Interesting new device for guns..

[crockett]

It allows a normal gun to use a single shot of less lethal ammunition. But doesn't stop the gun from firing a deadly round after the first shot. It's a pretty smart invention.

Out of all the police departments in the country the only one testing it is Ferguson.

[pornmasta]

useless: black people are tougher ;)

[aka123]

Video doesn't work.

[Joshua G]

NRA will oppose, & vendzilla will oppose cause the NRA told him to.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by aka123

Video doesn't work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X5vUXdwABs

see if that works

[RebelR]

The only thing I can see going wrong with that, is that if an officer discharges his weapon with the "thinking" that its non lethal and either something goes wrong or the suspect ends up dying. I think deploying that first shot would change the psyche of the officer, in that they really wouldn't see it as being lethal and discharging their weapon should always be seen as a last resort. It could work though, but I wonder about how it would affect the number of incidents of shootings.

[aka123]

How about shooting non-lethally? There is a shit load of methods to be used; shooting lethally is or at least should be the last of those.

Although if the thing is as pointed to me; that US police is there to kill (if there is problems), not to take risks, then why bother to develop non-fatal stuff in the first place? Wouldn't some more lethal stuff be more useful?

[mikesouth]

If I point a gun at you I intend to kill your ass period.

I could theoretically shoot to wound you but if you are in a position that I feel I need to point a gun at you I have no intention of "winging" you, my intention is to drop you where you stand.

[ZeroHero]

i dont like guns

[aka123]

Originally Posted by mikesouth

If I point a gun at you I intend to kill your ass period.

I could theoretically shoot to wound you but if you are in a position that I feel I need to point a gun at you I have no intention of "winging" you, my intention is to drop you where you stand.

And Hitler's intention was to destroy all Jews. We all have intentions, but just having intention doesn't make it right morally or legally.

Luckily robbers don't usually have your intentions. As they usually use gun to threaten, not to kill everyone from their path. One could say that criminals are better than you (unless it is one and the same in this case).

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by aka123

And Hitler's intention was to destroy all Jews. We all have intentions, but just having intention doesn't make it right morally or legally.

Luckily robbers don't usually have your intentions. As they usually use gun to threaten, not to kill everyone from their path. One could say that criminals are better than you (unless it is one and the same in this case).

Shooting with anything but intent to kill is a real real bad idea. Most don't have the skill level to shoot to wound. Coupled with the target moving, the shooter moving, adrenaline rushes, shooting with any intent except to kill just doesn't work.

Imagine this scenario and the can of worms it would open "I shot to disable but slightly missed and killed him" Now you have an officer who might not have shot to kill but shot to wound and missed?

The old rules are the best, don't point at anything you don't intend to shoot and don't touch the trigger unless you are going to kill.

.

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by RebelR

The only thing I can see going wrong with that, is that if an officer discharges his weapon with the "thinking" that its non lethal and either something goes wrong or the suspect ends up dying. I think deploying that first shot would change the psyche of the officer, in that they really wouldn't see it as being lethal and discharging their weapon should always be seen as a last resort. It could work though, but I wonder about how it would affect the number of incidents of shootings.

Sometimes things like this can make them shoot more; like how the taser is used on people just for talking smack.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

Shooting with anything but intent to kill is a real real bad idea. Most don't have the skill level to shoot to wound. Coupled with the target moving, the shooter moving, adrenaline rushes, shooting with any intent except to kill just doesn't work.

Imagine this scenario and the can of worms it would open "I shot to disable but slightly missed and killed him" Now you have an officer who might not have shot to kill but shot to wound and missed?

The old rules are the best, don't point at anything you don't intend to shoot and don't touch the trigger unless you are going to kill.

.

A cop's job is not to kill people but to protect them. How many times do we see cops shooting unarmed people? Perhaps a new approach is warranted..

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by crockett

A cop's job is not to kill people but to protect them. How many times do we see cops shooting unarmed people? Perhaps a new approach is warranted..

A cop's job is also to respond to 911 calls about criminal acts being committed. Confronting criminals does protect the people who called for assistance.

edit, but back to topic, having a "free" first shot isn't a good option in my opinion. It just gets the gun out too quickly.


.

[Robbie]

Isn't it "strange" that cops suggested to me to use a shotgun with birdshot for home defense.

They flat told me (and they are right), that the birdshot (which is basically a thousand small pellets hitting you at once) wouldn't kill an intruder...but would damn sure make them WISH they were dead from the pain.

Seems like they want me to incapacitate a home invader.

Meanwhile...their policy is shoot to kill in every situation that they fire their weapon.

I think this is a good first step...unfortunately, I've also read that "policy" on police dept's is pretty much to empty the clip into someone until they are DEAD.
So even though the first shot would probably be enough to handle the situation with the "less lethal" ammo (assuming they hit the target), they would nullify that by shooting until the gun was empty with lethal ammo.

The real solution is body cameras on these cops.

But they are fighting that tooth and nail. (Gee, I wonder why) I heard on the news a couple of days ago that in one big city (can't remember which one), the cops were supposed to all have body cams starting this week. But at the last minute, they didn't and said they needed to do more "research" first.

Research? What the fuck? You put the body cam on and turn it on. Case closed (literally)

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Research? What the fuck? You put the body cam on and turn it on. Case closed (literally)

Cost is being sited in numerous cases. But why would storage beyond a few weeks be necessary unless something major happened?


"Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake already has sounded the alarm over the long-term costs of police body cameras."

"In December, she vetoed a proposal that would have required officers to wear cameras because she didn't believe the costs and other details were adequately considered. City officials estimated costs up to $2.6 million a year for storage and the extra staff needed to manage the video data."

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Isn't it "strange" that cops suggested to me to use a shotgun with birdshot for home defense.

They flat told me (and they are right), that the birdshot (which is basically a thousand small pellets hitting you at once) wouldn't kill an intruder...but would damn sure make them WISH they were dead from the pain.

Seems like they want me to incapacitate a home invader.

Meanwhile...their policy is shoot to kill in every situation that they fire their weapon.

I think this is a good first step...unfortunately, I've also read that "policy" on police dept's is pretty much to empty the clip into someone until they are DEAD.
So even though the first shot would probably be enough to handle the situation with the "less lethal" ammo (assuming they hit the target), they would nullify that by shooting until the gun was empty with lethal ammo.

The real solution is body cameras on these cops.

But they are fighting that tooth and nail. (Gee, I wonder why) I heard on the news a couple of days ago that in one big city (can't remember which one), the cops were supposed to all have body cams starting this week. But at the last minute, they didn't and said they needed to do more "research" first.

Research? What the fuck? You put the body cam on and turn it on. Case closed (literally)

Even with cams look how many people are shot & killed and the police get off scott free. What really needs to happen is no more of this internal investigation bullshit. There needs to be a committee of some sort that has regular civilians mixed with police investigators. The civilian part needs to work like a jury pool to keep them from getting to cozy with the police investigators.

Anytime a police officer kills someone it should be a trial of sorts with a mix jury of both police & civilians to determine if it was a justified shooting or what ever.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

Cost is being sited in numerous cases. But why would storage beyond a few weeks be necessary unless something major happened?


"Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake already has sounded the alarm over the long-term costs of police body cameras."

"In December, she vetoed a proposal that would have required officers to wear cameras because she didn't believe the costs and other details were adequately considered. City officials estimated costs up to $2.6 million a year for storage and the extra staff needed to manage the video data."

Yeah...they already do police surveillance on every city street with cams (they are everywhere here in Vegas). They don't seem to mind the cost of storage for those (hard drives are fucking cheap as hell).
But when it comes to putting them on the cops...they have a million excuses.

Always trying to cover their own asses while they act like they are ABOVE the very laws that they are supposed to enforce to "protect" us.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Yeah...they already do police surveillance on every city street with cams (they are everywhere here in Vegas). They don't seem to mind the cost of storage for those (hard drives are fucking cheap as hell).
But when it comes to putting them on the cops...they have a million excuses.

Always trying to cover their own asses while they act like they are ABOVE the very laws that they are supposed to enforce to "protect" us.

Most of those redlight cams are run by for profit private companies....

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by crockett

Most of those redlight cams are run by for profit private companies....

Not redlight cams...SURVEILLANCE cams.

You can't walk anywhere on the Las Vegas strip without the police dept. having video of your every move on the streets (of course the casinos already do that themselves inside the buildings).

And yet, the cops here in Vegas have been setting new records for killing unarmed citizens. But they are crying and fighting AGAINST having to wear cameras. (thank you UNION)

[aka123]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

Shooting with anything but intent to kill is a real real bad idea. Most don't have the skill level to shoot to wound. Coupled with the target moving, the shooter moving, adrenaline rushes, shooting with any intent except to kill just doesn't work.

Imagine this scenario and the can of worms it would open "I shot to disable but slightly missed and killed him" Now you have an officer who might not have shot to kill but shot to wound and missed?

