Question for gun enthusiasts

[fatbutfree]

As a matter of fact, I take great care in what I write. That's why corrections on my part are (save spelling) very rare. That said, the advice and information I provided here, is the same advice given by law enforcement: don't resist!

Therefore, if you have a beef, you have it with them...not me.

That advise is useful in some situations.

If you are unarmed or are approached from behind or some other situation where self defense is impossible and the criminal wants a piece of your property then it's probably wise to comply in order to save yourself further injury.

Not all cases it is a good idea to try and get a shot off, or to fight, sometimes it is futile and will only end with you seriously hurt, or dead.

HOWEVER:

I reserve the right, in any situation, no matter how unreasonable or stupid you or anyone else may think it is to do so, to defend my right to my life, property, and liberty.

[Steak_n_Taters]

As a matter of fact, I take great care in what I write. That's why corrections on my part are (save spelling) very rare. That said, the advice and information I provided here, is the same advice given by law enforcement: don't resist!

Every LEO has said the opposite to me that I've ever talked to.

They all say shoot anyone invading your home that threatens you, and most have said they would prefer to arrive and the BG be dead already - then they don't have to deal with him.

[Snoopis]

That said, the advice and information I provided here, is the same advice given by law enforcement: don't resist!

It is probably true for the average unarmed person that you are less likely to be hurt if you don't resist. After all, how many people can actually defend themselves? Also, while you may not get hurt - in that one instance - lack of resistance will only make them grow bolder, thus increasing the crime rate in general and making you buy another lottery ticket. Keep buying those tickets and sooner or later you're gonna win. In the meantime, they're just gonna keep robbing you.

Oh, and about the law enforcement advice: liability, job security.

[JeepCreeper]

Anyone that steps foot inside my house without an invitation from me.

[fatbutfree]

Actually it's my ability and knowledge of the law, that supercedes and controls my response to your "act of aggresion."

The law in most cases hinders a man's ability to defend himself. In Australia it is much worse. The laws (especially here) need to change.

As long as you know that shooting someone is not the way to deal with a robbery. However, nowadays may DA's are reluctant to prosecute

That can't be judged until after the fact. If I find someone in my house I will not be weighing up the statistics to calculate the chance that this guy might turn on me. I'm going to treat him as a threat to my life and deal with him as such. If he flees on sight, that risk would be significantly reduced, and personally, as long as he was leaving empty handed, all I would do is call the police. If I saw the same guy in my house again the next night I'd shoot him on sight

[Snoopis]

Therefore, if you have a beef, you have it with them...not me.Actually it's my ability and knowledge of the law, that supercedes and controls my response to your "act of aggresion."

That is just ****ed up. You shouldn't have to think about legal consequences of defending yourself and your property.

Shall I take it that will be your defense in court? Good luck!You'd think is was some kind of shared genetics?

In Texas, the law is your defense. It's the other guy that needs to be worried. Hell, look at Joe Horn. After saying "I can't let them get away with this" and the 911 operator telling him to not to go out there, he went out there and shot them both anyway as they came out of the neighbors house. No charges. I'm not sure I would do the same, but it's a good example of how the law in Texas protects the good guys first.

[againstall0dds]

Anyone that steps foot inside my house without an invitation from me.

Your mom surprise visiting you, dead on the spot

[nutsy54]

Your mom surprise visiting you, dead on the spot

How many Moms are stupid enough to break a window and crawl through the shattered glass at 2am for a "surprise visit"? Do you even think before you post?

[againstall0dds]

How many Moms are stupid enough to break a window and crawl through the shattered glass at 2am for a "surprise visit"? Do you even think before you post?

Here you go again Nutsy

He said steps a foot inside of his house without an invitation. I am talking well within the parameters of his statement.

[fatbutfree]

Here you go again Nutsy

He said steps a foot inside of his house without an invitation. I am talking well within the parameters of his statement.

We all know what he meant though.

[Snoopis]

Here you go again Nutsy

He said steps a foot inside of his house without an invitation. I am talking well within the parameters of his statement.

I won't speak for him, but my mom is always invited in my home.

[nutsy54]

Here you go again Nutsy

He said steps a foot inside of his house without an invitation. I am talking well within the parameters of his statement.

You're creating a wild-ass exaggeration based on what any reasonable person would understand from his post.

But if you want to be absolutely explicit: The only way Mom could step foot inside his home without an invitation would be via breaking and entering. How many Moms do that?

Now, are you going to get back to the actual discussion, or will you continue fixating on exaggerated semantics, pretending that they're relevant to the thread?

[againstall0dds]

We all know what he meant though.

Magic sensors you got there bud. I only understood what I read.

[DCarruso]

The advice that you shouldn't RESIST criminals, is designed specifically for idiots and morons who can't do ****. Yeah, if you are too focking incompetent, untrained and are basically a fumbling idiot, then it is best that YOU don't resist.

As for the rest of the responsible citizen of the community, LEARN COMBATIVES. Forget traditional martial art dojo crap. Learn real world fighting.

In for Spartan America. Fock the sheeple. They can follow the DON"T RESIST crap.

[AussieMike]

I own guns for one reason to protect liberty, all other liberties stand or fall on this right. The right to own guns. When we look what the nations of the world have given up we must not follow the example of the UK, Australia and others.

Yeeeaaaaahhh,


no, we're actually doing great mate.







nm the economy

[fatbutfree]

Magic sensors you got there bud. I only understood what I read.

It's called being ignorant.

Don't forget to actually think when you debate people, otherwise you waste time with stupid stuff like what you said.

It was pretty obvious to me, when he said uninvited that his Mum and friends and people he loved would not be included, he was speaking of criminals, who break in.

You were trying to make a point out of nothing.

[Dokken5]

I dont need a reason to carry or own a gun. I can carry one if I damn well please. I can carry one because I want to look cool like the anti-gun Hollywood liberals who glorify them in their movies. I can carry one because I have a constitutional right. And that all you anti-American liberal swine need to know.

[fatbutfree]

Yeeeaaaaahhh,


no, we're actually doing great mate.

There has been an increase in violent crime since guns were controlled in Australia. We're not doing that great.

Sydney especially.

[Slowverado]

Who are you trying to defend yourselves against?

Lets be honest here.

Mexicans?

Canadians?

Cubans?

French?

I have weapons for multiple reasons, hunting, home defense, self defense in any situation outside the home. I am a Human Being and it is my God given right to have or carry whatever I want. The 4 nationalities listed above kind of rub me the wrong way also so I left them in the quote. People who are "against" guns are only so, because they have not been in a situation where one would have benefitted them. Not to mention there's nothing like squeezing off a few rounds into the chest of an Iraqi...

[El Gilbro]

Who are you trying to defend yourselves against?

Lets be honest here.

Personally, I'm defending myself against an individual from my wife's past that has threatened to kill me, kill her, and kidnap my children.

A restraining order required him to surrender all weapons to the Sheriff. However, the Sheriff was okay with him turning his weapons over to his father....whose house he occasionally stays at.....and.........he was caught with one of the "surrendered weapons" a while later but no criminal charges came of it because it was deemed a "mental health issue". A couple days in a psych ward at the local hospital was deemed sufficient as opposed to jail time.

So that's what made me make the shift from just hunting and target shooting on occasion to being more focused on defense.

[nutsy54]

Yeeeaaaaahhh,

no, we're actually doing great mate.

Any Australian who can say that. . . Hasn't seen his violent crime statistics lately. You do know that your country exceeds the US in several categories, Right?

[KRANE]

The advice that you shouldn't RESIST criminals, is designed specifically for idiots and morons who can't do ****. Yeah, if you are too focking incompetent, untrained and are basically a fumbling idiot, then it is best that YOU don't resist.

Last Christmas a women resisted and held on to her purse. He got a bullet for her troubles and the criminal got away with the goods anyway.

We all know what he meant though.

That goes both way. That's why there's laws meant to reduce this shoot anything that moves mentality.

As for the breaking in thing, you mean to tell me you never heard of that happening by friends or family? Friendly fire happens even among professionals--which is my point!

[andygymboy1]

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect the citizenry from tyrannical government.

Home defense and self defense are an afterthought, though certainly important ones.

This, OP.

[J-Bol]

If a person dies as a result of another man's defense of his property (including his body) that's unfortunate but it doesn't remove the fact he has a right to defend it, an inalienable right, which means if the Government doesn't protect this right, the Government is wrong.

[Stizzel]

Last Christmas a women resisted and held on to her purse. He got a bullet for her troubles and the criminal got away with the goods anyway.That goes both way. That's why there's laws meant to reduce this shoot anything that moves mentality.

Did you think having a gun means the bad guys always lose? You don't know that she wouldn't have been shot anyway, and even if you could somehow prove that he wouldn't have hurt her, who are you to say her right to defend herself and her property should be violated?

As for the breaking in thing, you mean to tell me you never heard of that happening by friends or family? Friendly fire happens even among professionals--which is my point!

Sometimes people accidently shoot each other. Sometimes people accidently kill each other with cars.

Sometimes kids are killed in highschool football.

Accidental death happens, and the best way to avoid it is to teach responsibility, especially with something as powerful as a gun.

[Slowverado]

dude, humans aren't responsible, that is why we have guns and other forms of self defense...

[fatbutfree]

As for the breaking in thing, you mean to tell me you never heard of that happening by friends or family? Friendly fire happens even among professionals--which is my point!

I don't see the point.

Maybe you can clarify.

[nutsy54]

I don't see the point.

Maybe you can clarify.

His point: Because a wildly small number of injuries and deaths are caused by "accidental" shootings (there are no gun accidents, only stupid gun owners), that should prevent all law abiding citizens from protecting themselves - which they do with firearms hundreds of thousands of times per year.

Don't even try discussing or debating with Krane. His pattern is simple & consistent. Toss out a wildly exaggerated situation, or a flat-out lie (usually his opinion presented as "fact"), then when it gets smashed by cited responses using documented proof, randomly move on to yet another absurd reason to strip law abiding citizens of their Second Amendment rights.

He's already stated that he's more afraid of police officers than criminals - and I honestly don't believe most of us here are capable of reasoning with someone who has that mentality and view of the world.

[fatbutfree]

His point: Because a wildly small number of injuries and deaths are caused by "accidental" shootings (there are no gun accidents, only stupid gun owners), that should prevent all law abiding citizens from protecting themselves - which they do with firearms hundreds of thousands of times per year.

Oh I see.

No wonder I didn't get it. It doesn't make sense.

[KRANE]

Oh I see.

No wonder I didn't get it. It doesn't make sense.

On the contrary, it makes perfect sense. However, I do sometimes take for granted that our high schools have done at least a reasonably good job in their ability to educate. Unless you paid attention there, most of what I say won't make any sense.

Don't even try discussing or debating with Krane. His pattern is simple & consistent. Toss out a wildly exaggerated situation, or a flat-out lie (usually his opinion presented as "fact"), then when it gets smashed by cited responses using documented proof, randomly move on to yet another absurd reason to strip law abiding citizens of their Second Amendment rights.

Exhibit A.

In fact, most of what I write here is from conservative media; much of which is presented without alteration. And for the record, I don't exaggerate.

He's already stated that he's more afraid of police officers than criminals - and I honestly don't believe most of us here are capable of reasoning with someone who has that mentality and view of the world.

Maybe you should start writing his posts as well?