Discuss about any latest news or current affairs in Singapore or globally. Please DO NOT copy and paste news articles from other sources without written permission.
I wanted to hunt for that earlier today when I was still at the office but got derailed by the field staff who quit one hour before we do.
SOME PEOPLE TRY TO TURN BACK THEIR ODOMETERS. NOT ME. I WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW WHY I LOOK THIS WAY. I'VE TRAVELED A LONG WAY, AND SOME OF THE ROADS WEREN'T PAVED. ~ Will Rogers
I wanted to hunt for that earlier today when I was still at the office but got derailed by the field staff who quit one hour before we do.
And in Woodlands, the only reason why I suspect nobody used their weapon is, from what I know a bit, and as I said before, the cop's career may be pretty much over, with the follow up inquiries and all
As much as Singapore enforces the law strictly, they are also extremely strict on the enforcers themselves.
so they could have had a nuke in the trunk (or limpy's brothers-in-arms), and the cops just watched them departing. but this is good, 'cause there was no casualty. three thumbs up!
calugaruvaxile wrote:so they could have had a nuke in the trunk...
Reminds me that a friend and I used to regularly stop in at Penny Black for a wee pint or two. We'd drive his car, park in the UOB underground car park. Each time we pulled in, they would make us open the boot. Inside were our two identical, fairly large size, black leather, carry on briefcases. They'd look at them and close the trunk. When I'd ask, "Hey, how do you know there isn't 40 lbs of C4 in each one of those?" they'd laugh and wave us through.
I wanted to hunt for that earlier today when I was still at the office but got derailed by the field staff who quit one hour before we do.
And in Woodlands, the only reason why I suspect nobody used their weapon is, from what I know a bit, and as I said before, the cop's career may be pretty much over, with the follow up inquiries and all
As much as Singapore enforces the law strictly, they are also extremely strict on the enforcers themselves.
Weight all pros and cons for each of the cases in terms of reputation and related damages and all will be clear. For the Shanglira case there was no margin for any error and if the threat was real the consequences could be catastrophic to the image of Singapore. Also for that reason less people would question anything.
For the Woodlands and any other discussed case there was no immediate danger in any potentially high likelihood to the society (and the reputation). In cases like this the police would always be questioned why they killed instead of incapacitating some different way. This is because they should be able to solve it without shooting/killing - there is a margin for errors so they may try various ways and if one fails, this will unlikely cause any disaster.
calugaruvaxile wrote:so they could have had a nuke in the trunk...
Reminds me that a friend and I used to regularly stop in at Penny Black for a wee pint or two. We'd drive his car, park in the UOB underground car park. Each time we pulled in, they would make us open the boot. Inside were our two identical, fairly large size, black leather, carry on briefcases. They'd look at them and close the trunk. When I'd ask, "Hey, how do you know there isn't 40 lbs of C4 in each one of those?" they'd laugh and wave us through.
Action to discourage and show there are some measures in place.
calugaruvaxile wrote:so they could have had a nuke in the trunk...
Reminds me that a friend and I used to regularly stop in at Penny Black for a wee pint or two. We'd drive his car, park in the UOB underground car park. Each time we pulled in, they would make us open the boot. Inside were our two identical, fairly large size, black leather, carry on briefcases. They'd look at them and close the trunk. When I'd ask, "Hey, how do you know there isn't 40 lbs of C4 in each one of those?" they'd laugh and wave us through.
Action to discourage and show there are some measures in place.
You're shitting me??? Yes??? If I wanted to blow up UOB, three trips with empty bags in the boot would tell me I could load them up the next time... and a bunch more.
This is nothing but eyewash... and even less effective than the TSA minions we have to put up with at airports. What's the point? There is no point.
You're shitting me??? Yes??? If I wanted to blow up UOB, three trips with empty bags in the boot would tell me I could load them up the next time... and a bunch more.
.
ecureilx wrote:UOB security is private security ...
Just saying...
It's not "security". It's eyewash. It's pretend security. Anyone who wanted to do any real damage wouldn't be in the least bit thwarted by the stupidity of opening everyone's boot as they come into the car park. Therefore, it is pointless and lulls people into a false sense of security... just like these dumbass TSA screenings... their own tests missed 95 percent of the contraband.
I noticed some new barriers coming back via Tuas on the weekend. They don't look to be fully operational yet but are the pop up type right by the last security post. I guess the last line of defence if the other measures have been breached and the 'perp' hasn't been shot.
calugaruvaxile wrote:[ and if the target is two carlengths away, you can hit the driver 5/5 with pretty much anything
Have you ever tried it in real life? I have and at a lot closer than two car lengths away and I "almost" missed the intended target and the target was only 4 feet in front of me.
To SMS' point, here's what thriller writer David Morrell (the creator of Rambo) had to say about the subject. It's lengthy - he is a writer after all - but considering the man does a lot of research and takes specific military training courses for his novels and that he is pretty highly respected by active military personnel for his accuracy, it's well worth a read:
"There are good reasons and bad reasons to carry a weapon in the United States. The pros and cons aren’t the subject of these remarks. What I want to talk about is training. When people tell me that they received a concealed-carry license after a day or two of instruction, I’m appalled. Anybody can easily learn how to fire a weapon. It’s not difficult. But there are so many other factors.
A proper concealed-carry course should spend at least a day on the legal use of deadly force. Did the opponent have the means, motive, and opportunity to threaten your life? Did you have absolutely no other option except to shoot? Do you know about grand juries and the sorts of serious questions they ask when someone shoots someone else? Ideally, a proper course would even put you in a grand-jury scenario, requiring you to get an idea of what it’s like to justify your serious actions in a way that convinces people who don’t have experience with guns.
Further, a proper concealed-carry course would provide a minimum of two days in which the class acted out scenarios that may or may not have required the use of deadly force. A man bangs on your door. He’s extremely distraught. He says his car broke down outside and his wife’s in the back seat—she’s pregnant, she needs an ambulance, she needs to get to the hospital! He pushes his way in, saying he needs to use your phone. You tell him to wait outside while you make the call. He shoves you away, demanding to know where the phone is. “Wait outside!” you order him. He knocks you to the floor and lunges past you toward the kitchen, yelling “The phone!” He might be a nutcase. Or he might be telling the truth. If you shoot him, you might be spending the next ten years in jail. Not to mention you might be financially ruined if it turns out the guy was telling the truth and the woman gives birth in the car, but the baby dies, and the woman almost dies also. You’ll be living in a tent by the time the lawsuits are over. But maybe the guy is indeed crazy and dangerous, and you saved the lives of your family and yourself. You need to make a decision in an instant. Good luck. Two days of rehearsal in this kind of scenario are probably not enough.
And then there are the physiological reactions to being in a gunfight. Most gunfights occur within ten feet of the shooters, and in many case, although a lot of shots are fired, the bullets go everywhere, except at the target. A gunfight is chaos and noise and adrenaline. Hearing shuts down. Tunnel vision sets in. Some objects get amazingly large. To replicate that chaos, which is not at all like the movies, this is one valuable scenario I experienced.
I was put through a shooting maze (sometimes called a “shooting house”). Inside a structure, there were various rooms with pop-up targets. Some showed bad guys with guns and grenades. Others showed a businessman with a briefcase or a woman with a baby carriage. One showed a woman being used as a shield by a guy with a gun. But I didn’t know what any of these targets looked like before I entered and confronted them.
My instructor spun me violently five times to the right. Then he spun me with equal violence five times to the left. As dizziness set in, he cursed at me, using the foulest language imaginable. Meanwhile he also pounded my chest and back. He literally threw me into the shooting maze so that I almost fell on the floor.
Mind spinning, heart pounding, lungs heaving, adrenaline flooding, I had 30 seconds to get through the maze and shoot the bad guys but not harm the good ones. I managed to do it, but it wasn’t easy. I personally saw a student empty a 15-round magazine into a target that showed a woman with a baby carriage. The instructor yelled, “She’s got a gun! She’s going to kill you!” The student kept firing. “She isn’t dead!” the instructor yelled. “Shoot her again!”
Having emptied his magazine, the student did a rapid reload and emptied another 15-round magazine into the target of the woman with the baby carriage. He was absolutely certain that he’d shot a bad guy, because the instructor had shouted repeatedly that the target showed a bad guy (the instructor was lying to make a point). It took the student 20 seconds to get his mind straight and to realize what he’d done.
Let’s consider the situation in the Colorado theatre. The place is full of smoke. Theater patrons are stampeding. The loud, action-filled movie adds to the confusion. The shooter is wearing body armor. Does it make sense to use a concealed-carry weapon in this scenario? As more guns go off, who can know the difference between the shooter and the people trying to defend themselves. The phone calls to the police would have said there were multiple shooters, thus adding to the deadly confusion. Well-meaning people with guns would almost certainly have hit bystanders.
It all comes down to adequate training and knowing what’s the right thing to do at the right time. If you decide that a concealed-carry weapon is necessary for you, remember what I said a minute ago. There are few responsibilities greater than carrying a weapon. Does the gun own you, or do you own the gun? There can never be enough training, and it can’t be repeated often enough."
"Both politicians and nappies need to be changed regularly, and for the same reasons."
