Thread: Reasons Citizens Should Own Guns

Originally Posted by RickThai

...Remember the young soldier getting hacked to death while on-lookers called the police? Wouldn't it had been a better outcome, if the soldier or one of the by-standers pulled out a gun and wasted one or both of the attackers before they succeeded in killing the soldier?

RickThai

But the sanctimonious handwringers couldn't know for sure the hackers were going to kill him, so shooting them would likely have the interfering busybody up on at least manslaughter.

Face it, Brits have been cowed into not defending themselves, which btw is another reason the country is being colonised by parasites and other assorted scum.

Originally Posted by leemo

Originally Posted by RickThai

...Remember the young soldier getting hacked to death while on-lookers called the police? Wouldn't it had been a better outcome, if the soldier or one of the by-standers pulled out a gun and wasted one or both of the attackers before they succeeded in killing the soldier?

RickThai

But the sanctimonious handwringers couldn't know for sure the hackers were going to kill him, so shooting them would likely have the interfering busybody up on at least manslaughter.

Face it, Brits have been cowed into not defending themselves, which btw is another reason the country is being colonised by parasites and other assorted scum.

I can't agree with you. There aren't that many American NRA members in Britain.

quite,

The UK allows people to use reasonable force for defence of themselves and others. If you have reasonable grounds to believe that a life is at risk, then you are allowed to kill and should your belief prove groundless in retrospect the defense still stands. What we do not do is allow people to arm themselves preemptivel, partly because this would be a right that criminals would make more use of than the general population, but mainly because most killings are the result of people getting into arguments and attacking each other which what ever they have to hand. allow people to arm themselves, and you simply help arguments progress from cuts and bruises to killing. zimmerman being a case in point

As for rickthai's interesting use of cherry picking. Its better to have an environment where that soldier was hacked to death than an environment where the Beltway sniper and fort hood could happen.

At the end of the day the objective is to minimise the number of people who are killed each year, actions that achieve this good and those that do not are bad. The problem is allowing the general population to arm themselves; is that it causes an increase in the homicide rate that eclipses the number of people that get saved by the guns.

^302

We weren't referring to the soldier hacked to death on a Brit street? Ah yes, you are so right, Britland doesn't have gun nuts shooting up the place.

Could be why the peaceful guys had to chop away by hand.

Originally Posted by hazz

quite,

The UK allows people to use reasonable force for defence of themselves and others. If you have reasonable grounds to believe that a life is at risk, then you are allowed to kill and should your belief prove groundless in retrospect the defense still stands. What we do not do is allow people to arm themselves preemptivel, partly because this would be a right that criminals would make more use of than the general population, but mainly because most killings are the result of people getting into arguments and attacking each other which what ever they have to hand. allow people to arm themselves, and you simply help arguments progress from cuts and bruises to killing. zimmerman being a case in point

As for rickthai's interesting use of cherry picking. Its better to have an environment where that soldier was hacked to death than an environment where the Beltway sniper and fort hood could happen.

At the end of the day the objective is to minimise the number of people who are killed each year, actions that achieve this good and those that do not are bad. The problem is allowing the general population to arm themselves; is that it causes an increase in the homicide rate that eclipses the number of people that get saved by the guns.

A fair summary and a well expressed opinion. Thanks.

Thanks goodness the people of Woolwich weren't walking around carrying guns. There would have been mayhem as they all let rip.

Originally Posted by leemo

^302

We weren't referring to the soldier hacked to death on a Brit street? Ah yes, you are so right, Britland doesn't have gun nuts shooting up the place.

Could be why the peaceful guys had to chop away by hand.

Any questions?

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by leemo

^302

We weren't referring to the soldier hacked to death on a Brit street? Ah yes, you are so right, Britland doesn't have gun nuts shooting up the place.

Could be why the peaceful guys had to chop away by hand.

Any questions?

Yes, I have a question.

Do you have any thoughts of your own or do you only think through inane images that you find on the internet?

I don't think he does. and teh few home schooled americans I have known have all come from hard core christian families..... not the kind of people you would expect to be classified as America libbies. but then its not like the people who make these sound bits for boonmee and the other hive members have any interest in reality

He doesn't even have to find them, just to be on the mailing list, and the central brain provides the propaganda to spread.

