Started by Caruthers612, July 01, 2010, 11:34:40 PM
Quote from: Phantastic SanShiSan on May 24, 2013, 11:40:38 AMWas this a big thing? Because I remember mentioning this fact when asked about the case (at the time the initial hubbub was ongoing), and I always said "If all they are doing is showing me 4-5+ year-old pics of this kid, something must be wrong."
Quote from: Yorkshire pud on May 24, 2013, 12:01:57 PMThe traffic might be the same as NY in density..But I have no idea how far the police station was in relation to the incident. We also have dedicated armed police response units (They're called 'TROJAN' I believe in London, I have no idea why).. The officers would have been briefed before going mobile and collect their weapons and ammunition-it's important to remember they're not armed all the time, but on call at a moments notice. From footage the initial four officers (armed) raced up in a car and got out..... Why is it bollox? They have to know where they're going, what the updated situation is (There is a school right next to where it happened, so they need to be aware of possible kids outside it, parents picking up etc)..Sure they have to think and act on their feet and do, when they're there, but any intelligence is an advantage...All the more reason why Joe public isn't the best person to make such critical decisions when shit is hitting the fan. The police don't wish to be universally armed, they consistently vote against it when given the opportunity. I personally know a couple of serving police officers, one with about 30 years service. I've asked the question, "Would you like to carry a firearm?" Both told me not at all. One told me it would make his job a lot harder, because then a criminal would already go armed knowing the cop was too, and a shootout was a good likely outcome. So he'd rather go along and try and defuse a situation.
Quote from: Yorkshire pud on May 24, 2013, 12:06:18 PMYou do talk utter utter utter fucking tosh.
Quote from: Paper*Boy on May 24, 2013, 01:31:34 PM...In other words the police are useless to anyone that needs immediate help....
Quote from: Sardondi on May 24, 2013, 02:33:39 PM It's simply foolish not to own a firearm and be trained in its use.
Quote from: Sardondi on May 24, 2013, 07:35:47 AMIt's all controlled by state/local law, the attitude of the local law enforcement community (particularly the local DA), and local attitudes about citizens and firearms; but in most jurisdictions an average joe is going to get a pass for shooting an escaping killer on the theory of preventing additional serious crime. Jeez Louise, just look at what they've done to us, where we're hesitant about defending ourselves and our community from murderers who would stroll away from their kill with impunity. Unfortunately all this goes pretty much goes out the window in most major cities and the Northeast in general, where "liberal fascism" has taken hold in most governments and much of the populace.
Quote from: UFO Fill on May 24, 2013, 12:21:50 PMThat's certainly a point, but the Mail said it had quotes from former girlfriends. Do you say that they make up quotes? Or that they shade the news to Fleet Street standards?
Quote from: onan on May 25, 2013, 06:31:37 AMA recent recipeint of a NC ccw permit came upon a man and woman fighting. The man was holding a knife. He had a large amount of blood on his clothing. He was yelling and appeared to be holding the knife above his head.The new ccw person drew his weapon and fired hitting the man with the knife in the chest killing him. Upon investigation the deceased man had been stabbed by the woman. He had pulled out the knife and was screaming for help. I believe the shooter did time and was sued for wrongful death.Owning a gun is a significant right. It is also a primary defense against anyone intruding someone's property. In many cases conceal carry is appropriate. But one had better be damned well trained before taking that weapon past one's property boundaries.
Quote from: Sardondi on May 24, 2013, 09:35:36 AMBetcha they were "honor students", Bonfire of the Vanities style.
Quote from: onan on May 19, 2013, 08:05:33 PMOK bone head... lets follow your secenario out. Madman Obama declares all guns illegal and you and your posse start the new US militia and you start fighting... who? What target are you going after? And once you get your battle going and lets say you take out some infrastructure and the result is reducing the US to a third world country... now who steps in to manage the disarray? China? The Russian Federation? The lack of foresight is beyond stupid.
Quote from: slipstream on May 25, 2013, 07:47:25 AM What Yorkshire Pud really means is that the Daily Mail is not politically correct enough.
Quote from: stevesh on May 25, 2013, 08:03:52 AMI agree wholeheatedly, but it's my guess that any trained law enforcement officer would also have shot the man in that scenario, if he wouldn't respond to commands to drop the knife.
Quote from: Jackpine Savage on May 26, 2013, 09:55:40 PMChrist, don't be so childish. It would not play out like that, see my Mexico example. What you get is regional chaos between strongmen and a civilian population caught in the middle with no means to defend themselves. In the scenario you laid out, you'd have low level chaos, the military would secure anything vital, and the government would be forced to back down. There is not a military on earth capable of subduing a civillian armed populace the size and scope that exists in the US.
QuoteThe US military is unable to subdue an enemy a fraction of that size in Afghanistan.
QuoteThe US government ended the Reconstruction because of it. We defeated Iraq, then a few years later we paid off Saddaam's former henchmen and gave them the Iraqi Army because of it, and don't forget a little thing called Vietnam. The only way to root out a low level resisting armed populace is to scorch the earth and salt it, something that has become untenable in this day and age.
QuoteBut whatever, my position is this: an armed civilian population provides an important check against tyranny both within the nation, and without. I think history has proven this, both here and elsewhere
Quote Because I feel gun owners have such a vital national role to play,
Quote I believe military service or some other type of training by a civilian institution, such as the NRA and their programs or just your average gun or shooting clubs should be strongly encouraged for gun owners. Incentives could be used to encourage such training, such as exemptions from waiting periods, or lower taxes on ammo purchases, etc. I want gun owners to be responsible, I just don't think giving the Feds more power is the way to go about it.
