Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
"Drive to the police station"...... I will admit that the title for the youtube clip is inflammatory, but this man was a victim when he shouldn't have to be.
Mannahnin wrote:A lot of folks online (and in emails in other parts of life) use pretty mangled English. The idea is that it takes extra effort and time to write properly, and they’d rather save the time. If you can still be understood, what’s the harm? While most of the time a sloppy post CAN be understood, the use of proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling is generally seen as respectable and desirable on most forums. It demonstrates an effort made to be understood, and to make your post an easy and pleasant read. By making this effort, you can often elicit more positive responses from the community, and instantly mark yourself as someone worth talking to.
insaniak wrote: Every time someone threatens violence over the internet as a result of someone's hypothetical actions at the gaming table, the earth shakes infinitisemally in its orbit as millions of eyeballs behind millions of monitors all roll simultaneously.
2013/02/08 07:06:37
Subject: Re:So... not having guns makes you safer?
Are front windows weaker than side windows? I had to attempt to break into my truck before, and those windows shrugged off being struck by a piece of rebar like it was nothing. Left a scratch or two, and that was it. Considering the strength in the swings I was doing and with little effect, and the after effects of the guy in that video slapping a window and cracking the hell out of it, I'm not sure what to think.
Edit - Not a slap, but still.
Also, if someone keeps trying to assault you in that matter, why not just run their dumb ass over? Seems a bit more sensible than weaving into traffic.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/08 07:16:10
“Sometimes I can hear my bones straining under the weight of all the lives I'm not living.”
He got away with no injury. If he had a gun you might have had one dead person. If guns were more prevalent then the guy in the other car might have just shot him, so yes, not having guns available made it safer.
And people say the "anti gun" lobby (as if they are all saying all guns should be banned...) bring up silly arguments. This is a good argument for bailing guns in public, not encouraging them.
And, no, the windscreen should be stronger than side windows.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/02/08 07:22:00
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
Steve steveson wrote: He got away with no injury. If he had a gun you might have had one dead person. If guns were more prevalent then the guy in the other car might have just shot him, so yes, not having guns available made it safer.
And people say the "anti gun" lobby (as if they are all saying all guns should be banned...) bring up silly arguments.
And, no, the windscreen should be stronger than side windows.
If the victim had had a gun, then you might have one dead maniac road rager. Not a huge loss, all things considered.
The victim was a former police officer. Anyone who tries a stunt like that with a former police officer in the US is likely to get plugged.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/02/08 07:22:30
Ok... So that's they way this is going... "He deserves to die...." Brilliant argument and way to avoid my point that either of them could have had a gun. Just what we need, people shooting each other over traffic problems. Nice to see you value life so low.
Him being a former police officer has no baring on the situation at all.
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
Steve steveson wrote: Ok... So that's they way this is going... "He deserves to die...." Brilliant argument and way to avoid my point that either of them could have had a gun. Just what we need, people shooting each other over traffic problems. Nice to see you value life so low.
Him being a former police officer has no baring on the situation at all.
I'm not saying the dude deserves to die. I'm saying someone whose life is being threatened deserves to be able to defend him- or herself. It's possible that the simple act of presenting a firearm would have defused the situation without any shots having to be fired.
The guy who was road raging could have had a gun anyway. Criminals by definition don't follow the law.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/08 07:37:25
Hordini wrote: It's possible that the simple act of presenting a firearm would have defused the situation without any shots having to be fired.
The guy was crazy enough to stop in the middle of a highway, reverse into someone's car, and then jump out and punch his way through a windscreen. You seriously think he was in any state to spot that the guy he was attacking had a gun, and pass a rational enough thought that this meant he should stop what he's doing?
If either party had a gun, the end result would likely have been at least one dead person. As it was, the end result was one broken windscreen and some panel damage.
Yes, certainly it's a crap situation to find yourself in... but a gun wouldn't have improved it any.
Hordini wrote: It's possible that the simple act of presenting a firearm would have defused the situation without any shots having to be fired.
The guy was crazy enough to stop in the middle of a highway, reverse into someone's car, and then jump out and punch his way through a windscreen. You seriously think he was in any state to spot that the guy he was attacking had a gun, and pass a rational enough thought that this meant he should stop what he's doing?
If either party had a gun, the end result would likely have been at least one dead person. As it was, the end result was one broken windscreen and some panel damage.
Yes, certainly it's a crap situation to find yourself in... but a gun wouldn't have improved it any.
I agree with you that two people walking away from the situation alive is better than one walking away and one being dead. However, for as insane as the perpetrator was in this case, I would say that the victim was lucky to get away. If the victim had had to defend himself with a weapon, I don't think it would have been going too far. If the road rager was too berserk to realize the victim was pointing a weapon at him, that is nobody's fault but his own. I realize we're getting into the realm of speculation here, but what if the victim had theoretically had his wife or children in the vehicle? Continuously ramming the vehicle and driving it off the road could have seriously injured the driver or a passenger. The fact that that didn't happen in this case, considering how out of control the attacker was, is pretty much just pure luck.
Yes, certainly it's a crap situation to find yourself in... but a gun wouldn't have improved it any.
So it's preferable to be a victim then? If you'll notice he was never told "the police are on their way" He was told "drive to the police station". There was no help coming. Only pure luck, and driving skills saved him from great bodily harm. Also, according to the video the perpetrator is still at large, free to victimize others in the same manner.
EDIT: The perpetrator was actually endangering countless others with his behaviour as well; They weren't alone on those roads.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/08 08:02:58
Mannahnin wrote:A lot of folks online (and in emails in other parts of life) use pretty mangled English. The idea is that it takes extra effort and time to write properly, and they’d rather save the time. If you can still be understood, what’s the harm? While most of the time a sloppy post CAN be understood, the use of proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling is generally seen as respectable and desirable on most forums. It demonstrates an effort made to be understood, and to make your post an easy and pleasant read. By making this effort, you can often elicit more positive responses from the community, and instantly mark yourself as someone worth talking to.
insaniak wrote: Every time someone threatens violence over the internet as a result of someone's hypothetical actions at the gaming table, the earth shakes infinitisemally in its orbit as millions of eyeballs behind millions of monitors all roll simultaneously.
2013/02/08 08:06:23
Subject: Re:So... not having guns makes you safer?
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
So, why is it there were no police officers anywhere around that could respond to this incident?
They would have had ample time to get there.
Thats screwed up if you have to go to the police.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/08 08:06:51
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Grey Templar wrote: So, why is it there were no police officers anywhere around that could respond to this incident?
They would have had ample time to get there.
Thats screwed up if you have to go to the police.
I don't know for sure, but I believe Australia has very few police officers per square mile.
Mannahnin wrote:A lot of folks online (and in emails in other parts of life) use pretty mangled English. The idea is that it takes extra effort and time to write properly, and they’d rather save the time. If you can still be understood, what’s the harm? While most of the time a sloppy post CAN be understood, the use of proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling is generally seen as respectable and desirable on most forums. It demonstrates an effort made to be understood, and to make your post an easy and pleasant read. By making this effort, you can often elicit more positive responses from the community, and instantly mark yourself as someone worth talking to.
insaniak wrote: Every time someone threatens violence over the internet as a result of someone's hypothetical actions at the gaming table, the earth shakes infinitisemally in its orbit as millions of eyeballs behind millions of monitors all roll simultaneously.
Steve steveson wrote: Ok... So that's they way this is going... "He deserves to die...." Brilliant argument and way to avoid my point that either of them could have had a gun. Just what we need, people shooting each other over traffic problems. Nice to see you value life so low.
Him being a former police officer has no baring on the situation at all.
I'm not saying the dude deserves to die. I'm saying someone whose life is being threatened deserves to be able to defend him- or herself. It's possible that the simple act of presenting a firearm would have defused the situation without any shots having to be fired.
The guy who was road raging could have had a gun anyway. Criminals by definition don't follow the law.
Or made it worse as the guy went back to the car and got his gun out and started shooting and made it allot worse...
I'm sorry, but your reducing it to good guy/bad guy which just silly. The guy looses it on the road for some reason, that is not the same as someone who carrys an illigal gun. We have all broken the law at some point in some minor way at some point. Tha argument "Criminals by definition don't follow the law." is overly symplistic to the point of absurdity.
The idea that the world is black and white seems to be somthign that comes up allot in gun debates. Pro/Anti. Good Guy/Bad Guy. Deadly consiquences/no consiquences. That is just not how the world works.
Honestly, if gun laws in Australia were like those in the US, I could easily see the guy in the black truck being the one with a gun. And I could easily see how that would turn out.
Hordini wrote:I'm not saying the dude deserves to die. I'm saying someone whose life is being threatened deserves to be able to defend him- or herself.
