3 ms·

Quite right. Don’t know why the downvotes. Ammo is a good example... as absurd as it sounds, the intent in warfare is not to kill the enemy; merely to wound the

Quite right. Don’t know why the downvotes. Ammo is a good example... as absurd as it sounds, the intent in warfare is not to kill the enemy; merely to wound them. Consequently, full metal jackets are used as these increase the likelihood of survival. Police, on the other hand, shoot to kill. Not to wound. Hence, hollow-points. (In addition, the rounds won’t penetrate and keep traveling after impact with the perp and kill bystanders as military wounds are apt to do.)

rblatz 6y ago
How you just brushed over that police shoot to kill and the military in a war shoots to wound completely baffled me. How is that a defensible position?
- pseudo0 6y ago
  To the best of my knowledge, that claim is not accurate. Police are issued hollow points because over-penetration is a much bigger concern in an urban, civilian area. In a military context, over-penetration is less of a concern, FMJ ammo is much cheaper, and the 1899 Hague Convention (which the US did not actually sign, but most other major powers did) technically forbid it. Special forces have been using hollow points for a while though, and they were adopted for general use by the US Army in 2015 along with the new M17 (Sig Sauer P320) sidearm.
- lurquer 6y ago
  The ‘Laws of War’ serve different purposes than the law of policing. Feigning outrage that soldiers are prohibited from something police are not, or vice versa, is silly. Some — but not all — of the differences arise from a general principle that the use of weapons in war is to remove enemy soldiers from the battlefield. A wounded enemy soldier requires far more enemy resources than a dead enemy soldier. Police are different. If they are going to shoot it should be in circumstances where there is an immediate threat to their own (or another’s) life. The threat should be so imminent and deadly that multiple shots without consideration of whether the perp will likely die or merely be injured is the rule. Stated differently, if a cop has the time and presence of mind to ‘shoot at a leg’, he shouldn’t be taking the shot in the first place.

rblatz 6y ago

How you just brushed over that police shoot to kill and the military in a war shoots to wound completely baffled me. How is that a defensible position?

pseudo0 6y ago
To the best of my knowledge, that claim is not accurate. Police are issued hollow points because over-penetration is a much bigger concern in an urban, civilian area. In a military context, over-penetration is less of a concern, FMJ ammo is much cheaper, and the 1899 Hague Convention (which the US did not actually sign, but most other major powers did) technically forbid it. Special forces have been using hollow points for a while though, and they were adopted for general use by the US Army in 2015 along with the new M17 (Sig Sauer P320) sidearm.
lurquer 6y ago
The ‘Laws of War’ serve different purposes than the law of policing. Feigning outrage that soldiers are prohibited from something police are not, or vice versa, is silly. Some — but not all — of the differences arise from a general principle that the use of weapons in war is to remove enemy soldiers from the battlefield. A wounded enemy soldier requires far more enemy resources than a dead enemy soldier. Police are different. If they are going to shoot it should be in circumstances where there is an immediate threat to their own (or another’s) life. The threat should be so imminent and deadly that multiple shots without consideration of whether the perp will likely die or merely be injured is the rule. Stated differently, if a cop has the time and presence of mind to ‘shoot at a leg’, he shouldn’t be taking the shot in the first place.