deleted by creator
And aim for the bushes?
When you don’t intend to kill rubber bullets are still very dangerous.
If you have to kill (armed and attacking) they are not dangerous enough.
Then you have the issue of less than lethal weapons having a much lower threshold for when they are used and then accidentally killing or maiming someone.
Many in Northern Ireland were killed or blinded by rubber bullets used by British military.
Pretty sure they were invented here
As an American kid, The Troubles was where I first heard the term “rubber bullet”.
But putting the holes into people is the effect …
Good luck try selling thát idea in Trumpland.
Welcome to the Forum “Many things that Europeans keep wondering about Americans”
Not all but a significant percentage of cops became cops for one reason: to be allowed to legally kill people.
Some US police use bean bag guns. However, at <10ft, they hit the victim with more energy than a shogun blast. Lethal at head or chest.
You’re approaching this like cops aren’t allowed to be the Judge, Jury, and Executioner
Civilized countries hold cops accountable when they kill people.
Cops in the US can kill whoever they want for whatever reason and they probably won’t even be fired.
A lot of cops have various forms of less than lethal force, but lethal force in the USA is generally allowed if the victim is considered an immediate danger to others. A rubber bullet isn’t necessarily going to get someone to immediately stop doing something.
Aside from the “cops aren’t out there to save lives” points that others have mentioned… In case you were not aware:
“Rubber bullets” are lead slugs covered in semi-malleable resin/plastic/rubber. They can - and do - kill people when used improperly/carelessly. For instance, a headshot with one of those can kill, or leave the victim with a permanent severe TBI.
Also, they’re WAY bigger than 9mm pistol bullets, meaning they can’t be used in a pistol (generally you need a special weapon to fire them), and clip size is severely limited, and semi-auto action is (afaik) basically a non-starter.
You’ve got a dozen explanations as to what rubber bullets are and their possible lethality. But there’s more. From a ballistics point of view, there are garbage.
Probably the #1 measure the FBI uses in measuring the effectiveness of a round is penetration in ballistic gel. I forget, but I think they want 12" minimum? Cops and military, over much of the world use 9mm for several reasons, penetration is one. Speed is another. Recoil control yet another consideration, don’t kick as hard. Rubber bullets fail all three tests.
Consider, America used the 30.06 round in WWII, now we use the 5.56 (That’s a joke meme BTW.) Tiny bullet, but it hauls ass. We used the .45ACP round for pistols, a cannonball compared to the 9mm. Small bullet, but it hauls ass. Fast and light wins the day.
To circle back and address the original question. You do not unholster your weapon unless you are in fear of your life, or need to stop someone from endangering another person. If a life is on the line, you don’t want a half-assed rubber bullet.
We can argue rules of engagement, deescalation training, fear, all the things American cops fucking fail at, but for myself, if I draw, I’m firing, and I intend to end the threat instantly.
Consider this video where a guy shot a large man harassing him at the mall:
https://youtu.be/9QMkL5wlcaM?t=111
That was likely a .380, even smaller than a 9mm, considered the smallest viable self-defense round. Kid put a pill in his chest and the dude walked off! If your ass is on the line, would you consider an even less lethal round? What if that guy was truly muscular or fat or wearing thick clothing? What if the guy wanted to press the attack?
Fun fact: The US Army wanted something heavier because shooting Filipinos with a .38 wasn’t taking them down, even with a mortal wound they would keep coming. And that’s how we got the Colt .45, which Filipinos are crazy about to this day!
A lot of facts here, but I should add that since cops are being actively trained for escalation and cruelty, and the fact that they are not to draw their weapon without an intent to kill, the fact is that no “less lethal” gadget or ammo is going to fix their behaviour. And neither is the Democrat answer of “more training” because the training they end up getting is more murder indoctrination.
You have to eliminate police unions, to start. End the 1033 program. Hell, defund the whole thing. Build a new society around what police ought to be doing, rather than merely projecting authority, violently crushing dissent, bashing minorities and poor people, and serving moneyed interests. The problems with police are deep rooted, systemic, and metastasised around a corrupt ideology.
They’re rubber -coated and can and do maim and kill.
Heavy clothing can essentially stop rubber bullets. Not really what you want when trying to stop someone.
A better option than any weapon is more officers. I don’t care what a cop is armed with, full military kit and they can still be taken down one on one. More guys always wins, and is so obvious in the moment that people don’t even get violent in most cases.
A better option is actual deescalation training.
Non lethal munitions/weapons are not so non lethal as people think.
Crowd control or demonstration control is another complex problem that can’t be solved by some magic bullet. It is more psychology game when the police tries to look threatening in place where people can easily overpower them.
So called “less than lethal” weapons can and do still kill people:
