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.
Pissed! Surveillance camera video of firebomb attack
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
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.
Someone "defending themselves from molatov arsonists" would have threw a spent fire extinguisher at them as the drove away.
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.
http://www.garymauser.net/pdf/CSD-JCJ-JFP-8-3-99.pdf[/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.
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.
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 ass off at you.
Chilean gun laws were written by Americans. She wouldn't be using one there either.
Steel penis.
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.
Oh that's old, big argument with Durka over pron names and now I am the Iron Sausage! :wave:
Thanks for asking though.
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"
What is reality?
YouTube - BBC Horizon (2011) - What is Reality? (complete, uncut)
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.
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"
What is reality?
YouTube - BBC Horizon (2011) - What is Reality? (complete, uncut)
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.
Yup....Just finished watching it too............but......
What does it have to do with the price of hard cast lead bullets?:smile:
What does it have to do with the price of hard cast lead bullets?:smile:
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.
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] 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 (CDC) found that 80% of celebratory gunfire-related injuries are to the head, feet, and shoulders.[6] In the U.S. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, about two people die and about 25 more are injured each year from celebratory gunfire on New Year's Eve, the CDC says.[3] Between the years 1985 and 1992, doctors at the King/Drew Medical Center in Los Angeles, California, treated some 118 people for random falling-bullet injuries. Thirty-eight of them died.[7] Kuwaitis celebrating in 1991 at the end of the Gulf War by firing weapons into the air caused 20 deaths from falling bullets.[7]
Firearms expert Julian Hatcher studied falling bullets and found that .30 caliber rounds reach terminal velocities 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] 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] and at 200 feet per second (60 m/s) it can penetrate the skull.[10] A bullet that does not penetrate the skull may still result in an intracranial injury.[11]
In 2005, the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) ran education campaigns on the dangers of celebratory gunfire in Serbia and Montenegro.[12] In Serbia, the campaign slogan was "every bullet that is fired up, must come down."[13]
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] 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 (CDC) found that 80% of celebratory gunfire-related injuries are to the head, feet, and shoulders.[6] In the U.S. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, about two people die and about 25 more are injured each year from celebratory gunfire on New Year's Eve, the CDC says.[3] Between the years 1985 and 1992, doctors at the King/Drew Medical Center in Los Angeles, California, treated some 118 people for random falling-bullet injuries. Thirty-eight of them died.[7] Kuwaitis celebrating in 1991 at the end of the Gulf War by firing weapons into the air caused 20 deaths from falling bullets.[7]
Firearms expert Julian Hatcher studied falling bullets and found that .30 caliber rounds reach terminal velocities 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] 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] and at 200 feet per second (60 m/s) it can penetrate the skull.[10] A bullet that does not penetrate the skull may still result in an intracranial injury.[11]
In 2005, the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) ran education campaigns on the dangers of celebratory gunfire in Serbia and Montenegro.[12] In Serbia, the campaign slogan was "every bullet that is fired up, must come down."[13]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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: