Thread: Reasons Citizens Should Own Guns

Originally Posted by hazz

Originally Posted by RickThai

Would you shoot a home intruder who tried to attack you or your children?

RickThai

So to answer ricks question, I probably would not use a gun to protect my family on the basis that even if I did have a gun there's a 98% chance I would not be able to use it.... so it would be rather foolish to depend upon a gun to provide that protection.

Wow with that logic I guess you don't believe in wearing seat belts either?

I truly hope that your family never needs protection from violent criminals, since you apparently believe it is better to just roll over and let the criminals have their way.

Maybe you should put up a big sign in your front yard "THIS HOUSE IS UNARMED".

I'm sure your local rapists would appreciate your viewpoint.

RickThai

Originally Posted by Troy

Originally Posted by RickThai

Would you shoot a home intruder who tried to attack you or your children?

I would use whatever necessary to remove the threat.
Initially that would be an order to stop.
Last time I shouted such instructions the threat ran away, although the dog may have had something to do with it

Thank you for an honest answer.

RickThai

Originally Posted by RickThai

Wow with that logic I guess you don't believe in wearing seat belts either?

Correct, because that is exactly the same thing - well done

Originally Posted by RickThai

I truly hope that your family never needs protection from violent criminals, since you apparently believe it is better to just roll over and let the criminals have their way.

Why is that apparent, Rick? Please explain

Originally Posted by RickThai

Maybe you should put up a big sign in your front yard "THIS HOUSE IS UNARMED".

Hmm, what a bizarre idea. Why do you think he should do this, Rick?

Originally Posted by RickThai

I'm sure your local rapists would appreciate your viewpoint.

Seeing as you seem to know the way these people think . . .

Rick, I can't remember - what degrees do you have and what martial arts are you at what level?

I've got blackbelts in Sushi, Origami and Karaoke.

Originally Posted by RickThai

As I mentioned in another post, for a single intruder, I prefer to shoot four rounds into the body, followed by a double tap to the head. (The rationale for four rounds in the torso is to knock the intruder silly if he is wearing body armor. I also used Teflon-coated bullets that will penetrate the cheaper Kevlar vests that criminals usually wear, but not the ceramic plates of high quality vests.)

For most of the World, that would be Murder. Off to prison, no passing Go, do not collect your $200.

Originally Posted by RickThai

Then with a pistol (which I keep loaded in the chamber at night)

Not good for the first 10-30 seconds after being woken from a deep sleep. A number of people would probably have shot the wife before being fully awake...

I think I would move to somewhere I didn't have to sleep with a gun under the pillow for fear of being assaulted during the night.

Originally Posted by RickThai

Originally Posted by barbaro

Originally Posted by Troy

Originally Posted by RickThai

Would you shoot a home intruder who tried to attack you or your children?

I would use whatever necessary to remove the threat.
Initially that would be an order to stop.
Last time I shouted such instructions the threat ran away, although the dog may have had something to do with it

An order to stop.

In the US, you would be dead.

Criminals that do home-invasions in the US are nuts and armed.

Mossberg double-barrel, will be my order to stop.

barbaro makes a good point. From a tactical standpoint, home invaders have the following advantages:

they decide when and how they will break into your home

they know their motives and can equip themselves accordingly

they decide on what weapons they will carry and the number of people involved

Thus they generally have the MAJOR advantage of surprise on their side.

The home owner has these advantages:

they know the layout of their homes (hopefully) better than the intruder

they have the option of proper preparation in case of a home invasion.

The rules I follow are:

Having a reliable gun handy (under the pillow or at beside) with adequate ammo that I can shoot accurately

Having a dependable flashlight (torch to you Brits) with a strong light

I've taught my wife what to do if she hears the sound of someone breaking into the house (i.e. wake me and stay in the bedroom)

Once alerted (and that is the critical point in taking away the intruder's advantage of surprise), I quickly check that my wife is by my side.

Then with a pistol (which I keep loaded in the chamber at night) in my shooting hand and the flashlight (turned off) in my other hand, I try and determine the intruder's location (if they are stupid - which most criminals are - they will either have a flashlight on, or will be bumping into things).

If I am certain that the intruder(s) is not my wife (or house guests if I have any), I try to silently get in a shooting position (with cover or concealment if possible) and take my shot.

If necessary I will turn on the flashlight, but my house is set up so that on a normal night, I can stand at the top of the stairs and see any movement in the living room without turning on the flashlight (and giving away my position).

As I mentioned in another post, for a single intruder, I prefer to shoot four rounds into the body, followed by a double tap to the head. (The rationale for four rounds in the torso is to knock the intruder silly if he is wearing body armor. I also used Teflon-coated bullets that will penetrate the cheaper Kevlar vests that criminals usually wear, but not the ceramic plates of high quality vests.)

For multiple intruders, I try and get a couple of body shots into each intruder, and then go back to anyone still posing a threat (i.e. moving).

My wife, meanwhile is supposed to dial 911 as soon as the shooting starts, not before. (the last thing you want is to get yourself or your wife shot by cops as they arrive in the middle of a shooting).

As soon as I have certified that all the intruders are no longer a threat, I unload my gun and lay it down in a visible place (such as a coffee table) and back away from the bodies.

I then await the arrival the police (as a Caucasian, I would prefer the intruders would also be Caucasians because there would be less chance of legal problems).

The main areas of weakness in my strategy, is that by having to leave the bodies where they fall, it will wind up costing me a lot of money to replace carpeting and cleaning up the bio-hazards (blood, tissue, etc). From a legal standpoint (where I live) if the intruder happens to be a cop, I am screwed legally. (For some reasons lawmakers have given cops the benefit-of-the-doubt if they "break into" your homes in the middle of the night - which is strange considering cops in uniform have committed almost every crime imaginable to include murder-for-hire and rapes).

So in practical terms, no one, especially myself (in spite of the contrary posts by Okie and a few other progressives) ever wants to get into that situation.

But bottom line, I would much rather be facing the legal and financial ramifications of shooting home invaders, then have myself or wife be left at the mercy of dirtbags like the guy in the video.

Criminals have major advantages in that they initiate the engagement and they know their motives (rape, murder, etc).

All a responsible homeowner can do is try to react with overpowering and accurate firepower and hope for the best. As with knife fighting, the opponents should never know you have a weapon until they feel its effects.

Pointing a gun at a stranger who broke into your home and yelling Stop, is just giving the intruder (or his partners) an opportunity to get off a shot at you!

Home invasions are not a game, and (IMO) your only responsibility is to protect yourself and your family as quickly and definitively as you can.



RickThai

Very interesting detail, although you don't explore alternatives to guns where the intruder doesn't have one.

Some of your text suggests that you have already dealt with an intruder in the way you indicate. Is that correct?

Anyone in Thailand following your advice regarding taking several shots at an intruder could lead to problems with the law, especially for a shooter who doesn't have a gun licence in his own name. Have you followed your own advice in Thailand?

You say that you deliberately goaded someone into fighting so that you could give him a good beating. Just the sort of person to walk around with a gun at night. Are you from Sandford?

Rick is one of the 15% in my books.

Originally Posted by RickThai

Originally Posted by hazz

Originally Posted by RickThai

Would you shoot a home intruder who tried to attack you or your children?

RickThai

So to answer ricks question, I probably would not use a gun to protect my family on the basis that even if I did have a gun there's a 98% chance I would not be able to use it.... so it would be rather foolish to depend upon a gun to provide that protection.

Wow with that logic I guess you don't believe in wearing seat belts either?

I truly hope that your family never needs protection from violent criminals, since you apparently believe it is better to just roll over and let the criminals have their way.

Maybe you should put up a big sign in your front yard "THIS HOUSE IS UNARMED".

I'm sure your local rapists would appreciate your viewpoint.

RickThai

Personally I would have thought that you would have objected to seat belts on the basis that they do cause to people to die in accidents, particularly when cars crash into water.

