Not sure what you are confusing it with but 9mm is a low velocity (it doesn't go through the sound barrier, so no "crack" after firing), sub machine gun or pistol round. I used to drive a tank and my weapon was a Sterling SMG. Same calibre. My APWT was over in about ten minutes on a 30 metre range. Note, 30 metres, beyond that there's not much chance of hitting anything accurately. It probably wouldn't exit. It doesn't have that much penetrative power.
It is used by police forces as it tends not to exit, and is used in sub machine guns as they rely more on multiple bullets and close ranges. Tank crews get sub machine guns as if you are jumping out of tank's hatch near angry, enemy infantry so you want a small rapid-firing weapon that is going to fire rapidly and not hamper your exit. For that it's mainly for defence. You are already hors de combat. Though the sterling was replaced by the L22 Carbine which now fires 5.56 so a bit more effective and looks a little weird.
I'd also add I have a mate who was shot twice with an AK47. He survived. Then there was another who had a flesh round through the arm with an AK. He didn't realise he'd been shot and he was the only casualty from the firefight. He was taken back to the hospital, had a fresh bandage put on and discharged.
I never made that point. My point is aside from that and about not condoning and accepting this behaviour today in London, by people indicating our government should accept the risks of terrorism.
The moment you start normalising this, the moment you give credence to people who would want to harm citizens of this country. And nobody should do that as British citizens.
It depends where your friend was shot, but they would be trained to shoot in the chest or maybe head. The bullet that shot mark duggan was travelling at around 1200 feet per second. That is 818mph. The sound barrier is 767mph in dry air.
More than one person died on the bridge I'm sorry to say.
So how are you proposing we eliminate it again?
No one is condoning it.
No they didn't say that but I think if people are saying we should accept the risks, you see where that could take us and it's dangerous and abhorrent to say this today. Many of these fanatics hold these views when you take it to an extreme.
I think it's a very fair point to make and I don't make any bones about making it. Theresa May has just said any democratically voted in government should put down people who hold views the risks should be accepted.
Accepting the risks (while wanting to minimse them) to human life is done every single time a decision is made, whether it's to hold a marathon or start a war.
If I use the word "acknowledge" - does that make more sense to you?
https://www.avforums.com/attachments/channel-4-news-jpg.840903/
No you said accept the risk of these people doing this, which is quite an appalling thing to say.
Are you really saying our government accept the risks to ourselves of possibly being killed in a terror attack by their democratically elected foreign policy decisions. Of course they should never accept that in a million years.
As has already been stated, nobody is condoning what has happened. It goes without saying that any reasonable minded person doesn't condone the murder of innocents. And by the same token anyone who condemns what they believe to be unjust killing abroad would surely apply the same thinking to what happened today - not the opposite.
And of course hateful, murderous views should be put down - nobody is disagreeing with that either. But there's nothing wrong with debating the wider issues that can lead to these situations in the first place and insinuations shouldn't be automatically made about people who want to do so. That only serves to cloud the issue and create argument. It would be more productive to debate the issues at hand and not - to use your own approach - try to read between the lines of what others are saying.