Gun experts: Is there a gun that fires bullets that incapacitate but do not kill?

[bodecea]

I thought I read somewhere that there are guns that fire special rounds that are very large and powerful that can knock down and/or stun a large person without killing the person. Is there such a weapon and if so, why don't Cops have that weapon?

Rubber bullets....as should have been used on the Capitol steps on Jan 6th.

 

[Rigby5]

Not true.
Police kill thousands a year.
The number of people they justifiably kill is only about 25, but they kill almost 10 times that number.
And the police almost never need to kill anyone.
No one is ambushing police in order to try to kill them.
They are just trying to get away usually.

And the reality is that the police caused the War on Drugs to kill many thousands more.
If not for the War on Drugs, there would not be all the killings over large amounts of drug cash, turf wars, etc.
We know this from Prohibition.

You're making it up. There are just around 1000 a year killed by police in the US and only 765 in 2020.

Black Americans are three times more likely to be killed by cops than whites

THE recent spate of police-involved deaths highlight a grim statistic: black Americans are three times more likely to be killed by police than whites. More than 1,000 unarmed people were killed due…

www.the-sun.com

Even the very leftist, anti-cop, Washington Post admits that 75% of the shootings were cases where the police were defending themselves or others.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings-year-end/

They also, in the same page, state that 25% of shootings are cases where the suspect was fleeing the police. A 2013 example of this was the Boston Marathon bomber killed on the run. The police kill fleeing suspects when that fleeing suspect is a threat to the cop or to the community. Just like the case in Columbus this week, it's easy not to get killed by the cop: stop when they say stop. Drop when they say drop. Get down when they say get down.

There are bad shootings but you've pretty much got it backwards; it's more like 25 cases a year that were not valid.

First of all, it was more like 1500 killed by police back in 2015, with the trend increasing, so an extrapolation to thousands is not unreasonable.
It just so happens you are correct because police killings started to go down instead of up.

But the MAIN point is that the previous poster had claimed the number killed by police annually was only about 25, which is way off. Almost a factor of 10, And my estimate is much closer. Of by less than a factor of 2.

And there likely is not a single case where any shooting actually saves any lives.
If cops were unarmed, and an criminal pulls a gun in order to escape, all the police have to do to prevent any one being harmed is to let them get away for a bit. Then the police can follow and capture them after they think they are safe, but in reality the police have surrounded them with a SWAT team. We should not really ever have a shoot out. Makes no sense. It is always dangerous to everyone, and accomplishes nothing. Surround anyone and they will give up without a shot.

 

[Rigby5]

There HAS to be a better non lethal option than a Taser.

The Taser isn't non-lethal, it's advertised by the manufacturer as less lethal. As in less lethal than a firearm.

Exactly.
We see police using tasers in order to force compliance all the time, and that is not legal.
Taser can and sometime do kill.
So it is illegal for police to use just to force compliance.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

"Kill" is easy to define but "incapacitate" is much harder. Would you risk the life of a family member who defends him/herself with a weapon that can only incapacitate when confronted with a maniac who is armed with a deadly weapon?

Yes I would, if the weapon was proven to be as reliable as a gun in neutralizing a threat without killing him. Maybe that weapon doesn't exist, but guess what? We have really smart people who live here. Let's build a better weapon. I am a huge advocate for the police and I want them provided with every protection. But I don't think it's right for people to be shot dead because they are running away. Where is the deadly threat to the police in those cases?

Yes, I agree.
That is why I think police should be forced to the reduced power .380 the rest of the world limits police to.
Far fewer deaths by cops.
Cops don't the extra fire power because no one is trying to rob or attack the police.

That puts the cops at a disadvantage when they go up against better armed criminals.
The LA bank robbery is the perfect example.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The problem is not average normal police bullets, but the fact the US police deliberately uses the most lethal bullets in the world.
In the rest of the world, hollow points are illegal, and police use a very mild .380 caliber.
In the US, the police use hollow points that are banned by the Geneva convention, that turn into little buzz saws from the rifling spin.

The most common caliber that police use these days is the .40S&W, which is over twice the power of normal police calibers in the rest of the world.
It is way OVERKILL.

{...

Caliber	Type	Velocity (fps)	Energy (ft-lb)
.380 Auto ACP	Handgun	980	190
.40 S&W	Handgun	1070	420

...}

There is no need for over twice the impact energy or hollow points.
There is no way to survive that sort of deliberate damage.

So we have the best armed police in the world. We also have the best armed civilians and criminals. Pretty balanced. Maybe you can get by with pussy police if you have pussy criminals. I want my family protected by the best; if you want something less just don't call them and do it yourself with a squirt gun maybe.

 

[9thIDdoc]

A .380 rarely kills, but it stops anyone.
There is no need for any more lethal caliber for police.
The only people who need a more powerful caliber are the military or people in bear country.

History proves you wrong.
Are you aware that the military rifle/carbine is chambered for 5.56 NATO cartridge (AKA ..22 cal.) which is known to be a relatively poor man stopper.
What makes you think you have any idea what police need?

 

[woodwork201]

Not true.
Police kill thousands a year.
The number of people they justifiably kill is only about 25, but they kill almost 10 times that number.
And the police almost never need to kill anyone.
No one is ambushing police in order to try to kill them.
They are just trying to get away usually.

And the reality is that the police caused the War on Drugs to kill many thousands more.
If not for the War on Drugs, there would not be all the killings over large amounts of drug cash, turf wars, etc.
We know this from Prohibition.

You're making it up. There are just around 1000 a year killed by police in the US and only 765 in 2020.

Black Americans are three times more likely to be killed by cops than whites

THE recent spate of police-involved deaths highlight a grim statistic: black Americans are three times more likely to be killed by police than whites. More than 1,000 unarmed people were killed due…

www.the-sun.com

Even the very leftist, anti-cop, Washington Post admits that 75% of the shootings were cases where the police were defending themselves or others.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings-year-end/

They also, in the same page, state that 25% of shootings are cases where the suspect was fleeing the police. A 2013 example of this was the Boston Marathon bomber killed on the run. The police kill fleeing suspects when that fleeing suspect is a threat to the cop or to the community. Just like the case in Columbus this week, it's easy not to get killed by the cop: stop when they say stop. Drop when they say drop. Get down when they say get down.

There are bad shootings but you've pretty much got it backwards; it's more like 25 cases a year that were not valid.

First of all, it was more like 1500 killed by police back in 2015, with the trend increasing, so an extrapolation to thousands is not unreasonable.
It just so happens you are correct because police killings started to go down instead of up.

But the MAIN point is that the previous poster had claimed the number killed by police annually was only about 25, which is way off. Almost a factor of 10, And my estimate is much closer. Of by less than a factor of 2.

And there likely is not a single case where any shooting actually saves any lives.
If cops were unarmed, and an criminal pulls a gun in order to escape, all the police have to do to prevent any one being harmed is to let them get away for a bit. Then the police can follow and capture them after they think they are safe, but in reality the police have surrounded them with a SWAT team. We should not really ever have a shoot out. Makes no sense. It is always dangerous to everyone, and accomplishes nothing. Surround anyone and they will give up without a shot.

Well, you're clearly an intentional liar and not just misinformed. 14 of the 17 years your chart shows have less than 1000 deaths and the trend is not increasing; even the last year in your own chart shows 2016 less than the Obama years anomalies. The latest years, as I've proven, are yet again under or very near 1000. Yet, ignoring the numbers that you are now giving, you earlier claimed that the cops kill "thousands" each year. I think there's already a thread here on the poll that showed that most leftists believe that the cops kill thousands of unarmed black men each year, with many (probably you included) believe that the cops kill over 10000 unarmed black men each year.

You also ignore that in most of those police killings, the police were called because of a violent threat. The police almost never just happen to be at the right place at the right time but there was that fantastic case in Indianapolis in 2019 where the cops were there and stopped a mass shooting.

In most cases, the cops are only there because someone called them about violent attacks. That means that the perpetrator has already shown to be a threat. The cops are there to stop that threat. It's usually the perpetrators choice how the threat ends - handcuffs or body bag.

Then there are the cases where the perpetrator physically attacks the cop. If I were attacked while carrying my gun, I would absolutely make the assumption that the perpetrator wanted my gun to kill me or someone else. That assumption would hold even more true for a cop. Anyone who would attack a cop while knowing that the cop has a gun needs to be stopped at all costs - even the cost of his life.

A violent perpetrator that flees with a gun, having already demonstrated that he's willing to use the gun to harm others simply by the fact that he had the gun when committing a crime, doesn't become less dangerous if you let him run first. In fact, he becomes more dangerous; like a scared animal on the run. There's a good risk that he would take hostages or shoot people in his way; that he would hole up somewhere and take on the police from cover. Any perpetrator who escapes the police while in possession of a gun should always be considered extremely dangerous.

Your idea of shooting a .380 is even more stupid than Biden's idea to empty both rounds of your shotgun into the air from the 2nd floor balcony. Have you ever shot a gun? Do you even own a gun? I sure as hell hope not. First, you never, ever, ever, point a gun at a person you're not justified in killing and willing to kill. Even more so, you never, ever, shoot a person you're not justified in killing and willing to kill. If you have the belief that you can shoot someone you are not willing to kill, you're as dangerous a gun owner as I know of - and an idiot.

The .380 is very comparable to the 9mm in killing power - same diameter bullet and more than enough penetration to hit all the vital organs in its path. If the cop had used a .380, the perpetrator in Columbus would have been every bit as dead. You probably won't do it but you seriously need to read both of these articles very carefully:

Stopping power - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

9mm vs. .380ACP: A Comparison | American Firearms

Headstamp-to-Headstamp is our series aimed at helping you grok everything ammo. One of the more important choices you’ll need to make when it comes to a concealed carry firearm is the caliber of your pistol. 9mm is the standard for service pistols but it certainly isn’t the only round in town...

www.americanfirearms.org

On the other hand, there's a better chance that the perpetrator would be alive with 9mm and even more so with a .357 or a .45ACP - not much more likely, of course; when you shoot someone even with a .22 you must expect that they're going to die, even if you wish it weren't so. But the 9mm has twice the impact at about 400 ft/lb of energy versus about 200 ft/lb for the .380. That means that there a better possibility of knocking the perpetrator off their feet with the 9mm hitting the very same place as the .380, and the following shots either miss or are never taken because they're not needed.

And, with a very few exceptions, it is likely that every time a cop shoots someone, they save lives - sometimes the life of the cop, sometimes the lives that would be taken by a desperate felon on the run, sometimes the lives that the perpetrator would be committing in the future.

There are cop actions that I stand against as much or more than most here but to treat every shooting the same, to make up lies to back it up and convince others that cops are bad, is dangerous to our society and our way of life.

 

[woodwork201]

Here's a video of a guy that took 12 shots before he went down.

VIDEO: Crazed Man Attacking Deputy Soaks Up 12 Rounds Before He's Stopped - The Truth About Guns

&#9664Previous Post Next Post▶ A crazed man’s rampage came to a not-so-sudden end Saturday morning in Montgomery County Maryland, and a bystander caught it all on video. After striking a lone deputy twice with a long stick, the attacker took a dozen rounds while still advancing on the officer...

www.thetruthaboutguns.com

 

[FA_Q2]

I thought I read somewhere that there are guns that fire special rounds that are very large and powerful that can knock down and/or stun a large person without killing the person. Is there such a weapon and if so, why don't Cops have that weapon?

Like bean bag rounds?

Rock salt and bean bag rounds are the only two I can think of...

They have rubber bullets also...

I forgot about salt. Plastic rounds as well though those are more for home use.

God that would fuck your day up lol.

 

[Rigby5]

"Kill" is easy to define but "incapacitate" is much harder. Would you risk the life of a family member who defends him/herself with a weapon that can only incapacitate when confronted with a maniac who is armed with a deadly weapon?

Yes I would, if the weapon was proven to be as reliable as a gun in neutralizing a threat without killing him. Maybe that weapon doesn't exist, but guess what? We have really smart people who live here. Let's build a better weapon. I am a huge advocate for the police and I want them provided with every protection. But I don't think it's right for people to be shot dead because they are running away. Where is the deadly threat to the police in those cases?

Yes, I agree.
That is why I think police should be forced to the reduced power .380 the rest of the world limits police to.
Far fewer deaths by cops.
Cops don't the extra fire power because no one is trying to rob or attack the police.

That puts the cops at a disadvantage when they go up against better armed criminals.
The LA bank robbery is the perfect example.

No, police have all had M-16s in the trunk since they were surplused after the Vietnam war was over.
The firepower was equal.
If the police were not using their M-16s, it was because they are not supposed to engage in fire fights normally.
They are supposed to let them go, follow them, and then surround them with surprise later, so fewer innocents get killed in the cross fire.

What the LA bank robbers had that the police did not, was better body armor and motivation.

But everyone should have similar firepower at home.

 

[Rigby5]

Here's a video of a guy that took 12 shots before he went down.

VIDEO: Crazed Man Attacking Deputy Soaks Up 12 Rounds Before He's Stopped - The Truth About Guns

&#9664Previous Post Next Post▶ A crazed man’s rampage came to a not-so-sudden end Saturday morning in Montgomery County Maryland, and a bystander caught it all on video. After striking a lone deputy twice with a long stick, the attacker took a dozen rounds while still advancing on the officer...

www.thetruthaboutguns.com

First of all, the deputy likely caused the violence by pointing the gun right away.
Pointing a gun at someone triggers a fight or flight response that people will NEVER be able to control.

Second is that it did not take 12 shots.
It just took 5 seconds for the first shot to have effect, with blood loss, oxygen starvation, etc.
It likely was dead a few seconds after the first shot.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

"Kill" is easy to define but "incapacitate" is much harder. Would you risk the life of a family member who defends him/herself with a weapon that can only incapacitate when confronted with a maniac who is armed with a deadly weapon?

Yes I would, if the weapon was proven to be as reliable as a gun in neutralizing a threat without killing him. Maybe that weapon doesn't exist, but guess what? We have really smart people who live here. Let's build a better weapon. I am a huge advocate for the police and I want them provided with every protection. But I don't think it's right for people to be shot dead because they are running away. Where is the deadly threat to the police in those cases?

Yes, I agree.
That is why I think police should be forced to the reduced power .380 the rest of the world limits police to.
Far fewer deaths by cops.
Cops don't the extra fire power because no one is trying to rob or attack the police.

That puts the cops at a disadvantage when they go up against better armed criminals.
The LA bank robbery is the perfect example.

No, police have all had M-16s in the trunk since they were surplused after the Vietnam war was over.
The firepower was equal.
If the police were not using their M-16s, it was because they are not supposed to engage in fire fights normally.
They are supposed to let them go, follow them, and then surround them with surprise later, so fewer innocents get killed in the cross fire.

What the LA bank robbers had that the police did not, was better body armor and motivation.

But everyone should have similar firepower at home.

Not when the LA bank robbery took place.

"Kill" is easy to define but "incapacitate" is much harder. Would you risk the life of a family member who defends him/herself with a weapon that can only incapacitate when confronted with a maniac who is armed with a deadly weapon?

Yes I would, if the weapon was proven to be as reliable as a gun in neutralizing a threat without killing him. Maybe that weapon doesn't exist, but guess what? We have really smart people who live here. Let's build a better weapon. I am a huge advocate for the police and I want them provided with every protection. But I don't think it's right for people to be shot dead because they are running away. Where is the deadly threat to the police in those cases?

Yes, I agree.
That is why I think police should be forced to the reduced power .380 the rest of the world limits police to.
Far fewer deaths by cops.
Cops don't the extra fire power because no one is trying to rob or attack the police.

That puts the cops at a disadvantage when they go up against better armed criminals.
The LA bank robbery is the perfect example.

No, police have all had M-16s in the trunk since they were surplused after the Vietnam war was over.
The firepower was equal.
If the police were not using their M-16s, it was because they are not supposed to engage in fire fights normally.
They are supposed to let them go, follow them, and then surround them with surprise later, so fewer innocents get killed in the cross fire.

What the LA bank robbers had that the police did not, was better body armor and motivation.

But everyone should have similar firepower at home.

Actually the cops were out gunned and they had to wait for a SWAT team for 44 minutes before they had equal firepower.
This situation caused the up arming of the police we see today.

20 years ago, a dramatic North Hollywood shootout changed the course of the LAPD and policing at large

 

[Orangecat]

Police should only carry lethal weapons. Then criminals will know what the price of non-compliance actually is.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I thought I read somewhere that there are guns that fire special rounds that are very large and powerful that can knock down and/or stun a large person without killing the person. Is there such a weapon and if so, why don't Cops have that weapon?

Rubber bullets....as should have been used on the Capitol steps on Jan 6th.

What about all the riots on the west and east coast?
Should they have used rubber bullets rather than letting them burn and loot?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The division in our country today has absolutely nothing at all to do with police and guns. There is no weapon that you could build that would change or reduce or eliminate the division in our country.

You can take the hard line if you want, but that doesn't help make anything better. We can make things better for Cops if we provide a better non lethal weapon alternative. If it helps a few cops from losing their jobs and having their lives destroyed, or if it keeps a few more Black people from being killed because they ran during an arrest then I say it's worth it. As always jmo.

It's a red herring. It doesn't solve a problem. You're looking for a perfect world and it doesn't exist. You pretend you're not looking for perfection but when you're trying to solve the killing of 18 people a year while ignoring the killing of thousands then you're not being honest or realistic in this discussion.

When addressing problems, it makes most sense to start with the biggest, the highest impact, or the largest risks and work your way down. There are enough bigger problems to solve that would really affect the lives of black and brown people, or, even better, of all people without regard to race, to worry about the 18 unarmed black people killed by police last year.

This story argues that other estimates for 2019 are low so it claims that police killed 25 unarmed blacks in 2019:

Fact check: Police killed more unarmed Black men in 2019 than conservative activist claimed

A prominent conservative activist said in a Facebook video that police only killed eight unarmed Black men in the U.S. in 2019. That claim is false.

www.usatoday.com

For the same year, 2019, this article claims approximately 7500 blacks murdered.

Murder in the U.S.: victims by race 2022 | Statista

In 2022, the FBI reported that there were 10,470 Black murder victims in the United States and 7,704 White murder victims.

www.statista.com

So quit trying to suggest that stopping a few out of 25 deaths will improve the lives of black Americans while you ignore the 7500 deaths that actually would improve life.

Not true.
Police kill thousands a year.
The number of people they justifiably kill is only about 25, but they kill almost 10 times that number.
And the police almost never need to kill anyone.
No one is ambushing police in order to try to kill them.
They are just trying to get away usually.

And the reality is that the police caused the War on Drugs to kill many thousands more.
If not for the War on Drugs, there would not be all the killings over large amounts of drug cash, turf wars, etc.
We know this from Prohibition.

You sure about that number?
I'll give you a hint....it's less than 1000.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The problem is not average normal police bullets, but the fact the US police deliberately uses the most lethal bullets in the world.
In the rest of the world, hollow points are illegal, and police use a very mild .380 caliber.
In the US, the police use hollow points that are banned by the Geneva convention, that turn into little buzz saws from the rifling spin.

The most common caliber that police use these days is the .40S&W, which is over twice the power of normal police calibers in the rest of the world.
It is way OVERKILL.

{...

Caliber	Type	Velocity (fps)	Energy (ft-lb)
.380 Auto ACP	Handgun	980	190
.40 S&W	Handgun	1070	420

...}

There is no need for over twice the impact energy or hollow points.
There is no way to survive that sort of deliberate damage.

Do you have a link to your claims about hollow points being illegall in other countries?
I know they're against the Geneva convention but I've never heard that they were illegal for police in other countries.
Personally I dont have a problem with them being used by the police or the military.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

"Kill" is easy to define but "incapacitate" is much harder. Would you risk the life of a family member who defends him/herself with a weapon that can only incapacitate when confronted with a maniac who is armed with a deadly weapon?

Yes I would, if the weapon was proven to be as reliable as a gun in neutralizing a threat without killing him. Maybe that weapon doesn't exist, but guess what? We have really smart people who live here. Let's build a better weapon. I am a huge advocate for the police and I want them provided with every protection. But I don't think it's right for people to be shot dead because they are running away. Where is the deadly threat to the police in those cases?

Yes, I agree.
That is why I think police should be forced to the reduced power .380 the rest of the world limits police to.
Far fewer deaths by cops.
Cops don't the extra fire power because no one is trying to rob or attack the police.

That puts the cops at a disadvantage when they go up against better armed criminals.
The LA bank robbery is the perfect example.

No, police have all had M-16s in the trunk since they were surplused after the Vietnam war was over.
The firepower was equal.
If the police were not using their M-16s, it was because they are not supposed to engage in fire fights normally.
They are supposed to let them go, follow them, and then surround them with surprise later, so fewer innocents get killed in the cross fire.

What the LA bank robbers had that the police did not, was better body armor and motivation.

But everyone should have similar firepower at home.

So how do you square that with your post #59?

 

[Rigby5]

"Kill" is easy to define but "incapacitate" is much harder. Would you risk the life of a family member who defends him/herself with a weapon that can only incapacitate when confronted with a maniac who is armed with a deadly weapon?

Yes I would, if the weapon was proven to be as reliable as a gun in neutralizing a threat without killing him. Maybe that weapon doesn't exist, but guess what? We have really smart people who live here. Let's build a better weapon. I am a huge advocate for the police and I want them provided with every protection. But I don't think it's right for people to be shot dead because they are running away. Where is the deadly threat to the police in those cases?

Yes, I agree.
That is why I think police should be forced to the reduced power .380 the rest of the world limits police to.
Far fewer deaths by cops.
Cops don't the extra fire power because no one is trying to rob or attack the police.

That puts the cops at a disadvantage when they go up against better armed criminals.
The LA bank robbery is the perfect example.

No, police have all had M-16s in the trunk since they were surplused after the Vietnam war was over.
The firepower was equal.
If the police were not using their M-16s, it was because they are not supposed to engage in fire fights normally.
They are supposed to let them go, follow them, and then surround them with surprise later, so fewer innocents get killed in the cross fire.

What the LA bank robbers had that the police did not, was better body armor and motivation.

But everyone should have similar firepower at home.

Not when the LA bank robbery took place.

"Kill" is easy to define but "incapacitate" is much harder. Would you risk the life of a family member who defends him/herself with a weapon that can only incapacitate when confronted with a maniac who is armed with a deadly weapon?

Yes I would, if the weapon was proven to be as reliable as a gun in neutralizing a threat without killing him. Maybe that weapon doesn't exist, but guess what? We have really smart people who live here. Let's build a better weapon. I am a huge advocate for the police and I want them provided with every protection. But I don't think it's right for people to be shot dead because they are running away. Where is the deadly threat to the police in those cases?

Yes, I agree.
That is why I think police should be forced to the reduced power .380 the rest of the world limits police to.
Far fewer deaths by cops.
Cops don't the extra fire power because no one is trying to rob or attack the police.

That puts the cops at a disadvantage when they go up against better armed criminals.
The LA bank robbery is the perfect example.

No, police have all had M-16s in the trunk since they were surplused after the Vietnam war was over.
The firepower was equal.
If the police were not using their M-16s, it was because they are not supposed to engage in fire fights normally.
They are supposed to let them go, follow them, and then surround them with surprise later, so fewer innocents get killed in the cross fire.

What the LA bank robbers had that the police did not, was better body armor and motivation.

But everyone should have similar firepower at home.

Actually the cops were out gunned and they had to wait for a SWAT team for 44 minutes before they had equal firepower.
This situation caused the up arming of the police we see today.

20 years ago, a dramatic North Hollywood shootout changed the course of the LAPD and policing at large

The police were offered hundreds of thousands of surplus M-16s after we left Vietnam in 1975.
All the police departments I am familiar with were swamped with M-16s way before the LA bank robbery in 1996 or so.
I remember the police arming up after the 1967 civil rights riots.
That is when they bought the armored cars, sniper rifles, machineguns, etc.

Besides, the point is the police should NEVER do a shoot out like that.
It makes no sense.
Too many innocent civilians to get killed.
And the police won't be ready.
Much better to let them think they got away, track them, and they totally surround them later with SWAT teams.
Any cop doing a shoot out is more danger than the criminals.

 

[Rigby5]

The division in our country today has absolutely nothing at all to do with police and guns. There is no weapon that you could build that would change or reduce or eliminate the division in our country.

You can take the hard line if you want, but that doesn't help make anything better. We can make things better for Cops if we provide a better non lethal weapon alternative. If it helps a few cops from losing their jobs and having their lives destroyed, or if it keeps a few more Black people from being killed because they ran during an arrest then I say it's worth it. As always jmo.

It's a red herring. It doesn't solve a problem. You're looking for a perfect world and it doesn't exist. You pretend you're not looking for perfection but when you're trying to solve the killing of 18 people a year while ignoring the killing of thousands then you're not being honest or realistic in this discussion.

When addressing problems, it makes most sense to start with the biggest, the highest impact, or the largest risks and work your way down. There are enough bigger problems to solve that would really affect the lives of black and brown people, or, even better, of all people without regard to race, to worry about the 18 unarmed black people killed by police last year.

This story argues that other estimates for 2019 are low so it claims that police killed 25 unarmed blacks in 2019:

Fact check: Police killed more unarmed Black men in 2019 than conservative activist claimed

A prominent conservative activist said in a Facebook video that police only killed eight unarmed Black men in the U.S. in 2019. That claim is false.

www.usatoday.com

For the same year, 2019, this article claims approximately 7500 blacks murdered.

Murder in the U.S.: victims by race 2022 | Statista

In 2022, the FBI reported that there were 10,470 Black murder victims in the United States and 7,704 White murder victims.

www.statista.com

So quit trying to suggest that stopping a few out of 25 deaths will improve the lives of black Americans while you ignore the 7500 deaths that actually would improve life.

Not true.
Police kill thousands a year.
The number of people they justifiably kill is only about 25, but they kill almost 10 times that number.
And the police almost never need to kill anyone.
No one is ambushing police in order to try to kill them.
They are just trying to get away usually.

And the reality is that the police caused the War on Drugs to kill many thousands more.
If not for the War on Drugs, there would not be all the killings over large amounts of drug cash, turf wars, etc.
We know this from Prohibition.

You sure about that number?
I'll give you a hint....it's less than 1000.

In 2015 the number was more like 1500, I so I extrapolated on the upward curve.
Surprisingly the reality is that instead of continuing up, it came back down for some reason.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

"Kill" is easy to define but "incapacitate" is much harder. Would you risk the life of a family member who defends him/herself with a weapon that can only incapacitate when confronted with a maniac who is armed with a deadly weapon?

Yes I would, if the weapon was proven to be as reliable as a gun in neutralizing a threat without killing him. Maybe that weapon doesn't exist, but guess what? We have really smart people who live here. Let's build a better weapon. I am a huge advocate for the police and I want them provided with every protection. But I don't think it's right for people to be shot dead because they are running away. Where is the deadly threat to the police in those cases?

Yes, I agree.
That is why I think police should be forced to the reduced power .380 the rest of the world limits police to.
Far fewer deaths by cops.
Cops don't the extra fire power because no one is trying to rob or attack the police.

That puts the cops at a disadvantage when they go up against better armed criminals.
The LA bank robbery is the perfect example.

No, police have all had M-16s in the trunk since they were surplused after the Vietnam war was over.
The firepower was equal.
If the police were not using their M-16s, it was because they are not supposed to engage in fire fights normally.
They are supposed to let them go, follow them, and then surround them with surprise later, so fewer innocents get killed in the cross fire.

What the LA bank robbers had that the police did not, was better body armor and motivation.

But everyone should have similar firepower at home.

Not when the LA bank robbery took place.

"Kill" is easy to define but "incapacitate" is much harder. Would you risk the life of a family member who defends him/herself with a weapon that can only incapacitate when confronted with a maniac who is armed with a deadly weapon?

Yes I would, if the weapon was proven to be as reliable as a gun in neutralizing a threat without killing him. Maybe that weapon doesn't exist, but guess what? We have really smart people who live here. Let's build a better weapon. I am a huge advocate for the police and I want them provided with every protection. But I don't think it's right for people to be shot dead because they are running away. Where is the deadly threat to the police in those cases?

Yes, I agree.
That is why I think police should be forced to the reduced power .380 the rest of the world limits police to.
Far fewer deaths by cops.
Cops don't the extra fire power because no one is trying to rob or attack the police.

That puts the cops at a disadvantage when they go up against better armed criminals.
The LA bank robbery is the perfect example.

No, police have all had M-16s in the trunk since they were surplused after the Vietnam war was over.
The firepower was equal.
If the police were not using their M-16s, it was because they are not supposed to engage in fire fights normally.
They are supposed to let them go, follow them, and then surround them with surprise later, so fewer innocents get killed in the cross fire.

What the LA bank robbers had that the police did not, was better body armor and motivation.

But everyone should have similar firepower at home.

Actually the cops were out gunned and they had to wait for a SWAT team for 44 minutes before they had equal firepower.
This situation caused the up arming of the police we see today.

20 years ago, a dramatic North Hollywood shootout changed the course of the LAPD and policing at large

The police were offered hundreds of thousands of surplus M-16s after we left Vietnam in 1975.
All the police departments I am familiar with were swamped with M-16s way before the LA bank robbery in 1996 or so.
I remember the police arming up after the 1967 civil rights riots.
That is when they bought the armored cars, sniper rifles, machineguns, etc.

Besides, the point is the police should NEVER do a shoot out like that.
It makes no sense.
Too many innocent civilians to get killed.
And the police won't be ready.
Much better to let them think they got away, track them, and they totally surround them later with SWAT teams.
Any cop doing a shoot out is more danger than the criminals.

Yet the LA cops didnt have those weapons on hand and had to wait for a SWAT team to show up.