Strangly in my native contry, the UK, such signs are unnecessary as armed house holds are so rare, you would have to be staggeringly unlucky to break into an armed house. So to be honest the only coniquence of puting up a sign that said "this house is unarmed" is that my nayboures might thing I am as disturbingly silly as a man holding big phallic gun, wearing unloaded shorts and what looks like ladies underwear over his face.... rather like you!

What we do in the UK is rely on something called the police and something called forensic science.... particularly DNA profiling.
For a criminal in the UK breaking into an occupied home, or partaking in stranger rape or murder is a very high risk occupation, as the police take these crimes very seriously, will collect DNA and will expend serious effort into catching you. Its very hard to acrry out any of these crimes without leaving DNA around and unless you can be sure that you or any of your relatives have not and will not for the rest of your life end up on our dna database... this alone will have the police crawling up your arse.

Boonmee has posted the evidence that america's gun culture creates an environment where for every life that a gun saves, other guns will be used to take a hundred or more. Ive posted my evidence and how I derived it.... if I am wrong show me where I made a mistake in my maths. Evidence backed up by the staggering lower homicide rates in every 1st world country compared to the US.

Originally Posted by Morden

Very interesting detail, although you don't explore alternatives to guns where the intruder doesn't have one.

Three in the body, two in the head . . . obviously

Originally Posted by Morden

Some of your text suggests that you have already dealt with an intruder in the way you indicate. Is that correct?

I would suggest many, aside from leopards, rogue elephants and assorted other ne'er do wells

Originally Posted by pickel

Rick is one of the 15% in my books.

In most people's books I'd imagine

Originally Posted by hazz

Personally I would have thought that you would have objected to seat belts on the basis that they do cause to people to die in accidents, particularly when cars crash into water.

He has read that swimming pools are more murderous than guns so I'd have to believe that he would object

Originally Posted by hazz

Ive posted my evidence and how I derived it.... if I am wrong show me where I made a mistake in my maths.

Why would you come in with facts and ruin a good story!!!

Originally Posted by Morden

Are you from Sandford?

Not unless Sandford is a mental institution

Ah, RickThai . . . the gift that never stops giving.

Originally Posted by OckerRocker

Originally Posted by Morden

Very interesting detail, although you don't explore alternatives to guns where the intruder doesn't have one.

Three in the body, two in the head . . . obviously

Originally Posted by Morden

Some of your text suggests that you have already dealt with an intruder in the way you indicate. Is that correct?

I would suggest many, aside from leopards, rogue elephants and assorted other ne'er do wells

Originally Posted by pickel

Rick is one of the 15% in my books.

In most people's books I'd imagine

Originally Posted by hazz

Personally I would have thought that you would have objected to seat belts on the basis that they do cause to people to die in accidents, particularly when cars crash into water.

He has read that swimming pools are more murderous than guns so I'd have to believe that he would object

Originally Posted by hazz

Ive posted my evidence and how I derived it.... if I am wrong show me where I made a mistake in my maths.

Why would you come in with facts and ruin a good story!!!

Originally Posted by Morden

Are you from Sandford?

Not unless Sandford is a mental institution

Ah, RickThai . . . the gift that never stops giving.

Sandford, as you no doubt know, is the town where gun looneys are now allowed to shoot black kids rather than just pick a fight with them.

Originally Posted by Morden

Sandford, as you no doubt know, is the town where gun looneys are now allowed to shoot black kids rather than just pick a fight with them.

No, he picked a fight. He just lost is all, and resorted to shooting the kid out of embarrassment and anger.

^
Wrong.

Little Trayvon attacked Zim but don't let that fact get in the way of your less than objective assessment of the case, eh?

Oh, btw,

Rots a Ruck with that!

It's already been decided on the other thread that Z wanted to make a citizen's arrest and looked for a black to make it plausible but he had Skittles so he shot him.

Originally Posted by Troy

Originally Posted by RickThai

As I mentioned in another post, for a single intruder, I prefer to shoot four rounds into the body, followed by a double tap to the head. (The rationale for four rounds in the torso is to knock the intruder silly if he is wearing body armor. I also used Teflon-coated bullets that will penetrate the cheaper Kevlar vests that criminals usually wear, but not the ceramic plates of high quality vests.)

For most of the World, that would be Murder. Off to prison, no passing Go, do not collect your $200.

Originally Posted by RickThai

Then with a pistol (which I keep loaded in the chamber at night)

Not good for the first 10-30 seconds after being woken from a deep sleep. A number of people would probably have shot the wife before being fully awake...

I think I would move to somewhere I didn't have to sleep with a gun under the pillow for fear of being assaulted during the night.

You are correct about many countries would charge a citizen with murder for shooting someone who broke into their house. Thailand is really strict about when and how you can shoot someone legally. Even Thai police officers who shoot someone in self-defense can wind up in jail.

As for having a loaded gun within hand's reach while sleeping, you make a good point. Some people (especially drunks) wake up in a fog. For those kind of people, and people who tend to be hyper, putting the pistol under you bed might be a better option. Then you can quickly rol loff the side of the bed and grab your pistol. The major problem with that is that if you wake up and an intruder is already in your bedroom, you might not be able to get the pistol before the intruder grabs your wife.

If you live in a no crime zone, or have private security then you really don't need to take the precautions I take. However, if you live near almost any large city in the world, then without some type of self-protection, you are relying on "herd mentality" (i.e. with all the potential victims around me, then odds are it will be someone else who get robbed, raped, killed, etc).

But like the lady in the video, someone will eventually become the victim.


RickThai

Originally Posted by Morden

Originally Posted by RickThai

Originally Posted by barbaro

Originally Posted by Troy

Originally Posted by RickThai

Would you shoot a home intruder who tried to attack you or your children?

I would use whatever necessary to remove the threat.
Initially that would be an order to stop.
Last time I shouted such instructions the threat ran away, although the dog may have had something to do with it

An order to stop.

In the US, you would be dead.

Criminals that do home-invasions in the US are nuts and armed.

Mossberg double-barrel, will be my order to stop.

barbaro makes a good point. From a tactical standpoint, home invaders have the following advantages:

they decide when and how they will break into your home

they know their motives and can equip themselves accordingly

they decide on what weapons they will carry and the number of people involved

Thus they generally have the MAJOR advantage of surprise on their side.

The home owner has these advantages:

they know the layout of their homes (hopefully) better than the intruder

they have the option of proper preparation in case of a home invasion.

The rules I follow are:

Having a reliable gun handy (under the pillow or at beside) with adequate ammo that I can shoot accurately

Having a dependable flashlight (torch to you Brits) with a strong light

I've taught my wife what to do if she hears the sound of someone breaking into the house (i.e. wake me and stay in the bedroom)

Once alerted (and that is the critical point in taking away the intruder's advantage of surprise), I quickly check that my wife is by my side.

Then with a pistol (which I keep loaded in the chamber at night) in my shooting hand and the flashlight (turned off) in my other hand, I try and determine the intruder's location (if they are stupid - which most criminals are - they will either have a flashlight on, or will be bumping into things).

If I am certain that the intruder(s) is not my wife (or house guests if I have any), I try to silently get in a shooting position (with cover or concealment if possible) and take my shot.

If necessary I will turn on the flashlight, but my house is set up so that on a normal night, I can stand at the top of the stairs and see any movement in the living room without turning on the flashlight (and giving away my position).

As I mentioned in another post, for a single intruder, I prefer to shoot four rounds into the body, followed by a double tap to the head. (The rationale for four rounds in the torso is to knock the intruder silly if he is wearing body armor. I also used Teflon-coated bullets that will penetrate the cheaper Kevlar vests that criminals usually wear, but not the ceramic plates of high quality vests.)

For multiple intruders, I try and get a couple of body shots into each intruder, and then go back to anyone still posing a threat (i.e. moving).

My wife, meanwhile is supposed to dial 911 as soon as the shooting starts, not before. (the last thing you want is to get yourself or your wife shot by cops as they arrive in the middle of a shooting).

As soon as I have certified that all the intruders are no longer a threat, I unload my gun and lay it down in a visible place (such as a coffee table) and back away from the bodies.

I then await the arrival the police (as a Caucasian, I would prefer the intruders would also be Caucasians because there would be less chance of legal problems).

The main areas of weakness in my strategy, is that by having to leave the bodies where they fall, it will wind up costing me a lot of money to replace carpeting and cleaning up the bio-hazards (blood, tissue, etc). From a legal standpoint (where I live) if the intruder happens to be a cop, I am screwed legally. (For some reasons lawmakers have given cops the benefit-of-the-doubt if they "break into" your homes in the middle of the night - which is strange considering cops in uniform have committed almost every crime imaginable to include murder-for-hire and rapes).

So in practical terms, no one, especially myself (in spite of the contrary posts by Okie and a few other progressives) ever wants to get into that situation.

But bottom line, I would much rather be facing the legal and financial ramifications of shooting home invaders, then have myself or wife be left at the mercy of dirtbags like the guy in the video.

Criminals have major advantages in that they initiate the engagement and they know their motives (rape, murder, etc).

All a responsible homeowner can do is try to react with overpowering and accurate firepower and hope for the best. As with knife fighting, the opponents should never know you have a weapon until they feel its effects.

Pointing a gun at a stranger who broke into your home and yelling Stop, is just giving the intruder (or his partners) an opportunity to get off a shot at you!

Home invasions are not a game, and (IMO) your only responsibility is to protect yourself and your family as quickly and definitively as you can.



RickThai

Very interesting detail, although you don't explore alternatives to guns where the intruder doesn't have one.

Some of your text suggests that you have already dealt with an intruder in the way you indicate. Is that correct?

Anyone in Thailand following your advice regarding taking several shots at an intruder could lead to problems with the law, especially for a shooter who doesn't have a gun licence in his own name. Have you followed your own advice in Thailand?

You say that you deliberately goaded someone into fighting so that you could give him a good beating. Just the sort of person to walk around with a gun at night. Are you from Sandford?

Whether the intruder has a gun is irrelevant. If someone breaks into your house, they are up to no good, and trying to ascertain whether they have a gun or not, could get your or your wife killed. Why increase the chances of you or your family getting killed, just to give the intruder a break?

While living in Thailand I have had my house broken into and cleaned out of all valuables (including my dirty laundry). Nobody was at home at the time.

While living in a large city in the US, I also had my apartment broken into one night. Again, I was not in at the time. Had I been home, I would have shot the guy with the .45 Colt Commander I had at the time.

As I stated above, shooting someone in self-defense in Thailand is a very risky move for anyone (even Police Officers). I wouldn't recommend it unless you really believed you were going to be killed by the intruder.

As far as the fight, the guy had kicked my truck because I wasn't able to get clear of the intersection fast enough (due to heavy traffic) to keep from slowing him down on his power walk.

My guess is that I broke him of that habit.


And as far as keeping my cool, I thought I controlled the aggression perfectly. I got him to strike me first, I kicked his butt, and I refrained from injuring him permanently (i.e. I didn't kick him in the face, which is considered "use of a deadly weapon" in the state were this happened).

I did get a couple of knots on my head, but nothing compared to the pain I inflicted on him. I outboxed him and I out maneuvered him on the ground even though he was bigger then me and a lot stronger than me. I couldn't have wished for a better outcome (all my past instructors would have been proud of me).

RickThai

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by Morden

Sandford, as you no doubt know, is the town where gun looneys are now allowed to shoot black kids rather than just pick a fight with them.

No, he picked a fight. He just lost is all, and resorted to shooting the kid out of embarrassment and anger.

So what would you did if some 6 foot plus kid attacked you, and was on top of you banging your heads against the sidewalk?

Let him have his way?

Good Grief!

RickThai

Originally Posted by RickThai

Originally Posted by Morden

Originally Posted by RickThai

Originally Posted by barbaro

Originally Posted by Troy

I would use whatever necessary to remove the threat.
Initially that would be an order to stop.
Last time I shouted such instructions the threat ran away, although the dog may have had something to do with it

An order to stop.

In the US, you would be dead.

Criminals that do home-invasions in the US are nuts and armed.

Mossberg double-barrel, will be my order to stop.

barbaro makes a good point. From a tactical standpoint, home invaders have the following advantages:

they decide when and how they will break into your home

they know their motives and can equip themselves accordingly

they decide on what weapons they will carry and the number of people involved

Thus they generally have the MAJOR advantage of surprise on their side.

The home owner has these advantages:

they know the layout of their homes (hopefully) better than the intruder

they have the option of proper preparation in case of a home invasion.

The rules I follow are:

Having a reliable gun handy (under the pillow or at beside) with adequate ammo that I can shoot accurately

Having a dependable flashlight (torch to you Brits) with a strong light

I've taught my wife what to do if she hears the sound of someone breaking into the house (i.e. wake me and stay in the bedroom)

Once alerted (and that is the critical point in taking away the intruder's advantage of surprise), I quickly check that my wife is by my side.

Then with a pistol (which I keep loaded in the chamber at night) in my shooting hand and the flashlight (turned off) in my other hand, I try and determine the intruder's location (if they are stupid - which most criminals are - they will either have a flashlight on, or will be bumping into things).

If I am certain that the intruder(s) is not my wife (or house guests if I have any), I try to silently get in a shooting position (with cover or concealment if possible) and take my shot.

If necessary I will turn on the flashlight, but my house is set up so that on a normal night, I can stand at the top of the stairs and see any movement in the living room without turning on the flashlight (and giving away my position).

As I mentioned in another post, for a single intruder, I prefer to shoot four rounds into the body, followed by a double tap to the head. (The rationale for four rounds in the torso is to knock the intruder silly if he is wearing body armor. I also used Teflon-coated bullets that will penetrate the cheaper Kevlar vests that criminals usually wear, but not the ceramic plates of high quality vests.)

For multiple intruders, I try and get a couple of body shots into each intruder, and then go back to anyone still posing a threat (i.e. moving).

My wife, meanwhile is supposed to dial 911 as soon as the shooting starts, not before. (the last thing you want is to get yourself or your wife shot by cops as they arrive in the middle of a shooting).

As soon as I have certified that all the intruders are no longer a threat, I unload my gun and lay it down in a visible place (such as a coffee table) and back away from the bodies.

I then await the arrival the police (as a Caucasian, I would prefer the intruders would also be Caucasians because there would be less chance of legal problems).

The main areas of weakness in my strategy, is that by having to leave the bodies where they fall, it will wind up costing me a lot of money to replace carpeting and cleaning up the bio-hazards (blood, tissue, etc). From a legal standpoint (where I live) if the intruder happens to be a cop, I am screwed legally. (For some reasons lawmakers have given cops the benefit-of-the-doubt if they "break into" your homes in the middle of the night - which is strange considering cops in uniform have committed almost every crime imaginable to include murder-for-hire and rapes).

So in practical terms, no one, especially myself (in spite of the contrary posts by Okie and a few other progressives) ever wants to get into that situation.

But bottom line, I would much rather be facing the legal and financial ramifications of shooting home invaders, then have myself or wife be left at the mercy of dirtbags like the guy in the video.

Criminals have major advantages in that they initiate the engagement and they know their motives (rape, murder, etc).

All a responsible homeowner can do is try to react with overpowering and accurate firepower and hope for the best. As with knife fighting, the opponents should never know you have a weapon until they feel its effects.

Pointing a gun at a stranger who broke into your home and yelling Stop, is just giving the intruder (or his partners) an opportunity to get off a shot at you!

Home invasions are not a game, and (IMO) your only responsibility is to protect yourself and your family as quickly and definitively as you can.



RickThai

Very interesting detail, although you don't explore alternatives to guns where the intruder doesn't have one.

Some of your text suggests that you have already dealt with an intruder in the way you indicate. Is that correct?

Anyone in Thailand following your advice regarding taking several shots at an intruder could lead to problems with the law, especially for a shooter who doesn't have a gun licence in his own name. Have you followed your own advice in Thailand?

You say that you deliberately goaded someone into fighting so that you could give him a good beating. Just the sort of person to walk around with a gun at night. Are you from Sandford?

Whether the intruder has a gun is irrelevant. If someone breaks into your house, they are up to no good, and trying to ascertain whether they have a gun or not, could get your or your wife killed. Why increase the chances of you or your family getting killed, just to give the intruder a break?

While living in Thailand I have had my house broken into and cleaned out of all valuables (including my dirty laundry). Nobody was at home at the time.

While living in a large city in the US, I also had my apartment broken into one night. Again, I was not in at the time. Had I been home, I would have shot the guy with the .45 Colt Commander I had at the time.

As I stated above, shooting someone in self-defense in Thailand is a very risky move for anyone (even Police Officers). I wouldn't recommend it unless you really believed you were going to be killed by the intruder.

As far as the fight, the guy had kicked my truck because I wasn't able to get clear of the intersection fast enough (due to heavy traffic) to keep from slowing him down on his power walk.

My guess is that I broke him of that habit.


And as far as keeping my cool, I thought I controlled the aggression perfectly. I got him to strike me first, I kicked his butt, and I refrained from injuring him permanently (i.e. I didn't kick him in the face, which is considered "use of a deadly weapon" in the state were this happened).

I did get a couple of knots on my head, but nothing compared to the pain I inflicted on him. I outboxed him and I out maneuvered him on the ground even though he was bigger then me and a lot stronger than me. I couldn't have wished for a better outcome (all my past instructors would have been proud of me).

RickThai

Aren't you contradicting yourself? First you write that whether the intruder has a gun or not is irrelevant and that one should be prepared to shoot an unarmed intruder if you felt that your life was at risk. Later in your post, you acknowledge the truth that shooting in self-defence in Thailand is 'a very risky move'. Perhaps your thinking is confused by you having lived both in Thailand and, now, cowboy land.

For someone who claims to be an expert with deadly weapons from guns to feet, you have a disappointing knowledge of gun safety. You should not sleep with a loaded gun. You load a gun if you expect imminently to have to use it. Are you one of those Americans who leaves a loaded handgun lying around so that the kids can pick it up and pull the trigger?

Chappie, you present yourself as a very aggressive and cunning thug. You admit that you enticed that man into a fight in such a way that you could claim self defence. Perhaps you're not a fit person to have a gun at all. Or perhaps you're really a pussy cat writing all this bull shite.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by OckerRocker

. .
Really, BM, you need to stop just using ridiculous, clearly staged pictures for discussions.

Is this what you're talking about?



The fact of the matter these inanimate objects do not cause crime but for some reason that particular fact doesn't get thru your skull?

Ahem...ever hear of a notion called 'personal responsibility'? That's right! But to some folks, that doesn't enter the picture. Big Government must be the decider, right?

You could add alcohol, ganja, cocaine, hand grenades, pornography, The Anarchist's Cookbook, a vile of poison and other things to that list.

^ Boonme has posted ridiculous pics like this before. The Law in the UK is pretty clear about weapons. Anything used to cause fear or danger to another with intent to use can be classed as offensive (all the above in particular circumstances). However, anything that is specifically designed or adapted to be offensive (gun, sword, toothbrush with razor blade etc) is automatically deemed planned attack and dealt with seriously.

The problem in the USA is that it is not possible to distinguish offensive weapon because you can all own a gun and carry it in public. Keeps the days of the Wild West alive I suppose but no other reason for such idiocy.

Originally Posted by RickThai

Originally Posted by OckerRocker

Originally Posted by RickThai

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

.
What frosts my nipples is when they start trying to export such ideas to other places. If Ricky wants to cower under his bed polishing his Glock then fine, he can go do it in the USA. No need to import that mentality to Thailand, this place has enough problems already.

Hey QC,

Here are a couple of pics from a few years ago, showing the wife and me with a couple of guns. The pictures were taken in two different homes, with two different Thai families. So yes, Virginia, guns are already readily available in Thailand.

