|
Apathetic Australians?
Recently, a 15 year old boy was shot dead by police in Athens leading to massive riots which have been going on for a week now.
Recently, a 15 year old boy was shot dead by police in Australia leading to a discussion about tazers...and no riots. Does that mean Australians care less about their children than Greeks do? Personally I was shocked to learn that police have no mandate to shoot to disable, only to shoot for the body/torso. I assume this is because they're not given enough training on how to aim their weapons well. Perhaps more training with a lethal weapon might be in order...along with tazers. btw, the boy in Australia did not have a gun, only a couple of knives. |
Quote:
|
Well that's exactly what they are supposed to do here apparently.
I happen to disagree with that philosophy. |
I have heard it's very difficult to shoot someone in the knee or elbow or similar bits. If you're going to shoot...
|
Well the Terminator could do it...
|
Quote:
From a distance, Greek society looks a lot less stable than Australian. Lots of hard core communists, a future that looks less appealing than the past, and nearby countries with limitless cheap labor are quite a cocktail for despair. |
Quote:
|
hey...we have lots of hot bodies here too.
Don't forget we lay claim to 'the sexiest man alive'. ;) |
You're no Sweden but we should give you credit down there.
|
Quote:
No, you're right. There are plenty of hot Aussies---Kagen and Zen come immediately to mind... |
I was talking about Hugh Jackman as voted by the readers of 'People'.
|
Quote:
It would be like saying that since the shooting of Bobby Kennedy in the United States didn't start another WWI, that Franz Ferdinand was more important. Plus, Greek is known for its anarchist riots. I haven't heard any in Australia. |
The Greek riots were an expression of deep political anger; the police shooting was just the spark that ignitied it. Australia lacks that anger, so the spark did not ignite.
The Victorian Police (whose badge consists of an inverted pentacle and the motto "uphold the right", btw) have different gun-handling rules to most Australian states. 10 or 15 years ago two officers were shot and killed in a deliberate trap, and the police got the FBI to assess their procedures, and the Victorian police adopted the shoot-to-kill procedure, i.e. if you need to start shooting, continue shooting until the situation has been resolved. In South Australia they use minimal shots. Recently a chap aimed a (replica) gun at police and one of the four officers present fired one shot (which was fatal). There was a case a few years ago when the specialist snipers did actually shoot the gun out of someone's hand with a single shot. That kid was a perfect case for a taser. |
If it's a situation that justifies firing a shot, multiple body shots are the only way to go. assuming living cops and dead/incapacitated bad guys is the desired outcome.
|
This whole tragedy puts a great case for the use of tasers, but it's not a case of insensitivity or "not caring". Like Zengum says, the death is the spark to the powderkeg.
We've had our fair share of recent riots, and generally they've happened in areas where the general population WASN'T warm, well fed, well housed, well protected and well represented. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Redfern_riots http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Ma...e_Fields_riots The Palm Island and Cronulla riots also spring to mind... |
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Well it wasn't a riot but he had 500 partygoers spill out into the street and cause damage.
the original yt was a minor hit |
He's just a wanker that kid. Needs to good belting if you ask me.
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Nope, I don't 'prefer to submit to murder'.
I just think it's wrong that a 15 year old boy was killed by police. I understand that the police were stymied, but it's very hard for me to understand that they had no other alternative. He was a scawny looking 15 year old. Not much to him at all. |
In the days of old (in a time where there was respect and you didnt have to worry about having a gun waved in your face after you cut someone off in traffic...), I would of been mortified about a 15yr old being shot...but now I automatically think that there must of been circumstances that meant a fatal shot was called for.
That said, the boys in blue should play more bond games....I could so cap some scrawny teenager in the knee cap....8 times outta 10. |
We can only guess what lead to the circumstances that they felt they needed to shoot the kid. Don't be fooled by the age. I have seen plenty of 15 year olds with Ak's and age means nothing when it comes to intent. But say the kid had two big assed knifes. Why couldn't 8 cops with shields surrounded the kid and rushed him right after a pepper spray down. Throw a net on him. So many non-lethal possibilities. Spray him with a high powered fire truck water hose. Or just called in Dr. No and had him transported to a different place and time and not even worry about it. So many possibilities. If none of that works, then shoot his sorry ass.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quite right. Well said UG. If we all just had the same views as you then the world would be such a nice place.
|
Quote:
I don't support the ease with which they're obtainable, and I don't support people carrying them around the streets. It's pretty simple really. We don't live in the wild wild west anymore. I don't see why people need to continue to glorify this ideoligy. |
Because the "wild west" was relatively safe, compared to modern cities. Much of it is probably due to population densities increasing, creating more friction, at least until it's so dense it's impossible for any bad behavior to go unwitnessed.
|
Is that opinion or fact Bruce? (I'm assuming you're giving me a reason for the continued glorification?)
I'd be interested in your sources because there are quite clearly a lot of sources that suggest people can expect a much longer lifespan now than back in 'the good old days'. |
The increase in lifespan has nothing to do with danger, it's improvement in nutrition, sanitation, medicine, etc.
|
So you don't think the fact that dealing with the conflict between indigenous people of the US now being less violent has anything to do with it? Or people being so isolated that they felt the need to shoot first and ask questions later in order to protect their property and family?
Yes of course medicine and better standards of living for many has increased lifespans immeasurably, but I think it's unwise to discount the fact that life is much 'safer' now than it was then. On the other hand, you could argue that in place of the dangers of the past, new dangers have become apparent. I agree with that even, but the point is that the mentality of the wild west is still apparent even in many of the posters here. ETA: This is my perspective as an outsider. Perhaps citizens of the US don't see it that way, but I can guarantee that I'm not in the minority with my thoughts on this as far as non-US citizens go. |
The conflict between indigenous people has been pretty much over since they were separated into different reservations over a hundred years ago.
The conflict between indigenous people and the settlers, although bloody, was really quite rare. Partially because of the extremely low population density and partly because most of the conflict took place between the indigenous people and the US calvary. Of course in the "wild west", and the rest of the country for the most part, everyone assumed (and rightly so) that everyone else was armed. This tempered peoples behavior, especially the criminals. Today, most people are unarmed and the criminals know that... btw, they're armed. Unlike Wolf, most of the time when I leave the house I'm unarmed, because even though I have a concealed carry permit, I'm going somewhere I can't be armed. I'm well aware that you furriners have a skewed perspective of us... we cultivate it. |
It would be almost impossible to make an unbiased availability of guns versus death ratio because of the tremendous amount of factors involved. Number of deaths from guns can be determined by gun culture, gang numbers, poverty, homelessness, graduation rate, parenting, how a neighborhood is perceived by rest of city, etc.
Guns can be safer in some instances and more dangerous in others. |
Quote:
Meanwhile, and in contradiction of Hollywood fiction, large numbers of families trekked across the American frontier without guns. A typical family might have had one gun. Are more people alive in the western US now that more guns are available? Hardly. Violence has played a minor part in causing or suppressing a population explosion. So what does that say about boy genius with sunglasses in Australia? |
Quote:
|
Who is the "boy genius" to whom he is referring?
|
I'm just wondering why tw brought Africa into it. I wouldn't say that it's clear Africa has been a 'safe' place ever by western standards. Up till a couple of hundred years ago (or less) tribes were being captured by whites and sold as slaves still. To this day tribal nations kill each other off indiscriminately as we've seen throughout what history we know of Africa. Not a lot has changed when the continent is taken in a broad view.
As for the boy genius, I've no idea what that's supposed to mean. |
He's talking about the douchbag with the sunglasses who threw the party in his parents' house, the one in the YouTube video. But what that has to do with the rest of what he was talking about, there's no telling.
|
Hmmm...things become curiouser and curiouser...:)
|
Maybe he's suffering from old-timers
|
Quote:
Quote:
I think the "sunglasses dude" is referring to post 16, but no idea what it has to do with the price of beans. |
Quote:
I think it's probably arguing semantics as to who actually did the catching of African people. Ultimately, in western history it's white people who've been the masters. |
In western history, yes. I was just pointing out the white slavers didn't invent it, just took advantage of an established trade. They probably did escalate it, however, through the laws of supply and demand.
Oh wait, natives of both North and South America had slaves, but that could be considered pre-western history I suppose. |
The typical family heading to the west had at least one gun ... or they didn't make it to the promised land - Period. A gun was their defense, their security and in virtually all cases their only way to eat meat.
|
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Leopold's_Ghost |
As I mentioned, regardless of who did the catching, white people did the purchasing and also as previously mentioned, indigenous tribes have been enslaving each other throughout the ages.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Aliantha - difficult for you to comprehend replies to your posts when you have so much difficulty staying on message. Maybe read what you posted before completely misreading replies? You assumed what you wanted to read rather than first read what was posted. Posted was a summary reply to your many otherwise rambling posts – as quoted above. Where is a common theme in your above quoted posts? Too much eggnog again? |
Whats the title of this thread again?
|
tw's rambling posts? :lol2:
|
Quote:
Even after the Civil War, Custard's company only had single shot rifles at Little Big Horn. One would never know that if educated in Wild West gun myths from Hollywood that insist the West was so dangerous. Guns were never as plentiful as popular myths would have us believe because the west was not as dangerous as those myths also promote. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Aliantha - difficult for you to comprehend replies to your posts when you have so much difficulty staying on message. Maybe read what you posted before completely misreading replies? You assumed what you wanted to read rather than first read what was posted. Posted was a summary reply to your many otherwise rambling posts – as quoted above. Where is a common theme in your above quoted posts? Too much eggnog again? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Repeating rifles were not being manufactured long enough, nor in great enough numbers and were EXTREMELY expensive when compared to the single shot competitors. Many in the army also refused to use anything, but their own rifles which they were more comfortable with. There were also contracts that the army had for the single shot rifles, cost, availability, reputation, reliability, availability... You are so wrong on so many levels here - stick to something you know something about. This certainly isn't it. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
By the way what do the name calling age of children and your assumptions about Rush and GWB have to do with anything on topic here? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:14 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.