DHS buying new targets that look like you
- Thread starter riata2
- Start date
London, it's all about reactions. A picture of an old lady with a bag of groceries and an old woman with a 1911 can be used for training. I don't like these new targets, but can you say LE will never run up against a pregnant woman pointing a pistol at them?
What would you do if some woman looked like she was preparing to shoot you? Think it can't happen?
What would you do if some woman looked like she was preparing to shoot you? Think it can't happen?
FiremanLyman
New Member
Shifting into full retard now.
We all know that is just what she needs. If a real man would just take one for the team and give ol Dianne 3 good minutes of pleasure, she'd give up her grudge and probably go away.
Thanks. Much appreciated.
WOW just saw this. Regardless of who brought this to light and any little hypothetical scenarios, this is dumb. "Let's practice shooting at children and pregnant woman, just in case we run across one that might point a gun at one of us". I can understand that this is possible, but most LE will not deal with an armed pregnant woman or child in their whole career. Bigjohn is right with his example, "I want targets of an entry team busting though my door without a warrant! ill bet that'd turn some heads at the range!" This would be deemed as wrong by the very same guys that want to use these ridiculous targets of civilians but that is, by far, more likely to happen. If you need to practice shooting a pregnant woman with a gun, under the excuse that you might cross it one day, you shouldn't even be on the force. You're not trained rather or not to shoot a pregnant woman or child, you're trained to return fire when you're being fired at. So, to specify who it might be, is stupid in the first place. You better get a target of a midget, paraplegic, and your own mother pointing a gun at you. Never know when and if it could happen. All arguments that support these idiotic targets, make no good points and offer no good reasons. This is flat out dumb. Stop trying to justify it with hypothetical reasoning. It's wrong, no matter how you look at it.
Last edited:
- Jul 1, 2011
- 27,736
- 21
And before you saw this ....
So you advocate training in an unlikely scenario (unwarranted entry) but don't advocate it for a less likely scenario (prego / child with gun).
It's unlikely that there will be a fire in your home so scrap the detectors, extinguishers, and the phone because you probably won't need to call the FD. Don't to teach the kids about fire drills either, it's unlikely they'll ever be in a real fire.
Last edited:
That's the not the point at all. As a martial artist, I don't train to defend myself from black, white, Asian, or any other races of men and women. I don't train to fight off a specific type of person, I train to respond in a necessary manner to survive the situation as unharmed as possible. It doesn't matter who the aggressor is, all that matters is that you execute your technique as effective as possible to avoid injury and death. It's not like the responding officer is gonna allow himself to be shot because it's a pregnant woman. It's like one of the other posters said, this has to be for desensitization. Otherwise, this is pointless unless there is a more grim intention. Tinfoil hat all you want but if this IS to desensitize, WHY would they NEED to be desensitized. Look up how many pregnant women and children were killed due to pointing a gun at an officer in the last 50 years and then tell me this is productive. By your logic, YOU should keep a tinfoil hat around, just in case. Never know if aliens really could invade. Rather be safe then sorry, right?
- Jul 1, 2011
- 27,736
- 21
The rest of post #71 says train for all scenarios, as long as you don't use the training procedures MBA disagrees with.
Last edited:
Am I the only one who saw/read MBA's posts and thought "bro, you just went full retard"? The hypocrisy is so thick you can damn near cut it with a knife and then spread it on your toast. Advocates training for all scenarios, but sees something that can make that easier/more realistic and flips his shit.
Anyway. Mind pointing out how this is wrong/pointless? Someone (I can't remember who) said a few pages back that these targets could easily be used for running different scenarios, i.e the prego could have been holding off an attacker until the cops showed up, and simply didn't feel like lowering her gun until the other bastard is in cuffs or otherwise secure/incapacitated. To me that seems like a perfectly logical use for these sort of targets (and it's pretty much what some LE organizations/departments already do, 'cept with paper targets and live rounds instead of people and paintballs).
If these targets -are- being used to desensitize, I personally don't have a problem with that, however I believe that's a fairly unlikely reason for them being used (IF, that is, they actually are being used by LE agencies).
Anyway. Mind pointing out how this is wrong/pointless? Someone (I can't remember who) said a few pages back that these targets could easily be used for running different scenarios, i.e the prego could have been holding off an attacker until the cops showed up, and simply didn't feel like lowering her gun until the other bastard is in cuffs or otherwise secure/incapacitated. To me that seems like a perfectly logical use for these sort of targets (and it's pretty much what some LE organizations/departments already do, 'cept with paper targets and live rounds instead of people and paintballs).
If these targets -are- being used to desensitize, I personally don't have a problem with that, however I believe that's a fairly unlikely reason for them being used (IF, that is, they actually are being used by LE agencies).
It' funny there can't be a debate without this guy coming in and trying to fit in the wrong way as usual. If you don't like what someone els says you declare it's "full retard". Be original. Anyway, there's no hypocrisy in my post all. The point is, I don't agree with using pregnant woman and children as targets and that you can train for those scenarios without specifying the pregnant woman or child. You don't like that I disagree fine, but lay off the childish antagonist reply. Don't hide your lack of a good argument with mischief, as others have said to you before.
it's really easy to sit and monday morning quarterback the actions of others without ALL the facts
all we know is that DHS is potentially buying these targets
beyond that - the rationale, reason, etc etc - we havent heard a bit of it
but - form an opinion anyway......after all, it's just a piece of paper
all we know is that DHS is potentially buying these targets
beyond that - the rationale, reason, etc etc - we havent heard a bit of it
but - form an opinion anyway......after all, it's just a piece of paper
The rest of post #71 says train for all scenarios, as long as you don't use the training procedures MBA disagrees with.
Ok I'll train using a picture of your mother because I never know if or when I may run into her on a bad day and she may pull a weapon on me. Not saying this to insult you, but would that really be ok with you?
I wish I could have a more relaxed view about this like you do. I'm not enraged either but when something doesn't make sense to me and seems like a negative thing, intend to question why others are ok with it. Still haven't gotten a strait answer, just hypothetical "reasons".