Fark me dead, mate . . . that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen . . .no wonder you need weapons by the look of you.

(Umm, which one is your wife?)

As I replied in another post (which seems to have been deleted by an admin), this picture of me was taken a few months after I had a liver transplant and some very servere heart problems that followed the surgery. During that timeframe my weight fluctuated between 135 and 215 lbs. I normally weigh about 170 lbs.

Although I know the picture is unflattering, I have enough self-confident in my skills and accomplishments that I had no qualms in putting the picture on this thread. It was a given that Okie and a few of his ilk would use it to try and ridicule me, but that doesn't bother me in the least.

Unlike Okie, I have no problem with being open and honest about who I am and what I done in my life. I have no need to hide my life's experiences (good or bad) behind my posts.

As far as needing a gun:

I have studied martial arts for over 25 years including 6 months as a sparring partner for a professional Muay Thai fighter and have a black-belt in Taekwon Do (besides training in Jeet Kune Do and Shorin-Rye).

I was trained as an Infantry officer and, while in the military have shot people and have been under fire many times. I also have military training in CQC (Close Quarter Combat) and am an excellent shot with both pistol and rifle. I can regularly shoot minute-of-angle at 400 yards with my sniper rifle.

I have also had training and actual experience in knife fighting and have cut people and been cut (I have the scars to prove it).

Growing up in a housing project, I got into a lot of fights growing up and later on in the military. My last real fight was when I was about 32 years old. I got into a fight with a college football player, who was 10 years younger and outweighed me by about 30 lbs.

After deliberately baiting him in order to get him to hit me (he was a Negro and I called him a boy), I broke his jaw with my first punch (a quick righthand shot). After receiving few more hard punches he stopped trying to box me and went to his ground game. I managed to take him down hard on his spine, stunning him. On his hands and knees, I was in a perfect position to finish him off with a couple of quick kicks to his face, but I restrained myself (to many onlookers) and his friends helped him up and the fight was over.

I can honestly say, that in all my fights, win, lose, or draw, I have never had anyone who fought me ever want to come back and try again.

So don't be fooled by my feeble-looking appearance in those pictures (are about 5 years old), although I am now 60 years old, I am now quite healthy and do 40 pushups every night (last year I was doing 100 every night). I still condition my hands and still have my speed (unfortunately I don't have the stamina I used to have) and can handle myself for quick, short violent encounters.

So have fun with your little comments, but don't ever make the mistake of trying to physically attack me. I can almost guarantee that one of us will go to the hospital and the other one will go to jail.

RickThai

Sorry about quoting the whole long shebang, but it's a unit.

Somehow your weight doesn't strike me as the issue.

That's a really cool outfit. Arabian nights, American style.

What with your awesome, brave fighting fighting skills, the outfit seems a bit OTT?


Heard of paranoia? Fear? Yellow streaks?

Originally Posted by Troy

^ Boonme has posted ridiculous pics like this before. The Law in the UK is pretty clear about weapons. Anything used to cause fear or danger to another with intent to use can be classed as offensive (all the above in particular circumstances). However, anything that is specifically designed or adapted to be offensive (gun, sword, toothbrush with razor blade etc) is automatically deemed planned attack and dealt with seriously.

The problem in the USA is that it is not possible to distinguish offensive weapon because you can all own a gun and carry it in public. Keeps the days of the Wild West alive I suppose but no other reason for such idiocy.

"We all of us agree in loving your people when we meet you personally, but when we read, day after day, of your kidnappings and honour slayings and racketeering, bootlegging and graft, we get a distorted picture that makes us laugh with the cynic that described you as having stepped straight out of barbarism into decadence."

Letter of an English couple to the American people, printed 23.06.1932 in a Connecticut newspaper

Mmh, that's odd. 'Honour slayings'? Americans love to point to Muslim honor killings, any idea what the English folks refered to?

Originally Posted by FlyFree

What with your awesome, brave fighting fighting skills, the outfit seems a bit OTT?

He is a parody of himself . . .