>It's justifiable to shoot to kill someone who is only robbing you
>I will give my money away to some scumbag and let him go free to take from others
When everyone has a gun in order to protect themselves from everyone else who have a gun to protect themselves from everyone who has a gun to protect themselves from everyone who has a gun you have to assume they have a gun and shoot first.
My friend got robbed by some black guys in Florida, walking down a well lit street at night. They punched him so hard his jaw broke, and they literally ripped the back pocket off his jeans to get his wallet out. If the punch had been just a few inches higher he could be dead.
Robbery is a life or death situation.
Unless they don't know you're there. If someone is robbing someone else and they're carrying a weapon they could very well panic and hurt the homeowner just as much as the homeowner could panic and hurt them. It's ultimately dumb to at least not be carrying a weapon yourself when you hide or hunker down and wait for them to leave.
Wrong. The best way to rob someone is to keep them quiet with the threat of force, have them give you the money so you don't need to dig through their pockets, then kill them so they can't report it.
If you open up with killing them they'll usually have time to scream, and you're stuck patting down a bloody corpse when you should be running.
No. What the fuck.
Minor robberies go on the bottom of the to-do list for the police. Armed robberies go about midway. Murders go to the absolute top and the FBI might be called in.
You'd be a pathetic criminal.
>White people don't kill each other, they only kill other races.
Germanics are 100x whiter than Anglos
They don't need a gun to be violent though. House robbers are more likely to be drug abusers or impoverished, or just desperate in general. There's really no reason to not have something for self defense unless you're worried about that something being stolen or a family member hurting themselves with it. You don't take precautions with seat belts and other safety measures.
lmao I LITERALLY never mentioned a firearm in the scenario, nor did I mention you attacking them on first sight.
I'm not saying that I'd actively go for a fucking headshot or something, but frankly if you threatened me with force I couldn't give half a shit if you survive. People who deserve to live don't fucking rob others.
That depends on who's getting robbed and where it's happening. In a lot of places the top of the list is already clogged with a dozen cold murder cases that they can't get a lead on.
If someone else initiates aggression without provocation you should absolutely be able to put them down. Why should you put you life at risk for the sake of a violent criminal who has wronged you?
An eye for a eye leaves the whole world blind
>Let someone take my shit
They are fucking breaking into your home, taking your shit, and potentially threatening your or your family's life if they are armed. You have every reason to kill the fucker, they are a criminal who is actively wronging you, they don't deserve compassion.
He believes the already violent Australian culture is anything like the violence in American culture and that people don't just decide to kill in yanky land as it is easier than dealing with a live victim hence requiring a similarly lethal response from 'victims'.
If some cunt comes with the intention of hurting me why should I go easy on him? Why should I face jail for his decisions, if eh had kept his hands to himself he would be fine, why should I be punished for his inability to obey the law?
How does one rob somebody else without initiating violence? Do people in Australia literally just empty their pockets when someone who's unarmed tells them to?
>There are human beings who would rather wait around for a nine minute Polive dispatch over defending ones self in a few seconds
Everything that can kill a man is fascinating, guns, electric chairs, paracetemol, lead piping.
My Avengers Hot Toys figurine collection is 100% irreplaceable.
its meant to be a deterrent. if you rob someone you are risking your life. is that worth a few bucks? the violent crime and robbery rates in the vast majority of areas here are pretty damn low. yeah we have a higher murder rate than most countries, but we also have a massive gang (black urban culture) problem and it would be much more widespread if it weren't for our great self defense laws.
>mothers should be forced to raise rape babies because life is precious
>but not as precious as the $50 in my wallet
That is so fucking dangerous.
The FBI and friends have conducted studies and tests for many decades showing that under 21 feet a guy with a knife can fuck your shit up. While I am sure 99% of /int/ would cheer on how great it is the cops didn't waste him like it would have happened in America, what they did is 100% methodically wrong.
Personally I disapprove of abortion, but I don't believe it should be illegal.
It's better to abort than to birth a child into poverty or abuse, but it's much better than both to not get pregnant at all in those circumstances. Let public shaming and ostracization prevent frivolous use.
This cuck does not represent my nation. If someone is in my home I have no clear knowledge of his intentions. I have a large khukri next to my bed and will happily lodge it in his neck. Let's remember he won't be alive to state fact from fiction.
Yeah i know, but i'm pretty sure 2 cops would be able to grab him down and hold him. That was just pure autism.
Once you surrender control of the situation, you have no power to decide what happens next, just saying.
If I were to get attacked here I would do whatever I could to make the attacker completely unable to act in any way.
>don't want people to use deadly force against criminals
Seriously though, it should never be the victim's responsibility to identify what the assailant's intentions are, under circumstances where a split second decision has to be made. Under such circumstances one should assume that the assailant mean to inflict bodily harm or death, and appropriate levels of force should be applied to defeat it.
What kind of sick degenerate society would put the victim in a situation where they have to pick between getting into trouble for "excessive" force or being at the mercy of whatever criminal scum attack them? Oh, wait..it's Sweden isn't it..
That being said, I do recognize the value of de-escalating potentially violent situations and that should be one's first line of defense.
Just my 2¢ :^)
>projecting rationality onto criminals
Pros case and hit houses when no one's home.
People with iq's flirting with 70 break in houses or businesses when the fuck ever armed. You can't expect them to act in any logical way. They're barely even people.
>"it's a dog eat dog world. if someone wishes to take my property, I let them, because this show of strength proves he deserves it more than me. should someone attempt to do the same to my wife or girlfriend I would also refrain from acting, as breaking into my house is an impressive act, and they would probably enjoy it more than intercourse with me either way. bottom line is, degenerate weaponry is for weak, overcompensating weaklings, and those trying to conquer nature, rather than let it run it's course. it's disgusting, and frankly, I despise everyone who does not want to remove all weapons from the world. societies should not be allowed to do as they wish, as this would not fit into my socialist agenda. last but not least I implore all of you civilized folks left in the world to join me, and that the rest take my words into consideration."
Well, I live in a white neighborhood and own guns cause they're fun to shoot and go hunting with. I don't have to worry about self-defense because I don't bother to put myself in those situations
That said, hell yeah I'd shoot a nig if he tried to rob me, are you some pussy bitch faggot whose just going to bend over and take it in the ass?
This is a good post
>FACT: Attempting to kill them makes you more likely to die
but how can a dead man hurt me?
im a midwestern baptist, even from a non-religious standpoint i dont like it; if some chick was dumb enough to get knocked up she should have to live with that as well as the father
however, thats their fucking business along with whichever doctor to whom they go to get it done, not mine, not the government's, not anyone elses
and all people have the fundamental right to self-protection
That's why you get the gun through some excuse and try your hardest to not get caught if you have to use it. And even if you do get caught, it's still better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.
Yeah asshole, it's called muh freedom. If some guy tries to rob a bank while I'm cashing my paycheck for buger-bux, I have the right to pull out my glock and wildly shoot at him. If I kill 15 innocent bystanders in my attempt to be a hero, oh well, it's all in the name of freedom.
The person who is "robbing" you made a decision to do so... (break da law) I feel like i'm well within my right under laws that govern me to protect myself and if i kill that person at the same time, so fucking what? The "robber" said to himself.. "Fuck other people, imma git mine" So i'll give it i think
If you rob someone you deserve to die
At that point you are scum. I especially hate people that break into other peoples' houses. I hate that it's against the law to shoot someone in the back if they're running away; I want that fucker dead.
Shoplifting from stores is not a death-worthy offense however but you are still scum
>I hate that it's against the law to shoot someone in the back if they're running away
so someone could just unload an entire clip at you then turn their back and start running, and you wouldn't be allowed to shoot them?
are we still stuck in the 2nd grade playground mentality??
you cannot shoot them once they are deemed not to be a threat to you. Which means if they take off you can only chase them to either the front door or yard. (Depends where you are at) However, as long as they are facing you and you "feel" in danger, it's pretty much fair game.
>chase them off your property
>they make it back to their car, where they have the rest of their ammunition waiting for round 2
this is why good old-fashioned neighborhood watches are still good to have
Those Finnish assholes.
Same shit as always.
Are you talking about a gun?
I usually don't. If I every do it's a heavy sidearm when I guide hiking trips. Like a raging bull. Don't ever knock carrying for them until you see how massive they are, or how terrifying they are when you see them. The animals here are enormous, and even the prey makes you see how fucking tiny you are as a human. Real talk, m8.
Australia, we get it, your government took away your guns and you love shitposting.
Go get mugged by some abbos and let me know how you feel about not having a firearm to defend yourself with to keep them away or from defending your life. Knowing your luck you'd just be thrown into prison like a bitch because your nation no longer respects your right to life, liberty, or property. You've literally thrown away the most basic make up of liberal society.
Do you keep your dick rolled up like a butterfly's tongue or do you wrap it around your leg? I imagine it would be very uncomfortable if you accidentally stepped on your dick while walking.
>not defending your property from invaders
Are you suggesting we should just let home invaders steal stuff and leave?
>We're full woolen killers and it's not a good idea to mess with us.
Well they kinda did succeed in knocking down a couple of towers. And ruin your economy in the ensuing war.
>We;re actually the epitome of paid mercenaries.
Now you're just taking the piss m8, nobody would ever pay Americans to do anything when you can hire Mexicans for cheaper.
Now I want to see what cartel vs. towelhead conflict would look like.
Our special forces are unequaled, but they're not for sale. So are our medics. It's freakish how we stand against other forces.
We are the worst thing you could ever face in a conventional war, but we havent dealt with that for decades.
>Our special forces are unequaled
Eh, the Green Berets never seemed that tough to me. Sure they know their languages and can train sandniggers, but strict operating? Meh, I'd rather take a full battallion of army Special Forces than a single squad of Spetsnaz Alfa.
>So are our medics
What are they going to do, heal the enemy to death?
I heavily respect Spetnaz, however they have no chance against SEALS. They went into it because they were either batshit insane, or there wasn't anything else they were good for. Comparing them to the berets is useless.
Also, it's very important to have a team medic. We don't just cover up boo-boos.
>I heavily respect Spetnaz, however they have no chance against SEALS
In a contest of which group can attract more media attention? Make books and lie about their achievements? Or fling shit on facebook like edgy teenagers? Yeah, the SEALs have the slavs handily beat in that fight.
If you want actual professional Burgers, you need to look at the SFOD-D. They were modeled after the SAS and act the part too.
Nothing they did was a lie.
They can drop right on top of you like a hammer.
I'm fully aware of that legacy. The SAS does not however have the legacy that SEALS earned in Vietnam. We invented the rebreather.
Don't stand near the shore.
>Nothing they did was a lie.
Oooooh, poster boys.
>They can drop right on top of you like a hammer.
More like a Blackhawk. In Somalia. Or was that the Rangers? Same difference.
We weren't allowed to engage back then.
It was however, an overwhelming force with no air-support. It was actually an act of treason from the executive branch but weeew.
>It was however, an overwhelming force with no air-support
You mean like a normal engagement? It's like you're saying your armed forces is completely incompetent unless backed up with the sledgehammer that is the USAF. I'm not sure I'd be proud of that desu ladm8.
No, not fighting when you don't have the advantage is not incompetent. Pushing the problem to some other branch because you can't fix it is.
The Frogs, the Bongs, even the damn Poles have competent infantries. Know why? Because they get the job done even without having massive superiority in personnel and ordnance.
The burgers, though? They hit the deck and whine for CAS until someone drops enough bombs on the problem to flatten an entire mountain range.
Licensed shooter here, the checks are generated randomly and the system, and they sometimes do announce when they will perform an inspection.
Gun must be stored in safe, with ammo separate. Laws might be different in your state.
Also, that 'lake' doesn't really exist.
>he'd rather give some criminal scum the benefit of the doubt that he won't attack and brutalize or kill him
How cucked can one person be?
unless it's organised crime coming to your house (in which case you dun goof'd), they aren't gonna have a gun
in which case the largest knife in the kitchen or even a cricket bat is more than adequate for self defense
not that i agree with our ridiculous gun laws but there is definitely a difference that dinguses like you fail to see
This is pretty much my view on the subject.
As I see it, someone who threatens or violates the rights of others forfeits those rights themselves. If you threaten another's life, you forfeit your right to live. If you violate another's right to ownership of property, your property in turn will be taken (in the form of court-ordered recompense).
Once you threaten someone with death or injury, you have no right to complain if they inflict death or injury on you in turn. If they elect not to do so, that is their prerogative, and it should be recognized as the deliberate act of mercy it is.
If you're in my house uninvited, you already ARE threatening my safety. One's home is supposed to be secure and within one's control. Trespassing destroys the sanctity of a dwelling.
Furthermore, "most" means jack shit. If there is ANY chance that they may be armed, I have every right to assume they are. I have no way to know what their intentions are, only that they've broken into my house, violated my rights and damaged my property, and I'd much rather risk a criminal's life than mine or my family's.
If I have the option, I'd ideally be able to simply yell that I'm armed and order them to get on the ground, then keep them there until the police arrive, but the ideal case doesn't always happen.
>someone who is only robbing you
The man you see in this image sat by and did nothing while all the girls in this picture were raped before his own eyes.
I never studied law or morality or such things, I study chemistry, but my feeling for it tells me its just to retaliate in a greater amount then the aggressor.
I dont mean you should whip out a minigun if someone accidently bumped into you while walking, I realize it is counter productive to over retaliate, but I think that if someone invades your private property or if someone tries to do you heavy body harm, you should be allowed to kill the aggressor in self defense.
I am so sad my country has retarded law, for example if you shot an armed aggressor, YOU would end up in jail for like 2 years or something. Its only natural to defend yourself damn it. What are you supposed to do? Call the cops while someone is breaking your leg or shooting at you or robbing you??
It should be legal to kill aggressors that show intent to kill you.
If he is robbing you you can always assume he can do worse.
Whites have knocked themselves off world domination all by them selves.
>brits putting boers in concentration camps
The eternal anglo is the death of whites.