3 ms·

Firearms are deadly force. The decision to use them is the decision to use deadly force. People can disagree with the use of deadly force. If deadly force is al

by grzm 9y ago

Firearms are deadly force. The decision to use them is the decision to use deadly force. People can disagree with the use of deadly force. If deadly force is allowed, it still makes sense to make its application as precise and limited in scope as possible. Hollow points, compared with full metal jacketed bullets, reduce penetration, reducing shoot-throughs and the potential of injuring those who are not the target. They also increase the likelihood that a lower number of rounds will be needed to be effective. Limiting the number of rounds limits the time of the encounter and the number of rounds that potentially going to be off-target. To be clear, there's a lot that should go into the decision to use deadly force, and it's one that should not be considered likely. People can disagree with when the decision is correctly made. Once it's made however, hollow-points are more effective than fully-jacketed rounds.

r00fus 9y ago
Then why do the militaries still use ball-ammunition? Here's what I was told when I was in the service. The goal is to incapacitate the target, not to kill. From a military standpoint, incapacitation of targets causes additional burden to their sqaud-mates. It also demoralizes the enemy. Weapons are used for many things, not just deadly force. They act as intimidation (warning shot), deterrence (visual presence) as well.
- grzm 9y ago
  You're right that firearms (weapons) can be used for many things. In the context of police work (or self defense), they are used for deadly force. The reason militaries use ball ammunition is (among other reasons such as those you mention) due to international conventions. For what it's worth, there are fully-jacketed rounds made to abide by these conventions yet still have many of the characteristics of hallow-point rounds. And you're right about incapacitation on the field of battle. You've pointed out a distinct difference between police work and self defense, and (some) military tactics. Considerations like additional burden and demoralization are battle-field considerations: they're different from what police are typically involved in, where you want to remove an imminent or active threat to the public. (Just to reiterate, there are a lot of decisions that people can disagree about leading up to the decision to use deadly force in police work and whether that use was justified in any particular situation. That's not the discussion at hand here.) Your examples of intimidation and deterrence are both indications that deadly force is available and willing to be applied. From the standpoint of brandishing, it doesn't matter what types of rounds are used. I'm not clear as to how often police actually fire warning shots, but if this is this case, they would be also be interested in ensuring the shot does not shoot through the intended target. (Shooting into the air is incredibly reckless and I can't imagine that's something police would be trained to do.)
- ridgeguy 9y ago
  It seems that full metal jacket (ball) ammunition was adopted for technical reasons. The 1899 Hague Convention prohibited ammunition that flattened or expanded on impact, but did not require jacketing. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_metal_jacket_bullet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_metal_jacket_bullet

by grzm 9y ago

r00fus 9y ago

Then why do the militaries still use ball-ammunition? Here's what I was told when I was in the service. The goal is to incapacitate the target, not to kill. From a military standpoint, incapacitation of targets causes additional burden to their sqaud-mates. It also demoralizes the enemy. Weapons are used for many things, not just deadly force. They act as intimidation (warning shot), deterrence (visual presence) as well.

grzm 9y ago
You're right that firearms (weapons) can be used for many things. In the context of police work (or self defense), they are used for deadly force. The reason militaries use ball ammunition is (among other reasons such as those you mention) due to international conventions. For what it's worth, there are fully-jacketed rounds made to abide by these conventions yet still have many of the characteristics of hallow-point rounds. And you're right about incapacitation on the field of battle. You've pointed out a distinct difference between police work and self defense, and (some) military tactics. Considerations like additional burden and demoralization are battle-field considerations: they're different from what police are typically involved in, where you want to remove an imminent or active threat to the public. (Just to reiterate, there are a lot of decisions that people can disagree about leading up to the decision to use deadly force in police work and whether that use was justified in any particular situation. That's not the discussion at hand here.) Your examples of intimidation and deterrence are both indications that deadly force is available and willing to be applied. From the standpoint of brandishing, it doesn't matter what types of rounds are used. I'm not clear as to how often police actually fire warning shots, but if this is this case, they would be also be interested in ensuring the shot does not shoot through the intended target. (Shooting into the air is incredibly reckless and I can't imagine that's something police would be trained to do.)
ridgeguy 9y ago
It seems that full metal jacket (ball) ammunition was adopted for technical reasons. The 1899 Hague Convention prohibited ammunition that flattened or expanded on impact, but did not require jacketing. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_metal_jacket_bullet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_metal_jacket_bullet