New ‘Less Lethal’ Shotgun Round Geared Towards School Defense
Integrity Ballistics recently announced their Burns Round, a “less-Lethal 12-gauge shotgun technology for law enforcement.”
According to CEO Jim Greer, the company was founded after 9/11 by chemical engineer Joe Kolnik, with the sole purpose of building a company around this product.
Greer says the Burns Round is designed to stop threats by causing pain on contact, and considers it a more effective law enforcement tool than beanbag rounds in reduced-force situations. The overall contact energy is similar to a beanbag round, but it reduces penetration potential, because it expands on contact to a 50% greater diameter than the beanbag.
There’s an obvious application for school resource officers trying to stop an intruder bent on mass murder, but it could also be useful in many other self-defense situations. When tested against construction materials, the Burns Round tends to get stopped by walls, as opposed to common rifle and pistol bullets which can pass through walls and remain lethal. So in a school, business, or residential environment, a defender may have less concerns over missed shots injuring or killing non-involved parties. It may also reduce police liability from collateral injuries, as happened when New York City police wounded nine innocent bystanders during a shootout.
Integrity Ballistics doesn’t have any current plans for other firearms products. Being a small company with six employees, they’re focusing their resources on getting the Burns Round to the law-enforcement market before exploring other options.
A good development, but it occurs to me if it work well, it may be mandated in place of traditional ammo.
Good question. However, we’re taught to shoot to stop the threat. If they die, they shouldn’t have attacked. But there’s more legal risk with using deadly force. Also, it seems the difference between good and evil people is that good people often feel bad after killing somebody. So if this product works very well, would this empower more people to defend themselves at home, office, etc? Also, if the defender can shoot knowing he won’t kill an innocent child, will this make school defense more successful? No disagreeing, just some thoughts.
I would be concerned about the effectiveness of this type of ammo; when one reads a story about a woman shooting an intruder five times & he’s still kicking…..
It has to do with blood ( and therefore oxygen) circulation to the cells; as long as it flows, the suspect still goes.
I know of an incident where a LEO placed 8 rounds (4 double taps) high center mass on an advancing armed suspect; the man kept coming until the head shot, which made the BG (bad guy) immediately dead.
My concern is the same as Tom Perkins, but maybe not for the same reason.
The rounds could create a temptation to pull the trigger more often or in situations where a gun previously would not have been employed. We have seen this problem with tasers already.
Still, the idea is a good one in itself.
The thing to remember is the term “less lethal,” it will still be a lethal round in a lot of instances. An elderly person with brittle bones, the skull of a young child, a hit to the throat, and other instances. It would be a good addition for a school defense team or a hostage situation, but if you have a goblin in body armor and drugged up you may want rifle in the mix.
The last thing I want to do to an attacker is just make him more angry and determined. If I have to shoot someone I want an exit hole and his ass on the ground. Not interested in playing patty cake.
Since when, cannot a school full of children or other densely occupied venues be taken out with NO confrontations with a gun armed perp? A Timothy McVeigh minded person could certainly improve upon his strategy, if they were so intent on doing so. I think history shows, that some can be pretty innovative too overcome any number of potential obstacles. Generally, those kinds of considered options provides for a great deal more carnage.
Just saying, that the cat and mouse games played out among some circles of mankind can produce pretty devistating results and not always to the benefit of the so called good guys.
McViegh used a bomb moron
Bill;
Zeke uses moron bombs.
Why so hasty to be insulting? Up today from the wrong side of the bed or what?
So many comments; So little time.
Without being insulting back to you — you just repeated my point! If one is so intent on something, he/she will devise a means by which man made obstacles (armed guards, etc.) can more easily be circumvented. Those intent on creating carnage are usally very innovative and find challeges very stimulating to their metal state and all the fancy munitions and high tech guns will serve no line of defense. It all depends on whether blood and guts is their thing or more simply execution. Stone age tactics and improvisions have certainly created a lot of human carnage in recent years when opposing the most sophisticated high tech arms and militaries.
So gun control won’t stop people intent on killing other people?
“So gun control won’t stop people intent on killing other people.”
James, you’ve almost got it right. Heres the correct analysis:
“Guns won’t stop people intent on killing other people.”
@ Zeke,
“Guns won’t stop people intent on killing other people.”
Actually, guns in the hands of people stop people intent on killing other people.
That, of course, is why cops and people with concealed carry permits carry them!
Hmmm… No. Not right. Here, let me fix it for you:
Still, given the type of attacks we have seen in schools, theaters and malls, having more guns in the hands of good guys would be a good thing.
Um, that was the (obvious) point, Bill.
So, you’re saying we need to outlaw or create less than lethal…..rental trucks?
It’s another option. If it generally works, no reason not to add it into the mix, especially if it will convince some of our more gun-shy citizens to allow schools to protect themselves from idiots with weapons of whatever kind. This kind of round wouldn’t magically make the bullet option disappear, any more than bean bag/rubber bullets did.
Good points, all. Theory and practice often diverge. If it’s another tool, great. Let’s see it in action first. If the attacker is hopped up, will pain alone make him stop?
Someone in attack mode is very likely to have a lot of adrenalin flowing. This is a very, very powerful hormone that can have the effect of being utterly impervious to pain.
That’s why security should carry this bad boy:
http://www.keltecweapons.com/our-guns/shotguns/ksg/
Kepp one magazine loaded with less than lethal rounds ad the other full of buckshot.
The experience with the Juramentados in the Philippines suggests not since being shot with bullets didn’t stop them if they weren’t killed.
However, being hit with one of these things is probably roughly equivalent to being hit with a Major League fastball pitch. A blow to the solar plexus would probably paralyze the diaphram for a while. This is usually disabling but possibly not to someone who is full of drugs or adrenaline. A fast pitch to the head is known to knock someone out but then it is also known to kill.
This is not new. They’ve been available for years. Sportsman’s Guide has them on line here:
http://www.sportsmansguide.com/net/cb/3-rounds-of-12-gauge-confetti-ammo.aspx?a=867700
Sounds like a good product and a fine idea. The idea that the round cannot go through a flimsy sheetrock wall found in most schools today also has much appeal. The only question I have is, what is the effective range of these shells? If it is only for a target that is a few feet away, the person firing the gun with this shell could be killed before even getting into range of the armed suspect, especially if the criminal is armed with something heavy, like an AR-15 or an AK-47. So a good range is necessary for this idea to be effective as well. Other than that, it sounds like a good idea.
“…especially if the criminal is armed with something heavy, like an AR-15 or an AK-47.”
Don’t fall into the lefty/media meme; neither of those weapons are “heavy.” The AR-15 is just a “souped-up” .22, the .223 Remington or NATO 5.56, with little mass but a lot of muzzle velocity. The 7.62 x 39 round used by the AK is heavier but has relatively low power because of a small powder charge in comparison to true rifles in 7.62 or .308. The AK was designed to be simply one cut above the WWII era machine pistols for use in mass infantry attacks at relatively short range.
Neither of these “assault weapons” are even in the same league for range and knockdown power as the .3n caliber infantry rifles they replaced or the various .3n and larger caliber hunting rifles. In their true military selective fire/fully automatic furm they can lay down a heavy suppressing fire but at the cost of the infantryman carrying a very large quantity of ammunition and at the sacrifice of range and accuracy. The primary reason for the choice of the .223/5.56 round in the AR platform weapons was that the small, light round enabled the infantryman to man-carry more ammunition. To put down the fire commonly seen in movies, an infantryman would have to be accompanied by a convoy of trucks. The key to the AK platform’s popularity is its ruggedness and simplicity of construction. There is more than a little truth in the quip that the AK was designed to be built by drunks and used by idiots. Those of us who own AK platform weapons are bedeviled by what are referred to as “vodka guns” that have manufacturing defects of one kind or another even in those coming from the Russian Izmash company, the original maker and supplier to the Soviet/Russian military. Those built in former Soviet client nations range from very high quality, East German, Romanian, to crude, Pakistani, Egyptian, with the ubiquitous Chinese versions somewhere in the middle. I think it is the crudity of construction and the fact that they are often seen with very large magazines that makes the AK seem so omminous. Oh, and the fact that true military ones in the US are usually illegal and in the hands of truly omminous people.
