Neighbour dispute turns into gun battle (USA)

[Carl the Llama]

Anybody seen this?  Neighbourly dispute turns into a shoot-out.  Yet more proof that regular people owning guns is not a good idea.   

[Strokes]

5 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Anybody seen this?  Neighbourly dispute turns into a shoot-out.  Yet more proof that regular people owning guns is not a good idea.   

WTF! 

[urban.spaceman]

1 hour ago, Carl the Llama said:

Anybody seen this?  Neighbourly dispute turns into a shoot-out.  Yet more proof that regular people owning guns is not a good idea.   

In fairness the other guy pulled his gun first. Although shooting him about 10 times was uncalled for. 

 

Cant decide who is more to blame. I guess I'm on the fence...

[Jattdogg]

Serves the twat right for brandishing a gun.

 

Havjmg said that, we dont see the whole truth. Did the shooter brandish a gun first before the dude in the lawn mower?

 

Seems a bit excessive to shoot him that many times but if a guy you are shooting also has a gun, chances  are you want to seal the deal instead of potentially getting shot yourself.

 

Now, shooting over  a fence or grass length or whatever is absolutely stupid to begin with.

[m4DD0gg]

Giving the most idiotic people in the world legally and freely available fire arms is the real crime here.

[Buce]

 

The guy made a disparaging remark about the neighbour's wife.

 

The neighbour took a fence..

[davieG]

Considering we've just had a local event where a couple, without guns killed a neighbour for puncturing there son's football I don't  think it's entirely down to gun ownership more to the selfish me, me, me society we now have.

Although guns probably make it easier and quicker to happen

[Beliall]

Really didn't need to add USA in parentheses there

[Rincewind]

They just happened to have a gun on their person or close by? Are the Americans that paranoid that they carry loaded guns around with them on the off chance some villian pulls a gun on them? The gun supporters say that crimminals do not go through checks to get hold of guns but a normal family guy can turn into a crimminal overnight. Stress work family dispute. Someone who has never had a parking ticket might be influenced by 'east money' suggestion when desparate for cash to pay for medical bills. If you own a gun there is more chance that you will use it. Legal or illegal.

[Vacamion]

 

 

If the two disputing parties are agreeable, and in good health, I don't see why they can't decide to let off their emnity with their fists, under the Marquess of Queensberry rules, in a boxing ring.

 

But that's because I'm physically miles bigger than my neighbours.  

[Buce]

1 minute ago, Vacamion said:

 

 

If the two disputing parties are agreeable, and in good health, I don't see why they can't decide to let off their enmity with their fists, under the Marquess of Queensberry rules, in a boxing ring.

 

But that's because I'm physically miles bigger than my neighbours.  

 

Nah.

 

That would take away all my best moves..

[Sharpe's Fox]

Like a western blimey. That yellow belly weren't quick enough on the draw

[davieG]

1 hour ago, Rincewind said:

They just happened to have a gun on their person or close by? Are the Americans that paranoid that they carry loaded guns around with them on the off chance some villian pulls a gun on them? The gun supporters say that crimminals do not go through checks to get hold of guns but a normal family guy can turn into a crimminal overnight. Stress work family dispute. Someone who has never had a parking ticket might be influenced by 'east money' suggestion when desparate for cash to pay for medical bills. If you own a gun there is more chance that you will use it. Legal or illegal.

We don't know the facts this could have been a long running dispute with previous threats made by either side escalating to them carrying guns in supposed self protection.

[yorkie1999]

I think a slapped glove round the face and pistols at dawn were a much better way of deciding disputes. 

[Thracian]

10 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

Anybody seen this?  Neighbourly dispute turns into a shoot-out.  Yet more proof that regular people owning guns is not a good idea.   

Depends on the dangers you're facing. And if someone's threatening you with a gun.

 

It's the same with knives. Lots are being carried now and everyone should have the right to protect and defend themselves because the daily newspapers increasingly show that the politicians, the police and the law don't see to it.  

 

It used to be that everyone who'd done National Service in Switzerland had responsibility for their service weapon and it was usually stored at home. Yet gun crime was rare.  

 

 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21379912

[DJ Barry Hammond]

3 hours ago, davieG said:

Considering we've just had a local event where a couple, without guns killed a neighbour for puncturing there son's football I don't  think it's entirely down to gun ownership more to the selfish me, me, me society we now have.

Although guns probably make it easier and quicker to happen

 

The issues with guns are the immediacy of the potential result, combined with the mechanical ease of using one as you've highlighted and the relative lack of defence for whoever might be on the receiving end.

 

You give two men swords face to face, with great skill they could fight for hours. Two guns, seconds.

 

 

[Guest MattP]

9 minutes ago, Thracian said:

It used to be that everyone who'd done National Service in Switzerland had responsibility for their service weapon and it was usually stored at home. Yet gun crime was rare.  

 

 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21379912

Exactly. Guns don't kill people - Americans do.

[Buce]

19 minutes ago, MattP said:

Exactly. Guns don't kill people - Americans do.

 

...with guns.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

46 minutes ago, Thracian said:

Depends on the dangers you're facing. And if someone's threatening you with a gun.

