Woman uses 2 guns to shoot at would-be home invasion robber

[Nuclear Unicorn]

Woman uses 2 guns to shoot at would-be home invasion robber

...

The man who answered the door told the suspect at the door that he didn't know the person and tried to close the door, but the suspect forced his way in.

The suspect pointed a gun at the man's head and said "This is a robbery, give it up," according to the report.

A woman in a bedroom in the home heard the commotion and came out with a handgun, dove on the floor and started shooting at the suspect.

The suspect exchanged gunfire with the woman, who went back to the bedroom for another handgun and kept shooting at the suspect.

http://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/news/local/woman-uses-2-guns-shoot-would-be-home-invasion-rob/njpht/#sthash.fbALotCj.BUrbzC29.dpuf

"Only gunners feel like they need multiple guns."

"The only purpose for more than 6 rounds is mass murder."

"What are the odds of ever needing a gun?"

"You're safer without one in your home."

[machI]

1. Rude toter

I bet she bought her weapon at a gun show too.

[NaturalHigh]

2. She obviously keeps guns around...

to compensate for her low self esteem. Either that or she secretly wants to shoot up a mall.

All joking aside, I'm betting the perp realized pretty quickly that he had picked on the wrong household.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. "I'm betting the perp realized pretty quickly that he had picked on the wrong household."

It's sad to contemplate how many times he may have picked right household.

[NaturalHigh]

4. Yes it is.

[Politicalboi]

5. "dove on the floor and started shooting at the suspect."

Because that's how it's done in the movies. Wow, these gun nuts should't have guns period.

[blueridge3210]

6. "Dove on the floor and started shooting at the suspect."

In other words, moved to cover and then returned fire rather than standing still to present a stationary target. A lot of LEO's wouldn't have the presence of mind to move to cover; it's not part of the general training and under stress a person will respond as trained.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. "under stress a person will respond as trained."

I was thinking she is (prior) Army.

[blueridge3210]

9. Could be.

I wish our semi-annual requal included moving to cover; time constraints and other issues seem to prevent this.

[Politicalboi]

11. It worked so well she needed another gun

She could have shot her boyfriend, or someone walking outside, a cat, dog or child in home. I understand taking cover, but it seems she was randomly shooting. Why not hide in bedroom and catch him by surprise behind bedroom door, or approach it another way.

[blueridge3210]

12. She survived and stopped a forcible felony.

No innocent third parties were wounded or killed.

Therefore, it worked. Pretty simple, really.

[Politicalboi]

16. I understand

They were LUCKY. Lucky she didn't shoot her boyfriend. Lucky she didn't shoot a passerby. Her gun could have killed more people.

[GGJohn]

38. You have no idea whether she was lucky or a very good shot. eom.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

21. Get it straight for once

According to the pro-control graphic...
...it's not a DGU because the perp didn't die.

OTOH, when the perp dies, it's not a DGU...
...it's an unjustified SYG.

[blueridge3210]

23. Ah, sensei........

this one understands now. Thanks for the enlightenment....it's all so clear.....

Seriously, that does seem to fit the template for the pro-control side.

I wonder if someone here regards her as a "glib sociopath gunthusiast"?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

37. Make "kiai." Kiai! Give you power. Now, drive punch.

So is that GSG for short?
Who knows.

Miyagi say "Whole life have a balance."
So we what do I know? Maybe I'm unbalanced.
I'm probably just an adjective impaired ammosexual.

[blueridge3210]

40. Miyagi say "Whole life have a balance."

I don't suppose a twinkie in each hand is what he was referring to?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

41. maybe fortune cookie

[gejohnston]

26. statistically, cops are more likely to do that

especially NYPD.
adrenaline and stress does effect you. Does the article mention how many times the attacker was hit?
Do we know:
Revolver or semi auto? If latter, how many rounds? Make, model.
caliber?
type of ammo?
All of those are factors.
According to the article, he was hit several times. There is a chance she didn't miss at all. It really sounds like you are making assumptions based on little to no information on a subject you know nothing about.

Back to your point, if she didn't her and her boyfriend could be dead too. But then, that gives people like Bloomberg a statistic for political advantage and blood to dance in.

