Mother shoots home intruder...after he cornered her in attic with her twins, 9

[Skip Intro]

Just got online and didn't see this posted anywhere. Sorry if it is a dupe.

Mother shoots home intruder five times in face and neck after he cornered her in attic with her twins, 9

But after the ringing persisted, the person began prying the door open with a crowbar.

She quickly retreated to an attic crawlspace with the children, but not before she also picked up her handgun.

The burglar, whom police identified as Paul Ali Slater, did a room-by-room search of the home, and when he reached the attic, she was ready.

Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman told WSBTV: 'The perpetrator opens that door. Of course, at that time he’s staring at her, her two children and a .38 revolver.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2257966/Paul-Ali-Slater-Intruder-shot-times-face-neck-cornering-mother-kids-attic.html?ICO=most_read_module

I'm glad this woman was able to protect herself and her children.

[Warren DeMontague]

1. Amazing, she was able to do it with 6 shots, and no 30 round clips or bushmaster 223.

Of course, those weapons are needed to PRUHTECT US FERM TH GUBNERNMENT AN OBAMERS NEW WER!D ORDER COMNIST HURLICOPTERS DERP DERP

[hack89]

2. Does the NRA pay you post such inflamitory drivel?

because people like you are making things a lot easier for them.

[Warren DeMontague]

9. Must have hit a nerve, huh.

Anyway, I'm on MIRT, and I can tell you that "drivel" is pretty damn close to a direct summary of the arguments used by the gun troll troglodytes filing in through the door this past week, outraged - OUTRAGED!- that, in the wake of 20 little kids being brutally shot with an assault rifle, anyone would dare suggest even the tiniest legislative restrictions on their ability to own and fondle THE PRECIOUS....

Know what? If owning a big fucking gun is more important to someone than showing a little FUCKING RESPECT to the families if these dead kids, they are an ASSHOLE.

[hack89]

16. When gun control fails one more time

and you are looking for a reason, take a peek in the mirror. This is a serious matter that requires some maturity. Extremist like yourself do your side no good because at the end of the day you will not pass any meaningful legislation without the support of gun owners. Juvenile insults and petty tantrums are not the way to gain that support.

You are not interested in serious discussion - you demand capitulation. Well it ain't going to happen so grow up and contribute in a meaningful way.

[Warren DeMontague]

18. No, Im saying that no one needs a fucking bushmaster 223 to hunt or for self defense.

We know what "reasonable" is to the NRA crowd: just arm everyone so it can be high noon at the OK Corral, all the time.

Im damn reasonable. I want those fucking assault weapons outlawed. I want the high capacity clips outlawed. And no, im not going to play the old gungeon game of "theres no difference derp derp no such thing as an assault wepon derp derp you wanna ban some guns just cuz they look scary derp derp"

if there is really "no difference" between, say, a bushmaster 223 and a .38 revolver, or a hunting rifle that needs to be reloaded after every shot... Then why do the gun crazies -and, yes, they say this- claim they "need" AR-15s to "protect against government tyranny"?

[sendero]

29. Please stop calling it..

.. a "Bushmaster" it only reveals the fact that you know jack shit about firearms. It's a fucking AR-15. Learn.

[Warren DeMontague]

37. Bushmaster is the brand. And just as im not interested in "learning more" about the shit in my sewer

Im not real interested in getting overly familiar with the (pant, pant, lust lust) technical specifications of the "fucking" shiny hard big big BIG "man card" AR-15s or 30 round clips or anything else someone used just a couple weeks ago to blow the jaw off an innocent 6 year old boy.

I wouldnt touch one, and i sure as hell wouldnt sign on to the internet to defend the onership of one. If you ask me, that sort of thing makes the karma stink. Like, oh, sewer shit.

I *am* interested in TAKING THEM AWAY. Yes, thats right, he wants to TAKES TEH PRECIOUS. AWAY.

Noooooo!!!!

[sendero]

41. Yes..

.. horror story after horror story but as soon as someone posts a story about someone saved by a gun you go all wobbly. Forget you.

[Warren DeMontague]

48. I'm not wobbly. The story confirms what I've said; no one needs a "fucking AR-15-- that's the name"

to defend against a burglar.

I'm glad she had a reasonable sort of firearm with which to defend herself. Someone wants to outlaw .38 revolvers that fire 6 shots before needing to be reloaded, then this case will be relevant to gun control arguments.

[nilram]

112. +10

[Atticeman]

123. good thoughrt

you can visit at google group

[mikeysnot]

195. When the costs to society far outweigh

the benefits you lose. Now show me 2000 more examples of the benefits of gun ownership a day as the NRA purports, we could talk about the value guns add to society.

Lets play the scale game...

Here is my side of the scale.


Two dead after South Side shooting, West Side stabbing
Updated 13 hours ago

Chicago police were conducting homicide investigations after a 19-year-old man was fatally shot Sunday evening on the South Side and another man died following a West Side stabbing.

Man shot during carjacking attempt on NW Side
Updated 20 hours ago

A 50-year-old man sustained a gunshot graze wound this morning during an attempted carjacking on the Northwest Side after a man came up to his car to ask him for the time, police side.

Man killed, another person injured in shooting on I-94
Updated 18 hours ago

An early morning shooting on the Dan Ryan Expressway near Canalport Avenue left a 22-year-old man dead and another man injured, authorities said.

Man, 30, dies after being shot New Year's Day
Updated Jan 06, 2013

A 30-year-old southwest suburban man has died after being shot New Year’s Day while sitting in his vehicle on Chicago's South Side, authorities said.

At least 10 people shot Saturday, 2 fatally
Updated Jan 06, 2013

An afternoon shooting in the Englewood neighborhood has left a man dead Saturday, a day in which at least 10 people were shot, according to authorities.

Humboldt Park shooting leaves man, 25, dead
Updated Jan 06, 2013

A 25-year-old man shot in the chest in the Humboldt Park neighborhood died before he could make it to a hospital this morning, authorities said.

At least 9 wounded by gunfire across Chicago
Updated Jan 05, 2013

At least nine people were shot across the city between Friday and Saturday mornings, including three incidents where two people were wounded by gunfire.

Police: Man, 58, shot in head in Back of the Yards
Updated Jan 04, 2013

A 58-year-old man was shot in the head in the Back of the Yards neighborhood on the South Side this afternoon.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/

Gun arguments always leave out the ones that survive and leave out the costs we all pay for.

The only ones that don't pay are the gun manufacturers. We pay they profit.

[marshall]

269. Did any of those victims have guns?

I kept reading for the instance where the victim is shot with her or his own weapon.

[cthulu2016]

43. Ignorance is Strength

[Warren DeMontague]

49. I know exactly what I'm talking about. Bushmaster is the brand.

I know that standard gungeon diversion tactics involve derailing the discussion into idiotic semantic minutae. However, this is GD, and it's not gonna fly.

[neverforget]

53. Stop it! You're hurting the guns feelings!

[Paladin]

211. What's That: The NRA's Motto? It Ought To Be. (nt)

[friendly_iconoclast]

78. That's odd, you were an expert on home defense just a few minutes before.

[Warren DeMontague]

98. quack quack quack

quack quack derp derp quack quack


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2134939

[guardian]

95. Yep just another example

of how "nobody wants to ban all guns" that the antigunners continuely claim is a lie.

[Warren DeMontague]

99. I'm sure some people do want to ban all guns.

Personally, I want to ban assault weapons and high magazine clips.

[guardian]

106. We can agree to disagree about what should be banned.

However, the point of my post was to rebutt this meme that frequently comes up that says "nobody wants to ban all guns" or "nobody wants to take your guns."

Some people do. Those that make that claim are being willfully disingenuous.

[Warren DeMontague]

113. My semi-facetious point was ridiculing that odd, um, ...anxiety on the part of some gun owners

But i think the starting point has got to be banning the sale of assault weapons and high capacity clips.

Possession would be a thornier legislative wicket, but its doable.

[hack89]

149. An AWB will not make America safer

The majority of mass shooting (more than four victims) involved handguns. The worst one in recent history, the Va Tech shooting, involved two handguns with standard magazines.

Rifles and shotguns account for about 3% of all murders. And very few of the suicides which make up the majority of gun deaths. Which makes this fixation on assault weapons nothing more than security theater. To accept the continued legal ownership of semi-automatic handguns is to accept that future mass shootings like VT are a certainty.

[Warren DeMontague]

198. If it won't have any impact, why is there such a flappy-armed freakout over the prospect of it?

if it won't matter, if it won't do anything, if there's NO DIFFERENCE between the guns that would be banned and the ones which wouldn't, then who cares? Security Theater, you say? Okay, then maybe the gun people should just roll their eyes and accept this TOTALLY INCONSEQUENTIAL piece of legislation that will have NO REAL EFFECT on their lives or ability to shoot, huh?

Why should anyone give a shit if they can't buy an ar-15, if there's NO REAL DIFFERENCE between it and other guns? Say goodbye to em, since it doesn't matter. BYE!

[hack89]

219. I have never been concerned about losing my rifles

I understand the political reality of gun control.

You are the only one flapping at the moment.

[Warren DeMontague]

242. quack quack quack

derp derp quack quack derp derp

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2134939

[hack89]

246. Pathetic.

waving the bloody shirt is all you have left?

[Warren DeMontague]

257. Thats all you see, huh. Its all about you.

Sick.

[hack89]

271. I see you smearing every legal gun owner with the blood of innocents

for refusing to accept your position on gun control. Fine - if you want cultural war instead of cooperation then don't be surprised when things don't.work.out for you.

[Warren DeMontague]

273. Oh, yes, the "Culture War"

"WOLVERINES!!!"




101st Cheetoh Brigade, attack!


There's not gonna be a big gun owner revolution or some giant standoff against teh gun grabberz or whatever paranoid kook fantasy is running around RW militia-ville these days. When people talk that shit, they just sound fucking goofy.

And the paranoid "loooky here, they try to take teh guns there's gonna be some shootin'" civil war bargle, aside from being offensive, seditious, and downright illogical, is PART OF THE PROBLEM. The fantasy some (not you, good sir, but some) people seem to have around these weapons is that they're gonna wage some heroic last stand against tyranny or hybrid cars or electronic music or some such shit. It feeds into the cycle of people (like Lanza's "survivalist" mom) stockpiling these crazy-ass guns.

