What do you think when you see these training targets?
Legitimate training aid
39.7% (27)
39.7% (27)
Desensitizing Federal Agents / Military for a reason
11.8% (8)
11.8% (8)
Who the hell volunteered their child's image to be shot at?
26.5% (18)
26.5% (18)
Are we allowed to buy targets depicting police/military?
20.6% (14)
20.6% (14)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: "No Hesitation Targets" used by US DoD and DHS

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

So, for people who wonder why people hold the 2nd Amendment as so important, have a look at what the US Department of Homeland Security and US Department of Defense have spent nearly $5.5m on:


http://www.infowars.com/law-enforcement-requested-shooting-targets-of-pregnant-women/

http://www.usaspending.gov/explore?frompage=contracts&tab=By+Prime+Awardee&contractorid=792861783&contractorname=LAW+ENFORCEMENT+TARGETS+INC+++&comingfrom=searchresults&fiscal_year=all

Targets depicting pregnant women / children / elderly. I could MAYBE see the use in police/SWAT occasionally slipping one of these in on a training exercise as a shocker. But not for the DoD/DHS- for them to be spending that much on these things, teaching a no hesitation reaction to engaging an armed mother-to-be/child/senior citizen- I don't know, feels more like they're de-sensitizing them to fighting middle class american insurgents, especially when you consider the recent contract for 28,000 tons of ammunition by Homeland Security, a good bit of which is ineligible to be used in warfare under the geneva convention, yet it's more ammunition than the US Military has used in the last 10 years.

I don't know... what do you all think?

It's only fair if we can get some that show police and soldiers to help people better be able to defend themselves.

I'd rather the police were trained to shoot back against ANYONE who threatens their life or the lives of the innocent. In the states, anyone can be a gun-nut, yes, even preggers and old people. And kids with guns can still kill.

tangoprime:
But not for the DoD/DHS- for them to be spending that much on these things, teaching a no hesitation reaction to engaging an armed mother-to-be/child/senior citizen- I don't know, feels more like they're de-sensitizing them to fighting middle class american insurgents,

Because only the middle class in America have children, get pregnant, or grow old. And it would be perfectly reasonable to let one of them shoot you if you were a member of an evil organization like the Galactic Imperial Stormtroopers United States government.

Anyone who's pulled a trigger for a living will know that shoot/no-shoot training is incredibly important, but these targets miss the point.

A gunfight is a 3D thing and the presence of a weapon doesn't automatically qualify something as shoot. These targets just condition you to equate weapon=threat while ignoring the context of the situation and ruin the whole point of shoot/no-shoot, namely being able to make split-second decisions about your situation and classify threats.

If anything, cops today need to ease up on their trigger finger and take a moment to think. If you want to just blast away at people and not have to worry about anything else go sign an 18X contract.

I can kinda see the need for some of these, even pregnant women and old granpas can be criminals after-all, but they do have a creepy vibe to them, especially the one with the little boy. The idea of using violence or force against a small child instinctively disgusts me and even shooting the image of one seems off. Why they would need to train for "no more hesitation" in dealing with an armed child is very questionable since I'd say there are few situations that would need less hesitation and carefulness than that.

User was banned for: Is Obama the Hitler of the 21st century?. (Permanent)

I love my (father's) guns so much, and I even love the fact that I'm not living in the USA right now. This is a backwater part of the world even for Europe, but this.... oh ho ho, guys, be prepared. New World Order is coming, and security forces will be trained to suppress public rebellions of its own population without batting an eye. I can't wait to watch this on the news.

I find it a TINY bit amusing that when a civilian goes

"I NEED MY GUNS SO IN THE EVENT A GOVERNMENT DOES SOMETHING I NEED TO FIGHT FOR I CAN GO AND KILL EVERYONE WHO WORKS FOR SAID GOVERNMENT!" and that man is a hero and a patriot.

and then a person who works for the government goes

"I feel i should be trained to fight the people who hoard arsenals for the express stated purpose for killing ME and people of my profession in the event they become too disenfranchised."

And that man is a creepy scary psychopath.

You dont get to hoard a tonne of weapons and say loudly you want and need them to kill and fight government representatives in the event you feel miffed and expect said government representatives not to take steps to prepare for that eventuality. Youre the one who continuously boasts about your right to be able to slaughter the government in a hail of lead. Why the fuck wouldnt ANYONE who thought "Maybe that hail of lead might include ME" want to train for that eventuality.

(The above is largely a joke, please dont take me ultra seriously)

Obviously the idea of making people think LESS when shooting a freaking child is extremely disturbing. The posters themselves seem poorly suited to the task i was (jokingly people dammit) referencing. Its just weird. I can get pregnant women maybe. The child is a little more creepy. Its still weird.

Uh, you are aware that we are currently in the midst of a conflict in which women and children are being coerced into taking up arms against us? We've lost a large number of people simply and solely because someone couldn't bear to pull the trigger. It is entirely appropriate for the DOD and DHS to have training of this type.

Heronblade:
Uh, you are aware that we are currently in the midst of a conflict in which women and children are being coerced into taking up arms against us? We've lost a large number of people simply and solely because someone couldn't bear to pull the trigger. It is entirely appropriate for the DOD and DHS to have training of this type.

What conflict are you talking about? I don't understand.

Glasgow:

Heronblade:
Uh, you are aware that we are currently in the midst of a conflict in which women and children are being coerced into taking up arms against us? We've lost a large number of people simply and solely because someone couldn't bear to pull the trigger. It is entirely appropriate for the DOD and DHS to have training of this type.

What conflict are you talking about? I don't understand.

The Taliban and other Islamic groups have been using children as young as six years of age against us.

Heronblade:

Glasgow:

Heronblade:
Uh, you are aware that we are currently in the midst of a conflict in which women and children are being coerced into taking up arms against us? We've lost a large number of people simply and solely because someone couldn't bear to pull the trigger. It is entirely appropriate for the DOD and DHS to have training of this type.

What conflict are you talking about? I don't understand.

The Taliban and other Islamic groups have been using children as young as six years of age against us.

I thought they didn't use women in the conflict.

Glasgow:

Heronblade:

Glasgow:

What conflict are you talking about? I don't understand.

The Taliban and other Islamic groups have been using children as young as six years of age against us.

I thought they didn't use women in the conflict.

They started to as a desperation measure.

Heronblade:

Glasgow:

Heronblade:
Uh, you are aware that we are currently in the midst of a conflict in which women and children are being coerced into taking up arms against us? We've lost a large number of people simply and solely because someone couldn't bear to pull the trigger. It is entirely appropriate for the DOD and DHS to have training of this type.

What conflict are you talking about? I don't understand.

The Taliban and other Islamic groups have been using children as young as six years of age against us.

Those targets don't look very taliban-y. DHS isn't fighting overseas.

This has creepy all over it, and as a previous poster mentioned, these miss the point in shoot/no-shoot training, because that's not what they're for, they're to stop hesitation and desensitize shooters at dropping the hammer on civilians that look like their families and friends. If these are for legitimate training purposes, it seriously misses the mark and if anything we should be training a generally trigger-happy american police force/federal LE restraint.

Kopikatsu:

Glasgow:

Heronblade:
The Taliban and other Islamic groups have been using children as young as six years of age against us.

I thought they didn't use women in the conflict.

They started to as a desperation measure.

Are you shitting me? The Taliban using women as soldiers?

I need a source for this, I can't believe your word, I'm sorry.

tangoprime:

Heronblade:

Glasgow:

What conflict are you talking about? I don't understand.

The Taliban and other Islamic groups have been using children as young as six years of age against us.

Those targets don't look very taliban-y. DHS isn't fighting overseas.

This has creepy all over it, and as a previous poster mentioned, these miss the point in shoot/no-shoot training, because that's not what they're for, they're to stop hesitation and desensitize shooters at dropping the hammer on civilians that look like their families and friends. If these are for legitimate training purposes, it seriously misses the mark and if anything we should be training a generally trigger-happy american police force/federal LE restraint.

Of course. When the USA will enter a war for its currency supremacy (if it will happen, because Iran can fold and take its losses right now) they will enact the draft. This means potential for dissidents. Further internal pressure to cut back on civil rights (Patriot act and more similar laws) will be met with protests and possibly armed force. That's why Obama was 'taking your guns!'. They can't possibly disarm so many people but they can sway people to relinquish their firearms on their own accord after the latest tragedy shooting. It's a step in the direction of fascism, One of the things I hate the strongest followed by Socialism(/Communism).

...and if you've followed me so far you will know what kind of significance I give to the word 'hate'.

Wake up and smell the dictatorship, America. Giving it a face-lift (Obama) didn't change the course you're headed in.

tangoprime:
So, for people who wonder why people hold the 2nd Amendment as so important, have a look at what the US Department of Homeland Security and US Department of Defense have spent nearly $5.5m on:

Just a correction; the company that makes these has in TOTAL US$5.5m in government contracts, to multiple agencies for many different products, NOT US$5.5m for just these products to those 2 agancies you mentioned.

tangoprime:
This has creepy all over it, and as a previous poster mentioned, these miss the point in shoot/no-shoot training, because that's not what they're for, they're to stop hesitation and desensitize shooters at dropping the hammer on civilians that look like their families and friends. If these are for legitimate training purposes, it seriously misses the mark and if anything we should be training a generally trigger-happy american police force/federal LE restraint.

What does a criminal look like? Of course police have to be trained to shoot people that look like their families and friends.

Doesn't matter how old you are, doesn't matter if you look scary, or wear a hoodie or whatever, you point a gun at a police officer (or anyone else), they should kill you.

