Pissed! Surveillance camera video of firebomb attack


Unforgiven
#121
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

Self defense is defending yours or someone else's life. The mistake made was those shots that missed, where did they go? Shooting someone with a gun who just shot at you is self defense, no matter which way they are going. Who is to say that person was not planning to circle behind you or something. Get them while you can, they are armed. Do not give them a second chance.

No one shot at the guy. They fire bombed his house. It is impossible for them to throw farther than he can shoot. They ran away and he was no longer in danger. Running after them and shooting them isn't self defense.
 
petros
#122
Someone "defending themselves from molatov arsonists" would have threw a spent fire extinguisher at them as the drove away.
 
Unforgiven
#123
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Well, I've been waiting for Bob to take up the cudgel on this one, but that has not happened (he must have missed it)....so I'll step up to the plate.

No one is ever obligated to reply. I welcome him to but it's his choice.

Quote:

First of all, you make too many assumptions your reply:

No more than you make, so why are mine something less than your own?

Quote:

1. The lady is not trained.
2. The lady is not permitted to have firearms.

If she was trained why would she be afraid of firearms? That doesn't make any sense. If she is licensed with all the correct paper work, then why would she not have a gun? Again that doesn't make any sense.

Quote:

3. The lady lives in Canada, not in the USA.....where defensive gun use is not discouraged.

Well, Bob lives in Alba Nuadh so I assumed his Mom lives there or near by. I suppose she could live in a hut on Easter Island but that isn't likely either. If she did live in say, Vermont, she would probably have a number of guns laying about the place anyway. So it wouldn't make sense for Bob to make the offer.

Quote:

4. The firearms (a .45) he offered to lend her is a handgun. There are lots of long guns that fire pistol ammo.

Sure, and so does a .45 hand gun. Which would be easier for her to keep in her handbag or night table drawer.

Quote:

5. The basic assumption that led to all the above: the action of lending the lady a firearm would be illegal, irresponsible, or both.

Just because your cockamamie world of exceptions, unlikelihoods and anomalies help to make your justifications gel in your head doesn't mean they are the least bit sensible, common or correct.

Quote:

Because someone does not like firearms does not mean they are not trained in their use.

We are drawn to our comforts and familiarities far more than our dislikes.

Quote:

Now, let's get to the crux of the matter......firearms are used in self defense in the USA about 2 million times per year, and in Canada about 20,000 times a year. Rarely are shots fired. Nine times out of ten, the mere display of a weapon deters criminal assault. Therefore your contention that "she would likely be giving that gun up should something happen" is garbage.......there is VERY little chance that the weapon would wind up in criminal hands, it is ten times more likely the criminal flees with no shot being fired. That makes the crux of your argument nonsense. So much for arming the criminal element, a ludicrous argument, easily shot to pieces.

I don't get the feel that she is a cross between Annie Oakly and Sarah Connor from Terminator movies. While you seem to have this impression that everyone who touches a gun becomes expert quick draw nerves of steel heroes, the majority of people even police, damn near **** their pants when they have to shoot someone. It take the military weeks of intense psychological training to get people over their fear and hesitation to kill someone. Some never get over it and older people are never allowed to enter basic training because their minds don't reshape to accept what is thus far been unacceptable to them in a deep profound sense. Tossing grandma a .45 and showing her where the safety is, how to load and cock the gun isn't going to get her over that little hump I am afraid.

{quote]Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck, Ph.D. (external - login to view)

www.garymauser.net/pdf/CSD-JCJ-JFP-8-3-99.pdf (external - login to view)[/quote]

I suppose I could post a couple of anti-gun links showing where guns and self defense are a joke and more people end up getting hurt, or hurting loved ones that you would dismiss as bull**** so let me be the first one to forego the rhetoric links.

Quote:

Secondly, I doubt Bob is one to simply dump a firearm on Mom without some knowledge of her effective capability to use it. I'm sure he would have offered some rudimentary instruction.......if she had none previously. Now you might say that is an assumption on my part, but I think it is a reasonable one, having read his posts.

There is a way to do that and what Bob described isn't the way to do that. The laws regarding guns in Canada are what they are for a reason. I have no problem with you giving someone a gun to use if you are right there at all times watching over them to see that the gun doesn't come to be used incorrectly or in a fool hearty manner. Like at a gun range for example. It's a great way to teach someone the skills needed to handle a gun. Once they have those skills they can apply and if all things check out, they can have a gun. But those checks and balances are there for a reason. As much as you despise them, they help to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and idiots.

Quote:

Thirdly, as has been posted here over and over and over, the man's house was afire, they put one through his window, WHEN HE EXITED THE HOUSE HE WAS RUNNING OUT INTO THE PRESENCE OF ATTACKERS ARMED WITH MOLOTOV COCKTAILS. He should have shot the first guy centre mass.

Shoulda coulda woulda. It seems simply brandishing the gun worked just as you say it does so very often in the US. This again shows that you fail to understand the principle behind the legislation. Once they are running away, he is no longer in peril.

Quote:

And Fourth, and more to the point....when it come right down to it, if you care more about some idiot piece of legislation than about the ability of your loved ones to defend themselves when threatened, your priorities are completely ****ed.

I don't care more about some piece of legislation than I do about the ability of my loved one's to defend their lives when threatened. I do care that some gun nut creep would use this as a platform to justify going out and shooting someone while they are not under threat of life and limb simply to satisfy some psychotic urge to kill people.
 
Colpy
#124
Quote: Originally Posted by UnforgivenView Post

No one is ever obligated to reply. I welcome him to but it's his choice.



No more than you make, so why are mine something less than your own?



If she was trained why would she be afraid of firearms? That doesn't make any sense. If she is licensed with all the correct paper work, then why would she not have a gun? Again that doesn't make any sense.



Well, Bob lives in Alba Nuadh so I assumed his Mom lives there or near by. I suppose she could live in a hut on Easter Island but that isn't likely either. If she did live in say, Vermont, she would probably have a number of guns laying about the place anyway. So it wouldn't make sense for Bob to make the offer.



Sure, and so does a .45 hand gun. Which would be easier for her to keep in her handbag or night table drawer.



Just because your cockamamie world of exceptions, unlikelihoods and anomalies help to make your justifications gel in your head doesn't mean they are the least bit sensible, common or correct.



We are drawn to our comforts and familiarities far more than our dislikes.



I don't get the feel that she is a cross between Annie Oakly and Sarah Connor from Terminator movies. While you seem to have this impression that everyone who touches a gun becomes expert quick draw nerves of steel heroes, the majority of people even police, damn near **** their pants when they have to shoot someone. It take the military weeks of intense psychological training to get people over their fear and hesitation to kill someone. Some never get over it and older people are never allowed to enter basic training because their minds don't reshape to accept what is thus far been unacceptable to them in a deep profound sense. Tossing grandma a .45 and showing her where the safety is, how to load and cock the gun isn't going to get her over that little hump I am afraid.

{quote]Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck, Ph.D. (external - login to view)

www.garymauser.net/pdf/CSD-JCJ-JFP-8-3-99.pdf (external - login to view)

I suppose I could post a couple of anti-gun links showing where guns and self defense are a joke and more people end up getting hurt, or hurting loved ones that you would dismiss as bull**** so let me be the first one to forego the rhetoric links.



There is a way to do that and what Bob described isn't the way to do that. The laws regarding guns in Canada are what they are for a reason. I have no problem with you giving someone a gun to use if you are right there at all times watching over them to see that the gun doesn't come to be used incorrectly or in a fool hearty manner. Like at a gun range for example. It's a great way to teach someone the skills needed to handle a gun. Once they have those skills they can apply and if all things check out, they can have a gun. But those checks and balances are there for a reason. As much as you despise them, they help to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and idiots.



Shoulda coulda woulda. It seems simply brandishing the gun worked just as you say it does so very often in the US. This again shows that you fail to understand the principle behind the legislation. Once they are running away, he is no longer in peril.



I don't care more about some piece of legislation than I do about the ability of my loved one's to defend their lives when threatened. I do care that some gun nut creep would use this as a platform to justify going out and shooting someone while they are not under threat of life and limb simply to satisfy some psychotic urge to kill people.[/QUOTE]

So, here's the question.....what would you do if three guys bearing molotov cocktails showed up at YOUR house and proceeded to throw them through your windows????

Go for it it.

I am prepared to laugh my *** off at you.
 
petros
#125
Quote:

I suppose she could live in a hut on Easter Island but that isn't likely either.

Chilean gun laws were written by Americans. She wouldn't be using one there either.

Quote: Originally Posted by UnforgivenView Post

I don't care more about some piece of legislation than I do about the ability of my loved one's to defend their lives when threatened. I do care that some gun nut creep would use this as a platform to justify going out and shooting someone while they are not under threat of life and limb simply to satisfy some psychotic urge to kill people.

Steel *****.
 
Unforgiven
#126
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

So, here's the question.....what would you do if three guys bearing molotov cocktails showed up at YOUR house and proceeded to throw them through your windows????

Go for it it. I am prepared to laugh my *** off at you.

I would brandish my manly weapon and they would cower and skulk back into the pit of sorrow from whence they came.

Go nuts giggles.

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Steel *****?

Oh that's old, big argument with Durka over pron names and now I am the Iron Sausage!

Thanks for asking though.
 
petros
#127
I never posed that as a question.
 
Unforgiven
#128
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

I never posed that as a question.

You did with your eyes.
 
cdn_bc_ca
+1
#129
With the varied opinions in this thread and the supposed understanding of the law from posters (including myself), whether right or wrong, I see only two outcomes when questionable situations with guns and death are involved:

1) The victim will go bankrupt defending the self-defense claim in court.
If that fails:
2) The victim will not only practice self-defense in jail, but gain a valuable new skill called "rape-defense"

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Reality dictates otherwise.

What is reality?

YouTube - BBC Horizon (2011) - What is Reality? (complete, uncut) (external - login to view)

Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

So, here's the question.....what would you do if three guys bearing molotov cocktails showed up at YOUR house and proceeded to throw them through your windows????

Go for it it.

I am prepared to laugh my *** off at you.

The same thing that a person without guns would do...

Go ahead laugh. Just because you got guns doesn't change the situation because really, using them should be your last resort. And flying out the front door with guns blazing and having the "Shoot first, ask questions later" mentality is not a last resort.
 
Unforgiven
#130
Interesting link. Cheers.
 
DaSleeper
#131
Yup....Just finished watching it too............but......

What does it have to do with the price of hard cast lead bullets?
 
Unforgiven
#132
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

Yup....Just finished watching it too............but......

What does it have to do with the price of hard cast lead bullets?

I'll check the even horizon!
 
Colpy
#133
Quote: Originally Posted by cdn_bc_caView Post

With the varied opinions in this thread and the supposed understanding of the law from posters (including myself), whether right or wrong, I see only two outcomes when questionable situations with guns and death are involved:

1) The victim will go bankrupt defending the self-defense claim in court.
If that fails:
2) The victim will not only practice self-defense in jail, but gain a valuable new skill called "rape-defense"

Absolutely correct.

And that is exactly why it is so wrong to charge the man.

It is punishment for the victim of a criminal act.....win or lose.
 
petros
#134
He discharged a firearm in town limits.

He isn't the only person on the planet.

What happens when bullets are fired wildly into the air?

People are injured, sometimes fatally, when bullets discharged into the air fall back down. The mortality rate among those struck by falling bullets is about 32%, compared with about 2% to 6% normally associated with gunshot wounds.[5] (external - login to view) The higher mortality is related to the higher incidence of head wounds from falling bullets.
A study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (external - login to view) (CDC) found that 80% of celebratory gunfire-related injuries are to the head, feet, and shoulders.[6] (external - login to view) In the U.S. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (external - login to view), about two people die and about 25 more are injured each year from celebratory gunfire on New Year's Eve, the CDC says.[3] (external - login to view) Between the years 1985 and 1992, doctors at the King/Drew Medical Center (external - login to view) in Los Angeles, California (external - login to view), treated some 118 people for random falling-bullet injuries. Thirty-eight of them died.[7] (external - login to view) Kuwaitis (external - login to view) celebrating in 1991 at the end of the Gulf War (external - login to view) by firing weapons into the air caused 20 deaths from falling bullets.[7] (external - login to view)
Firearms expert Julian Hatcher (external - login to view) studied falling bullets and found that .30 caliber (external - login to view) rounds reach terminal velocities (external - login to view) of 300 feet per second (90 m/s) and larger .50 caliber bullets have a terminal velocity of 500 feet per second (150 m/s).[8] (external - login to view) A bullet traveling at only 150 feet per second (46 m/s) to 170 feet per second (52 m/s) can penetrate human skin,[9] (external - login to view) and at 200 feet per second (60 m/s) it can penetrate the skull (external - login to view).[10] (external - login to view) A bullet that does not penetrate the skull may still result in an intracranial injury (external - login to view).[11] (external - login to view)
In 2005, the International Action Network on Small Arms (external - login to view) (IANSA) ran education campaigns on the dangers of celebratory gunfire in Serbia (external - login to view) and Montenegro (external - login to view).[12] (external - login to view) In Serbia, the campaign slogan was "every bullet that is fired up, must come down."[13] (external - login to view)
 
Colpy
#135
Quote: Originally Posted by cdn_bc_caView Post

The same thing that a person without guns would do...

Go ahead laugh. Just because you got guns doesn't change the situation because really, using them should be your last resort. And flying out the front door with guns blazing and having the "Shoot first, ask questions later" mentality is not a last resort.

I'm not laughing.

When I posed the question to Unforgiven, I should have included "If you had weapons" I believe he does own guns, but I am not sure.......

I would never force anyone to keep weapons if they don't want to.....and I would regret your death at the hands of arsonists.

But to be armed and suffer criminal attack without response is a good reason to be nominated for a Darwin Award, IMHO.

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

He discharged a firearm in town limits.

He isn't the only person on the planet.

What happens when bullets are fired wildly into the air?

So, I guess police should not be allowed to carry weapons within the town limits, as they might break the law and fire them, huh? Shooting in self defense is NOT illegal. THINK before you post, it helps immensely.

Yeah, he should not have fired warning shots, he should have shot the SOB centre mass.
 
petros
#136
The police don't go running around in their underwear firing wildly into the sky do they Colpy? And firing at a car driving away isn't self defense.

If he wanted to defend himself and his property he would have grabbed a fire extinguisher. It's legal to fire one of those off all you want.

That's a geat idea Colpy then he'd be up for manslaughter charges and not a danger to the public for the next 10 years.
 
Colpy
#137
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

The police don't go running around in their underwear firing wildly into the sky do they Colpy? And firing at a car driving away isn't self defense.

If he wanted to defend himself and his property he would have grabbed a fire extinguisher. It's legal to fire one of those off all you want.

That's a geat idea Colpy then he'd be up for manslaughter charges and not a danger to the public for the next 10 years.

First of all, I have not heard from any source that he fired at a fleeing vehicle. If you have, I'd love the link.

Fine, you take on homicidal loonies with your fire extinguisher......

Good luck with that.

Really.
 
petros
#138
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

First of all, I have not heard from any source that he fired at a fleeing vehicle. If you have, I'd love the link.

Fine, you take on homicidal loonies with your fire extinguisher......

Good luck with that.

Really.

I googled his name and read the full story. Try it and read reallllllly slowly and use a dictionary if you hit any big words.

He made an effort to protect home by shooting at the fire?

Read close:

Quote:

So Mr. Thomson, a former firearms instructor, grabbed one of his Smith & Wesson revolvers from his safe, loaded it and headed outside dressed in only his underwear.
“He exited his house and fired his revolver two, maybe three times, we’re not sure.



And both you and he are supposed to be instructors? **** that!
 
cdn_bc_ca
#139
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

He made an effort to protect home by shooting at the fire?

It's called self-defense... the fire was a threat to his life so what better way to defend oneself than to shoot at it?

"He warned his neighbour, then killed one of the birds."

It's called self-defense... the chicken was a threat to his life so what better way to defend oneself than to shoot at it?

LOL...
Last edited by cdn_bc_ca; Feb 7th, 2011 at 06:57 PM..
 
Unforgiven
#140
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

First of all, I have not heard from any source that he fired at a fleeing vehicle. If you have, I'd love the link.

Fine, you take on homicidal loonies with your fire extinguisher......

Good luck with that.

Really.

It says he shot to miss on purpose.
 
Colpy
#141
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

I googled his name and read the full story. Try it and read reallllllly slowly and use a dictionary if you hit any big words.

He made an effort to protect home by shooting at the fire?

Read close:

And both you and he are supposed to be instructors? **** that!

Excuse me?

Perhaps you are the one requiring some courses in Reading Comprehension.........NOWHERE in that article does it even mention an automobile.

If you are stupid enough to run around with a fire extinguisher putting out molotov cocktails while your enemies are still throwing them, you will richly deserve your Darwin Award. I will even nominate you.

And yes, I've been an instructor, of the Canadian Firearms Safety Course, and a firearms instructor for armoured car guards, and currently I spend some of my time instructing unarmed guards in self-defense law.

That's why I know what I'm talking about, and you don't.

Quote: Originally Posted by cdn_bc_caView Post

It's called self-defense... the fire was a threat so what better way to defend oneself than to shoot at it?

LOL...

Okay, that is two of you singing the same tune out of the Songbook for Idiots.

The guys THROWING the molotov cocktails were the threat.

GEEZUS!

It's like if someone where shooting at your house, you guys would expect the target to catch the bullets, because they are, after all, the threat.

Idiocy.
 
petros
#142
Auto-erotic paranoid schizophrenics who ejaculate their steel ***** into the night sky need to be locked up for the safety of the public.
 
Colpy
#143
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Auto-erotic paranoid schizophrenics who ejaculate their steel ***** into the night sky need to be locked up for the safety of the public.

Ummm...I won't be visiting you.....
 
DaSleeper
#144
It does mention an automobile but no mention of him shooting at it
Quote:

Police said no one was injured in the shooting and the attackers got into a car and sped off. They charged Randy Weaver, 48, of Port Colborne, and Justin Lee, 19, of Welland, with arson in December, alleging the men and a third suspect “intentionally set the home on fire while the homeowner was inside.”



Read more: Man faces jail after protecting home from masked attackers | Features | National Post

Colpy: some people see what they want to see
 
petros
#145
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Excuse me?

Perhaps you are the one requiring some courses in Reading Comprehension.........NOWHERE in that article does it even mention an automobile.

I told you to read reallllly slowly but you didn't....



Quote:


Police said no one was injured in the shooting and the attackers got into a car and sped off. They charged Randy Weaver, 48, of Port Colborne, and Justin Lee, 19, of Welland, with arson in December, alleging the men and a third suspect “intentionally set the home on fire while the homeowner was inside.”






 
cdn_bc_ca
#146
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Okay, that is two of you singing the same tune out of the Songbook for Idiots.

The guys THROWING the molotov cocktails were the threat.

GEEZUS!

What about the chicken?
 
DaSleeper
#147
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

I told you to read reallllly slowly but you didn't....

And where does it say he shot at the bloody car...
 
petros
#148
So why exactly did a man who claims to be "quiet and keeps to himself" get fire bombed?

Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

And where does it say he shot at the bloody car...

The car that didn't exist and the guy who didn't run out in his underwear firing into the night sky until the OP re-read what he posted after how many ****ing weeks?

Like I said, I read more than just one article. Did you?
 
DaSleeper
#149
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

So why exactly did a man who claims to be "quiet and keeps to himself" get fire bombed?

The car that didn't exists and the guy who didn't run out in his underwear firing intot he night sky until the OP re-read what he posted after how many ****ing weeks?

You answer my question first.....You are now acting like Avro
 
petros
#150
Did you read the other articles available yet sleepy guy?
 
no new posts