Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
JohnRgt

Social Security agents to get 174K lethal, hollow point rounds of ammo.

21 posts in this topic

Interesting threshold.

Responding to reports centered on the SSA’s recent request for tens of thousands of rounds of high-power, heavy duty ammunition, the agency tasked with assisting the elderly and disabled with federally funded benefit packages has attempted to explain their invitation for ammo makers to make them a deal.

“Our special agents need to be armed and trained appropriately,” a blogpost from the SSA office explains. “They not only investigate allegations of Social Security fraud, but they also are called to respond to threats against Social Security offices, employees and customers.

http://rt.com/usa/ne...st-bullets-968/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm OK with armed agents. I'm a little confused about the hollow points, though, as they're meant to kill, not "just" incapacitate (I don't think the police in some of the worst neighborhoods in the nation use hollow points. The SSA is going to use them on civilians?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either they are entitled to use lethal force, and they should have the best, or they're not, and they shouldn't be armed at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either they are entitled to use lethal force, and they should have the best, or they're not, and they shouldn't be armed at all.

As I understand it, hollows aren't necessarily better. They're simply used for different goals. I have no problem with agents having the very best pistols or riffles, or ammo that doesn't jam. I'm just surprised that government is now using rounds that are far more lethal than standard rounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, guns are meant to kill people. If you want to do something non lethal, you use tasers, batons, whatever - but not guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Behind every bureaucratic edict is a gun pointed at your head. To 'not have a problem' with all these government agencies using deadly weapons in today's context is to confuse respect for the law with respect for statism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, guns are meant to kill people. If you want to do something non lethal, you use tasers, batons, whatever - but not guns.

I don't agree that the point is to kill, or rather,I don't see the need to nuke when a drone's missile will do the job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To 'not have a problem' with all these government agencies using deadly weapons in today's context is to confuse respect for the law with respect for statism.

So assuming there's reason to worry about SSA facilities and the like, the better course would be to increase local PD capacities? Local FBI capacities?

(They know they've crossed any number of lines, don't they?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To 'not have a problem' with all these government agencies using deadly weapons in today's context is to confuse respect for the law with respect for statism.

So assuming there's reason to worry about SSA facilities and the like, the better course would be to increase local PD capacities? Local FBI capacities?

(They know they've crossed any number of lines, don't they?)

Statism centrally enforced by the local police and the FBI versus statism imposed by redistribution of force among a plethora of beaucratic agencies is a false alternative. The spread of more lethal firepower to enforce, by any government agency, the progressively growing social controls imposed under the discretion of bureaucracy should be a concern to everyone.

Within that false alternative is, as an almost secondary but still fundamental, additional problem of enforcement by bureaucrats acting under administrative law and not accustomed to the rules limiting police powers in accordance with civil rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hollow point rounds are standard issue for most non-military users. They expand/"mushroom", creating a bigger wound channel, and are less likely to exit the body and keep on going through the target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hollow point rounds are standard issue for most non-military users. They expand/"mushroom", creating a bigger wound channel, and are less likely to exit the body and keep on going through the target.

I thought it was the other way around, that the military used them and most domestic forces did not. Good to know, but I'd still like to talk about whether federal agencies like SSA should have their own armed security, as well as what principles determines how much force they ought to be entrusted with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a separate -entirely valid - question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a separate -entirely valid - question.

As long as I can remember the standard for how much force they carry, and hollow versus solid rounds is a force issue, has been set by the idea of giving law enforcement the option to incapacitate as opposed to "just" kill. If this is a realistic alternative, and I think it is, I like the idea of less force, as it allows the courts to have the final say, not law enforcement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To 'not have a problem' with all these government agencies using deadly weapons in today's context is to confuse respect for the law with respect for statism.

So assuming there's reason to worry about SSA facilities and the like, the better course would be to increase local PD capacities? Local FBI capacities?

(They know they've crossed any number of lines, don't they?)

Statism centrally enforced by the local police and the FBI versus statism imposed by redistribution of force among a plethora of beaucratic agencies is a false alternative. The spread of more lethal firepower to enforce, by any government agency, the progressively growing social controls imposed under the discretion of bureaucracy should be a concern to everyone.

I'm obviously concerned about increased statism. But if the policies that result from the ever-increasing intrusions in our lives lead to more violence against government agencies I think I'm for the increased security, as it would deter the sort of reactions to regulation and redistribution that can make this mess worse.

Within that false alternative is, as an almost secondary but still fundamental, additional problem of enforcement by bureaucrats acting under administrative law and not accustomed to the rules limiting police powers in accordance with civil rights.

When I say I'm OK with federal agencies having their own security forces, I'm assuming that they respect civil rights in the same way the better PDs are. If they're not, then I'm against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To 'not have a problem' with all these government agencies using deadly weapons in today's context is to confuse respect for the law with respect for statism.

So assuming there's reason to worry about SSA facilities and the like, the better course would be to increase local PD capacities? Local FBI capacities?

(They know they've crossed any number of lines, don't they?)

Statism centrally enforced by the local police and the FBI versus statism imposed by redistribution of force among a plethora of bureaucratic agencies is a false alternative. The spread of more lethal firepower to enforce, by any government agency, the progressively growing social controls imposed under the discretion of bureaucracy should be a concern to everyone.

I'm obviously concerned about increased statism. But if the policies that result from the ever-increasing intrusions in our lives lead to more violence against government agencies I think I'm for the increased security, as it would deter the sort of reactions to regulation and redistribution that can make this mess worse.

There isn't more violence against government agencies. The violence and its threat (which is use of force to coerce) is from the government against innocent citizens, increasing as the bureaucracies progressively grow in scope and power, imposing social controls having nothing to do with actual crime. The agencies claim the ammunition is needed for "target practice" and because there are requirements to routinely have certain quantities on hand.

Within that false alternative is, as an almost secondary but still fundamental, additional problem of enforcement by bureaucrats acting under administrative law and not accustomed to the rules limiting police powers in accordance with civil rights.

When I say I'm OK with federal agencies having their own security forces, I'm assuming that they respect civil rights in the same way the better PDs are. If they're not, then I'm against it.

Bureaucracies and their expansive mission mentality operating under discretionary administrative law have no respect for civil rights. Think of the tax agencies where they don't tell you exactly what you are accused of or by whom, impose what they call 'estimates' of an assessment against you, and demand that you must prove your innocence to stop them. Hardened criminals caught committing or accused of a crime have more 'rights' than you do. In the Roth Senate hearings on IRS abuse in the 1990s the IRS was publicly exposed not just for its threats and seizure of assets but also actual gun slinging.

This controversy over large government agency orders of ammunition is not limited to Social Security, it includes a variety of agencies including NOAA for viro protection of endangered species. The Department of Homeland Security has been a concern because of the lack of concern for protection of violence at the borders and its chilling announcements of the kinds of innocent Americans -- like returning veterans and Tea Party activists -- it considers to be potential "terrorists".

Whether the orders of ammunition are crossing a new threshold in quantity, scope or type, or the weapons have only been suddenly noticed, it reminds us of the nature of government as operating through physical force and what that means as it progressively turns to more and more statism. Behind every bureaucratic edict is a gun pointed at your head, recently starkly illustrated once again by the Obama health control death panels and new "taxes" employed as the instrument of penalty and enforcement of mandates. Where there is no authority for such enforcement they turn to the use of taxes under administrative law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a separate -entirely valid - question.

As long as I can remember the standard for how much force they carry, and hollow versus solid rounds is a force issue, has been set by the idea of giving law enforcement the option to incapacitate as opposed to "just" kill. If this is a realistic alternative, and I think it is, I like the idea of less force, as it allows the courts to have the final say, not law enforcement.

The non-use of hollow point ammo in warfare comes from the Hague convention: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow-point_bullet#Legality

What the article does not mention is that the ammunition was used in warfare to overload the capacity of hospitals and corpsmen on the field, by creating large number of wounds which took much longer to fix (due to the fragmentation of the bullet upon entrance in the body and the shape of the wound). This was the reason for their use prior to the ban.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The non-use of hollow point ammo in warfare comes from the Hague convention: http://en.wikipedia....bullet#Legality

The issue of hollow points was a PD issue before the Hague Convention. It was part of the argument for moving PD from revolvers to the more potent sidearms they carry now. That's where I picked it up. It is not a non-issue, in the sense that these bullets increase the likelihood of both permanent injury and death.

What the article does not mention is that the ammunition was used in warfare to overload the capacity of hospitals and corpsmen on the field, by creating large number of wounds which took much longer to fix (due to the fragmentation of the bullet upon entrance in the body and the shape of the wound). This was the reason for their use prior to the ban.

That sound a bit Euro-conspiratorial to my ears. I also find it an odd way for a military to try to win a war (as opposed to, say, simply more lethal munitions.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because in large scale conflicts, large hospitals filled to the brims were more expensive than leaving corpses in No Man's Land...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because in large scale conflicts, large hospitals filled to the brims were more expensive than leaving corpses in No Man's Land...

To my ears this makes very little sense. If the other side is cash starved it will cut down on all services, military hospital thoroughness included. And leaving the enemy alive to fight another day, or minimizing the longterm cost and psychological impact of war by not killing his soldiers, also sounds like a dubious goal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0