What's the point of arming police officers if they aren't trained to use their weapons?

Glasgow:
Are you shitting me? The Taliban using women as soldiers?

It should be remembered, though, that people use the word "Taliban" to mean "person in Afghanistan with a weapon". Any number of armed people, from warlords to drug traffickers to terrorists to angry locals get lumped under that heading.

So yeah, you guys can make fun and call me a gun nut... but I'll be over here with my AR-15, kevlar and steel plate carrier, extra mags, web gear, etc. I don't like spending money on that stuff, shit's expensive. It sits in a drawer in an unused bedroom. Literally thousands of dollars of my money that could have been spent on a hot tub or something. I had back surgery at 23, seven years ago. Oh I would love a hot tub.

But, nope. I have to buy guns, gear and ammo. I have to. The writing is on the wall. They are stocking up, they are set to ban anything that actually stands a chance of taking down kitted out cops and soldiers... they know this whole thing, the business behind society, is set to collapse.

You don't think so? How can you not? Do you understand everything that has disappeared over the last 30-40 years? The simplest way to put it would be that if you were just starting out 30-40 years ago, you'd have a good paying job that required little, to no education, no debt, you would have assets- you would own a home, you would have a pension, you would have investments, you would see a return on the money you made. You would have cheap gas, cheap food, cheap costs of living all around.

What have you got today?

Living in your parent's basement in your 20s, credit-card and student loan debt. You've mortgaged your entire future before you're old enough to know better.

If this is you, you are fucked. There is not going to be a safety net large enough for this generation. Too many people not saving for retirement, healthcare costs out of control. And just when life expectancy starts to plummet in this country; when people in their 20s and 30s today find themselves unable to retire in 30-40 years, and one day they're dropping dead in the wal-mart parking lot after their shift as a 70 year old door greeter- that's when your kids and my kids are going to be lost.

They're gonna be the ones who see America not as a struggle to get the top, to come out ahead, but just to fucking survive. That's when the entire stupid fucking consumer economy collapses. Surviving is more important than getting a new smart phone every year or two.

When it gets to that point, yes- you will absolutely see gunfights between people getting forced out of their homes by geared up paramilitary police units on behalf of Bank of America, or JP Morgan Chase. Sorry, you're foreclosed- you have until dawn, any left inside will be considered enemy combatants. They'd just shoot a hellfire missile at it from a predator drone if it wouldn't ruin the house as collateral.

Exaggeration? The future is fucking grim. Anyone optimistic is purely bullshitting themselves.

We're one or two generations away, tops. Mmmm, unless by some miracle the people who have been hoarding all the wealth during the recovery, where 90+% of all the growth went to the top few percent of people, THOSE people, just decide out of the goodness of their hearts to give the working man a break and bring back a way of life that does not resemble sharecropping-wage-slavery...

xDarc:
Exaggeration? The future is fucking grim. Anyone optimistic is purely bullshitting themselves.

You are exaggerating if you think this is new to the US. That has always been the case for large numbers of people, it's just that the people on the pointy end aren't the same anymore.

Look at Occupy. A lot of formerly happily middle-class people suddenly found out that being unemployed and poor isn't much fun, and that the US police can be nasty. This absolutely should not have come as a surprise to anyone. If they want to complain about sudden spikes in unemployment, corporate irresponsibility, bailouts, fine. If they are complaining about the plight of the poor solely because it now includes them, I have less sympathy.

US society is not about to fall, in the general sense. It might fail more people than it currently does, in truly horrible numbers in truly horrible ways, but you'll still have masses of people going on more or less as they were before, oblivious to people worse off, and they absolutely won't care until they're at risk.

...

As an aside, how is arming yourself going to protect yourself when the people who matter grind you underfoot? Plenty of people being ground underfoot as it is, being armed doesn't seem to help them.

thaluikhain:

As an aside, how is arming yourself going to protect yourself when the people who matter grind you underfoot? Plenty of people being ground underfoot as it is, being armed doesn't seem to help them.

No one is being ground underfoot. The game is just getting harder, but it's still in play. People like me have to wait until a line is crossed, and the game is no longer just rigged, but out the window. Then it's insurrection time. At that point, you're either on the side of American government, or American citizens.

It's going to get a lot worse before we see that line crossed, neither side really wants it. But if you look around, you'll notice the powers that be have largely lost control of their own system. They'll pump the stock market, they'll pad the numbers, put fluff pieces in the media- but it's all still crumbling away.

If they lose that carrot on the stick, get a job, get a mortgage, get married, get children... the things that keep everyone in line, showing up at work, predictable, orderly- that's when they start cracking down because their whole way of life is threatened.

Anyway, assuming the line has been crossed and it's open insurrection? I'll hook up with a group and we'll fight. I'm pretty well equipped and although I was getting out of the army when the USS Cole got bombed; (missed the wars)- I do still have a lot of training. I'd imagine I'd fare pretty well. I am also getting my GF gear and teaching her to shoot as well.