[NaturalHigh]

31. My thoughts exactly.

Most gun banners would rather I die at the hands of a criminal than protect myself with a firearm. My death would give them more ammunition (no pun intended) for their pro-ban agenda. If, on the other hand, I shoot a criminal, it's "another needles gun casualty." After all, why wouldn't I just call the police? They can protect me at all times.

[Straw Man]

60. Guns run out of ammo sometimes.

Remember that the next time you hear calls for magazine capacity limits.

She could have shot her boyfriend, or someone walking outside, a cat, dog or child in home.

But she didn't.

I understand taking cover, but it seems she was randomly shooting.

Please explain what led you to that supposition.

Why not hide in bedroom and catch him by surprise behind bedroom door, or approach it another way.

Because she had already been seen.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. I was thinking because of that and the fact she went to retrieve a second gun maybe she

is in the military or a veteran.

Wow, these gun nuts should't have guns period.

She prevailed. A violent felony was stopped as it was being commissioned. Why does that upset you so?

[NaturalHigh]

10. Apparently this "gun nut" did okay.

Last edited Sun Jan 18, 2015, 08:36 PM - Edit history (1)

A violent felony was prevented thanks to her courage, her quick thinking, and the fact that she had a firearm handy. Does it offend you that the good guy won here? Some people would rather see any outcome other than one involving firearms, even if the bad guy wins and the good guy ends up dead.

[Politicalboi]

13. Of course I'm glad the good guy won

But bullets can and do harm innocent people. How many of her shots hit the target? How close did her boyfriend come to being shot by her? It's not a game. When you shoot someone, you better have a good shot lined up. What's that saying Fire, Aim, Ready?

[NaturalHigh]

29. I don't know the answers to all of your questions...

but all things considered, I'm glad this woman had a firearm to defend her home. If she had been unarmed, she and her husband would likely have been further victimized. The bad guys always like it when the good guys don't have guns.

[machI]

17. Another news source has a different take

NEWS 104.5 WOKV Jacksonville

The victim’s wife reportedly heard the commotion from her bedroom and came out holding a handgun. The victim dropped to the floor and his wife started shooting, according to the report. The suspect shot back, at which point the wife retrieved another gun from her bedroom and kept shooting.

We’re told the suspect was shot multiple times.

Wow, the victim takes action to prevent being shot by a predatory criminal, and Politicalboi thinks it is funny.

[GGJohn]

24. Never been in a gun fight have you?

You dive onto the ground to present the smallest possible target, genius.

[napi21]

59. NO! She moved to cover. He wass shooting at her!

She's well trained. I wish EVERY gun owner was that good.

[Marengo]

67. You really haven't a clue, do you? N/T

[Electric Monk]

14. If they had only kept the door locked, nobody would have fired a shot, but that wouldn't be news. nt

Last edited Sun Jan 18, 2015, 08:29 PM - Edit history (1)

[blueridge3210]

18. Right.

Because no one ever kicks doors open in the process of committing a forcible felony. Ever.

[blueridge3210]

19. I suppose you also regard her as a

"Glib, sociopathic gun enthusiast"?

[branford]

22. Did you miss the part of the story where the suspect

reportedly pulled a gun and pointed it at the victim’s head, saying “this is a robbery, give it up.”

Are you actually claiming that armed home invaders never shoot anyone unless first fired upon? Should the wife just have hid in a bedroom, and hoped the violent invader didn't kill her husband and then come to get her?

I understand you opposition to firearms, but your comment defies common sense. Are you really so anti-gun that you cannot acknowledge any instances where they might have saved innocent lives?

[GGJohn]

25. Nice, blame the victims.

You don't disappoint.

[NaturalHigh]

28. No he doesn't.

Even if he had said "well guns suck, but at least it worked out in this situation" I could have seen some value in his post. Instead it's "why didn't they lock their doors?"

Why do the gun banners always blame the good guys?

[GGJohn]

30. I think that to admit that a gun in the house was a good thing

would be admitting that all their righteous proclaimations that a gun in the house is more dangerous was wrong.

[NaturalHigh]

32. No innocent bystanders were hit either.

That's a double loss for the pro-ban crowd.

