Election 2020

No, Joe Biden, Cops Can't Just Shoot People in the Leg

The former vice president's comment during the ABC town hall was idiotic.


During ABC's town hall event with former Vice President Joe Biden, the Democratic Party's presidential candidate provided a garbled response to a question about criminal justice reform. In particular, he wrongly suggested that when police fire their weapons at suspects, they could shoot to wound instead of shooting to kill.

"You can ban chokeholds, but beyond that you have to teach [the police] how to de-escalate circumstances," said Biden. "So instead of anybody coming at you and the first thing you do is shoot to kill, you shoot them in the leg."

This was just one line in a very long, rambling answer to a question about police violence—but it stuck out for its sheer absurdity. The suggestion betrays a total lack of understanding about how guns work.

Note that it was not some slip of the tongue: Biden has previously proposed this exact idea. Contrary to the former veep's repeated assertions, neither the cops nor anyone else—except perhaps James Bond—could plan to shoot people in the leg as a matter of routine practice. It would take an expert marksman to accomplish that feat consistently. Unless a target is at close range, standing perfectly still, it's very difficult to hit a specific location on the body. In reality, people are often moving during shootouts, which means that legs and arms can be the hardest part of the body to hit.

"An average suspect can move his hand and forearm across his body to a 90-degree angle in 12/100 of a second," wrote Bill Lewinksi in a paper for the Force Science Institute. "He can move his hand from his hip to shoulder height in 18/100 of a second. The average officer pulling the trigger as fast as he can on a Glock, one of the fastest- cycling semi-autos, requires 1/4 second to discharge each round."

If an officer's life is actually threatened, hitting the suspect in the leg is no guarantee the threat will be neutralized. People who have been hit in the leg or arm are not immediately incapacitated, which is why the police keep firing until a suspect is down. Real life is not like an episode of 24, or a Mission: Impossible movie!

It's true that some police officers are too eager to fire their weapons in the first place, and idiotic police tactics—like no-knock raids—place them in situations where overreactions are likely to occur. But the public policy intervention needs to occur before the shooting starts. Shooting to wound is not a realistic tactic in the vast majority of cases, and it's embarrassing that Biden doesn't know this.

NEXT: Amy Coney Barrett's Confirmation Hearings Were a Master Class in Political Posturing

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Biden should ask his bodyguards what policy *they* would follow.

    1. And he'll respond what a Bloombergian "I'm more important than you" response.

      1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I'm working online! My work didn't exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn't be happier.

        Here’s what I do…>> Click here

      2. Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29758 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month in from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it

        what I do.....................................Click here

    2. "First, you shoot it out of their hand into the air! Then, you keep shooting it in the air like juggling a soccer ball, just out of their reach, so they can't grab the gun!

      It's all so simple, why can't they actually do this?"

      1. Reminds me of Clint Eastwood in For A Few Dollars More where he shoots the hat off of the guys head then keeps shooting it down the road.

        1. I think one needs Silver Bullets to shoot pistols out of owlhoots' hands.

        2. Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29758 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. Abc I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month the from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it

          what I do………………………………Visit Here

      2. Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29758 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined XXX this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it

        what I do..................Click here

    3. Excellent point

    4. This is Really Good oputunity for everyone who wana make a big amount at home own laptop And make your family happy so can u do..Read More.

    5. Google paid for all online work from home from $ 16,000 to $ 32,000 a month. The younger brother was Abw out of work for three months and a month ago her check was $ 32475, working at home for 4 hours a day, and earning could be even bigger….So I started......Visit Here

    6. Years ago I said the same dumb thing. I won’t go into all the dumb reasons for trying to shoot in the leg after someone educated me. Also, Police should be good enough to shoot a criminals bullet in the air right Joke Biden.

    7. Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do..... Visit Here

    8. I quit working at shoprite to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $45 to 85 per/h. Without a doubt, this is the easiest and most financially rewarding job I’ve ever had. I actually started 6 months ago and this has totally changed my life.

      For more details………………Visit Here

    9. Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29758 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. Sdf I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month the from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it

      what I do………Visit Here

    10. Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29758 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. Sdw I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month the from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it

      what I do………Visit Here

  2. "So instead of anybody coming at you and the first thing you do is shoot to kill, you shoot them in the leg."

    Because shooting someone in the leg is just like clipping their toenails. Legs are just popsicles attached to an upright meat bag with vital organs.

    Democrats do not understand firearms, or human biology.

    1. No, this was good. Now feminists can saw the figurative popsicles off kids' torsos who think like war machines against the enemy and have plans to draw in 1/100th of a second and shoot the weapon out of each case of civilvs abandonmentitus!

      1. Certainly nothing bad would happen if you clipped the femoral artery.

        1. Google easily work and google pays me every hour and every week just $5K to $8K for doing online work from home. I am a universty student and Ahj I work n my part time just 2 to 3 hours a day easily from home. Now every one can earn extra cash for doing online home system and make a good life by just open this website and follow instructions on this page….… Click here

    2. But they sure fucking love science!

      1. They love Scientism. Actual science, not so much.

        1. So true. If they really loved science they would not believe in rumors, unnamed sources, and hearsay as facts.

        2. They love scientists, but only the ones who stick to the script.

          Any scientist who doesn't stick to the script is no scientist at all, but just a racist in a lab coat.

      2. The love fucking science.

        1. Science is Hard!

          (I'm smarter than you... I have a Masters Degree...in Science!)

    3. Democrats think how guns and human bodies work on TV and in the movies is how they are in reality. They do not have awareness of reality beyond what they are personally familiar, like most people. The problem is they seem to be unaware of how ignorant they really are.

      1. Yep its called the Dunning-Kruger effect. The less you know about something the more confident you are in your opinion.

        The more you learn about a subject the more you realize there is lots of nuance.

    4. 'Democrats do not understand ' is more accurate for most policy arguments lately.