Quote from: Yorkshire pud on May 27, 2013, 02:21:39 AMReally? What if the man was in shock? A man would be shot dead because he was not capable of doing what was demanded? Incredible.
Quote from: stevesh on May 25, 2013, 08:03:52 AMI agree wholeheatedly, but it's my guess that any trained law enforcement officer would also have shot the man in that scenario, if he wouldn't respond to commands to drop the knife...
Quote from: UFO Fill on May 27, 2013, 03:51:14 AMPerhaps, Yorkie, you can comment on the 11-people who have been arrested for tweeting (or Facebooking) about the incident and how that relates to your free speech concepts.
Quote from: stevesh on May 27, 2013, 05:12:13 AMI know you're about three-quarters troll, Pud, but notice I didn't say the cop should shoot the guy, just that he probably would, given that situation.
Quote from: Paper*Boy on May 27, 2013, 05:38:52 AM This has been a disturbing trend in law 'enforcement' for the past what, 15 years or so. The cops have taken the idea of shooting anyone pointing a weapon at them or intentionally endangering them to the point that anyone holding something in their hand is often simply shot - can openers, certainly toy guns, tools, knives, anything really. The person is usually later described as 'crazy' or identified as a gang-banger who pulled a weapon out of his drooping pants - not that I really mind the cops shooting some of these punks, but who really knows for sure in these cases, we only hear the side of the person that isn't dead. The other day I read somewhere that cops are being trained now to consider a cell phone to be a weapon.
Quote from: Yorkshire pud on May 27, 2013, 02:17:53 AMAs I said before, I'm not politically correct (your pet pseudo put down)
Quote from: slipstream on May 27, 2013, 08:36:33 AMYeah sure hehe, what a laugh. You have all the correct positions. I haven't come across any of your positions that weren't politically correct.
Quote from: Yorkshire pud on May 27, 2013, 10:15:00 AMYeah, well I know it's going to be a cramp, but you should stop believing what you think.. As I also said before, I don't think you really know what PC means, and therefore you're stymied. You could of course call me liberal, but that won't insult me either. But it is gratifying that you've blessed me with having all the correct positions in your esteemed and worthy opinion..I'm indebted.
Quote from: Yorkshire pud on May 27, 2013, 03:02:00 AMMeanwhile, away from Hollywood and Steven Seagal and in the Realwordâ,,¢; what would happen is a return to a tribal (at best) scenario..Possibly down to district/ street level. What would happen with weeding out your friends/ relatives who were military personnel? Get a posse up with those you trust today to round em up and lynch them? In less than a week you would have a civil war, the difference being, it would be many different factions.You said it yourself; scope...It's a fanciful and ludicrous notion to think everyone will be fighting on the same side against da man. 300 million plus..if only half are armed that's 150 million individuals, who will rapidly seek self preservation, even if it means throwing their friends under the bus. It's silly to compare Afghanistan with the USA. Afghans are tribal. The average Afghan has far less than a lot of western kids feel they have a 'right' to. But what they do have is an innate knowledge of their environment, and using it to their advantage. That is why no foreign power (UK, USSR, and now NATO) has ever defeated them. Defeated Iraq? Really? I thought it was a war on terror and to oust SH. Of course it has involved the death of well over 100 000 innocent civilians and ongoing birth defects, but that's okay, because you don't have to see that, and anyway, they're not Americans. Some of the accounts that are still coming out are dreadful. No wonder their wrath was taken out on some mercenaries..If you go into any neighbourhood and behave like you own the joint, you'll piss off someone eventually, and they might just have a bigger gang at that moment. The link is something the previous US administration should have sleepless nights over, but won't. If this happened in the US, there would be more than a film made about it, of that you can be sure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallujah,_The_Hidden_MassacreThere is absolutely no proof to substantiate that. There's quite a lot to show an armed population have a generally oppressive government and have more civil unrest. (Afghanistan/ Most African countries/ Middle East/ Pakistan/ Some S American countries). Don't cite Switzerland; they have a society that depends on an appointed militia for defence, and anyone with a firearm is registered and certified to have one. Oh, and if they so much as shoot a deer but not cleanly, and it's discovered, they're in deep shit. Why? I can shoot, but I see absolutely no reason whatsoever to own a gun. Certainly I can't see how if I did, it would be a vital role in my country. I'm all for responsibility. However, when you have several thousend deaths from firearms, someone somewhere is not being. Violence breeds violence.
Quote from: Jackpine Savage on May 27, 2013, 12:03:06 PMAnd most firearm deaths are either suicides or gang related. There is no evidence restricting gun ownership would make these deaths go away, it would simply change the tools used in the case of suicide, or in the case of gang violence, weapons have never seemed too hard for the criminal element to get.
Quote from: onan on May 27, 2013, 12:26:24 PMThis is, and it isn't meant as an insult, a simplistic assessment of suicide. Yes, you are correct a large percentage of male suicides are by gun. But it does not follow that another method will be as effective; quite the contrary actually. There is no backing out of a GSW to the brain. Other methods are less deadly.
Quote from: Sardondi on May 31, 2013, 07:11:44 AM... This isn't about a kid taking a toy to school... to think a certain way... to impose Right Thinking...