Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Anodizer on July 09, 2009, 12:12:40 PM
-
And they don't consider this a hate crime?? But if it was the other way around, it surely would be a hate crime and they'd be looking to hang these white people..
A sign of things to come, gents.... Stay on your toes!
http://www.ohio.com/news/50172282.html (http://www.ohio.com/news/50172282.html)
-
where's Rev. Al Sharpton to put his 2 cents in? :rolleyes:
-
Looks like Akron Police force needs to raise the bar some on the intelligence tests to join the force.
We have grade schoolers here in Texas with more intelligence.
-
I's like to comment but I'm not ready for another Scuzzy can-o-whoopazz. I believe that you will see more and more of this in the future.
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
That's really inappropriate and part of the reason why racism exists.
-
Looks like Akron Police force needs to raise the bar some on the intelligence tests to join the force.
We have grade schoolers here in Texas with more intelligence.
I doubt a grade schooler would think that reading one newspaper report gives them access to more facts then an investigating Police agency could get. Grade schoolers are usually smarter then that.
-
That's really inappropriate and part of the reason why racism exists.
Actually, it's no big deal at all, and it has little if anything to do with hatred.
Otherwise, the release of "white men can't jump" would have stirred up riots across the nation...
(I'm assuming you picketed the theaters, of course)
-
If he was attacked by 50 some odd teens, a gun would only get him killed. It's probably for the best that he -didn't- have one. yeah taking a beating sucks, but it's better than being disarmed and shot..
-
If he was attacked by 50 some odd teens, a gun would only get him killed. It's probably for the best that he -didn't- have one. yeah taking a beating sucks, but it's better than being disarmed and shot..
Depends on if he had 50 rounds or not.
-
That's really inappropriate and part of the reason why racism exists.
I doubt that racism will ever be eradicated in mankind with any amount of time. From what I seen on TV from some black entertainers regarding MJ their doing their part to keep it alive and well in America. Some of the statements made were about as stupid as one can make.
I haven't heard any uproar from the black community regarding the black on black racism going on in Africa. Where are the Revrands on these atrocities?
-
If he was attacked by 50 some odd teens, a gun would only get him killed. It's probably for the best that he -didn't- have one. yeah taking a beating sucks, but it's better than being disarmed and shot..
Not when you pop one of them in the head and then ask, "So, who's next?" Just how many punk gang banger teenagers do you know who are diciplined enough to charge forward under fire to take someone out? I don't know any. They would have pissed their pants and been nothing but a-holes and elbows going as fast as they can in the other direction.
-
^^^ and then you'd most likely go to jail.
Have fun in there... and don't drop the soap. :D
-
I doubt that racism will ever be eradicated in mankind with any amount of time. From what I seen on TV from some black entertainers regarding MJ their doing their part to keep it alive and well in America. Some of the statements made were about as stupid as one can make.
I haven't heard any uproar from the black community regarding the black on black racism going on in Africa. Where are the Revrands on these atrocities?
no money to be made there.
-
Not when you pop one of them in the head and then ask, "So, who's next?" Just how many punk gang banger teenagers do you know who are diciplined enough to charge forward under fire to take someone out? I don't know any. They would have pissed their pants and been nothing but a-holes and elbows going as fast as they can in the other direction.
how about if they're stupid enough?
-
^^^ and then you'd most likely go to jail.
Have fun in there... and don't drop the soap. :D
Oh I think the self deffense aurgument would fly just fine when it's 50 to 1 odds and you jack one up.
-
1 word! teenagers. safety and stupidity in numbers!
50 probably drunk teenagers walking down the road. No police? And seeing 50 drunk teenagers walking down the road. I'd probably move from the front yard to the back! Pulling a gun on someone probably would easily lead to retaliation. IMO
-
Actually, it's no big deal at all, and it has little if anything to do with hatred.
Otherwise, the release of "white men can't jump" would have stirred up riots across the nation...
(I'm assuming you picketed the theaters, of course)
your a real DA, GUYS LIKE YOU SHOULD BE CRUSHED
-
Yes. The answer to prevent another incident like this is clearly to arm yourself to the teeth. :rolleyes:
-
Yes. The answer to prevent another incident like this is clearly to arm yourself to the teeth. :rolleyes:
Yeah, bending over and dropping your drawers is a much better answer.
-
he didnt bend over and drop his drawers...he stood up to them and took a beating. If he had a gun this would have been a murder case one way or the other.
-
NVM not gonna state my opinion.
-
if they're allowed to keep getting away with that poop, they will....and the law will do nothing, seeing as they're minors. they'll get a slap on the wrist. next weekend they'll be back out there.
it'll take either
1) their parents intervening, and teaching them
2) serious consequences for their actions from either the people they're trying to screw with, or the police. the police really can't do a whole lot, because again, they're minors. it'll only take a couple times before they learn to not keep doing the poop they're doing.
i can't put more of my opinion, as i don't wanna feel the banstick.........
-
Whether you carry 50 rounds or not, you really think you can put them all with one shot center mass? Now if you're in the ISPCA with a 1911, then maybe, but that's stretching it..You shoot one in the head, plan to make 49 more of those before there are too many on you to move? This guy was in a lose lose situation as I read it, if he didn't try to help all 50 of them may have been on the one they initially attacked. One gun between the two "good guys" snatched by the bad guys would be more then enough to drop both of them. A gun on one of the 2 victims I think, would've made things worse. Just my honest opinion. Now 1v1 or 1v2 in a confrontation, that's a different case entirely.
-
Whether you carry 50 rounds or not, you really think you can put them all with one shot center mass? Now if you're in the ISPCA with a 1911, then maybe, but that's stretching it..You shoot one in the head, plan to make 49 more of those before there are too many on you to move? This guy was in a lose lose situation as I read it, if he didn't try to help all 50 of them may have been on the one they initially attacked. One gun between the two "good guys" snatched by the bad guys would be more then enough to drop both of them. A gun on one of the 2 victims I think, would've made things worse. Just my honest opinion. Now 1v1 or 1v2 in a confrontation, that's a different case entirely.
somehow i think that would/could only happen in the movies.
you only need to hit one though.....the rest will more than likely run like the dickens.........
oo...and i dont own any firearms......
-
I'd like to know what you think about this LCCajun. Feel free to send me a PM if you don't want to post in this thread
-
The nutshell point I wanted to make : 50 v 2 + wife, children..yeah, take a stand, but don't do it with a gun. How many of those 50 do you think wasn't carrying some sort of weapon. Gun, knife, screwdriver, whatever. The families involved in this incident are lucky, no one got killed. Even if you do pull a firearm and pop one, the other 49 who had their shanks in their pants, now have them in their hands....You don't beat those odds. I agree braining one would be pretty intimidating, but 49 pissed off youths just saw you kill their "homeboy" and they they have numbers. 1v1, one shot may send em packing, 1v2, probably the same result. 1v3, you've already got too many people to watch, unless they're lined up all nice and neat. 1v3+ I'd rather have a gun than not personally, but 1-2v50...this ain't Sparta.
-
Best case scenario with a weapon: You pull out the gun and make 50 youths back away and leave you in peace. You just won the first battle and started the war with a whole new set of rules. Never underestimate the vengence of wounded pride.
Get beaten on the floor and loose the war in one battle ensuring saftey for you family in the future even if it may cost you some permanent damage or even death. Brave man. Well done.
-
^^^^^^^^
:rofl
Thx for the laffies.
-
Yeah, bending over and dropping your drawers is a much better answer.
And where did I suggest that? Nice try at flame baiting me though.
:lol
-
If he was attacked by 50 some odd teens, a gun would only get him killed. It's probably for the best that he -didn't- have one. yeah taking a beating sucks, but it's better than being disarmed and shot..