I don't sit at home in camo face paint eating MREs. I go to work every day in an office, pay a mortgage, smile and wave at neighbors. We don't live in a compound or anything. We're just average people with no faith in the system anymore and we'd rather not be caught with our pants down. Lots of Americans are beginning to feel this way; and hell- maybe when this bullshit does finally collapse, we'll win and build something better.

There's some optimism for ya.

I'm sorry, but if it is an accepted response for them to not hesitate to shoot at civilian targets of children, then yes,there is something very wrong with the current system. Law enforcement, military or police, should be equipped with Bullet proof gear anyhow, and with them in bullet proof gear taking on an armed child, of course their response should be to not shoot, but to find alternatives to taking down the child. It would not be difficult to surround them and subdue them without using lethal force quite easily, it isn't like they are wearin kevlar. Instead of training them to kill kids, they should be training them how to resolve situations with minium civilian casualties. If no one dies, all the better.

Even more disturbing that 8 people thus far on the poll think that this is okay...Very sad that so many these days have so little respect for life.

xDarc:

thaluikhain:

As an aside, how is arming yourself going to protect yourself when the people who matter grind you underfoot? Plenty of people being ground underfoot as it is, being armed doesn't seem to help them.

No one is being ground underfoot. The game is just getting harder, but it's still in play. People like me have to wait until a line is crossed, and the game is no longer just rigged, but out the window. Then it's insurrection time. At that point, you're either on the side of American government, or American citizens.

It's going to get a lot worse before we see that line crossed, neither side really wants it. But if you look around, you'll notice the powers that be have largely lost control of their own system. They'll pump the stock market, they'll pad the numbers, put fluff pieces in the media- but it's all still crumbling away.

If they lose that carrot on the stick, get a job, get a mortgage, get married, get children... the things that keep everyone in line, showing up at work, predictable, orderly- that's when they start cracking down because their whole way of life is threatened.

Anyway, assuming the line has been crossed and it's open insurrection? I'll hook up with a group and we'll fight. I'm pretty well equipped and although I was getting out of the army when the USS Cole got bombed; (missed the wars)- I do still have a lot of training. I'd imagine I'd fare pretty well. I am also getting my GF gear and teaching her to shoot as well.

I don't sit at home in camo face paint eating MREs. I go to work every day in an office, pay a mortgage, smile and wave at neighbors. We don't live in a compound or anything. We're just average people with no faith in the system anymore and we'd rather not be caught with our pants down. Lots of Americans are beginning to feel this way; and hell- maybe when this bullshit does finally collapse, we'll win and build something better.

There's some optimism for ya.

Is that not based on the assumption that the system fails everyone at the same time, though?

There's plenty of people that the system fails, plenty of unemployed and/or homeless and/or people with physical or mental health problems or other issues that aren't being dealt with. Most people don't seem to care because they aren't them, and that's going to be the case even if their numbers increase dramatically.

If worse comes to worse, I don't see it as being as tidy as the US people against the US government. IMHO, you'll have some of the US people fighting for some kind of change, but others who supporting the government because they aren't unhappy with the ways things are, or at least don't think it's worth a civil war. You'll have others who want to keep their heads down and stay out of it.

Glasgow:

Kopikatsu:

Glasgow:

I thought they didn't use women in the conflict.

They started to as a desperation measure.

Are you shitting me? The Taliban using women as soldiers?

Random examples:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7869570.stm

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/28/world/middleeast/28amnesty.html?_r=0

Lil devils x:
I'm sorry, but if it is an accepted response for them to not hesitate to shoot at civilian targets of children, then yes,there is something very wrong with the current system. Law enforcement, military or police, should be equipped with Bullet proof gear anyhow, and with them in bullet proof gear taking on an armed child, of course their response should be to not shoot, but to find alternatives to taking down the child. It would not be difficult to surround them and subdue them without using lethal force quite easily, it isn't like they are wearin kevlar. Instead of training them to kill kids, they should be training them how to resolve situations with minium civilian casualties. If no one dies, all the better.

Even more disturbing that 8 people thus far on the poll think that this is okay...Very sad that so many these days have so little respect for life.

.... You don't know how 'bullet proof' gear works. There is never a guarantee that the round won't get through, the gear just decreases the chances of a lethal hit. In addition, it ceases to be effective after first usage because it cracks on absorbing the impact, so if the shooter has time to get off two rounds, the chances of penetration increase exponentially. Finally, you cannot cover your entire body in bullet proof gear.

Yes, law enforcement opening fire should be done only in a situation where someone's life is at risk, but if a situation is going to escalate into a lethal confrontation, the police must be able to overcome the instinct to not fire on traditionally immune targets. It is, by its nature a bad situation, no one wants to be in it, but you have to look at the worst case scenario and try and find the least terrible out.

