dazzerfong Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 (edited) No, no, no, I don't mean 'aim for the head at first'. The Mozambique Drill is not a guideline, it's a technique. Essentially, two shots to the centre mass, followed by a head shot to confirm a kill: that's the Mozambique Drill. I don't despite the fact that police can have the potential to take a life, that's part of the job, especially if you have a gun with you. One thing: why do you guys think that I am advocating for headshots? Where exactly did I say that? I'm actually AGAINST it unless it's under exceptional circumstances. And no, the terms are not synonymous, thank you very much. Shooting to stop means 'until incapacitated', and shooting to kill you means you guarantee the kill. Though, in a practical sense, sometimes, they are synonymous. Hence the Mozambique Drill, and why I said it doesn't apply to police officers. Because, well, a body is much easier to hit (stupid Austeyr......) Where in my post did I say that police officers aim for the head? Stop putting words in my mouth, it's not helping.Kindly do not call me a liar, kindly stop trying to label me as stupid, I am far from that Where exactly did I call you either? I initially doubted your account slightly because of a slight error in presenting the information, now that it's rectified, there's no doubt in your account with the police officers. Once more, don't put words in my mouth. I acknowledge the fact that you are a lawyer, and reaching just that status is more than enough a symbol of your intellect. How come you, being from Australia, claim to know more about UK police policy than a senior UK police officer? On the contrary: I know that you know more than me. However, clerical errors make one suspicious, and, well, I have never heard of a police officer who said 'shoot to kill' to me. At least in HK and Australia. But since we're all Commonwealth...........well...............:) Again, please don't put words in my mouth. Note: everything I say is a direct translation of Australian procedure and law. An armed society is a polite society. :D I couldn't agree more, but only if EVERYONE (short of those with mental issues and/or failure to handle weapons properly) has one. Problem is, not everyone has one. Last thing: how exactly did the debate end up here? We're talking about guns or no guns, not the police...............so, if we're back on track, I support the decision that citizens should be allowed to own firearms. Edited January 29, 2012 by dazzerfong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 No, no, no, I don't mean 'aim for the head at first'. The Mozambique Drill is not a guideline, it's a technique. Essentially, two shots to the centre mass, followed by a head shot to confirm a kill: that's the Mozambique Drill. I don't despite the fact that police can have the potential to take a life, that's part of the job, especially if you have a gun with you. One thing: why do you guys think that I am advocating for headshots? Where exactly did I say that? I'm actually AGAINST it unless it's under exceptional circumstances. And no, the terms are not synonymous, thank you very much. Shooting to stop means 'until incapacitated', and shooting to kill you means you guarantee the kill. Though, in a practical sense, sometimes, they are synonymous. Hence the Mozambique Drill, and why I said it doesn't apply to police officers. Because, well, a body is much easier to hit (stupid Austeyr......) Where in my post did I say that police officers aim for the head? Stop putting words in my mouth, it's not helping.Kindly do not call me a liar, kindly stop trying to label me as stupid, I am far from that Where exactly did I call you either? I initially doubted your account slightly because of a slight error in presenting the information, now that it's rectified, there's no doubt in your account with the police officers. How come you, being from Australia, claim to know more about UK police policy than a senior UK police officer? On the contrary: I know that you know more than me. However, clerical errors make one suspicious, and, well, I have never heard of a police officer who said 'shoot to kill' to me. At least in HK and Australia. But since we're all Commonwealth............:) Last thing: how exactly did the debate end up here? We're talking about guns or no guns, not police usage........... An armed society is a polite society. :D I couldn't agree more, but only if EVERYONE (short of those with mental issues and/or failure to handle weapons properly) has one. Problem is, not everyone has one. Easily solved. :D Make open carry legal for ANYONE that doesn't have a criminal record, or mental issues. make the permits much easier to get. Nice background check, and yer done. If the mugger SEES the hand cannon on your hip, he is going to be a LOT less likely to want to tangle with you. (some would argue that he would just shoot you, and then take what he wants... but, in reality, it doesn't necessarily work that way. Looking at a life sentence, or the death penalty, for a few bucks? Well, SOME are crazy enough to go there, but, most are not.