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 mi

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.)