Motorcycle Gangs

[jrandom]

Yea three weeks ago we were intimidated out of $150.00 by a guy. There was no knife or gun involved but you just knew he wasn't going to leave without the money

Hmmm.

In the good ol' USA, there's a statistically interesting group. That's the bunch of people with legally issued 'concealed carry' firearms permits.

Not only do they have a vanishingly low rate of violent criminals among them (much lower than the general population), their rate of victimisation to violent crime is hugely lower than average.

There are all sorts of arguments for and against an armed citizenry, but isn't it interesting that legally licensing people to carry weapons for self-defense creates that statistical situation? I'm not going to get started on cause and effect, although I suspect that it's easily demonstrable from a common-sense point of view.

But Katwyn - don't you wish you'd been able to tell that thug to f#$* off, and back it up if necessary?

[Big Dog]

If you illegalise firearms only criminals will have firearms.

Having said that if you are not properly trained in firearms use a gun will do you more harm than good in a real situation.

So you know how to load point and even shoot that gun of yours. In a real adreniline fuelled situation could you guarantee you would only use the minimum appropriate force?
Could you guarantee you would not kill an innocent as well or instead?
Would the hole in the wall/window/floor + lost sales due to closure for the investigation cost less than the $150 dollars they got away with?

The biggest consequence of arming the public is that as a whole the public is stupid. A few would abuse the priviledge and the criminals would have access to better firepower and bulletproof vests.

Sure one stat might have a statistical anomaly but can show me any state in America that has less violent crime than NZ?

[Big Dog]

S%^ if I was a criminal and I thought all citizens were potentially armed I would lay waste to every man woman and child that even flinched to get my hands on enough money to pay for the next hit.

What scares me is how many people are resorting to violent crime to "chase their dragons". Up until a couple of yaers ago the threat of an armed robbery seamed pretty remote and like it would be no big deal in the event something did happen. But the thought of a junkie out of his mind on P but on his way down and suffering from withdrawls, and paranoia brandishing a firearm, that is probably poorly maintained and likely to go off unintentionally, that the offender has never even fired before...
THAT SCARES THE S%^ OUT OF ME!

[KATWYN]

Hmmm.

In the good ol' USA, there's a statistically interesting group. That's the bunch of people with legally issued 'concealed carry' firearms permits.

Not only do they have a vanishingly low rate of violent criminals among them (much lower than the general population), their rate of victimisation to violent crime is hugely lower than average.

There are all sorts of arguments for and against an armed citizenry, but isn't it interesting that legally licensing people to carry weapons for self-defense creates that statistical situation? I'm not going to get started on cause and effect, although I suspect that it's easily demonstrable from a common-sense point of view.

But Katwyn - don't you wish you'd been able to tell that thug to f#$* off, and back it up if necessary?

Yes, definitely. We were pretty p***** about it . Even though as the thug said "it's ONLY $150 " Yea well ONLY $150.00 is still hard earned money. He was definitely drugged out on something- and that was the scariest part...not knowing what we were dealing with

And as far as the weapon thing goes...it can always be turned back onto you
But its kinda tempting to carry spray stuff or something...something small enough to go on your key ring

[Big Dog]

Katwyn you could consider yourself lucky on eof my staff busted someone for a Chuppa chup. Fortunately I had just given him the never lock them in (you are worth more than the stock) lecture the day before. Son instead he refused to serve their friend.

Chuppa chup = 30c
Window broken by shoplifter = $2,800
Lesson in why you don't confront shoplifters when by yourself = priceless

[FROSTY:Me]

You guys are mising the point. Those wannabee bikers or old farts or whatever you wanna call em are riding two wheels.
Ours is a small enough community without isolating different branches of it.
Why cares if someone rides a rice rocket ,a hoggly doggly.wears fluro leathers with scrapers or black leathers with a patch
We all ride bikes

[jrandom]

And as far as the weapon thing goes...it can always be turned back onto you

Myth. Virtually never happens with handguns, funnily enough. In reality, if one person has a ready firearm, the other party's only options are submission or a much greater than 50% chance of death or serious injury.

And naturally the whole 'trained to use it' thing applies. One could argue that 'carry licenses' should only be issued to those who have proven proficiency in, say, IPSC matches or the like. While we're on the subject, if you're interested in the realities of confronting an attacker armed with a contact weapon, Google for 'Tueller drill' (which also has a very big implication for that Waitara affair a while back - I was surprised that the media never brought it up, but then the pinko tree-huggers wouldn't like that kind of information to be made public, would they?)

There's a big difference between the USA's "anyone can buy a gun, let's go pop a cap in the ass of the local homies" and a hypothetical state where you can't even OWN a fightin' gun without a properly-issued "I'm a responsible and competent gun user" license for self-defense. AFAIK there isn't really *anywhere* at the moment with that kind of legal structure, but wouldn't it be nice...

[Motu]

You could always go and live in Iraq - you can own any damn weapon you like...and use it at will,no licence to carry,heaven for a gun freak.

[speedpro]

I had this cunning idea a while ago. At birth every person is issued with a single shot single use firearm. Once they turn 18 they can use it to kill someone without any legal consequences. There would be huge penalties for using someone elses.

Imagine the dilemmas. You "could" kill that guy who is pissing you off and really in your face, "but" what if one of his friends returned the favour. Would you be so lippy to strangers in confrontational situations, and would you be so ready to use your one and only free shot?

I think it would create a better world as most people would be a lot more tolerant being ever mindful of the possible consequences.

[Jackrat]

I had this cunning idea a while ago. At birth every person is issued with a single shot single use firearm. Once they turn 18 they can use it to kill someone without any legal consequences. There would be huge penalties for using someone elses.

Imagine the dilemmas. You "could" kill that guy who is pissing you off and really in your face, "but" what if one of his friends returned the favour. Would you be so lippy to strangers in confrontational situations, and would you be so ready to use your one and only free shot?

I think it would create a better world as most people would be a lot more tolerant being ever mindful of the possible consequences.

Unless your proposed victim knew you were coming an blew your own ass away.And you could guarante I wouldn't play by the rules either,you wouldn't get past the front gate.An fuck the consequences.See you forgot to take into account the red neck factor.

[Motu]

I think the same thing about insurance companies - ban the whole lot of them,let people be responsible for their own fuck ups - oh,you were talking on your phone and bumped into my Pajero,now your SL500 is all dented - WELL FIX IT YOUR FUCKING SELF WANKER!!!

[spudchucka]

While we're on the subject, if you're interested in the realities of confronting an attacker armed with a contact weapon, Google for 'Tueller drill' (which also has a very big implication for that Waitara affair a while back - I was surprised that the media never brought it up, but then the pinko tree-huggers wouldn't like that kind of information to be made public, would they?)

You can be sure this would have been covered in the trial although it was not reported by the media, typical. The reality is that a minimum safe distance from an armed offender, (knife, bat, club, sword) is at least 15 metres. Any less distance can easily be closed in less time than it takes to draw, aim and fire a pistol. This is common knowledge amongst law enforcement agencies and I'm sure it would have been well demonstrated at the trial.

[Lou Girardin]

And of course, three trained cops can't take down one man.
Do you get tired of defending the indefensible?
Lou

[James Deuce]

And of course, three trained cops can't take down one man.
Do you get tired of defending the indefensible?
Lou

To be fair Lou I have seen reports, and I will try to find a copy of one, that state it takes 7 men to subdue 1 person who doesn't want to be subdued. A few of those 7 will be injured in the process too.

[jrandom]

And of course, three trained cops can't take down one man.

He had a lethal weapon and was threatening to kill them, Lou. What were they supposed to do, wrap him in bubblewrap and feed him a hot Milo? Don't let your mini-forum-vendetta with Spud lead you to make silly comments.

I'm glad Spud thinks the Tueller research would have been brought up at the trial. The simple fact is that our LEOs, criticise their traffic enforcement as we might, should be *required* to defend themselves and the public from violence with whatever means necessary.

In any case, speaking to someone who was actually involved or knew those who were (or for that matter reading the Police report, which is on public record) should be a prerequisite before spouting off opinions in situations like this. I've done both of the above, and I honestly can't justify any course of action other than what was taken that night.