But I'm not smearing, I'm calling attention to the fact that it was an assault weapon, or an AR-15, or "not a fucking bushmaster!!!111!! see? you dont know shit about guns" that killed all those kids. I do believe that the weapon, and the clip size, was a part of the equation here.

It sounds like you're not opposed to the reinstating of the AWB, after all, so I'm not sure what you want to fight about.

[hack89]

283. The reasons I don't oppose the AWB should give you pause.

it is not retroactive - it does not take a single gun off the streets.

The AWB is security theater - the weapon of choice for mass killers are handguns. Remember VA Tech? Two hand guns. This fixation on rifles is illusionary - it is not going to make anyone safer.

[Warren DeMontague]

284. Its a start.

And increasingly it seems like the only real rationale people think they have for owning these guns is to defend the guns when the government tries to take them away.

[hack89]

285. That is nonsense and you know it.

a handful of blowhards on the internet don't speak.for.the tens.of millions of gun owners. You just focus on the noisy extreme so you can self righteously ignore the rational law abiding gun.owners that represent absolutely no threat.

[hack89]

287. It will also be the end for another decade or.so

the idea of incremental gun control is.a. fantasy. You will get one shot at it and even then the chance of.success is not high. This may be your.only chance in a decade and.you are going to piss it away on feel.good.laws.that do nothing to prevent another Newtown or.Va Tech.

[ancianita]

292. When ten gun killings tip the scale of one home protection per day, legal gun owners are complicit

in the misuse of their precious protection 'tool' on the fear-based grounds that gun control advocates are conspiring to strip them of all guns.

You attack Warren without trying to understand his appropriate response to massive daily killing and his very fair stand on restrictions.

Know why all of you attack WDM? Because you want to. You make shit up about who s/he is without reading what s/he writes.

[hack89]

295. OK. nt

[Scootaloo]

128. Does it fucking matter, so long as you fucking know what the fuck he's fucking talking about?

Rocco, izzat you?

[BainsBane]

132. get a new talking point

God, you gun folk are tiresome in your repetition of NRA talking points.

Why does it matter what he calls it? They key point is it murders children. Bushmaster themselves are not nearly as particular as you about what consumers call their products.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-bushmaster-advertised-semiautomatic-used-in-connecticut-massacre-2012-12

You people have a twisted notion of what being informed means. Under your criteria. high-school drop outs who spend all their time shooting beer cans qualify as absolute geniuses. Imagine if you devoted your energies to doing something productive rather than immersing yourselves in the machinery of death.

[ImSober]

97. What if there had been three intruders?

My neighbors were victims to a home invasion, he has since purchased an AR15. Food for thought.

[Warren DeMontague]

104. and what if the THREE HOME INVADERS had been DRIVING A TANK? What THEN????!?!?!??!

Everyone should be able to own one of these. Just in case!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

178. There was a story in which a mother put out a kitchen fire with a dish towel.

QED: no one needs one of these.

[Warren DeMontague]

197. So there should be no limits at all on the level of weaponry available for home "defense"

Gotcha.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

199. The "no-limits" meme is a creation of the anti-gunners for straw-man purposes.

[Warren DeMontague]

203. Do you like Bob Dylan?

You don't need a weatherman to see which way the wind blows. And the wind is not blowing real fucking favorable for the NRA and their apologists right now.

Those big shiny assault weapons that shoot the high capacity clips; no one fucking NEEDS them for home defense, and when the gun fondler fetish folks get honest, they blabber on about how good they "feel" when they shoot lots of bullets out of the thing, or they start getting all tinfoil about "armed revolt against teh government", that sort of shit.

To argue that someone is going to hold off a home invasion with an AR-15 that can't be reasonably prevented with a different sort of gun, as this woman did-- well, in theory the situation might arise, but it's not damn likely enough to justify (Except in the minds of the DONT TAKES MY PRECIOUS crowd) continued easy access to the same sort of shit Lanza used in that school.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

215. Bob Dylan never used such vulgarities to make his point.

He didn't use straw-men either.

Here's some of Clinton's words from his autobiography. For yourself and other anti-gunners, what is wrong with Bill Clinton's analysis?

In his book "My Life," in which he analyzed the loss of Congress to the Republicans in 1994, he wrote:
"Just before the House vote (on the crime bill), Speaker Tom Foley and majority leader Dick Gephardt had made a last-ditch appeal to me to remove the assault weapons ban from the bill. They argued that many Democrats who represented closely divided districts had already...defied the NRA once on the Brady bill vote. They said that if we made them walk the plank again on the assault weapons ban, the overall bill might not pass, and that if it did, many Democrats who voted for it would not survive the election in November. Jack Brooks, the House Judiciary Committee chairman from Texas, told me the same thing...Jack was convinced that if we didn't drop the ban, the NRA would beat a lot of Democrats by terrifying gun owners....Foley, Gephardt, and Brooks were right and I was wrong. The price...would be heavy casualties among its defenders." (Pages 611-612)

"On November 8, we got the living daylights beat out of us, losing eight Senate races and fifty-four House seats, the largest defeat for our party since 1946....The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage...." (Pages 629-630)

http://www.gunshopfinder.com/legislativenews/clinton8_1_04.html

Why, exactly, are anti-gunners crusading for a revival of the 1993 issue? If you want to defeat the "NRA and their apologists," why are you taking steps that can hand them and the Republicans another victory? (Incidentally, I don't think that Bill Clinton or the other top Democratic leaders that he identified in his autobiography are "NRA apoligists.&quot

[ancianita]

293. No. The "no-limits" meme was invented by the "well regulated militia" & "shall not be infringed"

literal interpreters of the 2nd Amendment -- at the expense of "the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" of everyone they fear. Thus, the scales of 'guns that defend' get tipped daily by 'guns that destroy.' It's pretty obvious to those who don't need guns to feel free.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

297. Do you have even a link to that, even a single link? Or did you just make that up?

And who, in your view, are the "literal interpreters of the 2nd Amendment" of whom you speak?

Are you saying this without reading the Heller decision?

If facts matter, do you not know that the Supreme Court in the Heller decision said

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Do you not know, as said by the Supreme Court,

"The first two federal laws directly restrictingcivilian use and possession of firearms—the 1927 Act prohibiting mail delivery of 'pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed on the person,' Ch. 75, 44 Stat. 1059, and the 1934 Act prohibiting the possession of sawed-off shotguns and machine guns—were enacted over minor Second Amendment objections dismissed by the vast majority of the legislators who participated in the debates."

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Do you not know that no judge and no Justice of the Supreme Court has ever held that the private ownership of firearms is absolute and cannot be subject to reasonable regulations? You can't find a link to even a single incident where that has happened because that never happened and there aren't any.

Do you not know that no reponsible person has ever claimed that the private ownership of firearms is absolute and cannot be subject to reasonable regulations? You can't find a link to even a single incident where that has happened because that never happened and there aren't any.

[tradecenter]

202. That's just an M47 Dragon Missile Launcher tube.

The launch tube, which you posted, is not reuseable, it's fiberglass. It's nothing more than a novelty item, or an umbrella stand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M47_Dragon

The launcher system of the M47 Dragon consists of a smoothbore fiberglass tube, breech/gas generator, tracker, bipod, battery, sling, and forward and aft shock absorbers. In order to fire the weapon, non-integrated day or night sights must be attached. While the launcher itself is expendable, the sights can be removed and reused.

[Warren DeMontague]

205. Technically, that's a picture of a dragon missile launcher tube, and not the launcher tube itself.

a picture used as a handy visual aide to make a humorous point, in a nevertheless pointless 'debate' against gun fetishists spouting the same exact tired fucking talking points they always spout, as well as engaging in the same stupid argument tactics they always use, one of which is to try to derail discussions with inane technical and semantic quibbles instead of addressing the actual point.

[tradecenter]

208. I don't understand what you're saying here.

You say that it's a picture of a launcher tube and in the same sentence, you say it's not the launcher tube itself.
Please clarify.
Other than that, I pretty much agree with you, but it does happen on both sides of the debate.
You have the gun nut extremists on one side saying no restrictions at all, on the other side, you have gun control extremists who want to ban and confiscate all firearms.

You, very obviously, aren't one of them and I find myself about in the middle.

[Warren DeMontague]

209. I'm saying it's a picture of the thing, not the thing itself.

Since we're getting technical.

[tradecenter]

213. Ok, I get it now.

Thanks.

[lunatica]

168. LOL!

And what if the government invaded her house with rocket launchers and nuclear warheads!???!!!!!!

[musical_soul]

296. Try to put a bullet in each invader's leg.

You can stop an invader without killing him/her.

[christx30]

303. Not a good idea

legs are hard to hit. Center mass is much easier. If you miss the legs, the invader has a chance to reach you. You hit center mass, like this woman did, the invader is more afraid for his own life and is more likely to run away. This story couldn't have gone better. The woman and her two kids weren't hurt. The bad guy is in jail, but will survive. If he had just wanted to steal stuff, he'd would have been ok. But he searched all over the house for this woman. Chased her into the attic. Glad she's ok though.

[neighbor]

121. what you request isn't reasonable

there are too many semi-automatic weapons and high capacity feeding devices, millions of each.

Over 80 million U.S. citizens own firearms, that's a lot.
The only people that will turn them in or even register them are law-abiding citizens.
The rest will float freely as they did before. It's a nasty fact, but it's there.

You will only punish law-abiding citizens by making these weapons and their parts illegal.

Do you know that Connecticut already had an assault weapons ban in place? It's left over from the 1994 assault weapons ban enacted under President Clinton.
It listed several different brand names and styles of firearms and features and... it accomplished nothing. The only difference between the AR15 that was made by Bushmaster and the same type made at the Hartford, Conn. Colt firearms factory... was the name.

It was kept in place because it was popular with the people and kept the correct political hands of that state washed, no risky political back-sliding. The status quo was maintained, political goals attained, the norm.
The 1994 federal ban under President Clinton did nothing meaningful to slow or stop the rate of crimes committed with firearms, the Columbine Massacre occurred while it was still in place. There were results that both the pro and con side claimed as victories... but nothing meaningful, nothing you could put your finger on and say "look, it is certain"

The 1994 ban didn't work, it was allowed to elapse as a complete failure after ten years. Ten years where the same weapons were affixed with small (cosmetic) features that allowed continued ownership totally unfettered.

How would you [better] define an assault weapon where you didn't have to completely violate the Constitutional rights of over 80 million citizens of your own country? Is it even possible?
You do it with a ban on high capacity magazines? Do you know how many surplus magazines for assault-style weapons are on the open market?

Do you know what the effect of the 1994 ban was on magazines? The price went up... that's all that happened.

Legitimate new magazine construction ceased for civilians and the price just went up, that's it.
They were still out there and prized even more.

If we look at the other popular example, the Virginia Tech Massacre was accomplished using two handguns. One of those handguns held only ten rounds and was a .22... not very big at all.

Another ban isn't going to do anything. We can keep blaming the tools and beat our heads against the wall (which hasn't worked since 1934) or we can actually look for a solution.



I have three small boys, all under the age of 6. I can strongly empathize with the parents and loved ones of those killed in Newton. I just keep thinking "what if I had a son there?" "There's a bad guy at my son's school, what would I need?"

I'd want a good guy with a gun there too, it's the only solution my small mind can produce.
The only thing I know that will stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun.


I understand that everyone wants to blame the hammer that was swung to kill small children. That's a very strong social taboo, probably the strongest we have... and as hollow as it would be, we won't even get some small satisfaction from putting an already-dead killer on trial.

In the mean-time, we blame the convenient target. The tool used.

It doesn't make any sense.

[Warren DeMontague]

122. Then make a stronger ban. Make a ban with penalties for not just sale, but possession.

You've managed to hit just about every NRA talking point in your post, congratualtions.

But guess what. We throw cancer grannies in prison for having a bag of pot. Don't tell me we "can't do anything" - we can't even try to do anything- about fucking assault weapons.

If the terminology of the old AWB - which didn't "fail", it lapsed under a Republican President- wasn't effective or accurate, fine. Write better terminology. Write terminology which prohibits clips containing 30 rounds. Write terminology that prohibits the rate of fire which Adam Lanza used to blast children in Newtown.

This "oh, well, nothing can be done about assault weapons"- and that's what they ARE- it's a bogus bullshit tactic. Same kind of crap the oil companies use on Global Warming. "Oh, well, can't do anything, don't bother to try"

[Travis_0004]

142. You can wish for whaterver you want, but a new ban isn't happening, at least for 2 years

You are free to wish for whatever you want, but this is a very pro gun congress, and no anti gun legislation will make it through the house, maybe not even then senate.

Maybe, in 2 years if the house become democratic, then gun legislation will pass, but you need a good majority if you want to pass another AWB, since even a lot of democrats won't support it. And the fact is, even democrat voters are split on this issue, as the post on this forum will show.

[Puzzledtraveller]

160. There will be no new legislation on guns

it's political suicide the rhetoric you hear now is just that, and these pols are hoping and praying it's enough because come midterms there won't be a peep about guns from anyone republicans for sure and democrats.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

180. If the banksters and other members of the super-rich want it, such legislation will be adopted.

[Warren DeMontague]

206. it's part of TEH PLOT, MAN! ALEX JONES SAYS SO!

HALP!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

218. Is he a gun-controller?

One who wants to see a repeat of the 1994 elections?

[neighbor]

172. A new ban with penalties for possession isn't realistic or reasonable either

The old ban did fail, with the amount of horsepower that it took to drive that legislation and the amount of time it was on the books... it really should have produced something.
But it was allowed to elapse because it didn't show any definitive results over the decade it was in place.

There was no serious decline in firearms-related crimes that everyone was hoping for.
Any politician would have loved to continue a piece of legislation that they can point to and say "look, it worked... see, I was right" but the 1994 ban didn't have that effect.

If you want a ban on weapons that have the same capability as the one used in Newton, you're going to have to ban semi-automatic weapons with any detachable magazine. Those that can fire a round every time the trigger is pulled and can have a box of ammunition attached to it for loading and reloading.

There are literally thousands of different types of firearms that have this capability, each with different and specific features. The only truly common feature that they share is the capability to fire every time the trigger is pulled. Another feature is having a detachable magazine, the part that you call a clip.

The typical rapid rate of fire that they can be operated at is around 45-60 rounds per-minute. If you have a feeding device that holds 30 rounds, then you can potentially shoot 30 objects in under a minute without reloading.
Most feeding device can be removed/ dropped in less than a second and replaced by another (full) feeding device in another 3-5 seconds typically.
You can draw your own conclusions about what's going to happen to your accuracy when moving this quickly.

Magazine capacity will have little to no effect on a person who has dedicated themselves to the act of killing another with a firearm. The potential shooter will simply bring more feeding devices so they can reload more.
This is exactly the case during the Virginia Tech shooting, where Cho was able to kill 30 others with just two pistols. One of them was a small-caliber design with a magazine capacity of just 10 rounds.

If there is going to be any definitive results of making specific firearms illegal, you will have to ban all semiautomatic weapons with a detachable magazine system.

[Warren DeMontague]

207. Fine, then limit the rate of fire.

Anything that fires more than 6 rounds an hour, make it illegal to buy, sell, or possess.

How about them apples.

[neighbor]

241. Not sure how you could reliably make that a possibility.

I've never heard of a gun that could do that, but I suppose anything is possible.

But to get back to a possible ban on semi-automatic weapons:
Unless revolvers are exempted, you're left with bolt-action, lever-action and single-shot weapons.
Basically, the 1800's.


Also, I don't appreciate the abrasive idioms. I'm trying to have a civil conversation.

[Warren DeMontague]

243. Oh no! Not the 1800s!

Yeah, well, people were able to hunt in the 1800s, weren't they?

[hack89]

134. Can we have semi-automatic pistols?

Last edited Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:49 AM - Edit history (1)

I own four AR-15 - not for self defense but because my entire family are competitive target shooters.

You have taken one of many arguments, ignored the other uses for such weapons, and used it to smear your opponents. You are completely unwilling to accept that reasonable people would find peaceful uses for such weapons. You are a close minded extremist.

[muriel_volestrangler]

141. You can be competitive target shooters with non-semi-automatic weapons

If it's just a question of "I want something to aim at targets", we can ban your AR-15s completely.

[hack89]

146. Sorry but you are not going to ban anything

there are no proposals to actually ban possession. The president is not that stupid.

[muriel_volestrangler]

170. Again, you show what is wrong with DU and the USA

You baldly state "you are not going to ban anything". You are the problem. You are saying you are not going to allow anything to be banned. There's no discussion with you. You are a gun-loving fundamentalist.

[Puzzledtraveller]

171. LOL!!

DOWN WITH THE GUNS! UP WITH THE STATE!

[muriel_volestrangler]

179. That would be the patriotic thing to say, wouldn't it?

The state (ie the United States of America) is a good thing; the guns are dangerous, and need regulating.

You surely put your country above your love of guns, don't you?

[hack89]

173. No - I am saying Senator Feinstein is not going to ban anything

put aside your emotions and read what her AWB actually says - facts should have a place in this discussion, shouldn't they?

If there is a problem, it is the Democratic leadership that will once again disappoint all you gun grabbers.

[Puzzledtraveller]

174. Don't bother clarifying your statement, to them you have a sickness

and are what's wrong with DU and the United States!! LOL.

Reminds me of the Twilight Zone episode I watched recently, "You are obsolete!"

[muriel_volestrangler]

182. You're the only person to mention Feinstein or her proposal in this thread

If you said "Senator Feinstein is not going to ban anything with her proposal", it would have been different. So you are saying you will be willing to talk about banning some things, after all - such as high capacity magazines? Semi-automatic rifles?

[hack89]

187. No problem with a limit on mag size

An ban on semi-automatic rifles is security theater and nothing more. Hand guns are the favored weapons of criminals and mass killers. Remember that the Va Tech shooting was done with two handguns.

That's what I mean - you fixate on weapons that at best account for 2 % of gun deaths. How does banning them make us safer? Are you settling for being 2% safer? The way gun violence is steadily declining doing nothing will reduce gun deaths by 2% this year.

[muriel_volestrangler]

191. Because a ban would make people a bit safer

No, it wouldn't fix everything, but it would save some lives. That's worth it, when there's no significant downside to dropping the semi-automatic rifles (competition shooting is not significant).

[hack89]

220. Doing nothing will save lives.

handguns are the killers. Your fixation on rifles is misguided.

[jtb33]

300. How about banning swimming pools?

Wouldn't that also "save some lives" with "no significant downside"?

[Puha Ekapi]

193. Not only disappoint...

...it could be disastrous. If our leadership pushes hard on highly restrictive gun control legislation, we'll be seeing the Kontrakt with Amerika Part Deux in 2014, and most likely a Republikan President in 2016.

Fuck THAT.

[Warren DeMontague]

214. Perhaps you should contact Vice President Biden directly & tell him not to "waste his time"

obviously, he must not know what he's doing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-weighs-broad-gun-control-agenda-in-wake-of-newtown-shootings/2013/01/05/d281efe0-5682-11e2-bf3e-76c0a789346f_story.html

[hack89]

223. He would let me keep my rifles. Just like Senator Feinstein.

it figures you are clueless to the fact that a new AWB will not be retroactive.

[Warren DeMontague]

245. Glad to hear you won't have problem with the multiple agenda items they're working on then

including a national ATF database of all firearms purchases- which could be done by executive order- as WELL AS a new AWB.

[hack89]

248. The AWB will not be retroactive.

and will only ban manufacturing and import of new rifles. I have all I need.

I doubt the data base will be retroactive either - the only way to make it work is for the manufacturer or importer to register them.

I think you will be disappointed to find that possession will still be legal.

[SIBIndi]

256. This Biden?

[generalhh]

153. how do you run 3 gun without it?

the entire rifle stage is based on a semi-auto rifle like the ar-15,scar,mini 14 and even an ak 47/74.


