Self Defence Revisited


PDA






hongimaster
July 30, 2005, 08:57 PM
Hey. Yuo might remember or not remember Vindi C who seemed to stir up these forums with his comments on "Self Defence". Absolutely noone agreede with him entirely. We also got this message on the Exodus Network (http://www.xbox-exodus.com)
On the subject of logic? Check out these threads by Zyklon-B aka vindi C aka vindicare on the American-based Firearms/Personal Defense/Tactical Discussion site http://thehighroad.org

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=122289

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=122634

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=122640

In each of these exhaustive threads, a certain underage Australian minor with a penchant for using crude and belittling language in this forum, wanders off to another forum to try to also insult and belittle a good number of responsible gunowners and combat veterans and lecture them on various subjects a minor could have no possible experience of.

vindicare joined our High Road Forum out of false pretenses to do nothing than insult our intelligence. The threads I have posted are proof of that. vindicare retreats back to his fantasy world after showing his ass and getting verbally spanked by men who are his betters, which is the inevitable outcome when a minor is talking completely out of depth on every conceivable theme regarding personal defense and combat.

I came here to see what kind of creature he was, but it does not surprise me in the least that he shows his ass in more than one thread here. I have seen enough. He is out of THR, and that's good riddance. What he does here is no longer my interest, and this account should be closed shortly after I notify the moderators.

Case closed.

Sat Jul 30, 2005 5:08 pm

1stly Let me Make clear as a representative of the Exodus Network, no member of our forums can be directly affiliated with The Exodus Network. Vindicare's actions are not representing The Exodus Network as soon as he posts outside of the forum, so we don't need to hear about it.

I have read his posts, all very logical arguments, yet noone actually can understand him. Reviewing your rules, it isn't illegal to state oppinions and it isn't illegal to start a debate. So what exactly did he do wrong?

2ndly, I agree with your members and dissagree at the same time. Guns play an active part in self defence, and I understand that. "I would kill an attacker before they kill me or my family." (a quote from the your forums) because I would. But not everyone who tresspasses, pickpockets, or is pissed out of their minds should be shot. If someone who was drunk came up to you and started to lay into you or your friend, would you shoot him? I hope your answer would by no. Because he doesn't know what he is doing. Taser him, hit him with a pole, but killing isn't really a first resort. Your Laws (and ours) state that In most cases, Offence can be met with equal and opposite Self Defence, so If someone wanders into your house and starts shooting, or threatens you with you life, you have a right to kill. If someone punches you, kick them, or taser them, because they don't deserve to die. And before you rebut my arguments with "But Guns Are Tools", remember I'm not against Guns, heck, I want one to be able to defend my house (a shotgun if you are interested), and defending the president with guns and going to war with guns is ok by me. I think the point Vindi C and myself are trying to make is that shooting every person who commits a crime isn't really the right answer.

If someone flames me, then they are n00bs. But by all means, disagree and debate with me. I quite like these forums, so I'll try to answer you with my full ability. My uncle collects guns, all different types, excepting blackpowders. He has over 45 rifles and nearly 15 Pistols, In addition to a few Crossbows, and a Compound Bow. I Have fired half his rifles (at targets without assistance from laser-sights or scopes, etc) and loaded them all. A good gun is a good gun, but a bad gun can always be made into a good gun. My uncle's giving me a Bolt Action .22 for my 16th B'day. BTW im saying this so people out there in the US of A know that all Aussies aren't soft, protected people with no gun sense. One of your members commented on our military, and don't take their guns, That's a good point. But if we took your military's guns, trust me, your country could still defend itself. And im talking Nuclear. But enough about that.

Before I leave, just out of interest, after each post, write what gun you would use for self defence against a gunweilding attacker.


Hope to hear from people.

Hongimaster...

<Winchester Model 1300 Shotgun>

If you enjoyed reading about "Self Defence Revisited" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Baba Louie
July 30, 2005, 09:28 PM
OK, I'll play... (love the self advertisement and early non-warning... I usually don't get those kind of memo's and almost never respond... but sometimes people grow up... slowly; but it has been shown that some can and often do learn from earlier episodes in their lives... here's to hope springing eternal from the breast of mankind... or tender youth)

Use of lethal force can and should only be used against lethal force being brought against you... typically.
Should more than one younger (than I), male individuals kick in my front door... whattyagonna do? Invite them to sit down for cookies and milk? This isn't the 1950's.

Out on the streets, parking lots at stores and while I'm in my auto... please leave me be. Or else I'll drive or run off and I might actually run somebody over in my haste to exit the scene whilst in the car... and wouldn't that be a doozy? When cornered or trapped... ya know, I really don't think I have any obligation to retreat if I'm just minding my own business and causing harm to no one.

What weapon would I use? Whatever is closest to me. Nobodies business but mine and the miscreants.
There are several to choose from depending upon which room of the house I'm in at the time. While driving or walking, probably some form of handgun (doh!)

But I really try to avoid moments of great unpleasantness by looking ahead, or behind, or around... ya know? Discretion being the better part of valor for the most part.

And should I actually encounter evil and successfully fight it to some form of standstill, you can bet I'll be on the horn to the local po-po telling them who what where and when. Then I'll call the attorney.

YMMV

hongimaster
July 31, 2005, 12:13 AM
Hey, thanks for not being a total n00b and flaming me. Good point.
Use of lethal force can and should only be used against lethal force being brought against you... typically. Should more than one younger (than I), male individuals kick in my front door... whattyagonna do? Invite them to sit down for cookies and milk? This isn't the 1950's.
Agreed, but isn't that a threat to your life? If they come in with knives and guns and other blunt objects used for tenderising the skull with the intent on using them on you, fire away.

And before I kinda send mixed messages, I'm saying if there's another way out of the situation, take it. So, if you can hit them in the head with a brick or something, there is more chance of them living and being prosecuted for breakign and entering. If you shoot them in the head, there isn't really anything good to come out of that. If they're a druggie wanting money, its probably easier to give them the money than go through manslaughter trails... aint it?

But yes, I do agree, Tea and Biscuits isn't the way in some cases. But neither is being a Vigilante.

onrhander
July 31, 2005, 12:50 AM
Ok here goes.All though I am a big guy I have one hand, cancer and am under going kemo.If smoeone close to my size were to phyicsly assault me I would be at a sever disavantage.That said if s**t happens and I am armed hopefuly the display of a gun will discourage the assault.If not then it is a life threating indience.Shooting at that point should be justified.If the BG still is beating on you after seeing your armed he is tring to KILLyou! :what:

bogie
July 31, 2005, 12:58 AM
I'll just fart in their general direction.

Guys, common sense should prevail. You can analyze something to death, or...

Solo
July 31, 2005, 01:10 AM
And before I kinda send mixed messages, I'm saying if there's another way out of the situation, take it. So, if you can hit them in the head with a brick or something, there is more chance of them living and being prosecuted for breakign and entering.

If you hit them in the head with a brick, you can still kill them. And using a brick would in crease your risk of getting hurt more than using a gun.

If you shoot them in the head, there isn't really anything good to come out of that.

Chlorine for the gene pool.

If they're a druggie wanting money, its probably easier to give them the money than go through manslaughter trails... aint it?
Based on that logic, we should have let Hitler take over Europe! Atter all, would it not be easier to appease him rather than fight?

mnrivrat
July 31, 2005, 01:20 AM
Hi Guy,

I think your little buddy got kicked off the forum for bing a disrespectful smart ass , more than for his opinion.

look - your 15 and I don't want to flame you - nor do I want to "debate" you regarding a subject that I find it hard you would have a good understanding of.

Nobody here advocates the taking of a life to be anything but a very hard choice to have to make when talking self defense. There are some that would agree with your concepts of taking a beating without using deadly force to stop it - I say , good luck to you and those who live through a violent assault , that has the potential of crippling, or killing you.

I for one have no problem with you expressing an opinion as long as you keep it respectful .

Justin
July 31, 2005, 02:52 AM
It's THR staff policy that we don't publically discuss the reason for why someone's membership was revoked.

hongimaster
July 31, 2005, 05:48 AM
Ok, 2 messages.

1stly the comment about being less likely to die from a gun, than a brick. That would only apply tro being shot in the foot or hand, and even then, blood loss can cause death. It is never really the bullet that kills the person, its the body. If you get shot in the heart, you are sill alive for a bit but your brains shuts down because of pain or lack of oxygen. A bullet to the brain, obvious reasons. A bullet the the lungs, another obvious on, blood in the lungs, you drown. A brick to the head has much less chance of killing a person, if they are treated. And even if they do die, it would be the equilavent to shooting them in most cases. Bullets tear through so much before they leave the body- bone, blood vessels, organs, skin, flesh, etc. 1 bullet hitting a small child kills them instantly (most cases), not enough blood to so support them, or they are simply too fragile. A bullet to an adult, sure, they can live, but for how long? An hour tops (if your not living in hollywood). If they ran away, they'd probably die, or be caught by the Authorities at a hospital. If the stayed, there's a chance that an ambulance would come and take him away and he (or she, in that matter) would live. Jail. But the chances are slim. From what I have heard, your ambulances are different to ours. They don't treat as much as they do transport. Which is a good system in most cases, our system is billions of $ in debt, but back to the subject.

2nd message.

If it's policy not to display why a person is kicked off the site in public, then why did a member of your forums display it on ours? We don't want to know about it, unless it directly relates to us. Which it didn't. None of our members can accurately represent us without consent.

Hongimaster...
P.S How does us being 15 affect our maturity?

c_yeager
July 31, 2005, 06:17 AM
1stly Let me Make clear as a representative of the Exodus Network, no member of our forums can be directly affiliated with The Exodus Network.

Considering that the concept of logic plays heavily in your post, i find this statement to be rather odd. Im pretty sure that members of the exodus network are affiliated with exodus network by default.

Spiphel Rike
July 31, 2005, 08:55 AM
"a brick to the head is safer". Sure thing, maybe in hollyweird. the bullet penetrates and crushes flesh, A brick tenderises, puts pressure on the brain and puts you a little close to the attacker than is safe.

Why'd you bring children into the argument? You do know that more children drown in pools than meet a gun related death right?

The fact is that when you are attacked you will be at a disadvantage because of surprise, and possibly a disparity of force. This makes it logical to arm yourself to the maximum extent possible. Every use of force on a person has a chance of resulting in death, there are countless stories of people dying from one punch, or an unarmed fight, or any other reason. Are you willing to allow someone to hurt you because you think "it's just a punch" or "it's just a crowbar"?

"give money to the druggie, he just wants money". Yeah right, what if you're small, and female? he might want more from you if you just hand your money over right away. You worked hard for that money, he didn't. What right does he have to threaten your life for it?

thereisnospoon
July 31, 2005, 10:15 AM
"1stly" your assessment of the shock and damage to human tissue following a gun shot wound is way off base. I am a medical professional and can tell you pepole not only survive gunshot wounds, more often than not, but can also continue to attack even when "assaulted" with hands, feet, bricks or 2X4s.

Conversely, we have had several recent news articles of people being killed by a single punch during an assault.

So, if someone enters my home uninvited ,they will be given ONE chance-as they stare down the barrel of the closest firearm- to cease and desist or I will go to slidelock. Using anything other than a firearm, and anything less than incapacitating them, leaves my family and myself at risk.

Circumstances always dictate the level of force, but someone entering my home forcefully, uninvited, dictates deadly force.

Out on the street, a drunk advances to engage me: simple, he's drunk E & E...no harm no foul.

Trapped by multiple BGs...gun.

Teenager or not, you obviously like to debate and discuss firearms use in SD, so welcome to THR. I don't always agree with my fellow HIGH ROADERS, but we try to respectfully disagree, when we become disrespectful, the Moderators remind us of the rules and if we can not abide we are sanctioned accordingly.

Ejoy.

coyote Mak
July 31, 2005, 10:18 AM
OK as one of the middle age crowd i will take a stab at this. I'm going to call you sonny for the simple fact you have not matured to the point to be called a man. now if this upsets you, get over it real quick, because in the real world you have only have seen a nats ass of what the real world is all about. I had to give this same basic speech to my son when he was 17 because at the time he bought into the ideology that he knew it all. now at 28 he is starting to see that his education is just beginning and that you never really stop learning.
Now with regards to your post and ideas, just like what has been already mentioned I am some what disabled. one good whack of medium strength across the lower back would leave me paralyzed for life. I am a husky guy but my lower back is very fragile. if its a BG or my quality of life or his sorry ass for wanting to be a show off bully then he loses. unless you walk in another's shoes for a mile you have now idea what there about or how the world treats them or what they go through every day to survive.
a brick to the right part of the skull (most parts) can crush said skull and then that person is dead! see you just learned something new.
Instead of trying to convince us of how we live our lives everyday in the real world, try seeing outside from the real world instead of seeing your point of view from a video game.
maybe it would be wiser for you to just sit back ask questions and soak up the experences and knowledge of others from all over the world. you my take this anyway you like, but being middle age and still having to scrap for money to buy a simple part for a 20year old car and other day to day struggles has made me appreciate the simpler things in life and contrary to popular world belief that all Americans are rich, this computer i am typing on is 12 to 15 year old technology depending which part of it you look at. So the best advise i can give you is do not ever assume anything. you will live longer that way. :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: ;) ;) ;)

Moondoggie
July 31, 2005, 11:20 AM
The point that your arguments turn on is "That shooting every person who commits a crime isn't really the right answer". 99.9 or 100% of the folks here completely agree.

I think the basic philosophy among members here could be summarized as "Deadly force should be used ONLY when all other lesser means of defense have failed or cannot reasonably be employed." Quoting/paraphrasing from my military training. As in any group of people, sometimes in conversation we convey an attitude of casualness that doesn't actually play out in real life. Not saying there's an excess of "bravado" or "bus station commando" attitude here, but human nature lends itself to communicating the wrong impression. Especially when the discussion gravitates repetitively toward this subject. Anonymous communiation via the internet tends to excerbate this facet of perception.

Many of the people who post here have displayed pictures of extensive gun collections representing many thousands of dollars invested. These people didn't attain this level of disposable income by being irresponsible in their personal/professional lives. (Perhaps you've heard the expression "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6"???) They also have no desire to EVER sit at the defendant's table in a criminal OR civil trial. Unfortunately, there are quite a few people in the world who have no such concerns, and have no compunction regarding who they hurt or kill. This second group is not among the members of this board.

I'm sure that you've encountered the sentiments on this board and others similar to "I'm a very careful driver, but I still wear a seatbelt" or "I'm not a trained firefighter, but I still own several fire extinguishers". What you read on this board is really nothing more than responsible people who recognize that it's possible that they'll encounter a need for armed defense (of themselves or others) and believe that it's appropriate to be prepared for that eventuality. For almost all of us, the best outcome to an armed encounter is "Aggressor perceives intended victim is armed and rapidly departs...case closed". Nobody here really WANTS to be put in position where it becomes necessary to risk taking another person's life no matter how strong the justification might be.

Harley Davidson sells thousands of very expensive motorcycles, yet the actual number of crazed "Outlaw Biker Gang Members" is very small. The vast majority of Harley owners didn't obtain the wherewithall to purchase their bikes by being the dregs of society.

Gun owners are no more likely to be knuckle-dragging rock apes than motorcycle owners.

TallPine
July 31, 2005, 12:12 PM
So, if you can hit them in the head with a brick or something, there is more chance of them living and being prosecuted for breakign and entering.
Yes, and that's exactly the reason why I always carry a three hole clay brick in a custom made Bianchi holster. Never leave home without it, and of course I have several bricks hidden around the house - some cleverly disguised as doorstops.

Some of my buddies won't leave home without at least a cinder block, but I find them awkward and hard to conceal.

Whenever I'm not spouting off useless drivel on the internet, I hang around with my buddies down at the building supply and we discuss which is better: small and fast (brick) or large and slow (cinder block).

Baba Louie
July 31, 2005, 12:26 PM
P.S How does us being 15 affect our maturity? hong... the fact that you actually posed that question kind of answers it, in a way...
I call it "LIFE EXPERIENCE".

When I was 15, I was living at home, protected (more or less) by my parental units, specifically my father who was quick to point out the stupid things I said and did. Sometimes he was quite tactful, usually when in the presence of outsiders. More often he was direct and brutally honest.
He taught me many things. I was wise enough to keep my mouth shut and listen... yet I still did many things I'm glad he never knew about. He probably DID know about them (father's ain't stupid as they were teenagers once upon a time as well) but decided the school of life (hard knocks) was a pretty good teacher as well.

But I learned early on, to never ever give him a smartaleck answer and to Show him ALL the respect he was due.

Don't focus on the taking of life here. Focus instead on keeping your life, or your family member's lives, safe. I don't know about you, but I don't carry bricks or rocks around on my person. They need up close and personal use.

They are bulky, heavy, have no real good grip and they cannot be reloaded :rolleyes:

I just want to work, pay the bills and go out shooting with Family and Friends now and then. And stay healthy.
And keep the LAW/LEGAL SYSTEM out of my life.

I STILL respect my elders. Also, well mannered youngsters (anyone under 49 :D )
It all goes back to my dear old Daddy saying to treat others the way you want them to treat you.
I always want to give back what I got, plus a little extra.
You can use that philosophy in self defense as well as daily society.

Didorian
July 31, 2005, 12:54 PM
Firstly-
Baba Louie has it right about the age.... There's only so much you can go through in only 15 years on this earth.
Second-
I don't care how much EASIER it would be to just "Give them what they want." But that is WRONG. It is wrong fundamentially, and it is the ABSOLUTE wrong way for an AMERICAN to think.
I don't know where it all got started, but NO ONE has the right to walk up you, and either rob or beat you and not expect retaliation. One reason crime is so bad right now is that people think that they can break the law and no one will fight back. And since the whole, "Just give them what they want, and they'll leave you alone" thing started to become the norm, things have gotten worse. You don't negotiate with people that are trying to take anything from you. You stand your ground, and you fight for it. It is YOURS not THEIRS! They have no RIGHT to it. Stop feeling sympathetic for these people!!! They are there to frighten you or hurt you until you give them something that YOU worked for!! Why would YOU feel bad for hurting THEM?? They most certainly will NOT feel bad about hurting YOU!
Stop believeing the hype, it's NOT alright to be a victim. It is not their right to terrorize you!!!! And they can only do so if YOU let them.
You don't give the BG time to put you in the worst case scinario before you decide that you have to fight back.
And I know that many on this board don't agree with this, but If it comes to me actually DRAWING my firearm, then it's to late to scare the guy away. He's already crossed the line between miscreant to threat. When you draw you fire. And you fire for effect. We have more right to what we have than they EVER will. If they want it so badly then they need to work for it. And I don't mean by robbing people.
This is America. The land of the FREE and the home of the BRAVE. This is NOT the land of the FEARFUL, and the home of the CRIMINALS.

If I went a little overboard on this one, I apologize.
Dex.

Graystar
July 31, 2005, 01:14 PM
If someone who was drunk came up to you and started to lay into you or your friend, would you shoot him?That's a silly question...of course!

Taser him, hit him with a pole, but killing isn't really a first resort.And herein lies your basic misunderstanding. We don't shoot to kill. We shoot to stop the attack. I don't care if the person wants to kill me, just wants my money, or is so drunk that he doesn't know what he's doing...an attack is an attack and I can be injured or killed just the same. We shoot to stop...not to kill.

It's clear you don't know the statistics on the mortality rate of gunshot victims. As I recall, some 80%-85% of gunshot wounds are non-fatal. So three-four people out of 20 actually die from gunshot wounds. And those stats includes the suicide attempts (which, surprisingly, is only 67% successful when using a gun.)

The reason everyone here gets upset when given purely logical arguments is that we have statistical data to backup what we say. When the US government itself statistically determines that youíre better off fighting back with a gun than complying with violent attacker, you need to come here with more than just logical arguments. And if thatís all you have, then you have to listen to what we have to say because we understand the situation best.

Double Maduro
July 31, 2005, 01:50 PM
Hongimaster...

P.S How does us being 15 affect our maturity?

Well, Duh, You are 15.

That isn't a flame, heck we were all 15 at one time and like most 15 year olds we thought we knew more than any one else.

At least you are willing to listen to other peoples opinions, even though you don't seem to consider that they may be valid.

I have a question for you.

We hear that almost alll fire arms have been confiscated and destroyed in Australia, how has your uncle been able to hold on to his collection?

How are you, at 15 able to buy a shotgun for self defense?

Not being a smart ass, I really want to know. Are our perceptions of your laws wrong?

DM

Double Maduro
July 31, 2005, 01:53 PM
Graystar,

We shoot to stop...not to kill.


I prefer, "We shoot to live, not to kill".

and yes, if someone attacks you, unprovoked, that automatically makes your life more valuable than theirs.

DM

Hawkmoon
July 31, 2005, 01:55 PM
If it's policy not to display why a person is kicked off the site in public, then why did a member of your forums display it on ours? We don't want to know about it, unless it directly relates to us. Which it didn't. None of our members can accurately represent us without consent.
You stated that no member of your network can represent you without consent. The same holds for here. But each of us participants is an individual, and we each retain full rights to speak (and write) for ourselves. If a THR participant showed up on your forum and did that, he/she was representing him/herself, not THR.

How is this any different from your forum's position.

P.S How does us being 15 affect our maturity?
Perhaps by demonstrating de facto that you are less mature than someone who is, for example, 60 years old.

Gimme a break. Some 15 year olds may act more mature than other 15 year olds, and some 60 year olds no doubt act less mature than other 60 year olds, but in general 15 years simply does not provide ANY base for what might be termed "life experience." You, and I'm sure Vindi, have never had to work in order to eat. You have never fought in a war. You probably have never been faced with multiple violant assailants. You have probably not been seriously injured in an automobile (or other vehicular) accident.

In short, regardless of how logically you think you are discussing the topic, the reality is that you are discussing a topic about which you KNOW less than nothing. Your exposure to guns and violence has been only through movies and video games.

Enlist in the Army or the Marines when you turn 18, spend a couple of tours in a place like Iraq, and then I'll sit down and discuss with you.

Coyote Mak's post reminds me of something I believe is attributed to Mark Twain. He wrote (or said) "When I was 14 years old I was embarrassed by how ignorant my father was about everything. When I reached the age of 21 I was amazed at how much the old man had learned in a few years." (Or something like that -- apologies to Mark if I don't have it perfect.)

sfhogman
July 31, 2005, 02:25 PM
Hongimaster, you might want to read the below referenced essay:

http://www.jim.com/cowards.htm

Probably a little more American legal history than you need, but worth your time, I think.

El Tejon
July 31, 2005, 02:42 PM
hong, you have constructed a strawman argument. Just because someone is trespassing, intoxicated or angry with you does not mean you are allowed to use deadly force.

Deadly force is a topic regularly addressed here on THR. Many members here are law enforcement officers or attorneys in the criminal justice field. I know of no single post that would advocate shooting a drunk or trespasser.

Deadly force is a serious and involved subject. It is not to be thought of lightly as the consequences (Problem #2) are quite severe. Everone here understands that the best fight is no fight.

Just because one possesses the means of self-defense, has trained for it and has expressed a willingness to act in self-defense, does not make one a vigilante. It merely makes one wise. :)

carebear
July 31, 2005, 03:29 PM
Hong,

You should also probably be told, so you can avoid trouble in the future, that the minute you swing your handy brick at someone's head, that brick becomes, in the eyes of the law, a "deadly weapon". No different in any way than a firearm.

If the defensive use is ruled to be justified, the weapon used won't matter whether it be brick, gun or 2x4. If you are found to have used that brick, gun or 2x4 without sufficient legal justification, you will be charged with the same crime, for example, "Assault with a Deadly Weapon".

Lethal force is lethal force, the law really doesn't care what particular object you use.

And as you read more, and learn more, and see more, you'll realize blows to the head and chest with any solid object have a good chance of killing or causing great and permanent physical harm.

Graystar
July 31, 2005, 09:33 PM
I prefer, "We shoot to live, not to kill".That's a little too ambiguous for me...but to each his own.

Baba Louie
August 1, 2005, 12:27 AM
Re: "We shoot to live, not to kill"

I was taught (and believe) that we shoot to stop the miscreant from using lethal force against us and ours. Once he complies, we stop shooting... reassess the threat and reload.

Semantics

hongimaster
August 1, 2005, 03:33 AM
A lot of good points.

Before Guns, when I said maturity, I didn't mean life experience. Unlike most people my age though, i can actually hold a conversation with an adult. Note I don't think I'm an adult, and if someone uses the term, "Young Adult" around me, I will shoot them (metaphorically of course). But, judging by what I see, I am more mature than some adults, and have worked harder than a lot of them (yes, surprise surprise, I have a job, and have to pay for my schooling).

I can see we have a few War Vet's and current military personell here, I have the upmost respect for you guys (and girls), American or not. I think that would be the hardest job to do, as it is easy to press a button to kill people you will never see, but to have to risk your lives every day for what you believe in... wow. But I'll ask you a question. Aussie Military training says, depending on the RoE, firearms should be a last result. Translation: "Shoot If You Have To." Is it the same over there?

And thats the point im trying to put across. I hope a lot of you are familiar with the London Bombings. An man was gunned down because he ran from the cops, and had a huge coat on in summer. Well, a lot of people are in an uproar over that. I would personally like to praise the work of the police officers who made that decision. Seriously, if a police officer thinks you have a bomb, then he is defending himself, his nation, his people. But a pickpocket, seen stealing a wallet, that is different.

This brings me back to my main arguement. All those people who have said Rapists or are impaired in some way they cannot fight, I am still saying that there is no reason why a gun could be used in those situations. But, again, if shooting can be avoided, then it should.

Before if go, I have consent from a number of Exodus staff to represent the Exodus Network. Vindicare did not. So, no, not everyone represents the Exodus Network without proper consent. If someone from the High Road here came to our forums, swore excessively or flamed (etc). We wouldn't come running to you with our problems. We would ask/force them to stop, then Ban them if they persisted. If they hacked us or similar, a different story though. But thats a crime, swearing isn't.

Hongimaster...

Can someone tell me briefly how The High Road Started, and how old it is?

Stand_Watie
August 1, 2005, 05:21 AM
This brings me back to my main arguement. All those people who have said Rapists or are impaired in some way they cannot fight, I am still saying that there is no reason why a gun could be used in those situations. But, again, if shooting can be avoided, then it should.

Could you clarify this statement for me Hongimaster? I'm not certain if you accidentally omitted some words or something, but I can't understand what you're saying.

Spiphel Rike
August 1, 2005, 07:51 AM
Hongimaster, are you another Australian?
Great, now I can tell you about our very high rate of violent crime. In australia, this year there was a media frenzy over the number of assaults and similar crimes, which actually quoted stats identical to some that were posted here a few weeks after that posting. The news reports said that incident like this were few and far between back in 1996 and before. Before the 1996 ban on guns for self protection crime like this was dangerous and could cost you your life. Today "give them what they want" has made the criminals brave, and ambulance chasers have given the criminals a kind of "worker's comp".

These factors, combined with our judges being generally weak on crime tends to make it easy for criminals to succeed. It's like placing E coli bacteria on a plate of agar, they just grow and grow.

Gun control focuses on "keeping guns out of the wrong hands", it should focus on "putting lots of guns in the right hands".

Hongimaster, I am willing to bet the other computer I have that if we brought in Florida style gun laws, and self defence laws that violent crime would drop like a sack of spuds.

hongimaster
August 1, 2005, 07:55 AM
Yeah, sorry about that folks, I mean there is not reason a gun Couldn't be used in those situations.

That makes more sense.

Another quick thing I need to say is that the brick was an example. But Dad's friends were beaten to near death with planks of wood, and they were unconscious, but they lived. And there were countless hits on them. If they were shot half the amount of times they were hit, they probably would have died. Thats more of what I was aiming for. The brick might've been a bit over to top.

And I added the kid in because it tells you how powerful a bullet is. And how do I know about this? Our detention centres shot a kid who was walking towards a fence. Killed him before he hit the ground, a bullet to the pelvis.

hongimaster
August 1, 2005, 08:12 AM
I think our gun laws here are too strict, but yours over there are too loose. I mean, i know what you are saying, but Australia has a lowere crime rate for some major reasons. Population Density and Police. Noone In Australia has guns because we really can't be bothered. WE have to go to a club 6 times a year, plus have regular checks and payments for the upkeep of our guns. My uncle gave away his pistol license, as they take a lot more effort than rifles to register.

I don't think there is ever "The Right Hands" for guns though. There's just people who use them for this, and people who use them for that. Many robberies are done by very respectable gun owners. Many people get there dad's gun, or relations gun and commit crimes. Others start off sane, then slowly but surely slip into insanity and commit crazy shootouts which end in waste of life. Another thing that gets me paranoid though, is Australia being invaded. Now i know for a fact, the US has state of the Art Naval, Air and Shore defences, as well as satellites probably monitoring somewhere over my house right now. Australia, while still state of the art, simply has too small a population to cover our shores. Now im sure America and Britain might lend a hand when it comes down to an invasion, but i'd rather have a gun of my own until i see a rescue party come through.

But as Ive said, if there was a way around engaging in combat, i would take it.

Speaking of War and Defence, if SOMEHOW, America did fall, what do you reckon would happen?

Graystar
August 1, 2005, 08:20 AM
Many robberies are done by very respectable gun owners.Now THIS is the kind of statement that will get you a ton of flak. Certainly in the US this is not even remotely correct, and I doubt it could possibly be correct in AUS. Where did you get this information?

Stand_Watie
August 1, 2005, 08:24 AM
And I added the kid in because it tells you how powerful a bullet is. And how do I know about this? Our detention centres shot a kid who was walking towards a fence. Killed him before he hit the ground, a bullet to the pelvis.

I'm going to call b.s. on that. A large caliber bullet through the heart takes longer to kill than the time it takes to fall to the ground.

but Australia has a lowere crime rate for some major reasons

Who wants to disect that statement?

Many robberies are done by very respectable gun owners

Really? What % of robberies are committed by respectable gun owners?

Stand_Watie
August 1, 2005, 08:27 AM
Now THIS is the kind of statement that will get you a ton of flak. Certainly in the US this is not even remotely correct, and I doubt it could possibly be correct in AUS. Where did you get this information?

"repectable" and "robber" are generally mutually exclusive.

Spiphel Rike
August 1, 2005, 08:45 AM
Answer this for me then. How can a bad guy shoot lots of people if another person draws and wastes him?
That's what made port arthur so bad, that's what made queen street and the others bad.

Our laws are way too strict, you're right. All that should be used is a background check when you buy, providing that the results are not stored, and all failed ones are followed up (reported to coppers). after that no registration is needed, and no other restrictions are necessary. Simply encourage responsible storage, use and otherwise. The rest lies with the individual.

There are "the right hands", mine for certain. Do you dare call me a criminal without proof? The fact that the many are being restricted because of the actions of a few is unsettling. The individual is what makes the whole thing work, and without opportunity for that you get a high violent crime rate, like we have now.

Areas in the US like alaska and vermont have no carry permits, you can carry right away at the chosen age with only the basic restrictions (not mentally ill, criminal or underage) and these areas do not have high incidences of crime at all from what I hear.

You're all too happy to spend tax money paying people to walk around with guns, so why can't I spend my money to ensure that I don't have to depend on them.

Another thing to consider is the environmental damage being done by animals that would've been killed by the casual hunters. Since the licensing procedures are so strict people don't bother, and native bushland is destroyed by pest animals as a result.

I'm sure people here could find and post the relevant stats needed to make this discussion work, I apologise for not having them on hand.

mmike87
August 1, 2005, 01:35 PM
If someone who was drunk came up to you and started to lay into you or your friend, would you shoot him? I hope your answer would by no. Because he doesn't know what he is doing.

If I felt my life was threatened, absolutely.

Therein lies the crux of the problem. I got drunk, suddenly I am no longer responsible. That's utter BS.

If you get so wasted that you are truly not in control of your faculties, then you deserve what you get. It should not be the burden of responsible citizens to protect you from hurting others.

If someone gets intoxicated it's not relevant that they do not know what they are doing. Why? Because when they picked up the drink they WERE aware of what they were doing. THEY made the choice to get drunk.

If someone commits a violent crime while drunk and ends up shot - so be it. Why should drunkeness protect you from the consequences of a violent action?

I hate to break it to you, but when someone is commiting a violent crime against you you rarely have enough time to give him or her a breathlizer test or perform a psychological analysis of how unhappy we was during childhood because him Mommie wouldn't let him have an extra popsicle.

Do something stupid - then face to consequences. Simple system. I think liberals that are against people being help responsible for their actions are afraid of what they may be held responsible for some day.

And as far as vandals and tresspassers go - why are some people so hell-bent on PROTECTING people who are commiting crimes from injuries that are inflicted by the intended VICTIMS of said crime? People commit these crimes BECAUSE they know that the liberals we all know and love are looking out for them. Not only is no one looking out for the victim, but folks don't even want victimes to be able look out for themselves. ***?

I'm saying if there's another way out of the situation, take it.

Sure. But the problem is that the victim IS held responsible for how they react to the crime being commited upon them. However, in your case if the criminal is drunk, etc. he or she should not be. Why is the law abiding citizen held to a higher standard?

It's real easy for folks that are NOT victims to be critical of the actions of those who are forced to proctect themselves. Persoanlly, if someone overreacts a little while defending themselves I would like to think that, as the victim, we'd give a little leeway. "Sir, he was only trying to beat the crap out of you, his intent was not to kill you, so you get to go to jail."

mmike87
August 1, 2005, 01:50 PM
You're all too happy to spend tax money paying people to walk around with guns, so why can't I spend my money to ensure that I don't have to depend on them.

Because liberalism is built around the theory that the government should provide for all your needs. The less you need the government, the less secure the government feels.

The liberals in government WANT you to be afraid and run to them for everything. They WANT you to be dependant upon them for retirement, protection, a job, food, etc. - self sufficiency is discouraged by those who could lose their "important" jobs if people didn't need those services.

Worse yet, they want to not only make you need their services, but make it a CRIME to NOT USE their services. Liberalism is a total racket.

Vote libertarian. :)

coyote Mak
August 1, 2005, 01:59 PM
SONNY SONNY SONNY!
now you no why i told you i would call you sonny. but with your last statement about the crime-rate being so high here in the US compared to were you are, has earned you the new title Sonny Boy!. that last bit was some of the worst uninformed, ignorant bunch of clap trap you have muttered so far. what you here on the local news about our crime rate is coming from the ones that want us to be good little sheep just like so many in England,Canada and Australia have become. the fact is county's and towns that have made it a law that every house have a working firearm for self-defence and some one who knows how to use it have some of the lowest crime in America. Some of the people of this country and around the world believe what they are told because they don't no any better. instead of trying to convince us of what you think you know, try listening,asking and find the sources on the web that tell the truth. It will truly shock you as to just how far a government of any country will go to disarm the population. there is one simple reason to why they want the people of the world disarmed, POWER!!. history is simply repeating its self. do more history home work instead of playing video games and you will see the big picture. Its always amazing when people come here from other country's or even down from Canada for the first time and the wanton violence that they are expecting is no were to be found. Yes it does happen but few and far in-between. one word can describe how the public seems to think crime is running rampant in the streets, MEDIA!

thats the truth of the matter, weather you chose to continue to argue or stop and start listening is up to you.

:cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:

Double Maduro
August 1, 2005, 02:11 PM
And I added the kid in because it tells you how powerful a bullet is. And how do I know about this? Our detention centres shot a kid who was walking towards a fence. Killed him before he hit the ground, a bullet to the pelvis.

The pelvic girdle shot is taught in some acadamies because it is not generaly lethal and is immediatly disabling.

Many robberies are done by very respectable gun owners. Many people get there dad's gun, or relations gun and commit crimes. Others start off sane, then slowly but surely slip into insanity and commit crazy shootouts which end in waste of life.

What I can't figure out is WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE STILL TRYING TO REASON WITH HIM?

He is obviously a troll, not even many 15 year olds would be as dense as he is. He claims to be able to carry on a conversation with adults. BS. He doesn't converse, he lectures and then shuts his ears to the reply while cooking up his next lecture.

Time to admit we can't sway everyone and get on with our lives.

DM

mmike87
August 1, 2005, 02:42 PM
Our detention centres shot a kid who was walking towards a fence. Killed him before he hit the ground, a bullet to the pelvis.

Gee, wonder why he was in the detention center? Oh, wait - he was probably drunk so it wasn't his fault.

Someone gets put in a detention center, acts suspiciously, gets killed - and it's STILL not his fault.

mmike87
August 1, 2005, 02:51 PM
I hope a lot of you are familiar with the London Bombings. An man was gunned down because he ran from the cops, and had a huge coat on in summer. Well, a lot of people are in an uproar over that. I would personally like to praise the work of the police officers who made that decision. Seriously, if a police officer thinks you have a bomb, then he is defending himself, his nation, his people. But a pickpocket, seen stealing a wallet, that is different.

I am assuming the guy who was shot was a pickpocket? I may have missed that point ... but it doesn't matter.

Again, the guy who was shot was stupid. He deserved what he got. HE and HE alone put himself in the situation of being a pickpocket in the first place, and furthermore doing so in a manner that made him a suspect in other crimes as well during a time of crisis. All he had to do was stop - he'd have a pickpocket charge, couple months in jail, and out. HE and he alone made the choice to run. One less pickpocket in the world - what a tragedy.

Let me say it again - HE made the choice to get himself shot. Not the cops.

This brings me back to my main arguement. All those people who have said Rapists or are impaired in some way they cannot fight, I am still saying that there is no reason why a gun could be used in those situations. But, again, if shooting can be avoided, then it should.

Why should the vicim of a rape in progress be allowed to use deadly force to protect herself/himself if the rapist's intent is simply to rape and not kill? Your life is not threatened - only your dignity, right? Rape victims should just let it happen. A couple of stern "No!"'s and maybe a hit of pepper spray - then your at the end of the line as the victim. But by all means, try and preserve the life of the rapist.

Echo Tango
August 1, 2005, 03:01 PM
Drop the DVD and step away from the remote.

Don't believe everything you see in the movies or read in books. US military, Police and even every day citizens have responsibility factors that come with owning and carrying weapons. Mel Gibson( I cant help but giggle at the irony that he is a Aussie actor) might whip out his trusty Berreta in Lethal Weapon movies to handle every situation, but real life is far from that.

Your everyday Police officer isn't going to draw down on a purse snatcher,and statically they rarely draw their weapons at all. When weapons are drawn its usually in the face of a verifiable threat where their is a crediable risk to their lives, or to the lives of others(yes this includes maiming). Anytime a weapon is discharged in the line of duty there is a investigation that is possibly more through then anything I can possibly describe to insure the discharge was justified.

The same principles hold true for everyday citizenry, You can't just drawn down and "pop a cap" because some one is threatening you, there has to be a verifiable risk to life and limb or serious bodily harm to you or others and limited avenues of escape. Then you draw your weapon to (and this is important please pay attention) STOP the threat. Notice I didn't say to Kill the person or threat but to stop it. If the miscreant dies as a result of it, thats just the way it goes, but I think you will find every responsible owner here understands the concept of Minimal force necessary to end a threat, and shoulders the responsibility that sometimes exercising that minimal force results in the death of another. One never shoots to kill, but to stop. Sometimes death is a unfortunate result of that.

The US military is also bound by similar rules, they dont just indiscriminatly fire on people in war zones, certain factors must be met per given a theatre or Area of Responsibilty that justifies firing on indivuals, it mostly boils down to, Is this person a crediable threat?, Do they possess the means and ability to cause harm to others, Do they have the intention of causing harm to others.

Despite what the movies may show you, Americans are not a bunch of gun toting psychopaths ready to drop lead at a moments notice, Having the freedom to purchase and carry firearms also carrys a heavy mantle of responsibility to the carry and use of said firearms. Criminals do not respect these things and should not be lumped into the same category as lawful gun owners, and because of their lack of respect for these things, the thought that their mark may be carrying causes a moment of pause in most. Take that uncertainty away, and you have chaos in the streets.

Mongo the Mutterer
August 1, 2005, 03:21 PM
Because liberalism is built around the theory that the government should provide for all your needs. The less you need the government, the less secure the government feels.

Perfectly put. Oh, and by the way, once you are a disarmed little sheep in the socialist country, the government will continue or accelerate letting criminals out of the prison system. Then you will become MORE dependant on the government to protect your baaaaa s.

Oh, then you will notice that the Police who are charged to protect you are actually the criminals. (anecdotal, but happened to a neighbors family in Belarus.)

PS hongimaster is a troll.

Vern Humphrey
August 1, 2005, 03:32 PM
If someone who was drunk came up to you and started to lay into you or your friend, would you shoot him? I hope your answer would by no. Because he doesn't know what he is doing.

Substitute "hopped up on PCP" for "drunk." Now imagine he's "laying into you" with a machete.

What's YOUR answer? :what:

mmike87
August 1, 2005, 09:43 PM
Oh, then you will notice that the Police who are charged to protect you are actually the criminals. (anecdotal, but happened to a neighbors family in Belarus.)

Ah, but remember that the police are under no obligation to protect any individual - only to enforce the laws of society as a whole. Read: the police are there to protect - you guessed it - the government.

Hawkmoon
August 1, 2005, 10:16 PM
Before Guns, when I said maturity, I didn't mean life experience.
Okay -- but in speaking about maturity I did mean life experience. You cannot have real maturity in the complete absence of life experience.
... and have worked harder than a lot of them (yes, surprise surprise, I have a job, and have to pay for my schooling).
But you do not have to work simply to eat and to have a roof over your head. To put it plainly, you are working for extras, not essentials.
But I'll ask you a question. Aussie Military training says, depending on the RoE, firearms should be a last result. Translation: "Shoot If You Have To." Is it the same over there?
Rules of Engagement are just that -- Rules of Engagement. They are not hard-and-fast, this-applies-to-all-situations rules. The rules of engagement vary from threater to theater, from location to location, from mission to mission, and from day to day depending on everything from the weather report to current intelligence briefings. I rather expect that's true of your military as well. It simply cannot be as cut-and-dried as you stated it.
I think our gun laws here are too strict, but yours over there are too loose. I mean, i know what you are saying, but Australia has a lowere crime rate for some major reasons.
What are you talking about? Lower crime rate than where, London? Your crime rate sure as heck isn't exemplary on a national level compared to the United States. It was, before your government enacted draconian gun control. Since then, as already noted, violent crime in Australia has skyrocketed, whereas here in the U.S. every location that has made concealed carry of self-defense handguns legal has seen the rate of violent crime decrease.

toivo
August 2, 2005, 05:21 AM
The vast majority of Harley owners didn't obtain the wherewithall to purchase their bikes by being the dregs of society.Don't be too hard on the "dregs of society"--they kept the Harley-Davidson Motor Company in business through the years when nice people rode Hondas and the British motorcycle industry went down the tubes.

hongimaster
August 2, 2005, 09:29 AM
Ok.

There are way to many posts for me to read right now, but i'll rebut points that have stood out.

1stly, How do you think half of Robbers get guns? They are given a background check, they are found to be clean, the are issued with a weapon. Technically, these people are the "Right Hands", but we all know better. Any man, women or Juvi carrying a gun is a potential criminal. I mean, It is a split second decision, shoot someone or don't. Now, peole have said "But, I am the Right Hands" or "Im not a criminal", etc. That's easy for you to say, but thats what most people think of themselves up until a point. What is stopping any of you from grabbing your gun now, heading to your front yard and shooting every living thing in sight? A conscience, maybe, but nothing physical. Anyone who is not naive know there are bad people on this planet, thus crime. Most people use a gun purely for sport, others, they never really need to touch their gun, its just in case. Some, however are so corrupt in the mind, they shoot people, without reason. These are technically the "Wrong Hands" but, no one ca never be sure what the "Right Hands" and the "Wrong Hands" are.

2ndly. I am not B.Sing you about the kid, it was on the news for about a week. And Since America doesn't really get any news on Aus, compared to what we get on you guys, you probably didn't know about it.

Hawkmoon.... Do you really not see Education for my future employment an essential? What about clothes? And Uniforms? Do I turn up to school naked, with no book? I doubt my school would look kindly on it. Also, I said DEPENDING ON THE ROE, meaning in most cases, excepting where the RoE change, your gun should be a last result. But Im not saying throw rocks at the enemy, im saying, If they surrender, or they shoot at you or seem to be carrying a weapon, you take them down. But you don't shoot anything that moves, or looks like a person. Thats not how it works. And Maturity has nothing to do with life experience. Its how you handle situations and act around people. Someone who blows rasberries and makes farting noises aren't very mature. I've just exposed about 30% of my school. People who understand that the only way to get stuff is to work, who can talk with adult, who is currently studying for the best grades possible, would you not say there is a difference?

Um, the London guy wasn't a pickpocket, I was merely using a pickpocket as an example. He was a simple tourist. Like, if you traveled to, say, India. And the Police there came running up to you, shouting some strange dialect at you with there weapons draw, the instant human reaction is to freeze, fight, or flee. The guy ran because he was scared, and was shot. But the police were only doing what they thought was for the good of their countries. I bet it was a similar situation in the US around 9-11. Any suspicious person would have been pulled up an checked, it was just luck no-one ran, because your cops wouldve reacted the same way, with good reason.

Richard.Howe
August 2, 2005, 09:41 AM
How do you think half of Robbers get guns? They are given a background check, they are found to be clean, the are issued with a weapon

Hmmm, maybe in Australia, but up here in the U.S., our NICS check would make this fairly tough. Reality shows that almost all U.S. weapons used in organized illegal activities were obtained through theft or laundering.

I would urge you to do some real research instead of "going with your gut." If you spend some honest time here (Australian site below), you just might uncover an interesting fact or two:

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~confiles/research.html

Some, however are so corrupt in the mind, they shoot people, without reason. These are technically the "Wrong Hands" but, no one ca never be sure what the "Right Hands" and the "Wrong Hands" are.

Absolutely right, which is the same reason it is sometimes difficult to decide whether we should publicly make available automobiles, kitchen knives, bathtubs, and hammers, all of which have been used in the US to commit murders in the past 30 days.

Trouble is -- it's unrealistic to think that we can pre-filter anyone's future use of an object when it is sold. We can only rely on NICS and enforce hellfire deterrence laws against those who infringe.

One reason I love my country is that it does not limit my freedom in some sort of Minority Report fortune-teller governmental philosophy which prohibits me from being a free moral agent. "We will not allow you to own this, because you might do bad things with it..." Before you bring up prohibitions against ownership of missiles and tanks, recall that our Constitution explicitly guarantees the freedom to own firearms, a rule borne out of the successful overthrow of an oppressive and tyrannical government.

Rich

pax
August 2, 2005, 10:40 AM
Some of you appear to have forgotten that this is The High Road.

From our Code of Conduct (http://www.thehighroad.org/code-of-conduct.html): Everyone is welcome to participate, regardless of political affiliation, gender, religion, nationality, or stance on gun ownership. We aim to respect every point of view, as long as it is presented in a polite and factual manner.

Even if you do not agree with another poster, you may not insult him or call him names. Stick to the facts! Attack the argument, not the fellow who presents it.

Guys, our fifteen-year-old Aussie has managed to stay polite and well-spoken. If you yourself are not capable of exhibiting at least that much maturity, please don't post here.

pax

FPrice
August 2, 2005, 10:58 AM
Any man, women or Juvi carrying a gun is a potential criminal.

Taken to it's "logical" (and I use the term loosely) next step, any man, woman, or Juvi is a potential criminal, period. For many crimes are committed without a gun.

The illogical nature of your statement is demonstrated by the fact that many millions of gun owners, past and present (and future) did not turn to a life of crime merely because they carried or had a gun. The nature of man (the species, not the gender) is much more complicated than to reduce any future "potential" actions to the presence of an inanimate object.

A man/woman is either a responsible person or they are not. A responsible person is safe whether they are unarmed, have a gun, or a nuclear bomb. Said person will not use anything irresponsibly.

Conversely an irresponsible person is dangerous in any of the same states.

Anyone who truely believes that a person is a potential criminal due to the presence of an inanimate object simply mistrusts all of mankind and would probably welcome us all being reduced to wards of some all-powerful nanny-state.

Such a person is the most dangerous of all because they would enslave us all based upon an irrational fear of their fellow man.

Graystar
August 2, 2005, 11:07 AM
1stly, How do you think half of Robbers get guns? They are given a background check, they are found to be clean, the are issued with a weapon.FBI surveys of convicted criminals show that over 80% of criminals that have used a gun acquired the gun through theft or street buys.

hongimaster, you are so uninformed that there's really no point in discussing this any further with you. And the problem isnít your lack of knowledge, but more your clear bias and inability to understand what we are saying. Your ignorance is encyclopedic.

(My apologies to the forum for straying from the high road.)

shield20
August 2, 2005, 11:38 AM
Anyone who is not naive know there are bad people on this planet, thus crime. Most people use a gun purely for sport, others, they never really need to touch their gun, its just in case. Some, however are so corrupt in the mind, they shoot people, without reason.


And this exactly the reason why we carry - because we DO understand this fact, and we refuse to be put at the mercy of other people with bad intent (or governments with 'good' intent). And be aware, there ARE bad people who deserve to die too. They demand it by their actions - by commiting acts of terror, or murder, or by raping women or kids, etc. It is NOT our job to be vigilantes and go out looking for them, but it is OUR right, and OUR responsibility, to protect ourselves and our families from such scumbags.

It is NOT up to you, or the government, to make the decision as to who just might turn out to be a criminal or who will not - that leads to elitism, favoritism, special treatment, unfair treatment of innocent people, etc. etc. People are supposed to be - and should be - judges by their actions, and take responsibility for those actions. It is not up to you, and it should not be left to anyone else to say my wife can't own a gun to protect herself from a rapist, because of some mistaken theory that owning a gun MIGHT make her a criminal, or for any other reason. The instance of owning a gun turning someone into a cold hearted criminal happens ALOT less then you have been led to believe.

Most criminals are not stupid - they would much rather target someone weak and unarmed. THAT is why crime rates always go down when more people are allowed to be armed. WE deserve the advantage - not them.

So you know that there are evil people, you know they do evil things, yet you still really want to take away the victim's best chance for survival?...take away YOUR or you loved one's best chance for survival...against some evil-minded low-life who has NO value of right and wrong, no value of life? Doesn't make sense...

thereisnospoon
August 2, 2005, 11:44 AM
Graystar +1

I don't believe this young adult realy cares for our opinions, he has just found a place to perpetuate his myopic utopian views of a world full of love and harmony and stir up a hornets nest at the same time. I would submit that this young man is affiliated in some way with the original troller that was linked in the original post.

Hong seems to want to promote a form of kinder, gentler self-defence:

Don't shoot the bad guy, just hit him repeatedly with a 2X4?

Yes, I can see how that promotes love and good nature...

I would dare say that your view of the way 99.9% of High Roaders would handle themselves in a violent confrontation is perpetuated by Hollyweird and salty posts here about "going to slide lock". In fact, I believe most of the folks here at the High Road would avoid confrontation in the first place by either being aware of our surroundings or by Eascaping and Evading the problem, if possible or applicable.

I carry a variety of self defense measures with me so that I do not have to resort to a firearm as my first line of defense...it is my last, as you put it.

Yet, for all of our restraint, there are times when situations warrant the use of deadly force (as you have so wonderfully acknowledged).

If you can Hong, please summarize/clarify your thoughts on the following topics:

1. Use of deadly force...include what you think would qualify as a reason to usemdeadly force.

2. Military use of Force and RoE...you seem to think that Military personnel should only shoot after they have been engaged and then only at enemies that clearly present themselves. I've never been in a combat situation, but to me that sounds like a great way to get dead.

3. How do you explain the increased crime rate in both Britain and Aus after draconian gun legislation was passed

Your help clarifying this would be greatly appreciated and could go a long way towards earning you respect from High Roaders who may disagree with you, but respect you for standing up for what you believe

Hawkmoon
August 2, 2005, 12:06 PM
1stly, How do you think half of Robbers get guns? They are given a background check, they are found to be clean, the are issued with a weapon. Technically, these people are the "Right Hands", but we all know better.
I'll assume, then, that you are using an editorial "we," since that statement certainly does not include me. I really do know better.

I cannot, of course, speak as to where robbers get their guns in Australia, but living near a major metropolitan area in the U.S. I can reliably inform you that the gang bangers do NOT pass background checks and buy their guns through legal channels. They buy them on the street corners from other gang bangers who have stolen them. I won;t get into specifics of how I know this, but I am not offering conjecture, or fantasy such as you offer. This is fact.

Hawkmoon
August 2, 2005, 12:10 PM
hongimaster, you are so uninformed that there's really no point in discussing this any further with you. And the problem isnít your lack of knowledge, but more your clear bias and inability to understand what we are saying. Your ignorance is encyclopedic.
Which, of course, is exactly the same as the aforementioned Vindi C, who also had no real interest in learning but was only interested in trying to convert an entire nation into forswearing it s Constitution and accepting a woefully warped view of the way things ought to be.

In fact, these arguments are becoming so painfully familiar that I begin to wonder if hongimaster isn't Vindi C posting under a new screen name.

migoi
August 2, 2005, 12:38 PM
are missing the point of Hongi"s posts. It's not that he totally anti-gun. He reads more like a 'roo version of Diane of the Left Coast. I know what's best, but the rules I lay out don't apply to me.

He's stated that he wants to and should be allowed to own firearms to protect himself ("I'm not against Guns, heck, I want one to be able to defend my house (a shotgun if you are interested)", he just doesn't want us crazy ole 'Mericans to be allowed to do so because we might be "the Wrong Hands." After reading his posts I though a goodly supply of bricks would have been more than sufficient for him to protect himself and his family.

I find it highly amusing to read a self admitted teenager from another country lecture this particular group of individuals on use of lethal force, military rules of engagement, and psychological tendencies.

I know I've read posts on here of folks who have been carrying firearms daily for longer than the 'Master has been alive. Plus we have quite a few military and former military folks, police officers, and lawyers. All of who our honored poster feels have gotten it all wrong during these many decades (perhaps centuries) of collective experience and need to be set straight.

As the ad says: priceless

migoi

Andrew Rothman
August 2, 2005, 01:09 PM
Any man, women or Juvi carrying a gun is a potential criminal.

Any man is a potential rapist, and any woman is a potential prostitute.

Anyone with hands is a potential strangler, and anyone with eyes is a potential peeping tom.

Any other "logic" you'd like to share?

Brian Williams
August 2, 2005, 01:25 PM
P.S How does us being 15 affect our maturity?

While you are so mature and intelligent please write it all down so we can have it, we forgot to do that when we where as mature and intelligent as you are.

OBTW I am in my Year of Jubilee if you are wondering.























What on Earth is a Hongi and how did you master it so young......

Solo
August 2, 2005, 04:30 PM
Any man, women or Juvi carrying a gun is a potential criminal.
Based on that sort of logic, anyone can be considered a potential criminal, so that would mean preventing anybody from acquiring knives, fertilizer, baseball bats, and etc.

coyote Mak
August 3, 2005, 01:34 AM
SONNY BOY!!! YOU ARE A TROLL AND AFTER READING THE POSTS FOR TODAY i HAVE REACHED ONE CONCLUSION, YOU ARE A TROLL!!!!
I don't even believe you are 15 or from Australia. i think you are older then that and are part of the democratic underground, so how do you like those little green apples.
or you are younger then you say you are and are as stupid as a pet rock and have no idea what the hell your talking about. your just babbling like your reading a prepared statement or worse yet, your reading it out of a book written by a left-winger who hates the world but wants to rule it.
so go away and grow up and get a life man, before that video screen eats you up.

:neener: :neener: :neener: :neener: :neener:

sfhogman
August 3, 2005, 01:51 AM
Hong,

After you get a life, (and don't worry, you will) you'll find that there are two inexpensive tools out there that you'll want to get right away:

1. A thesaurus

2. A dictionary

What the hell. Go for it now!

Sincerely,
Jeff

pax
August 3, 2005, 02:25 AM
Closed, for obnoxious and disappointing behavior on the part of members who should know better.

Guys, if all you can think of to do is to insult people who don't agree with you, YOU don't belong on THR. We don't do things that way, here.

Some of you need to check your PMs.

pax

If you enjoyed reading about "Self Defence Revisited" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!