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

[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.

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.

So ya lied to try and make your point.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

The Geneva Conventions actually are also supposed to cover police.
If something is a war crime, then one would think it would be even more of a crime to use on civilians?
But when look it up, it is actually the Hague Convention of 1899.
Which the US signed.
I also see the UK is strict on limiting their possession, but do allow police to use them.
Which is a legal contradiction.
Police are not supposed to do things we can't do, because if we can't do it, then how can we authorize the police to do it.
And if we are not authorizing the police in their actions, then they are already an evil dictatorship.
San Francisco and the state of New Jersey also ban hollow points.
What is the point of ensuring death instead of possible recovery, by adding sharp spinning blades to your bullets?
Makes no sense at all.
The only point is there is less over penetration of walls if you miss, but bare lead likely would also do that without being so lethal.

But in my experience, most police in the rest of the world use standard military side arms and ammunition of .380, FMJ.
If nothing else, hollow point is many times more expensive.

 

[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.

So ya lied to try and make your point.

Wrong. I went from memory, which turns out to only be slightly wrong.
And remember the discussion started with a claim it was only 15 a year killed by police, which is off by a factor of 10.
You are saying I am off by a factor of 2, which is not bad.

 

[woodwork201]

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.

When the police shoot someone, the goal is to stop their illegal behavior instantly. Just as in the Columbus case, where the attacker's swing was in full force and only inches left before the knife found the neck of the intended victim. Anything less than a shot that killed the attacker or a shot that was so powerful that it knocked her instantly on her ass would not have saved the victim. Four shots it took before the attacker went down. Three shots would have, most likely, have left the innocent victim dead rather than the attacker.

The shot has to be powerful enough, traumatic enough, to stop even the forward momentum of the attack, not just get compliance. When you're fully engaged in an action, the mind doesn't stop quickly enough to stop the action; it reacts too slowly. Unless, of course, the mind is stopped completely.

It's idiotic to think that you can save a life with a weapon that doesn't immediately stop an attacker.

Less lethal weapons (still many are not getting it: there are no "non-lethal" weapons) like rubber bullets and bean bags are for things like crowd dispersement, not for stopping a violent attacker.

First of all, the knife swing by M'Khia was a round house from right to left, that could not have reached up to the neck.
Second is that a .380 would have instantly flattened her just as well, but the only difference is she would likely have lived. It did NOT take 4 shots. The first shot likely already was way overkill. There was not even a tiny fraction of a second between shots, and she just had not had time to fall down yet from the first shot.
Most likely a single shot into the ground would have startled her enough to end the attack.
Since she had been armed with the knife and fighting for over 15 minutes before the cops arrived, and there was not one drop of blood spilt, that she never intended to actually harm anyone.
She was just a kid.
Kids generally don't actually harm each other.

On one thing, you're actually correct. Even the fist shot could have been enough to kill the attacker. The problem is - and I'll address your lie about the knife shortly - there was a knife forcefully approaching the victim's neck. There was no time to stop and wait for the perpetrator to bleed out or to even see if she was going to drop; the blade was still moving to the victim's neck. The cop did exactly as he should have done: continued shooting until the perpetrator was actually stopped rather than waiting to see if the perpetrator would eventually stop.

You say kids generally don't harm each other? Generally, that's true, but here are a few of the literally thousands on Google

16-year-old fatally stabbed as dozens filmed him bleeding to death

The fight broke out at around 3:45 p.m. on Monday afternoon outside of a bagel shop in Oceanside, New York.

abcnews.go.com

Michigan teen accused of stabbing 3-year-old girl 6 times

A Michigan man is accused of stabbing a 3-year-old girl six times earlier this week, authorities said.

www.kiro7.com

Teen Boy Charged With Stabbing Younger Brother, Sister Multiple Times At Hatfield Township Elementary School Playground, DA Says

Police say a 13-year-old boy was stabbed 15 times throughout his torso, head and hands, and a 9-year-old girl was also stabbed multiple times in the head.

philadelphia.cbslocal.com

Video of teen girl’s deadly stabbing in Walmart was livestreamed on social media, sheriff says

LAKE CHARLES, La. (AP/WNCN) — Authorities say that a weekend deadly fight and stabbing involving a pre-teen and two teenage girls in a Louisiana Walmart was livestreamed on social media. The …

www.cbs17.com

And, of course, this one that happened in Ohio, just days before, by stabbing in the neck - see a pattern here?

Ohio girl, 13, charged with murder in fatal stabbing of another teen

A 13-year-old Ohio girl was charged with murder after the fatal stabbing of another 13-year-old girl on Monday.

www.foxnews.com

You are right that a shot into the ground would likely, though not certainly, have stopped the attack - but the human body doesn't respond that quickly. The attacker would have finished the motion of her arm to stab the girl in pink and then stopped. The only option to save the life of the girl in pink was to interject physical force and trauma to the attacker. Something had to change the direction of motion of her arm and the knife. The only option was to shoot the attacker and to shoot her until the motion stopped or she dropped to the ground.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Dart guns tipped with curare.

 

[Concerned American]

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?

I believe they are 12 GA shotguns that shoot a special bean bag round.

 

[Concerned American]

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?

or rubber bullets, although if shot in the head will probably still kill you. If shot in the nuts, you new nickname will probably be One Ball.

Or soprano.

 

[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.

The Geneva Conventions actually are also supposed to cover police.
If something is a war crime, then one would think it would be even more of a crime to use on civilians?
But when look it up, it is actually the Hague Convention of 1899.
Which the US signed.
I also see the UK is strict on limiting their possession, but do allow police to use them.
Which is a legal contradiction.
Police are not supposed to do things we can't do, because if we can't do it, then how can we authorize the police to do it.
And if we are not authorizing the police in their actions, then they are already an evil dictatorship.
San Francisco and the state of New Jersey also ban hollow points.
What is the point of ensuring death instead of possible recovery, by adding sharp spinning blades to your bullets?
Makes no sense at all.
The only point is there is less over penetration of walls if you miss, but bare lead likely would also do that without being so lethal.

But in my experience, most police in the rest of the world use standard military side arms and ammunition of .380, FMJ.
If nothing else, hollow point is many times more expensive.

You didnt answer my question.

 

[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.

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.

So ya lied to try and make your point.

Wrong. I went from memory, which turns out to only be slightly wrong.
And remember the discussion started with a claim it was only 15 a year killed by police, which is off by a factor of 10.
You are saying I am off by a factor of 2, which is not bad.

Now you're attributing things that I never said.

 

[MarathonMike]

How about this? A rubber slug fired via shotgun. Seems better than a Taser, but obviously needs to be loaded with the proper amount of charge.

 

[FA_Q2]

How about this? A rubber slug fired via shotgun. Seems better than a Taser, but obviously needs to be loaded with the proper amount of charge.

You heard him call the round riot control, did you not?

 

[9thIDdoc]

 

[9thIDdoc]

This is a subject I know a bit about. I was an Army combat medic for many years. I served a tour of duty in Vietnam/Cambodia in Infantry units. I saw a lot of people killed or wounded in many different ways. Also I have been a lifelong hunter always with the goal of making any kills a close to instantaneous as possible. It doesn't matter nearly as much what a person is shot with as it does where the person is shot and exactly what damage is done.

 

[woodwork201]

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.

The Geneva Conventions actually are also supposed to cover police.
If something is a war crime, then one would think it would be even more of a crime to use on civilians?
But when look it up, it is actually the Hague Convention of 1899.
Which the US signed.
I also see the UK is strict on limiting their possession, but do allow police to use them.
Which is a legal contradiction.
Police are not supposed to do things we can't do, because if we can't do it, then how can we authorize the police to do it.
And if we are not authorizing the police in their actions, then they are already an evil dictatorship.
San Francisco and the state of New Jersey also ban hollow points.
What is the point of ensuring death instead of possible recovery, by adding sharp spinning blades to your bullets?
Makes no sense at all.
The only point is there is less over penetration of walls if you miss, but bare lead likely would also do that without being so lethal.

But in my experience, most police in the rest of the world use standard military side arms and ammunition of .380, FMJ.
If nothing else, hollow point is many times more expensive.

Ok; I'm going to concede that it may actually be that you are not an intentional liar; it' becoming apparent that you're just an idiot.

The Geneva Convention does not apply to civilian law enforcement. The outcome of those conventions is a document called, "The Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflicts".

So, tell us about your experience with most police departments in the rest of the world. The .380ACP is an American design round, designed by John Moses Browning. That doesn't mean that global police departments can't use it but, honestly, they just do not. The few police departments for which I could find information on what guns they carry all use Glock 17, 19, 26 for police carry - all 9mm. The 9mm is the most common pistol round used for police work world wide. Please share the names of the police departments globally with which you have gained this amazing set of experience from which you speak.

For future reference, there's a site called Google that you can go to and search anything you like. If you follow this link (you move your computer mouse until the cursor is over the underlined, blue, text I'll put below, then you click the left mouse button. The elves in your computer will draw a new picture on your screen, a picture of the Google site. You can type text into the search box and use that little mousey thing again to point to the Search button and then click. It will show you a list of articles to read on virtually any topic under the sun - except for 2020 voter fraud, guns that saved lives, and Joe Biden's dimentia. Here are some helpful photos:

Computer Mouse

Cursor on the screen - it's the little arrow pointer and that's what you move over the link text (blue underlined) to get to Google.

So, once you have identified your computer mouse, I'm assuming you know your right from your left and can find which button on the mouse is the left button, you can move the cursor over the link below and click the left button. That will take you to Google and you can actually look shit up before you post on the Internet.

http:google.com

So,go ahead; give it a try and see if you can look shit up before posting.

 

[woodwork201]

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.

When the police shoot someone, the goal is to stop their illegal behavior instantly. Just as in the Columbus case, where the attacker's swing was in full force and only inches left before the knife found the neck of the intended victim. Anything less than a shot that killed the attacker or a shot that was so powerful that it knocked her instantly on her ass would not have saved the victim. Four shots it took before the attacker went down. Three shots would have, most likely, have left the innocent victim dead rather than the attacker.

The shot has to be powerful enough, traumatic enough, to stop even the forward momentum of the attack, not just get compliance. When you're fully engaged in an action, the mind doesn't stop quickly enough to stop the action; it reacts too slowly. Unless, of course, the mind is stopped completely.

It's idiotic to think that you can save a life with a weapon that doesn't immediately stop an attacker.

Less lethal weapons (still many are not getting it: there are no "non-lethal" weapons) like rubber bullets and bean bags are for things like crowd dispersement, not for stopping a violent attacker.

First of all, the knife swing by M'Khia was a round house from right to left, that could not have reached up to the neck.
Second is that a .380 would have instantly flattened her just as well, but the only difference is she would likely have lived. It did NOT take 4 shots. The first shot likely already was way overkill. There was not even a tiny fraction of a second between shots, and she just had not had time to fall down yet from the first shot.
Most likely a single shot into the ground would have startled her enough to end the attack.
Since she had been armed with the knife and fighting for over 15 minutes before the cops arrived, and there was not one drop of blood spilt, that she never intended to actually harm anyone.
She was just a kid.
Kids generally don't actually harm each other.

On one thing, you're actually correct. Even the fist shot could have been enough to kill the attacker. The problem is - and I'll address your lie about the knife shortly - there was a knife forcefully approaching the victim's neck. There was no time to stop and wait for the perpetrator to bleed out or to even see if she was going to drop; the blade was still moving to the victim's neck. The cop did exactly as he should have done: continued shooting until the perpetrator was actually stopped rather than waiting to see if the perpetrator would eventually stop.

If you look at the pictures below, starting with the famous shot of the girl with the knife down low, it is literally within less than a second it is approaching the victim's face. Literally in a fraction of a second later, the officer shoot and one second later the attacker is going down.

The officer did exactly the right thing at the right time. You come back, days later, having watched the video dozens of times no doubt, having all the time and video you could ask for to review the previous 15 minutes, to calculate angles of attack and movement trajectories of the knife, the victim, and the attacker and, even with all of that, you get it wrong.

The cop didn't have the opportunity to review the previous 15 minutes before deciding to save a girl's life. He didn't have the opportunity to get out his TI-30 and calculate all the angles and arcs in the motion of everyone involved. He had literally, less than one second. And, apparently, one second's worth of his brain power is better than all the brain power you could expend in 3 days.

What the officer had was an attacker with a knife and another attacker coming after one victim who falls and, even with the cop approaching, drawing his gun, yelling for them both to get down, both attackers kept up the attack. The officer would have been justified in killing both but he showed great restraint. The female attacker, still ignoring the cop but leaving the one on the ground to her male companion, turned for the victim in pink.

Regardless of how long the altercation had been going on, of which the cop had no knowledge anyway, this was the point at which the female attacker actually did try to kill the girl in pink.

But I will give the attacker some credit. She may have been going to kill with the knife but at least she wore a mask and didn't infect the girl in pink with the China Virus.

 

[woodwork201]

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.

Actually, it is terrible to propagate fake news, lies, and falsehoods. You made up numbers out of your ass, as is virtually always the case when leftists intent on destroying our society and families, use numbers because there are no actual numbers, anywhere, of any kind, that support destroying the most open, fair, inclusive, society in the history of the human race.

 

[woodwork201]

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.

You are probably the most ignorant poster on this site. Really. I provided you with simple instructions on how to use the google machine; please do not post anything else until you read how to use the google and practice it for a few hours. Then, before more posting, look shit up.

Many police departments still do not have M-16s or M-4s. Chicago didn't issue them to their patrols until 2008. I'm not going to research for you when other departments started outfitting their cars with machine guns but your claim is just one more bit of evidence that you are an idiot.

The cops in the LA bank robbery did not have any long-guns at all, other than shotguns. They actually went to a nearby gun store and commandeered weapons to use until SWAT got there.

 

[woodwork201]

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.

You completely miss the point. You claim that a single shot with a .380 ACP round is a certain stopper - even so certain, and so fast, that it would stop a knife attack mid-swing of the knife. And now you're saying the guy was likely dead after the first shot but simply hadn't fallen over yet.

You could very well be right on the latter point, but if you apply the same knowledge and logic from the latter point to the former, the girl in pink would be dead, idiot.

 

[woodwork201]

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

And every cop in the country should be scorning and shunning forever those who were the leaders of that SWAT team. I have to always make myself remember that the working members of that team probably wanted to move but the SWAT team sat out of range of the action for over 20 minutes planning their attack while real cops were still getting shot. A rare case where cops famously hid from gunfire rather than ran into the gunfire.

 

[woodwork201]

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.

Once again, you're posting from memory rather than research and facts. You've already demonstrated, and we've already proven, that your memory isn't good enough to help you find your way to the bathroom before you wet yourself.

But I agree with you about whether a cop should have an M-16/M4. I'm all for them carrying AR-15-class rifles but a cop has no business with a full auto gun. Full auto is intended for one of two things: fire suppression or sweeping large numbers of incoming enemy fighters. The fire suppression use is an interesting case but there is no case ever where a police officer in the United States should be firing full auto, sweeping a crowd.

In shootouts, cops do regularly hit unintended, uninvolved, people. Your chances of getting accidentally shot by a cop are 5 times higher than the chances of a cop getting shot. Defunding the police will only make this worse. Police should be absolutely expertly skilled with their firearms. That means more funding, more training, more practice.