Originally Posted by leemo

Ah yes, you are so right, Britland doesn't have gun nuts shooting up the place.

Now imagine it would have been seppoland . . . the soldier would have been shot to pieces,a s well as any people standing around . .. some may have had guns and pulled them and they in turn would have been shot at

So, instead of having one dead, which is tragic in itself, we would have had scores dead and wounded.

You're right . . . thank God Britain doesn't have a seppo-style gun scene

Any questions? [/quote]

What an odd assumption. The homeschooling families that I know are so liberal they actually annoy me.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by Morden

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by leemo

^302

We weren't referring to the soldier hacked to death on a Brit street? Ah yes, you are so right, Britland doesn't have gun nuts shooting up the place.

Could be why the peaceful guys had to chop away by hand.

Any questions?

Yes, I have a question.

Do you have any thoughts of your own or do you only think through inane images that you find on the internet?

When addressing the low fat soy latte liberal crowd it's always more productive to use pretty pictures than a drawn-out triste 'cause y'all have such short attention spans.

Inane, eh?

Incontrovertible truths often cause pain, we know...

Stop looking in the mirror and consider you audience.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by Morden

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by leemo

^302

We weren't referring to the soldier hacked to death on a Brit street? Ah yes, you are so right, Britland doesn't have gun nuts shooting up the place.

Could be why the peaceful guys had to chop away by hand.

Any questions?

Yes, I have a question.

Do you have any thoughts of your own or do you only think through inane images that you find on the internet?

When addressing the low fat soy latte liberal crowd it's always more productive to use pretty pictures than a drawn-out triste 'cause y'all have such short attention spans.

Inane, eh?

Incontrovertible truths often cause pain, we know...

But it's not BM. Sometimes you have very articulate and relevant positions, but you waste them on puerile memes.
Give it up and state your piece.

Originally Posted by Pound Hound

Originally Posted by RickThai

As far as gun safety, most professionals who require the use of guns regularly keep a round in the chamber when in the "ready" position. Do you think most cops walk around with their guns unloaded?

no cops don't walk around with their guns unloaded... that's just silly... but they certainly do not walk around with a round chambered! nor should anyone with a C&C permit. ITS DANGEROUS AND UNSAFE!

chambering a round will give you away in the dark? you watch too many movies...

if you have been trained by the NRA for home self defense you would know that you should take a defensive position (end of the hallway on one knee for instance) tell the intruder you are armed and police have been called. you will be far safer if he knows where you are and you are armed. prowling around your house in the dark looking for someone to shoot...
what could go wrong with that?

this lone justice in the night shit is just bad information....

The NRA is an organization that is under a lot of public scrutiny (and criticism). As such, its training is reflected to appear as non-threatening as possible. I have no doubt the NRA's lawyers go over every aspect of NRA recommended training, including home defense.

My method, however, is based upon US Army Close Quarters Combat procedures. To effect, the keys elements of "Eliminate the Threat" are:

1) Surprise - taking a potentially lethal target by surprise gives you a tremendous advantage and increases your chances of safely removing the threat.

2) Speed - quickly dominate the room, giving the bad guys no chance to regroup and engage you in a firefight.

3) Violence of Action - You must initiate contact with overwhelming force and firepower.

These are the lessons that were drilled into me in my training.

For home defense, I ensure that my home is securely locked before I turn in at night. Therefore anyone forcibly entering my home, has to be determined and properly equipped.

From that I make the assumption that anyone who has broken into my home is a lethal threat against me and my family and act accordingly. Thankfully I live in a state (in the USA) where the homeowner can legally make that assumption.

As in any CQC situation, you always make positive identification of your target before shooting. Normally only my wife and I are in our home at night. If we do have overnight guests than I am doubly careful to ensure that they do not become targets.


For whatever reason, in nature it seems that the most vulnerable individuals are the ones that get preyed on the most. The ones that are most equipped to defend themselves seem to hardly ever be the ones picked by the predator.

A decade ago, I was walking around the tenderloin district of San Francisco (a high-crime area). It was getting close to dark and I was by myself.

