DHS Target Supplier Includes Pregnant Women & Old Men For Target Practice

Paul Joseph Watson

DHS Target Supplier Includes Pregnant Women & Old Men For Target Practice
DHS Target Supplier Includes Pregnant Women & Old Men For Target Practice

USA –-(Ammoland.com)- A provider of “realistic” shooting targets to the Department of Homeland Security and other federal agencies has created a line of “non-traditional threat” targets that include pregnant women, mothers in playgrounds and elderly American gun owners.

Law Enforcement Targets, Inc. is a 21-year designer and full service provider of training targets for the DHS, the Justice Department and thousands of law enforcement agencies throughout the country.

The company’s website offers a line of “No More Hesitation” targets ”designed to give officers the experience of dealing with deadly force shooting scenarios with subjects that are not the norm during training.” The targets are, “meant to help the transition for officers who are faced with these highly unusual targets for the first time.”

The targets include “pregnant woman threat,” “older man with shotgun,” “older man in home with shotgun,” “older woman with gun,” “young school aged girl,” “young mother on playground,” and “little boy with real gun.”

Why are top training target suppliers for the government supplying the likes of the DHS with “non-traditional threat” targets of children, pregnant women, mothers in playgrounds, and elderly American gun owners unless there is a demand for such items?

Read More: http://www.infowars.com/dhs-supplier-provides-shooting-targets-of-american-gun-owners

  • 29 thoughts on “DHS Target Supplier Includes Pregnant Women & Old Men For Target Practice

    1. I just check the Law Enforcement Targets, Inc. web site for “No More Hesitation” targets and they were nowhere to be found. Can anyone say Cover Up?

    2. Perhaps you all need to use targets of police and the like, so you don’t hesitate when they come to murder you, without due process. Hypothetically speaking or course.

    3. I met a couple of guys at a mcd’s wearing full military gear, armed to the hilt wearing body armor and driving military Humvee with DHS patches. Both were young physically fit and well educated. While polite they were very secretive when I asked them what they were doing. I think the government is trying to scare us into civil obedience. They know we are well armed and unhappy with the way things are going and it wouldn’t take much for a total meltdown of society to get triggered. They know that an Arab spring in the USA has the potential to be much different. With that being said I would hate to go up against these guys. I think we are in a balance of power situation like a cold war but between the people of liberty and the government instead of USA vs USSR. The problem is they can print their own money.

      1. DaveGinOly–So what you are saying is that NO ONE except the police are expected to use their legally carried firearms in response to a terrorist threat or even when cops are 20 minutes late to a burglary and the mom is concerned that ANOTHER flashlight and gun wielding obummer-voter scumbag is looking for her to disarm and rape her. So you say she IS NOT supposed to assume a defense stance against the blinding light which does not allow her to see a badge? Give me a break, Fidel/Adolf/Benito/Josef (take your pick)!

    4. The ugly…


      A couple of things…

      1. A few of the posters here just can’t seem to stick with the issue and resort to, what appears to this reader as the tantrums of an ignorant and psychotic child. Let’s try to stick with the issue at hand.

      2. Pregnant women have tried to kill cops, in South Carolina for example.

      Arizona, next time that you want to threaten people online, a least show that your not a poser by publishing your address.

    5. BTW, Arizona, the last time someone threatened me online, he was local. I told him where to find me, and when to find me there. He didn’t show up. I know, because I was there. I suspect that if you were local, you’d be a no show too. Running your mouth at people you don’t know is extremely unwise.

    6. Arizona – Really? I did nothing but state the facts about why these types of targets are popular with LE and civilian shooters and you’re going to threaten me?

      BTW, I’m not an “asshole in blue,” you moron. Not an LEO here and you couldn’t pay me to be one, because then I’d have to deal with people like you, for whom I have no patience.

      Some day when a 12 year old child pulls a gun on you in the street, you may have a flash of understanding just as he puts a bullet in your head. You’ll wish you had trained more, and more realistically.

    7. I posted the following response to this article at WND.com. Ammoland should be more careful than to cite something like this from Alex Jones’ site. Sometimes he’s right, sometimes he’s wrong, but even when he’s right, he presents his material in a near-hysterical manner and does not do credit to many of us who love our country and our Constitution.
      I can’t believe this. This is part of a conspiracy? This is nothing but good training. Not all people who may point a weapon at you are large, menacing, white people in wife-beaters or black gangbangers in quilted parkas. The idea behind the “no hesitation” targets is to train people to look for the weapon and see it, no matter who may be presenting it. Presuming that a child or pregnant woman does not require the scrutiny of an “obvious” threat can get you (and I mean anyone who carries, these targets can be purchased online by anyone interested in doing serious training) killed.
      This is not training to “kill Americans,” it’s training to kill people who present a threat. Some of these types of targets come with a replaceable “prop.” When the target is presented (they’re often mounted on stands that suddenly rotate to present the target to the shooter), the pregnant lady may have a coffee cup in her hand, the child may have a cell phone, the gangbanger may have a wallet. The office worker may have a gun. This trains the shooter to look for and recognize the threat, rather than assuming that one person presents a threat and another doesn’t based on the person’s “looks” or the shooter’s pre-conceived notions of who may be dangerous.
      Years ago, the US Army transitioned from shooting at bull’s eye targets to shooting at human silhouettes to better prepare soldiers for combat. LE and civilian shooters are making the transition from the classic “FBI silhouette” to photo-realistic human targets. Because ANYONE can present a deadly threat with a firearm, these targets are made to train defensive shooters to 1.) look for and recognize the weapon, and 2.) to abandon stereotypes of “bad guys” and prepare to deal with whoever may present the threat.
      It’s simply good training for anyone who carries a firearm for self-defense.
      I am a civilian, I carry, and I train. I am also aware of the latest in firearms training and philosophy. These targets may seem bizarre or repulsive to some, but they are considered “state of the art” in the firearms training community (both civilian and LE/military).

    8. Mannie, good call.

      Years ago during a stress-filled low light training shoot I hesitated on a young female target with a pistol in her right hand aimed at me. Then I was ready to drop a man holding a small calking gun. Lesson learned? I was looking at the face and profile, not the hands.

      I’m no fan of the increased militarization of many aspects of our government – nor do i offer my experience as that of an expert; far from it – but this seems more like the ugly reality that lawmen might face.

    9. Hey Mannie, Try reading the article. These are targets for them to learn to shoot “unfamiliar” targets. What do you think that means? Maybe you need a tinfoil hat…..just because you’re not paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you either….

    10. Mannie – about these being no-shoot targets – wish it were true, but did you even look at the photo? It shows a young pregnant female POINTING A GUN at the viewer. If you can think of an explanation other than desensitization to potential targets that would normally get some deference, please explain.

    11. Come on, take off the tinfoil hats, guys. I’m about as anti DHS Puke as anyone, but . . .

      Have you ever done tactical Shoot-No Shoot drills? Or heard of them? You’re presented with glimpses of a variety of targets. Some you shoot, others, you don’t shoot. Those are No Shoot targets.

      If those gummint mopes are going to be running around with guns, I WANT them to do those drills.

    12. Reminds me of the scene in the first “Men In Black” movie where James Edwards (Will Smith) shoots the little caucasian girl carrying the physics books walking at night in the ghetto. Unfortunately, DHS isn’t a supersecret super agency charged with keeping track of space aliens. Instead, this reinforces the notion that those people are sick.

    Leave a Comment 29 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *