Anybody remember the DHS ordering 1.6 billion or so rounds of ammunition ( hollow point) back in Feb

a reply to: Shamrock6

that's the "response" from somebody who's never been in combat

Thats the response from someone that applies "combat" tactics in war to "Policing". The streets of America aren't Afghanistan.

Police are civil servants, not "soldiers". But your response is indicative of those who return and find a job in law enforcement well suited to their "combat experience".

They just replaced their patch with a badge.

a reply to: intrptr

Give me a break! If you're being attacked by someone and you choose to defend yourself by shooting them, are you going to shoot once and hope the one bullet is enough?

No, you keep shooting.

a reply to: intrptr

yea, combat is combat. whether your uniform has a badge on it or not, combat is combat. you wanna trade shots with me or make yourself a lethal threat to me, I'm gonna shoot until you're not a threat anymore whether that's one round or 12. for whatever reason, you can't get your mind wrapped around the fact that a lethal confrontation is just that, regardless of one's clothing at the time.

my response is indicative of nothing, because I haven't discharged my firearm outside of training as a LEO. my "combat experience" has been limited to the military. does my "combat experience" make me more confident in my abilities and chances to win, were I in a lethal confrontation as a LEO? you bet. but I didn't "replace my patch with a badge" and think I was back in combat. then again, since you love to paint with the biggest brush you can get your hands on, none of that really matters does it?

a reply to: Chadwickus

If you're being attacked by someone and you choose to defend yourself by shooting them, are you going to shoot once and hope the one bullet is enough?

No, you keep shooting.

Right, spray and pray. Most of the links I provided (back when) were not situations representing "attacks" upon law enforcement, they were overkill.

You may spray your target, my good sir. What about all that discipline with all that training and practice with Hollow points for a .40?

One round is sufficient to "stop" if you can hit what you are shooting at. Do you hit what you are shooting at?

Or does it involve the heat of the moment somewhat? And later claiming that excuse? If a cop can't practice fire discipline in the line duty he shouldn't be there.

Spray and pray is a poor example of "enforcing the law". All that is is carefully hidden agenda of making sure they are dead.

a reply to: Shamrock6

yea, combat is combat.

This isn't Afghanistan. defending the right of LEO to react like it is is irresponsible.

But I get the whole fraternity thing, too.

a reply to: intrptr

hey real quick can you show me the empirical data that supports one round is sufficient to stop a threat? I'd love to see that, if you have the time to back up your statement.

a reply to: intrptr

you're right, it's not Afghanistan. alas, a gunfight is a gunfight. somebody coming at one with a knife is still somebody coming at one with a knife. geography doesn't particularly matter much.

I never joined a fraternity

Done trading rounds here with officers that will always defend each others actions, regardless.

There is no reason involved, only programmed response. Just like there is no defense against their unwarranted actions on the street.

Except cameras. Have a nice day.

a reply to: intrptr

so when asked to support your statement that one round is sufficient to stop a threat, you run off and claim that it's because you're tired of dealing with people who "always" (even though every time you make that statement I always get the chance to point out how inaccurate it is) defend cops.

seems mature.

you have a nice day too!

a reply to: freedom7


the 2 fold purpose of all these Agencies desiring ammo, even unlawful to use ammo, is to deny the population the ammo thus putting a dent in gun sales/causing the price of the rarer ammo to increase in price...


but it also was done so that all of the ammo buying government Agencies would forever have a 5 % bigger budget the next Fiscal year and ALL successive years (regardless of the need or growth requirements of that Department or Agency)

It is the clower+piven method of swamping the government, so the bureaucracy jumps the tracks as-it-were...
(I submit those 2 academics heard me back at Georgetown university campus back in '68-'69 talking to the jerkoff radicals weathermen/weather underground revolutionaries about their criminal actions being unproductive as compared to overwhelming the government/courts/welfare lines with Issues)... but hey, I was just a hippy, anti-war vet with no credentials back when I was a 20-21y.o.

a reply to: St Udio

except...it's not unlawful to use ammo....

originally posted by: intrptr

So the police that simultaneously pump multiple rounds into people they do shoot at are well practiced in firearms discipline, requiring less bullets to hit your mark, considering that …

How many times have you shot at a person in your life? If it is zero then that is about the same for 99% of cops too. Even in the military where we do shoot at people and we do practice a lot more than cops we fire no less than 3 times per attempt...

For me, when I see these stupid cops empty their guns, shoot people who are not armed, spend seconds determining the situation then shoot etc there is only really one reason to all this, unless you are saying that cops are looking to kill any chance they get.

That reason is that they panic and discipline goes out the window. I remember in the first MMA cage match fighting back in the 80s these guys would get into the cage with 4 plus black belts with decades of practice and since they really never practice REAL fighting they would end up throwing hay makers and round houses as all their discipline vanished, I do not see many cops any different than this when they get into an actual confrontation.

The fact remains that it takes many many more bullets for a kill nowadays than say when the weaponry was less automatic
The US government can tell you that.......compare ww1 to Vietnam stats youll see......
Those so skilled soldiers are doing a lot of praying and spraying themselves......
It apparent to me that many US cops are itching for a kill to "make their bones" just like the one % crowd which they now resemble instead of law enforcement officers......

a reply to: stirling

There's this thing in the military called suppressive fire. The sole purpose is to get the target to stop shooting so you can move. The statistics you're citing don't delineate between rounds meant to suppress and rounds meant to impact on a target. And you're ignoring things like the fact that snipers have something like 1.7 rounds fired per kill.

If so many cops are trying to "make their bones" then why are there so many cops who have never fired their weapons outside of training?

a reply to: freedom7

It's just a backdoor gun control effort.

a reply to: intrptr

One round is sufficient to "stop" if you can hit what you are shooting at. Do you hit what you are shooting at?

Apparently you are ignorant to the fact that according to FBI statistics 40% of the police officers killed in the line of duty were shot AFTER putting 1 bullet into their target. And they don't keep statistics on the officers who didn't die.

But you knew that right?

Snopes says ....

Some true, Some False

a reply to: xuenchen

Hey, your signature isn't 100% true. There was 1 Republican who voted for Obamacare, Chief Justice John Roberts.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Ball Ammo used with a rifled gun do tend to "pass through". Fired from a gun that "tumbles" like an M-16 can be much worse as it can cause a "magic bullet" type situation. Someone is shot in the left shoulder and the exit wound is their right thigh. It is true that hollow point rounds are "outlawed" in wartime none the less. This is because ball ammo passing through an enemy gets him out of the fight just as well as killing him. Hollow points as I'm sure you know cause massive damage, and nightmares for Surgeons. Seems to me that if our Troops can't use them on our enemies, why would we allow our Cops use them on us?

If they are no more deadly, why are they outlawed?

I know it sounds silly, that it is more humane to kill someone "this way" or "that way", both share the end result. It's also a war crime to shoot a trooper while parachuting until he hits the ground, but it's cool to shoot his equipment, like say, his helmet with a hollow point 50 cal if you have it, and it's ok if you miss and accidently hit him. It is all so silly.

Or is it? Is honor in warfare a bad thing? Is holding on to humanity and reason in pure madness, silly?

We need to remember we are not talking about war, it's about our own government keeping us safe, right? Now that is silly

a reply to: wastedown

Hollow points as I'm sure you know cause massive damage, and nightmares for Surgeons.

So does high powered rifles. jus sayin...