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazzerfong Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 To be honest, if everyone was wearing a weapon on the body openly (like, dammit, which European country was it again in which everyone has a gun), nobody ain't gonna be touchin' nobody. Though, if it was like that, expect some Desert Eagles to be carried around like lice........hmm......I kinda like that idea. Problem is, we're going to have some conservatives (stupid Green Party <-- Australian Green) who don't want to carry around some 'Deagles coz ma hand cain't hold no weight'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myrmaad Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 As a gun owner, more guns in the open does not make me feel safer, in fact the opposite. I would be then, required to strap up in order to take my kid to grocery store? And the additional responsibility of protecting old folks and the unarmed, makes me and my little girl a target. Get a grip. Beyond stupid idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 As a gun owner, more guns in the open does not make me feel safer, in fact the opposite. I would be then, required to strap up in order to take my kid to grocery store? And the additional responsibility of protecting old folks and the unarmed, makes me and my little girl a target. Get a grip. Beyond stupid idea. Check a couple various towns in Arizona, and Texas, where the Head of Household is REQUIRED to carry a gun. Crime rate there is damn near non-existent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazzerfong Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 @ myrmaad: Well, it doesn't make you feel safer, but it prevents people from doing crazy things. That is, if everyone has a gun. To be honest, I don't see the problem with properly educating children in firearms control and safety. In fact, if you don't, they grow up with false stigmas of firearms. Just a few months ago, the news channel in Australia did a section on firearms in high schools, or more specifically, the sport of target shooting. My old high school had target shooting, and I'm proud to say I was a member, but the reporter apparently thought that the sport 'promoted physical violence and dominance'. Other than occasional 'eff' word because I made a poor shot, I could not think of a calmer sport than target shooting. It's this type of stigma that promotes an irrational attitude towards firearms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beriallord Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 (edited) Much as I would love to have a fully automatic weapon.... (they are indeed great fun.....) I just don't see any real purpose in making them legal. Would make access FAR to easy, and everyone and their cousin would then have one, or more... including criminals. (I know the crims have them already, but, they are still pretty rare.) Cops could easily be outgunned in even minor encounters. Arming the cops with full-auto weapons as a standard carry weapon? I don't see that as a good plan either..... There is no such thing as "carefully placed shots" with an automatic weapon..... after the first round fires, you are now at the mercy of recoil. I think we would see a lot more 'collateral damage' with cops doing the spray 'n pray thing.... just a bad scene all the way around. The criminals, gangs, organized crime already got automatic weapons, and will continue to possess them no matter what measures are taken. And automatic weapons would usually be too expensive for most to buy legally. Who could afford $2500 for a Mac-10? Average Joe probably couldn't. And one could burn up a few hundred dollars worth of ammo very quickly. I know that 33 round mag in a Glock 18 didn't seem like it lasted 4 secs. About $8 worth of ammo in 4 secs. All one would need to defend their home is a good 12 gauge with some 00 buckshot. They could make it where you need a special permit to own a fully automatic weapon, meaning a full 50 state wide criminal background check and mental evaluation exam before you could buy one. Basically if you got a clean record, and aren't mentally ill, they will get you a permit to own one. I would prefer them being sold like any other firearm, but I would be willing to meet in the middle to require permits to own fully automatic weapons, which shall be issued if you meet the requirements. Possibly even require a gun safety course, because fully automatic weapons are completely different, they can jump around on you and the recoil is very hard to manage in the hands of someone inexperienced in shooting them. I'd love to have one of these: That guy has to be a gun dealer, otherwise those would normally get you a 10 year federal weapons charge. That is an absolutely devastating firearm. Those were made for 1 purpose, clearing rooms out. I'm not sure if my shoulder would like it though. Edited January 29, 2012 by Beriallord Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huntsman2310 Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Well here in Australia, the police are actually quite competent. I only believe someone who is properly trained and licensed should use a gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syco21 Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 If the weapon was made pre-86, you can own a full auto. Apparently there's some obscure method to own new ones as well. But I don't know anything about it. Full auto guns should be legal. There should be no hoops to jump through to obtain them. This blood in the street crap that the Bradys like to bandy about is none sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazzerfong Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 @ Syco: What's the purpose of making automatic weapons legal, in your opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts