OzOne wrote:
On Fri, 4 May 2007 02:26:10 +0200 (CEST), PDW
scribbled thusly:


On his postings here, Oz would stand by while someone is being murdered in
front of him rather than intervene.

WTF gives you even a hint of that?

Some of your prev postings, in the past. What's the diff Oz, one person, a
million people? Let me guess - the Stalin argument - one killing is a tragedy,
a million is a statistic? Should the USA et al let Hussein keep on gassing
Kurds or not? Just to pick one example. Not as I've said that I have much
faith in the USA's ability to deliver anything except destruction but
sometimes that's enough.

Seems you may be taking on the role of the gun totin lunatic who
actually believe that there is no solution but extreme violence.

1. To what? Are you stating that extreme violence is *never* a resort? In
which case my point is made - you *would* stand by watching a murder if the
only way of preventing it was an act of violence. You can't have it both ways,
Oz.

2. As a general principle - Wrong. It's the last resort IMO, but it is a valid
resort. I'm a very pacific person, last time I was in a brawl was back in
school, but if I or my family was seriously threatened and I had no other
resort, I *would* shoot the person(s). If that makes me a lunatic, ok, I can
live with that. I've stuck my nose into situations where a woman was being
abused verbally & physically a couple of times in recent years and found that
a cellphone was a very effective weapon, incidentally - my first resort was to
call the cops. That and the willingness to do something. Not that I've got any
thanks for it from the women involved but hey, if you *want* to get abused,
fine, just don't do it in my sight....

For your information, I have been armed and still managed to stop what
would have become a murder on more than one occasion without the need
to draw my weapon, and without the need to beat someone senseless.

When you were being paid for it, sure.....

No wonder you're not still a copper. If I ever end up in court having to
defend myself for shooting someone (very unlikely with my personality &
lifestyle), I intend to invoke the defence of *2* of your erstwhile NSW
colleagues, who shot & killed a man armed with a knife on Bondi beach, then
claimed that it was self defence. After all, if *2* police officers trained in
subduing people can't do anything except resort to firearms against a single
person armed with a knife, what hope has one semi-crippled, untrained person
got - other than reach for the shottie?

Fact is, Oz, whether you like it or not, whether you're stirring the septics
or believe what you're posting, you come across as someone who'd happily
ignore a murder if the alternative was acknowledging the right of a person
being attacked (or a bystander) to defend themselves, with a firearm if
necessary, by killing an assailant if necessary. If this isn't your position,
as we used to say in the Solomons - problem bilong you - it's the message that
comes across. And I'm serious.

I liked living in Tucson where there were a lot of people carrying guns and I
never had any probs, and I like living in Hobart where almost nobody carries
and there are no probs. People like me simply don't attract trouble. Sydney is
starting to worry me a little, because your erstwhile colleagues have lost the
plot, with a more than generous level of assistance from the political class.

PDW