In wars/conflicts perhaps, but headshots are more easily missed as the head is a smaller target. Besides, sniper rilfes will more often than not have enough velocity to kill on a chest hit and incpacatation is sometimes preferable to a kill anyhoo.
I remember seeing summat on one of the discovery channels about weaponry and how during the Word War Part 2 they preferred weapons that would incapacitate rather than ourtright kill - because wounded soldiers use up resources to evacuate and care for.
Correct, that thinking still stands. It takes at least 2 men to remove a wounded soldier from the battlefield, maybe more.
The Police shouldn't be allowed to carry guns. Half of them are ****s who were bullied at school and are taking out their frustrations on the public. There's too much corruption and collusion goes on between them to trust them with fire arms.
Where have you been living? The days of unarmed coppers are long gone. Old Bill are never more than 5 mins from an armed response unit. Well, 20 mins if you're in Woolwich.
That's because they're cowardly ****ebags. Fuck knows how many innocent people have been killed by coppers down the years and covered up.
This comment is an outrage. Police officers would never shoot or indeed wrongly arrest an innocent civilian.
Mate, if I was a cozzer forced to patrol places like Tottenham or Poplar, to name but two, I'd want a ****ing Chieftan tank to drive around in, and the capacity to call in an air strike if needed. Put yourself in their shoes. Clearly they're not armed enough.
Put yourself in the shoes of the scores of innocent men and women who have been shot down the years by out of control bizzies. It's well established that most police officers are of below average intelligence. Do you really want these people running around with guns?
