HAD A FIREARM WHEN NEEDED AND USED IT IN SELF DEFENCE.

[DEFENSOR]

imported post

Superlite27 wrote:

I noticed they were affected by strong drink

Ware those that taketh the devil into thieir mouths!

Thee was most wise to guardeth against yon hooligans and blasteth into the airwith thine trusty Remington pump action model 870.

+1 and can't stop laughing, sides aching, can't breathe call a doctor LOL

DEFENSOR

 

[Haz.]

imported post

Mo wrote:

Haz,

I'm very glad you were able to protect your family. Glad it did not turn out different.

I see no reason to be critical.

Thanks Mo. My post above spells it out pretty clearly I thought. I sincerely believe had I not been armed back then I doubtwe would be alive today. My children have never forgotten that day. Things have changed here since the bann and buy back. Criminals are having a field day knowing most are now defenceless.We who have been firearm owners for many years and have passed the stringent tests, checks and balances have registered their firearms and are now liscenced, can still hunt and shoot on private property with permission of the owners. I have several friends who used to invite me to their places to help them cull ferel animals. If the situation were arise today, I would do it all again. My time is now spent mainly target pistol shooting at my local club. I'm getting too long in the tooth to hunt on properties.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

eye95 wrote:

marshaul wrote:

eye95 wrote:

Just a reminder:  I am not questioning the poster defending his family.  Feel free to scroll up and check my posts on the topic.

I was specifically addressing the theoretical wisdom of warning shots, not criticizing the OP's actions.  In that vein, I would advise, do not fire your weapon unless you have a specific target that you mean to hit in order to protect yourself.

The implication that I was second-guessing the OP is demonstrably false.

I didn't mean to support that implication. I saw your earlier post, and +1'd that as well.

So, to summarize, I agree warning shots are generally a bad idea. I also agree that, in this case, we are in no position to second-guess the scenario in question, which ended in an acceptable result. I also agree that you made no attempt to criticize this particular warning shot, for that same reason.

Perhaps I should develop a postulate on the subject, trademark it, and spend the rest of my life defending it?

LOL

That was a good one. :lol:

 

[Haz.]

imported post

Superlite27 wrote:

I noticed they were affected by strong drink

Ware those that taketh the devil into thieir mouths!

Thee was most wise to guardeth against yon hooligans and blasteth into the airwith thine trusty Remington pump action model 870.

HadI not had my trusty Remington pump action modle 870shotgun or been a sniveling coward I could have said; "Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes:" (Gen. 19:8).

Haz.

 

[Heartless_Conservative]

imported post

With an animal, one need not currently be threatened to realize the situation could get worse, and with a big noise at my disposal, why not use it?

Hearing damage?

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Heartless_Conservative wrote:

With an animal, one need not currently be threatened to realize the situation could get worse, and with a big noise at my disposal, why not use it?

Hearing damage?

Nah, not from a shotgun.

 

[eye95]

imported post

ixtow wrote:

eye95 wrote:

ixtow wrote:

eye95 wrote:

ixtow wrote:

eye95 wrote:

Personally, even with an animal, if I feel threatened enough to shoot, I am going to shoot to put the bullet in the animal. Otherwise, I won't shoot.

So, instead of scare it off, no harm done, you'll wait for the situation to get bad enough that instead of potential danger, there is clear and present danger?

Nope. That's not what I am saying. That's a strawman. Let me see if I can say what I mean in as crystal-clear a way as is humanly possible:

Personally, even with an animal, if I feel threatened enough to shoot, I am going to shoot to put the bullet in the animal. Otherwise, I won't shoot.

It is not a Straw Man because I am not arguing that point. I'm a suggesting a thought you seem unable to have on your own, even thought you very nearly suggested it yourself.

My point is that, with an animal, there may be other reasons to shoot than merely because you are in imminent danger.

After all, as you said, to the animal, it's just a big noise. I believe a creature snooping about, but not yet dangerous, is plenty of call for a big noise to make sure it doesn't come to that.

And 3 drunk guys might be considered in this category (woot, on topic!)

With an animal, one need not currently be threatened to realize the situation could get worse, and with a big noise at my disposal, why not use it?

If the danger is sufficient that I need to discharge my weapon, I am not going to take the chance that the animal will react by attacking, with a round and valuable time now wasted. If I am threatened to the point where I will use my weapon, I will do my damnedest to put a round in the animal, center mass.

If I foolishly assume that a big noise will help, I'll kick some garbage cans.

Your Urban Armchair Quarterbacking is showing. I've never seen garbage cans 200 miles from nowhere. But I've seen plenty of Bears and Coyotes...

You're stuck soundly on the notion that a firearm should not ever be used unless you wait until a clear and present threat exists.

I, unfortunately, carry a gun, not a bunch of garbage cans. Had I known how effective garbage cans were in eliminating an imminent deadly threat, or even a potential one, I would have invested in at least 3 dozen.

It is not my intention to change you choices, but merely to show that, by your own suggestion, a gun has more uses than killing stuff.

I choose my words very carefully. I said nothing about killing. Please do not attribute things to me that I did not say. Again.

The garbage cans were an attempt to make light of making noise. The humor was totally lost.

The point is that firearms are not noisemakers. They fire projectiles that can do a lot of damage. I will never fire a round just to make noise.

 

[jihadthis]

imported post

Haz. wrote:

Superlite27 wrote:

I noticed they were affected by strong drink

Ware those that taketh the devil into thieir mouths!

Thee was most wise to guardeth against yon hooligans and blasteth into the airwith thine trusty Remington pump action model 870.

HadI not had my trusty Remington pump action modle 870shotgun or been a sniveling coward I could have said; "Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes:" (Gen. 19:8).

Haz.

+1

You evaluated the situation, determined what would be most effective and took the course of action you thought would work.

Good Job!!!!!!

I give kudos to the OP for assessing what I believe to be a quite serious situation and using the appropriate amount of force to head off a tragedy. Nothing in his original post indicates he would have hesitated to shoot to kill had these BG's evidenced further intent to harm his family.

 

[LadyGreenEyes]

imported post

Beerme wrote:

LadyGreenEyes wrote:

Beerme wrote:

zigziggityzoo wrote:

Yeah, no big deal now. if it were "many years ago" the statute of limitations have long passed.

still doesnt make it asinine bud all he needed to do was stand there with it
If they came closer draw it on them.
no need for a round to be fired

Are you kidding? Three guys, a clear threat? Were that my kids, a round over their heads would be a mercy. Even the cops fire warning shots, and in this case, that's clearly what this was.

.....two days here, and two anti-gun moles spotted.....

I am an anti gun mole?

Get your @#$% straight doll I am in no way anti gun whatsoever so take your assumption and shove it.
I am however anti brandishing and illegally discharging a firearm
thanks for your input toots

I am not your "doll" or your "toots", and you need to watch the mouth. It isn't "brandishing" when defending your family, and those punks were lucky the shot went over their heads, IMO. The mole comment is based on the content of many posts by the same people, all in a negative light. If you don't like that, deal with it. From what I have seen, I am not the only one with that opinion.

 

[LadyGreenEyes]

imported post

Snakemathis wrote:

LadyGreenEyes wrote:

Beerme wrote:

zigziggityzoo wrote:

Yeah, no big deal now. if it were "many years ago" the statute of limitations have long passed.

still doesnt make it asinine bud all he needed to do was stand there with it
If they came closer draw it on them.
no need for a round to be fired

Are you kidding? Three guys, a clear threat? Were that my kids, a round over their heads would be a mercy. Even the cops fire warning shots, and in this case, that's clearly what this was.

.....two days here, and two anti-gun moles spotted.....

Even cops fire warning shots? Where do you live? In America, that's a negligent discharge. I would however love you to cite your source of this if you have valid proof of officers firing "warning shots".

No sources, just storied from cops my mom used to know. No, I can't contact them - her friends, and she's deceased now. The laws have changed a bit, yes, but I stand by my statement that the shot fired by the OP was righteous.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Beerme wrote:

I am an anti gun mole?

Get your @#$% straight doll I am in no way anti gun whatsoever so take your assumption and shove it.
I am however anti brandishing and illegally discharging a firearm
thanks for your input toots

Listen here, Sally. If you weren't an anti-gun mole, you wouldn't go around accusing people of brandishing for reasonably displaying a firearm in self-defense, and you wouldn't be such a priss about a warning shot given by an outnumbered person defending his family, with a shotgun, in the woods.

You also wouldn't be such a sissy Mary when it comes to internet discussion boards.

Alright, toots?

 

[AbNo]

imported post

Children....


http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/pm.php?folder_id=100

 

[Jblack44]

imported post

I think the OP was completely in the right! He stopped the threat!

Now, I want more specs on that hammerhead!!! Holy crap that thing is huge!!!!

 

[Haz.]

imported post

Jblack44 wrote:

I think the OP was completely in the right! He stopped the threat!

Now, I want more specs on that hammerhead!!! Holy crap that thing is huge!!!!

All I know and can tell you is thatit is over 5 meters long and is said to be bigger than the average great white's often seen in the area. Its also estimated to be about 40 years old.

 

[Haz.]

imported post

Hi Beerme.

You said,

"I am however anti brandishing and illegally discharging a firearm "

.

So am I. But what happened in this instance was the fact that it happened when there were no firearm lisencing or registration. One could buy firearms and ammo anywhere all over the country at any time. K-Mart sold firearms and ammo, no questions asked. The local bike shop in my home town sold me my first rifle. I was 18 at the time I think? People carried firearms in their cars, had firearms in their homes, one could walk down any street of any city or towncarrying a firearm and no one took any notice. It was not illegal to carry, brandish or fire a firearmin the outback hundreds of miles from nowhere on private property, a cattle station several hundred thousand acres in size,on invitation by the owner, and even more so if threatened by strangers who were trespassing. I remember a time I was in the Cadets at high school where we learnt basic army and riflery skillsand at 14/15 carried a 303 from home to school on public transport openly. Also when in the CMF, same thing. No one blinked an eye.

Its only since lisencing and registration, and the Greens, the bamby brigade, the anties and minorities and the Liberal Coalition party in our country clammoring for votes and banned firearms, therefore banningself defence thatthe general publichave been dissarmed and left defenceless and the criminals are having a field day. Now when someone uses a firearm against a criminal in self defenceits "SHOCK HORROR" he had a gun ! ! Lets see if we can charge him with something.

I once asked a security guard at a bank why he was allowed to open-carry inside the bank and outside the bank. His answer; To protect the banks money from being stolen. There you are, money is more valuble than human life.

“A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.“ Sigmund Freud (“General Introduction to Psychoanalysis,“ S. Freud)

 

[eye95]

imported post

Haz. wrote:

But what happened in this instance was the fact that it happened when there were no firearm lisencing or registration. One could buy firearms and ammo anywhere all over the country at any time. K-Mart sold firearms and ammo, no questions asked. The local bike shop in my home town sold me my first rifle. I was 18 at the time I think? People carried firearms in their cars, had firearms in their homes, one could walk down any street of any city or towncarrying a firearm and no one took any notice. It was not illegal to carry, brandish or fire a firearmin the outback hundreds of miles from nowhere on private property, a cattle station several hundred thousand acres in size,on invitation by the owner, and even more so if threatened by strangers who were trespassing. I remember a time I was in the Cadets at high school where we learnt basic army and riflery skillsand at 14/15 carried a 303 from home to school on public transport openly. Also when in the CMF, same thing. No one blinked an eye.

Its only since lisencing and registration, and the Greens, the bamby brigade, the anties and minorities and the Liberal Coalition party in our country clammoring for votes and banned firearms, therefore banningself defence thatthe general publichave been dissarmed and left defenceless and the criminals are having a field day. Now when someone uses a firearm against a criminal in self defenceits "SHOCK HORROR" he had a gun ! ! Lets see if we can charge him with something.

Your story illustrates how quickly a nation can go from protecting the freedom of its citizens to totally abrogating their rights.

Folks, don't think it can't happen here. Remain vigilant!

 

[Snakemathis]

imported post

LadyGreenEyes wrote:

Snakemathis wrote:

LadyGreenEyes wrote:

Beerme wrote:

zigziggityzoo wrote:

Yeah, no big deal now. if it were "many years ago" the statute of limitations have long passed.

still doesnt make it asinine bud all he needed to do was stand there with it
If they came closer draw it on them.
no need for a round to be fired

Are you kidding? Three guys, a clear threat? Were that my kids, a round over their heads would be a mercy. Even the cops fire warning shots, and in this case, that's clearly what this was.

.....two days here, and two anti-gun moles spotted.....

Even cops fire warning shots? Where do you live? In America, that's a negligent discharge. I would however love you to cite your source of this if you have valid proof of officers firing "warning shots".

No sources, just storied from cops my mom used to know. No, I can't contact them - her friends, and she's deceased now. The laws have changed a bit, yes, but I stand by my statement that the shot fired by the OP was righteous.

Well, based on my actual experience in LE, and due to the fact you have no proof of having actually known any LEO to fire a warning shot, I will thank you for your input and disregard it in its entirety.

 

[Haz.]

imported post

This is a public forum and every one has an opinion and are free to voice it. I hope I have not caused any ill feeling here between members regarding my OP.

You know what annoys me most of all these days? When ever some nutter kills someone in the United States of America with a firearm, the Greens and the anti-gun lobby here in Aus.get pages and pages of news headlines which runs for many days if not weeksat a timeciting gun crime in America is rampant because of the easy access to firearms.Then comes the constantcalling for even more strictergun controle here, including a total ban on hand guns of all calibers, despite the fact that we have now have one ofthe tightest gun laws and restrictions in the western world.

At the same time roughly one thousand seven hundred people die on our roads each and every year out of a population of only 26 million and less than half, 13 million,are liscenced to drive,and over ten times as many serious accidents occure each year where people are left so seriously injured they no longer can function normally in society and need constant care, and this hardly get a mention in the papers and on TV?

Ifone thousand seven hundred peopledied each year in firearm related criminal attacks or firearm accidents in Australiawhat would the news media do with that I wonder? Would the world produce enough paper to cover the printing? The TV stations would go into melt down. The politicians would go into orgasmic hyper ventilation screaming bann all firearms ! ! ["EXCEPT OURSOF COURSE we need them because we are special"].

 

[Turkey]

imported post

I have been lurking the OC Forums for a while, and have been enjoying them. However, I want to say that the replies to this topic have bothered me. It makes me sick to know that this guy, and others in the self defence forum, have told their testimonies about howhaving agun has saved their life, or the life of their family, and all some of you can do is tell them how they did it wrong. A simple "I think I would have acted differently" would suffice.

Remember, this site is world famous. It has been mentioned on the National News. It has taught me and countless other people a little more about whatour rights are. When people on here argue and call names like a bunch of spoiled kids, well you get the idea.

 

[eye95]

imported post

I posted a story in the Alabama forum (not self-defense, though) and asked folks to tell me anything they thought I did wrong.

As long as they are offered respectfully with a genuine desire to help, suggestions about how to do things differently should be welcomed.