Your kidding right?
So whats the plan then if you run into a bunch that decides they want to beat you to death instead of just beating you? For that matter why would anyone, even for a minute, think they should have to endure a beating?
-
he didnt bend over and drop his drawers...he stood up to them and took a beating. If he had a gun this would have been a murder case one way or the other.
Uhhh No. Maybe in your screwed up part of the world.
Here if you or another is under threat of serious bodily injury, you may use deadly force.
-
Get beaten on the floor and loose the war in one battle ensuring saftey for you family in the future even if it may cost you some permanent damage or even death. Brave man. Well done.
Ya because somehow the victim miraculously knew ahead of time that the attackers would stop with just beating him and not killing him. He also saw in his crystal ball that they wouldn't sodomize his son and gang rape his wife and daughter. Thank God for crystal balls over self defense. :lol :rolleyes:
-
he didnt bend over and drop his drawers...he stood up to them and took a beating. If he had a gun this would have been a murder case one way or the other.
No. The self defense statutes, at least here in the U.S., clearly state that overwhelming numerical superiority on the part of the attackers makes lethal force justified and acceptable. In fact, a major size advantage, say my 225# compared to my wife's 120#, is also justification for the employment of lethal force.
-
Whether you carry 50 rounds or not, you really think you can put them all with one shot center mass?
There are many stories available that show people run and scatter when shots are fired. Do you really think that if the man drew and began firing that people would have pressed the attack? Come now, seriously. The ones not taking lead would have run for the hills.
-
If he was attacked by 50 some odd teens, a gun would only get him killed. It's probably for the best that he -didn't- have one. yeah taking a beating sucks, but it's better than being disarmed and shot..
If someone had a gun, a couple shots would have sent the whole mob running, he would not have been disarmed, nor beaten. A mob of young people will NOT charge a man firing a weapon. Get real.
-
Best case scenario with a weapon: You pull out the gun and make 50 youths back away and leave you in peace. You just won the first battle and started the war with a whole new set of rules. Never underestimate the vengence of wounded pride.
Get beaten on the floor and loose the war in one battle ensuring saftey for you family in the future even if it may cost you some permanent damage or even death. Brave man. Well done.
Wrong answer again. If you are incapacitated, or worse, dead, there is no one left to protect your family. If they would beat you that badly, what is to prevent them from doing the same to your family?
Further, since they have beaten you, especially if they have beaten you to death, now your family are witnesses to the crime, and thus a threat to the attackers. They can only execute you once, regardless of how many you kill, so they might just as well wipe out your family, and lessen their chance of getting caught.
Your entire line of reasoning is flawed, not just seriously flawed, but fatally flawed.
Further, odds are if confronted with lethal force, even the large group will retreat, as no one wants to get shot. Only in the military does such discipline as that required to charge superior fire power exist.
-
It is human instinct to duck, cover, cower, and run at the sight or sound of something that could kill you instantly.. Doesn't matter if it's 5 or 50 of them.. The second someone hears a gunshot, they will take off in the opposite direction of the shots.. No one will run toward them.. Some of you make these kids sound like brainless warriors or something that will charge head-on into someone holding a gun pointed straight at them.. That's a load of crap.. First thing someone is going to say is "He gots a gun, dawg!!" and these scared little degenerates will scatter.. I don't care who you are, no one wants to get shot or shot at.. And if you want to make it more fun, mace 'em first, then shoot 'em.. Let your kids take turns..
Hell, if I didn't have a gun, I'd mow 'em down with the car....
I don't think too many cops would have a problem with you and/or your wife shooting into a of crowd of 50 people that are intent on doing you and your family harm (assuming you are legally
carrying the weapon).. There'd be no question that your life was in danger.. Fortunately, in this part of the world we are allowed to protect ourselves for the most part..
-
not gonna state my opinion
-
Sadly some of the replies in this thread tell me loud and clear that racism still exists.
-
See Rule #4
-
Some of the replies indicate a severe Brawndo dependency. I didn't know they were selling it in Britain. :lol
-
Sadly some of the replies in this thread tell me loud and clear that racism still exists.
If the article didn't tell you racism still exists, you aren't being told anything loud and clear.
-
I couldn't care less if they were black, white, brown or purple.
Any serious threat to my family would be dealt with harshly.
I could miss quite a few times and still take em all down, if need be.
(http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/9632/picture135x.jpg)
-
Sadly some of the replies in this thread tell me loud and clear that racism still exists.
The news story in and of itself is a loud and clear message that racism still exists on multiple fronts..
Although it's not so much racism as it is culture-ism.. There are stand up people of every race and
degenerates in all races as well.. It sucks when things get stereotyped, but that's just the reality of it..
Incidents such as this feed the stereotype..
-
The news story in and of itself is a loud and clear message that racism still exists on multiple fronts..
Of that there is no doubt.
-
Sadly some of the replies in this thread tell me loud and clear that racism still exists.
Racism will always be with us, so long as humans exist. If you study history, and pay attention to the present, you will understand that human nature evolves very little, if at all.
-
he didnt bend over and drop his drawers...he stood up to them and took a beating. If he had a gun this would have been a murder case one way or the other.
Don't know about Ohio, but in Texas (especially at night) it would be self-defense.
-
Don't know about Ohio, but in Texas (especially at night) it would be self-defense.
Is there a vampire problem in your area?
-
Racism will always be with us, so long as humans exist. If you study history, and pay attention to the present, you will understand that human nature evolves very little, if at all.
I guess I've got more hope then that. With the little guy at home, I think about that a lot as he grows.
-
I guess I've got more hope then that. With the little guy at home, I think about that a lot as he grows.
You should have hope. I'm confident he'll always be judged based on his merit by the people who matter. As for the people who don't, who cares?
-
you all open to your opinons of course :) I am actualy one of the brits that agrees with your guns laws. In this instance however i think the man was brave not to use a gun. I think this will be the end of the matter. No pride struck teenager is going to burn his house down while he sleeps in revenge now. Pulling gun would have just upped the stakes. Thats just my view of this incident and nothing to do with gun law.
-
Is there a vampire problem in your area?
Less witnesses so its your word against the dead guys. :)
I wouldn't care if they were white, black, hispanic, asian, etc. I would have ran into the house and came out with my shotgun in one hand and my case full of shells in the other. I would have popped one round into the ground to get everyone attention and if they didn't stop, well lets just say the cops would have ran out of bodybags.
And I highly doubt, no matter how many there where, they would be stupid enough to charge a guy with a 12 gauge. People feel safe in numbers but as soon as any of the punks thought that their life was on the line they would have wet their paints while running away.
-
I gotta call IN on this one. So much flaming in here, I think I hear my smoke detector blaring...
-
you all open to your opinons of course :) I am actualy one of the brits that agrees with your guns laws. In this instance however i think the man was brave not to use a gun. I think this will be the end of the matter. No pride struck teenager is going to burn his house down while he sleeps in revenge now. Pulling gun would have just upped the stakes. Thats just my view of this incident and nothing to do with gun law.
But it will not be the end of the matter. Now they will be emboldened to do it again. The next victim may not live.
-
Is there a vampire problem in your area?
Laws concerning use of deadly force are relaxed at night. Technically you can use deadly force at night to stop criminal mischief on your property (although you'd probably still be sued in civil court)
The law in Texas states: ""A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means."
And for those wondering what criminal mischief is:
"Criminal Mischief is committed if, without the effective consent of the owner, a person: 1) Intentionally or knowingly damages or destroys the property of the owner, or 2) Tampers with the property of the owner and causes momentary loss or sustained inconvenience to the owner or third person."
-
you all open to your opinons of course :) I am actualy one of the brits that agrees with your guns laws. In this instance however i think the man was brave not to use a gun. I think this will be the end of the matter. No pride struck teenager is going to burn his house down while he sleeps in revenge now. Pulling gun would have just upped the stakes. Thats just my view of this incident and nothing to do with gun law.
Why is it normal people always expect criminals to react rationaly?
It kinda sounds like you "agree with our gun Laws" you just dont agree that we should actually use them.
Where I come from we call injuries that result in 5 days in the ICU as "great bodily harm".
-
I guess I've got more hope then that. With the little guy at home, I think about that a lot as he grows.
One would hope that it will continue to become less the norm, as it has. It would do so even faster if there were not so much "profit" to be made from it. But it will never be eliminated, because of said "profit" on the part of a few.
-
Is there a vampire problem in your area?
Dusk till dawn the rules change some here in Texas.
-
I don't think anyone in this thread would be saying the use of a gun in this situation is the wrong decision if he and/or his family got killed. I agree that the guy was brave going up against such numbers, but if someone died all anyone would be saying is: too bad he didn't have a gun. I'd much rather have to fear retaliation than for me or my loved ones to get killed. You can always move.
-
Why is it normal people always expect criminals to react rationaly?
It kinda sounds like you "agree with our gun Laws" you just dont agree that we should actually use them.
Where I come from we call injuries that result in 5 days in the ICU as "great bodily harm".
I'm sorry, what makes you think I am anything close to normal? Five days in ICU is pretty bad, but killing people to avoid it? Remember, we are not discussing gun laws. We are discussing a single event that turned out ok without the use of a weapon.
But it will not be the end of the matter. Now they will be emboldened to do it again. The next victim may not live.
Emboldened how? By facing criminal charges and possibly some bird? At the least some kind of criminal record. Rowdy teenages get like this every now and then. If one of these idiots had been killed, no doubt we would have some big media hoohar about how he was a nice sweet innocent boy that got caught in the wrong crowd and died because of it.
-
I'm sorry, what makes you think I am anything close to normal? Five days in ICU is pretty bad, but killing people to avoid it? Remember, we are not discussing gun laws. We are discussing a single event that turned out ok without the use of a weapon.
Emboldened how? By facing criminal charges and possibly some bird? At the least some kind of criminal record. Rowdy teenages get like this every now and then. If one of these idiots had been killed, no doubt we would have some big media hoohar about how he was a nice sweet innocent boy that got caught in the wrong crowd and died because of it.
Your idea of 'turned out ok' diverges from mine.
Call me crazy, but I think I have a right to not be beaten by a pack of hoodlums and not go to the hospital, and furthermore I think that right gives me the authority to defend myself, with a weapon if necessary.
-
I am not arguing aout that at all. You have 'the right' to do this. There is still a choice about if you do and this man's choice turned out much better than if he had shot someone to death. We are talking with the benifit of hindsight here. Men are built to take a beating if you feel especialy frail and vulnerable then you have 'the right' to shoot them. I am not arguing that point. If one of them pulled a weapon out, again, he had 'the right' to shoot them but still a choice. Bruising to head or ego will heal itself. Dead people are permanent. Everything turned out good due to his brave choices.
-
Your idea of 'turned out ok' diverges from mine.
Call me crazy, but I think I have a right to not be beaten by a pack of hoodlums and not go to the hospital, and furthermore I think that right gives me the authority to defend myself, with a weapon if necessary.
^^^^
:aok
Alot of different opinions and speculation here. Me: I would draw and fire in an instant to protect myself and my family. If any targets were suicidal enough to run TOWARDS my bullets, then I would lay down cover fire to make my way inside where I would quickly be able to deal with well over 50 targets ;).
And yes, I carry when I'm just hanging out in the yard. Fortunately I live in a state and country that allows me to have and carry a weapon to defend myself and not become a helpless victim.
If the insane worst case happened and they all charged me while I was mowing them down and they were able to get to me, then I would just have to go down in a blaze of glory.....NOT as an unarmed victim. :salute
-
These were children...making mistakes. Not 50 taliban with AKs or aliens in Doom 3. You would become the most hated man in the your state. I can see the headlines 'Crazed home owner guns down teenagers in self defence. Is it time to review our gun laws?'
The more people that kill because they have no other skills to defend themself the more likely your gun laws will be turned against you eventualy. You dont want that. I dont want that. I want to come to the USA and shoot some beautifull guns on a target range. That freedom you have could be so easily abused and removed. Unless of course you really all would take arms against your government to stop it. Man, that would really suck.
-
I'm sorry, what makes you think I am anything close to normal? Five days in ICU is pretty bad, but killing people to avoid it? Remember, we are not discussing gun laws. We are discussing a single event that turned out ok without the use of a weapon.
Emboldened how? By facing criminal charges and possibly some bird? At the least some kind of criminal record. Rowdy teenages get like this every now and then. If one of these idiots had been killed, no doubt we would have some big media hoohar about how he was a nice sweet innocent boy that got caught in the wrong crowd and died because of it.
So, in order to allow a criminal to live, an innocent citizen should allow themselves to be beaten badly enough to spend a week in intensive care? Surely you cannot seriously believe that is a good trade.
You think those people will be concerned with a criminal record? Seriously? Getting away with something almost always emboldens the perp. They almost never think they were lucky and decide not to do it again, or do something worse. Criminal behavior escalates 99% of the time.
"Rowdy teenagers" do not "get like this every now and then". This is not a group of kids rolling yards, egging houses, and smashing mail boxes. This is a group of criminals, with a mob mentality, seeking to do serious and grave bodily harm to others.
Nothing personal, but you have absolutely zero grasp on the dynamics of an incident like this. None at all.
-
These were children...making mistakes. Not 50 taliban with AKs or aliens in Doom 3. You would become the most hated man in the your state. I can see the headlines 'Crazed home owner guns down teenagers in self defence. Is it time to review our gun laws?'
The more people that kill because they have no other skills to defend themself the more likely your gun laws will be turned against you eventualy. You dont want that. I dont want that. I want to come to the USA and shoot some beautifull guns on a target range. That freedom you have could be so easily abused and removed. Unless of course you really all would take arms against your government to stop it. Man, that would really suck.
First off, you would never hear much about it in the press because it would be a story of someone actually defending themself with a firearm. You are only allowed to hear about the bad things and misuse of them. You would have to get a copy of American Rifleman to read about a self-defence story.
Second, just what sort of "skill" would you use to defend yourself against a group of crazed attackers?
-
These were children...making mistakes. Not 50 taliban with AKs or aliens in Doom 3. You would become the most hated man in the your state. I can see the headlines 'Crazed home owner guns down teenagers in self defence. Is it time to review our gun laws?'
The more people that kill because they have no other skills to defend themself the more likely your gun laws will be turned against you eventualy. You dont want that. I dont want that. I want to come to the USA and shoot some beautifull guns on a target range. That freedom you have could be so easily abused and removed. Unless of course you really all would take arms against your government to stop it. Man, that would really suck.
The home owner wouldnt have to kill anyone i think. A warning shot would most likely scattered the kids. Like you said there not soldiers. They would have ran off. I dont think they would return either knowing the person in there has guns and is willing to use them if need be.
-
These were children...making mistakes. Not 50 taliban with AKs or aliens in Doom 3. You would become the most hated man in the your state. I can see the headlines 'Crazed home owner guns down teenagers in self defence. Is it time to review our gun laws?'
The more people that kill because they have no other skills to defend themself the more likely your gun laws will be turned against you eventualy. You dont want that. I dont want that. I want to come to the USA and shoot some beautifull guns on a target range. That freedom you have could be so easily abused and removed. Unless of course you really all would take arms against your government to stop it. Man, that would really suck.