“Heavy” is a .44 or .45 caliber pistol or a Thompson submachine gun in .45 or true high-powered rifles in .375 or .458 and now even .50 in both rifle and pistol rounds. A .375 H&H carries a 300 grain projectile at about the same muzzle velocity as a .223 AR’s 55 grain projectile. A .458/.460 Weatherby carries a 500 grain projectile about the same muzzle velocity and is designed to drop a Cape Buffalo or even an elephant in one shot.
US legal gunshop AR and AK platform weapons are “scary-looking” because they’ve been seen in the movies so much and are often all fancied up with “Tacticool” accessories to make them look more ominous. For a couple hundred bucks I can take a sweet little Ruger 10-22 and make it look just as scary and black as any AR but neither the Ruger 10-22 nor the AR has any greater rate of fire than my ’60s vintage Remington Nylon 66 that we inherited from my mother-in-law and with which my wife learned to shoot as a young girl. Nobody would give that black plastic stocked, chrome plated barreled Nylon 66 a second glance and many would think it was a toy, but it too is a semi-automatic rifle that loads 14 rounds of .22 long, 4 more than an unmodified 10-22 and only 6 less than a stock AR’s 20 .223 rounds. Admittedly, though, the Nylon 66′s tube magazine is much slower to reload than the replaceable magazines of the 10-22 or the AR, but you can do a whole bunch of damage to unarmed people with 14 shots, so I guess they’ll have to ban my mother-in-law’s old rifle too. Of course, all this ban talk ignores the fact that rifles of any sort are rarely used in the commission of a crime and we still don’t definitively know that it was the AR platform weapon used to kill those kids and teachers.
Good article Art, but you left out one important point as to why “assault rifle” cartridges are so low powered. And that is because they must be low powered in order for the rifle to be controllable – and actually hit something. If assault rifles used high powered cartridges such as the .30-06 or .308, the only time an enemy soldier would be hit would be if he was high overhead in the trees.
While I was an ROTC cadet back in the early 1960s, my issue weapon was an M1 Garand in .30-06. I carried that “battle rifle” during all drill sessions, and I fired it frequently while training at our nearby army post. But when I graduated and was posted to SE Asia as a new 2nd lieutenant, my TO&E weapons were an M1911A1 in .45ACP and an M14 rifle in .308. And as an officer, my issue M14 had a selector switch to enable full-auto fire. Our EM did not have selector switches installed on their M14s.
So from first hand experience, I can tell you that even a heavy rifle such as an M14 is totally incapable of accurate fire when on full-auto, and every shot after the first one or two was into the tree tops. Even my large-economy-size platoon sergeant could not fire it accurately on full-auto, so we never tried again.
Half way through my tour we transitioned to the M16 “assault rifle” and its little low-powered cartridge, and the rest is history.
Yeah, the internet is replete with videos of the “Haji 360″ in which some peace-loving fellow cuts loose with an AK on full auto and it spins him all the way around to the detriment of his fellow peace-lovers – and an AK isn’t that powerful. I’ve fired a .458 Weatherby and I know what having your shoulder tenderized feels like.
