Mother hiding with kids shoots intruder

The anti gun people just lose all logic or reasoning and it's so obvious. It must be nice to live such a sheltered existence where nothing bad every happens.

I really love the generalizations they use - "Christian extremists" ? Really, you know without a doubt every gun owner is a right-wing, super Christian? Way to make yourself look completely foolish.

The few anti gun "good people" being held hostage by the millions of gun owners? Hilarious, really. Let's ignore the fact that the people who commit violence against others in 99.9 percent of the cases are people who should not / cannot legally own a weapon. Convicted felons, people with mental problems are not allowed to own guns in the US and in almost every case they obtained a gun by stealing it or buying a stolen gun.

Lastly, people who apparently have never even seen a real gun let alone used on in a life and death situation are all experts on shooting, how people react when threatened, how to disable an attacker without killing them, etc, etc.

You're the epitome of foolish, not to mention naive, presumptuous and ridiculous.

Originally posted by xxdaniel21
reply to post by RN311

 

You're using his criminal history to justify her actions. That doesn't make any sense. She carried out her actions without knowledge of his criminal history. She shot him not knowing whether it was his first offence, or 10th.

Therefore, there is no justification for her actions. She did it blindly. See what i'm saying?

He may not have died, but that doesn't make it okay. Her intentions could have been to kill him, it was just by chance he survived. Again, no justification for her force.

Who cares about his criminal history? He deserved to get shot for breaking into someone's house. That is what rapists and murderers do.

There are a TON of weirdos in the USA. I'm not going to have sympathy for someone that chooses to do home invasions. Every criminal knows they run a high chance of being killed in their line of "work".

These p1ssing matches are becoming farcical.

Let's just face it, countries that have more loony civilians than others want guns. Other more sensible and civilised countries don't want guns.
Simples.

reply to post by RN311


You go girl!

Originally posted by FirstCasualty


This is a problem in our social fabric, its nothing a 50 round magazine is going to solve in the long run.

Screw the social fabric at the point where some jackass forces his way into my house. I can solve the problen on my end.

Originally posted by cody599
One shot to the stomach and a call to the police is defence.
6 shots is a person that shouldn't be allowed a gun, firstly she was obviously a bad shot (a crime in itself if you own a gun) secondly she was out of control. Understandable I would do the same in her position. But if you can't shoot accurately you could kill an innocent.

Dude you have got to be kidding.

reply to post by RN311


Woman defended herself and her family with a gun? Yep, that's not making the news.

Originally posted by cody599

You're ignorant in this subject. you've never fired a gun, never studied terminal ballistics of any caliber and you know nothing of the tactical application of secondary weapons systems (handguns) in dynamic enviroments...Buuuuut, you still feel the need to make a post filled with assumptions and feelings. You embody the anti gun movement. Let me share something with you.

reply to post by EyesWideShut

 

It was an ideal world scenario badly presented my apologies.
As for having never fired a weapon (a gun by definition is light artillery upwards) I served in the IDF for years as a front line soldier I think I've got a rough idea about weapons, and am hardly ignorant.

"Rough Idea's" don't cut it son...


Definition of GUN
1a : a piece of ordnance usually with high muzzle velocity and comparatively flat trajectory
b : a portable firearm (as a rifle or handgun)
c : a device that throws a projectile




Oh you're a "Front Line Soldier"? What war were you on the front line of? I'm assuming you mean you've served in the Infantry (Now that we have the snarky semantics game out of the way) You of all people should know better...I respect your service, but it wasn't exactly voluntary. There is a mindset difference between the two, your post clearly shows this. In an ideal world, guns and swords would never have been invented...but you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.

Being a "Front Line Soldier" doesn't make you proficient in using a pistol or understanding terminal ballistics. Service pistol caliber rounds are a different animal than intermediate rifle rounds due to temporary cavitation that occurs around 2500 FPS. The amount of energy deposited into the body is exponentially higher in rifle rounds than pistol rounds.

