Some seriously dumb people about

[johnphilip]

24 minutes ago, NoBodyImportant said:

So if a man comes at your family with a knife do you  drop him when he is 5ft away? 2ft away? Got just the tip of the knife in your wife?  Or do you wait until he has a good stab or two to make sure you don’t get prosecuted?  

I would drop him dead were he stood , it's better to be judged by 12 , than be carried by 6 .

[Dibble]

We are allowed to use "reasonable force" seems obvious if you havn't identified the threat you have no way of knowing if the force is reasonable.

[NoBodyImportant]

26 minutes ago, johnphilip said:

I would drop him dead were he stood , it's better to be judged by 12 , than be carried by 6 .

I think any reasonable person would.  I might second guess if I was alone maybe but when my wife and kids are involved I will bring the violence.  

19 minutes ago, Dibble said:

We are allowed to use "reasonable force" seems obvious if you havn't identified the threat you have no way of knowing if the force is reasonable.

I am not saying I would have shot the guy jumping out of the bushes growling but I understand it.  If I was on the jury I know how I would cast my vote.  

[Retsdon]

31 minutes ago, NoBodyImportant said:

None of those are self defense, they where all prosecuted as such.  

No, but they're a byproduct of the culture. And what about the first example? Those two cretins down in Texas were actually quoting unfocused snippets of the law before they killed someone over access to a rubbish skip. The father apparently believed that he had the right to goad someone to fury, and then shoot him dead if he came within 5 feet. "I'm standing my ground' indeed! What was wrong with the option of just walking away?

Anyone who has ever had dealings with the public en masse will assure you that there's a significant minority of people out there who are either not at all bright, or who else are borderline unstable - and quite possibly the States has more than its fair share in the latter department. And all the evidence says that giving such people unrestricted access to a tool that's specifically designed to kill and that needs next to no skill to use is akin to sentencing an awful lot of innocent people to death.

The stats are unequivocal.  Over the last five years in the States, the number of justifiable homicides (excluding those by police) has numbered about 300 per year. Contrast that with, for example, 2018 when there were 47,000 incidents involving a firearm and 12,000  unlawful deaths, and that excludes the 22,000 people who used their gun to commit suicide.

In other words the ratio of lawful killings to unlawful killings and suicides is 1:100. Quite honestly it doesn't suggest that your principle is worth defending...

 

[Gordon R]

So how does your theory work in Switzerland?

[Retsdon]

13 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

So how does your theory work in Switzerland?

Are you talking to me?

[Gordon R]

Yes.

[NoBodyImportant]

Those first two guys are in jail.  They shouldn’t be as the other guy came at them but they are.  The fight was about the   Dead guy dumping furniture into the other guys dumpster.  It was a private dumpster and the argument was  it cost by the pound for trash pick up.  They asked the guy to stop dumping and he refused.  He then attacked the dumpster defenders for blocking access to a private dumpster.  He may of had a bat if I remember correctly but it’s been a while so I’m fuzzy on the details.  

[Retsdon]

OK, I wasn't sure. Switzerland?  https://www.businessinsider.my/switzerland-gun-laws-rates-of-gun-deaths-2018-2/?r=US&IR=T 

They say that it's people that kill, not guns. But that's only partially true. The truth is that people use guns to kill. So there are two sides to it. The people & the guns. Switzerland has lots of guns but the people don't kill. Low homicide rate. In the UK, the people would  kill but they don't have guns. Low homicide rate.  But unless you want anarchy on your hands, until you have the right people you can't have the guns. Brazil, South Africa. USA,  Philipines, etc, etc. If you have people who will kill and you give them guns....

[Retsdon]

7 minutes ago, NoBodyImportant said:

Those first two guys are in jail.  They shouldn’t be as the other guy came at them but they are.  The fight was about the   Dead guy dumping furniture into the other guys dumpster.  It was a private dumpster and the argument was  it cost by the pound for trash pick up.  They asked the guy to stop dumping and he refused.  He then attacked the dumpster defenders for blocking access to a private dumpster.  He may of had a bat if I remember correctly but it’s been a while so I’m fuzzy on the details.  

So you'd kill someone for dumping their trash in your bin? Thanks for letting us know where you're coming from.

Incidentally, according to the South African training that I had in handgun use, http://firearms-training.co.za/ (these guys were my landlords and buddies downstairs when I had my fishing tackle business) EVERYTHING those two bozos did was wrong. One, if you are armed it's always your responsibility to de-escalate a confrontation and if you can't, just walk away. Those two idiots wound that other idiot up like a spring. Two, the purpose of the firearm is to protect you or someone else against death or personal injury. It is NEVER, EVER to be waved around as backup in an argument or as a threat to force someone to comply with your wishes. That's how you get yourself or other people shot. THREE, the only reason you should ever have it in your hand is to shoot someone with it. Draw, aim. fire.  In other words you've made up your mind to use it before it ever appears. With their guns in their hands those two idiots talked themselves into killing that bloke in the alley.  In fact, the whole sordid tragedy was a copybook example of why firearm ownership should be restricted. Some people just plain can't handle the responsibility.

