I agree with Colpy. That guy should have shot to kill instead of shooting in the air. With any threat of bodily harm, lethal force is the only option but that does not necessarily mean using a gun. The greatest weapon you can use, even in a gun fight, is to not care if you live through the encounter. The biggest killer is fear. To act without fear gives you the advantage. Your actions will be unexpected.
Pissed! Surveillance camera video of firebomb attack
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
Tell that to the young man currently being held in an arson case in Georgina Township. He's been charged with 4 counts attempted murder, 4 counts of assault with a weapon, 4 counts uttering..., because there were people in the house.
Arson, when no one is home, attempted murder if someone is.
Reality dictates otherwise.
A great example of projection.
Arson comes in second after killing someone on the felony scale. It's a not quite the same in Canada tho.
I hope you never are put in a position of protecting your loved ones. Just watch the following.
Couger vs Bear
The Bear - Film by Jean-Jacques Annaud
Well, in some parallel universe fights don't happen. In our universe the losers are invariably either the weakest or least appropriately armed. Women nearly always lose to men when both are unarmed, strength in numbers will also determine the winner when neither side is armed, or are armed with primitive weapons, (think Rwanda, Hutus and Tutsis, or much of Africa for that matter). An 80 year old grandma with skill at arms does not need to be a victim of 2 or more 20 something crack heads. An agressor being shot by a defender does not make them a victim, except in our upside down society.
What the hell is you grandma doing hanging out with 20 year old crack heads? What the hell kind of grandson are you to allow your grandmother to do crack?
Using deadly force against intruders usually isn't habitual, (we welcome them in this country), North Korea is a different story, but I digress. There is a difference between defending your property, self, and those under your care; that is more of a duty than a habit. Criminality is habitual, that is part of what it is. Anyone who would firebomb a house, with or without occupants, has serious issues and most likely a criminal past, thus having a predisposition to criminality, or habit.
Running out in your gonch firing wildly into the air is not protecting your property. It's using a steel penis because your's won't shoot anything but blanks.
I know you're just being facetious, but where I'm from, they're called "home invasions". There are many cases of elderly folk whose homes have been invaded by whackos looking for prescription opiates. The kids have no regard for the welfare of the victim. BTW, I offered the use of one of my .45's but my mum declined, she hates guns.
I don't know that he was firing wildly, but in your own words he was using a "steel penis", I really don't want to know what you would do with your real one to diffuse the situation had you been given the opportunity.
Smart woman. You leave your 80 year old mother who is on opiates living in an unsecure building?
You should have read the article in full. Do you think it would have been a good idea for him to call the cops and FD before ejaculating into the night sky?
Well,yeah she's smart, but I didn't leave her anywhere, other than at her home It was my dad who was on opiates in his final days, but one of my cousins did steal some of his leftovers. Mum just doesn't like guns because one uncle died as a result of a hunting accident. The rest of my extended family regards them as tools, and respects them likewise.
You remind me of the eggheads from Transport Canada who used to ask,"why are normal checklists read while emergency checklists are committed to memory instead of the other way around/". The thought being that emergincies require more diligence. The reality is that when dealing with normalcy, you have the luxury of time to make sure everything is done right, not so during an emergency. In an emergancy you do the actions first, by memory, then, once the situation is under control, you follow up with the checklist. You do not run a long checklist until you burn a wing off or drive an MD11 into St. Margret's bay, you do the actions first. Take a walk in the real world.
Secure your area/home first, hopefully you got the intruders there, but if not two quick snaps at each of them as they are running out the door is acceptable.
Actually, it comes in third after attempting to kill someone.
Setting fire to an occupied home, is attempted murder.
Don't believe me, call your local Police Detachment.
Ah, here it is. I knew this was coming a long at some point and so I'll use it now to raise my point about guns.
Your mom, as nice a lady as I am sure she is, isn't trained, inspected or permitted to use or keep a gun. You, a so called law abiding gun owner, have no hesitation what so ever to give a gun to someone who isn't trained, or permitted to keep a gun, let alone a semi automatic handgun in her home. Of course you mean well and I understand that, but what you don't see is, that she would likely be giving that gun up should something happen.
I know it sounds really really easy to gun down a seriously evil person who is bent on killing, then raping then eating some of what's left, in your mind. But it's not that way in reality. Unless trained, most people are going to at the very least hesitate and question themselves and the situation. Before they know it, the gun is out of their hands and in the hands of someone who at the very least, broke into a home they knew someone was in to steal things.
Now that criminal has a gun and your mother. Just what good is that going to do anyone?
So what ends up happening, is you, a law abiding gun owner is putting a gun in the hands of a criminal. This should never ever even cross your mind. That's the problem with gun ownership today. Too many people who own guns, take that responsibility far to lightly. Because of that, we need to have the government implement a gun registry. So that when someone finds a gun that is in the wrong hands, it can be traced back to the person who was supposed to be responsible for it and remove that responsibility they obviously can't handle.
There are other options. None are free and easy but then arming Mom with an illegal hand gun isn't going to be free or easy when it comes down to it either.
As to the OP here, the crux is that when he exited his home, he had plenty room to escape and thus, no longer under attack. Once he exited the house, they fled. Even masked the police found two of the three and arrested them. The third is wanted and should he pop his head up, they're going to arrest him too.
If someone is trying to kill you, then in my book you can kill them if that's what it takes to keep you from dying. But the moment they flee, you aren't under threat any longer and have no right to do anything other than call them names as they run away. Bullets go in the front not the back.
I'm sure you don't want them coming back for a second try. No guarantee the authorities will stop them.
Two quick shots and don't miss the first time.
Two quick shots and don't miss the first time.
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.
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.
First of all, you make too many assumptions your reply:
1. The lady is not trained.
2. The lady is not permitted to have firearms.
3. The lady lives in Canada, not in the USA.....where defensive gun use is not discouraged.
4. The firearms (a .45) he offered to lend her is a handgun. There are lots of long guns that fire pistol ammo.
5. The basic assumption that led to all the above: the action of lending the lady a firearm would be illegal, irresponsible, or both.
Because someone does not like firearms does not mean they are not trained in their use.
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.
Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck, Ph.D.
http://www.garymauser.net/pdf/CSD-JCJ-JFP-8-3-99.pdf
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.
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.
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.