I saw two men (Caucasians) mugging another man (another Caucasian). Instead of turning back or crossing the street I continued on in their direction. The two men came walking up the street towards me. We gave each other "measuring" looks, and the two men decided to keep on walking past me.

I approached the other guy, who was now on the phone talking to a 911 dispatcher. It turns out the two thugs took all his money; money that he really needed. I hung around with him a bit to make sure he was okay and then left before the cops showed up.

Somehow, I just didn't look like a "victim" to those two guys. Maybe it was a 6th sense, but I've seen this phenomenon time and again. Be armed and ready, and chances are you won't ever have to shoot someone. Be weak and defenseless and the predators will sniff you out.

RickThai

Originally Posted by RickThai

As far as gun safety, most professionals who require the use of guns regularly keep a round in the chamber when in the "ready" position. Do you think most cops walk around with their guns unloaded?

I think this depends entirely on the type of gun you have. A double action revolver is arguably a safer weapon in the situations you describe. If not then a double action semi-automatic could be used safely with a chambered round. I don't think your Colt .45 is the best choice of weapon even for ex-service personnel.

Now I have a question for you:

You are walking through town at night in an unlit area when you notice a couple of youths trying to break into a car. Your physique is such that you can stop the two guys with reasonable ease and you have the standard service combat training. What would you do?

Originally Posted by RickThai

Originally Posted by Pound Hound

Originally Posted by RickThai

As far as gun safety, most professionals who require the use of guns regularly keep a round in the chamber when in the "ready" position. Do you think most cops walk around with their guns unloaded?

no cops don't walk around with their guns unloaded... that's just silly... but they certainly do not walk around with a round chambered! nor should anyone with a C&C permit. ITS DANGEROUS AND UNSAFE!

chambering a round will give you away in the dark? you watch too many movies...

if you have been trained by the NRA for home self defense you would know that you should take a defensive position (end of the hallway on one knee for instance) tell the intruder you are armed and police have been called. you will be far safer if he knows where you are and you are armed. prowling around your house in the dark looking for someone to shoot...
what could go wrong with that?

this lone justice in the night shit is just bad information....

The NRA is an organization that is under a lot of public scrutiny (and criticism). As such, its training is reflected to appear as non-threatening as possible. I have no doubt the NRA's lawyers go over every aspect of NRA recommended training, including home defense.

My method, however, is based upon US Army Close Quarters Combat procedures. To effect, the keys elements of "Eliminate the Threat" are:

1) Surprise - taking a potentially lethal target by surprise gives you a tremendous advantage and increases your chances of safely removing the threat.

2) Speed - quickly dominate the room, giving the bad guys no chance to regroup and engage you in a firefight.

3) Violence of Action - You must initiate contact with overwhelming force and firepower.

These are the lessons that were drilled into me in my training.

For home defense, I ensure that my home is securely locked before I turn in at night. Therefore anyone forcibly entering my home, has to be determined and properly equipped.

From that I make the assumption that anyone who has broken into my home is a lethal threat against me and my family and act accordingly. Thankfully I live in a state (in the USA) where the homeowner can legally make that assumption.

As in any CQC situation, you always make positive identification of your target before shooting. Normally only my wife and I are in our home at night. If we do have overnight guests than I am doubly careful to ensure that they do not become targets.


For whatever reason, in nature it seems that the most vulnerable individuals are the ones that get preyed on the most. The ones that are most equipped to defend themselves seem to hardly ever be the ones picked by the predator.

A decade ago, I was walking around the tenderloin district of San Francisco (a high-crime area). It was getting close to dark and I was by myself.

I saw two men (Caucasians) mugging another man (another Caucasian). Instead of turning back or crossing the street I continued on in their direction. The two men came walking up the street towards me. We gave each other "measuring" looks, and the two men decided to keep on walking past me.

I approached the other guy, who was now on the phone talking to a 911 dispatcher. It turns out the two thugs took all his money; money that he really needed. I hung around with him a bit to make sure he was okay and then left before the cops showed up.

Somehow, I just didn't look like a "victim" to those two guys. Maybe it was a 6th sense, but I've seen this phenomenon time and again. Be armed and ready, and chances are you won't ever have to shoot someone. Be weak and defenseless and the predators will sniff you out.

RickThai

As I suspected, you are still playing at soldiers with yourself.

I think that your story and claim that two thugs recognised you as a tough guy is twaddle. You give your version to reinforce your sad self-image.

What were you up to on the streets in a high crime area at dusk? Looking for more trouble?

If you really think that you constantly have to show your alleged toughness in order to avoid violent attack then either you are deluded, or you enjoy playing the game with yourself, or you need to think hard about the society in which you live.

Originally Posted by Morden

What were you up to on the streets in a high crime area at dusk? Looking for more trouble?

You really think this story is true? It's as true as any of his rubbish SAS/Green Beret/GSG9/PhD/Big-Game Hunter/ etc etc etc . . . he is a sad old git who has to big himself on an internet forum.

Having said that, he clearly is not a fool and writes very well . . . for a seppo!

One of his oddities is that he professes to be a fervent Buddhist who dreams of murdering 15% of he population, fantasises about shooting people in his home, happilly regales us with stories of hunting and killing animals like in some Wilbur Smith novel and professes to be a martial arts double first dan blackbelt who starts fights . . . and then says his instructors would be proud of him.

Sad, sad, sad

He then posts a photo of himself carrying a gun looking like an absolute wimp . . . which he then puts down to kidney transplants or similar . . .

Originally Posted by RickThai

Normally only my wife and I are in our home at night. If we do have overnight guests than I am doubly careful to ensure that they do not become targets.

If i were as concerned about my guests safety i simply wouldn't be inviting them round for an overnight stay. More importantly i would be moving house.

I like this thread. A man who is criminally insane, and spectacularly stupid, the best example himself why there mustn't be guns in private hands because they inevitably land in the wrong ones and become a danger to sane folks, tells us why we should have guns.

In Phuket in 2004 (just after the tsunami), this weird american was stood outside one of the hospitals in camos as if he was on guard. I had one of the attaches do some digging and it turned out he was an ex-Vietnam vet who'd lost the plot and just turned up, and that we shouldn't worry about him, it just made him feel wanted again. All the Thais just ignored him

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

In Phuket in 2004 (just after the tsunami), this weird american was stood outside one of the hospitals in camos as if he was on guard. I had one of the attaches do some digging and it turned out he was an ex-Vietnam vet who'd lost the plot and just turned up, and that we shouldn't worry about him, it just made him feel wanted again. All the Thais just ignored him

Was he packing a gun?

Originally Posted by Troy

Originally Posted by RickThai

As far as gun safety, most professionals who require the use of guns regularly keep a round in the chamber when in the "ready" position. Do you think most cops walk around with their guns unloaded?

I think this depends entirely on the type of gun you have. A double action revolver is arguably a safer weapon in the situations you describe. If not then a double action semi-automatic could be used safely with a chambered round. I don't think your Colt .45 is the best choice of weapon even for ex-service personnel.

Now I have a question for you:

You are walking through town at night in an unlit area when you notice a couple of youths trying to break into a car. Your physique is such that you can stop the two guys with reasonable ease and you have the standard service combat training. What would you do?

If I saw two teenagers (I am assuming that when you say "youths") breaking into a car, I would call 911 if I had my cell phone, otherwise, I would just keep walking.

Why? Because it could be they had locked themselves out of their own car. It could be that they were breaking into someone's car to rip off the stereo or steal the car.

Why risk being Zimmerman'd (whose life is now ruined) over some strangers car?

Regardless of their appearances, I would never take for granted that I could "handle them with reasonable ease" (even in my prime, which I am now way past). They might have knives or guns, and in any event two-on-one, puts any person, know matter how fit and well-trained at a severe disadvantage.

If I saw them attacking a woman or a child, then I would take a different action. I would grab some kind of weapon (if I wasn't armed) and then intervene (probably by sneaking up behind them and hitting them on the head). Depending upon the severity of the attack, I might call 911 first, otherwise I would just jump into the fray.

What would you do?

RickThai

Originally Posted by Morden

.
I think that your story and claim that two thugs recognised you as a tough guy is twaddle. You give your version to reinforce your sad self-image.

Once again Morden, you are so completely and utterly wrong!

What do you do for a living? I hope you are better at that, then you are at discerning truth from fiction.

RickThai