Negro gangs, 60 shop invasions

[brian ross]

If only there was a way for a shop owner to protect his store and employees from violent crimes........

Warning: Someone is killed in this video.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bmYWc6ReJ ... verified=1

In Australia you're not allowed to use guns to defend yourself.

So if a violent mob walks into your home or business, you are not allowed to defend yourself. That sucks.

No, that is not how it works, Texan. You are allowed to defend yourself with what ever weapons you feel you need to do so - consummate with the threat that you are faced with. That includes guns. You are not allowed to own guns for self-defence though. Doesn't mean you cannot use them for self-defence. As criminals relatively rarely have guns downunder, you are unlikely to face criminals with guns. If you use a gun, you must demonstrate in court that you feared for yourself or your loved ones' lives. Criminals have rights and if you kill one, you must face court (usually on a manslaughter charge).

[Black Orchid]

As criminals relatively rarely have guns downunder, you are unlikely to face criminals with guns.

That is one of the biggest delusional lies you have spoken. You obviously live under a rock there in Podunk. Your ignorance is astounding.

[billy the kid]

Senior Constable Damien Leeding was shot in the face with a shotgun armed robber several years ago
in Qld...members of outlaw motor cycle gangs in Australia are renowned for carrying firearms...
But then again why comment on anything the resident moron posts...
Its a waste of time even talking to the imbecile....

[Redneck]

As criminals relatively rarely have guns downunder, you are unlikely to face criminals with guns.

Dont you watch the daily news dopey?

Robberies!

Shots fired into houses !

Drug arrests guns found!

What planet are you living on!

[Bobby]

No, that is not how it works, Texan. You are allowed to defend yourself with what ever weapons you feel you need to do so - consummate with the threat that you are faced with. That includes guns. You are not allowed to own guns for self-defence though. Doesn't mean you cannot use them for self-defence. As criminals relatively rarely have guns downunder, you are unlikely to face criminals with guns. If you use a gun, you must demonstrate in court that you feared for yourself or your loved ones' lives. Criminals have rights and if you kill one, you must face court (usually on a manslaughter charge).

So more simply - the owner of the JB HiFi store could not defend it with a gun.
The robbers didn't have guns.

[brian ross]

No, that is not how it works, Texan. You are allowed to defend yourself with what ever weapons you feel you need to do so - consummate with the threat that you are faced with. That includes guns. You are not allowed to own guns for self-defence though. Doesn't mean you cannot use them for self-defence. As criminals relatively rarely have guns downunder, you are unlikely to face criminals with guns. If you use a gun, you must demonstrate in court that you feared for yourself or your loved ones' lives. Criminals have rights and if you kill one, you must face court (usually on a manslaughter charge).

So more simply - the owner of the JB HiFi store could not defend it with a gun.
The robbers didn't have guns.

No, the JB HiFi store owner/staff could defend themselves with a gun if they feared for their lives or the lives of their customers, Bobby. However, they could not own a gun for the purpose of self-defence. It would need to be "just there" and they would need to be licensed to own that gun for them to legally use it to defend themselves. You don't need guns to threaten someone's life.

[brian ross]

As criminals relatively rarely have guns downunder, you are unlikely to face criminals with guns.

Dont you watch the daily news dopey?

Robberies!

Shots fired into houses !

Drug arrests guns found!

What planet are you living on!

How much crime versus how much crime committed with guns, Redneck? The latter is a much smaller percentage of the former. Remember, the MSM likes to report things as much worse than they actually are. It is how they gain readers/viewers' attention so that they can show them what really matters - the adverts. Don't be taken in. For every crime committed with a gun there would be nearly 50 or more that weren't.

[brian ross]

As criminals relatively rarely have guns downunder, you are unlikely to face criminals with guns.

That is one of the biggest delusional lies you have spoken. You obviously live under a rock there in Podunk. Your ignorance is astounding.

Yeah, Black Orchid, every criminal has a gun, right?

[Bobby]

No, that is not how it works, Texan. You are allowed to defend yourself with what ever weapons you feel you need to do so - consummate with the threat that you are faced with. That includes guns. You are not allowed to own guns for self-defence though. Doesn't mean you cannot use them for self-defence. As criminals relatively rarely have guns downunder, you are unlikely to face criminals with guns. If you use a gun, you must demonstrate in court that you feared for yourself or your loved ones' lives. Criminals have rights and if you kill one, you must face court (usually on a manslaughter charge).

So more simply - the owner of the JB HiFi store could not defend it with a gun.
The robbers didn't have guns.

No, the JB HiFi store owner/staff could defend themselves with a gun if they feared for their lives or the lives of their customers, Bobby. However, they could not own a gun for the purpose of self-defence. It would need to be "just there" and they would need to be licensed to own that gun for them to legally use it to defend themselves. You don't need guns to threaten someone's life.

Brian,
But the owner of the JB HiFi store could have no valid reason for having a loaded gun on the premises.
It would hard to prove that his life was actually in danger as this was about stolen property - not life.
In other words - the shops are defenseless against Negro invasions.
Society sees a better result as the loss of say $30,000 of electronic equipment than
a dozen bloodied corpses on the floor of the shop.

[brian ross]

No, that is not how it works, Texan. You are allowed to defend yourself with what ever weapons you feel you need to do so - consummate with the threat that you are faced with. That includes guns. You are not allowed to own guns for self-defence though. Doesn't mean you cannot use them for self-defence. As criminals relatively rarely have guns downunder, you are unlikely to face criminals with guns. If you use a gun, you must demonstrate in court that you feared for yourself or your loved ones' lives. Criminals have rights and if you kill one, you must face court (usually on a manslaughter charge).

So more simply - the owner of the JB HiFi store could not defend it with a gun.
The robbers didn't have guns.

No, the JB HiFi store owner/staff could defend themselves with a gun if they feared for their lives or the lives of their customers, Bobby. However, they could not own a gun for the purpose of self-defence. It would need to be "just there" and they would need to be licensed to own that gun for them to legally use it to defend themselves. You don't need guns to threaten someone's life.

Brian,
But the owner of the JB HiFi store could have no valid reason for having a loaded gun on the premises.

Yes, they would have a hard time convincing a court, now wouldn't they? However it would not prevent them from trying.

It would hard to prove that his life was actually in danger as this was about stolen property - not life.

Again, yes, they might have a hard time but as the court would base their assessment on what the Store Owner/Staff believed rather than what was the actual matter, I think it is a fairly clear run.

In other words - the shops are defenseless against Negro invasions.

Why is it limited to only "Negros", Bobby? Other "races" could use the same tactic.

As for their supposed defencelessness, well we have just discussed that. Then there are security staff and/or the Police who are paid to protect them.

Society sees a better result as the loss of say $30,000 of electronic equipment than
a dozen bloodied corpses on the floor of the shop.

Insurance covers the cost, Bobby. You're right though, I'd rather see property stolen compared to cleaning up after a shooting. What about you? Do you want shootings all over the cities?