Jump to content
TomC

Don't be a knob :)

Recommended Posts

f*ck me, my heart skipped a beat when he was throwing the pistol away. Wonder if he realised just how close to being dead he really was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would not even dream of such a thing, imo anybody who displays a RIF in public is an idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People this dumb should not have a UKARA Defence. Did it ever cross their minds that carrying a RIF is a terrible idea? Anyways, someone who skirmishes should know the law. Especially if they have been over three times in no less than two months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why we can't have nice things...

 

The lad was a idiot. I mean what absolute moron thinks it's okay to go out in public with a replica weapon amongst people who won't be able to distinguish it from the real thing? The fool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The son of a family friend just recently got locked up for 7 years for armed robbery. He was using an Airsoft gun. Complete bellend. His Dad is huge, I can't imagine what's going to happen to him when he's out. lol.

 

All these idiots are potentially ruining Airsoft for us legitimate players. If they carry on then we're going to end up with either bright coloured guns or none at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People this dumb should not have a UKARA Defence. Did it ever cross their minds that carrying a RIF is a terrible idea? Anyways, someone who skirmishes should know the law. Especially if they have been over three times in no less than two months.

 

video said he was a 16 year old boy, as such he can't have a site membership and therefore can't be added to the UKARA database.

 

nowhere was it mentioned that it was an airsoft gun either, just that it was a toy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Treat your RIF like your genitals, don't get it out in public, don't wave it about where neighbors can see and don't be a dick! The only time you should have it out is when your in the woods with strangers.

....Oh no this metaphor was a bad choice

lold at that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

video said he was a 16 year old boy, as such he can't have a site membership and therefore can't be added to the UKARA database.

 

nowhere was it mentioned that it was an airsoft gun either, just that it was a toy.

True, his parents could have played. Either way. He's really stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awesome reactions from the Driver, awesome training and even more awesome composure not to put a round in him! Mark Duggan didn't even have a gun in his hand an he bought it...One very lucky lad right there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its mighty impressive he didn't get shot. The speed of draw and the amazing read from the officers that he wasn't drawing to shoot is incredibly, if that had been the USA that kid would be dead with about 10 bullets in his chest. I can see why the police would kindly like the RIFs out of the country when there are idiots like this around carrying them down the highstreet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, a fairly old topic but worth a look again don't you think.... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last post was a year and a half ago chaps.

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-X5vUXdwABs

I think that is we're somthin like this or a tazer is an effective piece of kit.

Obviously Tasers are already carried by some officers - that attachment would require all officers to have guns anyway and has been proven to have far more than satisfactory consequences when we're talking about less lethal projectiles. The muzzle energy is, just as with many other 'rubber bullets' still high enough to kill (especially if it's hitting a teenager).

 

In addition, police 'shoot to stop' in these scenarios - a lot of the time that means killing someone. If they have a gun and are an immediate threat then risks like this (i.e. not shooting them) cannot afford to be taken. You will die if you point something that (they believe) looks like a gun at an armed police officer; there aren't two ways about it unfortunately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last post was a year and a half ago chaps.

 

Obviously Tasers are already carried by some officers - that attachment would require all officers to have guns anyway and has been proven to have far more than satisfactory consequences when we're talking about less lethal projectiles. The muzzle energy is, just as with many other 'rubber bullets' still high enough to kill (especially if it's hitting a teenager).

 

In addition, police 'shoot to stop' in these scenarios - a lot of the time that means killing someone. If they have a gun and are an immediate threat then risks like this (i.e. not shooting them) cannot afford to be taken. You will die if you point something that (they believe) looks like a gun at an armed police officer; there aren't two ways about it unfortunately.

Goin to hav to disagree. Fire arms officers are chosen because they don't want to shoot people. Anythin that allows them to increase the level of reaction before using lethal force is surely a good thing.

 

Take for example the poor commuter who was shot it London (I believe) on his was to work because he had a back pack.

 

Tazer carry a lot of risk. Anyone with a heart condition is dead, pacemaker dead, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goin to hav to disagree. Fire arms officers are chosen because they don't want to shoot people. Anythin that allows them to increase the level of reaction before using lethal force is surely a good thing.

 

Take for example the poor commuter who was shot it London (I believe) on his was to work because he had a back pack.

 

Tazer carry a lot of risk. Anyone with a heart condition is dead, pacemaker dead, etc.

So what's your point here? That they don't shoot unless that have to? Absolutely correct - no human in their right mind wants to kill in cold blood. Will they shoot you if you point something that they believe is a loaded gun at them? Absolutely - to not do so puts them and others around them at the highest possible risk. It is their job to keep the peace, and if they believe something to threaten that peace then they have to make a proportionate response (ranging all the way from a slightly stern talking-to up to taking someone's life). In the case of a deadly weapon in public, negotiation is rarely an afforded luxury (and in the case of a barrel pointed at an officer absolutely isn't one). And this is why it's really stupid to carry an RIF about, because the police will rarely take a chance on the fact that you're just carrying a toy gun in fear of the consequence if it turns out to be a real one.

 

Who's this poor commuter - do you mean De Menezes? This kind of seems like the wrong example for a parallel argument - the police shot him because they suspected him of being a bomber. Utilising any less-lethal weapon was not an option because - in their minds - this man was going to blow up a station and kill tens of people. Lethal force is exactly what they thought was applicable at the time and couldn't leave anything to chance. I'm obviously not endorsing that, but you must realise that there is still nothing more effective at stopping someone than a gun right now and that Glock attachment you posted is no exception to the rule that no less-lethal is currently 100% effective.

 

Tazers do carry a lot of risk, but again, what's your point? I'd far rather be Tazered than shot by a high-energy steel baton round at close range. Even if this was safer than Tazer (but less effective), then how on Earth would the officer identify whether the suspect has a pacemaker or heart condition?

 

Also think that with events of the last few weeks this has renewed interest

The issue I take with necroposting isn't that it's not convenient but that - by and large - nothing further is actually contributed to the discussion when it's bumped. Just in this thread, the comment was 'worth another look'. That basically gives anyone carte blanche to dig up an old and read thread because they think it looks cool. It just so happens you posted actual content, but in this case we've already derailed the original subject by talking about less-lethal weapons.

 

I see it as easier to just disallow necroposting because it tends to cause more frustration than good on most forums and would argue if someone wants to reference an old thread then do just that, by linking back to a new thread. Absolutely not my decision to make of course, but opinions are like ar*eholes and I know I'm not completely alone in thinking necro-ing is a bit taboo even at the best of times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's too late for a full I depth discussion however I , like u , am intitled to my own opinion. It is quite clear for the tone of your message that what u wish to do is impose ur view onto other apose to have a logical debate. If u disagree say so then [email protected] off. And leave anyone else who wishes to discuss it in a mature fashion to continue.

 

If u have a problem with necro posts then u only exacerbate the situation further posting on that thread therefore showing that actually u are in favour of it.

 

Am sure you will find unwitty and possibly condescending way of further adding strength to you view but don't bother, if ur aim is to derail every thread or post U don't agree with then u must live a very sad and lonely life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×