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 PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Lil devils x:

the clockmaker:

Lil devils x:

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.

Please source where they are using it to non lethally subdue shooters. And stop saying I'm sure they can figure it out. No one wants to shoot a kid, don't you think that if there is a better solution, they would be diving on that shit. If you have it, outline it, stop saying just 'figure it out'.

And like I keep saying, due to your uncle's very different requirements, he is not relevant. He wants to survive a firefight, we are talking about ending one. It is like the difference between knowing how to escape a burning building and being a firefighter.

Lil devils x:
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.

Except, unfortunately, in the really real world. Yes, it really is a terrible thing, but as it stands, that's the way it is.

If that was a real solution, why aren't lots of police forces doing that around the world, instead of having to shoot people? Why don't police officers always carry thick steel plates instead of firearms? Why does that not apply to people other than kids?

I can see how these targets are provocative, but I also think they are needed. Let's face it, we don't want soldiers or federal agents going into the field with the unconscious mindset that women or the elderly can't pull a gun on them, because it puts them at great risk. No matter if "the field" is Afghanistan or Missouri. Correctly evaluating the potential threat of an armed pregnant woman is harsh but it might well be the reality for a few soldiers in Afghanistan and they need to be trained for it.

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.

This always puzzles me about America(ns). If someone where to say 'If we're being screwed we should launch a General Strike!' then they are a terrible communist firebrand. But if the say 'If we're being screwed; armed insurrection!' then that's considered much more reasonable.

As bad as it seems, it is unfortunately the way this country is trending, where the situation where a mother or soon-to-be mother or an elderly person or a child is armed and dangerous and opening fire. Guns are more prevalent than ever, and Police and cricis responders need to be able to handle targets in any situation, including if a ten-year-old has his hands on a firearm. The profile of the killer shooting at civilians is no longer just the crazy guy who everyone knew it was just a matter of time, and this stuff doesn't just happen for no reason anymore. Literally anyone with a gun these days can be a killer, because (Taking a page from one of the last monologue's of Revengance here) they believe they are fighting for a cause they believe in, and therefore can do no wrong. In an age where people are becoming morally outraged at the slightest inclination, there is a disturbing trend towards murder. We need to be prepared for the Christian father who takes his five-year old out to watch him shoot up a Mosque, because he believes that Muslims are evil. We need to be prepared for the soon-to-be mother who shoots up an abortion clinic because she believes abortion is wrong. We need to be prepared for the Senior Citizen who takes government workers hostage because they might not get their social security. And we especially need to be prepared for the most unfortunately common occurance of them all: We need to be prepared to deal with the ten-year-old who brought a firearm to school because they want to be the baddest bully of them all, or even the reverse, that they see the rest of the student body as a constant source of unbearable ridicule.

Yes, the Police should not make a habit of "shoot first, ask questions later", and I still support the doctrine of holding fire until fired upon, and in my opinion, no matter what your situation, if shots are fired and you're holding a firearm, you are a legitimate target (Another argument against people carrying firearms so they can respond to crimes. We REALLY don't need vigilatiesim). However, Law Enforcement needs to have no hesitation when the shots are fired, and whether or not the officer pulls the trigger can be the difference between one dead ten-year-old, and thirty dead ten-year-olds.

That being said, the perfect solution would be to do more research into non-lethal takedown methods. I certainly think that it would be a good security measure to have in schools where if someone opens fire, seeping gas or the like floods the corridor where the shooting is going on. That probably wouldn't work, but if we can develop safe non-lethal takedown methods, than officers could open fire on criminals wielding firearms without worrying about the state of the criminal or the surrounding crowd, as is so often the case where when trying to take down a perp, officers hit more than one innocent bystander.

On that note, more firearms training (And lighter trigger pulls) could also help keep civilian casualties down.

Spartan448:
The profile of the killer shooting at civilians is no longer just the crazy guy who everyone knew it was just a matter of time, and this stuff doesn't just happen for no reason anymore. Literally anyone with a gun these days can be a killer

This has always been the case. It might be more in the public eye, or people are less hesitant to admit it, but it's not new.

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.

If this was their whole training you'd have a point, but it isn't. You can't look at just one aspect of such things as if they exist in a vacuum. Alongside the conditioning not to hesitate, agents and soldiers are also taught discipline and obedience to orders and protocols. They have rules of engagement. The purpose of this sort of training is not to change those rules of engagement-- at all-- but to break down the inhibitions that can get in the way of successfully navigating those rules of engagement. A child with a gun is just as potentially dangerous as anyone else with a gun. It isn't a disrespect for life that makes this OK, it's a respect for the lives of law enforcement and our military: a lack of a double standard. It seems like people think police and military personnel should be treated as expendable-- as if they aren't worthwhile human beings in themselves. They aren't the gestapo. And they're just as worthy as anyone else of life.

This is just more dehumanisation of the civilian populace. Soldiers and police are trained to butcher even their own countrymen, even the defenceless, in the name of maintaining "law and order". It is truly a sick world where the lines between combatant and innocent are blurred to this extent.

Then you have training branding protests as a form of low-level TERRORISM.

Even the very act of assembling with other like minded people to influence policy by petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances can land you on the domestic terrorism list:

A written exam administered by the Pentagon labels "protests" as a form of "low-level terrorism" - enraging civil liberties advocates and activist groups who say it shows blatant disregard of the First Amendment.

The written exam, given as part of Department of Defense employees' routine training, includes a multiple-choice question that asks:

"Which of the following is an example of low-level terrorism?"

- Attacking the Pentagon

- IEDs

- Hate crimes against racial groups

- Protests

The correct answer, according to the exam, is "Protests."

"Its part of a pattern of equating dissent and protest with terrorism," said Ann Brick, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, which obtained a copy of the question after a Defense Department employee who was taking the test printed the screen on his or her computer terminal.

http://www.zengardner.com/pentagon-says-protests-are-acts-of-low-level-terrorism/

MammothBlade:
It is truly a sick world where the lines between combatant and innocent are blurred to this extent.

In every single one of those pictures, the target has drawn a weapon and is pointing it directly at you.

I can see why the would do that for the military, I mean look at Korea or Vietnam there where plenty of booby trapped kids. I don't know if that type of insurgency is prevalent in the middle east but i do know that there have been a couple bombings where muslim women wearing the full black garb where strapped with explosives. Of course it might be contributing to our trigger happy military culture, where civilians are gunned down and they never find weapons, or in those cases where a gun is planted on a dead civilian after the fact.

Seanchaidh:

MammothBlade:
It is truly a sick world where the lines between combatant and innocent are blurred to this extent.

In every single one of those pictures, the target has drawn a weapon and is pointing it directly at you.

So instead of attempting to understand the situation and maybe reason with them or confirm that it is actually a firearm they are carrying, violence is seen as the optimal solution. Why condition soldiers and police officers to target people who are unlikely to be very effective with such weapons? It's still reducing them to nothing more than targets. Even if it slightly increases the danger to their own life - that's what they're supposed to do as public servants, go the extra mile rather than take the easy route.

Look at the amount of cases of unarmed people being shot and killed because something they were carrying vaguely resembled a firearm. This sort of training makes police in particular far too trigger-happy.

MammothBlade:

Seanchaidh:

MammothBlade:
It is truly a sick world where the lines between combatant and innocent are blurred to this extent.

In every single one of those pictures, the target has drawn a weapon and is pointing it directly at you.

So instead of attempting to understand the situation and maybe reason with them or confirm that it is actually a firearm they are carrying, violence is seen as the optimal solution.

Ah, you made the same mistake as this other person, so I'll repeat myself:

Seanchaidh:

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.

If this was their whole training you'd have a point, but it isn't. You can't look at just one aspect of such things as if they exist in a vacuum. Alongside the conditioning not to hesitate, agents and soldiers are also taught discipline and obedience to orders and protocols. They have rules of engagement. The purpose of this sort of training is not to change those rules of engagement-- at all-- but to break down the inhibitions that can get in the way of successfully navigating those rules of engagement. A child with a gun is just as potentially dangerous as anyone else with a gun. It isn't a disrespect for life that makes this OK, it's a respect for the lives of law enforcement and our military: a lack of a double standard. It seems like people think police and military personnel should be treated as expendable-- as if they aren't worthwhile human beings in themselves. They aren't the gestapo. And they're just as worthy as anyone else of life.

MammothBlade:
So instead of attempting to understand the situation and maybe reason with them or confirm that it is actually a firearm they are carrying, violence is seen as the optimal solution.

Citation needed.

MammothBlade:
Why condition soldiers and police officers to target people who are unlikely to be very effective with such weapons?

"Unlikely to be very effective"? Based on what? Holding hands with a kid doesn't stop you from shooting someone. Being pregnant doesn't stop you from shooting someone. Unfortunately, being a kid doesn't stop you from shooting someone either.

MammothBlade:
Even if it slightly increases the danger to their own life - that's what they're supposed to do as public servants, go the extra mile rather than take the easy route.

If they have a gun pointed at them, their life is in severe danger. That's sort of why firearms were invented.

MammothBlade:
Look at the amount of cases of unarmed people being shot and killed because something they were carrying vaguely resembled a firearm. This sort of training makes police in particular far too trigger-happy.

Now, that's a point I could agree with, but there is no reason police can't be trained not to shoot when not necessary at the same time they are trained to shoot when necessary.

This really rubs me the wrong way. We've already got a bunch of trigger-happy animals in the LAPD, and now they want DOD and DHS people to forget that they're shooting at children, only targets? I'm sorry, but none of that feels right to me. This feels like they're only aggravating a rather bad problem.

ClockworkPenguin:

This always puzzles me about America(ns). If someone where to say 'If we're being screwed we should launch a General Strike!' then they are a terrible communist firebrand. But if the say 'If we're being screwed; armed insurrection!' then that's considered much more reasonable.

Strikes don't do anything. Look at the 60s. The baby boomers were the biggest group of communist firebrands, and then they went into rehab and became the biggest group sell-outs. As long as the game is being played, cultural revolutions will continue to fail in this day and age.

Not to mention most people live paycheck to paycheck. Who do you think will starve first?

Besides, who's calling demonstrators "communist?" I was a demonstrator once. I was at GWB's first presidential inauguration in 2001 as a demonstrator. But now that I have a mortgage and responsibilities I can't exactly go driving around the country to parade with a sign now can I? People don't have much respect for protestors/demonstrators because they're primarily people who can *Afford* it. Either those who don't have to worry about earning, or retired people with free time.

I'd have happily pulled the trigger when on Ex on any of these targets back in training, but I'd only want them to be in the Ex for shock value, to throw you off. If every target was comprised entirely of these, it'd miss the point completely.

Glasgow:

Kopikatsu:

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.

While it wasn't necessarily the Taliban, the Chechens who took hostages during the Moscow Theater attack used women primarily as human IEDs. Thankfully, most of those women (all?) didn't detonate their vests when the counterattack ensued, anesthetic notwithstanding.

I don't think enough research has been done on the role of women in terrorism. I read a book a LONG time ago called 'Shoot the Women First', which was supposedly an unofficial saying of (I could be wrong here) groups like GSG-9, who had experience with close combat against terrorists.

Another more interesting read for me was Patty Hearst's account of her time spent as a hostage of the SLA (Symbionese Liberation Army), which wasn't so much an army as it was a bunch of educated white people following a charismatic black American for various reasons (it was the 70's after all). Roughly half of the 8 or 9 primary followers were women and they did everything from assassinating a church leader to bombing cars, police stations, as well as robbing banks.

So while the Taliban may not be using women on the front lines (yet), that doesn't mean they're not using them as, say, suicide bombers.

MammothBlade:
Why condition soldiers and police officers to target people who are unlikely to be very effective with such weapons?

A woman trained in the use of firearms is just as effective as a man and thus just as lethal. As for children they make quite effective combatants too if used for ambushes and surprise attacks, this is one of those lessons that "asymmetric warfare" for the last 12 years in Afghanistan and Iraq has taught NATO. Child soldiers also tend to be more loyal, willing to take more risks and can be even more brutal than adult soldiers, as plenty of conflicts in Africa has shown.

If we are to have this discussion at any sort of productive level you need to drop the emotional response at seeing children and women painted as targets. It is a natural reaction to have and it is a healthy reaction to have, but it also gets in the way of fruitful discussion because it doesn't look at the facts objectively.

Being pregnant or a minor doesn't mean the person in question isn't dangerous. They're being trained to see anyone holding a gun as a threat, and the reason for that is that, as many American gun owners like to say, firearms are a great equalizer. A 12-year-old is perfectly capable of shooting a police officer, especially if he has idiot parents who teach him to distrust and be hostile to anyone in law-enforcement, as some (not many, but some) do.

xDarc:

ClockworkPenguin:

This always puzzles me about America(ns). If someone where to say 'If we're being screwed we should launch a General Strike!' then they are a terrible communist firebrand. But if the say 'If we're being screwed; armed insurrection!' then that's considered much more reasonable.

Strikes don't do anything. Look at the 60s. The baby boomers were the biggest group of communist firebrands, and then they went into rehab and became the biggest group sell-outs. As long as the game is being played, cultural revolutions will continue to fail in this day and age.

Not to mention most people live paycheck to paycheck. Who do you think will starve first?

Besides, who's calling demonstrators "communist?" I was a demonstrator once. I was at GWB's first presidential inauguration in 2001 as a demonstrator. But now that I have a mortgage and responsibilities I can't exactly go driving around the country to parade with a sign now can I? People don't have much respect for protestors/demonstrators because they're primarily people who can *Afford* it. Either those who don't have to worry about earning, or retired people with free time.

Stikes are very different from demonstrations. If strikes didn't do anything, successive governments wouldn't have limited our ability to do them. The only reason we have health and safety and employment rights are because of union action. Companies don't grant that shit for fun.

And since this has open rebellion as the other option, its pretty clear that its an extreme case where mortgages probably aren't on peoples minds.

And as to who's saying it. The people who are simultaneously anti-union, but feel the need for guns in case they have to fight a government that's gone fascist.

I think this training would work well in reverse as well. Guns are dangerous and people should not wield them for funsies. One of the cardinal rules of gun use is you only point it at something you want to shoot at. If someone is waving their pistol around in public, I dont want officers to end the situation now, not wait for a bystander to get shot. IMO once you decided to wield a weapon in public, you've signed off on your fate. I do think it's a sad reality that kids, pregnant women, and the elderly are now considered targets.

Comocat:
I do think it's a sad reality that kids, pregnant women, and the elderly are now considered targets.

"Now"? If daresay that if one of them pointed a weapon at police 20-30 years ago, it'd not end well for them.

This isn't a change in how police react, it's merely an acknowledgement that these things happen, that "person with gun" means nothing more than "person with gun".

This is obscene.

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.

How in the world is this applicable in real life? Oh, I know! Don't trust those pregnant women, they could have guns! The elderly are hiding AK's in their robes! Children have grenades in their backpacks! Shoot first and say you thought they were holding a weapon.

It's goddamn idiotic. People actually complain when you have police forces who don't hesitate to shoot civilians.

BiscuitTrouser:

/snip

I also think that the argument that you need guns to kill the "government" (other Americans) to be vicious and short sighted. I just shake my head at all of this. It's a bad bad joke.

Frission:

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.

How in the world is this applicable in real life? Oh, I know! Don't trust those pregnant women, they could have guns! The elderly are hiding AK's in their robes! Children have grenades in their backpacks! Shoot first and say you thought they were holding a weapon.

It's goddamn idiotic. People actually complain when you have police forces who don't hesitate to shoot civilians.

The point is not to be paranoid about little old ladies and children. It is about identifying active and immediate threats, regardless of preconceptions, when they are not given a chance to think about it. Police or soldiers that see a gun pointed at them but hesitate due to the person holding it usually end up dead.

Frission:

I also think that the argument that you need guns to kill the "government" (other Americans) to be vicious and short sighted. I just shake my head at all of this. It's a bad bad joke.

Me too. I was just trying to make the point that theres something equally sick about the "heroic" image of a shirtless bandana clad NRA member bravely slaughtering the government officials and armed forces with a hoard of guns when the people in those forces and government are the fathers, brothers, sisters and mothers of the people in the cardboard cut outs in the OP. Theres less of a difference than i would like between the boasting of killing "The government" and the training in killing armed civilians. The training teaches the forces to see the gun and not the shooter and so ignore the moral repercussions behind taking the shot. The boasters say "The government" like its some fat monster they can slay with no moral repercussions, like its just some giant amorphous evil blob. It will actually be the inglorious and disturbing execution of several unarmed people begging for mercy and fighting with people who are for all intents and purposes as much of a regular citizen as you. For both groups.

Frission:
This is obscene.

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.

How in the world is this applicable in real life? Oh, I know! Don't trust those pregnant women, they could have guns!

In the photos, THEY DO HAVE GUNS and are pointing them DIRECTLY AT YOU. The training is designed to quell hesitations that get officers and soldiers KILLED. What, do you think it's impossible for a pregnant woman to shoot somebody? Do they have an inalienable right to point extremely dangerous weapons at law enforcement? Why is this suddenly an issue when it's no longer just adult males being represented in these training scenarios? This sort of training-- at least with adult males represented-- has been going on for several decades. Why is this suddenly "obscene"?

Seanchaidh:

In the photos, THEY DO HAVE GUNS and are pointing them DIRECTLY AT YOU. The training is designed to quell hesitations that get officers and soldiers KILLED. What, do you think it's impossible for a pregnant woman to shoot somebody? Do they have an inalienable right to point extremely dangerous weapons at law enforcement? Why is this suddenly an issue when it's no longer just adult males being represented in these training scenarios? This sort of training-- at least with adult males represented-- has been going on for several decades. Why is this suddenly "obscene"?

Do I have to spell out how this is obscene? Really? The thought doesn't repulse you, considering how rare situations like this are and how the worst possible way to deal with the situation where a civilian is pointing a gun at you is by shooting at them first?

If they've been doing this for a while, it doesn't change how obscene this is. What, are you going to make it a sexist issue? That I only have a problem because it's a women? It's disgusting either way, but they had a target of a girl holding the hand of a small child and a young boy. I don't want a police force who won't think two seconds before pulling the trigger. I'm not advancing the thought that people have an "inalienable" right to point guns.

That is pure bullshit and I would like it if you didn't try to be so insulting.

Heronblade:
/snip

Hmm. That's a slightly better reason. You'll have to pardon me however if I have my reservations. I would be more happy with having training classes for police officers to integrate into communities. The training has very little applicable value and can potentially have disastrous consequences.

Frission:
Do I have to spell out how this is obscene? Really? The thought doesn't repulse you, considering how rare situations like this are and how the worst possible way to deal with the situation where a civilian is pointing a gun at you is by shooting at them first?

If they've been doing this for a while, it doesn't change how obscene this is. What, are you going to make it a sexist issue? That I only have a problem because it's a women? It's disgusting either way, but they had a target of a girl holding the hand of a small child and a young boy. I don't want a police force who won't think two seconds before pulling the trigger. I'm not advancing the thought that people have an "inalienable" right to point guns.

That is pure bullshit and I would like it if you didn't try to be so insulting.

I'm still confused. How exactly is preparing for potential non-adult/male shooters obscene/bullshit/insulting?

The Gentleman:

I'm still confused. How exactly is preparing for potential non-adult/male shooters obscene/bullshit/insulting?

I'm really at a loss of words here. No offense or anything. I really can't explain it. It feels wrong. I thought most people were capable of telling that at first glance.

EDIT: I can't say anything other than the corny "think of the children", because I find the very notion of this type of target practice disturbing.

About the way his accusation was bullshit was that he asked the rhetorical question whether "they have an inalienable right to point extremely dangerous weapons at law enforcement", which I said was a stupid argument, that I was never advocating.

On the less emotional side, the training has very little applicable value and can potentially have disastrous consequences. I don't know how many times a police officer would be put into a situation where a kid is pointing a gun at him, but the last thing he should do is shoot the kid first.

Same thing with soldiers. Collateral damage is not acceptable.

Frission:

The Gentleman:

I'm still confused. How exactly is preparing for potential non-adult/male shooters obscene/bullshit/insulting?

I'm really at a loss of words here. No offense or anything. I really can't explain it. It feels wrong. I thought most people were capable of telling that at first glance.

EDIT: I can't say anything other than the corny "think of the children", because I find the very notion of this type of target practice disturbing.

What you're describing is an emotional reaction, but your lack of ability to rationalize your position suggests that your objection to it is solely based on emotion, not logic.

There may be a moment you need to open fire on an armed target that is not an adult or male to save your life. Hesitation means you die rather than the shooter. Training to avoid hesitation would be the logical step to take in order to prevent this.

On the less emotional side, the training has very little applicable value and can potentially have disastrous consequences. I don't know how many times a police officer would be put into a situation where a kid is pointing a gun at him, but the last thing he should do is shoot the kid first.

December 18, 2012: 11-year-old student brings gun to school.
January 17, 2013: 7-year-old student brings gun to school.
January 25, 2013: 8-year-old student brings gun to school.
February 6, 2013: 16-year-old student brings gun to school.
February 27, 2013: 18-year-old student brings gun to school, kills three.

What does an officer do if that gun is pointed at him? If he hesitates, the officer gets shot, potentially dies, and, if he's alone, that's another weapon and 2-3 magazines of matching ammunition accessible to the shooter.

Same thing with soldiers. Collateral damage is not acceptable.

We're not talking about collateral damage. We're talking about being able to deal with an imminent threat in a manner that is consistent regardless of its source. Being able to fire on non-stereotypical targets is a logical outgrowth of that.

These targets are no different to one with any other group that we more readily accept as 'dangerous' (e.g. black teens in gang colours), are those upset about this as equally appalled about those kinds of targets?

Law enforcement are always trained to try and defuse a situation and never to escalate unless they absolutely have to but when it comes down to the wire, the perp escalates and it's either take them down or see yourself, your partner or an innocent get hurt you have to be able to take the shot, regardless of whether the perp is a gang member or a granny. Can you imagine the backlash if the police had a bead on a shooter but hesitated and an innocent got killed?

Yes it's a creepy thought and something we think we could never do but unfortunately that kind of sentiment is what gets cops killed, they need to be able to shoot when absolutely necessary.

p.s. obligatory anti-gun message since Blahb is no longer with us: if you don't like the idea of cops training to shoot kids maybe get rid of the guns so there's no need?

MammothBlade:

Seanchaidh:

MammothBlade:
It is truly a sick world where the lines between combatant and innocent are blurred to this extent.

In every single one of those pictures, the target has drawn a weapon and is pointing it directly at you.

So instead of attempting to understand the situation and maybe reason with them or confirm that it is actually a firearm they are carrying, violence is seen as the optimal solution. Why condition soldiers and police officers to target people who are unlikely to be very effective with such weapons? It's still reducing them to nothing more than targets. Even if it slightly increases the danger to their own life - that's what they're supposed to do as public servants, go the extra mile rather than take the easy route.

Look at the amount of cases of unarmed people being shot and killed because something they were carrying vaguely resembled a firearm. This sort of training makes police in particular far too trigger-happy.

The silhouettes do not show them holding a cellphone or a TV remote(which is what SWAT/HRT operators train on to distinguish between the too).
There is no doubt that the object in question on those targets is a firearm, and LEO agents need to be mentally read to take the shot without hesitation. We've seen plenty of women suicide bombers in Iraq, and 6 yr old kids holding AK's in Somalia. And i really doubt when you are busting into a den of some drug dealer that his pregnant GF is just holding that shotgun for show.
Take a walk into a really bad part of town, get a gun stuck in your face and then tell me if you are willing to talk about it.
The simple fact is that training and no-hesitation targets do not make LEO personnel trigger happy, it's lack of training and not knowing what to do in a given situation which causes that.
In every case study it showed that increased tactical training for police personnel drastically lowers the amount of accidental, unjustified and even lethal shootings.
When you know that can draw a weapon and take your target down in under 3 seconds with almost guaranteed certainty. When you instinctively track all possible suspects in the situation and judge their intentions, and you have been trained to react to any potential escalation you are much less likely to have a 180 H/R with a twitching sweaty finger on the trigger when you are approaching a potential armed suspect.

Karma168:

p.s. obligatory anti-gun message since Blahb is no longer with us: if you don't like the idea of cops training to shoot kids maybe get rid of the guns so there's no need?

And remove the right defined as necessary to the security of a free state? A nation, I might add has these USSC rulings under its belt, and ones more recent in the same vein of thought?

"What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her."
Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958).

"Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)

Or equally important, DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago? How about the fact that early gun control was used to entirely to disarm the Black population?

Buy a gun. Train yourself. Keep it close at hand. Nobody is going to save you but yourself.

Karma168:
These targets are no different to one with any other group that we more readily accept as 'dangerous' (e.g. black teens in gang colours), are those upset about this as equally appalled about those kinds of targets?

Law enforcement are always trained to try and defuse a situation and never to escalate unless they absolutely have to but when it comes down to the wire, the perp escalates and it's either take them down or see yourself, your partner or an innocent get hurt you have to be able to take the shot, regardless of whether the perp is a gang member or a granny. Can you imagine the backlash if the police had a bead on a shooter but hesitated and an innocent got killed?

Yes it's a creepy thought and something we think we could never do but unfortunately that kind of sentiment is what gets cops killed, they need to be able to shoot when absolutely necessary.

p.s. obligatory anti-gun message since Blahb is no longer with us: if you don't like the idea of cops training to shoot kids maybe get rid of the guns so there's no need?

pff, even if every legal and illegal gun disappeared, cops will still shoot people. Helll there was an incident by the LAPD (surprise surprise) where a half a dozen officers opened fire on a guy with a knife (and he wasnt attacking them, at least according to a video released by a bystander). In fact, a lot of police shootings dont seem to involve guns on the other person.

just looked up police shootings for the LAPD on google, dozens of hits. My favorite one is the LAPD killing a naked man when he ran away. Police shootings in LA account for 10% of the homicides in that area.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/4/president-obama-is-promoting-his-gun-control-agend/

The people opposed to this are insane. How can anyone expect the police to respond appropriately to incidents like the Mount Carmel Elementary school threat without proper training?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked