Apathetic Australians?

[Undertoad]

You forgot the riots touched off by sunglasses dude

[kerosene]

Originally Posted by Brianna

-Kagen and Zen come immediately to mind...

Kagen! Where is he, anyway?

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

You forgot the riots touched off by sunglasses dude

which riots?

[Undertoad]

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

[Aliantha]

He's just a wanker that kid. Needs to good belting if you ask me.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

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.

The idea that anybody can reliably hit a limb with small arms is false. In point of fact, one is rather lucky to land a hit anywhere at all under combat stress and its frantic, hasty conditions. Add to this the marginal killing power of any handgun cartridge (especially the controllable midpower ones, e.g. .455 Webley, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, 9mm PB inter alia), and the only way to "shoot to disable" or shoot to stop, is with center-of-mass hits -- the torso is the one place worth firing at when the other chappie has deadly weaponry, which is why the guns come out in the first place. To stop somebody right now, when stopping him is even more important than keeping him alive, means you have to smack him hard enough in something important. Those policemen shot exactly as they must.

btw, the boy in Australia did not have a gun, only a couple of knives.

Criminal assault with lethal weaponry justifies lethal force in defense of self and other. Add in factors of insanity or drugs as may be eventuated, and this is when guns talk in a civil environment. None of this is happy or nice, but isn't it worse to submit to murder? Isn't it worse to allow others to be wrongfully slain? I think, Ali, you've always preferred to submit to murder. As you know, I don't think that's good, and bitterly oppose those who say I must, or even hint at it. If you did not prefer to submit to being murdered, you'd sound rather more like me.

[Aliantha]

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.

[DucksNuts]

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.

[TheMercenary]

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.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

You forgot the riots touched off by sunglasses dude

That kid was a total douche bag.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

That kid IS a total douche bag.

Fixed it for ya.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Nope, I don't 'prefer to submit to murder'.

Then it's about time your views on private arms reflected that. They do not, at present. Mine, of course, clearly do -- and yours could. That would be fortunate.

[DanaC]

Quite right. Well said UG. If we all just had the same views as you then the world would be such a nice place.

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Then it's about time your views on private arms reflected that. They do not, at present. Mine, of course, clearly do -- and yours could. That would be fortunate.

Once again, I've never advocated against private firearms, in fact I support people's right to have private firearms (mainly to shoot snakes and feral cats and dogs with, but my reasons are still valid). We have these rights in Australia as you are surely aware.

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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.