Targets: Please tell me this is a joke

[kraigwy]

Reportedly, DHS sent out bids for these so called "Do Not Hesitate" targets of what appear to me of normal people in Self Defense situations.

I don't normally buy into the "conspiracy" BS, but targets of pregnant women, senior citizens, and a mother and child in a playground, concerns me.

http://www.infowars.com/dhs-supplier...an-gun-owners/

[Tucker 1371]

Along with some of their other recent activities I agree, concerning indeed. I had been hearing a rumor about DHS buying up all the 5.7x28 but never got a source or reason why but I guess this quote explains it...

This is particularly alarming given the fact that the*Department of Homeland Security has purchased roughly 2 billion rounds of ammunition over the course of the last year, enough to wage a near 30 year war...

...The DHS also purchased no less than 7,000 fully automatic assault rifles last September, labeling them “Personal Defense Weapons.”

^^^FN P90s?

I hope this thread can stay off the doomsday path and stay open.

[Spats McGee]

I've seen some sort of facebook post about these targets, and they are quite disturbing. To my mind, though, the relevant question is not whether some company has decided to produce them; it's whether DHS has purchased them.

[Erno86]

What do you expect from the Department of Homeland Insecurity???

It's obvious...that the DHS is preparing for a possible war, or a confrontational violent conflict with the U.S. civilian population.

Oh, and btw...you can thank Dubya Bush & the U.S. Congress --- for another bureaucratic nightmare on our hands!!!

Cheers,

Erno86

[Spats McGee]

Perhaps a quick reminder to avoid turning this into either a doomsday thread, or a political bash-a-thon is in order. Here it is.

[Dr Big Bird PhD]

I feel like averting any language regarding "doomsday" or "extreme circumstances" regarding these purchases pretty much neuters the discussion.

However, if something is not amiss at the Federal level, I would think the mass purchases are to deter the civilian population from owning too much ammunition during panics.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Police agencies have been using similar targets for quite some time. Our county has one that is a man pointing a handgun and holding up a badge. The officers are told to shoot without hesitation.

It has nothing to do with preparing for war with civilians and everything to do saving officers lives. The premise of the gun/badge target is that the person may have killed/disabled a real officer and stolen his badge and gun. A real officer would know not to point a gun and hold a badge, therefore imposter.

The images of the pregnant woman are similar. Being pretty and pregnant won't make the officer any less dead when she shoots him.

[sigcurious]

I agree with Peetza, while on the face it seems disturbing a person with a gun pointed at another person is a danger even if without the gun they fall into a stereotypically "non-threatenting" category.

However, if something is not amiss at the Federal level, I would think the mass purchases are to deter the civilian population from owning too much ammunition during panics.

This is particularly alarming given the fact that the*Department of Homeland Security has purchased roughly 2 billion rounds of ammunition over the course of the last year, enough to wage a near 30 year war...

In regards to these two quotes, please show me where the federal government actually took delivery of 2 billion rounds. They made a purchase contract...to guarantee a fixed price of up to 750 million(IIRC the number correctly), along with a few other purchase contracts and a few actual purchases where delivery was taken. Furthermore, unlike infowars would like you to believe, 2 billion rounds for the entire DHS(take the time to tally the number of agencies and agents) is barely enough to keep them trained for more than a few years and have enough left over for actual duty use.

I had been hearing a rumor about DHS buying up all the 5.7x28 but never got a source or reason why but I guess this quote explains it.

That rumor probably has a grain of truth...the secret service is part of DHS. The secret service is also one of the few agencies to field p90s(IIRC the other agencies that do also fall under DHS). But it doesn't make it conspiracy. However, given that as LE they have access to the SS190 round, and it would be odd for them to have to pull from the sporting rounds as unlike most of the other ammo LE uses, the SS190 is only available to mil/LE.

[Evan Thomas]

You can see these targets in this article at Infowars: "Law Enforcement “Requested” Shooting Targets of Pregnant Women - DHS supplier responds to outrage over “no hesitation” targets which include children"

They are very realistic: photos of actual people with guns. It's clear when you look at them that they are intended to be used to desensitize LEOs to shooting old folks, pregnant women, children, etc. All show people holding guns; most are shown aiming them at the viewer.

There's also a 6'30" audio clip of a conversation someone named Blaine Cooper had with a company spokeswoman, who refused to give her name. Here's an excerpt, just to give the flavor:

Cooper: "Why would your guys's company provide pictures of real gun owners, and pregnant women, as targets?"

Woman: "Well, I don't know what you mean by real gun owners."

Cooper: "Well, the pictures that are on the targets are actually pictures of real people that are gun owners."

Woman: "We train, er, we sell to all gun owners."

Cooper: "I understand that."

Woman: "And we do carry a lot of real life photos."

Cooper: "You don't, you don't see a problem with pregnant people, ah, to sell pictures of pregnant people, with guns, to shoot pregnant ladies?

Woman: "Unfortunately our world is made up of people, pregnant or otherwise... that do... that are not always... gun owners... not for the right reasons.

I realize this is a touchy point to bring up, but I can't help wondering if some of the outrage over these pictures is (perhaps unconsciously) due to the fact that all the people shown are white; if this isn't, on some level, what Cooper means when he says "real people," or "real gun owners."

I doubt that there would be quite as much indignation over a photo of, say, a pregant Somali woman wearing a headscarf.

[Retread7]

Here is a link that works:
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2013/02/...an-gun-owners/

[SPEMack618]

Originally Posted by Tucker 1371

^^^FN P90s?

Negative. The solicitation is floating around the interwebz and specifically calls for M-4 type weapons.

[Tom Servo]

The data I'm finding doesn't match Alex Jones' numbers.

While the company has gotten six-figure awards in past years, I'm not showing anything recent. There's an award for "paper and paperboard," but nothing close to what they're claiming. It appears they supply all sorts of goods and services.

They do produce those targets, and they have taken money from DHS. That does not mean DHS bought those targets from them.

All black dogs are not Labradors, folks. Jones has been known to strain connections to suit his aims before.

[pnac]

If I close one eye and squint with the other eye, I can almost see these targets being used for a "black hat-white hat" type exercise ... almost.

Naah! That anyone would be using these targets is alarming, to say the least! Draw a gun to protect your child, your home against possible invaders, or to protect your life, whoever is training with these targets is being drilled to take you out.

[sirdiealot]

that young boy looks alot like my son, made me sick and queasy to my stomach. i mean it really looked like my boy. so someone is practicing shooting my boy. if i saw that at a range me and the shooter would have some words and then i would bring out his pic.

[Grizz12]

I wounder if any of the targets show a woman on a balcony with a double barrel shotgun

[Panfisher]

I would more likely believe it if the description under the target at least had the words all spelled correctly.

[Dr Big Bird PhD]

I realize this is a touchy point to bring up, but I can't help wondering if some of the outrage over these pictures is (perhaps unconsciously) due to the fact that all the people shown are white; if this isn't, on some level, what Cooper means when he says "real people," or "real gun owners."

*ding ding ding ding*

A) People are inherently viewing the produced targets as nice, friendly, and safe persons because of their social status: Pregnant, elderly, children, white.

There is a subtle level of racism for sure. I picked up on it.

B) The company has every right to make these images and people have every right to shoot at them (if and only if the images are of people who signed the rights of the images to the manufacturer, of course).

C) Using these are insanely immoral, and even moreso immoral if used for military/LEO training. They have a right to do it, but I also would never use these targets for personal/moral/philosophical reasons.

[kraigwy]

Maybe I should have waited before I started this topic.

My son is a DHS firearms instructor in the North West.

I sent him an e-mail asking about the targets and this is what I got.

Uh I have tried to get different styles of targets and ice said hell no. We get the 1960's vintage man with a revolver and that's it. Only other targets I have seen are normal people target with stickers of guns and badges and cell phones that can be put on any target. But those are expensive and only used at FLETC. The 2 billion bullets is bull**** too.

If DHS is getting the target and or ammo, it isn't getting to the field.

[NWPilgrim]

Searching the LE Target web site I could not find any that have men or women holding a badge and a gun. Of course the No More Hesitation line is on their site, but not linked to in their menu system either.

I can imagine the LE uproar if civilians started showing up at the range with targets depicting a man holding a badge and a gun. Somehow I don't think it would go well with the explanation "Sure officer, we are just practicing engaging a bad guy PRETENDING to be a police officer like yourself." Likewise, LE should not be surprised when civilians are shocked at being depicted on their LE targets.

It is easy to brush this off as conspiracy. But recall our own President's 2008 campaign speeches in which he announced the vision of having a national civilian security force larger and better funded than the military. Food for thought.

[kraigwy]

The badge/and/or/gun or cell phone is for Shoot-No Shoot training.

The "sticker" my son refered to were stickers that go on the targets he mentioned.

You superimpose the badge over the gun on what would otherwise be a bad guy target.

[SgtLumpy]

Don't read too much into it.

You're a cop. You're faced with a pregnant lady pointing a gun at you. What do you do?

Substitute pregnant lady with old man, young boy, whatever you want. They're not teaching cops to kill kids and pregnant ladies. They're teaching cops to stay alive by taking appropriate action (firing) on appropriate targets (armed subjects pointing a gun at YOU).

"It's ok that my husband was killed. The shooter was a young boy" See how silly that sounds?


Sgt Lumpy - n0eq

[trg42wraglefragle]

They have to be PC about these things, I'd take offense if they were all just middle aged white males.

[seeker_4]

That's OK...some guy at the range printed out photos of our nations leaders including 2 prominent California ladies..... and EVERYONE was hitting with uncanny accuracy............

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by NWPilgrim

Searching the LE Target web site I could not find any that have men or women holding a badge and a gun. Of course the No More Hesitation line is on their site, but not linked to in their menu system either.

If you were able to get past their home page -- which has changed since yesterday, and now features a big target with pictures of the "Minnesota state bird" -- you had better luck than I did. This notice is now at the top of that page:

Due to high traffic, we are experiencing difficulties with our servers. We apologize for the inconvenience if you are having a difficult time accessing any of our pages. Thank you for your understanding.

I haven't been able to get any other pages to load...

[pax]

Years back, I took an LFI-1 class from Mas Ayoob. In that class, Mas used one of the original "Shoot / Don't Shoot" videos used in law enforcement training. (Hmmm, it must have been a 'film' when it was first produced, being late 60s or early 70s vintage. It was a videotape the year I saw it, and probably digitized by now. Weird...) The film came from law enforcement training, but obviously, LFI was using it to show armed citizens some possible scenarios & decisions they might face.

Anyway. On that film, there were several different types of shoot situations, including one with a child who looked to be around 10 years old who first shot someone else, then started shooting toward the viewer.

That was a "shoot" scene.

It shook me up.

But -- is someone less dead when shot by a child rather than adult?

The youngest multi-victim school shooter was 11 years old.

pax