Again, you do not understand at all. These were teenagers, bent on causing someone serious bodily harm. Had this man died, he would have been just as dead as if he were beaten by a 25 year old perp. Children, making mistakes? These were thugs, making a conscious decision. And depending on the mentality you are showing in order to be allowed to get away with it.
I'd just as soon be alive and well, and ignore what people think, as to be beaten or killed, so I don't have to worry about some morons hating me. And I can assure you, in order to prevent myself or someone else from being beaten and possibly killed, I'd have no qualms at all about shooting anyone attempting to issue said beating, especially if it were a large group.
I'm sure there are plenty who would take up arms against our corrupt government should it come to that. It has happened before. Hopefully we still have enough people with a spine left to do it again if it becomes necessary.
-
The home owner wouldnt have to kill anyone i think. A warning shot would most likely scattered the kids. Like you said there not soldiers. They would have ran off. I dont think they would return either knowing the person in there has guns and is willing to use them if need be.
A warning shot would be illegal, and get your weapon confiscated, your permit revoked, and your freedom taken. You cannot fire waring shots. Ever. Firing a shot in the air is a felony in almost every jurisdiction in this country. And you are responsible for that bullet, where ever it goes, and what ever it does. Both in criminal and civil law.
-
I'm sure there are plenty who would take up arms against our corrupt government should it come to that. It has happened before.
That is exactly how the United States of America came to be. :salute
-
'...and in that very instant of conversational revelation, it became clear to me that humanity was a self destructing mechanism with a finite lifespan..'
-
These so called children are a meanace to society. Since it is evident that their parents failed at the basics then it is up to the victims they attack to show them the way. If that means killing a few then so be it. To each his own... if you would rather you and your family be at the mercy of these so called children then heaven help you. If you would do what it takes to defend and protect your family then heaven help you too. I will defend my family.
I'm reminded of the 12 year old black youth who died during a robbery. His Mother was on the news saying what a fine young man he was and how helpful and loving he was.... Turns out he had a rap sheet about a mile long. He was being protected by folks who turn a blind eye because of age.
No matter what age someone is that kills you... your just as dead. No matter if the person is mentally capable of living on their own either.... your just as dead. Best to protect yourself and your family from whatever attacks you. No since in asking for an ID or trying to decide if you think the criminal is old enough to shoot or not. To me the criminal made the choice of whether or not it was worth dieing over way before I became involved.
I prefer not to be attacked or robbed. I also prefer not to shoot anyone. Follow my preferences on the first account and the second account will be followed too.
-
What Mechanic misses here is the fact that had the man been armed the attack would never have taken place. No one would have been hurt. If he had carried openly he wouldn't even have had to draw the gun.
-
'...and in that very instant of conversational revelation, it became clear to me that humanity was a self destructing mechanism with a finite lifespan..'
Well, some of us humans have a strong self preservation instinct. Humanity will surely self destruct if the civilized and law abiding allow themselves to be fooled into sacrificing themselves in order to prevent harm from befalling some miscreants.
-
A warning shot would be illegal, and get your weapon confiscated, your permit revoked, and your freedom taken. You cannot fire waring shots. Ever. Firing a shot in the air is a felony in almost every jurisdiction in this country. And you are responsible for that bullet, where ever it goes, and what ever it does. Both in criminal and civil law.
That really depends on where you live. Obviously a warning shot should always be fired into the ground for the reasons you mentioned. In most places in America you are free to fire guns on you own property as long as it doesn't disturb the peace or endanger others (notably your neighbors). He could have fired a warning shot into his lawn, and I think the neighbors would have been understanding.
-
These were children...making mistakes. Not 50 taliban with AKs or aliens in Doom 3. You would become the most hated man in the your state. I can see the headlines 'Crazed home owner guns down teenagers in self defence. Is it time to review our gun laws?'
We don't see the word 'crazed' much in our headlines... And taking your theory of self defense to its logical conclusion, nobody would ever be justified in drawing a gun to prevent an attack until they had already been killed by their assailant.
-
That really depends on where you live. Obviously a warning shot should always be fired into the ground for the reasons you mentioned. In most places in America you are free to fire guns on you own property as long as it doesn't disturb the peace or endanger others (notably your neighbors). He could have fired a warning shot into his lawn, and I think the neighbors would have been understanding.
Having been required to study the subject, for a couple of jobs and for my civilian permit, I can tell you that warning shots are a felony just about anywhere I looked, and at least a misdemeanor in the others. Warning shots are also prohibited my most, if not all, law enforcement agencies, most often under penalty of immediate and summary dismissal. In fact, many departments will not even defend you if you fire one.
In most municipalities it is in fact illegal to discharge a weapon, inside the city limits, on your property or not, regardless of how your neighbors feel about it. In rural areas you may fire your weapon on your own property.
-
That really depends on where you live. Obviously a warning shot should always be fired into the ground for the reasons you mentioned. In most places in America you are free to fire guns on you own property as long as it doesn't disturb the peace or endanger others (notably your neighbors). He could have fired a warning shot into his lawn, and I think the neighbors would have been understanding.
Nope... this is completely wrong... wrong... never fire a warning shot.
-
Firing a warning shot is bad anyway you look at it. if the attacker has a weapon it allows them the time to get it out and shoot you. :salute
-
where's Rev. Al Sharpton to put his 2 cents in? :rolleyes:
:lol
Maybe David Duke will come out and protest.
All people that claim they are the singular voice of a race are slime. The people that put them on a pedestal or follow them are even worse.
-
Having been required to study the subject, for a couple of jobs and for my civilian permit, I can tell you that warning shots are a felony just about anywhere I looked, and at least a misdemeanor in the others. Warning shots are also prohibited my most, if not all, law enforcement agencies, most often under penalty of immediate and summary dismissal. In fact, many departments will not even defend you if you fire one.
In most municipalities it is in fact illegal to discharge a weapon, inside the city limits, on your property or not, regardless of how your neighbors feel about it. In rural areas you may fire your weapon on your own property.
Yes, I did say it depended on where you live, and I didn't get the impression he was in law enforcement or indeed at work in any profession at the time. He was at home with his family and some friends.
Situations that warrant a warning shot are very rare, so I'm not saying firing a warning shot is the smart thing to do. It is not necessary in my opinion; if you need to go beyond brandishing the gun you'd best put the bullet in your opponent. The only exception is against animals of course since they don't understand the threat of a weapon by just looking at it. A pistol bullet might not kill a big animal, but the report might scare it off, and if you are successful you won't have to organize a hunting party to find your wounded moose or whatever.
-
Nope... this is completely wrong... wrong... never fire a warning shot.
It is not legal to fire a gun on your own property in most places in America?
-
It is not legal to fire a gun on your own property in most places in America?
Not inside the city limits in by far the vast majority of places. Also, outside the city limits in many counties it is illegal to discharge a weapon on your property if you live in a subdivision.
-
Not inside the city limits in by far the vast majority of places. Also, outside the city limits in many counties it is illegal to discharge a weapon on your property if you live in a subdivision.
Most of America is definitively outside city limits.
Again... It depends on where you live.
-
Most of America is definitively outside city limits.
Again... It depends on where you live.
And the vast majority of Americans live inside the city limits, or inside a subdivision, either way it is most often illegal to discharge a weapon. If you have close neighbors, this likely fits you.
If you live on a farm, or on a fairly large parcel of land, outside the city limits, it is probably legal for you to discharge a weapon on your property. If that fits you, you probably don't have close neighbors, either.
And most of America is not your property.
In any case, firing a warning shot is still almost certainly at least a misdemeanor, and most likely a felony.
-
I must say I'm unfamiliar with this law. Could you enlighten me since you've studied the topic?
-
If these gangs are such a menace to society why not do something possitive about it now before you find yourself in a gunfight in your back yard?
There was 50 of them, if they actualy wanted to kill him he would be dead. I still believe that he made the right choice. A very brave, possibly foolish choice by defending his family without a gun to apparently 'ensure' he came to no harm (no matter who else died). Turns out he got lucky and the end result is as good as it could be for him and his family. Well done to him.
-
What is negative about shooting them?
-
What is negative about shooting them?
The press.....
-
What is positive about the press? ;)
-
What is positive about the press? ;)
Some of the female reporters are hot. That's all I can think of.
-
I must say I'm unfamiliar with this law. Could you enlighten me since you've studied the topic?
Which law is it you are unfamiliar with? If you are unfamiliar with laws regarding the discharge of firearms, especially the firing of so called "warning shots", then you need to look at your state and local statutes. Each locality will have a particular wording. There's no way I'm going to attempt to quote law, I'm not a lawyer. I can tell you that all of the classes I was required to complete included having local and state attorneys (prosecutors) come to class and explain to us how various laws apply, and that we could be prosecuted under various state and local statutes for firing a warning shot. This was explained to us both when I was working for the wildlife agency and when I was a sheriff's deputy. It was explained again when I got my permit, and again when my wife got hers.
Since you are so determined to believe that firing a warning shot is legal and acceptable, I suggest you look up your state and local statutes before you find yourself in a situation where you are inclined to do so.
-
^^^ well said, and sound advice-
-
Turns out he got lucky
He sure did. You go ahead and surrender yourself to the criminals and let them decide if you live or not. Good luck. Me, I'll take part in the decision making process. :aok
-
Fair enough Steve, I would probably own some guns if i lived in the states. I just cannot believe all the people here saying they would play Duke Nukem in the streets would not have nightmares for the rest of their lives about the images of their own bullets ripping through childrens faces.
-
Fair enough Steve, I would probably own some guns if i lived in the states. I just cannot believe all the people here saying they would play Duke Nukem in the streets would not have nightmares for the rest of their lives about the images of their own bullets ripping through childrens faces.
I would have images of my family enjoying a good meal. Going on vacations and such. Not my family in caskets. I have no feelings for a criminal at all.
Any places in the US where guns are restricted suffer a higher crime rate. Taking guns from law abiding citizens does not hamper the criminal at all. He gets his guns illegally. All that taking law abiding folks guns does is ensure the criminal is empowered.
-
dmbear is back :salute
:rofl
-
Question for thoose more knowledgeable.
For the shoot to be legal would he have to be engaging those actively pursuing him? Surely shooting indiscriminately into a crowd is not O.K. (Assuming the ones being shoot are not pursuing you as a target.)?
-
Fair enough Steve, I would probably own some guns if i lived in the states. I just cannot believe all the people here saying they would play Duke Nukem in the streets would not have nightmares for the rest of their lives about the images of their own bullets ripping through childrens faces.
Well these "children" were dangerous attackers. For myself, I think you are right though. It would be an unpleasant and haunting memory, no matter how righteous the shoot.
-
Called a LEO friend of mine, and a colleague that has some experience with this sort of case. They say that a warning shot is legal in situations where lethal force is justified. In other words if you can legally shoot someone in self defense you can fire a warning shot (why you would want to is a different issue). "The use of lethal force that can end in homicide is justified in the situation of immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent." My state has adopted Castle Doctrine statutes, and so has Ohio where the assaulted man in question resides. He was assaulted by a large number of assailants and certainly was in danger of grave bodily harm, possibly even death.
-
I would have images of my family enjoying a good meal. Going on vacations and such. Not my family in caskets. I have no feelings for a criminal at all.
Any places in the US where guns are restricted suffer a higher crime rate. Taking guns from law abiding citizens does not hamper the criminal at all. He gets his guns illegally. All that taking law abiding folks guns does is ensure the criminal is empowered.
I have been of the exact same thinking for many years.. Somehow, certain kinds of people can't seem to understand this.. Their argument is remove guns or restrict them to a degree where all you can do is pretty much shoot once at some small birds and then spend 1/2 an hour reloading the thing.. Ultimately, we all know why certain powers that be(trying to stay a way from anything political) would have a field day with more restrictive gun laws.. But, as my fellow squadie Shuffler says: Criminals aren't going to go to a gun store to obtain their weapons.. So any kind of stricter gun laws will not inherently affect them for a long time.. There's quite a large amount of unregistered firearms out there.. It would take a long long time to gather them all.. A long time..
Until then, the average guy with more than the other guy is going to even more of a target than he already is..
Case in point.. Since hand guns have been made mostly illegal in England (Scotland and Ireland have more lax laws), violent crime incidents have risen steadily, especially burglaries..
This is showing that criminals know the chances of being shot when committing a crime are very low.. Also, crime rate in the UK is higher per capita than the U.S. (again due to hand guns being made illegal for anyone to own unless it had to do with your job which restricts them to police, security or military).. Also, criminals in need of a gun in England still have very little problems obtaining them.. So, England's strict-arsed gun laws pretty much did the opposite of what they expected..
-
Called a LEO friend of mine, and a colleague that has some experience with this sort of case. They say that a warning shot is legal in situations where lethal force is justified. In other words if you can legally shoot someone in self defense you can fire a warning shot (why you would want to is a different issue). "The use of lethal force that can end in homicide is justified in the situation of immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent." My state has adopted Castle Doctrine statutes, and so has Ohio where the assaulted man in question resides. He was assaulted by a large number of assailants and certainly was in danger of grave bodily harm, possibly even death.
shenanigans
-
Fair enough Steve, I would probably own some guns if i lived in the states. I just cannot believe all the people here saying they would play Duke Nukem in the streets would not have nightmares for the rest of their lives about the images of their own bullets ripping through childrens faces.
Taking the life of another, for any normal law abiding citizen, is the absolute last resort. Lethal force is the final option, after all others have been exhausted. Rest assured it will change you forever.
When you decide to carry, you first make the decision that you are willing to take the life of another in defense of yours or an innocent. This is not a decision you put off until faced with it. If you cannot make that decision with reasonable certainty, do not carry.
-
Called a LEO friend of mine, and a colleague that has some experience with this sort of case. They say that a warning shot is legal in situations where lethal force is justified. In other words if you can legally shoot someone in self defense you can fire a warning shot (why you would want to is a different issue). "The use of lethal force that can end in homicide is justified in the situation of immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent." My state has adopted Castle Doctrine statutes, and so has Ohio where the assaulted man in question resides. He was assaulted by a large number of assailants and certainly was in danger of grave bodily harm, possibly even death.
Seen the results, seen officers fired and left to the wolves (read: lawyers), and seen people prosecuted. Nothing I've been told or taught by any professional tells me a warning shot is anything close to a good idea in any circumstance. I'll not be firing any warning shots. If you choose to do so, good luck.
-
Annoying that I have to repeat myself.
... I'm not saying firing a warning shot is the smart thing to do.
-
It's a good topic, i think. Hey Shuffler, i understand that law and agree with the sense of it. Like i keep saying, I'm only discussing the incident at hand and not gun laws.
-
It's frustrating that some in this thread are trying to make a case that the victim shouldn't have been armed, should have just taken the beating, when they ( the willing victim types) are secure in the knowledge of the results in this case. Hindsight experts abound, but for the guy about to take a beating, he didn't have any idea if he would survive. He didn't know if any of his family would suffer injury or death. Victim mentality escapes me. Having the nads to protect yourself is a more easily recognizable and understandable concept in my world.
I will state that if I had a gun and I or my family was being attacked, or about to be attacked by a crowd, I would use the gun in defense.
-
I didn't mean to come off negative or "anti-gun" in my previous posts. I've got XD .45 5" sitting 12 inches in front of me right now...but I only have 3 mags at the moment, so that gives me 40 rounds.
In a 1v50 situation. I've only got myself to protect(and potentially my current roomates). Don't have my CWP yet, but SC is a Castle Law state. We're almost as well off as Texas when it comes to gun laws. This incident in particular kind of comes down to situational awareness too. Did 50+ teens who probably looked like they were up to no good just "sneak up" on him? Maybe they did, I wasn't there. Personally, I'd like to think I would've noticed this large a group of people in time to go inside, fireworks or not.
I'll go re-read the article real fast..."out of nowhere" is a pretty vague statement, I'd assume it happened "fast". I've been shooting for quite awhile, and while I can tear the x ring out of a silhouette at 15 yards....I just can't reload fast enough to drop more than 5-6(on a good day) before, if they didn't scatter, I would be up a creek.
I didn't mean to imply that having a firearm in a self defense scenario, which this case obviously was, is a bad thing. I just think in those kind of overwhelming odds, if he had one and didn't draw, they would've found it, and he'd probably be dead, or someone just got themselves a bright shiny new piece, and they keep beating on him. If he drew it and fired, well....it's pretty much a lose lose situation all around. edit : Well, not lose lose, you may walk out alive, but you just shot someone, and that's always going to change your life.
I agree with everyone who said a criminal is a criminal no matter what the age. Someone comes kicking in my door or breaking glass, I don't care who it is, they aren't here to sell me girl scout cookies. They've got a .45ACP problem on their hands.
I'm as Pro 2A as they come, but 1v50 just doesn't seem like a good situation for anything but an assault rifle.....or maybe a FN 5.7...that'd probably go through a few of em at a time! :uhoh
-
i still have to wonder though......they're teens.
sure.....you have 50 marines in front of you, and you shoot one of em, you're in a world of poop...........but this is 50 teens. i ask this in all seriousness.........if one of them is shot, would the rest not react with "O^&%$" and run like heck?
i have no fear of guns....unless they're pointed at me. i've shot them...only once or twice, but i have.......never had one pointed at me, and never want to. i would think that teens would at least be smart enough to know when to run away?
-
Interesting to consider the hypotheticals, but the only thing we do know is that he was unarmed and he and his family survived.
It certainly could have gone worse, the females could have been gang raped and the entire lot of them brutally slaughtered.
If he had a gun, could the crowd have overpowered him and used his own gun on him? Sure, but that would have required some of them to charge into gunfire. Not something anyone is very likely to do, so isn't it just as likely that some of them would have gotten shot, the rest scattered, chaos ensues and they would have been able to get to a safer strategical area and hold them off until help arrived?
In that case he wouldn't have had the crap beaten out of him.
Then what? would the Sharpton types play the race card?
Maybe, but given that is looks like a clear case of self defense, and possibly racism on the crowds part, they would have been risking ridicule and loss of credibility that might have really backfired on them.
Would it have given gun owners a black eye, and ignited a debate for more gun control?
I doubt it. Given the situation, it more likely would have been publicly touted as the very reason for our 2nd amendment rights.
Would the man be forever consumed by guilt, unable to sleep for having taken the lives of merely rambunctious youths.
Doubtful, considering the fact that only now does he know he was only facing a beating.
At the time he likely would have thought and forever believed he and his family were facing certain death and dismemberment, kill or be killed. I think most people would be able to live with that.
Would he have been prosecuted? Not likely, given the clear cut self defense angle and the folk hero status he would likely attain, I doubt you could find a D.A. anywhere who would touch the case with a ten foot pole.
A side note to mechanic: I am glad that some in the UK agree with or have some admiration for our 2nd amendment rights so a big <S> to you.
In this country at least, a roving gang of teenagers doesn't elicit a lot of warm fuzzy feelings. Shooting a bunch of toddlers would make you the most hated man in your state, but teenage thugs?
Except among the ultra-liberal fascists, you'd probably become the most admired.
-
I agree 100% with what you said Jimson.
It's all kind of objective and hypothetical.
-
nm
-
oops
-
Sorry, I was trying to edit my post and hit the wrong button while being distracted by the wife-aaack, twice.
-
well said jimson. took some of what I was going to point out.
mechanic I was going to get mean about how you say you support our gun laws but then really don't.
however, for a brit you really do. as our ultra liberal friends over here in the U.S. are way past you on the guns are bad scale. so good for you for breaking out of the typical european scared of guns mold. it's a start.
The 2A is only about self defense. from our government. according to it, we should have access to the latest available firearms that the regular army soldier carries. not including explosives. We do not thanks to the 1986 law. and the 1968 law for that matter. but we do with what we have.
fortunately that self defense also spills over into criminals. sadly a few major metro areas have taken that right (illegally, if the 2A is upheld, I will add.) from law abiding citizens with obvious traumatic consequences.
On the premise that the U.S. is a free country, which it isn't for some anymore. (slowly we are on the path to european socialism, but thats another thread) that man was free to use or not use, possess or not possess a firearm for self defense. I believe he was giving his life away by not carrying a firearm, or at least having one available. fortunately he didn't lose his life, lucky man.
-
Someone posed the question as to if the gun would have been taken away or not and here's the best response to that. "If someone kills you with your own gun, make sure you shoot it at them till empty so they have to beat you to death with it"
Personally I do have my ccw and I had to make the concious choice as to whether I could kill someone in self defense or defense of another innocent and my answer was a resounding yes. I could never murder anyone. make sure you understand the difference.
your only purpose should be to stop not to kill. If a criminal dies while you are trying to stop them then that is their loss. only theirs. sure I would have nightmares about it. BUT I would be alive to have the nightmares. It beats the alternative every time.
I have a lot more to say on the subject but I'm exhausted. If I happen to peek into this thread later on I'll add more. good night gents.
-
Fair enough Steve, I would probably own some guns if i lived in the states. I just cannot believe all the people here saying they would play Duke Nukem in the streets would not have nightmares for the rest of their lives about the images of their own bullets ripping through childrens faces.
You make it sound like they are babes just weaned. They are teenagers (some of them probably parents)....and typically you aim for center of mass, rather than a head shot.
-
no way dude if you have to hit 50 of them you need head shots and no missing, did you never play any FPS games?? Once you get 10 head shots without missing you get the level 2 perk options such as reduced collateral damage mulitplier and double capacity mag. I always would go for double speed reloads though.
-
A mob of 0? 20? 10? 100?
I'm with Emiliano Zapata
¡Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!
Take your beatings at the hands of thugs. Allow your family to be threatened. Accept that death may await you and yours.
I choose a different path, thank you very much.
"No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that's in the right and keep a comin'." William J. McDonald 1852-1918
Who's McDonald? The Texas Ranger that inspired the saying "One Riot, One Ranger". He led quite a life standing up for what's right; interesting read.
Bow down before thugs as you will. It's your choice. It's certainly not mine.
-
A warning shot is just a wasted round.
If you pull your weapon, you better dam well be ready to take someones life if you have to.
If you honestly believe those teenagers would stand and fight if the victim pulled a gun and used it, then you should ask yourself why they showed up with such a large group to attack him with in the first place...
-
Jouster, I hope your posts were in jest, like a funny troll thing. They just don't fly. At all.
-
Here is an angle.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,268427.0.html
I do not support conceal and carry by the way, but in my case there it might have been more appropriate :D
Lighten up folks ;)
-
Mac-90 with a 75 round drum. Make the little bugglers into sprinkles.
-
.
If you pull your weapon, you better dam well be ready to take someones life if you have to.
this is the reason i don't own any. i don't know beyond a doubt that i could do that if put in that type of situation.
-
I know that if someone is threatening my family with death or serious bodily injury or trying to harm them, there is zero doubt in my mind what I would do to that person or people.
I would have no qualms about the actions I would be forced to take.
-
this is the reason i don't own any. i don't know beyond a doubt that i could do that if put in that type of situation.
You don't 'shoot to kill', you shoot to 'stop the threat'. (however if done properly it usually results in a kill)
-
I'd say if done properly it always results in a kill. That's a shame but it's also the truth.
Shooting to 'stop the threat' is merely PC lawyer-avoidance speak.
Person A, based on a reasonable belief that an aggressor (Person B) is using or is about to use unlawful force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm, is fully justified in using deadly force against Person B.
Thus, if person B is threatening death or serious bodily harm to person A, a dead person B would be the actual result of the correct application of deadly force by person A.
Tough 'taters for person B but if you don't start nuthin' won't BE nuthin'.
-
A few years ago I had a problem with Lebanese kids, the war started with about 8 of them jumping and kicking all the panels of my car, there hang out was opposite my house were normal numbers of about 20 hung out in a very public bus shelter from late afternoon every day. They got their power by scaring everyone at a station waiting for a bus.
I had called the cops many times only to be told unless the police see then doing the wrong thing I have to just put up with it. One the rear occasion the cops turned up they were also harassed by the group to the point where they would just tell them to move along as these kids just took the Mickey out of the cops, I had asked the cops to just make an example of one of them but no they wouldn’t. I know that if I was to spit and call the cop fuking pigs etc they would hit me or worse but in Australia we have a problem were many minorities are protect due to them playing the race card on every occasion they can.
After a hard day at work I parked my car outside my house to have 8 of these kids laughing due to my car being all kicked in the night before, So I lost it run inside got my dog a rottie cross bull terrier and a samurai sword and walk over to them like the terminator, there were cars skidding to miss me as I was staring at them nor the traffic, it seemed to be the trick to make these kids start to worrie about what I might be about to do.
I calmly told them all to sit down and just call me SIR, they struggled to do as they were order but after holding the dogs leash less they did as told, to cut it short of course they didn’t kick my car and the usually BS stories but there main point was that I should come back on Saturday night because they said the guys that did would be here and I could talk to them about my problem.
These kids were warning me that I would be in big trouble for the dog a sword and that I was more than likely be the one at the police station, which would have been the case if anyone of the 100 +normal commuters there had rung the cops, but instead most were watching hoping that I did cut one of these kids up.
On Saturday night yes they had friends I would say 80+ with 40 + cars tow trucks and the works I think every leb was there or very close to see what I would do. My window faced the bus stop and them, so I just played aces and let the mob hover around, they could have done what ever to my car and house, but after just the sight of a weapon none of them were that interested any more in seeing if I would do anything with it. Later on that night I decided to take the dog for a walk, as I went through the middle of the bunch I was told different comments, but again the only stupid one to stop me was warned that my dog will take a few and that tomorrow after the cops put my dog down for assault I would just go and get a few more, so in the end standing up for yourself with the help of a weapon can work sometimes, my problem is in Australia I would do time just for owning the sword, let alone even using it.
I think the thing that worried them more was my attitude of no fear, and the terminator walk with the stair of death as cars are skidding to miss me work a treat. All places have the same problems and the best way to tackle it is to stand up don’t take toejam and most times the trouble finds somewhere else to hang and maybe think that if they play with fire some normal look white guy just might kick their bellybutton even with their 10 to 1 odds.
-
For the love of god almighty. Periods and Paragraphs, Please.
:eek:
-
Reykjavík has a population of about 119,000 in a country of about 300,000. The city I work in has 60,000 gang members alone. Thats just one city of under 3,000,000. So IceLand, and God bless the Icelanders, doesn't strike me as a place where concealed carry is really an issue. Not on a small Island in the North Atlantic where 95% of the Population all looks the same. Other then both having Burger kings and KFCs I dont think we have much in common crime-wise.
Boy the storys I could tell. I bet I have defeated serious crimes, and/or threats of death/great bodily harm, to others and myself, at least a dozen times by pulling out a firearm. And thats just off duty. On duty it must be in the hundreds, maybe thousands.
And I have no special skills the average citizen has, or can train up to. I fully support the 2nd amendment and concealed carry.
I read some of these well meaning liberal thoughts here and all I can think about is all the faces of all those victims scarred for life by violent crime. At least the ones who survived. Good people tend to think there is "good" in everyone, but your wrong. Unfortunately some of these people actually have to be victimized to learn the difference. Some dont even learn it then.
Here is an angle.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,268427.0.html
I do not support conceal and carry by the way, but in my case there it might have been more appropriate :D
Lighten up folks ;)
-
Anyone who thinks this gang of youths was something serious and truly dangerous should do some reading about football gangs in england through the 80s and 90s. Just regular teenage and early 20s boys like your gang of rascists there. Against fifty of those football loving lads you've got a serious problem with or without your gun.
If you stood up to them without a weapon, one vs fifty and said 'come on then' they would probably put you on the floor once then laugh and buy you a beer just because you got that much front to not run.
Pull a gun on them and out come the blades. More likely they will kill you painfully if you shot a few of them.
It's all a matter of perspective from where you live.
-
Pull a gun on them and out come the blades. More likely they will kill you painfully if you shot a few of them.
Do you have a single example of this? I mean, where are you drawing your conclusion of "more than likely" from?
OTOH, there's all sorts of examples of a gun scattering a crowd.
-
Oh mechanic.. you really need to come live in the US for a bit...
Don't get the wrong idea... the vast.. VAST majority of people here are for the most part, upstanding citizens... BUT the ones who aren't... well they aren't going to prove their point to you, then buy you a beer. NO, they are going to prove their point to you over, and over, and over again until you can't fight back, pass out, or possibly even die.
Also teenagers in groups of more than twenty or so in an urban environment on the street with no parental supervision are NEVER up to any good. We're not talking about a few kids out having fun here... we're talking about a LARGE group (also known as a GANG) of people, whether organized or not, who made a conscious decision to be a part of this gang. They typically have absolutely no respect for authority (whether it be an adult in general OR law enforcement), and even less respect for the value of a person's life.
Most of them don't 'live' past 25-30 anyway, as they either get locked up or killed by other gangs...and as a result they just don't value anyone's life nearly as much as you or I do. And yes it really IS that bad in some areas, just ask any police officer in any urban area here.
It's sad, but the more people 'cower' to these gangs, the more they will influence the general public. This is a direct result of stricter rules against law enforcement, of stricter weapons laws, and of the media having a tendency to 'victimize' the ones who are committing these crimes!
-
Anyone who thinks this gang of youths was something serious and truly dangerous should do some reading about football gangs in england through the 80s and 90s. Just regular teenage and early 20s boys like your gang of rascists there. Against fifty of those football loving lads you've got a serious problem with or without your gun.
"Just regular teenage and early 20's boys like our gang"? :lol
Our gangs, or at least "my gangs" send message jobs on fellow gangstas they suspect of snitching. What they do is pull their hoodie up over their head and then empty an entire clip of a handgun into their head point blank. Usually its a 15 shot 9mm or .40 . They dont shoot them in the head 3,4, or even 13 times. They do it until they run out of bullets.
Thats what our gangs do. :D
-
Pull a gun on them and out come the blades. More likely they will kill you painfully if you shot a few of them.
HA!
HAHA!
and HA again!
I would LOVE to see them get close enough after I've already dropped 10-15 of their buddies, I guarantee I can do at least 1 tac reload and empty the mags before they even get close enough for a single slice on me.
The thought that someone would charge a person gunning down the people in front of you is insane, more so when the group only has knives.
Oh...
HA!
-
In high school a heated debate about friggin football scalated. At one point a gun was drawn and shot several times. One of the guys being fired upon ran toward the shooter, took the gun and pistol whipped him with it.
Out goes the scared s-less theory in my book. People will charge you even if you fire.
Especially if you cant fire your weapon accurately.
Still, Id rather be armed and trained than defensless and beaten with my wife having to hide my son in the bushes while my 19yr old daughter tried to save me.
-
In high school a heated debate about friggin football scalated. At one point a gun was drawn and shot several times. One of the guys being fired upon ran toward the shooter, took the gun and pistol whipped him with it.
People will charge you even if you fire.
Ya riiiiight.
-
Anyone who thinks this gang of youths was something serious and truly dangerous should do some reading about football gangs in england through the 80s and 90s. Just regular teenage and early 20s boys like your gang of rascists there. Against fifty of those football loving lads you've got a serious problem with or without your gun.
If you stood up to them without a weapon, one vs fifty and said 'come on then' they would probably put you on the floor once then laugh and buy you a beer just because you got that much front to not run.
Pull a gun on them and out come the blades. More likely they will kill you painfully if you shot a few of them.
It's all a matter of perspective from where you live.
Naive doesn't begin to describe the quote.
-
Ya riiiiight.
Plano 1993
Why would i make it up?
It's fluffied up Steve, I know. Football is ridiculous here. With youth, stupidity, drugs, and missguided pride, why is this so hard to believe?
-
The truth of the situation here is that weapons would have only increased the stakes. For those of you that do carry a weapon that must be a hell of a feeling of power and one you never would want to be without again. I can understand why you defend the possition so strongly without realising im not even challenging your right to carry a gun.
You all jump on me and take whatever meaning you like from my post about football gangs. I dont think any of you saw my point very well.
Just the very act of drawing a weapon would be a very big mistake in the country i live in unless you intended to kill a person or people. Please don't insult my intelligence by assuming you know more about my country than me. Generally speaking, not pulling out a weapon is the best way to stop anyone getting hurt.
Also please try to remember there has been firearms related crime in my country since before America.
no disrespect intended to anyone, tierd of the debate now.
-
Mechanic, the thing is no one cares about your country and your football hooligans, because this thread is about a guy in Ohio who got assaulted by a teenage gang.
-
Please don't insult my intelligence by assuming you know more about my country than me.
That is EXACTLY how we feel.
You obviously have not had contact with any gangs in the U.S. These are groups of very violent people who will not hesitate to put you in the ground. They will not apologize, they will not buy you a beer or feel any remorse for killing anything that gets in their way.
The gang in this original post posed a great threat to the man and his family. He was very very lucky that he or a family member was not killed or worse. The "there were no guns involved" argument exists because he DID NOT HAVE one strapped on. There is no doubt in my mind that if he had one and knew how to use it, things would have ended very differently (to his advantage).
The speculation that the attackers would have rushed him if he fired is complete hogwash. Go to liveleak.com and pull some videos of the protesters in Iran. These are people that are VERY driven to obtain freedom. Something so many have fought and died for in battles over the years. There is not much more than the cause of freedom that will incite a person to grab a weapon and fight to the end. With all this in mind, look how fast the crowds run for cover when even one shot was fired.
-
For those of you that do carry a weapon that must be a hell of a feeling of power
Now he's going to tell us what we feel?
No its not a "hell o a feeling of power". Tho anti-gun folks, or those that have never shot one, have trouble believing that. Its the whole Movie/Media thing about guns and violence from whence they get their views.
I dont feel any more, or less, powerful when strapped. And there are times Im not.
-
Hey, it's his choice to live the life of a rabbit, potential supper for every mangy coyote out there.
Might as well let him be.
-
See Rule #5
-
See Rules #2, #4
-
This man was lucky to have his life. Even if this man had adequate means to defend himself there is not a court in Ohio that would let him go free with no charges, if he started shooting into that crowd.
Really? And your basis for this is?
-
See Rule #5
And you are?
This man was lucky to have his life. Even if this man had adequate means to defend himself there is not a court in Ohio that would let him go free with no charges, if he started shooting into that crowd.
You simply have no knowledge in this area. I suggest you Google "Ohio Castle Doctrine" to inform yourself. The victim in the particular case was legally occupying the space in which he was attacked.
Good day.
-
See Rule #2
-
See Rule #5
-
See Rule #2
-
See Rule #2
-
See Rule #2
-
Jouster, I hope your posts were in jest, like a funny troll thing. They just don't fly. At all.
No, Rollins they are not in jest. I was genuinely trying to add to the discussion as I have no time to waste trolling. Please explain what doesn't fly at all because I am basing my post on my own research into the constitution, the federalist papers, criminal behavior and firearm law.
If I am incorrect or have poor information I would be glad to have you point me in the right direction.
-
By no means are they as far off base as some of the other posts in here suggesting the Grizzly Bear attack defense. They just come across as speculative rather than spoken from actual experience.
Excuse me if I took it as a mild attempt at trolling, I must have been mistaken.
-
I'd rather defend myself and go to prison for it if necessary, than be dead. Obvious really.
-
I'd rather defend myself and go to prison for it if necessary, than be dead. Obvious really.
I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6(refers to pallbearers)
-
A warning shot is just a wasted round.
If you pull your weapon, you better dam well be ready to take someones life if you have to.
If you honestly believe those teenagers would stand and fight if the victim pulled a gun and used it, then you should ask yourself why they showed up with such a large group to attack him with in the first place...
A number of years ago I traveled quite a bit in my car. My parents owned a house on the Colorado river and I use to go there at least every other weekend. One day I was traveling with a number of friends in other cars in a caravan. One car had to make an unscheduled stop on the freeway so we all stopped. Now there is 4 hours of deserted desert to where we were going. While stopped a California Highway Patrol car stopped and parked behind the caravan, he asked if everything was OK and we said yes. He then told us that you never want to stop along this stretch of highway because many people have ended up missing while being broken down. Needless to say I started to carry a side arm everytime I went to the river.
One day my wife and I were going snow skiing to Mammoth Mountain. We were almost there and it was 2am when around the next corner standing in the middle of the street was a guy there with nothing on but blue jeans covered from head to toe with blood. I stopped abut 50 feet from him. He started walking towards me , I put the car in reverse and was backing up all the while yelling at him to stop and not come any closer. He said nothing and kept walking towards the car. I then told him that I had a gun and I would shoot him if he didn't stop. He then told me that he and his friend rolled their car and needed help, I then saw the car upsidedown on the side of the road. There was a fire station just around the next corner and I told them I would stop and tell them about the accident. When I told the firemen about the accident they said they knew about it and were letting them sober up. They were local boys and apparently OK.
Now that was the closest I have even come to actually shooting someone. I had always learned that if you do pull a weapon on someone ..... plan on using it. I'm glad that I did not pull my sidearm.
-
never fire a warning shot.
The "warning shot" to the gang is seeing the first one drop.
-
I see what you are saying Rollins.
I'll tell you why I think deeply about these issues, because I work as an armored car messenger. Since I carry a gun everyday, if I hadn't already made the decision to defend myself when neccessary, it would be too late to make that decision if I were attacked, which is a somewhat higher probability than the average person. not that much higher though where I live.
Most people never have to think about these issues and can tend to be extremely emotionally charged about them. I am emotionally invested in them I assure you, but on a more practical level than most, excluding military and emergency personnel.
I was just trying to add another somewhat educated post to the mix, but I digress since this is getting way off topic now. sorry to hijack.
-
Our family has an Indian Spear and is not afraid to use it againt unsuspecting burglars. :t