Worked out well for the good guys, though, except this poor woman and her husband are undoubtedly traumatized by being forced to defend themselves against a criminal with deadly force.

[Electric Monk]

35. The logical fallacy in your post here is known as "biased sample".

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/biased-sample.html

[GGJohn]

36. Coming from you?

That's fucking hilarious.

Any more victims you want to blame?

[Electric Monk]

39. You obvously didn't read the link, but your choosing to remain ignorant doesn't surprise me. nt

[branford]

43. EM, why don't you address the points responding to your post?

You explicitly claim, "If they had only kept the door locked, nobody would have fired a shot."

What is the basis for this assertion? Are you claiming that armed home invaders never shoot anyone unless first fired upon? Any study or scholarly writing making such a allegation would be most interesting to read and discuss.

Similarly, are you proposing that the best survival strategy for the woman in the story would have been to hide in a locked bedroom, and just hope both the individual who was in the process of threatening her husband with robbery at gunpoint in her own home would not actually shoot, no less kill, her husband, and he then would definitely not come to get her? Would the locks on doors in within your home withstand a simple kick or gunfire? Mine certainly would not.

Lastly, are you willing to concede, at all, that firearms are sometimes lawfully employed to save the lives of innocent victims?

[Electric Monk]

45. Firearms are *sometimes* lawfully employed to save the lives of innocent victims, true.

They are more often used for other purposes, though, sometimes resulting in innocent people getting hurt or killed.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

50. Is it, then, your position that if a thing brings more harm than good it should be banned?

[Electric Monk]

53. regulated

Firearms. We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements—like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole—so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.

This should be familiar to you, I hope? It's the party platform.

[gejohnston]

56. we have reasonable regulation

Since the 1960s.

[branford]

58. The issue is the level of regulation and restriction.

Guns are hardly unregulated. We have thousands of pages of federal, state and local statutes and other regulations concerning firearms, as well as an entire federal law enforcement agency who's primarily dedicated to regulating guns, the BATFE. Laws like the NFA already make ownership of wide swaths of firearms such as fully automatic or short-barreled weapons prohibitively difficult.

Additionally, I've seen virtually no one here advocating the elimination of any major firearms restrictions, such as prohibitions on ownership by felons or individuals adjudicated as a danger to themselves or others.

Universal background checks also enjoy significant support. If supporters of the law would simply resist the urge to draft such proposed laws as veritable registration lists, and stop attaching them to far less popular gun control legislation like magazine limits, UBC's would probably already be a reality.

The greatest difficulty in passing the platform's restrictions, other than the obvious lack of popular and political support, is that there's no evidence that these measures, short of anything close to an unconstitutional ban, would make any appreciable difference in gun crime. This is not the position of the NRA, but rather the Obama DOJ as recently as January 2013.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/1-kispbj31jpD1LvnFSDevryH2RmVvoLw1slOBZTe-suuy96Qq69nF9BhTmcw/edit

[friendly_iconoclast]

85. Ahhh, but we don't want *everything* the gun-averse want

So, (to more than a few of them, anyway) we want nothing at all.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

61. Except controllers are duplicitous at best.

You say "regulated" but you'll push nuisance regulations until you have an effective ban. There is no limit where you would say, "Sorry, but that goes too far."

[branford]

55. Well, that concession is a amicable start.

No one is here is stating that firearms are never misused, sometimes resulting in the injury or death of innocents. However, the percentage of people who lawfully own guns under the current system (e.g., not a felon or adjudicated mentally ill, legal purchase, etc.) who are actually responsible for the unjustified (e.g., not self-defense, etc.) injury or death of another person is astonishingly small.

Moreover, those who lawfully own firearms thankfully never need to fire them in defense of any life. Sometimes the presence of a firearms dissuades an assailant without firing a single shot. The other primary purposes those hundreds of millions of guns are used for, are certainly not crime, but rather harmless sport or legal hunting. Among those killed with a firearm, both illegal and legal, about half are suicides, and as Japan proves, there's no evidence that the suicide rate would demonstrably decline with a firearm ban, no less more moderate restriction.

So, let's get back to the original story in the OP and my inquiries.

Based on the facts we know, do you have reason to object to the couple's ownership of their firearms? Do you object to how they were used to defend the husband or wife? Could you offer any statistical guarantees that if the wife hid behind a locked door in the house, as you proposed earlier, that the husband would not have been shot, and the wife would not subsequently be in any danger?

If you concede that firearms can and are used properly at times, that's a starting point for compromise about appropriate levels of gun control that would lower gun crime while still protecting the right of innocents to use firearms for self-defense, sport, hunting or any other relatively peaceful purpose.

I'll start. I personally would support universal background checks, so long as comparable prohibitions against registration lists are in place similar to the NICS system. In fact, I don't see why the NICS could not be available to private sellers. I would also support both classroom and practical training and saefty requirements for most gun ownership, as well as more standardized licensing to carry weapons in public, so long as it was under a "shall issue" regime. Additionally, I'm no fan of open carry as it unnecessarily creates creates confusion concerning the intentions of the carrier among the public. If reasonable exceptions such as permitting the carrying of hunting rifles and shotguns for hunting were in place, and licenses for concealed carry were available as of right, I would support the prohibition of open carry entirely.

[samsingh]

82. i'm glad she was able to defend herself and her family

[NaturalHigh]

27. Yeah, if people will just lock their doors...

they will never have to worry about anything. Life will be all sunshine and show tunes.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

33. The criminal came to the door asking for a third party as part of a ruse.

Apparently you not only demand people be disarmed but that they must lock themselves in their own homes like prisoners and not answer the door to strangers. What next? Demand people cross the streets when they see anyone who might be questionable?

I don't know why you are so angry with decent people.

[ileus]

44. Exactly, no one has ever had their home forcibly broken in to.

[Electric Monk]

46. If the perp saw cameras, an alarm system, and re-inforced doors and locks

don't you think it's more likely they'd just move along and find an easier target instead of trying to kick a door in?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

47. "don't you think it's more likely they'd just move along and find an easier target"

And then you'd be victim blaming that house.

Damned nice of you to offer to buy them all that stuff, by the way.

However, that video from Detroit I told you about in another thread. It's video from the homeowner's security camera -- the sort of camera you endorse. It shows 4 criminals trying to kick-in the woman's reinforced door -- the sort of reinforced doors you endorse.

The criminals did not disperse until the woman cut loose with an AR-15 -- the sort of AR-15 I endorse.

[gejohnston]

48. maybe they live in a rental

or condo
or even have an asshole HOA (what HOA isn't?) that doesn't allow any such thing? Ultimately, you are going in the "she shouldn't have been wearing that dress" territory.
What it sounds like you are saying that it is OK for your drug connection to have his gun, the cops you like have their guns, but peaceful nonLEOs should not be able to own guns based on a YT video and defending yourself should be a crime.

[Electric Monk]

52. Sigh, no, that is not what I'm saying. It's not black and white.Defending yourself should be allowed

Obsessing about guns is a mental illness, imho. I'm going to watch a few episodes of Big Bang Theory (which, if you're unfamiliar, is not about guns) off my pvr soon, so have a nice night.

[gejohnston]

54. I love BBT

My favorite episodes were Sheldon dressed as the Doppler Effect for Halloween and when Penny and Leonard went to a pistol range.

[840high]

69. Groan. How naive.

[friendly_iconoclast]

88. "She'd have done just as well with a sound-track of gunfire, with less danger to others"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024527951#post5

[840high]

89. Unbelievable.

[Electric Monk]

90. In that particular situation what I said is the truth, even though you hate to admit it. nt

[Straw Man]

91. Truth?

In what alternate universe do armed home invaders retreat at the sound of gunfire when no gun is visible, there is no shockwave from the muzzle blast, and there is no visible bullet damage? The deception would be pathetically obvious.

[Starboard Tack]

15. If you live in a country where guns are everywhere, like the US

and you live in gun infested areas of the US, then it makes sense to keep one in the home for such occasions. My personal choice is not to live in the US and if I have to, then to live in an area where the gun culture does not dominate. The times when I did live in gun happy areas, I kept a 12 gauge handy. When in Rome, do as the Romans.

