Self Defence Revisited

Status
Not open for further replies.
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
 
-

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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
-

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?
 
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?
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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."
 
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. :)
 
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:
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
RoE Simplified

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.
 
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.
 
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:
 
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.
 
Hongimaster said:
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.
Hongimaster said:
... 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.
Hongimaster said:
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.
Hongimaster said:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
Moderator Note

Some of you appear to have forgotten that this is The High Road.

From our Code of Conduct:
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top