Law enforcement agencies "requested" shooting targets of pregnant women from an organization that also provides "no hesitation," or "NMH" targets to the Department of Homeland Security depicting "children, elderly gun owners and mothers in playground."
In a shocking call to the company as reported by Paul Joseph Watson of InfoWars, Blaine Cooper asked a representative whether she was concerned about selling images of pregnant women as targets. She noted that "unfortunately our world is made up of people, pregnant or otherwise, that are gun owners not for the right reasons," adding that the targets were used to "train police officers". The representative seemed a bit taken by surprise over the scrutiny of the "no hesitation" target and explained that the pregnant woman target was "requested...for training."
Listen to the conversation here:
Mike Riggs of Reason reports that the "marketing team" at the company, Law Enforcement Targets, Inc. sent a statement that said in part, "The goal of NMH is to break that stereotype on the range, regardless of how slim the chances are of encountering a real life scenario that involves a child, pregnant woman, etc. If that initial hesitation time can be cut down due to range experience, the officer and community are better served." Riggs points out that the company "has landed $5.5 million worth of contracts with the federal government." In light of the scrutiny, the organization posted on Facebook "inviting commentary and criticism."
One certainly cannot fault the company for providing the targets; however, it is a bit concerning that the police would "request" photos of pregnant women for their shooting practice.
Photo Source: TheBlaze
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 17
Excellent Post Ladies!
No comrade Thomas, it's not just you ; )
It's actually very, very important training that we should be happy that officials we trust to protect and serve are learning. I'd rather them know how to properly engage in gunfire than unorthodox criminals than not know how and fail terribly at doing it, possibly costing the lives of children and other innocents in the process.
This really isn't a controversy. Though I can understand how it might be a little disturbing at first to those who aren't familiar with police or military firearm training.
Yeah... until then our trained officials need to learn how to shoot at our criminals without killing their kids.
As for focusing on the criminals -- banning assault rifles doesn't really play into the statistics of crime causation. So I'm not going to address that. The fact of the matter is that socioeconomic class is the most telling element in violent crime -- i.e. the poor are more likely to become victims AND perpetrators of violent crime than any other class. The poor also includes the working class in this statistic, so take that FWIW.
So they use targets of kids? I am missing your point...
Yes, to socioeconomic class - a big indicator, as well.
When you're going through intensive firearm training, the shooting course features different "scenarios". These scenarios include mixtures of innocent and criminal characters. The kids are not "targeted" (unless in extreme training when the "kids" are heavily armed school shooters or psychopaths, as is needed training since that appears to be becoming the norm lately).
Other times the training involves a perp with an innocent. Sometimes that can be a mother holding an infant. The scenario changes, but the target stays the same. Sometimes the mother is a deranged kidnapper who is threatening to kill the baby, sometimes the mother is threatening with a bomb in the infant's diaper, etc etc
(insert your own intense scenario here, actually)
The kids on the targets make the exercises as realistic as possible until we have virtual reality (which I for one cannot wait for)