Two Armed Men Use Daughter As Human Shield — Until Her Father Guns Them Down

originally posted by: Mianeye

originally posted by: HomerinNC
I notice the anti gunners are avoiding this thread like the plague....
Well antigunners, come say something, make yourselves look stupid!!!

Don't turn it into this BS please, it's not needed.

It's not a pissing contest, both sides have some good arguments and of course some bad.

Fair enough... Had the homeowners not had guns its entirely possible this would have been a quadruple homicide. If gun control laws were as tight as the antigun groups want, and applying that to this situation, the strict law would have been directly responsible for the deaths of the family.

Why?

Because when a law is created law abiding citizens will follow it.
Criminals will not follow it.

We can discuss the other laws the criminal broke in this case, like kidnapping, assault, attempted murder, 1st degree burglary. Those laws, unlike a gun control law, make those actions illegal to do where as the gun control law makes it illegal for a law abiding citizen to defend themselves from those other crimes.

While I understand your position, I don't agree with it. Its a valid point when gun control advocacy groups cherry-pick their platform and the examples they use to support their platform.

Has anyone not wondered why examples like this, where a gun was used responsibly, is usually lacking the gun control groups. Its hard to make an argument to ban all guns when the result of that position would have resulted in more deaths.

a reply to: abe froman

The US should get rid of all guns so we can stab each other quietly like in more civilized countries.Like England with 28,000 stabbings last year.

Stabbings occur in the US to, so you shouldn't compare gun violence to UK stabbings, you should take the stabbings in the US and then put gun violence on top, then compare to the UK.

Around 300 people died in the UK from those stabbings, were around 1700 died in the US, on top of that put gun violence death (around 9000) in the US.

( Above is not actual numbers just estimates i could find )

How horrible that someone had to die, and another nearly died.
This whole situation was avoidable, maybe with a couple or few rapes, loss of all valuables a few beatings and some PTSD.
Shame, we should ban guns so tragedies like this never happen.
Peace is the answer surely, right?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Because when a law is created law abiding citizens will follow it.
Criminals will not follow it.

I agree and that is the actual problem, but it doesn't change the fact that a criminal can get a gun way to easy cause there are a lot of ways to get a gun in the US, buy legally or illegally or stealling Etc. and the fact that as soon as you use a gun against another person you become a criminal, so you could say that guns create criminals ( not literally ).

Has anyone not wondered why examples like this, where a gun was used responsibly, is usually lacking the gun control groups.

Well...they can't really argue against it, so thats why you don't see them comment on it, but one case doesn't justify the huge amount of innocent people getting killed each year by gun violence in the US, you could also say it goes the other way around to.

I mean the people who got killed had rights to.

Giving more guns to the people to defend them self also mean more guns to the criminals, so it kind of a snake biting its own tale.

I agree on banning guns doesn't solve the problem, but "something" needs to be done to lower the murder rate and that "something" is very hard to find.

Ha nice.

Guns dont kill people, idiots get killed by people with guns.

a reply to: Mianeye

I agree on banning guns doesn't solve the problem, but "something" needs to be done to lower the murder rate and that "something" is very hard to find.

Agreed!!
It is not that hard though, we can just make a law that says criminals can no longer have guns and law abiding citizens can.
Problem solved!

originally posted by: g146541
a reply to: Mianeye

I agree on banning guns doesn't solve the problem, but "something" needs to be done to lower the murder rate and that "something" is very hard to find.

Agreed!!
It is not that hard though, we can just make a law that says criminals can no longer have guns and law abiding citizens can.
Problem solved!

Law abiding citizens becomes criminals when using the gun in a wrong way, so obviously that doesn't help.

The reason i say "banning guns doesn't solve the problem" is because it's too late to do so in the US with the number of guns on the street , but other places where guns have always been banned, the gun problem isn't as big as in the US though gun violence still exist.

a reply to: Mianeye

and if the population figures of both countries were anywhere near the same, the number of dead would probably be similar as well...

honestly, i love how people compare the UK to the US, when it comes to violent crime stats, when making the idiotic argument to ban guns...you wanna talk apples and oranges?

honestly, it's like comparing my front yard, to a golf course..

a reply to: Mianeye

That's just it.. Even with all the laws we have now regarding guns and how to purchase criminals will still find ways around the law itself.

