Hands up, neighbor... (inspections, safety, to move)

[atlantagreg30127]

NOTICE: The topic is not a generalized discussion about gun control, gun rights, or owning guns. See the 1st post for the story/topic being discussed.

[RandyWatson13]

Originally Posted by T. Damon

I would never be inclined to point an automatic weapon at my new neighbors. I would never live in an area where that would even be a consideration.

This is the most bizarre, paranoid way of thinking I could ever imagine.

I bring over Lemon Bars.

yup.........

[FlyingFox]

Originally Posted by RoslynHolcomb

The scary part about this, at least for me is, who has their closing papers with them when they move into a house? When we bought this house we came in the day before our moving truck because we knew the house was dirty and we wanted to clean before we moved in. We had mops, buckets and such, but no legal papers. I guess they ould assume that squatters or thieves wouldn't bring cleaning supplies, but who knows? And we too are an interracial couple. It's just scarier than all get out. I'm glad they arrested these fools, but I think the cops should be sanctioned too.

I did. I literally thought "what if I need to show a paranoid neighbor that I really bought the house?" Fortunately my neighbors were very friendly, didn't confront me with assault rifles, and I didn't need the closing papers.

But still... after this incident, I imagine it will become SOP for real estate agents to tell their clients to bring their closing papers with them on the first day.

Perhaps they should also bring AK-47's and class-III body armor?

Originally Posted by arjay57

People may be forgetting how this situation would have had a different outcome if the new homeowners had taken the time to arm themselves. With proper training and situational awareness, they might well have turned the tables on the Vanoles. Instead of being helpless victims they could have wound up holding their assailants captive.

If the Vanoles were under the impression that the home was being robbed and approached the home with assault rifles drawn, then if the new homeowners were armed (OMG THEY ARE A DRUG GANG!) it could have escalated the situation, especially if the new homeowners were of the same mindset as the Vanoles (draw guns at the first sign of something suspicious). What do you think the Vanoles would have done if two males were on their yard with assault rifles demanding that they come out with their hands up? It would have gotten ugly and people would have died. Or what if the new homeowners didn't obey the Vanoles instructions and ran away from the house? Would the Vanoles have opened fire?

I'm not bringing this up for the sake of having a pro-gun vs anti-gun argument (again, for the record I believe strongly in the right for law-abiding Americans to own guns, including AR-15s). My point here is that what the Vanoles did was extremely illegal and that's exactly why they need to be prosecuted and jailed. It could have easily gotten people killed (the Vanoles would have been committing murder whereas the new homeowners would have had EVERY RIGHT to defend themselves from unknown armed assailants). If the Vanoles were freaked out, they should have called the police instead of storming their neighbor's yard and taking their neighbors prisoner and THEN calling the police. If people are on YOUR yard and doing something with YOUR front door, you have the right to defend yourself and your home but of course use some common sense.

In this case, this was not a defensive situation. This was an offensive situation. The Vanoles and their property were never, at any point in time, threatened and they trespassed on their neighbor's property and held their neighbors at gun point. Go directly to jail. Do not pass go. Say goodbye to your guns forever.

And yes, please welcome new neighbors with lemon bars, pie, cookies, brownies, etc. That's encouraged and I won't even charge you with trespassing. I'll ask you what your favorite baked desert is and I'll bring that over the following week.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by T. Damon

I would never be inclined to point an automatic weapon at my new neighbors.

I personally don't favor that sort of thing either.

However, I'm simply pointing out that a lot of folks believe that the more armed law-abiding citizens we have, the safer we all are. Under that approach it behooved the Kalonjies (or any new neighbors) to be properly armed and trained so that they could promptly equalize the situation in the event they were confronted by existing neighbors carrying lawfully owned automatic weapons.

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by arjay57

I personally don't favor that sort of thing either.

However, I'm simply pointing out that a lot of folks believe that the more armed law-abiding citizens we have, the safer we all are. Under that approach it behooved the Kalonjies (or any new neighbors) to be properly armed and trained so that they could promptly equalize the situation in the event they were confronted by existing neighbors carrying lawfully owned automatic weapons.

I don't see how it would be "equalized" if the new neighbors put a gun in their face first. Had the Kalonjis been armed and attempted to reach for their weapons, the guy and his son would have shot them dead.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

I don't see how it would be "equalized" if the new neighbors put a gun in their face first. Had the Kalonjis been armed and attempted to reach for their weapons, the guy and his son would have shot them dead.

Law abiding gun owners know that it's not sufficient to merely purchase a firearm. You have to be trained in its proper usage in order to safely and efficiently neutralize threats. That means developing situational awareness and knowing how to set up a good tactical position. You can't be effective if you go blundering into potentially vulnerable situations without scouting the area in advance and establishing good threat reaction protocols. Don't forget there were two Katonjis -- was it smart for them to go in at the same time without setting up backup for one another?

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Law abiding gun owners know that it's not sufficient to merely purchase a firearm. You have to be trained in its proper usage in order to safely and efficiently neutralize threats. That means developing situational awareness and knowing how to set up a good tactical position. You can't be effective if you go blundering into potentially vulnerable situations without scouting the area in advance and establishing good threat reaction protocols. Don't forget there were two Katonjis -- was it smart for them to go in at the same time without setting up backup for one another?

You make it sound like they were in Fallujah or something. Seriously, even with proper training, who's going to be thinking in those terms when all they're doing is changing locks in the country in the evening? And obviously you need both parties involved to be properly trained so that tragedy would not result and it's clear that the guy and his son were not. Sorry, but I think you're overidealizing this potential situation. Had both parties been armed, someone would have gotten shot and most likely killed, and that's not what we want.

[researchnerd]

Originally Posted by Adric

More guns aren't the answer to making this country safer. Keeping people from having to resort to crime in the first place with a better educational system is a good start.

+1

More guns aren't the answer to reducing incidents like this. Banning guns isn't the answer either.

EDUCATION is the only thing that will make a difference, and the educational system (public or private) is a good start, but responsible parenting is the real key.

Raise your kids to be compassionate human beings.
Encourage street-smarts, but teach them the difference between that and paranoid vigilantism.
Teach your children to use their common sense and instinct in addition to logic and structure/rules.

Had the neighbors and the cops in this situation done any of that, the outcome might have been pie and lemon bars for all.

[JPD]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Law abiding gun owners know that it's not sufficient to merely purchase a firearm. You have to be trained in its proper usage in order to safely and efficiently neutralize threats. That means developing situational awareness and knowing how to set up a good tactical position. You can't be effective if you go blundering into potentially vulnerable situations without scouting the area in advance and establishing good threat reaction protocols. Don't forget there were two Katonjis -- was it smart for them to go in at the same time without setting up backup for one another?

Those hicks could have had snipers in the trees and in foxholes. The Kalonjis should have had at least a 200-250 person armed and armoured squad. That's the only way they could have a reasonable expectation of safety.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by JPD

Those hicks could have had snipers in the trees and in foxholes. The Kalonjis should have had at least a 200-250 person armed and armoured squad. That's the only way they could have a reasonable expectation of safety.

Again, I'm not personally advocating this.

I'm just saying that if we follow the approach that the best way to promote public safety is ensure that all law-abiding citizens are armed, then it behooves someone like the Kalonjie's to be ready for action, too. Unless everyone is equally armed and trained, then someone else has the advantage and we're right back to where we are now.

Sure, someone like the Canoles might claim they're just law-abiding citizens, but how do I know that unless I get the drop on them and have an opportunity to adequately interrogate them?

I realize they could claim the same thing about me but that's the key to the system. Equality of firepower, intelligence, training and tactical approach. Otherwise you're at the mercy of strangers.