62-year-old Marine veteran shoots 3 home invasion suspects in Theodore

I don't think you get it, so for the 10,000 time

Home invaders in australia dont carry guns. I was asked how home invasion type disputes in other parts of the world get resolved. I answered.

You keep bringing it back to american home invasions.. why?

Honestly, are you ok?

 

OF COURSE NOT! How much better it would be to let some lowlife kill you. THAT would "settle the dispute," wouldn't it.

You voted for Hillary, didn't you. Do you live at home with your parents? Unemployed? Late 20's, early 30's?

 

I have seen enough people killed by many other means other than Guns.
Gun are best for most people.
Gunless Countries = Epic fail.

England / U.K. has not only banned effective self defense of all types as well as anything that may be used defensively, as offensive weapons !!!!

Don't take the Law into your own hands !
How can people be so totally fooled ?

 

technically yes, same as if you killed him.

 

gunless countries = australia.

We are happy with our country and not so lacking in esteem that we need to derive our self esteem from nationalism nor child like attempts to mock other nationalities.

 

Ineffable twaddle.
Gun use is high.

 

UMM for the 30,000 time Because of the OP DUH! OH and who cares about OZ? I bet I could find articles from OZ about home invades with guns.
Start your own thread about OZ and guns...sheesh

 

Not even a stretch to prove either

 

A recent news story the other day
http://www.news.com.au/national/wes...t/news-story/3ff3ab50cf53ce1754fedaef968aafe3
and one from a bit further back, took down a bloke with a knife.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...a/news-story/981ed8e213441a976eaba558646dcd07

 

Don't care, this is about a 62 year old marine vet defending himself against 3 suspects much younger than him.....why are you injecting you untruthful opinions about OZ into the equation?

 

honestly you are not very bright read post 21 again, it was a response to xenamnes who asked
Pray tell how are such matters settled in various places around the world? If someone is forcefully trying to enter your home in order to take your property by force, how is such resolved in a matter that would be deemed acceptable? Who does the law favor in such instances?
Not everyone is as insular and ignorant as yourself and have at the very least a passing interest in matters outside their own domestic affairs.

 

I am very bright...stay on topic... tell xenamnes you are starting your own thread on OZ and that you don't want to derail the topic. Talk about insular and ignorant, sheesh.

 

If you don't care why do you keep posting.

But perhaps if you pissed for longer on this thread you would be able to retain more control over it.

 

Because you are violating the rules, and how long I piss is of no consequence to you or about the OP. You should stick to OZ threads, eh?

 

If I wish to start my own thread I will. My point was in direct response to the story raised by the OP.

Home invasion type disputes do not have to have guns.

The 62 year old army vet, as gone off and I can only imagine what he has had to brave fighting for his country, to then be put in a situation where he is being shot at and fighting for his life, is not a situation a society should be particularly proud of.

Obviously, I think it is admirable that the bloke had a gun available and was able to defend himself, but the mere fact that the circumstance arose as it did is a damning story on that particular part of the world.

ps. If you have to give your intelligence self praise, you have already lost that battle.

 

You mean like 3 people kicking someone's door down and taking a 62 year olds property by force? That's one way of settling the dispute. It sucks to lose your stuff, but I guess the spoils go to the victor in your world.

 

In my world, I go crouching tiger hidden dragon on them.

All I am saying is, people want your **** that is in your house, theres the dispute.

How it gets settled depends on the circumstance, and in many parts of the world that dispute is not resolved with a shoot out.

 

I don't know how responding to an American story of self defense by comparing them to OZ beliefs is relevant so once again...start your own OZ thread. Now thank you for replying to the actual topic...a brilliant move on my part to finally accomplish what should be obvious to derailers.
Now lets examine your actual response to the OP....the stereotypical belief by the BM is that all self defense reactions are based on the BM belief that all situations follow a set of predefined options. You cannot definitively state that home invasion type disputes do not have to have guns, this is patently false and demonstratively so anywhere in the world.

The 62 year old army vet having to fight for his life is not something to be proud of, the ability to use a tool of equalization is actually something we should all support and cherish...criminals don't follow laws.....this is also demonstrably true, thus having an ability is something to be proud of, yes?

The fact that criminals in complete disregard of laws attempted to break into a law abiding citizens domicile says way more than criminal abilities to procure weapons, this is damning all over the world, yes?

Criminals are what they are...The army vet was given a chance because of our rights...OZ is of no concern in this matter.

 

What would happen in your world if the homeowner was 82 and couldn't have a gun? Let's pray he is still good at ping pong.

 

Still no facts from the Anti Gun advocates.

1. Gun control advocates post zero proof or hard data as far as ANY effective Gun control solutions.

2. Gun control advocates post zero proof or hard data as far as bans or specific Gun bans or restrictions or restrictive Gun licensing schemes being in any minor way even slightly effective as a crime prevention method.

Score - Gun control zero % ______ Guns 100 %

 

The phrase "settling disputes" suggests low-level matters that are devoid of actual importance in everyday life, such as which organized sport is regarded as being the best, to how neighbors park their motor vehicle, to what fashion they maintain their yard in. Settling disputes does not convey situations where someone is finding their life being potentially threatened by another.

The standard argument against concealed carry being made shall issue, was that the proliferation of legally carried and concealed firearms would result in the streets running red with blood, and minor, everyday disagreements such as parking spaces, and deals at super markets, would result in deadly shootouts simply because firearms were available in that situation. And as has been witnessed, such did not occur. That is what the term "settling disputes" suggests to those that have witnessed these same arguments, and the use of the same terms, time and time again.

Pray tell how would such details be regarded as relevant to the discussion currently being engaged in?

 

Your place of dwelling possesses a complex wire harness system for allowing yourself to leap about in an otherwise physically impossible manner in order to address home invaders?

 

Maybe he just meant he couches and hides until the threat goes away.

 

No, instead it's resolved with the home owner terrorized, possibly savagely beaten, possibly killed; but who cares so long as he's not shot, right? Right to Life? What a quaint and outdated concept, isn't it?

 

Things are upside down in AU... don't you know?