In addition, there a quite a few nations on this earth that make use of child soldiers and in many tribal cultures, a woman, pregnant or no, is likely to take up arms to avenge someone killed defending the tribal land. These places, due to the instability inherent in a nation using these tactics, are quite likely to be operational areas for the US and her allies in the next 5-10 years and as such, soldiers need to be prepared to counter the usage of women and children by the enemy.

Lil devils x:
It would not be difficult to surround them and subdue them without using lethal force quite easily,

Of course it would be difficult, if not impossible. That's why police are armed. The bullets don't magically stop being dangerous because it was a kid's finger on the trigger.

If a person is pointing a gun at you, you are in danger. Doesn't matter who the person is.

Lil devils x:
Instead of training them to kill kids, they should be training them how to resolve situations with minium civilian casualties. If no one dies, all the better.

Why assume they aren't doing that?

Like you say "minimum civilian casualties". Sometimes the minimum is the person pointing a gun at the police.

Of course it's better not to have to kill them, it's just not always possible.

the clockmaker:

Lil devils x:
I'm sorry, but if it is an accepted response for them to not hesitate to shoot at civilian targets of children, then yes,there is something very wrong with the current system. Law enforcement, military or police, should be equipped with Bullet proof gear anyhow, and with them in bullet proof gear taking on an armed child, of course their response should be to not shoot, but to find alternatives to taking down the child. It would not be difficult to surround them and subdue them without using lethal force quite easily, it isn't like they are wearin kevlar. Instead of training them to kill kids, they should be training them how to resolve situations with minium civilian casualties. If no one dies, all the better.

Even more disturbing that 8 people thus far on the poll think that this is okay...Very sad that so many these days have so little respect for life.

.... You don't know how 'bullet proof' gear works. There is never a guarantee that the round won't get through, the gear just decreases the chances of a lethal hit. In addition, it ceases to be effective after first usage because it cracks on absorbing the impact, so if the shooter has time to get off two rounds, the chances of penetration increase exponentially. Finally, you cannot cover your entire body in bullet proof gear.

Yes, law enforcement opening fire should be done only in a situation where someone's life is at risk, but if a situation is going to escalate into a lethal confrontation, the police must be able to overcome the instinct to not fire on traditionally immune targets. It is, by its nature a bad situation, no one wants to be in it, but you have to look at the worst case scenario and try and find the least terrible out.

In addition, there a quite a few nations on this earth that make use of child soldiers and in many tribal cultures, a woman, pregnant or no, is likely to take up arms to avenge someone killed defending the tribal land. These places, due to the instability inherent in a nation using these tactics, are quite likely to be operational areas for the US and her allies in the next 5-10 years and as such, soldiers need to be prepared to counter the usage of women and children by the enemy.

Are you seriously trying to tell me the kids in the hood know better on how to stop a bullet than our damn armed forces?! Lets see, My Uncle installed thick steel plates in his bushes, and not a single bullet has made it past those yet, lots of scars, but it is holding quite well. My cousin was only shot because he was in the driveway not behind the bushes. If they are not equppied with better equipment than they have in the grove, there is your problem, and that is how you solve it, not go off shooting kids. Surely they cannot be THAT incompetent.

thaluikhain:

Lil devils x:
It would not be difficult to surround them and subdue them without using lethal force quite easily,

Of course it would be difficult, if not impossible. That's why police are armed. The bullets don't magically stop being dangerous because it was a kid's finger on the trigger.

If a person is pointing a gun at you, you are in danger. Doesn't matter who the person is.

Lil devils x:
Instead of training them to kill kids, they should be training them how to resolve situations with minium civilian casualties. If no one dies, all the better.

Why assume they aren't doing that?

Like you say "minimum civilian casualties". Sometimes the minimum is the person pointing a gun at the police.

Of course it's better not to have to kill them, it's just not always possible.

If you believe that I feel for you, There are plenty of ways to take down an armed child without lethal force surround them with thick steel plates and close in. Problem solved.

Lil devils x:

the clockmaker:

Lil devils x:
I'm sorry, but if it is an accepted response for them to not hesitate to shoot at civilian targets of children, then yes,there is something very wrong with the current system. Law enforcement, military or police, should be equipped with Bullet proof gear anyhow, and with them in bullet proof gear taking on an armed child, of course their response should be to not shoot, but to find alternatives to taking down the child. It would not be difficult to surround them and subdue them without using lethal force quite easily, it isn't like they are wearin kevlar. Instead of training them to kill kids, they should be training them how to resolve situations with minium civilian casualties. If no one dies, all the better.

Even more disturbing that 8 people thus far on the poll think that this is okay...Very sad that so many these days have so little respect for life.

.... You don't know how 'bullet proof' gear works. There is never a guarantee that the round won't get through, the gear just decreases the chances of a lethal hit. In addition, it ceases to be effective after first usage because it cracks on absorbing the impact, so if the shooter has time to get off two rounds, the chances of penetration increase exponentially. Finally, you cannot cover your entire body in bullet proof gear.

Yes, law enforcement opening fire should be done only in a situation where someone's life is at risk, but if a situation is going to escalate into a lethal confrontation, the police must be able to overcome the instinct to not fire on traditionally immune targets. It is, by its nature a bad situation, no one wants to be in it, but you have to look at the worst case scenario and try and find the least terrible out.

In addition, there a quite a few nations on this earth that make use of child soldiers and in many tribal cultures, a woman, pregnant or no, is likely to take up arms to avenge someone killed defending the tribal land. These places, due to the instability inherent in a nation using these tactics, are quite likely to be operational areas for the US and her allies in the next 5-10 years and as such, soldiers need to be prepared to counter the usage of women and children by the enemy.

Are you seriously trying to tell me the kids in the hood know better on how to stop a bullet than our damn armed forces?! Lets see, My Uncle installed thick steel plates in his bushes, and not a single bullet has made it past those yet, lots of scars, but it is holding quite well. My cousin was only shot because he was in the driveway not behind the bushes. If they are not equppied with better equipment than they have in the grove, there is your problem, and that is how you solve it, not go off shooting kids. Surely they cannot be THAT incompetent.

1- Cover is not the same thing as body armour. The fact that you went from kevlar to steel plates shows that you are talking out of your arse when it comes to this sort of situation.
2- Taking cover is a passive action, you do that and hope that the situation passes or does not escalate to the point that your cover is rendered useless. Subduing a hostile, of whatever gender or age is an active action, you are moving out of your safe zone to compromise theirs.
3- Carrying one steel plate per soldier (around 20 kilos) on patrol in case hey have to go non lethal is, not to put too fine a point on it, fucking insane.
4- Your method relies entirely on the entire situation being one in which the police have total situational control, are prepared for that specific situation at that exact moment, are rolling with enough people at to surround the shooter, are facing only one shooter, have enough space to surround the shooter, and are not taken by surprise. In this sort of situation, your method is redundant as tear gas, stun grenades and negotiation are all going to be more effective than thwacking someone with a sheet of steel or trying to grapple someone who is shooting at you. In the other situations, in the chaos that actually surrounds shootings, your method would be worse than useless.

the clockmaker:

Lil devils x:

the clockmaker:

.... You don't know how 'bullet proof' gear works. There is never a guarantee that the round won't get through, the gear just decreases the chances of a lethal hit. In addition, it ceases to be effective after first usage because it cracks on absorbing the impact, so if the shooter has time to get off two rounds, the chances of penetration increase exponentially. Finally, you cannot cover your entire body in bullet proof gear.

Yes, law enforcement opening fire should be done only in a situation where someone's life is at risk, but if a situation is going to escalate into a lethal confrontation, the police must be able to overcome the instinct to not fire on traditionally immune targets. It is, by its nature a bad situation, no one wants to be in it, but you have to look at the worst case scenario and try and find the least terrible out.

In addition, there a quite a few nations on this earth that make use of child soldiers and in many tribal cultures, a woman, pregnant or no, is likely to take up arms to avenge someone killed defending the tribal land. These places, due to the instability inherent in a nation using these tactics, are quite likely to be operational areas for the US and her allies in the next 5-10 years and as such, soldiers need to be prepared to counter the usage of women and children by the enemy.

Are you seriously trying to tell me the kids in the hood know better on how to stop a bullet than our damn armed forces?! Lets see, My Uncle installed thick steel plates in his bushes, and not a single bullet has made it past those yet, lots of scars, but it is holding quite well. My cousin was only shot because he was in the driveway not behind the bushes. If they are not equppied with better equipment than they have in the grove, there is your problem, and that is how you solve it, not go off shooting kids. Surely they cannot be THAT incompetent.

1- Cover is not the same thing as body armour. The fact that you went from kevlar to steel plates shows that you are talking out of your arse when it comes to this sort of situation.
2- Taking cover is a passive action, you do that and hope that the situation passes or does not escalate to the point that your cover is rendered useless. Subduing a hostile, of whatever gender or age is an active action, you are moving out of your safe zone to compromise theirs.
3- Carrying one steel plate per soldier (around 20 kilos) on patrol in case hey have to go non lethal is, not to put too fine a point on it, fucking insane.
4- Your method relies entirely on the entire situation being one in which the police have total situational control, are prepared for that specific situation at that exact moment, are rolling with enough people at to surround the shooter, are facing only one shooter, have enough space to surround the shooter, and are not taken by surprise. In this sort of situation, your method is redundant as tear gas, stun grenades and negotiation are all going to be more effective than thwacking someone with a sheet of steel or trying to grapple someone who is shooting at you. In the other situations, in the chaos that actually surrounds shootings, your method would be worse than useless.

Oh please, My uncle has kevlar too but when he's being fired at he isn't going to charge out from behind his steel plates. LOL
You can make moveable cover, they do it all the time in the hood. Not that big of a problem here, geeze they attach crap to the front of trucks here. If the runners can knock down the damn border fence with bulldozers attached to semis, our military can pull their head out and make reliable, useful, transportable cover. If they fail to do so given their funding, that is only incompetence and nothing else. I call complete BS on that after seeing the contraptions they build in chop shops in Pleasant grove. If they can do it in the ghetto, the military can catch up some time. LOL
You are talking about children here, you don't need to gas and shoot kids. And yes, they are crazy here, shooting at people from the trees and under porches, in holes they dug.. they are really that nuts here. That is why they actually make these things in chop shops here...

And yes, they should be equipped, whether it be their vehicles or their person to be able to subdue a shooter. That is what they are there for.

Lil devils x:

Oh please, My uncle has kevlar too but when he's being fired at he isn't going to charge out from behind his steel plates. LOL
You can make moveable cover, they do it all the time in the hood. Not that big of a problem here, geeze they attach crap to the front of trucks here. If the runners can knock down the damn border fence with bulldozers attached to semis, our military can pull their head out and make reliable, useful, transportable cover. If they fail to do so given their funding, that is only incompetence and nothing else. I call complete BS on that after seeing the contraptions they build in chop shops in Pleasant grove. If they can do it in the ghetto, the military can catch up some time. LOL
You are talking about children here, you don't need to gas and shoot kids.

It is a tradeoff between protection and mobility. go back and read the practical issues with your idea. Weight for soldeirs on patrol, the insane risk in subduing someone who is trying to shoot you, the lack if time to set up your stupid system in a combat situation, your failure to account for more than one shooter, your failure to account for complex battlespaces. ANd you just sit there and say 'figure it out' and 'it can be done' go one then, give me a doctrinal plan for taking down a shooter non-lethally with an acceptable risk for the soldiers or police.

Your uncle is hiding, no offence to the man, but he is not trying to subdue the shooter, he is hiding from them, surely you can see the difference between the two things.

Sometimes, in this shitty fucking world, you have to shoot kids, lets say five years from now, a greater focus is put on peacekeeping ops in central africa due to the lack of the massive strain that is Afghan, those places use child soldiers, what is your plan (and don't just fucking say figure it out or subdue them, actually explain how) you are going to reeoncile that with your view.

the clockmaker:

Lil devils x:

Oh please, My uncle has kevlar too but when he's being fired at he isn't going to charge out from behind his steel plates. LOL
You can make moveable cover, they do it all the time in the hood. Not that big of a problem here, geeze they attach crap to the front of trucks here. If the runners can knock down the damn border fence with bulldozers attached to semis, our military can pull their head out and make reliable, useful, transportable cover. If they fail to do so given their funding, that is only incompetence and nothing else. I call complete BS on that after seeing the contraptions they build in chop shops in Pleasant grove. If they can do it in the ghetto, the military can catch up some time. LOL
You are talking about children here, you don't need to gas and shoot kids.

It is a tradeoff between protection and mobility. go back and read the practical issues with your idea. Weight for soldeirs on patrol, the insane risk in subduing someone who is trying to shoot you, the lack if time to set up your stupid system in a combat situation, your failure to account for more than one shooter, your failure to account for complex battlespaces. ANd you just sit there and say 'figure it out' and 'it can be done' go one then, give me a doctrinal plan for taking down a shooter non-lethally with an acceptable risk for the soldiers or police.

Your uncle is hiding, no offence to the man, but he is not trying to subdue the shooter, he is hiding from them, surely you can see the difference between the two things.

Sometimes, in this shitty fucking world, you have to shoot kids, lets say five years from now, a greater focus is put on peacekeeping ops in central africa due to the lack of the massive strain that is Afghan, those places use child soldiers, what is your plan (and don't just fucking say figure it out or subdue them, actually explain how) you are going to reeoncile that with your view.

Hmm well maybe tech will change that, maybe something like this would make it easier:
http://theweek.com/article/index/236550/the-bulletproof-super-material-thats-paper-thin
Of course my uncle is hiding, he is in a wheelchair, what else should he do? he calls the police and they wont show up until daylight to collect the damn bodies because it isn't worth dying for.

Hopefully in 5 years our military would not have been trained to shoot kids first without hesitation, instead, they will be equipped with super cool bullet proof threads that make it so they don't have a need to, however armored semis with bulldozers attached to them isn't really a bad defence, and can be used quite effectively in offense as well. The cartels locked down Monterrey quite effectively using semis.. they can be quite effective if used properly.

Lil devils x:

Hmm well maybe tech will change that, maybe something like this would make it easier:
http://theweek.com/article/index/236550/the-bulletproof-super-material-thats-paper-thin
Of course my uncle is hiding, he is in a wheelchair, what else should he do? he calls the police and they wont show up until daylight to collect the damn bodies because it isn't worth dying for.

Hopefully in 5 years our military would not have been trained to shoot kids first without hesitation, instead, they will be equipped with super cool bullet proof threads that make it so they don't have a need to.

As I said, no offense to the man, but you brought him up as what the police could do, when he is completely irrelevant. He is not trying to achieve the same thing as them, and so has differing requirements to them. Simple.

That tech is very much in the proof of concept phase, maybe it will be ready for grunts 30 years down the track, if ballistic tech does not keep pace with it (which it probably will), but soldiers/police cannot stop training for the worst on the blind hope that it won't happen.

your steel plates were a terrible idea and as the world is today, sometimes there is no good out.

the clockmaker:

Lil devils x:

Hmm well maybe tech will change that, maybe something like this would make it easier:
http://theweek.com/article/index/236550/the-bulletproof-super-material-thats-paper-thin
Of course my uncle is hiding, he is in a wheelchair, what else should he do? he calls the police and they wont show up until daylight to collect the damn bodies because it isn't worth dying for.

Hopefully in 5 years our military would not have been trained to shoot kids first without hesitation, instead, they will be equipped with super cool bullet proof threads that make it so they don't have a need to.

As I said, no offense to the man, but you brought him up as what the police could do, when he is completely irrelevant. He is not trying to achieve the same thing as them, and so has differing requirements to them. Simple.

That tech is very much in the proof of concept phase, maybe it will be ready for grunts 30 years down the track, if ballistic tech does not keep pace with it (which it probably will), but soldiers/police cannot stop training for the worst on the blind hope that it won't happen.

your steel plates were a terrible idea and as the world is today, sometimes there is no good out.

Of course you have to prepared for what you are up against, and honestly the cartels are better armed than the african children you suggested, and they have quite a bit figured out in that regard. Hell the Zetas started out as special ops..
They like using the steel plates quite a bit. Where do you think My uncle got the idea from?
My uncle is relevant, only because I see how well they hold up.. now the cartels on the other hand they use that crap for offense and defense, they make it mobile. If they can use it effectively I am sure our forces could figure it out.

Lil devils x:

the clockmaker:

Lil devils x:

Hmm well maybe tech will change that, maybe something like this would make it easier:
http://theweek.com/article/index/236550/the-bulletproof-super-material-thats-paper-thin
Of course my uncle is hiding, he is in a wheelchair, what else should he do? he calls the police and they wont show up until daylight to collect the damn bodies because it isn't worth dying for.

Hopefully in 5 years our military would not have been trained to shoot kids first without hesitation, instead, they will be equipped with super cool bullet proof threads that make it so they don't have a need to.

As I said, no offense to the man, but you brought him up as what the police could do, when he is completely irrelevant. He is not trying to achieve the same thing as them, and so has differing requirements to them. Simple.

That tech is very much in the proof of concept phase, maybe it will be ready for grunts 30 years down the track, if ballistic tech does not keep pace with it (which it probably will), but soldiers/police cannot stop training for the worst on the blind hope that it won't happen.

your steel plates were a terrible idea and as the world is today, sometimes there is no good out.

Of course you have to prepared for what you are up against, and honestly the cartels are better armed than the african children you suggested, and they have quite a bit figured out in that regard. Hell the Zetas started out as special ops..
They like using the steel plates quite a bit. Where do you think My uncle got the idea from?
My uncle is relevant, only because I see how well they hold up.. now the cartels on the other hand they use that crap for offense and defense, they make it mobile. If they can use it effectively I am sure our forces could figure it out.

Relevance? or are you claiming that the armed agencies of the US are training solely to fight children?

the clockmaker:

Lil devils x:

the clockmaker:

As I said, no offense to the man, but you brought him up as what the police could do, when he is completely irrelevant. He is not trying to achieve the same thing as them, and so has differing requirements to them. Simple.

That tech is very much in the proof of concept phase, maybe it will be ready for grunts 30 years down the track, if ballistic tech does not keep pace with it (which it probably will), but soldiers/police cannot stop training for the worst on the blind hope that it won't happen.

your steel plates were a terrible idea and as the world is today, sometimes there is no good out.

Of course you have to prepared for what you are up against, and honestly the cartels are better armed than the african children you suggested, and they have quite a bit figured out in that regard. Hell the Zetas started out as special ops..
They like using the steel plates quite a bit. Where do you think My uncle got the idea from?
My uncle is relevant, only because I see how well they hold up.. now the cartels on the other hand they use that crap for offense and defense, they make it mobile. If they can use it effectively I am sure our forces could figure it out.

Relevance? or are you claiming that the armed agencies of the US are training solely to fight children?

Of course not, but that was the very issue we are discussing. The use of child targets in no heistation training is the topic we are discussing here.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked