The gun laws in Florida are almost non-existent. Almost ANYONE can get their hands on one of these weapons. Also, that Alt-Right body count has apparently gone up again:
Not fake news. While right wing sources try to claim it is, the leader of this group, Jordan Jereb literally said that Nikolas Cruz had trained with. He has in fact given interviews to this effect.
@BelleSorciere which he based on a name he saw on 4chan, and later retracted the claim. Even the Southern Poverty Law Center said he wasn't involved with the loony Florida militia.
The gun laws in Florida are almost non-existent. Almost ANYONE can get their hands on one of these weapons. Also, that Alt-Right body count has apparently gone up again:
Not fake news. While right wing sources try to claim it is, the leader of this group, Jordan Jereb literally said that Nikolas Cruz had trained with. He has in fact given interviews to this effect.
@BelleSorciere which he based on a name he saw on 4chan, and later retracted the claim. Even the Southern Poverty Law Center said he wasn't involved with the loony Florida militia.
The gun laws in Florida are almost non-existent. Almost ANYONE can get their hands on one of these weapons. Also, that Alt-Right body count has apparently gone up again:
The only thing I've seen is that the white supremacist leader who GAVE AN INTERVIEW claiming he did train with them has now apparently changed his story. As for the photos, they were from his Instagram account, which Snopes is rating as "true" as far as we are able to establish right now:
The story he gave was based off of 4chan. Also, its kind of hard to imagine that a hispanic man is a white supremacist, but then again he was clearly very unstable so anything is possible.
Well who's fault is that?? The guy came out and gave an in-depth interview to media outlets and then changed his story. If the guy was straight-up LYING then I would guess that would be the main crux of the problem. As for him being Hispanic, I don't even know if he is. While the name "Cruz" would imply that, it isn't a certainty. Plus we do know for sure that he and his brother were adopted.
As for the Instagram page and the MAGA worship, that all seems to be entirely confirmed. The Snopes article mentions that students at the school were aware of the photos he posted of dead lizards long before this happened.
Multiple media reports said he was Hispanic. Also, having a MAGA hat and being a white supremacist are definitely not the same thing. Alt-right, sure, but the twitter post and the reports that he was a white nationalist appear to be incorrect.
The alt-right are literally white supremacists.
Not really. Some are, some aren't. Not everyone with a maga hat is a white supremacist.
@semiticgod I'd be in favor of taking that a step further, and only allow police departments access to rubber bullets as well. Only authorize SWAT to use lethal rounds.
That sounds like a good idea. Lethal rounds would make still sense for certain circumstances, but it's always better to take someone alive and put them through the criminal justice system than to gun them down and let God sort them out. We enforce laws through the courts, not bullets.
Tranquilizers might make more sense in a hunting context as a humane alternative to bullets. Put the deer to sleep with a dart, put a bullet in its head at point-blank range when it falls, and you've got a much less painful death for the deer. It'd be even less painful than a direct shot to the heart. More painful than a long-range shot to the deer's head, but how often does even a skilled hunter manage that?
Using tranquilizers for human suspects, though, would be more dicey as a nonlethal alternative to real bullets. A single tranquilizer from long range would be great, but if we're talking about close quarters where things are chaotic and moving too quickly, you fire 10 rounds (say) and hit the target 0-10 times. With rubber bullets, the target's going to drop if you hit them just once, but with tranquilizers, hitting them 10 times would mean death by overdose. And if you decreased the dose so that 10 shots were nonfatal, a single shot wouldn't knock them out.
The gun laws in Florida are almost non-existent. Almost ANYONE can get their hands on one of these weapons. Also, that Alt-Right body count has apparently gone up again:
Not fake news. While right wing sources try to claim it is, the leader of this group, Jordan Jereb literally said that Nikolas Cruz had trained with. He has in fact given interviews to this effect.
@BelleSorciere which he based on a name he saw on 4chan, and later retracted the claim. Even the Southern Poverty Law Center said he wasn't involved with the loony Florida militia.
While this particular incident isn't an example of that, this is the exact stuff of crap that Russian bots and trolls are pumping out 24/7 on the internet. First we hear was a white supremacist (though at least there was an interview to back that up for half a day). To counter that story, it was then spread far and wide on the web that he was in fact Antifa and had communist political leanings (the EXACT same thing happened after the Charlottesville attack). The young, white males who identify with the Alt-right in this country (who view this as half serious and half some sort of sick game they enjoy playing with people) then amplify that message to protect their movement from being associated with a killer.
@jjstraka34 exaclty, and what do you know? Infowars backs the Antifa story entirely.
The underlying problem is the confirmation bias everyone has that makes them want to believe the best about people they agree with and the worst about people they disagree with. The person in the Infowars "story" looked nothing like the shooter, but of course people want to saddle the other side with a horrible monster so the alt-right jumped on board with it.
@jjstraka34 exaclty, and what do you know? Infowars backs the Antifa story entirely.
The underlying problem is the confirmation bias everyone has that makes them want to believe the best about people they agree with and the worst about people they disagree with. The person in the Infowars "story" looked nothing like the shooter, but of course people want to saddle the other side with a horrible monster so the alt-right jumped on board with it.
InfoWars and Alex Jones are a whole other problem entirely. I don't think there has been a SINGLE mass shooting in the last 5 years he hasn't denounced as a false flag operation conducted by the government to usher in gun confiscation. And lest people think it doesn't have a wide-reach in this society, he does. He has well over 2 million subscribers on Youtube. His radio show used to be on the local right-wing radio station in my market every single night. Watching InfoWars is like wearing a tinfoil hat 24/7. It is wall to wall conspiracy theories, and is far and away the most irresponsible "news" outlet currently on the media landscape.
It is a whole other problem, but the success of an organization like Info Wars is exactly what encourages the Russian government to spread propaganda about American elections
I just want to say, Mitt Romney was completely right when he said that Russia was our number one geopolitical foe. I think a lot of the people who laughed him off are realizing now.
I, for one, wasn't a fan in 2012 (though I preferred him over the President) but I'm happy to see him running for senate in Utah. At least we know he'll be willing to properly respond to this.
@semiticgod if nonlethal rounds were as effective as self-defense weapons, do you not think law enforcement would already be using them?
Not as effective, no. There's nothing less dangerous than a corpse. They can't hurt you if they're lying dead in a pool of their own blood.
But I don't think that killing a human being is the ideal solution to danger. It's better to take a suspect alive than to shoot them to death. And it's entirely possible to stop someone from attacking you without killing them.
Let's not forget that every criminal has family and friends and people who would miss them if they were gone. I might not mourn a criminal's passing, but I don't view it as a morally upright thing to take a human being's life unless it's necessary. Not convenient or safe, but necessary.
In my view, killing people is a bad thing that people should avoid doing, not a good thing that people should try to promote.
@semiticgod if nonlethal rounds were as effective as self-defense weapons, do you not think law enforcement would already be using them?
Not as effective, no. There's nothing less dangerous than a corpse. They can't hurt you if they're lying dead in a pool of their own blood.
But I don't think that killing a human being is the ideal solution to danger. It's better to take a suspect alive than to shoot them to death. And it's entirely possible to stop someone from attacking you without killing them.
Let's not forget that every criminal has family and friends and people who would miss them if they were gone. I might not mourn a criminal's passing, but I don't view it as a morally upright thing to take a human being's life unless it's necessary. Not convenient or safe, but necessary.
In my view, killing people is a bad thing that people should avoid doing, not a good thing that people should try to promote.
If someone is brandishing a weapon and aiming it at you, I would definitely describe using lethal force as necessary.
This is an assumption of the risk problem. The criminal clearly assumes the risk of being shot when he brandishes a weapon. Why should an officer or any other party be the bearer of the risk that he may be killed by not using lethal force?
As you said, it is possible to stop someone from attacking you without killing them. Why should the victim bear the risk that the possibility is not realized, when doing so means he will pay with his life?
I just want to say, Mitt Romney was completely right when he said that Russia was our number one geopolitical foe. I think a lot of the people who laughed him off are realizing now.
I, for one, wasn't a fan in 2012 (though I preferred him over the President) but I'm happy to see him running for senate in Utah. At least we know he'll be willing to properly respond to this.
I'll maintain that the only reason Romney may be hypothetically willing to stand up to Trump is that Utah, for whatever reason, is uniquely anti-Trump among red states, presumably because the Mormon religion legitimately seems repulsed by him in a way that the conservative Christian community does not. Also, Trump humiliated Romney by dragging him through the whole "will I make him Secretary of State??" parade when he had no intention of ever giving him the position.
@semiticgod if nonlethal rounds were as effective as self-defense weapons, do you not think law enforcement would already be using them?
Rubber bullets were used widely in Northern Ireland during the Troubles, but over time the use of those (and successors such as plastic and AEP) has been pretty much ended in the UK. I think that's more to do with them causing deaths and serious injuries than because they're ineffective. Police are now told not to use these as a means of crowd control due to the danger of causing unintended harm.
In relation to the point about risk I think there's a need for balance. I agree we shouldn't be protecting criminals at all costs, but neither should we put all risks on them just because they're criminals. In some of the police shootings seen recently, the risks to the police have been totally negligible and not demonstrating any sort of appropriate balance.
I just want to say, Mitt Romney was completely right when he said that Russia was our number one geopolitical foe. I think a lot of the people who laughed him off are realizing now.
I, for one, wasn't a fan in 2012 (though I preferred him over the President) but I'm happy to see him running for senate in Utah. At least we know he'll be willing to properly respond to this.
I'll maintain that the only reason Romney may be hypothetically willing to stand up to Trump is that Utah, for whatever reason, is uniquely anti-Trump among red states, presumably because the Mormon religion legitimately seems repulsed by him in a way that the conservative Christian community does not. Also, Trump humiliated Romney by dragging him through the whole "will I make him Secretary of State??" parade when he had no intention of ever giving him the position.
Even if that's true (though all his actions during the primaries say otherwise) it doesn't take away from the fact that he was 100% spot on about Russia, long before others saw it.
I also don't see why Romney, a member of that Mormon religion, would not be similarly repulsed by Trump. His speech in the primary definitely made it seem so.
Romney will not oppose Trump. He'll help enable him and his dangerous republican agenda for the rich and their spend spend spend agenda. Weak on gun crime. Sad!
@semiticgod if nonlethal rounds were as effective as self-defense weapons, do you not think law enforcement would already be using them?
Not as effective, no. There's nothing less dangerous than a corpse. They can't hurt you if they're lying dead in a pool of their own blood.
But I don't think that killing a human being is the ideal solution to danger. It's better to take a suspect alive than to shoot them to death. And it's entirely possible to stop someone from attacking you without killing them.
Let's not forget that every criminal has family and friends and people who would miss them if they were gone. I might not mourn a criminal's passing, but I don't view it as a morally upright thing to take a human being's life unless it's necessary. Not convenient or safe, but necessary.
In my view, killing people is a bad thing that people should avoid doing, not a good thing that people should try to promote.
If someone is brandishing a weapon and aiming it at you, I would definitely describe using lethal force as necessary.
This is an assumption of the risk problem. The criminal clearly assumes the risk of being shot when he brandishes a weapon. Why should an officer or any other party be the bearer of the risk that he may be killed by not using lethal force?
As you said, it is possible to stop someone from attacking you without killing them. Why should the victim bear the risk that the possibility is not realized, when doing so means he will pay with his life?
The thing is, we've already seen numerous examples where police officers will fire lethal rounds on people who do NOT pose a lethal threat to them.
Like a 12-year-old boy. If police used rubber bullets, this innocent child would still be alive.
@semiticgod if nonlethal rounds were as effective as self-defense weapons, do you not think law enforcement would already be using them?
Not as effective, no. There's nothing less dangerous than a corpse. They can't hurt you if they're lying dead in a pool of their own blood.
But I don't think that killing a human being is the ideal solution to danger. It's better to take a suspect alive than to shoot them to death. And it's entirely possible to stop someone from attacking you without killing them.
Let's not forget that every criminal has family and friends and people who would miss them if they were gone. I might not mourn a criminal's passing, but I don't view it as a morally upright thing to take a human being's life unless it's necessary. Not convenient or safe, but necessary.
In my view, killing people is a bad thing that people should avoid doing, not a good thing that people should try to promote.
If someone is brandishing a weapon and aiming it at you, I would definitely describe using lethal force as necessary.
This is an assumption of the risk problem. The criminal clearly assumes the risk of being shot when he brandishes a weapon. Why should an officer or any other party be the bearer of the risk that he may be killed by not using lethal force?
As you said, it is possible to stop someone from attacking you without killing them. Why should the victim bear the risk that the possibility is not realized, when doing so means he will pay with his life?
The thing is, we've already seen numerous examples where police officers will fire lethal rounds on people who do NOT pose a lethal threat to them.
Like a 12-year-old boy. If police used rubber bullets, this innocent child would still be alive.
Anecdotes are not synonymous with aggregate data. Pointing to one victim (or a group) doesn't solve the overall question, which is how to insure the minimum loss of life.
Tamir Rice's killing is an example of police officer misconduct. The connection between that and the remedy you propose (rubber bullets) is so attenuated. In order for that to be relevant you'd have to compare the number of people killed because non-lethal weapons failed to take down an armed suspect with the number of innocents accidentally killed by police.
I, for one, would guess that living in a world where criminals can use AR-15s while the police use rubber bullets would not play out the way you are imagining it would.
@semiticgod if nonlethal rounds were as effective as self-defense weapons, do you not think law enforcement would already be using them?
Not as effective, no. There's nothing less dangerous than a corpse. They can't hurt you if they're lying dead in a pool of their own blood.
But I don't think that killing a human being is the ideal solution to danger. It's better to take a suspect alive than to shoot them to death. And it's entirely possible to stop someone from attacking you without killing them.
Let's not forget that every criminal has family and friends and people who would miss them if they were gone. I might not mourn a criminal's passing, but I don't view it as a morally upright thing to take a human being's life unless it's necessary. Not convenient or safe, but necessary.
In my view, killing people is a bad thing that people should avoid doing, not a good thing that people should try to promote.
If someone is brandishing a weapon and aiming it at you, I would definitely describe using lethal force as necessary.
This is an assumption of the risk problem. The criminal clearly assumes the risk of being shot when he brandishes a weapon. Why should an officer or any other party be the bearer of the risk that he may be killed by not using lethal force?
As you said, it is possible to stop someone from attacking you without killing them. Why should the victim bear the risk that the possibility is not realized, when doing so means he will pay with his life?
The thing is, we've already seen numerous examples where police officers will fire lethal rounds on people who do NOT pose a lethal threat to them.
Like a 12-year-old boy. If police used rubber bullets, this innocent child would still be alive.
I mean, there was about a dozen things wrong with what happened to Tamir Rice, starting with the initial phone call "reporting" him to the end result. Presumably, those officers had tasers, mace, nightsticks etc etc. None of it mattered because they rolled up on him, exited the car, and shot him in less than 2 seconds. Those officers had a myriad of non-lethal ways to deal with that situation, including, presumably, taking 5 or 10 seconds to actually try talking to him. They drove over to that park with full intent to have lethal force be the solution from the get-go. They never even entertained any other option.
@semiticgod if nonlethal rounds were as effective as self-defense weapons, do you not think law enforcement would already be using them?
Not as effective, no. There's nothing less dangerous than a corpse. They can't hurt you if they're lying dead in a pool of their own blood.
But I don't think that killing a human being is the ideal solution to danger. It's better to take a suspect alive than to shoot them to death. And it's entirely possible to stop someone from attacking you without killing them.
Let's not forget that every criminal has family and friends and people who would miss them if they were gone. I might not mourn a criminal's passing, but I don't view it as a morally upright thing to take a human being's life unless it's necessary. Not convenient or safe, but necessary.
In my view, killing people is a bad thing that people should avoid doing, not a good thing that people should try to promote.
If someone is brandishing a weapon and aiming it at you, I would definitely describe using lethal force as necessary.
This is an assumption of the risk problem. The criminal clearly assumes the risk of being shot when he brandishes a weapon. Why should an officer or any other party be the bearer of the risk that he may be killed by not using lethal force?
As you said, it is possible to stop someone from attacking you without killing them. Why should the victim bear the risk that the possibility is not realized, when doing so means he will pay with his life?
The thing is, we've already seen numerous examples where police officers will fire lethal rounds on people who do NOT pose a lethal threat to them.
Like a 12-year-old boy. If police used rubber bullets, this innocent child would still be alive.
I mean, there was about a dozen things wrong with what happened to Tamir Rice, starting with the initial phone call "reporting" him to the end result. Presumably, those officers had tasers, mace, nightsticks etc etc. None of it mattered because they rolled up on him, exited the car, and shot him in less than 2 seconds. Those officers had a myriad of non-lethal ways to deal with that situation, including, presumably, taking 5 or 10 seconds to actually try talking to him. They drove over to that park with full intent to have lethal force be the solution from the get-go. They never even entertained any other option.
Also, the cop who shot him was deemed unfit for duty on account of emotionally instability by the police department he worked in before, but that was not disclosed to his new employer due to some rather ridiculous employment law rules and his own withholding of information.
How often do nonlethal methods fail to bring down suspects? I find it kind of hard to imagine that even the strongest criminal is going to be in fighting condition after getting hit by some rubber bullets.
I looked up some Youtube videos and people crumple after getting hit with just one rubber bullet, pepper ball, or beanbag. This guy went down especially fast. Skip to 0.22. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwTcSY1MSjk Fun fact: If you search for videos of rubber bullets hitting people on Youtube, you will quickly find people gloating over immigrants and protestors getting injured by police.
@jjstraka34 but even a misfired shot from a criminal after being hit with a rubber bullet can kill someone. I can't imagine pulling a trigger can be that hard, even if you are pain. The threat is amplified if it is in a public place, meaning that innocent bystanders also have to assume the risk of being killed or injured as opposed to the criminal.
I'd like to see a study about rubber bullets. While a youtube video can certainly be illustrative, I'm not ready to put my faith in it alone. If they are equally effective, or at least very close, I'd be happy with the long term goal of police using rubber bullets.
The issue is, as the law currently stands, criminals can access AR-15s. I don't feel comfortable if the only deterrent is rubber bullets if they are not as effective as lethal weapons.
Fun fact: If you search for videos of rubber bullets hitting people on Youtube, you will quickly find people gloating over immigrants and protestors getting injured by police.
This is actually extra disheartening in light of the shooting, given the story about the FBI being on notice about Cruz's intentions following a Youtube post. However, you can't blame them. There are so many violent and sickening Youtube comments, if you investigate them all to take preventative measures then you'd have no time to deal with concrete crimes.
During the Dakota access pipeline (DAPL) protests police fired rubber bullets and used less than lethal force.
The Standing Rock Medic & Healer Council said that injuries from the “mass casualty incident” included multiple bone fractures from projectiles fired by police, a man with internal bleeding from a rubber bullet injury, a man who suffered a grand mal seizure, and a woman who was struck in the face with a rubber bullet and whose vision was compromised.
Yes, but the ability to cause injury is different than the ability to stop someone from committing further violence. The goal isn't to hurt the criminal, the goal is to stop them from firing on others.
I'm not sure actual bullets vs. regular bullets are the problem with police officers in this country. The problem is the culture of policing, the thin blue line, and training. The massive influx of surplus military equipment and the perception that they are occupying territory instead of serving any sort of community. How many cops actually LIVE in the zip codes they police in?? At a certain point, they seem like little more than state-sanctioned mercenaries.
@semiticgod if nonlethal rounds were as effective as self-defense weapons, do you not think law enforcement would already be using them?
law enforcement has been using them for decades now.
Tasers Pepperballs. I played paintball, and keep up with the sport every now and then, so I KNOW when they came out. In fact, one of my favorite paintball equipment manufacturing companies had a lot of contracts and R+D for law enforcement. Sonics. tear gas, pepper spray, other chemical irritants, etc. water cannons. Rubber bullets, as I understand them being used today, tend to be from low-powered shotgun rounds.
I suspect, it comes down to price. I can't imagine rubber bullets being cheaper than plain and simple metal bullets. And you'd need billions of rounds on an annual basis for training and use for the hundreds of thousands of various law enforcement agencies.
Also, ballistics would be affected. Rubber is less dense, so you can't just switch bullets for equal sized rubber bullets and have the ballistics be the same. My first guess would be that, without altering the powder load, that a rubber bullet would fly faster, but lose energy faster so wouldn't travel as far. Actually, my second thought would be the fact that rubber wouldn't work well with rifling of firearms. I would think that when fired, the rubber would engage the rifling and get torn to hell. Hence why shotguns, which are not rifled. But all that's just semi-educated musings.
I meant to mention this when we were discussing bean bag rounds a few days ago (which at this point puts it back 87 pages) but the thread moved on pretty quickly.
Law enforcement training refers to options like tasers, bean bag rounds, rubber bullets, etc. as "less lethal", not "nonlethal". It's to emphasize that these options, even when used correctly, can still be fatal.
@booinyoureyes I don't understand the issue of "non-lethal" being any more dangerous. If a person can pull a trigger being knocked off their feet and with probable bone fractures, how is a bodyshot from a real gun allowing any less chance? Surely a trigger could still be pulled. The only time a rubber bullet would fail to drop someone is the event of body armor (and missing, I guess) but body armor would potentially stop live rounds as well.
@booinyoureyes I don't understand the issue of "non-lethal" being any more dangerous. If a person can pull a trigger being knocked off their feet and with probable bone fractures, how is a bodyshot from a real gun allowing any less chance? Surely a trigger could still be pulled. The only time a rubber bullet would fail to drop someone is the event of body armor (and missing, I guess) but body armor would potentially stop live rounds as well.
I have no idea how effective they would be to be honest with you. I know nothing about guns.
However, as a value judgment I would say that if they are less effective, either due to their effect on the target or due to being less accurate, I would have a preference for live rounds.
Comments
Huffington Post=/= a "right wing news source" https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/parkland-shooting-white-supremacist_us_5a85ca6ae4b0774f31d34100
Tranquilizers might make more sense in a hunting context as a humane alternative to bullets. Put the deer to sleep with a dart, put a bullet in its head at point-blank range when it falls, and you've got a much less painful death for the deer. It'd be even less painful than a direct shot to the heart. More painful than a long-range shot to the deer's head, but how often does even a skilled hunter manage that?
Using tranquilizers for human suspects, though, would be more dicey as a nonlethal alternative to real bullets. A single tranquilizer from long range would be great, but if we're talking about close quarters where things are chaotic and moving too quickly, you fire 10 rounds (say) and hit the target 0-10 times. With rubber bullets, the target's going to drop if you hit them just once, but with tranquilizers, hitting them 10 times would mean death by overdose. And if you decreased the dose so that 10 shots were nonfatal, a single shot wouldn't knock them out.
The underlying problem is the confirmation bias everyone has that makes them want to believe the best about people they agree with and the worst about people they disagree with. The person in the Infowars "story" looked nothing like the shooter, but of course people want to saddle the other side with a horrible monster so the alt-right jumped on board with it.
I, for one, wasn't a fan in 2012 (though I preferred him over the President) but I'm happy to see him running for senate in Utah. At least we know he'll be willing to properly respond to this.
But I don't think that killing a human being is the ideal solution to danger. It's better to take a suspect alive than to shoot them to death. And it's entirely possible to stop someone from attacking you without killing them.
Let's not forget that every criminal has family and friends and people who would miss them if they were gone. I might not mourn a criminal's passing, but I don't view it as a morally upright thing to take a human being's life unless it's necessary. Not convenient or safe, but necessary.
In my view, killing people is a bad thing that people should avoid doing, not a good thing that people should try to promote.
This is an assumption of the risk problem. The criminal clearly assumes the risk of being shot when he brandishes a weapon. Why should an officer or any other party be the bearer of the risk that he may be killed by not using lethal force?
As you said, it is possible to stop someone from attacking you without killing them. Why should the victim bear the risk that the possibility is not realized, when doing so means he will pay with his life?
In relation to the point about risk I think there's a need for balance. I agree we shouldn't be protecting criminals at all costs, but neither should we put all risks on them just because they're criminals. In some of the police shootings seen recently, the risks to the police have been totally negligible and not demonstrating any sort of appropriate balance.
I also don't see why Romney, a member of that Mormon religion, would not be similarly repulsed by Trump. His speech in the primary definitely made it seem so.
Like a 12-year-old boy.
If police used rubber bullets, this innocent child would still be alive.
Tamir Rice's killing is an example of police officer misconduct. The connection between that and the remedy you propose (rubber bullets) is so attenuated. In order for that to be relevant you'd have to compare the number of people killed because non-lethal weapons failed to take down an armed suspect with the number of innocents accidentally killed by police.
I, for one, would guess that living in a world where criminals can use AR-15s while the police use rubber bullets would not play out the way you are imagining it would.
I looked up some Youtube videos and people crumple after getting hit with just one rubber bullet, pepper ball, or beanbag. This guy went down especially fast. Skip to 0.22.
Fun fact: If you search for videos of rubber bullets hitting people on Youtube, you will quickly find people gloating over immigrants and protestors getting injured by police.
I'd like to see a study about rubber bullets. While a youtube video can certainly be illustrative, I'm not ready to put my faith in it alone. If they are equally effective, or at least very close, I'd be happy with the long term goal of police using rubber bullets.
The issue is, as the law currently stands, criminals can access AR-15s. I don't feel comfortable if the only deterrent is rubber bullets if they are not as effective as lethal weapons.
Edit: oops, meant to tag SemiticGod
The Standing Rock Medic & Healer Council said that injuries from the “mass casualty incident” included multiple bone fractures from projectiles fired by police, a man with internal bleeding from a rubber bullet injury, a man who suffered a grand mal seizure, and a woman who was struck in the face with a rubber bullet and whose vision was compromised.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/21/dakota-access-pipeline-water-cannon-police-standing-rock-protest
Tasers
Pepperballs. I played paintball, and keep up with the sport every now and then, so I KNOW when they came out. In fact, one of my favorite paintball equipment manufacturing companies had a lot of contracts and R+D for law enforcement.
Sonics.
tear gas, pepper spray, other chemical irritants, etc.
water cannons.
Rubber bullets, as I understand them being used today, tend to be from low-powered shotgun rounds.
I suspect, it comes down to price. I can't imagine rubber bullets being cheaper than plain and simple metal bullets. And you'd need billions of rounds on an annual basis for training and use for the hundreds of thousands of various law enforcement agencies.
Also, ballistics would be affected. Rubber is less dense, so you can't just switch bullets for equal sized rubber bullets and have the ballistics be the same. My first guess would be that, without altering the powder load, that a rubber bullet would fly faster, but lose energy faster so wouldn't travel as far. Actually, my second thought would be the fact that rubber wouldn't work well with rifling of firearms. I would think that when fired, the rubber would engage the rifling and get torn to hell. Hence why shotguns, which are not rifled. But all that's just semi-educated musings.
Law enforcement training refers to options like tasers, bean bag rounds, rubber bullets, etc. as "less lethal", not "nonlethal". It's to emphasize that these options, even when used correctly, can still be fatal.
However, as a value judgment I would say that if they are less effective, either due to their effect on the target or due to being less accurate, I would have a preference for live rounds.
Well, at least until this is possible