[NoBodyImportant]

From what I understand they had the dumpster for a apartment complex they owned.  They paid by the pound for the trash pickup. They saw a guy who lived across the street (not in their apartments) dumping furniture in their dumpster.  The father confronted him politely.  When the guy threatened the father and dumpster owner the son joined.  The  father and son stood between the man and the dumpster to stop the man from dumping more stuff, (remember they paid by the pound).  The man became aggressive.  The father a son was polite and had a reasonable request, not to dump in their dumpster.  The deceased left and retrieved a bat and approached aggressively then got shot. 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

1 minute ago, NoBodyImportant said:

From what I understand they had the dumpster for a apartment complex they owned.  They paid by the pound for the trash pickup. They saw a guy who lived across the street (not in their apartments) dumping furniture in their dumpster.  The father confronted him politely.  When the guy threatened the father and dumpster owner the son joined.  The  father and son stood between the man and the dumpster to stop the man from dumping more stuff, (remember they paid by the pound).  The man became aggressive.  The father a son was polite and had a reasonable request, not to dump in their dumpster.  The deceased left and retrieved a bat and approached aggressively then got shot. 

No loss there then!

[NoBodyImportant]

Here is the video with the sound on the whole time,  the man clearing says, I’m going to kill you to the father and the son at least twenty times before going for the bat.  The whole time the father and the so was polite and respectful.  The father gave the man many chances to walk away.  Personally I would have stopped it the first time he told my son that I’m going to murder you.  Threatening someone child’s life is a good enough reason for me. https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=uX70K_1537453032

Edited October 5, 2019 by NoBodyImportant

[NoBodyImportant]

1 hour ago, Retsdon said:

So you'd kill someone for dumping their trash in your bin? Thanks for letting us know where you're coming from. I would defend my children and my own life with deadly force.

Incidentally, according to the South African training that I had in handgun use, http://firearms-training.co.za/ (these guys were my landlords and buddies downstairs when I had my fishing tackle business) Oh wow, your neighbor had a firearms business. You must be an expert.  EVERYTHING those two bozos did was wrong.  One, if you are armed it's always your responsibility to de-escalate a confrontation and if you can't, just walk away. Wrong, it’s perfectly legal to bear arms.  Texas is a stand your ground state, they have no duty to retreat. Those two idiots wound that other idiot up like a spring. Wrong, they was polite and respectful  Two, the purpose of the firearm is to protect you or someone else against death or personal injury. He said I’m going to kill you and your son twenty times, then left and retrieved  a weapon (baseball bat) It is NEVER, EVER to be waved around as backup in an argument or as a threat to force someone to comply with your wishes. A gun is a perfect tool to force someone to back the hell up.  He went outside to stop a illegal act. He pulled the handgun after the man threatened to kill him.   The son only came out after hearing some body with a bat saying I’m going to kill you to his father. That's how you get yourself or other people shot. THREE, the only reason you should ever have it in your hand is to shoot someone with it. Draw, aim. fire. Nope, according to the FBI an attacker can cover 21feet in the time it takes to draw a firearm from your holster. It is recommended to have the gun at the low and ready exactly like he had it.  In other words you've made up your mind to use it before it ever appears. With their guns in their hands those two idiots talked themselves into killing that bloke in the alley.  In fact, the whole sordid tragedy was a copybook example of why firearm ownership should be restricted. Some people just plain can't handle the responsibility. Some people don’t understand it’s wrong to threaten to murder a man and his son. 

 

Edited October 5, 2019 by NoBodyImportant

[Retsdon]

1 hour ago, NoBodyImportant said:

 Nope, according to the FBI an attacker can cover 21feet in the time it takes to draw a firearm from your holster.

 It's irrelevant. Are you going to draw your gun whenever anyone who might be a threat to you is within 21 feet? In downtown Cape Town you'd never have the gun out of your hand.😂

 

1 hour ago, NoBodyImportant said:

they have no duty to retreat. ... Wrong, they was polite and respectful  

And yet they're in jail awaiting trial for murder. So obviously the law disagrees with you. You sneered at the training I had from City Guns. But you see, the training I received wasn't based on what the FBI writes in a theoretical book  It was based on practical case by case experiences deconstructed and re-enacted. And it wasn't hobby training. At the time I had my shop, there were at least a couple of shop owners every week in the town getting robbed at gunpoint/knifepoint and frequently shot or stabbed into the bargain.  So it was fully practical training and the purpose of the training wasn't just to help me to defend myself with a pistol, it was to also to help me to stay out of prison in the event that I were ever compelled (or felt compelled) to do so. Because as these idiots found out, if you ever shoot someone you'd better be very, very, sure that you can one hundred percent justify it afterwards. 

