Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 38
  1. #1
    Smiling Down On Youse SurferJoe46's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Hamilton, Montana, USA
    Posts
    14,243

    Cool Wanna Read: "Crazy"?

    Houston Man Stands Ground Against Multiple Home Invaders -- Kills 3

    When five men with guns allegedly tried to force their way into his home, a Houston man reportedly exchanged 70 shots and killed at least three of them.

    LINK: https://www.personaldefenseworld.com...nst-attackers/

    Over the weekend, a group of armed men allegedly charged into the home of a Houston man. He stood his ground against these invaders in self defense, winning a gunfight against multiple attackers.

    While early reports varied on whether it was four or five invaders, it was later confirmed that five attackers were involved. In any case, the resident shot and killed at least three, wounding either one or two others.

    A witness, who was sitting on his porch, says that the men arrived a little before 1 a.m. However, the witness fled into his home before hearing numerous gunshots.

    Police claim that the men tried to force their way into the home, possibly in a robbery attempt. However, the resident met the group with a gun and exchanged up to 70 shots with the attackers.

    One died in the front yard of the home, while two others fled in a vehicle. However, the pair didnít get far, as police found one dead in the vehicle and the other collapsed about a block further.

    Emergency personnel transported that one to the hospital where he died. The other attackers were also transported to the hospital.

    There is no word on their condition. However, police continue to investigate, including interviewing the resident who stood up against these alleged attackers


    I figger that as far South as I have gone so far, I may now get a break in bad fortune
    until the rest of the world catches up with me.

  2. #2
    VoidMaster
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    5,572

    Default Re: Wanna Read: "Crazy"?

    We've had quite a number of firearm incidents here in NZ Joe, here's one of the most well-known ones.

    These days we have what is called "the Armed Offenders Squad" to deal with this type of incident, an elite group of specially trained people available at short notice anywhere in NZ, I've seen them in the flesh in action in Christchurch, dressed in black with balaclavas on, very sinister.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramoana_massacre
    It's not the least charm of a theory that it is refutable. The hundred-times-refuted theory of "free will" owes its persistence to this charm alone; some one is always appearing who feels himself strong enough to refute it - Friedrich Nietzsche

  3. #3
    Smiling Down On Youse SurferJoe46's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Hamilton, Montana, USA
    Posts
    14,243

    Default Re: Wanna Read: "Crazy"?

    Quote Originally Posted by zqwerty View Post
    We've had quite a number of firearm incidents here in NZ Joe, here's one of the most well-known ones.

    These days we have what is called "the Armed Offenders Squad" to deal with this type of incident, an elite group of specially trained people available at short notice anywhere in NZ, I've seen them in the flesh in action in Christchurch, dressed in black with balaclavas on, very sinister.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramoana_massacre

    One of the latest TV News reports said the whole shooting incident took about 1 minute and 40 seconds. Was there time to even the most elitist police troop to get their balaclavas on by then?

    If this shooting had taken place in New York City, where there's a police precinct station almost for every square mile, the reply time can be 20 minutes and more.

    One thing most foreigners forget is that the US is a huge place and the police - like here - have tremendous areas of responsibility.

    In Montana for instance, and in that four or five 'local' sheriffs can have a beat that is sometimes 400 miles in one direction north and south and 90 miles in width. How real is it that any police are going to be able to act on those huge distances and times - especially in winter where roads are closed or covered in black ice --- good intentions aside?



    Legally, mind you --- the 'bad actors' in this shooting gallery story - in the first place and according to law --- are not allowed to own a firearm (or even look at one in a catalog) ---> but somehow that information isn't promulgated nor understood nor obeyed. After all, every criminal wants to obey the law ---> right?

    Ya know how you fix that? If you're a politician or a mayor or a dictator or a socialist king, queen, duke, dictator, ruler, you just make more laws!

    Make tougher laws to keep the guns outta the hands of the only people who will actually obey the laws ----> the lawful citizenry, that's who!

    It's already illegal for a criminal to have a gun, so it's a win-win and all good. !

    Oh! wait! ....... the criminals don't have to spend any time in jail until their third actual felony conviction involving death or robbery or drug trafficking or white slavery or just about anything else a criminal does. The first couple of offenses don't count. They really didn't MEAN to kill those people -- but accidental things just happened. Honestly!

    Anyway - I'll be good next time - you bet!

    See ---> they won't be able vote in jail, so they need them out on the streets voting and protesting for sanctity states and anchor babies, killing the unborn and feeding, housing, giving free medical care for life and providing schools to all the confused tourists with a broken GPS and who can't find the direction south.

    %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

    After the fact - this shooting sounds like a drug burn - wherein the five bad guys might've been trying to collect on a drug deal and were met with firepower when they thought that the other guy would be obeying the law and not have a firearm in the first place. Still though --- he dropped three of them - two of them DOA at the scene, the third DOA at the hospital ---> and the others 'appear' to be wounded but ambulatory and got away.

    ..... Then again...... you've still got five perps with guns, and we all KNOW that that's against the law to - right? Then an armed householder? What a co-inky-dink. What's the odds in THAT?

    'Tis a quandary, wrapped in an enigma.................. what's a socialist politician supposed to do to keep guns away from the legal owners when the bad guys won't obey the laws and mess up the whole citizen-disarmament idea?

    If this had happened in Washington State where the maximum number of bullets (rounds) ANY firearm is allowed to hold is FIVE...... that'd mean that the householder fired and reloaded 14 times! Outstanding!

    Was this by any chance Liam Neeson's house? Anyway ---> this guy wasn't caught with his pants down at 1AM.




    Footnote - I actually don't believe in physical borders, but then again, I don't think criminals should exist nor should weapons for defense against bad guys since there shouldn't be any bad guys either. Certainly no politicians nor governments. One can dream.
    Last edited by SurferJoe46; 03-02-2019 at 01:33 PM.


    I figger that as far South as I have gone so far, I may now get a break in bad fortune
    until the rest of the world catches up with me.

  4. #4
    VoidMaster
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    5,572

    Default Re: Wanna Read: "Crazy"?

    The AOS in action today, there is a picture of the AOS in the article, you can see what I meant in post 2 above:

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-dai...ymouth-streets
    It's not the least charm of a theory that it is refutable. The hundred-times-refuted theory of "free will" owes its persistence to this charm alone; some one is always appearing who feels himself strong enough to refute it - Friedrich Nietzsche

  5. #5
    Smiling Down On Youse SurferJoe46's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Hamilton, Montana, USA
    Posts
    14,243

    Default Re: Wanna Read: "Crazy"?

    It looks like the situation has been resolved with no loss of life for anyone. I always wince when special ops units are called out to respond to things like this.

    Sometimes the use of all those uniforms escalates the situation to the point where the perp is forced to do anything to re-create the control in what he is trying to accomplish until he was so rudely interrupted.

    Many times the best way to avoid bloodshed is to de-escalate the pressure of losing control from the perp's viewpoint. One scenario is to let them think they are in control. Having cops in riot gear with snipers on the adjacent rooftops and squads with all their flashing and rotating red and blue lights and cop radios blaring is not conducive to non-escalation and then someone usually dies.

    Once you call out every single cop for miles around, the bad guy(s) have their pride and feelings of eminent failure before their eyes and 'what would the neighbors think' if he loses this embarassing conflict? Even perps have a sense of situational esprit de corpse.

    I personally think that many of these stand-offs could be eliminated if the embarrassment factor was taken into consideration.

    Besides...... how does a citizen of New Zealand have a firearm in the first place? I thought it was illegal for youse guys to have one under any circumstance. Someone on this very board espouses... constantly, I might add ..... that people with guns are Neanderthals and have no place in svelte society.

    In the US the cops don't have specific officers in case a firearm is involved. They just assume that every situation calls for brutal force and bloodshed in the streets and arrive, so armed.

  6. #6
    amateur expert dugimodo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    7,554

    Default Re: Wanna Read: "Crazy"?

    NZ has a fairly high rate of gun ownership, but it's not that common to own weapons for "personal defence" here.
    To buy a gun you first have to get a gun licence, which includes a police vetting process. To own a hand gun or something classed as a dangerous weapon requires a different class of licence and is a little harder to get.
    We are a country with a lot of farmers, and farmers tend to own guns. Recreational hunting is also very common here. So rifles and shotguns are common, handguns less so.

    My uncle had a Kea gun which was a family heirloom and had to have a collectors licence to own it and keep it in a locked metal cabinet bolted to the floor at a minimum.
    It's a short barreled .410 shoutgun with a pistol grip. Historically it was classed as a rifle and used for pest control, these days the rules class it as a handgun and about the same as a sawn off shotgun.

    Of course my brother used to borrow it, load it with solids, and take it pig hunting (breaking multiple laws in the process I'm sure). It's small and portable and can stop a pig if the dogs get in trouble apparently.

    So gun laws are tougher here, but stuff still happens. Just not as often. Police occasionally shoot someone as well, but it's a rare event and big news when it happens.
    Ryzen 2700X, 16Gb DDR4RAM, 512GB M.2 NVME SSD, MSI GTX1070

  7. #7
    VoidMaster
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    5,572

    Default Re: Wanna Read: "Crazy"?