  3. If anybody needed more proof.....

  4. Sounds good,
    until you think about it.
    He did not.

    1. Sounds like he watched a few too many cop shows in the '70s.

      1. My thoughts exactly. I think I probably saw it on 1Adam12 a few times

      2. Or 1950's.

        "What you mean "we", Kemosabe?"

    2. Almost haiku.

      1. Easy to fix:

        That sounds really good
        Until you think about it
        He clearly did not.

    3. I disagree, I think he did think about it and gave a response that many people would give. Many people unfamiliar with shooting policy would assume you could shoot to wound. Those people will hear Joe Biden and think he gave the correct answer.

      The truth is once you have decided to shoot you shoot to kill, center mass. The real issue here is not how to shoot but to shoot less. Reason does a good job of pointing out that we need less direct interactions with police. I would add that routine interactions would be better done with unarmed police. Save the shoot for when absolutely necessary.

      1. ""The truth is once you have decided to shoot you shoot to kill, center mass.""

        That absolutely is not the truth according to every use of force class I have attended. You don't center mass because you are trying to kill. You shoot to hit the target. Missing the target means the round will impact somewhere else. The best way to ensure you hit the target is fire at center mass whether it kills or not.

      2. The truth is once you have decided to shoot you shoot to kill

        I cringe every time I read something like this. If you're armed because you want to kill someone then you shouldn't be armed. Alternatively, you need to learn that the use of deadly force in self-defense is justified as a means of stopping the threat, and that it resulting in the death of your attacker is a likely side-effect of that goal, not the goal itself. If you are "shooting to kill" that means that if you shoot once and your attacker goes down and is incapacitated...thus neutralizing the immediate threat...you should continue shooting until he is dead. Take a few moments and see if you can figure out the flaw in that strategy.

  5. It's good that ENB, Shrieeky and the koch reason crowd believe Joe Biden is better than Donald Trump.

  6. "An average suspect can move his hand and forearm across his body to a 90-degree angle in 12/100 of a second," wrote Bill Lewinksi in a paper for the Force Science Institute.

    WOAH, WOAH, WOAH!!!! NO, NO, NO!!! What Joe Biden said is idiotic, no need to bring that piece of shit motherfucking slimebag cocksucking dickwad Bill Lewinski and his piece of shit "Force Science Institute" scam into it! Bill Lewinski is the guy who makes his living testifying at police trials explaining why cops are absolutely correct to shoot anybody who looks at them cross-eyed or that the cops even think are looking at them cross-eyed. (No shit, you can look it up, this guy actually explains why, when cops are caught lying their asses off about "he was coming right at me!", the cops perception of reality should outweigh the reality of the reality. As long as the cops sincerely believe their bullshit, why, it's real to me, man.) So no, get out of here with that shit - Lewinski used that speed thing to explain why cops need to shoot first and ask questions later, by the time the cop can figure out whether or not the guy is armed, it's too late, he's already been shot. As far as Lewinski is concerned, unless the cop can plainly see that the suspect is clearly not armed, he should shoot the guy right in the fucking head because if the guy is armed, he can shoot the cop faster than the cop can react. And he's serious about that shit, too. That motherfucker would be just fine with cops shooting every single person they come across every single day because being a cop in America these days is more dangerous than being a Jew in Berlin circa 1940.

    1. Just in case I wasn't clear, Bill Lewinski is a piece of human garbage and shouldn't be quoted on anything. I'd rather hear Jeffrey Dahmer's Yelp reviews of local dining spots than listen to that fucker.

      1. His cookbooks are amazing.

        1. OK that was good!

      2. Did Dahmer ding any place as racist?

        1. Nah. He liked dark meat and white meat equally well.

    2. Jerry, you're going nuts on the wrong thing. Never shoot to wound is one of the first things you learn in any gun safety course. It's really easy to miss a leg, and unless they are standing still, hitting a hand is more or less impossible. This is especially true if they are running right at you, and even more so if you are panicked.

      Then, having a bullet through your leg has no guarantee of stopping or even slowing the person down much. There are multiple muscles in the leg, and you are much more likely to get a grazing or non-critical shot. The pain of the shot would be the most effective part of stopping, but you have adrenaline and possibly also narcotics to deal with.

      1. I've known several combat veterans who were wounded in the leg who have stated they don't realize they'd been shot until after the battle or until someone else noticed it. They weren't superman just their adrenaline was pumping so high that it didn't register.

      2. I think you need to read what Jerry actually wrote. He agrees with you. He's just saying that Soave should have found a better source than Lewinski to make the point.

  7. I just naturally tend to assume that when you learn to fire a gun, you learn to hit your target ... this is not accurate?

    No; they call people who do that "expert marksmen." Or 'snipers,' who may have to point exactly at the head for maybe twenty minutes before deciding that the time was right.

    But a weapon with greater bandwidth may be just the thing. How do beanbag guns perform, for example? What about drones?

    1. "I just naturally tend to assume that when you learn to fire a gun, you learn to hit your target."


      Firing your weapon at a target is a deliberate and calculated socio-political decision but also an autonomic and unconsciously racist reflex. You need to think very carefully about your Pavlovian responses before pulling the trigger.

    2. Wow. Just saw your incoherent post up above.

      There is a major difference between getting shots in reliably on a torso-sized target, in classroom conditions, and fucking tagging a limb reliably in combat.

      No, the guy who can do the latter is not an 'expert marksman' - he's John Fucking Wick.

      1. John wick can only do heads hots.

        1. He killed a man with a fucking pencil!!

      2. I was perforating paper at the range a couple of months back, feeling pretty good about myself, hitting the target at 10 yards with my .22 pistol, when I decided to try something more challenging.

        I placed the pistol on the bench in front of me, picked it up, and fired immediately, as soon as I thought I had a sight picture. I figured this would more closely resemble an actual encounter.

        Suffice it to say, the target was perfectly safe from me. I tried this, over and over again, and did not hit paper at 10 yards. I brought the target in to 5 yards, and tried again. I started getting on the paper, but there was a heavy random element to where the bullet actually went. Aiming center mass, a leg shot would have been a definite possibility! Or not.

