen the gravity of making that decision.
[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] In 2013 Finnish police fired weapons 6 times. Only 1 of those shots were aimed at a person
[QUOTE=opaali;47162326]In 2013 Finnish police fired weapons 6 times. Only 1 of those shots were aimed at a person[/QUOTE] Then perhaps North American police departments operate differently. Warning shots are still bullets, and are as likely to go astray and wound or kill someone other than the suspect you're attempting to control. Which is why we always make sure we're aiming at our intended target if we have to fire at all - which is not something we can do unless there's literally zero other options.
[QUOTE=archangel125;47162338]Then perhaps North American police departments operate differently. Warning shots are still bullets, and are as likely to go astray and wound or kill someone other than the suspect you're attempting to control. Which is why we always make sure we're aiming at our intended target if we have to fire at all.[/QUOTE] I would imagine they were not warning shots, but rather shooting animals or something similar.
[QUOTE=Ajacks;47162353]I would imagine they were not warning shots, but rather shooting animals or something similar.[/QUOTE] If that was the case, his example makes no sense as a rebuttal to my statement.
[QUOTE=archangel125;47162338]Then perhaps North American police departments operate differently. Warning shots are still bullets, and are as likely to go astray and wound or kill someone other than the suspect you're attempting to control. Which is why we always make sure we're aiming at our intended target if we have to fire at all.[/QUOTE] Chances of that are very slim though
[QUOTE=opaali;47162389]Chances of that are very slim though[/QUOTE] Seems irresponsible to me. But that's my opinion.
[QUOTE=BandClassHAH;47161459]Embed without the S in HTTPS [video=youtube;-X5vUXdwABs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X5vUXdwABs[/video][/QUOTE] I wonder, do you have to yell "LESS LETHAL LESS LETHAL" before firing it? That seems a little impractical.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;47162310] This is an anecdotal response due to differences in policing across the country, but we are required to mend first-aid to anyone we use force against. We do not call death times nor identify the deceased (if thats the case). Thats strictly for the ME to do.[/QUOTE] Really? I can think of several recent shootings where first aid did NOT seem to be a priority at all. They just seemed to cuff the target and leave them in the street to finish bleeding out.
[QUOTE=archangel125;47162321]We're on the same page here, but what I'm arguing is that firing a gun with any intent but to kill is a dangerous way of thinking, because it seems to cheapen the act of firing the weapon, and lessen the gravity of making that decision.[/QUOTE] You would think, but it does not. Theres a lot of paperwork that gets done when it happens. No one wants to use their weapon- and most will never use it in their career. If it wasnt hard enough being a police officer, try to imagine being one and then living with yourself knowing that you took the life of another human being. I dont deny that the mentality is "different" to say the least, but if when the unfortunate time comes where you need to use that weapon, you cannot second guess yourself.
The thing looks like it could have a mean ricochet trip if they miss the target in that gun range :v:
[QUOTE=archangel125;47162392]Seems irresponsible to me. But that's my opinion.[/QUOTE] Than actually killing a person?
[QUOTE=Apollo;47162396]I wonder, do you have to yell "LESS LETHAL LESS LETHAL" before firing it? That seems a little impractical.[/QUOTE] It's like yelling "frag out" when throwing a grenade. It's so that the friendlies around you know what you're doing.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;47162017]Nah [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-EFlA3i6oo[/media][/QUOTE] That's not an inert round. That's one of these [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponge_grenade[/url] A real inert 40mm round would mess you up big time.
[QUOTE=opaali;47162412]Than actually killing a person?[/QUOTE] Absolutely. When you're trained, as we are, to be ready to kill a person if we ever have to fire our guns at all, just waving them around and firing warning shots that have a chance, however small, to wound or kill someone else (or hell, even ricochet and hit us instead) is an unacceptable and irresponsible risk. Imagine, if you will, the media shitstorm that will result if a Finnish police officer fired what was intended to be a warning shot and was unlucky enough to kill an innocent bystander with it, through ricochet or drop or whatever.
So this thing would be a lot less aerodynamic, right? Wouldn't it be way less accurate?
[QUOTE=Code3Response;47162408]You would think, but it does not. Theres a lot of paperwork that gets done when it happens. No one wants to use their weapon- and most will never use it in their career. If it wasnt hard enough being a police officer, try to imagine being one and then living with yourself knowing that you took the life of another human being. I dont deny that the mentality is "different" to say the least, but if when the unfortunate time comes where you need to use that weapon, you cannot second guess yourself.[/QUOTE] Can't argue that. It's important that officers everywhere treat it with the same level of respect as you do. [editline]17th February 2015[/editline] I want to clarify something, by the way. I went through the Academy but decided against joining the police after I was done. Paid my fee and left. I had some problems with the way certain things were handled by the Police here, and also concerns about the attitudes of my colleagues, which were not, in my opinion, progressive or responsible enough to befit police officers. I still keep in touch with my instructors and some friends who are now officers.
[QUOTE=Ajacks;47162259]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] You could have an under barreled Taser that has a second trigger somewhere, but I don't know how conventional that would be I've never fired a pistol.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;47162017]Nah [/QUOTE] Looks like that things made out of rubber though. This thing is literally a small cannonball. Imagine getting hit with a "low velocity" piece of grapeshot
i think the point of it is to add another step between taser and lead bullet, one that gives the suspect a chance to get out of it alive while still giving the police the ability to defend themselves with lethal force. if you're firing this, i imagine that you'd be either firing or very close to firing anyways regardless of if it were on or not. it has good potential to save lives, i'd think, but that depends on policy surrounding it.
[QUOTE=deadoon;47161486]So basically the reverse of the purpose of a sabot? Increase the rounds diameter and decrease it's velocity for that first shot, thus decreasing potential to kill? It isn't really a bullet, but closer to an inert rifle grenade. Lower velocity, less aerodynamic, and has wasted a good amount of the kinetic force of the bullet due to it catching it. It is designed for situations that can escalate to lethal instantly without leaving a useless officer.[/QUOTE] Well it's not necessarily the velocity, consider the momentum instead - that's what'll fuck you up. Through conservation of momentum the steel ball and bullet combination will have less total momentum than the bullet alone and herefore less energy ( ek = 1/2mv^2, = pv/2 where p = mv ) . It's still not going to be painless but it's definitely going to cause significantly less trauma than a bullet would. Still agree on the "let's not shoot people" stance
I think this is a step in the right direction IMHO, i think the steel ball approach is a bit stupid though, it would make sense to get some rubber and make it a bit bigger so it spreads the kinetic energy across the impact area.
why dont we just load ball bearings into a paintball gun
I just saw about this on the Australian comedy news program Mad as Hell. I find it hilarious that the news makes it out to be a life saver while the guy says it could still kill you.
I think this is stupid as a less-lethal option since if the other guy has a lethal option as well, he's just saw the cop draw a gun on him, and is probably going to respond in kind. It's going to escalate a lot of situations compared to pepper spray or a taser.
[QUOTE=Best4bond;47163786]I just saw about this on the Australian comedy news program Mad as Hell. I find it hilarious that the news makes it out to be a life saver while the guy says it could still kill you.[/QUOTE] It's all about the likelihood; a punch can kill a person, it's just very unlikely. This, in theory, is less likely to kill someone than a normal bullet would be, and thus "could" save someone's life in a situation where an officer would have otherwise shot the person with a normal bullet. [QUOTE=Rents;47163800]I think this is stupid as a less-lethal option since if the other guy has a lethal option as well, he's just saw the cop draw a gun on him, and is probably going to respond in kind. It's going to escalate a lot of situations compared to pepper spray or a taser.[/QUOTE] If they are insane they might; who, facing a cop who is already pointing their gun at them, thinks "I know, I'll point my gun at this cop in return". Not to mention if someone has a lethal option, trying to use pepper spray or a taser is just putting the officer at more risk.
I'd much rather get shot with this than a bullet. A cracked rib is 100x better than a punctured lung EDIT: They shouldn't use bright colors though, it should be intimidating. That's a problem I have with tasers, it looks like a toy, a gun looks like a gun. I'm much more likely to comply with someone pointing a gun at me than a taser.
I really wish there were better ways to simply temporarily disable the person. Tazing doesn't always work. Shooting the legs is a stupid idea based on misinformation. I don't believe this is going to stop anything. It won't stop someone that's determined, and if someone needs to use their gun, they need to be using their gun as a gun. [QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;47163033]i think the point of it is to add another step between taser and lead bullet, one that gives the suspect a chance to get out of it alive while still giving the police the ability to defend themselves with lethal force. if you're firing this, i imagine that you'd be either firing or very close to firing anyways regardless of if it were on or not. it has good potential to save lives, i'd think, but that depends on policy surrounding it.[/QUOTE] I don't know. I'm not vehemently opposed to this, but I don't see it being practical. If I have to pull my gun, it's because I'm looking to kill.
Let's make Use of Force options even more complicated by adding this little attachment you may use in some instances but not these few scenarios okay go be a police officer.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.