    Joe, the resolution of the incident above:

    http://www.police.govt.nz/news/relea...swood-incident

    and a full link to the NZ Police News Centre:

    http://www.police.govt.nz/

    It seems as if lots of people are involved in single car fatal crashes into obstacles at the moment.
    It's not the least charm of a theory that it is refutable. The hundred-times-refuted theory of "free will" owes its persistence to this charm alone; some one is always appearing who feels himself strong enough to refute it - Friedrich Nietzsche

  8. #8
    tweakedgeek tweak'e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    winterlessnorth (well almost)
    Posts
    4,705

    Default Re: Wanna Read: "Crazy"?

    Quote Originally Posted by SurferJoe46 View Post
    It looks like the situation has been resolved with no loss of life for anyone. I always wince when special ops units are called out to respond to things like this.

    Sometimes the use of all those uniforms escalates the situation to the point where the perp is forced to do anything to re-create the control in what he is trying to accomplish until he was so rudely interrupted.

    Many times the best way to avoid bloodshed is to de-escalate the pressure of losing control from the perp's viewpoint. One scenario is to let them think they are in control. Having cops in riot gear with snipers on the adjacent rooftops and squads with all their flashing and rotating red and blue lights and cop radios blaring is not conducive to non-escalation and then someone usually dies.

    Once you call out every single cop for miles around, the bad guy(s) have their pride and feelings of eminent failure before their eyes and 'what would the neighbors think' if he loses this embarassing conflict? Even perps have a sense of situational esprit de corpse.

    I personally think that many of these stand-offs could be eliminated if the embarrassment factor was taken into consideration.

    Besides...... how does a citizen of New Zealand have a firearm in the first place? I thought it was illegal for youse guys to have one under any circumstance. Someone on this very board espouses... constantly, I might add ..... that people with guns are Neanderthals and have no place in svelte society.

    In the US the cops don't have specific officers in case a firearm is involved. They just assume that every situation calls for brutal force and bloodshed in the streets and arrive, so armed.
    i wouldn't say its an embarrassment factor. the big problem is suicide by cop.
    they want the escalation so they can wind themselves up to go out in blaze of glory. so calming things down helps a lot and in that sense its good that cops don't appear to be life threatening.
    if cops point a gun at a perp, the perp will just try to get the cop to shoot them. point a tazer at them and they give up. they know they won't die and it will hurt really badly.

    however the meth market here is huge and out of control, and that really changes the ball game.

    self defense with firearms is not illegal as such but highly highly discouraged. you will not get a firearms license for the purpose of self defense. if you defend yourself with a firearm the police prosecute you for it.
    your expected to play the role of the victim and roll over and die.
    Tweak it till it breaks

  9. #9
    Old guy
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    2,098

    Default Re: Wanna Read: "Crazy"?

    The population of the USA is 328 million and change. The population in NZ is a bit under 5 million. It is quite ludicrous to atempt to compare gun crime here against gun crime in the USA on an equal basis. I am fairly sure that there are many areas in the States with a similar population size to NZ that have better gun crime stats than here.

    As Joe pointed out there are vast areas there where there is no possible way to get any help for several hours so one is prudent to be prepared to defend them and theirs in the short term.
    Last edited by CliveM; 04-02-2019 at 11:47 AM.

  10. #10
    Smiling Down On Youse SurferJoe46's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Hamilton, Montana, USA
    Posts
    14,243

    Default Re: Wanna Read: "Crazy"?

    Quote Originally Posted by tweak'e View Post
    i wouldn't say its an embarrassment factor. the big problem is suicide by cop.
    they want the escalation so they can wind themselves up to go out in blaze of glory. so calming things down helps a lot and in that sense its good that cops don't appear to be life threatening.
    if cops point a gun at a perp, the perp will just try to get the cop to shoot them. point a tazer at them and they give up. they know they won't die and it will hurt really badly.

    however the meth market here is huge and out of control, and that really changes the ball game.

    self defense with firearms is not illegal as such but highly highly discouraged. you will not get a firearms license for the purpose of self defense. if you defend yourself with a firearm the police prosecute you for it.
    your expected to play the role of the victim and roll over and die.
    I can MAYBE buy the 2% factor although I think that's a long stretch there Tweak............ in stating that shoot outs with the cops is a suicide. While I've got no real idea how many actually do that, I see survival is prime to most people and if you're dead you cannot read the headlines, glorious or not.

    Maybe water balloons would be a good deterrent.

    It's a new world however - not necessarily a good one --- but we have suicide bombers who DO want to take a lot of people with them - but I fail to see that being by handgun. Still, I could be persuaded with some real metrics.

    If drugs are the big motivator, and in my worthless opinion, I think everyone who wants drugs should get all they want for free. They won't be around very long and as they die off, the demand for drugs will die.

    Either that or put the gvt in the drug business and they can tax the product. This will kill the cartels and make some easy money for the gvt. I may have stepped on my tongue here ---- since the gvt can just print what it needs and not worry about setting up a board of taxation to monitor all that stuff.