In case you did not know 3gun is so popular that NBC signed up to broadcast the competitions. They only backed away after newtown and paid a hefty cancellation fee.

The fact is less than 2 percent of gun murders in the us are done by what you call assault rifles. The majority of killings are criminal on criminal shootings and innocents that get caught in the cross fire. Yes there are some domestic and other killings but the vast majority of gun crime is criminal v criminal and alot of it is drug related.

I am not trying to be a jerk or get modded down. I speaking the truth. Each one of us wake up and read/watch the news. Most of the gun crime we read about is handgun crime. While most handguns built post 2004 are greater than 10+ rounds a lot of the weapons out now are 10 round or less handguns. almost all revolvers are less than 10 shot (22lr revolvers sometimes have 8-10 round). many throw away guns or small caliber handguns are 5-7 shoot guns.

If you want to do something dramatic about gun crime:

find away to integrate more young black males into the larger society ( this group is represented as both victim and shooter way pout of proportion to the population)

develop programs that address the roots of a lot of crime (economic disparity, poverty, mental health)
Im all for increasing spending on programs we know that work (job development, after school programs like boys and girls club, YMCA, mentoring programs, summer enrichment and internships.

Remember some with something to live for and a sense of purpose and belonging is less likely to cause society harm. The also are more likely to follow laws and be productive citizens when the feel they have a place.

[muriel_volestrangler]

169. You see? You're defending deaths on the basis that you like the format of one competition

Your 'truth' is that you think the current way one form of competition shooting is organised is enough justification to keep dangerous weapons around in the community.

Nice job on blaming "young black males". Not a description than applies in Sandy Hook, of course. Or in the other mass shootings we've seen recently But go ahead an blame the wrong group. It tells us a heck of a lot about you. All ugly, of course.

[greytdemocrat]

154. Exactly

I have 2 AR-15's and I won't join in on the countless threads because of the reason you gave, totally closed minds.

[Larrymoe Curlyshemp]

69. Excellent Username,

hack89!

[hack89]

135. Welcome to DU. nt

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

74. The Clinton era assault weapons ban was perfectly reasonable

So would be a closure of the gun show loophole.

Warren clearly stated the woman was able to successfully defend herself without a Bushmaster....so where is his extremism? He didn't say she should have been armed with only a slingshot and a frying pan, so clearly the "U WANTZ TO BANS ALL DEH GUNZZ" meme doesn't work here.

[hack89]

133. Guns like this were legal under the AWB

The present California AWB is stricter than the original AWB - this weapon is legal in California:



http://www.coltsmfg.com/Catalog/ColtRifles/ColtCaliforniaCompliantRifles.aspx


I would support such a law.

[overthehillvet]

103. I understand

Provable truth and fact should be hidden if they do not support your views.

Not much else to say, is there???

[BainsBane]

131. how is he an extremist

The overwhelming majority of the population, including Republicans and gun owners, supports gun control. Those who don't are the extremists. The Tea Party is the only political demographic to oppose various reforms, as outlined in the SEIU Daily Kos Poll.

[hack89]

136. Look what happened in Illinois

and tell me there is a tidal wave of gun control coming.

Do you consider this a mature and rational contribution the discussion?

Of course, those weapons are needed to PRUHTECT US FERM TH GUBNERNMENT AN OBAMERS NEW WER!D ORDER COMNIST HURLICOPTERS DERP DERP

[BainsBane]

139. not especially

but it expresses frustration with the pro-gun extremists. And that wasn't among the posts I saw or responded about.

Extremist is believing one's hobby is more important than human life, particularly the lives of children. Opposition to gun control is far outside of the mainstream of American opinion right now. I can't predict the future, but I can promise you I will do everything in my power to bring about gun control. To fail to do so would be to submit to evil, which I refuse to do.

This is the second time in the few hours I've seen a pro-gun person call someone an extremist whose views fit squarely within those of the vast majority of Americans. It seems to me you folks have no idea how far afield you've strayed. That your views prevail politically right now is a function of aligning yourself with powerful corporate interests, not because the rest of America agrees with you. The Tea Party is in your corner though--or you in theirs.
http://www.dailykos.com/polling/2012/12/18/US/148/DON5k

[hack89]

147. A black and white cartoonish view of gun owners is not mainstream

broad brush insults labeling gun owners as insensitive to the deaths of children or as militia types does nothing.

You will not pass gun control without the help of gun owners. How about you stop the insults and engage in actual conversation where you really listen to what we are saying?

[BainsBane]

152. no, I did not

Most gun owners favor reform. I said as much, and the poll I linked to shows as much. But those who refuse to consider any reform are another matter.

As for insults, I have never seen such a group of thin skinned people as gun proponents. What insult do you assert I made? If you are among those people who refuse any type of gun reform, by all means, consider yourself insulted (frankly, I could not come up with words sufficient to describe my contempt for such people.) If not, there is no reason you should be offended. It is you who called the other poster an extremist. I merely pointed out that pro-gun control views are extremely popular in the US right now and opposition to gun control exists on the extreme of public opinion. Those are facts.

[generalhh]

157. any reform or just your reforms?

Most Americans DO NOT support an assault weapons ban. FACT

Most Americans DO support some form of increased gun control. FACT

A very large percent of Americans support background checks for all gun sales. FACT

A large percent of Americans support preventing those on terrorist watch list from purchasing guns without additional checks. FACT

"Most gun owners favor reform. I said as much, and the poll I linked to shows as much. But those who refuse to consider any reform are another matter."

It seams by your posting you have a problem with those who dont agree with your version of gun control.

[BainsBane]

162. I provided a link to a poll

READ IT. Most Americans, including a majority of Republicans and gun owners do support an assault weapons ban. They support all of the measures that have been widely discussed in the mainstream media since Sandyhook. The only political demographic that holds a majority view against such measures is the Tea Party.

I did not note any particularly version of gun control, so there is no logical reason for you to draw the conclusion you did. I absolutely have a problem with those who refuse to consider any meaningful gun reform. In fact, they are my enemy. I can think of no one more contemptible. But thankfully they are a minority and limited to the most extreme elements of society.

[hack89]

164. I favor reform - I just don't go as far as you do.

how does that make me an extremist? Are you the standard by which reasonable gun control is determined?

My comments regarding insults were a general statement regarding extremist gun controllers. Are you truly going to say that gun owners are not exposed to constant insults and vilification here?

[BainsBane]

251. My heart bleeds

There are plenty of gun owners who don't make guns their primarily obsession in life and don't go around carrying the water for the gun lobby. If you promote right-wing views on a progressive discussion board, people aren't going to like it. If you find yourself aligned with the Tea Party on an issue as important as this, people are going to see you accordingly. This post is on point: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2126312

The views of the American public are a good gauge of what is reasonable. I can't keep track of how many times I've posted this link, yet none of you read it. http://www.dailykos.com/polling/2012/12/18/US/148/DON5k
Even the majority of gun owners and Republicans support bans on assault weapons, extended magazines, and universal background checks. Those are easy reforms that target criminal activity. I really don't care to hear how you need an assault riffle to get your rocks off or protect yourself from the ATF, or anything else. I care far more about human life than whatever it is that compels Some to stockpile WMD.

[hack89]

254. I support all three proposals you mention

I support the AWB - of course it is not retroactive so it does not actually impact me.

I support the high capacity mag ban - I can live with 10 rounds.

I support universal background checks - my state closed the guns show loop hole several years ago.

You just need to understand that none of that would have stopped Newtown. He would have simply used handguns like Cho did at Va Tech.

[kbworkman]

161. Really?

If showing respect for the grief of the families was uppermost the 24x7 coverage wouldn't have happened.

The ghouls were out spouting misinformation on most channels.

Owning a gun had nothing to do with it.

Guns are for defense. If you want to go in the offense use something that isn't as noisy or messy.

Also, please site you reference for the statement that they were shot with and "assault rifle". I have heard all sorts of reports on that. One even said that the "assault rifle" was found in his car.

I have heard nothing authoritative on that issue. Rifles, except where a bayonet is use, isn't very efficient up close.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

216. There were also false reports claiming that he wore a bullet-proof vest.

[Walk away]

62. They are just back at their "Hooray people are shooting each other" posts.

They have to try to squeeze in as many as they can between the mass shootings. Imagine if we posted every gun suicide in the country every day!

[muriel_volestrangler]

144. This is what is wrong with DU: you are defending 30 round clips and the Bushmaster

If DU has such extremists like yourself, seemingly unwilling to have anything to do with guns restricted further, what hope is there for the USA?

[hack89]

148. No - this is what is wrong with DU

Childish immature broad brush insults of gun owners.

Of course, those weapons are needed to PRUHTECT US FERM TH GUBNERNMENT AN OBAMERS NEW WER!D ORDER COMNIST HURLICOPTERS DERP DERP

There is plenty of hope for America - gun violence has fallen to historic levels over the past 30 years and continues to fall. You have never been safer and will be even safer next year.

[Skip Intro]

4. Well, your concern for those potential victims is touching.

Concern for human life is, after all, the driving force behind more stringent gun control, isn't it, rather than some cause-of-the-moment?

[Warren DeMontague]

12. Huh?

Im suggesting that this story is a perfect example of why no one "needs" a fucking bushmaster 223 for "self defense" or "hunting".

In fact, the asshoes who fetishize these things fully admit that part of their paranoid nutjob reality as to why they want them, is to "revolt aginst the government".

In other words, sedition.

[morningfog]

66. In before the feeble self alert!

[Capt. Obvious]

155. I like cjeekdgg

[wyldwolf]

5. Good point.

[alcibiades_mystery]

30. Whenever the gun nuts say that you're not helping your own cause, you're helping your own cause

They are, after all, our opponents. This is one of their little rhetorical stupidities: "Oh, you're not helping your own cause!"

Yeah, how the fuck would you know, gun nut?

[Warren DeMontague]

33. Yeah. And "don't bother, because there is no point, itll never get anywhere."

Then I guess you guys have nothing to worry about, huh...

So why the freak out?

[JI7]

58. or you need to know every single thing about every car

or else you can't support driving regulations.

[Coyote_Tan]

87. You don't need to know the gear ratios...

... But when you say the equivalent of "big scary metal thing with wheels" it's difficult to have meaningful discussion.

[Warren DeMontague]

102. I'm sure it's possible to write a ban that includes the AR-15 & high capacity magazines.

Even for gun illiterates who aren't sympathetic to the irresistible beauty of the big, hard, shiny precious

[Dr_Scholl]

124. That's actually an M4 carbine.

You can tell by the shorter barrel and 3 position safety switch. Very illegal to own.

Now this is an AR-15. Notice the slightly longer barrel.

[IMG][/IMG]

[rightsideout]

75. ROFL

I got to use that line. Copying it now. Can't stop laughing. Good one Warren!

[rightsideout]

86. I can't stop laughing at this. I just had to paste it into a FaceBook discussion about guns. ROFL.

"Of course, those weapons are needed to PRUHTECT US FERM TH GUBNERNMENT AN OBAMERS NEW WER!D ORDER COMNIST HURLICOPTERS DERP DERP"

[krispos42]

100. She emptied the gun.

Her gun was empty after dealing with a single intruder.


But, hey, I guess if she had bought a 7-shot revolver, or, god forbid, a semiauto handgun with a 15-round magazine she would just be some paranoid gun owner, right? Maybe a domestic terrorist of some sort?

[Warren DeMontague]

101. I think it's probably reasonable to assume she's got two hands.

How about we ban the Assault Weapons, the AR-15s (or whatever they're 'supposed' to be called) and the high capacity (30 rounds, right?) magazines, and see if there isn't some sudden uptick in people being unable to defend their homes because, I don't know, an entire rugby team tries to rob them all at once, or they're set upon by zombies, or something.

[wercal]

110. Not quite a rugby team....

But 8 was the size of a robbery/invasion group here in Topeka. They eventually murdered a woman....they were lying in wait (in bushes and even on the roof) for her and her partner to return from a birthday party. Prior to that, they went on a small reign of terror. I'm not sure why it makes one a paranoid nut to presume that criminals don't work solo.

[wercal]

107. Lucky for her he didn't have an accomplice.

[overthehillvet]

109. OK try this one

With all six rounds she did not manage to stop him in the house. He still went back outside and got into his car and drove off.
What would have happened if he had expended that energy by further attacking her. She was standing there with an empty revolver and this guy was not totally disabled.
She was lucky that she and her children were not injured or killed. He had a pry bar with him that he used to break into the house. A pry bar against an empty revolver??? Revolver does not win this match up.
Does she need an AR with a 30 round magazine?? It would have been better than the revolver but what she really needed was a short barreled 870 stoked with buckshot.

[uponit7771]

125. He could've brought a zombie crew with him, that would justify 1000 rounds of ammo!!

[bowens43]

3. Tonya Thomas shot her kids 18 times

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57438291-504083/florida-family-massacre-tonya-thomas-shot-her-kids-18-times-before-killing-herself-reports-say/

PORT ST. JOHN, Fla. - New reports reveal that Tonya Thomas, a Florida mother, shot her four children 18 times before killing herself.

33-year-old Tonya Thomas used a Taurus .38-caliber revolver to shoot and kill her children Joel Johnson, 12, Jazzlyn Johnson, 13, Jaxs Johnson, 15, and Pebbles Johnson, 17.


Are you glad that this mother was able to shoot her children 18 times? You should be if you're a gun advocate. This is what you help to bring about and this sort of thing occurs much more frequently then what you posted.

[Undismayed]

17. She couldn't have used anything else?

Get back to me when a gun shoots children of its own accord. Until then you can blame the perpetrator, not the tool.

[Warren DeMontague]

24. There sure seem to be a lot of tools worthy of blame these days.

Yes, a lot of tools.

[Ikonoklast]

25. Did the gun protect that other woman and her children by itself?

Same logic.

[Undismayed]

28. No tool will guarantee your safety. Well, except maybe some sort of robotic gun turret.

[Ikonoklast]

40. A firearm is not a tool, no matter how many times that false equivalency gets used.

When the armed forces of this nation are armed with ball-peen hammers, and those hammers are specifically mentioned in the Constitution, you might have a point.

[pipoman]

47. Since all tools are "ball-peen"(sic) hammers..

[Ikonoklast]

52. Use screwdriver if you want.

Misdirection noted, but ignored.

[pipoman]

57. Disregard for the actual meaning of words noted and pointed out..n/t

[Ed Suspicious]

91. She didn't use anything else, did she? n/t

[Undismayed]

96. Right, but in any situation where someone did use something else,

it wouldn't be made into a thread. I'm sure that anyone who is so inclined can find tons of information about crimes committed with blunt objects.

[sendero]

32. Well what do you suggest..

... that the stupid not be allowed to own guns? that would be fine with me.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

84. If you are going to ask that question....

....you should have the decency to state whether you are glad the woman in the OP was able to defend her and her children.

[neighbor]

117. I'm not sure what you're getting at...

...that the more guns that are owned by parents, the more they'll want to shoot their children?


I'm glad that this woman had the means to defend herself and her children.
I wouldn't deny that to anyone, it's not my position to tell a person that they should rely on someone else for their safety.

[Marengo]

275. Elzbieta Plackowska stabbed her son 100 times and another child 50

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/11/01/babysitter-charged-with-killing-kids-due-in-bond-court/#photo-1

I'd like to hear your ideas on how to prevent such a tragedy from occuring again.

[JaneyVee]

6. Moral of the story: Keep your guns at home.

[former-republican]

8. Or on you

[JaneyVee]

10. At home.

[Lizzie Poppet]

27. Nope, on me.

[JaneyVee]

60. Get pepper spray or a taser if you're going out.

[Warren DeMontague]

67. Out? OUT? It's SCARRRRY OUT THERE!!!!!! SCARY! IM SKEEEERED!

[former-republican]

7. Is she a terrorist

[Warren DeMontague]

15. No, she defended her home with a revolver.

Providing additional evidence that no one needs one of these fuckers for -cough- "self defense"

[former-republican]

19. It doesn't matter to me what kind of firearm she used

I'm glad that she saved her self and children.

[Warren DeMontague]

21. I am, too.

However, it matters to me what kind of weapon this guy used.



Im willing to bet that if he had needed to reload a .38 revolver after 6 shots, some of those 20 FIRST GRADE CHILDREN who were brutally shot to death with his ASSAULT WEAPON would STILL BE ALIVE.

[sleestak smile]

44. speedloader

[Lordquinton]

71. Because you can make any gun operate like a fully automatic rifle

with the right know how, so we shouldn't try at all.

[neighbor]

115. He carried three guns

In total, that would have been 30 rounds if he was limited to 10 rounds per-weapon.

I honestly don't think that it would have changed anything if he had three pistols or three molotov cocktails.
This young man was evidently driven by something, we just don't know what it was.

[Warren DeMontague]

119. Yet he killed those kids with the AR-15.

Nice try.

[neighbor]

249. That's right, he shot around 20 children with a rifle.

And Cho shot 30 older people with two pistols.
Whitman killed 16 with a bolt-action rifle.
McVeigh used a rental truck full of fertilizer.
Hennard used 2 pistols to kill 23 people.
Jiverly Wong used 2 pistols to kill 13 others.
Simmons used a pair of revolvers, a rain barrel and some hardware tools.

It could have been a lever-action rifle, it could have been a shotgun, it could have been pipe-bombs.


Why are you people fixated on the means?

I'd much rather like to know why he did it.

[Warren DeMontague]

258. "You people"? ...Um, Whoops.

Anywaaay, like I said, if it makes abso-fucking-lutely no difference about what type of gun is used, or if a bolt-action role is JUST AS EFFECTIVE as an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine, then why should anyone care if the AR 15s and the high capacity magazines are outlawed?

No difference, right? Why, a piece of rusty wire and a rolled up newspaper can be JUST EXACTLY AS DEADLY, no?

So then, who cares if you cant buy the assault weapons anymore?

Doesnt sound like much of a loss.

[RebelOne]

286. Kudos to that lady. I would have done the same. n/t

[former-republican]

20. Good thing there wasn't two of them, home invasions are normally two or more

The woman then shot him five times, but he survived, Chapman said. He said the woman ran out of bullets but threatened to shoot the intruder if he moved.

[Warren DeMontague]

22. Just think, if she'd been able to keep a shoulder fired missile in her attic.

I mean, instead of a burglar, it might have been a titanium alloy terminator trying to break in to her house. Oh no! what then?

Really, the sacrosanct 2nd amendment should allow personal ownership of shouder fired missiles. Right?

[former-republican]

23. It's hard for you to defend your previous post

I know , no big deal

[Warren DeMontague]

26. So your suggestion is that a bushmaster 223 is necessary to protect against home invasions

Maybe you should work on your aim.

[former-republican]

34. Have you ever had to fire a weapon under stress before to save a life or end one ?

Maybe they should hire you at the police academy as a trainer.

[Warren DeMontague]

39. Maybe they should hire mrs. Herman.

Because unlike these paranoid yosemite sam red dawn fuckers hiding from teh black helicopters in their paneled basements, she seems to be able to do just fine on 6 shots.

[former-republican]

42. I was asking you because you gave your expert opinion

on what firearms are needed .

Like I said , no big deal
I read a lot of dribble in gun threads .

[Warren DeMontague]

46. And I'm asking if people have zero fucking shame

that all they can think about is pruuuuhctuctin' their right to have one of these



in the immediate wake of this:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2134939



Why don't you bargle on about the subtle nuances of teh "need" for assault weapons to his mom.

[graham4anything]

127. Like Zimmerman did? when he coward style shot an innocent man to death just to watch him die?

[sleestak smile]

45. so when the life of your children and family is at stake, choose the least effective weapon?

that doesn't really make sense.
Why not use a pillow?

If you are going to use deadly force, then use the best weapon you can.

[Warren DeMontague]

50. Then why shouldn't people be allowed to own nuclear-tipped ICBMs?

I mean, why stop with TEH PRECIOUS?