Gun control legislation will only work when law abiding citizens follow the law. Criminals on the other hand are actually rewarded by tighter gun control laws. It removes those items from law abiding citizens.

I am curious as to why they are not calling for stricter knife laws in china. A country who is extremely restrictive on what people can own and whose due process laws are a lot less dainty than ours. Sneeze the wrong way and you can get executed in china.

With that said, China has had a large number of mass school knife attacks. Even with their laws and the outcome of violating, people will still do what they are going to do.

You cannot pass a law that punishes non criminals. It would be like telling all persons you cannot own or drive a car because one person got drunk, drove the wrong way on the highway, hit a van head on, killing all 15 people in both cars.

The push for gun control is not based on mass shootings or the number of deaths attached to those incidents. Fun control is being pushed by the government to make it easier to control the people and do what they want.

Look at Rosie Odonell. When she had her show on tv, she had tom Tom Selleck as a guest and ambushed him with his position on gun rights.

While she is a very strong advocate of very tight gun control laws, she apparently has no problem with exceptions to exist so her body guards can be armed.

that type of mentality permeates Congress and more specifically Democrats. The president, VP, Cabinet members, gead of congress - They all want tighter gun control while being protected by armed body guards.

In other words - gun control only applies to the people and not the ruling elite.

putting aside any political spin - is anyone else reading the presented facts of this case with a WTF ??? bewiliderment ?

a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

I want to know more about this bacon diet that you mentioned.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Gun control legislation will only work when law abiding citizens follow the law. Criminals on the other hand are actually rewarded by tighter gun control laws. It removes those items from law abiding citizens.

True.

IMO the second amendment is wrong and should not have been made, it is kind of a source to the gun violence in the US when it gets combined with crime, you know every citizens should be allowed to own a gun to protect them self, but it created a bad side by then giving guns to criminals to.

Your comment is then the other way around now that guns are so freely obtainable.

In other words - gun control only applies to the people and not the ruling elite.

Sadly some people are more important than others in this world, i don't think that will ever change(not my true opinion).

The real issue is the state of society, it's brokken and that thing produces criminals, that goes for every country , fix the economy and take care of the people who are in need would IMO lower crime rate significantly WW, but as it is now it would take a whole lot of work and time.

There will always be crime, some people are just egocentric and stupid, gun violence is just one of those crimes, it has to be looked upon as a whole, not just picking one thing and hope for the best.

a reply to: Mianeye

I accept that there are people who should be protected and will be an exception to the rule. However, when those people who are protected show an indifference I take exception.

Myth #1 - The purpose of Law Enforcement is to protect the individual.
Truth - The purpose of Law Enforcement is to protect society as a whole and not the individual.

myth #2 - Call the police to report crimes and they will respond right away.
truth - When a crime occurs it rarely happens when we are present. The first line of defense to a crime resides with the victim who is present. Depending on where the person lives and the type of police / sheriff coverage it could take upwards of 15-30 minutes to get on scene.

Death/homicide statics -
They include Suicide.
They include officer involved shootings.
They include civilian involved shootings.
They include death sentences carried out by the state.

Any time a person dies the cause of death is either listed as natural causes or homicide (justified / non justified) (to be overly simplistic).




The Government nor the Police can protect the individual 100% of the time. Knee jerk reactions to shootings can cause just as much death as the criminals themselves.

The push by some states to create wait times based on possible use iof a weapon comes dangerously close to the implementation of =

Potential to create a future crime.

You cannot treat a person as a criminal before a criminal act occurs.


ETA - Gun sales are defined by Federal AND State laws. As a resident of Missouri I cannot jut drive into Oklahoma and buy a gun. I have to purchase a gun through a person who has an FFL (Federal Firearm License). They then ship the item to my home state to another dealer who has an FFL, where I retrieve the item.

The other issue is the "assault rifle" confusion.

A handgun requires a back ground check.
A rifle, which is what "assault rifles are" are government differently.

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: Xcathdra

Gun control legislation will only work when law abiding citizens follow the law. Criminals on the other hand are actually rewarded by tighter gun control laws. It removes those items from law abiding citizens.

True.

IMO the second amendment is wrong and should not have been made, it is kind of a source to the gun violence in the US when it gets combined with crime, you know every citizens should be allowed to own a gun to protect them self, but it created a bad side by then giving guns to criminals to.