The old rules are the best, don't point at anything you don't intend to shoot and don't touch the trigger unless you are going to kill..

Those are "old rules" in US, other counries have pretty much opposite rules. For starters as US way to do this is illegal in most countries, at least in most western countries. So having rules for illegal actions doesn't really make sense.

You are making this too hard, let's make it more simple: don't shoot unless you really have to, and don't shoot to kill unless you really have to. You know, you don't shoot nilly willy to start with. Shooting any way is always last option and shooting lethally is the last option of the last option. You can fire warning shot, shoot non-lethally and last option is to shoot lethally. You see? There are lots of options.

And what kind of Rambo scenario you have anyways? Target moving and you moving, etc.? If for example you defend yourself in your own home, I doubt that there is that much moving and distances are very short. It is different thing if you participate to a duel at midday, at the main street, in front of the saloon.

[aka123]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Isn't it "strange" that cops suggested to me to use a shotgun with birdshot for home defense.

They flat told me (and they are right), that the birdshot (which is basically a thousand small pellets hitting you at once) wouldn't kill an intruder...but would damn sure make them WISH they were dead from the pain.

In home defence situation that birdshot will be one large lump when it hits to target, similar to slug. Will surely kill if just hits fatal areas.

And even further away birdshot would penetrate seriously (depending on the pellet size), maybe even through. And there is not thousands pellets in birdshot; it is usually about 320-420 pellets, unless it is for clay shooting.

[scarlettcontent]

great idea

[seeandsee]

there are non lethal guns that will strike them down, but police will rather make few holes

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by aka123

In home defence situation that birdshot will be one large lump when it hits to target, similar to slug. Will surely kill if just hits fatal areas.

I'm not sure. I never shot a person before (and hope I don't ever have to).

And yeah, I'm guessing that if I shot a guy right in the heart standing right in front of me it will kill him.

The scenario I was speaking of was more of one where I wake up and hear someone downstairs breaking into my house.
I grab my shotgun and fill him full of birdshot from about 30 feet away.

If the guy is right on top of me, my shotgun isn't gonna do me any good...I would have to fight him off at that point.

[aka123]

Originally Posted by Robbie

I'm not sure. I never shot a person before (and hope I don't ever have to).

And yeah, I'm guessing that if I shot a guy right in the heart standing right in front of me it will kill him.

The scenario I was speaking of was more of one where I wake up and hear someone downstairs breaking into my house.
I grab my shotgun and fill him full of birdshot from about 30 feet away.

If the guy is right on top of me, my shotgun isn't gonna do me any good...I would have to fight him off at that point.

The slug like effect is depending on the cartridge from 10 meters (32 feet) to 25 meters or even more.

Normal birdshot for ducks would probably stop to chestplate at 30 feet (corrected below), but will continue to vital organs in areas where it doesn't hit to bone. You know, the idea is to penetrate the duck's chestplate and penetrate 5-10 cm more, aka about 2 to 4 inches at the distances up to 40-50 yards (on some cartridges even more).

EDIT: Sorry, it was feet, not yards. At 30 feet the birshot is still slug like and will most likely penetrate chestplate.

[bronco67]

Originally Posted by crockett

It allows a normal gun to use a single shot of less lethal ammunition. But doesn't stop the gun from firing a deadly round after the first shot. It's a pretty smart invention.

Out of all the police departments in the country the only one testing it is Ferguson.

Haha. They need a device to stop cops from firing that second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth shot too.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Robbie

I'm not sure. I never shot a person before (and hope I don't ever have to).

And yeah, I'm guessing that if I shot a guy right in the heart standing right in front of me it will kill him.

The scenario I was speaking of was more of one where I wake up and hear someone downstairs breaking into my house.
I grab my shotgun and fill him full of birdshot from about 30 feet away.

If the guy is right on top of me, my shotgun isn't gonna do me any good...I would have to fight him off at that point.

Anywhere inside a hose the birdshot will be pretty fucking effective. That's all close range, it doesn't spread much in that amount of distance.

The other advantage of it, is it's not going to keep traveling after it hits the outer walls of your house. It will still go through thin inner walls but it will lose a lot of it's speed and penetrating power.

The reason that's good, is it means you are less likely to kill one of your family members in another room or kill a neighbor if you miss your intended target.

[freecartoonporn]

so this device converts handgun to shotgun.

[Phoenix]

So many people so quick to kill. Taking a beating costs less.