 

It's the same with knives. Lots are being carried now and everyone should have the right to protect and defend themselves because the daily newspapers increasingly show that the politicians, the police and the law don't see to it.  

 

It used to be that everyone who'd done National Service in Switzerland had responsibility for their service weapon and it was usually stored at home. Yet gun crime was rare.  

 

 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21379912

 

The idea you've presented doesn't stand too far away from martial law by my estimations and is the wrong road road to go down in my opinion.

 

It would send out the message of a society in chaos and would surely lead to more instances of this nature than less.

 

When considering emotional acts such as these it's important to remember it's the opportunity that presents itself that can lead to the result.

 

The availability of a weapon will heighten the sense of power in a person's mind and reduce the preceived threat against them - and these two factors can increase the likeliness of a forceful response in a tense and fluid situation.

 

If we also consider that a weapon held by a person for defensive purposes would embolden a defender to stand their ground in a growing flashpoint situation and is likely to be concealed (therefore not contributing to increase a preceived threat level to the attacker) we can reasonably reason that holding a defensive weapon could actually puts a person at greater risk than not holding one at all.

 

The absence of a weapon, although providing less means for a defensive attack, would give more power to our alternate automatic response of 'flight' (fight of flight theory) helping a would be victim of an attack to avoid confrontational situations in the first place.

 

 

This is similar to a theory around bicycle helmets I'm aware of - where it is argued the wearing of helmets could in fact lead to more accidents because they reduce the subconscious risk level for a rider, causing them to take elevated risks. 

 

[Bellend Sebastian]

I've heard his wife IS a real bitch

[Rincewind]

2 hours ago, davieG said:

We don't know the facts this could have been a long running dispute with previous threats made by either side escalating to them carrying guns in supposed self protection.

No we don't know the facts. I was trying to show that you do not have to be born a criminal to commit an unlawful act. If there had been a long dispute one or both of them could have quite legally gone to their local gunstore filled in a few forms, pass a security check because of a zero criminal record and walked out with a gun of any type. They could even say it was for self protection and it would be accepted even if their intention was to strike first.

[Guest]

12 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

In fairness the other guy pulled his gun first. Although shooting him about 10 times was uncalled for. 

 

Cant decide who is more to blame. I guess I'm on the fence...

Provides a good range of sight, but leaves you vulnerable to both sniping and spray-and-pray.

[Carl the Llama]

4 hours ago, Thracian said:

Depends on the dangers you're facing. And if someone's threatening you with a gun.

 

It's the same with knives. Lots are being carried now and everyone should have the right to protect and defend themselves because the daily newspapers increasingly show that the politicians, the police and the law don't see to it.  

 

It used to be that everyone who'd done National Service in Switzerland had responsibility for their service weapon and it was usually stored at home. Yet gun crime was rare.  

 

 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21379912

Stabbing a person requires an extra level of determination to harm them than if you whip out a gun.  The range and ease of use of firearms has a dissociative effect between the wielder and their actions whereas using a knife on somebody is a much more personal and involved method of assault.   I find it hard to imagine that if you took guns out of the equation the 2 men in the video would have been up for a knife fight, as testosterone charged as they may have been - a fist fight perhaps but that's far less likely to result in as severe injuries (though again as DavieG correctly pointed out above even then things can go wrong).

To my knowledge Swiss law has never allowed those on National Service or its alumni to casually carry loaded guns in public and looking at their current regulations it's very difficult for private citizens to qualify for a licence to carry a loaded firearm.  I'd recommend reading that article you linked me to because the overriding principle is that guns are purely for keeping in the house as a national protection measure, or as one of the interviewees puts it:

Quote

Prof Killias cannot hide his anger with those in America who use Switzerland to illustrate their argument that more gun ownership would deter or stop violence.

"We don't have a gun culture!" he snaps, waving his hand dismissively.

"I'm always amazed how the National Rifle Association in America points to Switzerland - they make it sound as if it was part of southern Texas!" he says.

"We have guns at home, but they are kept for peaceful purposes. There is no point taking the gun out of your home in Switzerland because it is illegal to carry a gun in the street. To shoot someone who just looks at you in a funny way - this is not Swiss culture!"

Street violence has gone up in recent years in Switzerland but there hasn't been an increase in gun-related incidents.

 

That last line in particular is very telling.  A rise in levels of public violence in a country with a high gun-to-citizen ratio but which doesn't condone public use of guns doesn't result in a matching growth in gun crime.  If that doesn't blow the defence of American gun use apart I don't know what does.

[Stadt]

The way to prevent gun crime is to give more people guns

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Thracian said:

Depends on the dangers you're facing. And if someone's threatening you with a gun.

 

It's the same with knives. Lots are being carried now and everyone should have the right to protect and defend themselves because the daily newspapers increasingly show that the politicians, the police and the law don't see to it.  

 

It used to be that everyone who'd done National Service in Switzerland had responsibility for their service weapon and it was usually stored at home. Yet gun crime was rare.  

 

 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21379912

You read the Daily Mail, don't you?