Fatal collision...

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by heelfetish, Dec 11, 2007.

  1. heelfetish

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2006
    Messages:
    7,392
    Likes Received:
    6
  2. LPjammin

    LPjammin New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    907
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    MD
    It is long since time...

    ...to equip, train and allow cops to use weapons to disable vehicles. There is nothing, to me, more sickening that the loss of innocent people due to the scourge we have of people evading at high speed in vehicles. SICKENING.

    Shooters in helo's or cars can disable, easily, a vehicle with the right weapon. It's time to go back to cops working in pairs so one can shoot while the other drives. I would much rather us all worry about a stray round or ricochet than 3,000 pounds of steel controlled by some fuckwad POS that cares neither about themselves nor you and I.

    Looked like a suicide to me, that vid.

    Motherfuckingpieceofshit.
     
  3. Darkesheart

    Darkesheart New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2007
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    OMG, people like that make me glad that I don't drive, and that I walk anywhere I need to go, and if it is too far I take a bus. But even then, we aren't safe are we? It makes a person really think.
     
  4. heelfetish

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2006
    Messages:
    7,392
    Likes Received:
    6
  5. AnonymousOne

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,845
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    This is quite possibly one of the dumbest things I've ever heard ... ever fired a handgun? Ever fired one at 85 mph?

    What do you think happens to those stray rounds? Innocent people get killed.:eek
     
  6. LPjammin

    LPjammin New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    907
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    MD
    You're messing...

    ...with the wrong person, dude.

    First off, by mentioning a handgun you have just declared yourself unknowledgeable or even acquainted with firearms. No one who has even a remote clue about firearms would even begin to suggest that a handgun would be appropriate for disabling a vehicle. FWIW, I fire about 2-3,000 rounds of handgun ammunition a year. Throw a couple 100 rounds of .223, some in 7.62/39 and a handful in 7.62/51 through various rifles. Add a few cases of shotgun shells and you have an idea of how much shooting I do. That doesn't make me any better or worse a person than you. It does make me rather familiar with firearms whereas you are not or don't seem to be based on your post.

    So, as far as stray rounds go, we have a problem; bad people using cars and trucks as lethal weapons, wreaking havoc, taking lives, destroying property, shutting down roads and generally all around being people better of stopped if not dead; menaces to society. They area given.

    We know what they do. What should we do to try and stop and or limit the harm they inflict? It is a reasonable shot from a helicopter for a good marksman/woman (women are typically very good natural shots) to shoot a large caliber rifle, RIFLE round through the hood of a car and disable the engine. It is also a reasonable shot, again, with a rifle, to shoot a moving vehicle from another moving vehicle for a trained marksman and disable it.

    Are there risks? Absolutely. But, a good shooter CAN do the job with ONE round. Not guaranteed. Sometimes, more shots may be needed. Again, the question is what we know criminals are doing v. a viable law enforcement response.

    One of the dumbest things I've ever heard is being afraid to consider effective action against wrong doing.

    By the way, if I am running from you at 85 mph and you and a partner are chasing me down at 85 mph, the effective speed differential between you and shooting my car is 0 mph.

    It can be done. The question you and I and all citizens face is, should it be an option, especially against homicidal maniacs like the POS in this video?

    I say yes. Hell yes. :)
     
  7. AnonymousOne

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,845
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    LP ... I am QUITE knowledgeable about weapons and weapon systems etc.

    *sigh*

    Fine let's go through a laundry list of rounds that can from a car break the hood and actually damage the engine block enough to cause an engine to seize.

    A .223 will not penetrate an engine block. Congrats you now have shrapnel from the round spattering around inside the engine bay, you might get lucky and sever coolant lines ... but probably not.

    A 7.62/39 might break through an aluminum block but not an iron block or sleeved cylinders. The problem is that the VAST majority of US arms aren't chambered for this cartridge. Here's the problem, there's no guarantee that as that round is passing through the car body that it won't go flying out somewhere else.

    A 7.62/51 will probably punch through an aluminum block, Iron I'm a little unsure of. But once again you have ricocheted rounds to consider.

    Now if you really want to get into it I'm sure that everything from a .300 WinMag to a .303 British to a .308 MIGHT be able to do the job. still you try reliably firing a weapon while moving at 80 mph and see how well that works out.

    Now as far as air support we have a different story. Punching down into an engine through the head is a much more effective tactic and as such the 7.62/51 might not be a bad round but if you really want stopping power, you are going to want nothing short of a .50 BMG round (or the .403 CheyTac), most likely fired from a Barret m82a1. (How many police forces can afford one of those?)

    How many shooters do you know that can reliably hit a target moving 80-100mph from several hundred yards away?

    You are ignoring the ever present law of unintended consequences. Let's say there is X chance of a bystander being killed by a chase. Let's then say that The car is stopped by a violent engine breach due to a high-power round capable of penetrating either the engine block or head. You now have Y chance that careening car will kill an innocent bystander.

    You are simply trading one set of statistical probabilities for another and in the mean-time you've given cops the ability to stage a running gun battle on public roads. Do you think that an armed suspect being shot at by police isn't going to shoot back?

    C'mon man, there are too many unknown variables and you want to put MORE power in the hands of police officers who get trigger-happy on all kinds of occasions? No thank you.
     
  8. LPjammin

    LPjammin New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    907
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    MD
    Then...

    ...then you you know it could be done, readily, and with a good deal more safety than some azzhat running from the law at high speed and cops chasing him. Then you know that going down a list of rounds that wouldn't work was just plain silly. Then you know that you or I could hit a man size target at 300 yards, with iron sites. Gee whiz, maybe we wait until he slows for a corner or stops to consider his next move? Or maybe, gooollleee sarge, we move in closer than 1,000 feet.

    Then you know a better shot than you or I, sitting in a chopper, could have taken that guy out when he got off the interstate. Then you know that his spotter could have called out that he was clear for the next couple seconds on that access road. Then you know he could have disabled that guy before he could the other people. And kill them.

    Let's quit wasting time with 'can or can't' seeings how we both know it can, easily, and just move on to some sort of rational reason why you oppose doing it instead of some pedantic argument about 'what if the office goes crazy and starts shooting up school buses', shall we?
     
  9. LPjammin

    LPjammin New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    907
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    MD
    ooops...

    ...I missed you real concern. Sorry. You're more afraid of cops than robbers.
    Why didn't you write this first and save us both th time?
     
  10. AnonymousOne

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,845
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Because I can kill a civilian that pulls a gun on me with no cause. I can't do that to a police officer.

    I fear "justified" force more than I do some yahoo with a gun.

    Yes I am more afraid of cops than robbers. Because cops claim to be working for the public good and then abuse the hell out of our rights.

    You know what... fine. You can live in a city like that where the cops and robbers go at it like it's a 1930's era gangster film.
     
  11. Rose

    Rose Resident Sexy Grandma
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    6,823
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Dixie Land
    With all the technology at our fingertips, how hard would it be to have a 'chip' in all cars, which, if legally necessary, could be activated in such a way as to disable the vehicle.... the damn thing would just come to a dead stop (without any dead people...) Sort of along the same lines as the satellite system that can unlock your car with a simple phone call (is it "Norstar", or something like that? :shrug)

    Of course, there will always be a small margin of error (and misappropriation)... but the technology exists to stop the madness of police chases, without endangering motorists and pedestrians. No guns OR high-speed chases.

    ...I dunno - I barely got through High School, but sometimes the simplicity of solving a problem evades the intellectual (at least that thought makes me feel smarter :lol )
     
  12. heelfetish

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2006
    Messages:
    7,392
    Likes Received:
    6
    That would be OnStar. And yes, this feature is in use in many of today's cars, although some people will cry, saying that it too is a violation of their rights. *sigh*
     
  13. Puss_in_boots

    Puss_in_boots Adminatrix
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Messages:
    6,443
    Likes Received:
    13
    Gender:
    Female
    Yeah, it violates thieves' "rights" to steal cars. :) I really don't see in what way being able to remotely unlock your car or even stop your car is a violation of anyone's rights, but I guess some people will complain about anything.
     
  14. heelfetish

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2006
    Messages:
    7,392
    Likes Received:
    6
    Exactly. :ugh
     
  15. Bluesy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    3,779
    Likes Received:
    14
    Gender:
    Female
    I think this is what you're referring to: http://www.onstar.com/us_english/jsp/new_at_onstar/svs.jsp

    It's already being labeled "OnStar's Big Brother" in some circles :eyes (OnStar will allow drivers to "opt out" of having this feature...for shame!) I would fully support legislation requiring this feature in all new cars.
     
  16. Rose

    Rose Resident Sexy Grandma
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    6,823
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Dixie Land
    Yep- that's it. I realize people's complaint is that they don't want some "eye in the sky" knowing one's comings and goings, without just cause. In a remote sense, sort of like having the ability to 'wire-tap' someone's car.... Would it be used for purposes other than safety? .... Who decides those 'gray areas' of necessity?...

    I speak as the devils' advocate, as I am all for having a computer chip available for emergency use, whether it's to unlock a door or stop the driver after he has robbed a bank & feels like driving 100+ mph through residential neighborhoods.

    Sometimes, you have to overlook the small fear of abuse, for the larger prospect of safety.

    jmho
     
  17. AnonymousOne

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,845
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm not even rising to that bait....


    In fact I'm just going to get into trouble if I respond in this thread. You all have fun deciding what freedoms you want to give up for the sake of 'safety'.

    I'm gonna go chill with Ben Franklin...

     
  18. Bluesy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    3,779
    Likes Received:
    14
    Gender:
    Female
    I KNEW IT!! I was actually sitting here waiting for you to pull out the BF quote and wave it under our liberty-hating noses :p Ha! I could've made some $$ if only I'd thought to get a pool going.

    Here's another one for ya: At 20 years of age the will reigns, at 30 the wit, at 40 the judgment. -Benjamin Franklin

    And another: So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to do. -Benjamin Franklin

    And yet another: A good conscience is a continual Christmas. -Benjamin Franklin

    Since you're such a fan of Franklinisms ;)
     
  19. Rose

    Rose Resident Sexy Grandma
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    6,823
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Dixie Land
    I'm not too savvy with the famous quotes, but on the subject of 'giving up liberties for the sake of safety' - our society is full of instances where we do that - on a daily and even hourly basis!

    Case in Point(Again, I am being the Devils' advocate here :eyes ):
    Traffic lights.... we MUST stop on a red light. Even if there's nothing in sight for 3 miles down the road. We should have the "liberty" to proceed after assessing the situation - but the law (for safety reasons) dictates that we must wait until some silly little light turns green. In essence, the little green light is doing out 'thinking' for us.

    Some countries' citizens ignore this law - treat it as a 'recommendation' :whoa I've been there - it's totally chaotic!! - resulting in more deaths (I think that was the Topic's Original Focus)
     
  20. LPjammin

    LPjammin New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    907
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    MD
    Now isn't this...


    ...interesting? Annonymous and I are in agreement while disagreeing! I am happy to see Franklin quoted in numerous contexts. I wonder if Franklin ever struggled to separate criminal behavior from that of an otherwise solid citizen?

    In other words, to require seatbelts, limit smoking, make me sit alone at red lights at 4am, building codes, kids wearing bicycle helmets, all of those are debates over the safety of the law abiding. There is no presumption of guilt or criminal intent, simply arguing over how much nanny-ing is appropriate.

    As far as most gun laws, Big Brother being able to turn off your car, etc, there is an unconstitutional presumption of guilt, guilt of criminal intent, and that is where my line in the sand resides. It is common sense to say "No thermonuclear devices, battleships, or armored divisions" in private hands. It is absurd and, frankly, totalitarian, to say 'No hand guns/rifles'. Especially when we have a second amendment. You can't yell falsely 'fire' in a crowded theatre, so, limits, reasonable limits, are all well and good.

    I share Annonymous's concerns over absue whether he recognizes it or not. We've recently had the cops bust into the wrong home with an arrest warrant and innocent people got killed. I do not want the cops or some 16 year old with a laptop, wireless connection and malice in his heart being able to shut off my car by accident, ill intent or otherwise.

    That motherfucker in that video is NOT at the wrong address nor in any way, shape or form committing an act that can be misconstrued as otherwise benign. It is far more flexible, reasonable, cheaper and far more in keeping with our principles and mores to put a few more armed men on the street to fight criminals than it is to wire our freedom to yet another micor chip.

    My argument is do NOT restrict my freedoms when you are going after a criminal. THAT is the definition of totalitarianism. We do not need more laws to prevent criminal behavior; by definition, they will BREAK the law.

    We can talk about the public good and the law abiding and debate merits and inconvenience.

    OK, peeps, I sense a good debate coming on. Annonymous, git yer azz back in here, bro!
    Let's all have at it!

    :D