3 ms·

In france at least, they started to outfit many police departments with them, as tit sounds better in the news to say they are "sub-lethal" weapons instead of r

In france at least, they started to outfit many police departments with them, as tit sounds better in the news to say they are "sub-lethal" weapons instead of real guns. It is illegal for them to aim at the upper body or fire below the 7 meters range, though they do it constantly (and even though people already died due to them and lose eyes every year; a rubber bullet going at 360km/h can be quite lethal).

afarrell 10y ago
If you are breaching a building rather than controlling a street, isn't your training going to be to shoot someone directly? Since officers are acting on training rather than reflection, isn't expecting them to bounce bullets rather foolish?
- 4c2383f5c88e911 10y ago
  I can see why they wouldn't want to come in a building firearms blazing due to a random phone call, though.
- avip 10y ago
  Assuming it's the same kind of "rubber bullets" used to neutralize riots, it's completely unsuitable for breaching houses. The min-range is impossible to keep to start with.
  - 4c2383f5c88e911 10y ago
    Yes, and it's wildly inaccurate as well (even without taking into account that police training is often kept to a minimum so most of them can't aim that well).
    - afarrell 10y ago
      But how many people breaching houses have only police training? How many are former military or current reserves?
- simonh 10y ago
  Are you saying police are being trained to directly shoot people with equipment designed to be used indirectly? Or are you saying they aren't being trained to use their equipment as it's intended to be used at all? I'm not clear what your point is.
  - dsmithatx 10y ago
    I think the answer to both questions is yes. Perhaps you are overthinking this?
  - afarrell 10y ago
    My point is that if someobe gets training on how to breach and secure buildings, either in SWAT, or in their previous career in the military, then they will have training which teaches them to aim for center-mass of anyone they perceive as a threat. Swapping out the type of ammunition isnt going to erase that training and so they would fall back to it in a stressful situation.

afarrell 10y ago

If you are breaching a building rather than controlling a street, isn't your training going to be to shoot someone directly? Since officers are acting on training rather than reflection, isn't expecting them to bounce bullets rather foolish?

4c2383f5c88e911 10y ago
I can see why they wouldn't want to come in a building firearms blazing due to a random phone call, though.
avip 10y ago
Assuming it's the same kind of "rubber bullets" used to neutralize riots, it's completely unsuitable for breaching houses. The min-range is impossible to keep to start with.
- 4c2383f5c88e911 10y ago
  Yes, and it's wildly inaccurate as well (even without taking into account that police training is often kept to a minimum so most of them can't aim that well).
  - afarrell 10y ago
    But how many people breaching houses have only police training? How many are former military or current reserves?
simonh 10y ago
Are you saying police are being trained to directly shoot people with equipment designed to be used indirectly? Or are you saying they aren't being trained to use their equipment as it's intended to be used at all? I'm not clear what your point is.
- dsmithatx 10y ago
  I think the answer to both questions is yes. Perhaps you are overthinking this?
- afarrell 10y ago
  My point is that if someobe gets training on how to breach and secure buildings, either in SWAT, or in their previous career in the military, then they will have training which teaches them to aim for center-mass of anyone they perceive as a threat. Swapping out the type of ammunition isnt going to erase that training and so they would fall back to it in a stressful situation.