Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

12 dead, 14 arrested in huge shoot-out in South Africa

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Preacherman, Jun 25, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Preacherman

    Preacherman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    13,309
    Location:
    Louisiana, USA
    From News24 ( http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_1957850,00.html ):


    To put the weapons into perspective: AK-47's and a magazine of bullets can be bought on the streets of many South African townships for the equivalent of $50-$100 - and those are full-auto AK's, rather than the semi-auto clones we're limited to here. One can also buy heavier weapons if desired: there was a robbery a year or two back where RPG's were used to take out a cash delivery vehicle, IIRC.

    The "Pick 'n Pay" supermarket chain is basically a South African version of Wal-Mart.
     
  2. BIGDADDYLONGSTROKE

    BIGDADDYLONGSTROKE Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Messages:
    496
    So robbers were using Aks what were the police using? And do the police have acces to the same type of arsenal that is found of the street? Just wonderin.
     
  3. ProficientRifleman

    ProficientRifleman Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2006
    Messages:
    579
    We have peace now

    Twenty years ago, before the ANC/communists took over in the R.S.A., this wouldn't have happened. Honest law abiding citizens carried guns routinely at that time and would have stopped the robbery in progress. The little scumbag gangbanger wannabe's knew this also.

    Ain't it wonderful now that they have "Peace in South Africa"? The honest law abiding citizens are largely disarmed. They have to apply for a license to possess and register all firearms. Of course you know, self defense is no legitimate reason to own a weapon. They have peace now and only cops and the military should have weapons.

    God help us.
     
  4. 1 old 0311

    1 old 0311 member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2005
    Messages:
    2,672
    Location:
    Planet Earth
    Well that is close to corect. I understand LEGAL GUN OWNERS are limited to 50 rounds of ammo per year. Sounds like they have the same problem we do: Gun laws only effect the honest.

    Kevin
     
  5. Stand_Watie

    Stand_Watie Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,506
    Location:
    east Texas
    My understanding is that the anti -gun nuts in south africa want to disarm the police while off duty "for their own safety".
     
  6. American By Blood

    American By Blood Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2006
    Messages:
    357
    Location:
    Maryland, the 'Kwa
    You are correct, Stand_Watie. However, much of this has to do with the corruption that post-apartheid ZA's police force is rife with.

    Folks there do not trust the cops (often with good reason) and see every hour they are legally barred from carrying as a safer hour for the common people. Of course, the flawed anti logic about scofflaws obeying firearms regulations applies here.

    This is not to say that the fallen LEOs in the above article were crooks. Given the abundance of Dutch surnames it's safe to assume that they were just honest officers trying to preserve some semblance of order in the downward spiral of chaos that their country is trapped in. Sad as it may be, the out of control corruption in ZA's public sector is largely among post-apartheid hires and appointees.
     
  7. Tory

    Tory member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2004
    Messages:
    911
    What - NOONE spotted the claim about

    "shrapnel?"

    Unless the robbers had artillery, this is crap.:scrutiny:
     
  8. Preacherman

    Preacherman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    13,309
    Location:
    Louisiana, USA
    An update on the story . . .

    From News24 ( http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_1958036,00.html ):

     
  9. Dmack_901

    Dmack_901 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    361
    Location:
    FL
    I assume they mean a ricochet of some sort. But even still, a grenade is not out of the question.
     
  10. roo_ster

    roo_ster Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2003
    Messages:
    2,980
    Location:
    USA

    "High caliber weaponry." The commonest military "calibers" higher than 7.62mm are 12.7mm (.50cal) & 14.5mm...both of which can be stoked with explosive/fragmenting rounds.

    Of course, the "shrapnel" could very well have been a ricochet or splintering fragments from cover that has been shot and injures the one using the cover.
     
  11. Serendipity

    Serendipity member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2006
    Messages:
    99
    A piece of bullet jacket would be properly described as "shrapnel."
     
  12. HankB

    HankB Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2003
    Messages:
    5,226
    Location:
    Central Texas
    I had occasion to visit RSA in the late '80s, during their much-publicized "State of Emergency" . . . I really enjoyed my stay. No problems, low crime rate, carried my sidearm concealed . . . on my one encounter with RSA police officers (at a roadblock near the Botswana border) one of them politely inquired whether he might buy my sidearm.

    Today, "majority rule" RSA has oppressive gun laws, and I've read that official crime statistics are now considered "secret."

    By most accounts, if you want to see RSA's future some 10-15 years hence, just look to Zimbabwe today . . . sad to see civilization eroding. :(
     
  13. Tory

    Tory member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2004
    Messages:
    911
    No, it would not.

    "A piece of bullet jacket would be properly described as 'shrapnel.'"

    Wrong. :scrutiny:

    From the Army website:

    This edited version of Major General H. W. Blakely's classic article, "Shrapnel, Semantics and Such," reprinted from the March 1952 Combat Forces Journal, explains in layman's terms the differences between artillery shrapnel and shell fragments.

    SEMANTICS, the science of the meaning of words, makes a strange bedfellow for those two old veterans of many wars, ordnance and gunnery. The editors of the Combat Forces Journal brought the three together recently when they commented on the growing use of the word "shrapnel" when actually "shell fragments" is meant.

    To start with the ordnance and gunnery side of the picture, the simple fact is that today's journalists, historians, doughboys, and maybe even young artillery shavetails don't know what shrapnel is. It must sound like a good name for shell fragments. But that is speculation; Let's get the facts first.

    Line drawing, Shrapnel, Mk 1 for 155 mm gun

    Shrapnel, and if anyone can find an essentially different definition anywhere he is ahead of me, is "an artillery projectile provided with a bursting charge, and filled with lead balls, exploded in flight by a time fuze." It was named for its inventor, General Henry Shrapnel of the British Army, who died in l842, so it is no Johnny-come-lately in the fields of ordnance and gunnery...

    In pre-World War II days, shrapnel was regarded as the most efficient type of ammunition against troops in the open. The 75mm shrapnel projectile contained 270 lead balls, each about a half-inch in diameter, in a smoke-producing matrix. The 155mm shrapnel packed a lethal load of 800 balls. Each projectile was practically a shotgun which was fired, by means of the time fuze, ideally at the height which would produce the maximum effect on the enemy. At the moment of burst, the bullets shot forward with increased velocity, normally without fracturing the case. The result was a cone of bullets which swept an area generally much larger than the area made dangerous by the burst of a high explosive shell of the same caliber. Even for the relatively small 75mm gun, the effective area at a range of 4,000 yards was about 35 yards wide and 50 yards long. In addition, some balls with equally effective velocity were scattered less densely over a zone roughly twice as wide and several times as long. The height of burst had to be adjusted by observation of the smoke puff produced at the moment of explosion, and by proper changes in the setting of the time fuze...

    It was not very effective in trench warfare of the World War I type, and that fact influenced our decision to abandon it. But shrapnel was abandoned primarily because it was difficult to get the height of burst adjusted properly even under conditions of good visibility, and impossible to do this in darkness or bad weather. It also added to the complications of ammunition manufacture and supply. With the proximity fuzes now available the problem of adjustment of the height of burst could be overcome; the need for a smoke producing matrix to permit observation of height of burst would be eliminated; and sharp hard-metal missiles, not unlike small shell fragments, might replace the round lead balls. The complication of ammunition supply would remain as an objection.

    My first experience with the use of the word "shrapnel" to mean shell fragments was in Normandy about D plus 2. The 4th Infantry Division had landed on Utah Beach on D-day with surprisingly light opposition, but as we turned north toward Cherbourg we ran into rough going that was to cost the division over 5,000 battle casualties in the next three weeks. A surgeon mentioned to me that one of our regiments, the 22d Infantry, was having particularly high losses from shrapnel wounds. As division artillery commander, I was very much interested. Were the Germans using what we regarded as an obsolescent type of ammunition? Or did they have an improved variant of it? I visited the regiment and asked questions everywhere. No one knew of anyone wounded by shrapnel. When I hunted up the surgeon who had first mentioned shrapnel, and told him that practically all the casualties in the 22d were from shell fragments, he said, "That's what I told you."

    Since then I have frequently noticed the misuse of "shrapnel" by newspaper men, radio commentators and historians...
     
  14. Rotorflyr

    Rotorflyr Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2005
    Messages:
    276
    Location:
    Among The Living
    Tory,
    Not exactly wrong:
    While the original defination may have been as related in the article

    Merriam-Webster defines sharpanel as:
    (pay attention to #2)
    Main Entry: shrap·nel
    Pronunciation: 'shrap-n&l, esp Southern 'srap-
    Function: noun
    Inflected Form(s): plural shrapnel
    Etymology: Henry Shrapnel died 1842 English artillery officer
    1 : a projectile that consists of a case provided with a powder charge and a large number of usually lead balls and that is exploded in flight
    2 : bomb, mine, or shell fragments

    Words meanings sometimes evolve, the second defination may not be the original defination, but it doesn't make it wrong.
     
  15. ProficientRifleman

    ProficientRifleman Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2006
    Messages:
    579
    Serendipity

    You are wrong, Sir. Shrapnel was a man's name. He designed a type of artillery round which had, for lack of a better way to describe it, a grapeshot charge inside it. This "shot" was dispersed when the artillery round exploded on impact. These were known as "Shrapnel rounds".

    What you are referring to are fragments. Almost all artillery rounds and grenades now disperse fragments of their own casing (either steel or aluminum). These are grenade or artillery fragments, not "shrapnel".
     
  16. cordex

    cordex Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2002
    Messages:
    2,714
    Location:
    Indiana
    What about the M61 fragmentation grenade? It has a serrated wire coil between the outer shell and the charge designed for - though, as I recall, not tremendously effective as - additional fragmentation effect.

    Would pieces of that wire coil be considered Shrapnel or simply grenade fragments?
     
  17. TallPine

    TallPine Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    7,734
    Location:
    somewhere in the middle of Montana
    Pretty much confirms my theory that if guns are (mostly) outlawed, then criminals will have automatic weapons instead of just pea shooters. :uhoh:
     
  18. Tory

    Tory member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2004
    Messages:
    911
    NO; still RIGHT

    So, just what part of "...provided with a POWDER CHARGE" or "EXPLODED in flight" did you miss? :scrutiny:

    For that matter, how is a ricochet from a BULLET a "bomb, mine or shell fragment?" :scrutiny:

    "Shrapnel" is what its designer designed; not what someone attempting to sound informed mutates the term into. :rolleyes:
     
  19. Marnoot

    Marnoot Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2004
    Messages:
    260
    Location:
    SLC, UT
    Yes, heaven forbid language should evolve and change. If we were to limit all words to their absolute original meaning, what a crappy, worthless language we'd have. No longer using the word "car" to refer to your motorized conveyance device in the garage. Unless of course it's a two-wheeled Celtic war chariot. That thing you're moving your pointer with is a pointing device not a mouse, which we know of course is a small rodent not a pointing device.
     
  20. roscoe

    roscoe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    2,301
    Location:
    NV
    I couldn't let this one get away - just so you know you are defending a country that had a purely oligarchic political system and NO civil rights for the majority.

    Yes, the gun laws are bad. But remember, back in the day, no one who was not white could own a firearm.

    No, it is not worse - freedom sometimes is messy.
     
  21. ProficientRifleman

    ProficientRifleman Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2006
    Messages:
    579
    Roscoe

    Is it better now that a once prosperous society has descended into barbarity and butchery?

    Is it better now that the Gangsters are in charge and the organised criminals operate most of the organs of state?

    Look at Zimbabwe if you want a snapshot of what South Africa will look like soon. It is not a question of IF. It is WHEN.

    You might say that White Europeans should never have colonized Sub-Saharan Africa. That is a legitimate argument. It would have been better for both peoples that way.
     
  22. Nightcrawler

    Nightcrawler Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,950
    Location:
    Utah, inside the Terraformed Zone
    I abhor racism. However, I can't hate South Africa for having apartheid. The US had simliar laws in many States right until the 1960s. Did that make the US and evil country with evil people?

    The problem is, instead of simply making sure that the blacks were guaranteed equal rights as whites, the post-apartheid SA governments have allowed to country to spiral into chaos and self-destruction. At the same time, the pass every more intrusive laws in the name of reducing crime and restoring order.

    The ANC types that took over aren't poor leaders because they're black people. They're poor leaders because they're a bunch of corrupt criminals with communist leanings. And as we all well know, white people invented communism.

    Tyranny is tyranny, regardless of the color of the tyrant. SA has gone from an undesirable situation to a "hell in a handbasket" situation, it seems.
     
  23. Tory

    Tory member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2004
    Messages:
    911
    Apologia

    You confuse Evolution with DEvolution (which brings us back to South Africa, the source of this thread).

    Is that how you rationalize the borderline illiterates who use "loose" for "lose;" "than" for "then" (or vice-versa); "were" for "where;" "they're" for "their" and think any word is pluralized by tacking on an " 's ?"

    Or do you limit your "evolution of language" alibi to the poseurs who call cartridges "bullets;" bullets "heads" and magazines "clips?" :scrutiny:
     
  24. roo_ster

    roo_ster Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2003
    Messages:
    2,980
    Location:
    USA
    Tory:
    If I were your doctor, I would recommend a high-fiber diet...and a pair of reading glasses. ;)

    If you recall, the original article included the following sentence:
    We do not know the nature of that "high caliber weaponry" and thus can not confirm the (im)possibility of the aforementioned weaponry chambering a round capable of delivering shrapnel. There is just not enough data in the article.

    Given that cartridges as small as 12.7mm can have exploding & fragmenting payloads, attributing the wound sustained to "shrapnel" is not necessarily an outlandish use of the term.

    Yes, the term "fragments" would likely be more apt, but then we'd have some yahoo complaining that the "high caliber weaponry" might have included a weapon capable of delivering a shrapnel round, thus making the use of the term "fragments" problematic.
     
  25. Tory

    Tory member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2004
    Messages:
    911
    Not germane

    We do not need to know the details of the alleged (and highly unlikely) "high caliber weaponry" involved. Had you followed the thread, you would have seen that:

    1. An incorrect definition of "shrapnel" was posted;

    2. Said incorrect definition was refuted;

    3. Said incorrect definition was rationalized as "evolving language;" and

    4. Said rationalization was refuted.

    Thus, the newpaper article itself is now irrelevent to the more recent discussion of what the true definition of "shrapnel" is.

    Instead of playing doctor, perhaps you should just try to keep up. :scrutiny:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page