        And this was at the range, perfect conditions, no threat, knowing what I was about to do. I am not great, but I am not a neophyte, either. You have to be realistic about what people can actually do.

        1. Do you ever do any weak hand practice? That's always fun when I have done it. The target was pretty much safe too.

        2. I agree that practice is needed to hit in a real life scenario.
          One thing most people almost never practice is drawing from the holster from concealment and shooting at a charging target.
          Most ranges will not let you draw from a holster, much less from concealed.
          A person will need to go out into the country to a plinking spot to practice drawing from a holster

        3. NYPD data shows that when engaging a hostile target, they miss 80% of their shots.

          And whatever jokes gun hobbyists might make about cops being shitty shots, they have a lot more practice than most people.

          1. No, they really don't.

            They qual maybe twice a year, and many/most are NOT firearms enthusiasts.

            1. most are NOT firearms enthusiasts

              And that becomes more and more true the further up the command hierarchy you go. The only thing more cringe-worthy than listening to a Brady Campaign dipshit spouting their ignorance-based propaganda is listening to a retired cop from detective grade up brought on to some cable news show as an "expert" on firearms. Most of them wouldn't know a Browning Buckmark from a bazooka.

          2. And whatever jokes gun hobbyists might make about cops being shitty shots, they have a lot more practice than most people.

            If you're including people who don't own a firearm in "most people" then you might be right. But if you confine that to people who do own firearms...especially those who own/carry them for self-defense...then you're not even close to being correct.

        4. I have no background in guns but your comment reminded me of a reality soothing competition called Top Shot. Many of the contestants on it were competition shooters, vets, on pistol teams, etc. Watching them struggle for accuracy even with their preferred weapon (some comps has people use bows, grenade launchers, etc) under requirements meant to better match some real life scenarios was interesting.

    3. I just naturally tend to assume that when you learn to fire a gun, you learn to hit your target … this is not accurate?

      Nope. 6 ft. wide, to the left. Your stupidity is pulling you off target when you post. Breath deeply and hold it, picture yourself making accurate, intelligent posts and then just let the submit button go off. Keep practicing, eventually you'll get it. Then, once you've mastered it here, you can go on to be accurate and intelligent in more real world situations.

    4. That was some interesting word-salad....

  8. Have you ever heard of "shooting to kill". This would be the opposite of that. The main point was to dial down the aggression.

    1. Stupid.

      1. Armed SAS troops with 'shoot to kill' orders are deployed on London Underground to monitor suspicious passengers 


        shoot-to-killin British English



        of or relating to shooting by soldiers or police that is intended to kill rather than disable

        a shoot-to-kill policy

        Collins English Dictionary. Copyright © HarperCollins Publishers

        1. Yeah so what? There is no such thing as shooting to wound orders. Not sure about SAS training (but I am sure it is similar) the US Army training for using firearms against civilian targets such as rioters involves issuing a warning with weapon at port arms. If they fail to comply you shoulder the rifle but don't aim it at them and reissue the order. If they still fail to comply you aim the weapon and reissue the commandm If they still don't comply you charge the weapon (e.g. chamber a round) and reissue the order. If they still fail to comply you move the selector switch from safe to semi and reissue the order. And if they still fail to comply you fire a warning shot and reissue the command. If they still don't comply you fire center mass. All the shoot to kill orders means is that the SAS soldiers don't have to go with all the preceding deaths if they fail to comply with the first order.

          1. Do the SAS really have nothing better to do than play subway marshal?

            Anyway, LOL at taking use of force tips from British media, and when the SAS are talking about 'suspicious passengers', I'm pretty sure they mean jihadists. Who may or may not be wearing a suicide vest or belt. In which case, "shoot to kill," means emptying the pistol into the guy's head until slide lock, or you see brains, whichever comes first.

            They're not cops, and they're not trying to take those suspicious people alive.

    2. The main effect was to dial up the stupid. You and Biden both succeeded.

    3. Derp level over 9000.

      1. Because he's a monkey.

    4. If you're not shooting to kill, you're not taking guns seriously enough. Either don't shoot, or shoot to kill. And more often than not, the answer should be "Don't shoot."

      1. Wrong on both. The goal is to "shoot to neutralize". That doing so in the most reliably effective manner is likely to result in the death of the threat is a probably consequence, not the goal. The distinction is far more important than most seem to understand.

    5. Yes. You shoot to kill. You do not shoot to wound or disarm because you cannot give any guarantee that it will succeed. If you are in a situation where it's only reasonable to shoot to wound, you have no business shooting your gun at all. The police have other weapons for that.

      A gun is supposed to be for life or death. Kill this person before they kill you or anyone else. When it comes time for firearms, you do not have any time for nonsense like shooting to wound.

      1. Besides the chances of killing someone by shooting them in the arm or leg is still fairly high. To stop someone you need to hit a major bone usually. Guess what runs along the major bones in your limbs? Large arteries! People do die from leg and arm wounds as a result of rapid exsanguination.

        1. That sounds bloody awful!

    6. You don't start shooting unless your intention is to kill.

      1. OK there's been a lot of talk about "shooting to kill." Hopefully, anyone in the US who is involved in a defensive shooting, who thinks "shooting to kill" is a thing, talks to their lawyer before they talk to the police.

        The legal justification for homicide in virtually all US jurisdictions is a reasonable threat to life or of grievous bodily harm, and that your use of force ceases as soon as the threat is neutralized. Go ahead and tell the cops you "shot to kill" and enjoy your murder rap.

        1. I should have said, the legal justification for use of lethal force, whether or not it results in death.

          So if your assailant doesn't die, and you tell the cops you "shot to kill" (and failed?) then enjoy your attempted murder rap.

      2. You don’t start shooting unless your intention is to kill.

        Perhaps you don't start shooting unless you intend to kill someone, those of us who have IQs north of room temperature and aren't sociopaths view the use of deadly force as a self-defense tool intended to neutralize an immediate threat. The likelihood of the effective use of that force resulting in the death of the aggressor is accepted as a possible consequence, not the goal.

    7. I am fairly certain that if I intentionally shoot somebody in the leg, and that person lives, I am going to be charged with attempted murder rather than assault.

      1. That's correct because discharging a firearm is always considered lethal force!

  9. I watched the same tv shows Joe did when he was a kid. Gene Autry, the Lone Ranger, Hopalong, Roy Rogers - they all shot the gun out of the bad guys hand. If they can do it, then the average Barney Fife or Harry Callahan should be able to do it too.

    1. Harry could shoot individual fingers, but he might not remember how many he had shot.

      1. 'I gots to know' why this comment didn't get more love.

    2. I watched the same tv shows Joe did when he was a kid.

      When Joe Biden was a kid, TV hadn't been invented yet. He grew up watching the old silent pictures of Eddy "Shotgun" Miller and Tommy "Scattergun" Muldoon and Bob "12 Gauge" Whitmer and Jimmy "Two Blasts" Johnson shooting the guns out of the bad guys hands. And the hands out of the bad guys hands.

    3. Don't forget Star Trek and setting phasers on stun.

      1. If there really was a weapon like that which could reliably knock people out without permanent harm it would be pretty ideal for these situations. Doesn't seem like phasers require particularly good aim either.

        1. The hand held version doesn't even have sights.

          1. Even as a kid, it was pretty obvious that there's some sort of internal aiming/lock on technology going on. Something like every third time a phaser is fired, the point of aim changes without the point of impact changing. And this was even at the ridiculously close ranges phasers were always used.
            Kirk's aim was worse than any storm trooper's.
            *runs out door*
            *pokes head back in*
            It was significantly improved in Abrams' Star Trek.

      2. In my mind canon, phasers have other settings than "stun" and "kill," such as "irritate" and "maim."

        1. I was partial to, 'melancholy.'

          Damn, I miss the funny Dennis Miller.


  10. It would be good if someone with some level of medical knowledge pointed out that a leg wound -- assuming Joe's cop is lucky -- is not trivial. People die from leg wounds. At best, the victim of a leg wound has a lifetime handicap, probably serious. Joe has seen too many westerns.

    1. I think we can all agree that a Jacob Blake is much better than a Michael Brown, and that should be our goal.

      1. Michael Brown was shot in the leg. At least 2 of the 6 bullets hit his right quad. They didn't stop his charge. That took another several bullets to the torso.

        1. It was Wilson's last shot to the skull that finally stopped him.

    2. ""At best, the victim of a leg wound has a lifetime handicap, probably serious. Joe has seen too many westerns.""

      Perhaps Joe is with the lawyer lobby. Lifetime handicaps can mean big payouts to lawyers.

  11. That’s some dumb shit right there. He really thinks he can legislate the impossible.

    1. He's a Democrat.

  12. I didn't catch much of Biden's town hall. Was it all slow pitch?

    1. Yes. However, if you read the analysis from sources like WaPo, you would think that Joe gave the political rendition of the Sermon on the Mount. Trump was Trump although in his defense Savannah Guthrie was in attack mode the entire time. Biden's version was slow pitch. Every time I see Joe and how he is treated with kid gloves by 98 percent of the media I think of Chauncey/Chance from Being There.

      1. Joe gave the political rendition of the Sermon on the Mount

        Blessed are the cheesemakers.

  13. Let's also supply our police with:
    -Lasso of Truth
    -Vibranium alloy shield
    -Web shooters
    -Cloak of invisibility
    -Phasers on stun

    1. You forgot "Booger Beam"!

    2. -Social workers

      This is the key.

      1. Let us equip our social workers with:
        -The Lasso of Inclusion
        -The Golden Dice of Equity
        -The Night-vision Goggles of Seeing the Marginalized
        -The Soft Bigotry
        -Web Shooters

    3. The lasso of truth would be a blatant violation of the 5th and 6th Amendments.

      1. Wonder Woman isn't part of the government so it would be fine! -- Reason staff

      2. This comment confirms your virginity.

        1. And your past comments confirm your pedophilia.

          1. Lol dude you just admitted you're a virgin.

            1. No, I just admitted you're a pedophile.

              1. OK virgin.

        2. On the contrary, I find that references combining legal and comic book logic consistently tend to attract the right sort of women.

          1. This is the second gayest thing I've ever read.

            1. I'm guessing your birth certificate was the first.

            2. What is this, the 90s? Since when has "gay" been an insult?

              1. Buttplug is Senor Chang?

    4. -The patience of Job
      -The eyes of Eagles
      -The reaction times of top fuel dragster drivers

      1. Don't be ridiculous. They need the reaction time of Jedi. React before it happens.

    5. I don't know how effective nets are, but we might as well add them to the arsenal.
      Won't do much against an armed assailant though.

  14. Hey all of ye Reasonoid readers! Do NOT bother to read this article! Do NOT bother to read (or read about) ANY links, facts, or logic contained in this article and-or video! Do NOT bother to trouble your pretty little heads about silly factual details gathered by useless Reason-writer eggheads!

    Because I, the SMARTEST ONE, can “summarize” it ALL for you! Here it is, above article summarized: “Senile Mackerel Snapper Bad”!

    (/Sarc, revenge for moronic “summaries” about “Orange Man Bad”)

    1. Orangemanbad, Sqrls.

      1. Oops, I almost forgot. Too bad I have to bring this out again. You'd been posting nice and normally for a week, but over the last two days you've decided to be a retarded troll again:

        SQRLSY One
        September.30.2020 at 12:53 pm

        Yes! This FURTHER proves that Hitler was NOT a racist!
        Since even Hitler wasn’t a racist, we can pretty firmly conclude that racism isn’t a “thing” at all!