    As for me ---> I wear a Glock 10mm when I'm fishing and that's about the only time I do - unless I'm driving to the pistol range or want to shoot up the woods --- punching neat holes into a paper target. I can legally shoot any firearm outside the city limits if I want to. It's legal.
    Just do NOT shoot across a body of water or a river unless it's for defense from a charging animal in that you honestly fear it might kill you given the opportunity. Killer bunny rabbits do not count.

    The US (not just the rednecks) citizens are deeply polarized as to what to do about 'automatic' guns, which is what ignorant people call EVERY gun -- sometimes even revolvers.

    The possession of a fully automatic firearm (a machine gun) is rife with all kinds of hoops and barrels to jump through and miles of paperwork to fill out and fees to bond.

    True automatics do not exist anywhere near the numbers as the news media would have you believe. I cannot believe that all talking heads are so dumb as to call any pistol an 'automatic'. I might be wrong there.

    Personally --- I have no desire for a machine or submachine gun. I've shot a few here in Montana, but under the eyes and within arms-reach of the federally licensed owner or range operator at all times.

    On to new trends:

    The newest generation (Millenials) wants all firearms taken away from everyone, but we all know who will honestly comply and who won't.

    Sitting at home, cowering in fear after the sun goes down, waiting to be shot by gangs of people who have little to no regard for the lives of anyone else - isn't what most people expect from their lives.

    If the firearms are taken away by law, proclamation or legally maneuvered policies, or outright confiscation from everyone ---> then I suspect that the guy with the biggest club would become just about the same problem.

    Criminals do NOT obey the law lest they wouldn't be called 'Criminals' in the first place. They won't give up their weapons, so the logic goes: why should the lawful person do it either? I prophecy a revolution soon. Maybe.

    FWIW: I don't fear - not at any time, personally - that a bad guy will get to cause us any trouble in Montana. We are pretty exempt of that here since almost everyone has a concealed carry permit (CCW) and those who don't -- or won't - have a permit, will carry anyway. An armed society is a polite society - at least for the moment anyway ... until something new is instituted.

    Thieves and gangstas don't like an even playing field and if they ever thought about shooting up Montana, well, they haven't really crossed the border yet AFAIK. Not in any great numbers, anyway.



    The act of CCW without the permit in Montana by a Montanan is more of a misdemeanor than a felony. Most times the cops don't care and don't want to care.


    A single woman with a handgun will most certainly not be cited if it is discovered on her or in her purse ---> if she isn't using it to shoot an ex-husband or a cop - unless she really has a beef with him. I jest.

    Just 'carrying;' is looked at rather sideways and not in much focus either. The cops mostly don't really care if you have a Montana drier's license.

    Montanans are allowed to CCW without a permit while afoot, pretty much anywhere in the state --.. except in some federal offices ("No firearms" obviously will be posted) --- inside dedicated city limits (Licensed CCWs or anyone while Open Carry)--- and in some towns: in banks.

    But banks, in spite of silly rumors --- are not legally considered as 'Gun Free Zones" since there is no one blanket federal law concerning them in that way.

    We can OPEN Carry anywhere except some specific zones - like federal offices and perhaps an occasional town bank where it is posted as such, but the latter is technically unenforceable. It's just a kindly gesture to be in obey-ance of a non-enforceable law.

    Anyone can OPEN carry - and that is also for MOST citizens of other states (The Reciprocity Act) involving those states which provide the same type of reciprocity for Montana's citizenry.

    Open carry means: any firearm, but mostly pistols and revolvers - in full view, except where partially covered inside a holster and/or inside a waistband/shoulder holster, provided that at any time NO part of the firearm is being covered by any article of clothing, intentionally or unintentionally. Partially covered is CONCEALED.

    One can walk down inside the town with a pistol in OC or a rifle or shotgun in full view any time one wants to. No-one will even flinch, except out of state or country visitors ... who will likely freak out.

    If you are a tourist (a US citizen-type tourist, not from another country) -- you can carry a loaded/concealed weapon inside your vehicle - motorhome or private passenger car, truck, etc., without concern for any Reciprocity Act. It's just good tourism dollars that would be scared off. .

    ANY US citizen can CCW outside the aforementioned city limits - (and active mining camps for some arcane reason) - and that can also be anyone from other states, not dependent upon Reciprocity Acts. This is purely more good PR.

    As youse guys can see - this is kinda complicated. We live with it and there are groundswells indicating that interesting new things are afoot.

    C'mon up, youse guys and shoot a 10mm wrist canon if you want to feel some real power.


    I figger that as far South as I have gone so far, I may now get a break in bad fortune
    until the rest of the world catches up with me.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 18-07-2017, 03:14 PM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 24-09-2008, 12:51 PM
  3. Unable to change "read-only" status
    By PRG in forum PressF1
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-07-2008, 07:03 PM
  4. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-12-2006, 10:17 PM
  5. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-01-2006, 05:48 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •