If that's an argument at all, its for disarming the police completely
My point is that, if the police are in a situation where they have to fire their weapons, 9/10 they're intending to kill that person. If they don't want to kill the person they'll use the wide variety of non-lethal weapons they have- tasers, attack dogs, bean bag rounds, baton rounds, tear gas etc.
You can't say you want to give the police lethal force and then say "but you can't use those bullets, you might kill them".
(
Sheriff John Bunnell https://twitter.com/thewonderfulgam, Thu 12 May 2011, 0:34,
Share,
Reply)
FMJ bullets leave an exit wound, which is generally a lot more horrific than an entry wound
Hollowpoints not only have more stopping power but also 'tumble' and stay lodged in the flesh.
FMJ's are really quite barbaric and outdated. The only reason the military don't use them is because of a stupid peace treaty dating back to WWI that prevents them from making a more informed contemporary choice.
(
Lord Keeps meaning to procrastinate., Thu 12 May 2011, 10:42,
Share,
Reply)
I think the point is;
There may be something / someone *behind* the exit wound that you don't want to hit. These bullets would eliminate that risk.
(
IHaveABadFeelingAboutThis most likely working from home on, Thu 12 May 2011, 11:29,
Share,
Reply)