        1. On the off chance that anyone cares, AND gives a shit about CONTEXT (which liars like Mamma are entirely to dishonest to give a shit about), what was going on here, is that right-wing nut-jobs were being right-wing nut-jobs ass usual, and arguing that Proud Boys could NO WAY EVER be racists, because they accepted members of non-white races! So I pointed out that Hitler allied NAZIs with Japanese “Yellow Aryans”… So Hitler wasn’t racist, either!

          Disproving stupid ideas with MORE stupid ideas, using the same logic, escapes the mentally handicapped among us, though…

          CRY MORE over imaginary hurtings of Your Precious Baby Feeeeelings, cry-wolf racism-mongerer whiner-crybaby!

          1. Could BLM be racists? Lets compare BLM and Proud Boy missions and platforms and then decide shall we? Lets listen to what the leaders of each group say in public.

            Then we can decide.

            1. I think (from what I have read) that a significant number of followers (and actions) of BLM show racism, yes.

              An important higher-level take-away from what I was babbling about (Hitler and the absurdity of "Yellow Aryans" for example) is that the SPOKEN or WRITTEN policies of just about ANY organization (private or Government Almighty) quickly fall by the wayside, most of the time, in the name of political expediency! Principles, shminciples, the TOP priority is more power and influence for our organization!

  15. Even if police could magically "shoot to wound" their escapees, BLM would rally around the victim who used their last ounce of strength to fling a knife at a cop's eye, right before collapsing on the pavement (while gasping "I can't breathe")

    1. Also, Robby your articles are great when you take a definite stance. Do more of that.

  16. Just go out on your balcony and fire your shotgun into the air to scare'em off.

    1. Yeah, I was going to post a reminder about that bit of stupidity, too. Biden is utterly incompetent when it comes to questions of the use of deadly force.

      1. Biden is utterly incompetent. FIFY

  17. Great! Now I shouldn’t have to explain my Giant Meteor 2020 bumper sticker

  18. This nonsense is also spouted by people that believe guns will start spinning around and shooting when dropped just like in the movies.

    1. I mean, if they can shoot all on their own, they should be able to pick where the bullet hits too.
      It's not that cops are overly aggressive or racist, but guns themselves are.
      Pretty sure statistics will back me up on this one.

  19. This is sensible advise for Officer Jerry Miculek, who can tag each limb and the nutsack of a charging suspect in under 1/2 second. But that’s only with his custom M&P9. A standard issue Glock would add 1/8 second to this and make the feat impracticable.

  20. Any dog faced pony soldier could just shoot the gun out of their hand.

  21. Joe is just ridiculous.

  22. That’s idiotic, eh?

    How about this from the guy who actually IS President:

    “That was a retweet. That was an opinion of somebody and that was a retweet.”

    Doesn’t know who, but what the heck, he’ll put it out there.

    “Just the other day, they came out with a statement that 85% of the people that wear masks catch it (Covid).”

    Wow. Who woulda thunk it...other than Trump, Soave, Tucille, Sullum, and libertarians, of course.

    Now those are idiotic statements.

    1. Well. Our President...at it again on his retweet’s this morning. Retweets a Babylon Bee comedy piece that Twitter shut down to stop negative Biden news. Our President:

      "Wow, this has never been done in history. This includes his really bad interview last night. Why is Twitter doing this. Bringing more attention to Sleepy Joe & Big T."

      Good, Robby, that you’re concerned about idiotic statements. Ant concern at all about an idiotic sitting President? No?

      1. So there is a Trump equivalent to "lying dog faced pony soldier"?

        Does Trump daily state he's running for Senate or forget what state he's in?

        When Trump gets challenged does he say c'mon man lets do a push up contest?

        And of course there's "that thing"

        Joe is an idiot who is now senile which amplifies it.

        1. I actually like “lying dog faced pony soldier” would make a good band name.

        2. “The Continental Army suffered a bitter winter of Valley Forge, found glory across the waters of the Delaware, and seized victory from Cornwallis of Yorktown. Our army manned the air, it rammed the ramparts, it took over the airports, it did everything it had to do.”
          -Donald Trump

        3. “And they say the noise (from windmills) causes cancer.”

        4. “We’ve ended the war on beautiful, clean coal, and it’s just been announced that a second, brand-new coal mine, where they’re going to take out clean coal — meaning, they’re taking out coal. They’re going to clean it — is opening in the state of Pennsylvania, the second one.”
          -the idiot

        5. "This is a tough hurricane, one of the wettest we’ve ever seen from the standpoint of water."

          The Idiot King


          1. You really don't want to start comparing idiotic and unscientific statements from candidates. They all have said something extremely stupid. Mostly the are harmless. If you think Trump is unique then that is just evidence of confirmation bias.

            1. That’s right, but he’s cornered the market.

              But here’s a Trump quote that is in fact very harmful.

              “But these people should be indicted. This was the greatest political crime in the history of our country, and that includes Obama and it includes Biden. He’s (Barr) got all the information he needs. They want to get more, more, more, they keep getting more. I said, ‘You don’t need any more.’”

              So. I get libertarians here ignore that. It’s perhaps the most dangerous thing a republic can face. A sitting President asking his AG to prosecute his rival for election and a past President for crimes they’ve never been charged with, that he’s made up. That’s banana republic stuff. That’s Putin stuff.

              Do I think that bothers you? Nope. Of course it would if Obama said it. You’d freak out.

              1. That quote didn't say at all charge them for crimes they haven't been charged with. It was exactly about crimes he thinks they should be charged with. Fuck you are an idiot. If they committed a crime and there is evidence they should be charged. Fuck how hard is that to under stand?

                1. Now now now. Don’t get yourself into a snit fit. If you don’t get how dangerous it is for a President to instruct his AG to prosecute his political enemies you deserve what you get.

                  Of course you’ll whine like a baby when a Democrat does it. Enjoy your day!


                  1. If they committed a crime he shouldn't charge them? Because they are political rivals? So we have a ruling class that can break laws in your opinion without repercussions? And you don't believe that is Banana Republic bullshit? Are you at least of average intelligence or do you need an IEP?

                2. I realize it is dangerous not to prosecute people if they commit a crime. Especially if you choose not to prosecute them simply because they are politicos. Also, you totally misrepresented what I said. Note I stayed if they actually committed a crime then they shod be prosecuted. You are intellectually dishonest fuck aren't you? Purposely misrepresenting what people state and twisting it for your own political bias.

              2. And considering it looks very much like they used FBI resources to create a false investigation to discredit a political rival than that is Banana Republic stuff. By them I men Obama et al. Prosecuting them for it would be what a Constitutional Republic that believes all are created equal and no one is above the law should do. Ignoring it because they are politicos is also banana republic bullshit.

      2. You reply to yourself? How unhinged are you?

        1. I’m only that if I reply to you. Damn you, Newman!

      3. a Babylon Bee comedy piece that Twitter shut down to stop negative Biden news

        Then funning thing is that this isn't what you're referring to as the idiotic part.

    2. Um. That's accurate as per the CDC.

      Masks are for idiots who swallow orders and junks science.

      There's now talk among some people who want to make it permanent.

      It's ignorant as it is frightening.

      1. I read it was 70% but still the chances are very high of contracting the virus even when wearing a mask.

      2. It’s not accurate at all that 85% of the people who wear masks get Covid.

        Now...we know Trump is a moron. Do yourself a favor. Don’t you out-moron him.

        1. No 70% of those infected were wearing masks according to recent studies. So masks do nothing and while Trump misstated the actual data his overall point still stands.

          1. Nope. The CDC looked at 2 small groups, about 160 in each...those who contracted Covid and those who did not. 85% of the patients who had it said they often or always wore a mask. But they also said they frequented restaurants and bars, where no masks were worn, of course.

            And in the other group that didn’t have Covid? 88.7% said they often or always wore a mask.

            Only an idiot would assume that based on that study, 85% of the people who wear masks get Covid. Do some back of the envelope math and tell me if that was true how many Covid patients we’d have in the country.

            He’s an idiot. Don’t you be one.


            1. I didn't say 85% would get COVID you idiot. Didn't you read what I said, your link said exactly what I said except the percentages were different. Fucking thanks for proving my point.

      3. Well, almost accurate, but backwards.
        85% of people who get it claim to have been wearing masks regularly.

        1. That study was never intended to be anything about the efficacy of masks, like Trump said. 88% of the people who didn’t have Covid wore masks.

          Here’s the point about masks, always has been...you wear a mask to protect others, mostly. It provides some help for keeping you from getting it, but it’s mostly to keep others from gettin it if you already have it.

          That study NEVER looked at if those who got Covid and wore a mask were frequently around others who didn’t wear masks. It’s why the funniest thing about those Trump rallies are just the handful who wear masks. They might as well forget it...they’re wearing them to protect the hundreds who aren’t wearing them.

          1. So you disagree with his take away not so much his actual statement? Thanks for admitting it is partisan disagreement that you are pushing.

            1. Your blood pressures rising...relax a tad.

            2. He said 85% of the people who wear masks catch it. They don’t. Now...try to chill a bit...and wear your mask!


              1. I agreed he misstated. Fuck you are a disingenuous lying fuck.

                1. And so did Zeb. He agreed Trump said it wrong. But yet Jack, who I am beginning to believe does lack critical thinking skills, still keeps harping on his biased partisn talking points.

  23. I don't know was the the comment of Top Lawyer in his class Joe or was he plagiarizing someone else's brain?

  24. I didn’t watch any of that. Pretty much done with it.

    Instead put on the new Disney version of Lady and the Tramp just because it is so much fun to watch my dogs react to it.

  25. " It would take an expert marksman to accomplish that feat consistently. "

    If you are going to issue deadly weapons to the police, the least you could expect is that they are expert in their use. If police have to aim for the head or chest out of their own lack of skill with guns, perhaps they should be issued with less lethal weapons.

    1. Here's a better idea: YOU take the job and keep us safe, okay?

    2. You are a fucking idiot. I've been shooting since I was 5 years old, so over 39 years. I also was professionally trained in the military and am currently a 4-H rifle shooting instructor. My father qualified for the Army rifle team. Yet none of us would aim for the legs or arms. First it is a low chance of hitting them. Second it won't stop the bullet and the bullet is likely to hit someone else (especially if you miss). Third unless you hit bone, the shot is not likely to stop them. Fourth if you do hit bones you can easily kill them accidentally by severing a major artery, which runs along the bones. Shooting in the arms or legs is something idiots who know nothing about guns or anatomy say because they are to fucking stupid to realize what they don't know.

      1. "Yet none of us would aim for the legs or arms."

        Because you shoot to kill. Good policy for the military, hence your experience and that of your family. I don't think the police should necessarily shoot to kill, especially if their target is unarmed. If police are killing people because it's more convenient for them to shoot in the head or chest, perhaps they should be issued with less lethal weapons. I guess you think that's an idiotic idea as well.

        1. No, shooting to wound is not done because it is stupid, potentially just as lethal, increases the chance of hitting innocent bystanders and doesn't stop the person. An average male weighs about 80 kg. A 165 gr .40 S&W round (common law enforcement round) weighs 0.011 kg. Physics is a bitch.

          1. I understand you're point, but I haven't made myself clear to you. If you're equipped with a gun, it would be stupid to do anything but shoot to kill. But the policeman's duty is to bring criminals before the court and let it decide on the disposition of the matter. It's not to kill people. The stupidity lies in issuing the cop with a weapon, if used effectively, that results in fatality. Once they were armed with little more than billy clubs which at least gave them an option other than a) not using the weapon and b) killing someone. (There's also the possibility of firing a warning shot and I'm not sure if or how they are trained to do this.)

            1. And if the criminal has a gun or knife what then? Guns are and should be a last resort.

              1. "And if the criminal has a gun or knife what then? "

                Easy. Just do the same as if the criminal was unarmed. Shoot first, then get your story straight with your buddies.