You mention people being able to defend themselves if they had a weapon like a gun. He didn't need a gun to defend himself, he was driving a car. A thing made of metal that weighs in excess of 1000kg. How much more of a weapon do you need? Just run the blighter over and be done with him if your intent is to defend yourself. He had a camera watching everything that happened, so proof of self defence wouldn't have been an issue.
Hordini wrote:It's possible that the simple act of presenting a firearm would have defused the situation without any shots having to be fired.
So escalation of force is the way to safety is it?
Hordini wrote:The guy who was road raging could have had a gun anyway. Criminals by definition don't follow the law.
True crims don't really tend to follow the law. But if the guy in the black ute had of went back to his car to get a gun then the victim could have just drove away. Good luck trying to shoot me when i'm 200 meters down the road speeding at 120klicks.
Necroshea wrote: Are front windows weaker than side windows? I had to attempt to break into my truck before, and those windows shrugged off being struck by a piece of rebar like it was nothing. Left a scratch or two, and that was it. Considering the strength in the swings I was doing and with little effect, and the after effects of the guy in that video slapping a window and cracking the hell out of it, I'm not sure what to think.
Edit - Not a slap, but still.
Also, if someone keeps trying to assault you in that matter, why not just run their dumb ass over? Seems a bit more sensible than weaving into traffic.
In the US, our windshields have a layer of fairly sticky film designed to prevent shattering that is not required in other parts of the world (i know germany is such a place, not sure about Oz though)
Hordini wrote: It's possible that the simple act of presenting a firearm would have defused the situation without any shots having to be fired.
The guy was crazy enough to stop in the middle of a highway, reverse into someone's car, and then jump out and punch his way through a windscreen. You seriously think he was in any state to spot that the guy he was attacking had a gun, and pass a rational enough thought that this meant he should stop what he's doing?
If either party had a gun, the end result would likely have been at least one dead person. As it was, the end result was one broken windscreen and some panel damage.
Yes, certainly it's a crap situation to find yourself in... but a gun wouldn't have improved it any.
I agree with you that two people walking away from the situation alive is better than one walking away and one being dead. However, for as insane as the perpetrator was in this case, I would say that the victim was lucky to get away. If the victim had had to defend himself with a weapon, I don't think it would have been going too far. If the road rager was too berserk to realize the victim was pointing a weapon at him, that is nobody's fault but his own. I realize we're getting into the realm of speculation here, but what if the victim had theoretically had his wife or children in the vehicle? Continuously ramming the vehicle and driving it off the road could have seriously injured the driver or a passenger. The fact that that didn't happen in this case, considering how out of control the attacker was, is pretty much just pure luck.
I think you are assuming he's a criminal and not a guy who had a Really bad day. Yes criminals can get guns but not everyone is a criminal. There are people who just got news that their house burnt down, the wife wants a divorce, and you are one your way home after loosing your job due to no fault of your own. That's enough even for the strongest sun shinny person to go balistic!
And then who's to say the victim misses and hits a buss full of kindergartners!? Hell, in Chicago do you know how many are killed by a bullet going through a house to kill a little kids that are playing inside? And that was because someone was playing with their dads legal gun.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/08 15:05:13
So yes. I think we can say for sure that having no guns in this case have certainly saved a life! While having a gun may make you feel safer, the chances of someone like the fella with road rage having a gun is just as likely, if not even more probable, thus rendering that feeling of safety useless when you come face to face with someone who might not think twice about shooting you on the spot.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. If that citizen had been carrying a firearm and shot the perpetrator for the actions taken place, it was well deserved.
Some people choose not to defend themselves, and to be a victim instead of asserting their right to self defense. That's just the way society is. Would I rather not pull a firearm on someone? Of course, regardless of who it is, you're taking someone's life, however I'm more than willing to do it to survive any bodily harm someone might try to cause to me. In all honesty, not my problem if they die as a result of it. Violence is my current profession however, so its a little different for your average person.
Yes, guns make people safer... from criminals. That man may not have been a criminal the day before this, but the second he did all that he did, he became one. Had this been my state of Arizona, he *might* have thought twice about attempting assault if he knew there was a good chance the driver was armed. Makes you think twice about being stupid.
"You are judged in life, not by the evil you destroy, but by the light you bring to the darkness" - Reclusiarch Grimaldus of the Black Templars
Commander Cain wrote: So yes. I think we can say for sure that having no guns in this case have certainly saved a life! While having a gun may make you feel safer, the chances of someone like the fella with road rage having a gun is just as likely, if not even more probable, thus rendering that feeling of safety useless when you come face to face with someone who might not think twice about shooting you on the spot.
Commander Cain wrote: So yes. I think we can say for sure that having no guns in this case have certainly saved a life! While having a gun may make you feel safer, the chances of someone like the fella with road rage having a gun is just as likely, if not even more probable, thus rendering that feeling of safety useless when you come face to face with someone who might not think twice about shooting you on the spot.
So... being unarmed is better... gotcha.
It's better to be the victim?
Some people think that someone getting shot after he's showing murderous intent, makes them the victim. I tend to just roll my eyes at them.
Commander Cain wrote: So yes. I think we can say for sure that having no guns in this case have certainly saved a life! While having a gun may make you feel safer, the chances of someone like the fella with road rage having a gun is just as likely, if not even more probable, thus rendering that feeling of safety useless when you come face to face with someone who might not think twice about shooting you on the spot.
So... being unarmed is better... gotcha.
It's better to be the victim?
Some people think that someone getting shot after he's showing murderous intent, makes them the victim. I tend to just roll my eyes at them.
I know... it's really bugging me of late... it's part of the whole modern liberal ideology... in that the idea that injustice drives these acts of rage/violence/terrorism to the point that we're COMPELLED to understand why these aggressors go postal.
feth 'em... they're threatening me.
I'll tell you what, if any of my loved ones were in the car and someone did that to me. I'll be doing my damnedest to ensure they'll have an acute lead poisoning.
Yes, certainly it's a crap situation to find yourself in... but a gun wouldn't have improved it any.
So it's preferable to be a victim then? If you'll notice he was never told "the police are on their way" He was told "drive to the police station". There was no help coming. Only pure luck, and driving skills saved him from great bodily harm. Also, according to the video the perpetrator is still at large, free to victimize others in the same manner.
Wat. Seriously, you're saying you'd rather one of them was put through immense pain and suffering, possible death and the very likely possibility that similar damage could occur?
In this situation, nobody really needs to attack. People with that sort of idiotic rage often cause accidents.
BlapBlapBlap: bringing idiocy and mischief where it should never set foot since 2011.
BlapBlapBlap wrote:What sort of idiot quotes themselves in their sigs? Who could possibly be that arrogant?
Yes, certainly it's a crap situation to find yourself in... but a gun wouldn't have improved it any.
So it's preferable to be a victim then? If you'll notice he was never told "the police are on their way" He was told "drive to the police station". There was no help coming. Only pure luck, and driving skills saved him from great bodily harm. Also, according to the video the perpetrator is still at large, free to victimize others in the same manner.
Wat. Seriously, you're saying you'd rather one of them was put through immense pain and suffering, possible death and the very likely possibility that similar damage could occur?
In this situation, nobody really needs to attack. People with that sort of idiotic rage often cause accidents.
Dude, did you watch the video? The guy was attacking and his idiotic rage was causing an accident (on purpose)!
Automatically Appended Next Post: I also don't like the implication of some posters in this thread that gun owners are more likely to snap and be violent. That's painting a large group of people with a grossly broad brush.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/02/08 16:56:31
Steve steveson wrote: He got away with no injury. If he had a gun you might have had one dead person. If guns were more prevalent then the guy in the other car might have just shot him, so yes, not having guns available made it safer.
And people say the "anti gun" lobby (as if they are all saying all guns should be banned...) bring up silly arguments.
And, no, the windscreen should be stronger than side windows.
If the victim had had a gun, then you might have one dead maniac road rager. Not a huge loss, all things considered.
The victim was a former police officer. Anyone who tries a stunt like that with a former police officer in the US is likely to get plugged.
Here's the problem with this argument: it assumes that only the victim will have a firearm, when the likelihood of the victim having a firearm is equally as likely as it is for the attacker to have a firearm. Given the video, it's reasonable to assume that the attacker would have drawn and fired several shots before the victim even understood what was going on.
So yes, not having guns in this situation made the victim safer. Any belief to the contrary is just an action hero fantasy.
Yes, certainly it's a crap situation to find yourself in... but a gun wouldn't have improved it any.
So it's preferable to be a victim then? If you'll notice he was never told "the police are on their way" He was told "drive to the police station". There was no help coming. Only pure luck, and driving skills saved him from great bodily harm. Also, according to the video the perpetrator is still at large, free to victimize others in the same manner.
Wat. Seriously, you're saying you'd rather one of them was put through immense pain and suffering, possible death and the very likely possibility that similar damage could occur?
In this situation, nobody really needs to attack. People with that sort of idiotic rage often cause accidents.
New Shangri-La Peace Force
Combined Army Shasvastii painting Blog