1 hour ago, NoBodyImportant said:

A gun is a perfect tool to force someone to back the hell up.

Actually, it's an absolutely terrible tool for that job - as illustrated in the video. If the other party (or parties) don't 'back the hell up'  - what do you do then? Shoot them in cold blood? Welcome to jail. Do you put the gun back in its holster? Why did you take it out in the first place?  Do you walk away? You could have done that from the get-go. If none of those then you'll just stand there waving your gun around until you shoot someone because there's nothing else to do or else you'll get lured off your guard and end up getting shot with your own weapon. As I said, the training I had was based on dozens of deconstructed South African cases where guns had been used in self defence, and how those circumstances had played out. And that exact scenario of using a gun as a threat came up time after time. If you're lucky it might work, but if it doesn't you've nowhere to go - you've just closed all your options.

I'll say it again - those idiots at the dumpster did everything wrong. Just look at the results. A man is dead and they're in jail.

[NoBodyImportant]

2 hours ago, Retsdon said:

 It's irrelevant. Are you going to draw your gun whenever anyone who might be a threat to you is within 21 feet? In downtown Cape Town you'd never have the gun out of your hand.😂

Just the ones with a bat screaming I’m going to murder you. 

And yet they're in jail awaiting trial for murder. So obviously the law disagrees with you. You sneered at the training I had from City Guns.  Nope, I just the fact that it’s was so irrelevant and to needed to add a paragraph to the original statement. But you see, the training I received wasn't based on what the FBI writes in a theoretical book  It was based on practical case by case experiences deconstructed and re-enacted. And it wasn't hobby training. At the time I had my shop, there were at least a couple of shop owners every week in the town getting robbed at gunpoint/knifepoint and frequently shot or stabbed into the bargain.  In 2017 a study conducted by the Commonsense Institute showed that 89% of all robbers fail to complete the armed robbery after receiving one or more shots to the face.  So it was fully practical training and the purpose of the training wasn't just to help me to defend myself with a pistol, it was to also to help me to stay out of prison in the event that I were ever compelled (or felt compelled) to do so. Because as these idiots found out, if you ever shoot someone you'd better be very, very, sure that you can one hundred percent justify it afterwards. 

Actually, it's an absolutely terrible tool for that job - as illustrated in the video. If the other party (or parties) don't 'back the hell up'  - what do you do then? Shoot them in cold blood? Nope, self defense. 

 

[Gordon R]

Quote

Anyone who has ever had dealings with the public en masse will assure you that there's a significant minority of people out there who are either not at all bright, or who else are borderline unstable

Quote

 Switzerland has lots of guns but the people don't kill. Low homicide rate.

Switzerland presumably also has that significant minority, unless you are saying that they are all bright and have no borderline unstable people. One contradicts the other.

This is where rash generalisations are found wanting.

[udderlyoffroad]

On 05/10/2019 at 21:53, Gordon R said:

Switzerland presumably also has that significant minority, unless you are saying that they are all bright and have no borderline unstable people. One contradicts the other.

The proper answer to that question is...they tend not to have guns.  Really.  As you may know, National Service is still a requirement for all fit males from the age of 20 onwards.  But like Israel, it's a standing militia, so you once you complete your basic training and specialization training, you have to go on exercise every year for 3-weeks, as well as bi-annual compulsory shooting practice at the local rifle range.  This means you take all your personal kit home, including your service rifle.  It's quite common to get on a train in Switzerland and see a bunch of 20-something lads, on their way home from exercise, with their Bergens and rifles, 'openly carried'.  I believe there is now a rule that the bolt must be removed in public.

So, essentially, the people who are perceived to be a bit...unsuitable to posses a weapon tended not to make it through basic training and were excused from national service.  They either entered the civil defence service (read marshalling car parks at public events!) or get to pay taxes in lieu of service.

All of this is a long way of saying that the Swiss may be 2nd or 3rd in the world in terms of gun ownership per capita, but the vast majority of gun owners have had military training and as result are unlikely to use a gun to settle an argument.

How do I know this? I have a Swiss mother and live there from the age of 11 till nearly 17.  At the age of 15 and a half, I was asked whether I wanted to join the Jungschützen (young shooters).  Naturally I said yes and I duly turned up at the village café, which is next to the local 300m range.  I was handed a SiG 550, known locally as the Sturmgewehr 90.  Chambered in 5.56 x 45mm NATO.  It had a rivet through the fire-rate selector so you couldn't select full-auto.  I was shown how to clean it, told to take it home and report next Saturday for shooting practice at the range.  (300m, iron sights, lying prone).  All of this sanctioned and paid for by the Swiss taxpayer - including ammunition. 

When I came back to the UK to do my A-levels, I handed it back...

[Gordon R]

Quote

So, essentially, the people who are perceived to be a bit...unsuitable to posses a weapon tended not to make it through basic training

Do they have psychiatric screening during the basic training or is it just someone's perception of "a bit unsuitable"?

Edited October 7, 2019 by Gordon R

[Rewulf]

11 hours ago, udderlyoffroad said:

When I came back to the UK to do my A-levels, I handed it back...

That must have been hard, I would probably have cried 😂

Seriously , can you imagine that in this country ?
This is the difference in attitude to firearms.

[udderlyoffroad]

15 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Do they have psychiatric screening during the basic training or is it just someone's perception of "a bit unsuitable"?

Did you get a psychiatric screening when you applied for your SGC/FAC? Nope, just the FEO, a chat with a cup of tea and the posh biscuits.

I'm suggesting that the 18-weeks basic training allows the instructor to get the measure of the recruit, in perhaps a more thorough manner than the UK's approach, which appears to be a home visit from your local FEO, one or 2 references and a letter from the quack.

Note, this doesn't mean you can't apply for a Waffenschein (Weapon Permit) if you haven't done military service, but traditionally the Venn diagram of those who had a gun and those who hadn't done military service contained a tiny overlap.

I'm not defending the system, I'm just explaining it, as it appears people like to cite Switzerland as an example of an armed population to prove or dis-prove a point.

 

2 hours ago, Rewulf said:

That must have been hard, I would probably have cried 😂

Seriously , can you imagine that in this country ?
This is the difference in attitude to firearms.

Handing 15 year olds rifles?  Well, they do it in the cadets.  They're just not normally stored at home in between range sessions!  And yep, I miss the days of free ammunition...

 

[Rewulf]

8 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

 

 

Handing 15 year olds rifles?  Well, they do it in the cadets.  They're just not normally stored at home in between range sessions!  And yep, I miss the days of free ammunition...

 

Exactly, they dont get to take a semi centrefire home in this country, even if it doesnt have ammunition.

A 15 year cant even possess an airgun legally in the UK , thats my point, its a completely different attitude.

Simple question, when you took the SIG home, could you, if youd wanted to , have got hold of some rounds for it ?
If you could, i bet theres not a cat in hells chance of you remotely considering doing anything stupid with it, was there ?
Would you think that would be a good idea here in the UK ?

[udderlyoffroad]

24 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Simple question, when you took the SIG home, could you, if youd wanted to , have got hold of some rounds for it ?
If you could, i bet theres not a cat in hells chance of you remotely considering doing anything stupid with it, was there ?

Just to be clear, tax-payer provided rounds were "counted out and counted in"...

Yes I could've probably managed to acquire some rounds. 

Home reloading is quite common for the more dedicated shooters so I'm sure amongst my mates we could probably have manufactured some rounds using someone's dad's reloading gear, and nobody is likely to have been any the wiser.  But we knew the consequences would be pretty dire so didn't even contemplate it.

Not sure it would be a good idea here in the UK, but we've probably swung way too far the other way.

Responsibility for 'adult' things in Switzerland appears to be much more tapered than the 18-year-old cliff edge we have here:  Obviously a pocket knife is (or was) nearly universal, you can drive tractors and mopeds at age 14, do the basic Jungschützen shooting course at 15 and buy low-percent alcohol (beer) at 16. 

[Rewulf]

1 minute ago, udderlyoffroad said:

Just to be clear, tax-payer provided rounds were "counted out and counted in"...

Yes I could've probably managed to acquire some rounds. 

Home reloading is quite common for the more dedicated shooters so I'm sure amongst my mates we could probably have manufactured some rounds using someone's dad's reloading gear, and nobody is likely to have been any the wiser.  But we knew the consequences would be pretty dire so didn't even contemplate it.

Not sure it would be a good idea here in the UK, but we've probably swung way too far the other way.

Responsibility for 'adult' things in Switzerland appears to be much more tapered than the 18-year-old cliff edge we have here:  Obviously a pocket knife is (or was) nearly universal, you can drive tractors and mopeds at age 14, do the basic Jungschützen shooting course at 15 and buy low-percent alcohol (beer) at 16. 

Thank you, we are on the same wavelength, its all about attitude , responsibility , and respect for law and society.
Some parts of this are sadly lacking in UK society.