Caliber Feet Per Second - /- Muzzle Energy

9mm Nato (147gr) 990 fps 320 ft-lbs
5.56x45 Nato (55gr) 3130 fps 1196 ft-lbs
7.62x51 Nato (175gr) 2600 fps 2627 ft-lbs

9mm


5.56


7.62x51

Well, if the lowlife dog turd did NOT enter her house, he wouldn't have been shot, bottom line
All you gun grabbers and morons sympathetic to the dirtbag, PLEASE, PLEASE justify his actions of entering her house without being invited in.
PLEASE JUSTIFY THIS

Bottom line you can't, and will continue to avoid this question.
I don't care how desperate someone is, I don't care how broke someone is and needs money for something, you simply CANNOT justify forcing yourself into someone else's home, and if you do, you stand a pretty good chance of this happening.
I was in my local sheriffs office the other day, and while waiting, no less then TEN people came in for gun permits. As was in the space of about 20 mins to a half hour.
I got to talking to a few of them, and they were getting the permits for just this reason, to protect their home from fraktards like this guy.
I said it before, and I'll say it again, THANK GOD FOR GUNS!!!!

Originally posted by pheonix358

Originally posted by Screwed
reply to post by RN311

 

This is outrageous!!!! What if that man would have died?
He didn't even have a gun. This woman is out of control. This isn't the wild west where you can just go shooting everything that moves. This is EXACTLY why guns need to be banned. Hot headed psycho moms with an attitude. Did she even TRY to talk it out before she started her gun slinging? DId she even ASK him why he was there or what he wanted? Maybe he was lost! Did she even think of that? Did she even TRY giving him the benefit of the doubt???? NO!!! She was out for blood when she bought that gun and just couldn't wait to kill a black man. She needs to be locked up before she kills someone!!

Lost? With a crowbar to break into a house, then breaks in. Lost you say! If you come into my house by breaking in the front door you can expect a surprise. If my kids are home you will get a bigger surprise.

Read the OP. Lost indeed!

P

Our state passed a law a few years back......if someone breaks into your home.....you dont have to talk, warn, or anything.

And by the way....has anyone here have ever had someone come into your home in the early am? I was up one night at 2 am and heard and saw the door knob moving. I had a gun on the door in seconds. It burst open.......and the feeling at that second.....well you will know if it ever happens.

Anyway some cracked up chick just stands there half in and out asked me if I had cab fair. She was so out of it that she didnt seem to register that a gun was on her. I just told her that I didnt have a dime, no cab fair. So she shut the door and left. Seems harmless enough but this MO is often used.....two guys out of sight in the darkness waiting to come in behind her.

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
34 murders a day

you'll never find enough intruder stories to balance it out

never

Probably true. Do you know why? Its because most criminals know better than to break into someone's home in the first place, for fear that they might end up on the wrong side of a .45 or a 12 gauge shotgun. As it turns out, the high probability that the home owner could be armed is actually a hell of a good deterrent to home invasion.

Incorrect. A crime is stopped by a gun owner every 13 seconds.

800000 to 2.5 million crimes per year stopped by gun owners.

Source: wiki.answers.com...

I can list hundreds of other sources if you have some issue w/ this one, all day long. The anti gun crowd relies on false "common sense" based on outright lies or ignorance to make their cases. If you take the time to actually research the issue you'll find that legal gun owners prevent far more crimes than are committed.

The facts are very clear, you are far safer owning a gun for self defense than not, period.

Originally posted by vor78

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
34 murders a day

you'll never find enough intruder stories to balance it out

never

Probably true. Do you know why? Its because most criminals know better than to break into someone's home in the first place, for fear that they might end up on the wrong side of a .45 or a 12 gauge shotgun. As it turns out, the high probability that the home owner could be armed is actually a hell of a good deterrent to home invasion.

edit on 5-1-2013 by vor78 because: (no reason given)

reply to post by ecoparity



I totally agree with you. My point is that gun ownership not only stops crimes in progress, as the stats you posted indicate, but also that the mere possibility of an armed homeowner likely prevents even more of these types of crimes from even beginning, and because of that, they will never show up on any stat sheet.

Originally posted by CatrionaBeldame
What a terrible situation that she, and her children had to go through. I'm glad that they made it through that. That man shouldn't have broken into her home. I don't own a gun, though I've been thinking of getting one. I would have done the same thing with whatever I had near me if someone decided to break into my home. I'm a single mother with a daughter, and no body would be getting into my home without me doing something to protect myself, or her, gun, or not.

My advice to you is stop thinking of getting one..........GET ONE, if you can!!

Once upon a time I was afraid of guns, but that changed after I had someone casing my house and trying to break in. My daughter was 5 at the time.What were his intentions? I have no idea. It took police 10-minutes to answer my call. By then the creep was long gone, fortunately for us. Thereafter I took lessons on how to shoot a S&W .44 magnum and became quite good at it.

If you have any hesitation, you probably won't after reading these two accounts!
Shoot first, ask questions later....

Dec 31, 2011 .....18 yr old widow to dispatcher, "Is it ok to shoot?"

12-yr old home alone shoots intruder

For those of you that have heard me say this before, I apologize.


If you are afraid of guns, dont own one and stand behind me. I DO have a gun and I have NO fear of defending myself or anyone else.

I wonder if she gets to stuff and mount the head? I would. Or at least etch a slash into the side of her gun.

That's one. Who's next?

Mother's defending their young? Atta girl!

She should of got on the phone while waiting for the intruder so the meat wagon is quicker on the scene and you can start cleaning up the blood so if you do have a room of last resort then perhaps make sure you have a phone so you can get them to pick up the perps body asap

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by ecoparity

 

I totally agree with you. My point is that gun ownership not only stops crimes in progress, as the stats you posted indicate, but also that the mere possibility of an armed homeowner likely prevents even more of these types of crimes from even beginning, and because of that, they will never show up on any stat sheet.

edit on 5-1-2013 by vor78 because: (no reason given)

You're correct, there are towns in the US who have made gun ownership mandatory and they saw dramatic decreases in crime. I can name several where violent crimes completely vanished after these ordinances were passed.

Crimes depend on two possible avenues to succeed -

1. You are victimized without being aware of it - ie your property is stolen when you are not around or are asleep, distracted, etc. Street scams, hustles and cons are part of this type of crime, date rape drugs, etc.

2. The criminal is able to overpower the victim using physical violence / weapons or the threat of using them.

The willingness on the part of the criminal to even commit the first type is the possibility of escape or escalation to the second type if they are discovered. They know and count on the fact that most people are not going to be willing or able to defend themselves and that most put in that type of confrontation will choose flight over fight.

If they fear or know for a fact that the person they are targeting has the means to defend themselves they will almost always look for an easier target. Even physical crimes such as mugging, rapes, assaults almost always turn out to have involved some element of stalking to confirm the victim as being suitable. In cases where the choice of target is not possible (domestic violence for example) the attacker chooses a time and place where the victim is vulnerable in some way and less or unable to defend themselves.

If the goal really is to reduce violent crimes (which are still declining in the US by the way) then why is it no one wants to discuss real solutions such as -

1. Ending the 50+ year prohibition / war on drugs? The overwhelming majority of crimes are still committed in relation to illegal drugs.

2. Reform of the criminal justice system to something that actually eliminates crime rather than encouraging it. The new for profit/ criminal warehousing system does nothing to reform criminals and is often a breeding ground for more dangerous criminals.

3. Put funds back into mental health treatment. Public access to mental health treatment has become almost non existent in the US over the past 20 years.

4. Reform of the mental health system so that people who evidence mental health problems get treatment and are monitored for compliance. Almost every mass murder has involved someone who was either known to have mental health issues or was recommended for diagnosis at some point. The other common feature they share is that most of them either never followed up or stopped treatment contrary to recommendations.

reply to post by RN311


Nice.

Guns save the day....AGAIN....

reply to post by polarwarrior


Actually, yes. Yes, he did deserve to die. Crimes against a person on their own property are inexcusable.

Anyone foolish enough to break and enter deserves whatever they get...be it a bullet or a Louisville Slugger upside the head. No ethical/moral discussion is required when it comes to protecting 'me and mine'.

Private property is just that, private.

reply to post by Maxatoria


they should make guns with cell phones incorporated into them that only dial 911....

If I had the cash, i would invent it and sell it as the perfect home protection kit.

Flash light and cell phone built in with a 15 bullet clip.

This guy DIDNT die after 5 shots....that says enough.