Humm, could you imagine this in Atlanta?
http://www.the-times.co.uk/news/pages/tim/2000/08/22/timfgnaus01001.html
http://www.the-times.co.uk/news/pages/tim/2000/08/22/timfgnaus01001.html
Military allowed to 'Shoot to Kill' - article
- Thread starter madison46
- Start date
"Shoot to Kill" -- what a ridiculous concept for military forces employing fully automatic assault rifles and modern military ammunition!
> Everyone with experience knows that in any type of "defensive firefight" you shoot to immediately disable by aiming at the high body mass (or, under unusual circumstances, the head). The particular result -- death, near-instantaneous disability, or serious wound -- is NOT your objective. Getting the bad gown down and out of the firefight right now is.
> The idea that most soldiers, excluding SOF troops, are trained or capable of "shooting to wound" versus "shooting to kill" is ludicrous.
> Moreover, most modern military assault weapons deliver extremely high velocity rounds that are designed to cause traumatic injuries or death even when the entry point is in an extremity. Here, too, the idea of "shooting only to wound" is absurd.
> Everyone with experience knows that in any type of "defensive firefight" you shoot to immediately disable by aiming at the high body mass (or, under unusual circumstances, the head). The particular result -- death, near-instantaneous disability, or serious wound -- is NOT your objective. Getting the bad gown down and out of the firefight right now is.
> The idea that most soldiers, excluding SOF troops, are trained or capable of "shooting to wound" versus "shooting to kill" is ludicrous.
> Moreover, most modern military assault weapons deliver extremely high velocity rounds that are designed to cause traumatic injuries or death even when the entry point is in an extremity. Here, too, the idea of "shooting only to wound" is absurd.
BTR,
During the '96 Atlanta Olympics, hundreds -- maybe thousands -- of military personnel were available in the Atlanta area for a variety of tasks, including traditionally civil police and anti-terrorists work. I frequently am aboard Dobbins Air Reserve base in Marietta (shared by Lockheed Martin and by USAF, USN, USMC and USA Guard/Reserve units). That summer the entire periphery of the airfield was filled with temporary structures and equipment from a wide-range of Federal agencies involved in security for the Olympics.
Are Australian preparations for this summer's games any different?
During the '96 Atlanta Olympics, hundreds -- maybe thousands -- of military personnel were available in the Atlanta area for a variety of tasks, including traditionally civil police and anti-terrorists work. I frequently am aboard Dobbins Air Reserve base in Marietta (shared by Lockheed Martin and by USAF, USN, USMC and USA Guard/Reserve units). That summer the entire periphery of the airfield was filled with temporary structures and equipment from a wide-range of Federal agencies involved in security for the Olympics.
Are Australian preparations for this summer's games any different?
I was thinking of another article on the same subject:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/0008/16/features/features6.html
"The bill provides for the military, once deployed, to have a range of powers not normally available to police. Soldiers without previous experience would be empowered to search premises without a warrant and detain people without explanation. They would also be allowed to shoot to kill."
The Austrailian Prime minister would be givern the ablity to use troops against civilians, and to arrest and search without warrant, whenever he decided domestic violence was "likely to occur." That's the problem.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/0008/16/features/features6.html
"The bill provides for the military, once deployed, to have a range of powers not normally available to police. Soldiers without previous experience would be empowered to search premises without a warrant and detain people without explanation. They would also be allowed to shoot to kill."
The Austrailian Prime minister would be givern the ablity to use troops against civilians, and to arrest and search without warrant, whenever he decided domestic violence was "likely to occur." That's the problem.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by madison46:
Humm, could you imagine this in Atlanta?
[/quote]
From this Atlantan.. yeah, I can imagine it. I saw what happened with security after the bombing.. I had to prove that my friggn' cellular phone worked at least 4 times each day I was over there. For the Love of God..
On a side note.. I was sitting on that same bench the day before that the bomb was placed under.
However, I do have a good photo of the memorial on the lawn that was started by passers-by..
------------------
God, Guns and Guts made this country a great country!
oberkommando sez:
"We lost the first and third and now they are after the Second!(no pun intended)"
Humm, could you imagine this in Atlanta?
[/quote]
From this Atlantan.. yeah, I can imagine it. I saw what happened with security after the bombing.. I had to prove that my friggn' cellular phone worked at least 4 times each day I was over there. For the Love of God..
On a side note.. I was sitting on that same bench the day before that the bomb was placed under.
------------------
God, Guns and Guts made this country a great country!
oberkommando sez:
"We lost the first and third and now they are after the Second!(no pun intended)"
Interesting... What recourse do Australians have? They have no well armed citizenry to use as leverage, they will most likely be ignored.
I am more convinced than ever that the first amendment protects MILITARY FIREARMS first and foremost. Of course shotguns, pistols, etc are also protected, but machine guns should be perfectly legal and unregistered, and most other small arms are "less lethal" than the machine gun.
------------------
The first step is registration, the second step is confiscation, the final step is subjugation.
I am more convinced than ever that the first amendment protects MILITARY FIREARMS first and foremost. Of course shotguns, pistols, etc are also protected, but machine guns should be perfectly legal and unregistered, and most other small arms are "less lethal" than the machine gun.
------------------
The first step is registration, the second step is confiscation, the final step is subjugation.