Self Defence Revisited

[hongimaster]

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>

 

[Baba Louie]

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]

thanks for the post

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]

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!

 

[bogie]

I'll just fart in their general direction.

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

 

[Solo]

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]

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]

It's THR staff policy that we don't publically discuss the reason for why someone's membership was revoked.

 

[hongimaster]

-

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]

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]

"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]

"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]

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.

 

[Moondoggie]

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]

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]

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

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 )
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]

OK, I'm gonna jump in here!!!

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]

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 you’re 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 that’s all you have, then you have to listen to what we have to say because we understand the situation best.

 

[Double Maduro]

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]

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

 

[Aguila Blanca]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

That's a little too ambiguous for me...but to each his own.