I have some video that I’m not sure I should have from when my kid was in Afghanistan. If I was doing a class on fire discipline, this would be my what not to do piece, but he carried a SAW and there ain’t a whole lot of things scarier than a 19 yr. old in his skivvies with a SAW in one hand and a Red Bull in the other just hosing down a hillside during a firefight. I really don’t know how much real marksmanship skill the Army tries to instill in troops. It seems to me that the 11B role is suppression rather than actually trying to kill the enemy. I’ve been to the range with my kid and he’s nothing like a good shot, not nearly as good as I am with 35 year older eyes, but they gave him a SAW and medals and commendations for how he used it. I will say that he has REALLY good tactical sense of what he should be shooting at but I don’t know if he got that from the Army or from endless hours of very violent video games.
I think most of the guns that the communists are so upset about are just toys or bling for the mall ninjas. They’re going to ban it, but if I had a “social ocassion” my Saiga 12, basically a semi-auto AK in 12 guage, would be my go to weapon. If I wanted to do terroristic things like leave people mysteriously unaccounted for, a .22 with subsonic rounds would be my weapon of choice. I don’t even want an automatic weapon because only a government can afford the ammunition for one. Those old quartermasters in the US Civil War weren’t stupid; they knew they were at the end of their rope just getting ammunition to infantrymen firing three or four rounds a minute with muzzleloaders. There was no way they could have fed breechloading repeating rifles; that’s why they basically turned the Yankee cavalry into mounted infantry and let the horse pack all the ammo for the repeaters.
Interesting theory about the cost of ammo and its effect on force supply and deployment; specifically in the Civil War. How did you come by it?
By yourself, in a publication, or from a friend?
And my opinion on less than lethal is insubstantial. I realize my experiences do not align with this issue, only my interests. ;]
Less Lethal rounds are suitable only for specific situations and are not suitable all the time. If you have a person in a school intent on killing students and staff, the use of lethal rounds is not only acceptable but generally required. Less Lethal rounds are for circumstances where a person poses a threat to himself and while may be threatening others, is not an IMMEDIATE threat such as a person with a sword or knife some distance away from their victims. In law enforcement, less lethal is deployed generally only in those circumstances where another officers is in a position to apply lethal force if the Less Lethal is ineffective or the threat to innocents escalates.
It would be a serious mistake to deploy school resource officers ONLY with less lethal munitions.
“Integrity Ballistics doesn’t have any current plans for other firearms products. Being a small company with six employees…
Well, then. It’s over before it starts. Having to pay for health insurance for every employee will destroy the whole thing. Plus, D’oh-bama is against small business to begin with and add to that an individual who is trying to usurp the crisis-wielding mentality of the socialists in the government, you can rest assured that this “company” will be not long of this earth.
Therefore, a moot discussion.
This “business” will go public and get Federal contracts if it gives enough to the Democrat Party and Obama.
I would suggest this product is only suitable in a situation where the target is not armed at all, orr maybe for something like riot control.
Sending someone with non-lethal ammo (that is likely effective within only a limited range) up against someone with a gun loaded with lethal ammunition (likely with much greater range) is a fool’s errand.
Right. A “less lethal” ammo against an armored up suicide attacker. Sounds great, if you’re Michael Bloomberg or Dianne Feinstein.
Tasers have projectiles with 100 feet range, but still not effective against anyone armored up in anticipation of armed resistance.
There’s no Constitutional protection for body armor; If law enforcement and military are the only agencies permitted access to body armor, that could reduce the threat knowing the attacker has less of a chance to shield himself.
There are already many laws under “Civil Rights” that INFRINGE on Our Civil liberties. With the corruptocrats now infesting Our Government, you can expect the same “mission creep” against Our Gun Rights.
I’d suggest that, under the philosophy that the Bill of Rights was written under, that which is not prohibited to the states or the people is explicitly allowed.
Oh wait, there’s an amendment that states that very thing!
Amend “mission creep” to spasm.
These rounds might be great, but the real issue is the gun free zones, then advertize that zone with big signs, That is an invitation to these mass shooters. Stupidity plays well with the gun free crowd, you heard of the cops being asked to leave their weapons in their cars at Denny’s because the guns offend some customers. These are the same people that don’t want anybody to have a weapon except the police, then tell the police to leave them in the patrol car. It’s not against the law to be stupid, but it’s a crime to be stupid when education is so readily available.
Looks to me like stupidity is becoming a national asset.
“Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation. Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can’t help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity.”
You are, of course, quoting Robert A. Heinlein.
Not true.
Not anymore, anyway. We have created multiple and vast government bureaucracies which have, as their prime mission, the duty of ensuring that people do not suffer for their folly. We also have a legal system which is infested with judges who think it their duty to do the same.
People no longer suffer for their stupidity in sufficient quantity and with sufficient consistency for the lessons to be learned.
I would think that this would be better used by police to disperse crowds and to put a stop to riots. In a school, in an enclosed hall, against a gunman with very deadly ammo, children all around, I don’t see how this helps.
“Greer says the Burns Round is designed to stop threats by causing pain on contact…”. Farmers are well ahead of Jim Greer’s technology by about a century. They use shotguns loaded with rock salt.
victim dense environment? That’s Ridiculous unarmed people being shot at tend to get as far away from a crazy mass shooter ASAP. The shoot will be easy to see in a crowd because there will be no crowd around him. The killer need to be killed ASAP to save lives and taxpayers money. The crazy killer tends to end up killing himself most of the time because the crowd has left, and the cops are on their way.
“That’s Ridiculous unarmed people being shot at tend to get as far away from a crazy mass shooter ASAP.”
Now imagine a shooter in the back and a shooter near the front (or a single shooter in the middle) in a relatively dark theater full of 100 showgoers and there are 30 other showegoers armed scattered throughout the crowd, who start shooting to the rear and to the front or — at each other. Nice scene, eh? So police and SWAT shows up and well…whose the good guys and whose the bad guys? Imagine controlling and investigating that kind of crime scene. Who shot whom?
So you’re arguing for an unarmed populace for ease of victim identification?
Well, yes, if they can, and have the sense to do so.
However, in schools, we have these suicidal “lockdown” policies which appear to be designed to make sure any shooter has plenty of stationary targets, waiting patiently to be murdered.
The concept of a “non Lethal weapon” was driven by General Zinni, one tough Marine boss, who wanted options in dealing with urban warfare. Urban warfare is the most lethal of combat operations, involves close direct contact with terrified/ enraged civilians, and is messy. After an ocean of money was spent on these technologies, it was renamed, “Less Lethal.” Many people have been killed by non lethal weapons. Due to very difficult limitations, precise distance to target is one, the weapons are either lethal, less lethal, or useless to the good guy. A few feet means life or death. The military ALWAYS has a back up, deadly weapon, when they are employed. Things go bad, quickly, in combat. Where there is a high level of control and options, non Lethal, is a good idea.
It was simply stupid that Office Terry was ordered to load his weapon with bean bags, then confronted killers, essentially alone, in the desert. The guilt of his death lays in the quiet offices of his superiors.
For the same reason, less than lethal, is not real for school children protection. You can not bring a bean bag to a gun fight alone, and expect that children will survive. A bean bag, or glue, or vision blocker, or other ideas, will only work if a good guy with a gun also has the bad guy in his gun sights.
thanks Art, that was a very succint and useful summation.
This is VERY interesting to me! I’ve considered an 870 shotgun for home defense…BUT don’t really want to kill doing so if avoidable, was considering a 9mm or .40 carbine instead.
The wounding of 9 innocents in NY was 100% idiocy of the police. Those morons should have been fired.
If you’re considering a home defense weapon, unless you are willing to get some serious training and spend a lot of time at the range go for the shotgun. Even with the shotgun, go get some training; it ain’t something that comes naturally.
I concur. The basic concept of optional defenses, is possessing superior power, which can be applied instantly. Only highly skilled experts have this capability. For most people, it may be risking your life, or your loved ones, to attempt a less than lethal defense against a killer. The key is training, but also acceptance of reality. In defense against evil, it may be necessary to take life. To those who can not accept this hard reality, less than lethal may be a self delusion. You have to look inside before, not during, an emergency.
And get serious home-defense ammunition, like Winchester PDX1 slug-n-shot rounds.
If you aren’t prepared to kill, then you might as well NOT get a firearm of any kind. Shooting to wound is only something that they do in the movies or, in rare cases by an expert police sniper.
You aim center mass, knowing that your shot will likely kill. There’s no other way to do it, especially when under pressure.
John, at home defense ranges, a shotgun needs to be aimed just as much as a rifle. You don’t just blast across the room and nail two bad guys.
You also have pretty close to the same penetration danger with any shot that is big enough to be effective.
Do a search on Youtube for “shotgun penetration test”. There are several good videos.
“Yes, when I feel like going on a psychotic rampage, I always look for the least-lethal ammunition I can buy. That’s why I trust “Burns” shotgun shells – if it doesn’t kill, it only Burns!”
Please tell me these guys aren’t serious…
I think somebody missed the point….
i really don’t want you to be able to contemplate the error of your ways, and then get a Gloria Allred to sue the solvency out of the struggling school district. I wonder where the combat vets got the life saving habit of hitting the deck when gunshots ring out. maybe we can go back to the duck and cover drills of yester years. they already have lock down drills in the schools. trusting the cops to actually hit what they are shooting at. i have read plenty of news stories where the cops actually shoot each other in a cross fire because they tend to miniaturize the field of fire. yup maybe those less lethal ammo will save a cops life
This is actually a pretty darn woeful solution.
You seem to keep assuming that the bad guys are stupid. So schools get some gooey shotgun shells. Brilliant – now the bad guy just needs some robust clothing, some basic cricketing paraphernalia (ever been hit by a fast-bowled cricket ball?) and a paintball helmet.
Meanwhile, the kids have none of that. But feel free to blast away. Let’s find out how much “less lethal” these things really are.
I also tend to agree (at least more) with the guys here who understand that if you’re in a close-range fight with a hopped-up kid wielding a semi-auto in a room full of children, your objective shouldn’t be to cause bruises.
You’re still solving the wrong problem. Rather than trying to stop the bad guy AFTER they’ve started killing (hoping as hard as you can that you’ll get there in time), how about just preventing him from getting rapid-fire guns in the first place? You know – like civilised countries do.
Yes. We could ban handguns like Great Britain.
How is Jill Dando these days?
Er … yeah. Somebody was murdered in the UK over 12 years ago.
Is that really your best argument?
Ban handguns like Great Britain? As a native-born resident of the UK my advice is a very firm “NO!” The handgun ban was hurried through in an atmosphere of utter hysteria that made one shooter say that he now knew what it was like to be a Jew in Hitler’s Germany. As for the outrageous lies propagated by gun control activists I can cite no worse offence against sound argument(which these folk aren’t interested in anyway) than to look over http://gubcontrolnetwork.blogspot.co.uk. In particular, she betrays a shocking misunderstanding of UK law on children holding gun licences -they’re NOT allowed to carry them on the street, and they MUST be accompanied by someone of 21 or over! As for her willingness to invoke the principle of retrospective justice(?), the less said the better.
Corresction: should be http://guncontrolnetwork.blogspot.co.uk
I love when people like Techno talk about guns. It reveals that they know nothing about guns. It reveals that to the best of their pathetically limited knowledge, gun say “bang” and everyone in the in a 360 radius of the gun is instantly killed.
There is no need to get all “techno” on Techno, and explain to it (I’ll go German on Techno and move past “er” or “sie” straight to “es”) was a semi-automatic is, or the 3-round burst that is actually favored (for accuracy’s sake) by “assault” weapons, or how if you want to set up true “rapid fire” are are not guarding the perimeter in Afghanistan you are probably running a training exercise with a machine gun that you have to sign in and sign out, accounting for every round of ammunition that is fired (recovering the brass for reuse).
Because when Techno picks it’s nose or cleans the wax in it’s ears, it is able to stick that finger into the empty space where his brains used to be – until it had them removed to avoid letting the Learning & Thought Process interfere with the joy of coming to sites like this and trumpeting it’s Superior Intellect.
Oh my..you are a moron!.. just…go away.
Civilized countries like Nazi Germany? Like Lenin’s USSR? Like… every dictator of the 20th Century? Who then proceeded to collectively murder more than 100 million of their own citizens?
Like those civilized countries?
You need to go check your history. The nazis (for most germans) relaxed gun ownership laws. And it wasn’t lenin who cracked down on guns, it was stalin – 25 years after the revolution. And before you try it on, mao didn’t restrict gun ownership until the end of the 60′s.
You know Techno, you love to take halv truths and try to make them say other than they do.
I’ll start with the immediate…
“You need to go check your history. The nazis (for most germans) relaxed gun ownership laws.”
Yes they did, for MEMBERS IN GOOD STANDING of the NAZI PARTY!
Misleading with half truth again, or as I like to say You’re Lying!
Now let’s go to another thread on PC talk not helping with gun violence where in response to my challange to your LIE regarding likelyhoods of children being shot or killed accidently by guns vs. accidental drownings (I said, “When adjusted for frequency – your child is 22 times more likely to drown(and die) by accident in your swimming pool than to shoot himself or a friend by accident (shoot not kill) with you ‘gun in the house.’”)
You tried to smugly answer with this little ditty:
“But ok, I’ll see your “13 year old gang-banger” and lets’ just look at accidental shootings vs drownings for victims aged 10 or under.
Fatal and non-fatal accidental shootings: 36 + 362 = 398
Accidental drownings: 620
Now … you claims various multiples, like “22 times” or “28 times” are kids more likely to drown.
Am I still a liar?”
Once again, as with all liberals, you take raw numbers and try to make them say something they don’t actually say.
Based on your numbers above the only statement that can be made is the following; “A child under ten who has died accidently by drowning or has been shot accidently, is 1.5 times more likely to have died from accidently drowning in a swimming pool in the home than to have been shot accidently in the home, when living in the United States.”
No more, No Less!
You see, like all liberals who like to fudge the numbers you ignored the Frequency, or Opportunity Factor.
That is, there are 8.6 million homes with swimming pools in the United States, while there are 87 million (and that’s a lowball estimate) homes with guns in the united States.
So when you adjust for Frequency, based on your numbers printed above, a child under 10 is 15.75 times more likely to drown than to be shot (not killed) in the home, but is 174.22 times more likely to drown than to be shot and killed in the home.
The 22 and 28 number factors I quoted were for ages 18 and under.
“Yes they did, for MEMBERS IN GOOD STANDING of the NAZI PARTY! Misleading with half truth again, or as I like to say You’re Lying!”
Party members were one of the groups automatically exempt from some gun-owing regulation, yes. But they were not the only group. Ownership of rifles was almost completely deregulated and germans generally (except for jews) found it easier to own guns under hitler than they did under weimar. Being a member of the NAZI party was not a requirement – that’s just flat-out not true. Go check again.
Seriously – you guys are very quick to accuse me of lying and very slow to apologize when you’re wrong.
“Based on your numbers above the only statement that can be made is the following; “A child under ten who has died accidently by drowning or has been shot accidently, is 1.5 times more likely to have died from accidently drowning in a swimming pool in the home than to have been shot accidently in the home, when living in the United States.”"
Erm, actually it says that somebody under the age of 10, living in the US, was 1.5 times as likely to accidentally drown that year as to be accidentally shot.
Now you would like to restrict the category right down so that only children who drown in their OWN POOL (or shot with a gun from their own custodian’s household) count. Unless I misunderstand your working, that’s effectively what you’re trying to do by dividing by the number of households. Otherwise, you’re ignoring the accessibility of those pools or guns to neighbors and friends.
I think that’s a fairly misleading figure. Because a child can drown in any pool – not just the one at their own house. And they can be shot with any gun, not just one owned by their parents. So the “frequency” that you’re “adjusting” for is arbitrary – it assumes that nobody ever visits a friend’s house. That households have little border gates around them.
And even if you do that, your assumptions are still wrong. According to Gallup polling, there could be as few as 39 million homes in the US in possession of a firearm. Your pool estimate is probably closer, though – the figures seem to be between 5.5 million (installed, in-ground) and 10 million (overall) pools in the US, according to industry groups.
“you ignored the Frequency, or Opportunity Factor”
I think you did too. Or, at least, you substituted it for something else entirely. I would have thought that a sensible “opportunity” or “frequency” would be the number of times a kid goes swimming, or plays with a gun.
“So when you adjust for Frequency, based on your numbers printed above”
But how can you? Even letting you have the wrong number of houses with guns, and the weird assumption that nobody ever swims in somebody else’s pool, or that a pool has a “frequency” … you still don’t actually have the number of children with ACCESS to those pools. You don’t know anything about the demographics of households with pools (or households with guns).
“The 22 and 28 number factors I quoted were for ages 18 and under”
And I don’t see how you can possibly have arrived at those numbers, or any other defensible numbers for that matter.
This has disaster written all over it. I memory serves me correctly, the shooter at Sandy Hook was wearing body armor. So one of these rounds to the center of mass was not going to stop him. I also question the range of a round like this. I would suspect that due to the shape and mass, they would be considerably less than a double aught buck cartridge. This nonsense about a head shot is exactly that, nonsense! The best idea for stopping a deranged mass murderer is to put a couple of lethal rounds in the center of mass. And if he tries to get up put a couple more into him. Its long past time that we stop caring about the welfare of violent individuals and more about their victims. Wayne LaPiere had it right. An armed security guard or teacher would not have stopped the first couple of victims, but he certainly could have stopped the rest.
If Mr. LaPierre had the political savvy of lining up several police unions and some western/southen NEA/AFT locals barely containing their saliva at the prospect of more member dues, we would have had an “armed guard program” written into last week’s Fiscal Cliff legislation.
The only benefit of this weapon is that you can torture the crap out of the assailant after apprehension.
The police unions are unions. They are run by committed leftists. They are not on our side.
The rank and file is another matter. Don’t confuse the two.
It is vital to understand less lethal weapons. They are a tool, like hand cuffs, or barriers; they are not the solution to all conflicts. There are many situations in which they should not be used, and it will take experienced warriors to know when they are used. Wrong people die when mistakes are made. There has been and needs to be research on high speed stress loading, hardness of target and projectile, terminal ballistics, and IMHO, electronic control of the projectile, both for lethal and less lethal projectiles. The volume of a large slug lends itself to “proximity fuses” which can provide a host of future options.
Less lethal was developed for MOUT, military operations in urban terrain: short range, crowded conditions, among some hostile folks who are not killers, where collateral damage is a high concern. I see no application at Newtown, or many of the “spectacular” crimes. (But I am not a warrior.)
Are you people serious?.. less- lethal rounds to confront a suspect armed with firearm(s)?..obviously you have no idea what you’re talking about..keep firing less lethal rounds at a wall while the suspect is filling you with lead.Ehh..i hope you have the common sense not to bring a knife to a gun fight…
This is another step in the never ending search for the magic bullet. Years ago Roy Rogers and Gene Autry used to shoot the gun out the bad guy’s hand. Captain Kirk put his phaser on stun to subdue evil doers. Nobody got killed and the bad guys sometimes saw the light and changed their evil ways. In real life, “super bean bags” are better than nothing but not nearly as certain to stop a murderer than a real bullet fired from a real gun used by a trained defender.
But; This super bean bag weapon will have the option of “stun” or “terminate”. And have “magic beans”.