Your comment is then the other way around now that guns are so freely obtainable.

In other words - gun control only applies to the people and not the ruling elite.

Sadly some people are more important than others in this world, i don't think that will ever change.

I would agree some people are more important, a law abiding citizen is more important to our society than corrupt politicians.

It won't change because there's too many people making excuses for the ruling elite.

a reply to: Mianeye

The second amendment was put in place by the founders because of the Crown.

an armed society are citizens. An unarmed society are subjects.

The President gets secret service protection and im ok with that. The issue is when the government labels ALL citizens as a threat, and gun control legislation they want will do that.

The argument is there are crazy people out there who want to kill the President so he should get protection. When the guy who is tweaking on meth comes at me with a gun to kill me and get items to sell for his next fit, why should I not be able to defend myself from the criminal?

Protection is only acceptable when your important?
My life and that of my family are every bit as important as the President and his family.

He gets protection based on a hypothetical what if and I get a sorry, we don't trust you to have a gun.

Piers Morgan and his big mouth laid out the problem gun control advocates have in making their argument -

The following was a tweet by Piers Morgan, replied to by Carol Roth, Author of the book "The Entrepreneur Equation".

Piers Morgan: The 2nd amendment was devised with muskets in mind, not high-powered handguns & assault rifles. fact.

Carol Roth: It was devised 4 people 2b able to protect themselves w same type of weaponry used by those from whom they might need protection.

Piers Morgan: Where exactly does it say that in the Constitution - must have missed it?

Carol Roth: right next to the word "musket"

Gotta love that this lovely lady set straight the brit-twit from MS'___'.

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

It's not a real rare occurrence

Well...It is rare compared to that "30 people" a day gets killed by gun violence in the US.

Not a gun hater just saying

In this case i agree it's a happy and lucky ending.

30 X360 days = 10,800 of which a percentage (?) is suicide

The low figure I saw last year for people who used guns to stop a crime was 775,000 a year not 2 million.

If 775,000 is close then there are 2,152 robberies, rapes, or deaths prevented by the use of a gun each and every day.

If you use the one million figure it just increases justifiable defense to over 2700 a day..

I am overseas and the way they control guns is they make them so expensive only the elite can afford them. It still does not stop some dirt bag from going across a border or stealing weapons and using them for mayhem.. The religion of peace certainly has no problem with gunning down teachers, monks, along with military and police in the south of the country.

Maybe we could all disarm like Mexico tried only to find out that is not the way to go with the Cartels or most Bad people... They tend to not listen to please don't hurt me and I will bake you a cake or we can all sing your favorite song together..

30 a day versus over 2000 sounds like a decent trade/ratio IMO... 'any' are to much I will give you that, but this cat is out of the bag.. Ban guns in the states and the bad guys will just get them from our neighbors down south where they are already mostly banned for the average citizen...way south if needed... maybe some of the ones our own government gave them could be given back if we just said please?

Mornin',

This article will definitely have the anti-2nd crowd chopping at the bit.
Too bad really.
Apparently saving lives with a gun makes them sad.

-Peace-

Excellent article. Yet more proof that the right for law abiding families to protect themselves via firearms should not be infringed upon. One thug rotting in hell, the other will be rotting in prison. Kudos to the dad!

a reply to: Mianeye

Question -

If you think the 2nd amendment is wrong I am assuming you mean it is directed at a well regulated militia and not the individual correct?

If that is correct then my counter argument would be since I am male and all males are required to register for selective service at 18 (failure to do so is a crime) and maintain / update my status to the government every time I move up to the age of 36 then I would argue I am in fact a part of a well regulated militia.

The purpose behind selective service is so the government, during times of war, can institute the draft and start call ups of men between those ages for forced military duty.

Since females are not subject to the draft I could then make an argument that the 2nd amendment does not apply to females.

That line of thought requires an answer to one more question -
If the Federal or state government go stupid and declare martial law, will you comply or would you take up arms to defend the constitution and your freedoms?

if you answer yes, you would fight, then you are a part of a well regulated militia whose purpose is to protect and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign AND domestic.

The likelihood of something like that occurring is dependent on ho well armed the people actually are. The government is suppose to fear the people, not the other way around.

Removing / massively restricting the 2nd shifts the balance in favor of the government.