Another school shooting in America

[enfieldspares]

Two points. By prohibiting private possession of CS or pepper sprays (and electric "wands") successive governments have denied householders the use of non-lethal means of self-defence. So forcing them to resort to ball pein hammers, baseball bats and kitchen knives. The logic of the asylum.

Re South Africa I've never been but for sure I feel safer when walking around in Benin City in NIgeria than I do is some parts of Leicester, England. 

[ordnance]

22 minutes ago, Scully said:

Yes, they have the right, but not the means.
The former without the latter is totally meaningless simply because no one can prepare. 

There are cases of people defending themselves in the UK in different ways so its not meaningless, some post like the right to self defence is unique to America. 

[ordnance]

1 minute ago, enfieldspares said:

Two points. By prohibiting private possession of CS or pepper sprays (and electric "wands") successive governments have denied householders the use of non-lethal means of self-defence. So forcing them to resort to ball pein hammers, baseball bats and kitchen knives. The logic of the asylum.

Re South Africa I've never been but for sure I feel safer when walking around in Benin City in NIgeria than I do is some parts of Leicester, England. 

I do agree people with should be allowed none lethal items for self defence.  After some high profile murders of women there is a lot of rubbish talked about that could help women defend themselves, how about something usefully allowing them to carry pepper sprays tasers etc. 

[Scully]

25 minutes ago, ordnance said:

There are cases of people defending themselves in the UK in different ways so its not meaningless, some post like the right to self defence is unique to America. 

Of course there are, and I have never stated the right to self defence is unique to any country anywhere in the world, only that we in mainland UK are denied the means….by law. That is not just wrong, but scandalous. 

[Walker570]

1 hour ago, ordnance said:

My post was that people in the UK have to right to defend themselves and properly etc, it's not just in America. What they can or can't use is another issue. 

The police would do the same in GB, wait for armed response.

In the USA they ARE the armed response, didn't you realise that. The Police themselves are admotting they got it wrong.

The Supreme m Court in the USA has to get ThEIR act in order for know mental cases to be locked away fro treatment.

Unfortunately the Uk has the same mentality, let them out on the streets and even 35yrs ago I had to deal with a few, fortunately not armed with a gun but on two occasions armed with very large pointy kitchen knives.  We did not wait for the Uni Degree wielding gaffer to arrive we used our common sense brains and sorted both occasions with no injuries to either.  Both where returned to mental hospitals for their own safety as well as the publics.

[ordnance]

Yeah I do know the police are armed in America. At least the police in GB that are not armed have a excuse for wating for armed response, because they are armed in America in this incident don't have a excuse for wating. 

[Houseplant]

3 hours ago, ordnance said:

You do have the right to defend yourself family and properly, in the UK and most countries.

Should have been more specific in my post. I meant the unequivocal right to defend yourself, family and property with any force available to you. 

[ordnance]

11 minutes ago, Houseplant said:

Should have been more specific in my post. I meant the unequivocal right to defend yourself, family and property with any force available to you. 

You have that right in the UK as well, but you have to justify the level of force used was proportional. For example if you knocked out a bulgur and then continued to beat them to death, that would not be proportional. 

 

[Houseplant]

1 minute ago, ordnance said:

You have that right in the UK as well, but you have to justify the level of force used was proportional. For example if you knocked out a bulgur and then continued to beat them to death, that would not be proportional. 

 

I know. I don't think any justification should be required for disproportionate force. 

[ordnance]

12 minutes ago, Houseplant said:

I know. I don't think any justification should be required for disproportionate force. 

I do, go down that road and you are no better than the intruder. You would be OK then with restraining a intruder and than putting one in their head to finish him / her off 

[clangerman]

1 minute ago, ordnance said:

I do, go down that road and you are no better than the intruder. You would be OK then with restraining a intruder and than putting one in their head to finish him / her off 

when you tackle a burglar and don’t do enough damage to keep him down your next choice is which one of you is leaving by ambulance and I don’t like hospitals 

[ordnance]

4 minutes ago, clangerman said:

when you tackle a burglar and don’t do enough damage to keep him down your next choice is which one of you is leaving by ambulance and I don’t like hospitals 

And that would be justified, beating them to death after they were no longer a threat would not be. 

[Houseplant]

17 minutes ago, ordnance said:

I do, go down that road and you are no better than the intruder. You would be OK then with restraining a intruder and than putting one in their head to finish him / her off 

 

You break in to my house and threaten my family, then yes, 100%.

[ordnance]

4 minutes ago, Houseplant said:

 

You break in to my house and threaten my family, then yes, 100%.

So you are now saying you would murder a intruder if they were in your house, killing them after knowing they were no longer a threat would be murder. 

 

Quote

 

The law relating to self-defence

New Zealand “Everyone is justified in using, in the defence of himself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he believes them to be, it is reasonable to use.” (Section 48 of the Crimes Act 1961.)

This means you are allowed to defend yourself from attack, but use your common sense. The idea is to defend yourself, not to cause injury or get revenge. If you use unreasonable force, you are committing a crime.

 

 

Edited May 28, 2022 by ordnance

[Houseplant]

4 minutes ago, ordnance said:

So you are now saying you would murder a intruder if they were in your house, killing them after knowing they were no longer a threat would be murder. 

 

 

Who said they weren't a threat? I'm not saying what I would do, I'm saying that the law should favour the victim, not the criminal. As a responsible licensed firearms owner, I know the law and would follow it to the letter. 

 

[ordnance]

 

Quote

I'm saying that the law should favour the victim, not the criminal.

I would certainly agree with that. 

[Lloyd90]

8 hours ago, ordnance said:

They are going after school's for different reasons, not just because they are gun free zones. Should they have it that anyone can have firearms in school's.

No, but there are documented cases where students (in university) have stopped would be mass shooters by going off campus, getting a gun from their car, and returning and shooting the would be mass shooter dead before they managed to wreak havoc. 
 

A right to defend one’s self and others from evil is paramount in the USA. 
 

Many think there is nothing wrong with that view. 
 

6 hours ago, ordnance said:

I do agree people with should be allowed none lethal items for self defence.  After some high profile murders of women there is a lot of rubbish talked about that could help women defend themselves, how about something usefully allowing them to carry pepper sprays tasers etc. 

 

Both pepper spray and tasers are often found to be ineffective or can fail. 

4 hours ago, ordnance said:

I do, go down that road and you are no better than the intruder. You would be OK then with restraining a intruder and than putting one in their head to finish him / her off 

You seem more worried about the rights of scum than of decent people. 
 

As noted, in the USA, if someone breaks into your home the view is if they are shot dead, even whilst fleeing, they got what they deserved. 
 

 

This view isn’t solely a US view. There are people in many countries across the world, including the U.K., who feel that people actively committing crime deserve whatever they get. 
 

The fact Tony Martin had so much support from the public shows this view is shared by many in the U.K. 

[NoBodyImportant]

On 27/05/2022 at 12:44, ordnance said:

You don't hand a loaded firearm to anyone, If it's for self-defense or not.

In America it’s different.  When someone hands you a gun it’s your responsibility to drop the mag and chamber it.  When it’s done to teach children to always assume a gun is loaded.  Guns are normally stored loaded. 

[NoBodyImportant]

5 hours ago, Houseplant said:

Should have been more specific in my post. I meant the unequivocal right to defend yourself, family and property with any force available to you. 

This,  when my door gets kicked in I want the suppressed MK18 with 60rd drum magazine.  I if someone come in my house to harm my family they are coming with the most deadly weapon they can get.  

5 hours ago, ordnance said:

I do, go down that road and you are no better than the intruder. You would be OK then with restraining a intruder and than putting one in their head to finish him / her off 

I wouldn’t waist time restraining them. 

[Old farrier]

Perhaps the problem of why there coming into your house is what should be addressed 

usually to rob you for drug money 

maybe the powers that be should be looking at sorting out the cause not the end result 

[Walker570]

The first time I went to Texas my host gave me a 357 revolver and ammo, it was loaded when he handed me the holstered gun and told me so. I still checked anyway. We where in a very remote part of South Texas alomgside the Mexican border and the Border Patrol had warned of bad people crossing and they had shot up a gas station attendant the day before.

the instruction was to verbally warn any intruder on his ranch in no uncertain terms and if they still made an unfriendly approach to shoot and keep shooting till they stopped wriggling.   At the time he knew I was a fully trained tactical firearms police officer in the UK and knew how to effectively use the 357 Manum revolver and speed loader it came with.

We didn't meet other than very friendly folk on that rip but for 48hrs nerves where pretty taut. That was in 1985 so I doubt if things have improcved down there since seeing the stupid Democrats didn't finish the President Trump's wall.

[oldypigeonpopper]

Hello, why did the police wait 40 minutes before they went in the school ?? Did I read this young man put on social media his intentions to carry out a shooting ?? What ever out come it will not bring back those who sadly died in this community 

[Lloyd90]

17 minutes ago, oldypigeonpopper said:

Hello, why did the police wait 40 minutes before they went in the school ?? Did I read this young man put on social media his intentions to carry out a shooting ?? What ever out come it will not bring back those who sadly died in this community 

Apparently they were under the impression that they went from active shooter to a barricaded suspect (hostage situation) as believe the shooter barricaded himself in a room with some kids 🤷‍♂️

[oldypigeonpopper]

17 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

Apparently they were under the impression that they went from active shooter to a barricaded suspect (hostage situation) as believe the shooter barricaded himself in a room with some kids 🤷‍♂️

Hello, ok I would presume that would need a different approach than storming the school , but that said it's a very sad outcome for the families and community 

[ordnance]

Quote

No, but there are documented cases where students (in university) have stopped would be mass shooters by going off campus, getting a gun from their car, and returning and shooting the would be mass shooter dead before they managed to wreak havoc.  

Any examples ?

Quote

A right to defend one’s self and others from evil is paramount in the USA. 

I assume you are talking about self defence, do you think people are only allowed to defend themselves in America ?

Quote

Both pepper spray and tasers are often found to be ineffective or can fail. 

And, i didn't say they worked all the time every time. 

 

Quote

 

You seem more worried about the rights of scum than of decent people. 

As noted, in the USA, if someone breaks into your home the view is if they are shot dead, even whilst fleeing, they got what they deserved. 

This view isn’t solely a US view. There are people in many countries across the world, including the U.K., who feel that people actively committing crime deserve whatever they get. 

 

I am concerned about law and order, its hypocritical to complain about criminals braking the law and then go on to state you are happy for others to brake the law, shooting a fleeing suspect etc. 

As for (  in the USA, if someone breaks into your home the view is if they are shot dead, even whilst fleeing, they got what they deserved ) do you know the views of every citizen in America ?