Interesting that police in Brisbane yesterday took down a deranged man, armed with a pistol, with a 'bean bag' gun firing non-lethal pellets. For the 'self defence' crew, surely this may be an alternative?
You understand that it's a regular shotgun with "nonlethal" lead pellets in a bag, right? Gun grabbers don't like this approach because I still get to keep my gun that also fires buck shot and slugs that are very lethal. The goal of the gun control crowd is to remove guns from society. Besides, people have been killed when shot with a beanbag. But what I'm really wondering is why are you so concerned for the health and safety of someone with a gun who is trying to to rob or kill me? So that he is not hurt, I must die. Your logic escapes me.
That is your choice. Feel free to use a baseball bat when facing an armed attacker. My choice is to use a gun to defend myself against an armed attacker. Why would you want me to deny that right to fight an armed attacker on equal or better terms? Kai
You stay on your railway track,Bud,for $%&istsake that way you can't deviate or look at the bigger/alternative picture.
After reading this diatribe,you really need to get rid of your signature,you obviously don't heed it.
Oh and another thing,the fact that he's still alive means that his kids,which apparently 'it' was about(until other evidence come out),still have a father(he may not be a good/sensible one,but he STILL is to them).....perhaps that's why a softer,non-lethal method was used. I'll bet you don't get that train of thought on your 'I'm insecure lets all have guns to protect us',railwaytrack that the majority of you mob are on.
The logic is "can they be stopped with less than lethal force"... not the "nuke from orbit - only way to be sure" approach
The "less lethal" option is described in good detail here: The Less Lethal Option Note the complexity of deployment. First the "less lethal" option is generally considered if there is a belief that the person "attacking" is primarily a danger to self and not others. If the person is a danger to others, it escalates to lethal rules of engagement. Next, the recommendation is not to only use bean bag rounds, the ideal is to assign a two man team, the one assigned the "less lethal" weapon gets first crack, but is covered by a "lethal" partner in the event the "less lethal" option fails and the person actually attacks and escalates to a level of being a danger to others. Third, note the extensive discussion about the potential for confusion that can occur if a single weapon is used for both types of rounds, or the confusion created in others who are observers who may be uncertain when the engagement has escalated from "less lethal" to "lethal". Fourth, the bean bag round is said to be accurate to only about 20 feet, with a max range of 60-70 feet; which means giving up a significant amount of safe distance before firing. Finally, the "less lethal" round can still kill or maim, it is only less likely, not impossible. All of the above complex protocol is very difficult for a single defender to successfully execute while still prioritizing their own life. It also could create a legal dilemma for those willing to take on the self-defense responsibilities under some US states' law. In a number of US states "lethal force" is authorized only if a defender is "in fear for their life". It would be very difficult to argue a defender was in "fear for their life" if they are willing to use a "less lethal" round. If a defender is not in "fear for their life", then in those states, they are required to retreat, so no round (of any type) is fired at all. This latter is a better outcome, so long as the person attacking doesn't advance while the defender retreats, than even firing the bean bag round.
Well this may be,but if Mr P(kongman) is correct and I haven't seen/heard his info,then our police must be pretty well trained with the 'real' thing to aim NOT to kill with 'real' bullets,eh. The fact of the matter is,there are so very few(I'm talking about your country and all/any reports that make it over here)situations where an armed member of the general public has stopped(by any means)an armed baddy,yet going by this forum the gun owning ratio is about 95:1
They shot him in the shoulder, the only reason why he's still alive is because the cops are poor shots. BTW there's no "shoot to wound" policy, the intention is to stop the threat, achieved by shooting at the targets largest body mass (chest/abdomen). Shooting at the largest body mass reduces errors in aiming and bullets flying around the place unfortunately there is also a high chance one will be killed as a majority of organs required to live are located in the abdomen and chest. Here's the link Police say real bullet used on Qld gunman - Yahoo!7 M
Whatever the outcome in this case, the logic of a 'non-lethal' ammo still has some merit for the fraidy-cats who feel the need to be armed, even though it won't be perfect - nothing ever is...
i think it was one of the SOG or swat guys (cant remb what they are called in qld) , they can shoot straight ....lol...i was just repeating what the news was saying anyway
You read Yin's detailed explanation of why shooting bean bags is a bad idea, yet you (and others) still think it's a good idea. My signature line couldn't be more necessary.
Since when did pussification become enlightenment???? Kai PS: maybe with their father shot dead like the rat he is for attempting to kill another person the kids will learn a lesson and decide not to become like him.
Reading this brief news article, the circumstances seem to conform to the parameters of my previous post. The armed person held a gun to his own throat for 90 minutes to hold off police. This creates a suicidal scenario where the police believe the person is more a harm to self than others and justifies the use of the complex protocol described; at the same time, lethal rounds were also clearly on scene, again as described. Note that one of the implied elements of this protocol is *time* (to get it set up). A suicidal scenario has that time, imminent attacks don't. So they may have attempted to use bean bag rounds first, but then someone either misread the situation and fired a lethal round or the armed person began to point his gun at police and was shot. Note that a scenario like this, where bean bag rounds are employed to save a person who is a danger to themselves, is not going to be the situation where most people in the US keep and foresee a use of arms, a break-in to their home or business with a few seconds to a few minutes to respond. Also as bean bag rounds require a shotgun, it is not a concealed carry option, which again limits use to the home or business. A suicidal person is unlikely to be breaking into a strange home or business to try and be a "danger to self"; a person breaking in is reasonably classed in the "danger to others" category, which moves the appropriate response into the lethal column as described by the article linked on police procedure for the "less lethal" option.
Pretty much every cop in the US has a taser now, not sure what this whole rant about not using non-lethals is? Plenty have the bean bag crap too for crowd control......
According to the article, the gunman was already scheduled to appear in court over a "bizarre self-harm incident." Wondering how, if gun laws are so efficient in preventing gun violence, he had a gun? Surely, strict registration laws enabled authorities to cross check their records of crazy people with records of gun owners. Why did they not confiscate his gun and prevent this terrible incident from ever happening?
