Julian2 Posted January 22, 2007 Report Share Posted January 22, 2007 "We live one house from the end of the street. In order to enter the alley way behind the houses, you go around my neighbor's house and then enter the narrow alleyway. If I hear shit going on in the back alley, I would walk around my neighbor's house and enter the alley way - and I would do it with a gun." Your neighbour in the mean time also hears the shit going on and looks out his window. He sees someone walking around with a gun, doesn't recognise you in the dark and puts one right in your O ring with his gun. One more for the statisticians. The only problem with the police is they're under funded because you keep voting for governments who run on platforms of reduced government spending. This includes stuff like schools, health services, emergency services (don't worry about them, Katrina's been and gone) and, ofcourse police. I lived in a city where the police on night shift used to buy there own bullet proof vests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.. Posted January 22, 2007 Report Share Posted January 22, 2007 Well said Julian! Cheers, SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted January 23, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2007 [color:red]"Your neighbour in the mean time also hears the shit going on and looks out his window. He sees someone walking around with a gun, doesn't recognise you in the dark and puts one right in your O ring with his gun. One more for the statisticians."[/color] That is the way some think, but in the State I live in, you can not even draw a gun out, unless you have grounds to shoot it. And if you shoot, it should be for a reason that is a reason for killing a person. Using your argument, the neighbor shoots and the person falls down dead. Instead of me, the dead man is a police officer. I believe everybody has the right to defend themselves, even if it means killing the other person if their own life is in danger. I think you agree on that? Tell me what would you do: This is a true event that recently happened in the city where I live. A man was in his room, probably playing around on his computer. All of a sudden, the front door was smashed opened. His wife and daughter were in the front room. Next he hears one of the persons who broked the door, come down the hallway to where he was. Conversations from the front room indicate the situation is not very good. As the man starts to enter your room what would you do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian2 Posted January 23, 2007 Report Share Posted January 23, 2007 For a start I've never had a front door that could be broken down with out waking the whole neighborhood. OK, so you get this 'home invasion' they're common in Australia but invariably they are the homes of people who are participating in a lucrative illegal form of indoor gardening. Sure I'd defend myself but it wouldn't be with a gun because I wouldn't have one. I'm not anti-gun, I've owned guns and hunted when I was younger but I out grew them, and I repeat once more, with guns in the house you stand a far greater chance of your kids blowing each other away than bad guys busting your door down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted January 23, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2007 [color:red]"For a start I've never had a front door that could be broken down with out waking the whole neighborhood."[/color] Do you ever answer your door? That is one of the easiest ways for a criminal to enter your home. Do you always have your doors locked? That is probably the second method criminals use to enter a home. [color:red]"with guns in the house you stand a far greater chance of your kids blowing each other away than bad guys busting your door down."[/color] That is a common belief. Where I live, there have been a lot of home invasions. In some cases it is for drugs but in other cases, it is mostly for money ... easy targets. But during this same period, there have been no reports in my city of children killing or even injuring other children. You claim you would defend yourself, but if they have guns, how would you do it? I think we are at times talking about 2 different issues. What I am talking about is the right for a citizen to protect themself, even if it means deadly force. You seem to indicate you would not use a gun but I feel this is your right but not everybody feels that same way and those of us who do feel differently, feel it is our right to believe so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian2 Posted January 23, 2007 Report Share Posted January 23, 2007 I still think security is the way to go, where I lived most people had security doors made out of mesh with good locks, front and back. These doors were kept locked at all times and the actual front or back door opened inwards so you could see through the mesh to who was there. Still, I'll never convince you that guns aren't an essential part of modern society any more than you'll convince me that they are. I'm sorry you wouldn't look at my posts as a whole rather than snipping out a line here and there to dispute but I can only reiterate... guns are a far greater danger to their owners and their families than the people they are supposedly kept to defend the home from. The stats are there on a hundred websites, including law-enforcement ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lembeh Posted January 23, 2007 Report Share Posted January 23, 2007 >If you go outside armed, you might get arrested as a terrorist. Sorry, but you are way over interpreting what was said in the law (proposed law). To recap: > individual or group of individuals are not affiliated with a local, state or federal law enforcement entity and associate with another individual or group of individuals as an organization, group, corporation or company for the purpose of patrolling to detect alleged illegal activity or to individually patrol for the purpose of detecting alleged illegal activity and if the individual or group of individuals is armed with a firearm or other weapon. The key phrases (underlined above) are associating, not affiliated and critically *patrolling*. Patrolling is a specific word that has a specific meaning. There is nothing, nothing at all that is in that law that would prevent you *responding* to a home invasion, or indeed going out to find out what that noise was (armed or not) - providing it was in response to something. The other key phrase is non affliiated. I am pretty sure that neighborhood watch schemes etc are affliated with various law enforcement agencies. Its always worth reading stuff carefully before getting your panties in a bunch.... -j- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elef Posted January 23, 2007 Report Share Posted January 23, 2007 Josh, you're just reading the first half of the sentence and that one you master, try to do the same with the second half: to individually patrol for the purpose of detecting alleged illegal activity and if the individual or group of individuals is armed with a firearm or other weapon combined with the beginning individual or group of individuals are not affiliated with a local, state or federal law enforcement entity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lembeh Posted January 23, 2007 Report Share Posted January 23, 2007 I already edited that, if you are referring to the "individual bit". However, its still "patrol" that is the crux of the matter! -j- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elef Posted January 23, 2007 Report Share Posted January 23, 2007 so an individual who is individually patroling (not defined - IMO you can be patroling inside your house or on your ground) with weapon is a domestic terrorist - or a layman has written the text? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.