Oh, honey, it's not about protecting people...
this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2025
27 points (84.6% liked)
No Stupid Questions
44469 readers
702 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
When you don't intend to kill rubber bullets are still very dangerous.
If you have to kill (armed and attacking) they are not dangerous enough.
Then you have the issue of less than lethal weapons having a much lower threshold for when they are used and then accidentally killing or maiming someone.
Many in Northern Ireland were killed or blinded by rubber bullets used by British military.
Pretty sure they were invented here
As an American kid, The Troubles was where I first heard the term "rubber bullet".
They're rubber -coated and can and do maim and kill.
So called “less than lethal” weapons can and do still kill people:
Putting holes in people is what guns are for. If you don’t intend to do that, don’t use a gun - that’s what hand-to-hand combat training, batons, tasers and pepper spray are for.
There’s also a moral-hazard problem: rubber bullets can still be lethal, but the threshold for using them is lower, which could actually lead to more deaths, not fewer.
And they do also use bean bag guns sometimes in non-crowd situations, but typically when they're using the taser or bean bags they'll still have lethal cover.
Non lethal munitions/weapons are not so non lethal as people think.
Crowd control or demonstration control is another complex problem that can't be solved by some magic bullet. It is more psychology game when the police tries to look threatening in place where people can easily overpower them.
They'd probably be even less hesitant to use their firearm than they already are, resulting in more deaths. We've seen plenty of TASER Deaths™ when those became a big thing
Aside from the “cops aren’t out there to save lives” points that others have mentioned… In case you were not aware:
“Rubber bullets” are lead slugs covered in semi-malleable resin/plastic/rubber. They can - and do - kill people when used improperly/carelessly. For instance, a headshot with one of those can kill, or leave the victim with a permanent severe TBI.
Also, they’re WAY bigger than 9mm pistol bullets, meaning they can’t be used in a pistol (generally you need a special weapon to fire them), and clip size is severely limited, and semi-auto action is (afaik) basically a non-starter.
So much is explained about policing in the USA with a simple one liner an older friend once told me: cops are just guys who want to drive fast and shoot guns.
And aim for the bushes?
You're approaching this like cops aren't allowed to be the Judge, Jury, and Executioner
Civilized countries hold cops accountable when they kill people.
Cops in the US can kill whoever they want for whatever reason and they probably won't even be fired.
The answer is no.
Some US police use bean bag guns. However, at <10ft, they hit the victim with more energy than a shogun blast. Lethal at head or chest.
Welcome to the Forum "Many things that Europeans keep wondering about Americans"
The cruelty is the point.
Individual human lives are no longer considered things of value. Only the ideology and the nation are allowed to have value. Welcome to fascism. Enjoy your stay.
You've got a dozen explanations as to what rubber bullets are and their possible lethality. But there's more. From a ballistics point of view, there are garbage.
Probably the #1 measure the FBI uses in measuring the effectiveness of a round is penetration in ballistic gel. I forget, but I think they want 12" minimum? Cops and military, over much of the world use 9mm for several reasons, penetration is one. Speed is another. Recoil control yet another consideration, don't kick as hard. Rubber bullets fail all three tests.
Consider, America used the 30.06 round in WWII, now we use the 5.56 (That's a joke meme BTW.) Tiny bullet, but it hauls ass. We used the .45ACP round for pistols, a cannonball compared to the 9mm. Small bullet, but it hauls ass. Fast and light wins the day.
To circle back and address the original question. You do not unholster your weapon unless you are in fear of your life, or need to stop someone from endangering another person. If a life is on the line, you don't want a half-assed rubber bullet.
We can argue rules of engagement, deescalation training, fear, all the things American cops fucking fail at, but for myself, if I draw, I'm firing, and I intend to end the threat instantly.
Consider this video where a guy shot a large man harassing him at the mall:
https://youtu.be/9QMkL5wlcaM?t=111
That was likely a .380, even smaller than a 9mm, considered the smallest viable self-defense round. Kid put a pill in his chest and the dude walked off! If your ass is on the line, would you consider an even less lethal round? What if that guy was truly muscular or fat or wearing thick clothing? What if the guy wanted to press the attack?
Fun fact: The US Army wanted something heavier because shooting Filipinos with a .38 wasn't taking them down, even with a mortal wound they would keep coming. And that's how we got the Colt .45, which Filipinos are crazy about to this day!
A lot of facts here, but I should add that since cops are being actively trained for escalation and cruelty, and the fact that they are not to draw their weapon without an intent to kill, the fact is that no "less lethal" gadget or ammo is going to fix their behaviour. And neither is the Democrat answer of "more training" because the training they end up getting is more murder indoctrination.
You have to eliminate police unions, to start. End the 1033 program. Hell, defund the whole thing. Build a new society around what police ought to be doing, rather than merely projecting authority, violently crushing dissent, bashing minorities and poor people, and serving moneyed interests. The problems with police are deep rooted, systemic, and metastasised around a corrupt ideology.
But putting the holes into people is the effect ...
The typical cop will never use his gun except during the mandatory training exercises. When they don't need lethal force there are better tools for the job. Their uniform alone is often enough, in more difficult cases their baton is used regularly - while it could be lethal it is a lot easier to control the force to ensure it isn't, once in a while a Taser, though the cops I've known never needed their taser outside of exercises.
We need cops to have all the tools they need on hand for their job, but each one adds weight and so limits their ability to the the job. Since there are already several good non-lethal tools they use, adding one that isn't going to be used often isn't worth it. They still should have the last resort lethal force tool - but typically it is a backup they never need. (TV shows do not show the reality of being a cop)
ACAB and all that, but you are right on the money. Most cops will never draw their service weapon. Of millions and millions of daily police/civilian interactions, no problem.
They get up to some serious bullshit, been on the wrong end many times, and I'm a white guy, but shootings are rare given 340,000,000 Americans, many of whom are fucking nuts.
As with any shocking news, and I can't stress this enough, you only see it because it shocking. An entire family can get smeared off the interstate, hardly worth mentioning.
tl;dr: Humans are shit are evaluating risk, didn't evolve to navigate this huge and complex world.
Heavy clothing can essentially stop rubber bullets. Not really what you want when trying to stop someone.
A better option than any weapon is more officers. I don't care what a cop is armed with, full military kit and they can still be taken down one on one. More guys always wins, and is so obvious in the moment that people don't even get violent in most cases.
A better option is actual deescalation training.
- "Rubber" bullets are a massive metal ball wrapped in a thin sheet of rubber. They carry about half the kinetic energy of a bullet, they can still crack your skull or destroy a part of your body that they hit. There is a reason people started pushing for the terminology "less lethal" instead of "nonlethal."
- That said you actually raise kind of a good question I think. I suspect that a lot of the reason is nothing more than that the guns that shoot "rubber" bullets effectively are big and cumbersome. You can't run fast while holding one, carry one around on your belt and then pull it out in a fraction of a second, et cetera. They actually do try to do what you're talking about with Tasers, there's a whole process, except that Tasers are unreliable so they have to have a second cop with a gun drawn most of the time.
- Replacing guns with "rubber" bullets... a lot of the time when they are shooting they are thinking in terms of a gunfight with an armed suspect, so they don't want to be in a situation where the "rubber" bullets aren't penetrating a car but the bullets coming back at them are penetrating their car, something like that. If it is deadly force involved they don't want to be at a disadvantage.
- Replacing Tasers with rubber bullets... IDK, I think "rubber" bullets are probably more lethal than Tasers and you're definitely going to fuck somebody up any time you hit them with one. The vast majority of the time, the Taser just sucks and then you take the probes out and you're done, you don't have any cracked ribs or destroyed eyeballs or anything. Most of the scenarios where they would be using a "rubber" bullet, US cops at least will use a 40mm "beanbag round" which won't cause nearly the same type of injuries.
I won't say your suggestion is automatically a bad idea but I think those are some of the reasons you so rarely see them except in "crowd control" type of scenarios where some of the existing nonlethal options aren't viable, and also where they have some additional desire to cause injuries in the people they're "control"ing. Basically you can choose a Taser which is unreliable, pepper spray which is short range and will fuck you up too sometimes, or a 40mm or rubber bullet which needs a big cumbersome launcher (and the "rubber" bullet may cause significant injuries anyway).
Good luck try selling thát idea in Trumpland.
A lot of cops have various forms of less than lethal force, but lethal force in the USA is generally allowed if the victim is considered an immediate danger to others. A rubber bullet isn't necessarily going to get someone to immediately stop doing something.
People are level setting on what rubber bullets do. In my state most departments do use non-lethal weaponry.
Not all but a significant percentage of cops became cops for one reason: to be allowed to legally kill people.