          2. What I'd like to know: what % of those shot by police for any reason die from those wounds, and what % survive? My Google Fu isn't advanced enough.

        2. Also in terms of strategy it is better to wound your enemy than kill them, as a wounded enemy requires more resources for the enemy, so if it were practical the military would actually teach to wound rather than kill.

          1. "Also in terms of strategy it is better to wound your enemy than kill them,"

            It's not the business of police to wound people in the interest of good strategy, or to look upon themselves as something other than public servants who deal with citizens with rights and not 'enemies.'

            1. I was discrediting your point that the purpose of the military is to shoot to kill. God you are idiotic.

              1. My comments are about police. The article is about police. You must know this, or are you going to double down on the stupid?

          2. At what, about 50,000 rounds to one enemy casualty, teaching them to hit in the first place would be a good start.

            Yes, I know about suppressive fires, establishing a base of fire to fix the enemy, and maneuver. But still... Damn the enemy's insistence on hiding behind things and trying to blend into the background.

            Anyway, we already know that HE is what does the vast majority of the killing.

        3. And it isn't more convenient it is safer in the long run.

        4. 'Because you shoot to kill.' This will surprise you, but the chest and torso are larger targets than the head, leg, arm. Shooting center mass is shooting to hit the target, not to kill. Perhaps not simply accepting and restating opinions you pick up from people that share the same beliefs you do might have some benefits, yes? Shooting at and missing the head, arm or leg means that the bullet is now traveling past the target and may injure or kill a bystander or someone outside the area. Aiming for the center of the body increases the chance of hitting, and minimizes the risk of harming others once the decision to shoot has occurred. Police are issued non or less lethal options, and use them.

          1. "Police are issued non or less lethal options, and use them."

            The problem is that they use lethal options way too often. Like shooting unarmed people fleeing from them in the back. (I guess you have to be a BLM antifa Marxist climate scientist to see this.)

            1. What a facetious argument.

              1. It's an opinion, not an argument.

        5. And you obviously didn't understand my point because you said nothing about not issuing guns to police until after I took apart your idiotic argument, except to infer because they aren't good enough shots to not aim for center mass they shouldn't use guns.

          1. It's about the appropriateness of the weapons they are issued. You say yourself they should be used with the assumption that the victim will die. I thought I'd already explained it once, pretty explicitly.

    3. You aim for the chest because it is the center of mass and moves in the most predictable way.

      It is also where the vital organs, vessels, nerves are that will incapacitate the threat instead of just piss it off.

      1. That is something that every executioner should know. Try running a police state where the police don't know the easiest way to kill someone and have the means to effect it readily at hand.

  26. While we're spitballing, I've got a novel idea. I don't know if anyone has thought of this before and I know it sounds crazy, but please bear with me here.

    What if we end the war on drugs? Maybe if we stop threatening to throw people in cages over victimless crimes then the violence around drugs would stop. Then there wouldn't be any need for no-knock raids and no need (or opportunity) for officers to escalate simple traffic stops to a level that could ruin someone's life. There also wouldn't be any more drug related violence because people in the drug trade could seek conflict resolution in courts instead of having to take matters into their own hands. Also the price and profitability of drugs would plummet, so it just wouldn't be worth sustaining a drug business through violence.

    I'm just saying maybe we should look at considering this...

    1. If only there were a candidate on the ballot in all 50 states advocating ending the drug war.

      If only....

      1. Best take away is that thr true way to reduce cops killing criminals is to decrease the number of crimes by ending victimless crime. I notice Biden never wants to do that. Trump is barely better. I just mailed in my ballot for Jorgenson but realize I have a better shot at winning the lottery then her winning. And even if she does win, she will be impotent because of no backing from Congress. You think Pelosi and Schumer refuse to work with Republicans wait to see what happens if an actual libertarian won the Presidency.

        1. Unless you are in a battleground state where which candidate will collect its electoral votes, you have no reason to regret your vote. I'd vote LP even if my state were in doubt. A libertarian-ish D or R might tempt me, but fat chance of either of those being nominated.

          1. ..electoral votes are in doubt,...

    2. The war on drugs didn’t start the violence, it was a (failed) reaction to the violence. You need to legalize drugs and accept that some people make poor life choices.

  27. This is what reality looks like...empty the weapon and the assailant keeps coming.


  28. Don't fool yourselves: Biden knows better than this.

    He also knows he can get away with saying anything. He's done it for 40+ years without being held accountable. This isn't exactly a secret -- President Reagan remarked that Biden will say anything.

    And now people just shrug it off as "Crazy Uncle Joe, he'll say anything."

    This is all about posturing that he cares about people and the other side only cares about logic and facts.

  29. “neither the cops nor anyone else—except perhaps James Bond—could plan to shoot people in the leg as a matter of routine practice“

    “The skill was not to hit your knee, but to... miss the rest of you,” says James Bond.

    Seriously though, I’m no doctor but isn’t the femoral artery in the leg? And if that gets hit, without immediate intervention, doesn’t a person die all the same?

    1. One of the rangers killed in the Battle of Mogadishu died from a leg wound that severed the femoral artery. He was attended by a Special Operations medics, some of the best in the world (I knew some and despite my ten years as a medic and nurse I was a neophyte compared to their skills) and despite this expert care he still bled out. The femoral artery retracts when severed and makes treating them, unless you are on am operating table, extremely difficult.

      1. I can’t watch that movie any more. I had read the book as well.

        1. I served with two guys who served in Somalia, one who left just before the Battle of Mogadishu and one who was with the UN forces during the battle trying to get permission to go and save the rangers. Both tell me that the movie and book are pretty damn accurate, especially when it comes to describing what the Somalis were like. My one friend talked about how they stole the chock blocks and drip pans out of their Humvees as they drove down the streets and would run up to the edge of the concentina wire and dump a mag from their hips over the MASH unit he was assigned to (the last MASH unit in the Army before all were switched to CSH and FST teams).

  30. I get paid more than $120 to $130 per hour for working online. I heard about this job 3 months ago and after joining this i have earned easily $15k from this without having online working skills. This is what I do..Usa Online Jobs

  31. Start now earning extra $16,750 to $19,000 per month by doing an easy home based job in part time only. Last month i have got my 3rd paycheck of $17652 by giving this job only 3 hrs a day online on my Mobile. Every person can now get this today and makes extra cash by follow details her==► Read More  

  32. A deer (which is comparable in mass to a human) hit in the lungs with a high powered rifle can run up to a mile. Unlike Hollywood, people who actually shoot and know guns realize that just because you hit someone it doesn't automatically result in them dropping like a stone. The average adult male weighs around 80 kg, a 165 grain .40 S&W round weighs a touch under 11 grams (0.011 Kg).

  33. Weird take, Reason. Cops shouldnt even have guns like 90% of the time.

    1. Move to Britain then, they don't carry guns there. You'll be happy. And considering reality and science is a weird take? Really?

    2. You would have to ban all guns for that to be practical. Cops are outgunned as it is.

      1. Most cops are issued less than lethal weapons as well. In several of the more recent cases they even used them and it still resulted in them going for their guns as a last resort. Short of actually designing phasers with stun settings that guarantee instant incapacitation they would still need guns (and even in Star Trek stun setting is still potentially lethal).

        1. A lot of people don't understand how stupid "just tase him instead" is. Tasers do not work 100% of the time, and when they do work there's no guarantee they work long enough to actually get a threat under control.

          On top of this, just like you and me cops have no obligation to react to a deadly threat with non-deadly force. If someone threatens them with a deadly weapon, deadly force is both reasonable and should be expected.

          1. And tasers can kill. In fact they have and the same idiots that criticize every cop shooting (including some reason writers) have criticized the cops for not knowing the person they tased had a heart conditions or similar.

          2. Tasers were designed to be an alternative to lethal force. But in a situation where lethal force is justified you’d be crazy to try to stop a person with a taser first. That’s why they’ve been relegated to the role of electric whip. Evil things; they ought to be done away with altogether.

      2. Do the black market drug sellers have MRAPs, now?

    3. How do we know which leo will need a gun? We don't. Citizens conceal carry "just in case" it is needed, not because we are facing potential threats daily, as leo's do. A threat can happen, and usually does, unexpectedly. Proposing to disarm a leo, any leo, leaves him /her unable to defend him/herself or the citizens whose lives are at risk.

  34. "You can ban chokeholds, but beyond that you have to teach [the police] how to de-escalate circumstances," said Biden. "So instead of anybody coming at you and the first thing you do is shoot to kill, you shoot them in the leg."

    "George Floyd and Eric Garner's killers should've shot him in the leg instead." - Joe Biden

  35. All Online Services(AOS) is the biggest marketplace of online services. At AOS we believe that online services must be instant, efficient and should come with satisfaction. That is why we have brought our 8 year experience to this great platform. AOS delivers almost all kind of online services (such as Facebook account/pages/groups, instagram accounts, twitter accounts, ads accounts, email accounts & other premium accounts) for our customers worldwide.


  36. Of all the softballs tossed at Biden, and all his weak answers, still no mention of what was not asked of Biden.

    Nice dodge Robby.

  37. Ladies and gentlemen, your next president.

  38. We require a higher level of warrant for a no-knock entry. We should also require them for raids in the middle of the night. Raids in the dark--when neither side can see the other--are just asking for chaos and mistakes. Both the Corey Maye case and the Breonna Taylor case might not have happened if they had gone off in the light of dawn, and not late at night.

    1. The dark? That's what the flash-bangs are for, right? [/sarc]

  39. It's equally embarrassing that that for all the time he spent with police crafting his tough on crime bills, Biden doesn't know that they are trained to de-escalate situations. Then, his career has been based on making himself look accomplished, and wealthier, not on being intelligent.

  40. Cops should just get a double barreled shotgun and fire it into the air.

  41. "They should just shoot for the pinkie on the left hand," clarified Biden.

    1. Or whistle one past their ear, close enough for them to feel the heat.

  42. Make $6,000-$8,000 A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required. Be Your Own Boss And for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot..... Read More  

  43. His knowledge about anything is about on parr with the previous idiot president's knowledge.

  44. Make $6,000-$8,000 A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required. Be Your Own Boss And for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot..... Read More  

  45. How long does it take a 90 pound teenage girl with a screw driver to move 30 ft and harm two Orange County sheriffs? We'll never know, they shot her to death

  46. I earned $4500 last month by working online just for 4 to 6 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this Website. If You too want to earn such a big amount of money then come and join us.….So I started…Click here.

  47. I am creating an honest wage from home 3000 Dollars/week , that is wonderful, below a year agone i used to be unemployed during a atrocious economy. I convey God on a daily basis i used to be endowed these directions and currently it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with everybody….. Read More  

  48. Joe thinks that the de-fingering gunfight scene from The Ballad of Buster Scruggs was a use-of-force training video.

  49. Getting paid easily every month from home by doing very easy and simple job from home. I have received my 3rd paycheck of $19852 last month from this home based easy job in part time. Every person can get this job and start making real cash online by follow details here..  Read More  

  50. Israeli troops aim for (and hit) the legs). Biden's remark may have been unreasonable, but calling it "idiotic" is.. well...

  51. Slightly idiotic, as if he's been watching too much Danny Glover, but don't make too much of it. Personally I'd be much more comfortable with a politician who isn't a gun nut, and defers to tacticians on tactical questions when he has the chance. For instance when drafting policy or in a situation room. After all, look where the worthless incumbent has got by pretending to understand climate science and epidemiology.

    I was on a range once with a Swiss cop using a SiG 9mm, when he unloaded the entire magazine in a short burst just to let off esteem. 4 rounds per second sounds remarkably close to the tempo I heard that day.

  52. Great post. Thanks for sharing it among us. I really appreciate it.


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.