|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 20, 2013, 05:30 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 11,061
|
Targets: Please tell me this is a joke
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/
__________________
Kraig Stuart CPT USAR Ret USAMU Sniper School Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071 |
February 20, 2013, 05:51 PM | #2 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: East TN
Posts: 2,649
|
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...
Quote:
I hope this thread can stay off the doomsday path and stay open.
__________________
Sgt. of Marines, 5th Award Expert Rifle, 237/250 Expert Pistol, 382/400. D Co, 4th CEB, Engineers UP!! If you start a thread, be active in it. Don't leave us hanging. OEF 2011 Sangin, Afg. Molon Labe |
|
February 20, 2013, 05:53 PM | #3 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
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.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
February 20, 2013, 05:56 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 22, 2012
Location: Marriottsville, Maryland
Posts: 1,739
|
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 Last edited by Erno86; February 20, 2013 at 06:07 PM. |
February 20, 2013, 05:58 PM | #5 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
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.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
February 20, 2013, 06:29 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 779
|
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.
__________________
I told the new me, "Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'" But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back." Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor |
February 20, 2013, 06:37 PM | #7 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
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. Last edited by Brian Pfleuger; February 20, 2013 at 10:16 PM. |
February 20, 2013, 07:04 PM | #8 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
|
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.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
February 20, 2013, 07:15 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
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?"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.
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
February 20, 2013, 07:50 PM | #10 |
Member
Join Date: October 7, 2010
Posts: 17
|
DHS Targets
Here is a link that works:
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2013/02/...an-gun-owners/ |
February 20, 2013, 07:50 PM | #11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,863
|
Quote:
__________________
NRA Life Member Read my blog! "The answer to any caliber debate is going to be .38 Super, 10mm, .357 Sig or .41 Magnum!" |
|
February 20, 2013, 08:38 PM | #12 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
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.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
February 20, 2013, 09:19 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 550
|
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.
__________________
In my hour of darkness In my time of need Oh Lord grant me vision Oh Lord grant me speed - Gram Parsons |
February 20, 2013, 10:29 PM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 25, 2012
Location: kansas
Posts: 187
|
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.
__________________
9mm Luger: ...Wildly popular all over the world, mostly in countries where people don’t carry guns, and cops don’t have to actually shoot people with theirs. |
February 20, 2013, 11:04 PM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 11, 2012
Posts: 527
|
I wounder if any of the targets show a woman on a balcony with a double barrel shotgun
|
February 20, 2013, 11:09 PM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 1,337
|
I would more likely believe it if the description under the target at least had the words all spelled correctly.
|
February 21, 2013, 12:47 AM | #17 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 779
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
I told the new me, "Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'" But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back." Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor |
|
February 21, 2013, 12:58 AM | #18 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 11,061
|
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. Quote:
__________________
Kraig Stuart CPT USAR Ret USAMU Sniper School Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071 |
|
February 21, 2013, 01:08 AM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,346
|
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.
__________________
"The ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone. ... The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition." - James Madison
|
February 21, 2013, 01:39 AM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 11,061
|
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.
__________________
Kraig Stuart CPT USAR Ret USAMU Sniper School Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071 |
February 21, 2013, 01:44 AM | #21 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 2, 2013
Posts: 779
|
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 |
February 21, 2013, 04:54 AM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 21, 2008
Location: new zealand
Posts: 856
|
They have to be PC about these things, I'd take offense if they were all just middle aged white males.
|
February 21, 2013, 11:21 AM | #23 |
Member
Join Date: February 2, 2013
Posts: 48
|
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............
|
February 21, 2013, 12:29 PM | #24 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
Quote:
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...
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
|
February 21, 2013, 12:44 PM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: In a state of flux
Posts: 7,520
|
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 |
|
|