[Undismayed]

31. The guys in this video needed one.

Technically it was a mini-14, but it also had a 30 round magazine and functioned similarly. Edit: This video only shows handguns, but one of the Korean store owners did in fact use a mini 14.

[JI7]

38. the LA Riots ? seriously ?

[Undismayed]

73. Protip: If you want someone to understand you,

Try posting at least a single complete sentence rather than several loosely connected words that cannot be construed to mean anything. I'm at a loss as to what you are trying to say. Please clarify.

[Ed Suspicious]

92. Can't figure out? Smartless much?

[RebelOne]

11. Update from our local Atlanta TV news station

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/woman-hiding-kids-shoots-intruder/nTm7s/

[librechik]

13. good thing this guy wasn't trying to alert the family that the house was on fire

He wasn't was he? Seems like a burglar would have grabbed the loot and left rather than trying so hard to locate the homeowners.

Whatever. Guns hurt people. I hope she was right in shooting the intruder and it wasn't a horrible mistake, as happens so often.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

83. If you read the article, clearly he wasn't being friendly

And if the house was on fire, wouldn't he just yell "FIRE!"?

Seems pretty obvious to me. But I guess prying a door open with a crowbar should give you a benefit of the doubt now.

[Brickbat]

14. Good for her.

[Orrex]

35. If only she'd been on a published list of registered gun owners...

Then the intruder might have said "to hell with that," and gone to the next house instead.

[Kaleva]

36. That woman would be alive today if she had a .223 Bushmaster with a 20-30 round magazine.

Oh wait! She is alive and well and she defended herself and her two children with a 6 shot .38 caliber revolver.

One sees numerous posts about articles where people have defended themselves, their families and their homes with a gun but it is extremely rare to see stories where the defender fired more then just a few rounds. I have yet to see a story about someone who was killed or injured because they lacked a high capacity magazine and thus didn't have enough ammo.

[Warren DeMontague]

51. Thank you.

I made the same point and incited several temper tantrums.

[Kaleva]

63. No evidence has ever been presented, as far as I know, that hi cap mags are needed for self defense

Now a few have said they wanted to be as well armed as the police or U.S. Army but talking about defending one's home against the 101st Airborne Division or even one's local police department is entirely different then talking about dealing with 1-2 home invaders.

[Warren DeMontague]

65. Yeah.

but how will the Wolverines hold off Red Dawn without high capacity mags?

[friendly_iconoclast]

77. *Do* alert the Department of Needs about your insight...

[Kaleva]

111. It is generally considered to be wise to do some research when deciding what weapons..

would be best suited for self/home defense. If someone could provide data that shows that high capacity magazines, or "standard" magazine if you prefer to call them that, have played a critical role in determining the outcome in self defense situations, I'd like to see it.

[Nye Bevan]

54. OK. So if we agree to allow that weapon for home defense, can we ban semiautomatics? (nt)

[morningfog]

55. Oh good! Gungeon posts in GD! All hail the sacred gun!

[Warren DeMontague]

64. ***

[LP2K12]

151. I posted this...

in the gungeon for keep it out of GD. Seems it made its way here anyway.

[Lizzie Poppet]

186. Why is this any less appropriate than the countless other gun posts in GD?

Personally, I wish the ban would be re-instituted, but this seems no less appropriate than all the other gun posts in GD.

[morningfog]

196. This is not big news, not a national story and has nothing to do with pending legislation.

It is less appropriate for all those reasons.

[samsingh]

56. i'm glad she was able to save herself and her family.

[jpak]

59. Proving once again - you don't need a semi-auto assault rifle with a 30 round clip

to defend your home.

yup

[treestar]

61. A rarity

And he didn't have a gun - at least it does not say so in the article.

Not a good reason not to have gun control. Just the rare case. And she might have been fine without the gun.

[eliters]

81. Yeah, because things like mass shootings are the norm.

[crmarshall]

68. angry much?

Would banning all AR 15's stop a shit head like the Newtown shooter from using one to shoot children? He is going to a school to shoot children. Why would the gun being illegal bother him at all? There are far too many of them already in circulation for the government to ever rid the country of them. So explain how in the real world, banning them or even confiscating them would stop this.

[Robb]

72. Sadly you were just banned as a troll, so you may never know.

Gun troll haz a sad.

[Coyotl]

94. Easy. There would not have been one in his home if the Rs had not eliminated the ban.

So, it is the fault of the republicans and anyone who supported ending the ban.

[uncommonCents]

70. I agree

Very sad that this intruder died, BUT, the woman and children are safe thanks to a loaded firearm. This is not a left or right wing question, it is common sense. The intruder is responsible for what happened to him. It's a good thing she didn't run out of ammo. She would do better with a handgun with more bullet capacity.

[SoCalNative]

79. Where does it say that the intruder died?

not in either article posted

[Warren Stupidity]

76. Something is wrong with this story.

Forget the gun angle. Why would a burglar robbing a house search all the rooms including the attic?

Just seems a little odd. Wouldn't the normal thing be to take the usual stuff, tvs, silverware, computers, and get the fuck out? Burglars are typically junkies looking for enough stuff for another fix, and that is all.

[sarisataka]

88. Perhaps his intent

was a little more than burglary...

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

89. Not all crooks are smart....

But on top of that, if he was a one man operation, he's going to search every room to grab the most valuable thing he can find. Why grab a laptop or a TV when it's possible someone has a safe filled with cash and jewelry in the attic?

[Warren Stupidity]

143. Because a safe is just about never in an attic?

I'm just saying that the story is a little off. It seems as if the "burglar" was hunting down the mom and her kids. That is odd behavior for a burglar.

[JoeyT]

118. Burglars generally are,

but he might have been a stalker that had been watching her or her kids for a while or something.

I dunno, there are some fucked up people.

[Warren Stupidity]

145. Right. And yet the linked story claims "burglar". That was my point.

[Coyote_Tan]

129. Less of a burglar and more of a home invader...

[Warren Stupidity]

137. Ok, but "home invader" is anyone who breaks into a home.

This person is described as a burglar, a person who has an intention to rob. The motive for hunting down the people in the house remains unclear. As I said, the "normal" burglar just wants to get it, get some stuff, get out, fence stuff, get high.

[generalhh]

166. if there is a 3 strike law and you already have 2

if there is a 3 strike law and you already have 2 maybe you don't want any wittiness

not every criminal follows the good house keeping guide to only steal. some may want to cover their tracks or possibly rape then kill. or if they are real sickos kill then rape

[peace13]

175. My friend got robbed several years ago.

The robbers quickly went through every room and the attic. Stacking things by the front door as they collected. She and her husband came home mid robbery and could tell where they had been in the house by the loot they planned on taking.

The robbers sped off through our little village and were pulled over for speeding. My friends called 911 about the robbery and the cop let the speeder go to get over to the robbery. When the cops got to the house they realized that they had just let the thieves go. It was totally Laurel and Hardy!

As the police had seen the drivers license of the guy, they knew right where to find him.

Long story short, these guys went through the entire house including trunks in less than an hour!

[Javaman]

231. My frist thought as well. nt

[Iris]

261. Also, the first thing she did was call her husband NOT 911. nt

[stevenleser]

80. 200 "in defense" gun deaths per year vs 30,000 total gun deaths per year. No thank you.

I'm sure folks like you will scream about each of the 200 to the highest rooftops. The 200 doesnt justify the 29,800

[hay rick]

85. +

[LAGC]

105. The vast majority of defensive gun uses involve no death.

Usually just brandishing is enough to diffuse the situation.

[stevenleser]

140. The stats are in on that too. People are 4-6 times more likely to use their gun

Last edited Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:13 AM - Edit history (1)

to intimidate or threaten non-criminals than they are to use them to thwart crime.

And there are a lot more criminal gun shootings that do not result in death too.

[TheKentuckian]

150. Most of those are suicides and with suicides at often higher rates in strong gun control countries

it is far from unreasonable to figure that those who are going to suicide do it regardless of means available.

That larger number seems critical to hold on to for some reason.

[realism101]

239. Your statistic doesn't take into account "in defense without a death".

There are many more of those.

[stevenleser]

240. Legally owned guns are 4-6 times more likely to be used to intimidate or threaten noncriminals

than they are to use them to thwart crime.

And there are a lot more criminal gun shootings that do not result in death too.

[FarCenter]

82. The .38 is just too weak to be really useful

The 1911 Colt Army in .45 caliber was developed because the .38 was proving unable to stop Moro tribesmen in the Phillipines during the insurrection following the Spanish American War.

She would have been much better off with a .40 caliber Glock and a magazine alternating between hollow points for stopping power and armor piercing in case the perp was wearing body armor.

[sarisataka]

90. It has done well for over a century

a .22 that you can shoot and hit is better than a .44 mag that you can't control.
AP- not really needed, criminals virtually never wear body armor.

[Ed Suspicious]

93. Not that I give a flying fuck, but wasn't a .38 a standard issue police weapon for a long time? n/t

[AnotherMcIntosh]

108. Yes, before PCP.

And long before bath salts.

[FarCenter]

212. Most police used .357 magnum service revolvers prior to adoption of semi-automatics.

.38 Specials would have been obsolete by the '50s and '60s.

A .38 Special did not penetrate car doors of the '30s and '40s, which was one reason that the .357 was developed.

[muriel_volestrangler]

185. "in case the perp was wearing body armor" More DU gun porn fantasies

He wasn't wearing armour. He wasn't, as far as we can tell, carrying a gun. His intent, as far as we can tell, was to burglarise the house, with no intent to harm anyone. Why introduce your fantasies about super-powerful intruders that you need super-powerful guns to defeat?

She was extremely well off in the real world. The man was immediately overpowered by her, pleaded with her, was was injured enough to be unable to flee. She hit him in the face, where there wouldn't have been any body armour. Your idea would have her killing him, unnecessarily.

[Warren DeMontague]

262. The perp could have been a car that transforms into a giant robot!

How dare you suggest people not be allowed sufficient firepower to defend themselves against burglary-minded decepticons!

[MFM008]

114. that is exactly why I have a gun

your very safe as long as you dont force your way into my place.

[jal777]

116. I bet this criminal won't want to break into another home again. Good shooting. Nt

[Prometheus Bound]

120. Shot 5 times in the face and neck and he's expected to survive?

And he was able to get down to his car?

He might be some sort of Terminator machine.

[graham4anything]

126. Why didn't she pick up a cell phone and call police?

and she must not be very good with her gun. which is scary, being that
What if the bullets ricocheted and killed her kids?

and what if it was someone playing a practical joke?

[Yo_Mama]

158. 911 was called

I guess it took them a good long while to get there, though.

She was good enough to hit him five shots out of six. Try this more informative article:
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/mother-of-two-surprises-burglar-with-five-gunshots/nTnGR/

When someone forces his way into your home with a crowbar, it is by definition not a "practical joke" but a crime.

[lynne]

163. The fact is that the police normally can't prevent an attack -

- as it's almost impossible for them to get to the scene on time. The police usually arrive after an incident, when it's too late to prevent whatever is about to happen.

Especially for people living outside of city limits, the hard truth is that you're on your own when you come face-to-face with someone wanting to do you harm. I glad this woman was able to protect herself and her family.

[Yo_Mama]

194. On Thursday night a S. Fulton woman was shot

Home invasion. She hid. They found her. Someone shot her. She is expected to live, though:
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/south-fulton-woman-shot-during-home-invasion/nTmkM/

It was a burglary.

I'm wondering about the sanity of the people on this thread who seem to feel that the woman overreacted? Either I'm nuts or they are - we don't live in the same mental universe.

[sarisataka]

200. There is a small minority

of poster whom I truly believe would prefer that this woman and her children had been neatly raped and murdered. It seems their logic is that until you are killed by the criminal you can't be sure of his intention. It is better in any case to be killed by an intruder than errant bullets.
To this crowd there are two kinds of DGUs. One if anyone sustains an injury in any fashion, the DGU does not count because the gun did not project a magic bubble to prevent all harm. The second is if the criminal has not actually killed you yet, you have over-reacted by shooting them and so the DGU does not count.

Luckily most people here live in a reality based world.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

264. Clearly she should have hid better

Now those nice men who entered her home probably just to give her some cookies and cake had to shoot her.

[ecstatic]

247. What are you saying?

She didn't confront this guy. She hid, called the police, and was willing to let him take whatever he wanted. But he came into her hiding spot, and her small children needed to be protected. If she waited to see what he'd do, she could have been killed and the guy could have done whatever he wanted to with her kids over her dead body. I don't have any sympathy for him.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

263. Ignore that poster

They have actually stated in the past that you have zero right to self defense in any form or fashion.

I'm serious.

[graham4anything]

272. and when she ran out of bullets, what about the six others with the one?

like the lady who was driving the other day and fumbled through her purse and shot herself

could have caused an accident killing all 8 occupants of the van directly on the side of her while her car might have swerved, including 7 kids who were in the van.

just no rhyme or reason.

the whole story makes no sense.
sounds like one of those scream and scream again movies.

and what if the house was on fire, and it was a fireman telling them the house was on fire.

this story seems very weird and beyond common sense.

Sounds like FACTS are missing.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

278. If the house was on fire, I assume someone would yell FIRE!

....and be DRESSED AS FIREMAN! IN A FIRE TRUCK WITH SIRENS BLAZING!

Holy christ, you people are bashing others for "What if?" scenarios....this man was NOT SUPPOSED TO BE IN THE HOUSE, yet you continue to say what if he was here for this or that what if....HE WASN'T!!! HE WAS THERE FOR NEFARIOUS REASONS, BE IT THIEVERY OR SOMETHING ELSE.

I get it, you will go out of your way to give everyone the benefit of the doubt....(except a woman with her kids scared as hell, of course)....because maybe this career criminal will cure cancer someday....or maybe your performance art has become old.

And folks, for anyone reading this....this guy would be condemning the lady if she hit him with a baseball bat.

[graham4anything]

279. she should have used a shoulder to air missle

and aimed it at the steps of the attic

therefore, anyone along with the perp would also have been taken care of, right

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

280. I'm sure you are glad she and her kids are safe

Really, I'm sure of that.

[sarisataka]

288. Back blast

you need a safety zone behind a missile launch to avoid killing people from the missile ignition.

Also a SAM will not lock on to a person, guidance system needs more heat.

I suppose you could use an AT-4CS

The problem of back blast has been recently solved with the AT4-CS (Confined Space) version, specially designed for urban warfare. This version uses a saltwater countermass in the rear of the launcher to absorb the back blast; the resulting spray captures and dramatically slows down the pressure wave, allowing troops to fire from enclosed areas. It should be noted that the AT4-CS version also reduced its muzzle velocity from the original 290 m/s to 220 m/s as part of its effort to be user safe in a confined space, making the AT4-CS version less effective.

but since it is only single shot I would go with the revolver

[Iris]

260. I live near where this happened and it was a big discussion on a neighborhood page

Finally someone pointed out that the first thing the woman did was call her HUSBAND. Then she moved the kids upstairs. If she dialed 911 it was after all that, but it still sounds suspicious. There may be more to this story.

[aandegoons]

130. OH lovely gun porn in GD

Hope ya didn't get any on ya.

[lynne]

138. Had to be horrifying for both her and her children -

- they tried to escape him and he followed and cornered them after breaking into their home. The guy has a history of arrests and most recently released from jail in August so there's no game-playing that he had any intent other than bad.

The end result here was the right one with the mother and her two children being unhurt. The criminal invading her home and threatening her family had it coming to him. Doesn't matter to me how he got it. Am glad she had a way to defend herself and her family.

[Puzzledtraveller]

156. I love it, the DU gun drama, it's fascinating

Let me come out with my prediction, nothing, absolutely nothing will be done regarding new legislation limiting 2A. Which is fine by me and I don't own a gun so I wonder how much longer until we find something else to fight each other over.

[Whovian]

159. Interesting that the perp wasn't armed.

[lynne]

165. I would consider a crowbar as being armed -

- and would hate to think what he could have done to her and those children with that crowbar had she not had the upper hand.

[Whovian]

167. As well as a spoon or a toothpick.

If he had entered the home with intentions of murder things would have been different.

[Lizzie Poppet]

184. Just because he entered without that intention...

...doesn't mean it wouldn't have formed once he realized there were people (witnesses) in the house. And unlike a spoon or a toothpick, a crowbar is a very effective weapon, especially in the hands of someone already larger and stronger than the person they're attacking. The threat presented by an armed intruder absolutely justifies the use of force..

[muriel_volestrangler]

183. Did he have the crowbar in the attic?

or just to force the door (which is, after all, what a crowbar is designed for - opening things). There's nothing in the reports that indicates he wanted to harm anyone. He is described as a burglar.

[lynne]

188. She knew he had access to a crowbar as that's how he entered the house -

- as to if he had it in the attic, the report doesn't say if he did or didn't. It doesn't matter as she already knew he had one available and she responded accordingly. A different article states that he was released from jail in August after serving time for Battery, establishing that he has a history of doing physical harm.

After having already done time in jail - and now finding three witnesses to his current crime - and knowing that his next sentence would be greater as he's a repeat offender - can it be guaranteed that he wouldn't have done harm to her or the children?

I'm glad she had a means in which to protect herself and her family and I have serious doubts as to if he'll be terrorizing anyone else anytime soon.

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/mother-of-two-surprises-burglar-with-five-gunshots/nTnGR/

[muriel_volestrangler]

192. it matters for whether your imagination is going too far

and similarly, if many other people's imagination is running away with them. Many Americans now have a default assumption that people break into their homes to do them harm. Very few people are actually so psychopathic that they have any intent to harm people they don't know ('battery' can mean all kinds of things, eg a punch in a fight). The guy was there to steal things. I think it's bad for Americans to sit there thinking "what could he have done to the children" when there's no indication he would have done anything.

[obamanut2012]

222. Why else does someone break into your hosue

If not to cause harm?! To do your laundry??? The act of home invading is a violent crime.

[muriel_volestrangler]

228. No, it's not. Theft is not violent.

Wow, yours is a mentality I cannot understand. Property is different from people. Stealing it, or breaking a door so they can steal property, is fundamentally different from harming people. We know he wasn't after people - he rang the doorbell repeatedly, and only then broke in. That is the action of someone looking for an empty house they can burgle.

I think the US really has got a fundamental attitude problem of regarding property as worth using violence, deadly if necessary, to defend. Theft is not 'causing harm'.

[obamanut2012]

232. Invading someone's home is violent

Mugging is also violent.

Breaking into a car and stealing a radio is theft. Shoplifting is theft.

It is a felony in NC to shoot someone for stealing property (ie your car, a bike, a lawnmower). It is not a felony to shoot someone, or club or hit or whatever, someone who invades your home. Nor should it be.

There is a world of difference, and I sincerely doubt it is a US attitude. Our so-called attitude is actually entrenched in English Common Law, which was, of course, started in your country.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

266. What about the idea of forcing your way into someone's house?

Is that a problem?

[noamnety]

217. I have to disagree with that.

Burglars normally would work quickly and want to get in and out. I can't imagine one stopping to explore the attic,of all places, unless he had reason to think a person was hiding there and he wanted to find them. I would presume intent to do serious harm at that point.

[muriel_volestrangler]

229. He had no reason to think there were people in the attic; many people hide valuables there

If you think you've got the time (he rang repeatedly and got no answer, so he thinks no-one's there), you might well check the whole house.

It's not the action of the woman I actually object to - when she doesn't know, and she's got her children to protect, you can't expect her to weigh things up in a split second. It's the number of DUers who are spreading fear with the "imagine what he might have done to her and the children" posts, when they have the chance to actually think it through. It's fearmongering, literally. People are posting here to try to get DUers afraid, without justification. And that's what has set up the fear and violence in the USA.

[overthehillvet]

267. Splitting hairs

He broke into her home with a metal bar.
She called 911, retreated, (as required by law in many states)
She did not know that he did or did not still have a metal bar, this is without argument a weapon, in his hands when he opened the door directly in front of her.
She fired the weapon and stopped him for long enough to get out of the house.
What she did was legal.
What she did was the right thing to do.
You can not control when a person will break into your home with a weapon but you can make sure you have enough gun to stop that person instantly every time.

I am very glad she and her children got out of this with no physical harm. I think he got what he deserved.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

281. Do you post in threads regarding rape....

....and condemn posters who say they live in fear of being on an elevator with a man alone at night?

[muriel_volestrangler]

282. I'd condemn posters who say women ought to be afraid of being alone in a lift with a man

Last edited Fri Jan 11, 2013, 11:47 AM - Edit history (1)

yes. Fear is the basis for the push to have more and more guns in the US.

Edit (days later): 'lift', not 'life'. That changed the message rather a lot. Sorry.

[obamanut2012]

221. He wasa home invader

Who violently broke into the dwelling. Of course he was intent on harming someone. He already had.

A full-grown man against a woman and small children will win every time mano a mano.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

177. Let's start a new thread every time a woman is killed by a domestic partner using a handgun

You WHY this story is news? It's the "dog bites man" principle. Women getting shot be abusive partners isn't news because it happens so damned often. But stories like this -- the exception to the rule -- make news because they're so rare.

[obamanut2012]

224. yup

[PeaceNikki]

277. Indeed. Thanks for that.

[HockeyMom]

181. Sounds fishy to me

First of all she only has ONE enterance to her house? She doesn't have ground floor windows? Let me get this straight. If her house was on fire and she couldn't get out the front door, she would take her kids up to the attic too?

Bad plan, in either case. Just another gun promotion story to me.

[Lurker Deluxe]

227. Look at the house

Perhaps when the guy started to break in her kids were upstairs? She should have just ran out the back door ... to hell with the kids?

Once upstairs maybe she should have jumped out the window, or thrown the kids at the pool.

WTF?? She hid, he searched for her ... he lost that battle, badly.

Good for her.

[sarisataka]

230. From the aerial picture

it looks like there would be three exits

Front door- where the bad guy is
Garage- would pass the front door, most homes have windows so bad guy would see where they were going
Back door- appears there is a relatively high fence. Unless there is a gate outside of view they are now cornered with nowhere to hide.

Going out a window is possible but she would leave at least one child unprotected either inside or out in the process of leaving.

She was correct to hide in a secure location. If it was 'just' a burglar, as so many are happy to excuse, he would have just grabbed some stuff and left. If he is searching every corner of the house it may be he is more than an ordinary non-violent burglar or looking for a sandwich.

[obamanut2012]

234. She was upstairs with her kids when he broke in

[obamanut2012]

233. She was in an upstairs bedroom when he tried to break in

911 was called, and she was on the phone with her husband when he attacked her. Was she supposed to jump onto the roof? Or, if she WAS on the first floor, try to flee with two very small kids?

What she did is textbook: barricade yourself, arm yourself with whatever you have, and call the police.

In a mano a mano fight with a healthy man, women and children are gonna be overpowered.

[HockeyMom]

250. By WHOSE standards?

The NRA's? I would find a way OUT of that very BIG house. I have crawled in a very narrow bathroom window myself, and if I can, my kids certainly can. It works both ways; inside and outside.

You people can only see one way, and that is defending with GUNS. This is just more gun propaganda. I don't buy it at all.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

265. She should have signed the deed to the house over to the burgler on the way out too

Damn her, what an awful, selfish woman she is!

[overthehillvet]

268. got to call BS on this one

She did exactly what she should have done. picture perfect reaction to a known armed threat.

You have no idea what you would have done, you were not there. I'd bet you have never given 10 seconds of thought to this situation before this thread.

This is not a left thing or a right thing. This is a thing about what all the professionals tell people to do in this situation. She did it perfectly. She kept her kids alive and safe.

[JanMichael]

189. OK, here's a nutty question:

Did you see photos of the house? Why did she retreat to the attic? Why didn't she grab the twins and walk out the other door and call the police from a neighbor's house?

[obamanut2012]

235. she and the kids were upstairs

[slackmaster]

190. The poor guy was probably just going to ask her where the bread was kept so he could make a sandwich

[Skip Intro]

236. This isn't a laughing matter...

but that was f'n funny.

[generalhh]

201. another home invasion in georgia where the woman ran and hid unarmed and was still shoot

FAIRBURN, Ga. (WSB-TV) — A relative of the woman who was shot several times after she ran and hid from home invaders said she is doing OK.

But Otis Burden is hurting and angry over how the burglars were heartless to shoot a defenseless woman.

“It just tears me up that they did this to her,” Burden said.

Burden said he is hurt over what he calls the senseless, heartless actions of home invaders who shot his niece multiple times after she ran and hid from them.

“Well, you can’t have heart when you’re doing something like (that) to somebody. You can’t have a heart, know what I’m saying? Why would you do that?” he said to Channel 2?s Tom Jones outside the home on Estonian Drive.

…Detectives said Burke ran and hid.

“But the perpetrators, multiple, located her and shot her,” Detective Melissa Parker with the Fulton County Police Department said.

[appleannie1]

204. And all she needed was a .38 revolver. I have chased off an intruder

by cocking an empty shotgun.

[tradecenter]

210. There's nothing like the sound of a 12 gauge being racked.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

226. Cocking a shotgun disuaded him? But we've been told that the only purpose for guns is to kill people

[appleannie1]

253. He probably thought that was my intention. He did not stick around long enough to

find out and dropped what he was trying to steal in the process.

[L0oniX]

225. There is no justification to own or use a gun for any reason!

[LanternWaste]

237. I'd do my best to advertise the warm and cuddly side of my sacred cow too...

I'd do my best to advertise the warm and cuddly side of my sacred cow too had it been quite instrumental in the deaths in twenty small children recently.

[Warren DeMontague]

244. Yeah, it seems the memo went out that 2 weeks is long enough to grit the teeth & stay quiet

Mffff! Mffffff! Mffff!

"I loves mah gun"

[reformedrethug]

238. You break into my home

And you will come down with a severe if not fatal case of lead poisoning of the .40 variety.
Simple as that...

[Iggo]

252. Please, Skinner, PLEASE get this crap outa GD and back to the Gungeon where it belongs.

[Warren DeMontague]

259. SECONDED!

[Glassunion]

255. I like a good self defense story as much as the next guy, but...

Can we stop it with the gun posts in GD? Both sides are stuck in a pissing contest where one side is pissing for distance and the other accuracy. There will be no winners in that contest, and the only thing that really happens is piss gets all over the place in GD.

[hay rick]

270. Unrec. The only reason to hawk this story is to counter Newtown.

I stopped in a McDonalds today and saw they were pushing this story on Fox News. Lie down with dogs, get fleas.

[marshall]

274. That's what debate is

You have to be prepared to counter. "Don't confuse me with facts" is not a good argument.

[Island Blue]

276. In other news -

my aunt was just telling me about two gun deaths in her (very small) home town that both happened within the past week or so. One was a 2 year old who found a gun in a nightstand and shot himself. The other was a father who was cleaning his gun and accidentally shot his 8 year old son dead. Yes, guns are swell.

[marshall]

289. That town needs some education

Stupid and ignorant people aren't safe with guns, just as drunks aren't safe behind the wheel of a car. There needs to be some kind of training facility opened in that town. Maybe the gun stores should be required to have classes.

[farminator3000]

290. pumping 6 rounds into an unarmed guy should be a crime- nothing to be proud of

there's nothing at all responsible or good about what she did.

what about tapping the window with the gun while the guy is still outside?

[Skip Intro]

291. You're kidding right?

The victim is at fault?

What color is the sky of the world where that makes sense?

Maybe she should have offered to bake the intruder some cookies?

Know what?

Don't want to get shot breaking into people's homes?

Don't break into people's homes.

[farminator3000]

299. no, i'm totally serious. so is shooting soneone who doesn't even have a gun. so is racism.

can you explain why the white lady is a hero and the black guy goes to jail?

a cop wouldn't shoot someone for waving a crowbar, why does this lady get to?

why couldn't she go out on the porch and fire a warning shot? shoot out his tires? wait 5 minutes for the cops?

she already had plenty of advantage, no reason to shoot him in the face repeatedly, once in the leg would've been the same...



In May, Head told The Associated Press that the case is a reminder of the potential pitfalls of self-defense arguments.

‘‘Just because someone hits you in the face doesn’t mean you pull a .45 and shoot him in the head,’’ he said. ‘‘It can be hard to prove it’s self-defense because the jury puts themselves in the same footing as anybody else.’’

The ‘‘stand your ground’’ law that advocates say should protect McNeil is similar to a law cited by authorities who initially declined to charge neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman in the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin, who was unarmed. Zimmerman, who is Hispanic, told police he shot Martin, who was black, in self-defense during a scuffle. The decision by police to not charge him sparked protests across the nation. Prosecutors ultimately charged him with second-degree murder; Zimmerman has pleaded not guilty.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2012/10/06/family-hopes-for-release-man-prison/QOjjAFClhIIXlCk3zCw9wO/story.html

***

But the evidence suggests that just because one Georgia mom was able to fend off an intruder using a .38-caliber handgun, that doesn't mean firearm ownership provides a higher level of safety in the home.
http://www.ibtimes.com/mom-shoots-intruder-should-we-relax-gun-control-laws-light-such-heroism-1007768

[musical_soul]

294. Me too.

I'd rather hear about an intruder being shot five times than a child being shot once.

[cecilfirefox]

298. Fine by me! nt

[kestrel91316]

301. THIS is what guns are good for. NOT parading around town showing off and intimidating people you

don't like or had some petty dispute with.

[brandonk]

302. Could have ended badly

for this woman and her two kids if she had not had that gun. When seconds count the police are only minutes away......

[Lydia Leftcoast]

304. I checked the original article: things that make you go hmm

First of all, it's from The Daily Mail, which is a British tabloid.

Second, it's about a Scary Black Man breaking into the Home of A Suburban White Woman.

Perfect for the gun nuts.

Are home invasions so routine in Georgia small towns and suburbs? Because I live in the largest city in my state, and the only home invasions I ever hear of are in neighborhoods that have a gang problem.