Which, of course, is why I prefer to live in places like Rome. Each to his own.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

34. Yeah. If only we could be more like Mexico.

[Starboard Tack]

42. Indeed.

[ileus]

20. This is why we fight for fair access and personal civil rights.

This is also one of the reasons I now use a CZ p-09 as my bedside firearm. 19+1 of 9mm....


It replaced my 8+1 p220.

[BrotherIvan]

49. I wonder how the intruder got his gun?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

51. Probably the same way he buys illegal drugs.

[BrotherIvan]

57. Or maybe he stole it from someone's house because it wasn't secured

A gun, like any other product, has an origin. In this case, a gun manufacturer sold it to a dealer who sold it to someone (legally, of course), and somehow, someway it got into the hands of this "criminal."

[Nuclear Unicorn]

62. And?

4300 kids die from under-aged drinking each year. Presumably all that alcohol, like any other product, has an origin. In this case, a alcohol manufacturer sold it to a dealer who sold it to someone (legally, of course), and somehow, someway it got into the hands of the under-aged drinkers.

[Fred Sanders]

63. The Myth of Defensive Gun Ownership (Politico)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172159285


"What do these and so many other cases have in common? They are the byproduct of a tragic myth: that millions of gun owners successfully use their firearms to defend themselves and their families from criminals. Despite having nearly no academic support in public health literature, this myth is the single largest motivation behind gun ownership. It traces its origin to a two-decade-old series of surveys that, despite being thoroughly repudiated at the time, persists in influencing personal safety decisions and public policy throughout the United States."

[Nuclear Unicorn]

64. Your paid hack has already been debunked as the sham he is.

And the OP is not some statistical abstraction by your hack; it's real people really defending themselves.

[Fred Sanders]

65. Scientific studies not your thing? One incident is all you got? Not even a very good one.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

66. Scientific studies are my thing. That article isn't about a scientific study

it's about a paid hack, as proven by gejohnson.

[sarisataka]

68. And I'm sure you accept the 40% number

of guns bought through the "gun show loophole..." Do you know the source of that number?

It comes from a 1994 survey of 251 people who acquired a gun in the previous two years. 58.8% bought them over the counter at a store. The remaining 40.2% had the following origins- Gun show 3.9% (no that is not a typo), Mail (legal only to FFLs) 2.8%, family member 17.3%, Friend 12.3%, other 3.8%.
So in actuality the "gun show loophole" number is magnified by 10 by including many transfers which likely were done with a background check.

Also it is a sample size ~1/20th the size of Kleck's small survey.
http://www.policefoundation.org/sites/pftest1.drupalgardens.com/files/Cook%20et%20al.%20%281996%29%20-%20Guns%20in%20America.pdf

Bonus info- this report that is the source of that 40% number also covers DGUs. Like the recent CDC report it dismisses both the 2.5 million number as inflated but also notes flaws with the NCVS 108,000 as under counting DGUs by only counting those who report being crime victims and then not including all crime categories reported (specifically some property crime likely to bring a victim into contact with a criminal). This reports "conservative count for our most stringent criteria" is 648,000.

[Fred Sanders]

70. Devastating article by Politico , isn't it? I understand your pain.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

71. Let's talk about the pain you feel at the thought of people defending themselves.

[GGJohn]

72. Devasting?

The only devasting thing here is that you still believe that crap despite it being debunked over and over and over.

[sarisataka]

73. Devastating

A couple anti-gun bloggers rehashing old claims that didn't withstand their own standard of scrutiny= devastating? ok

I give that article all of the comment it deserves-

[hack89]

74. CDC: "Guns are used for self-defense often and effectively"

Earlier this year, President Obama ordered the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to assess the existing research on gun violence and recommend future studies. That report, prepared by the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council, is now complete. Its findings won’t entirely please the Obama administration or the NRA, but all of us should consider them. Here’s a list of the 10 most salient or surprising takeaways.

7. Guns are used for self-defense often and effectively. “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” says the report. The three million figure is probably high, “based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys.” But a much lower estimate of 108,000 also seems fishy, “because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.” Furthermore, “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/06

[Fred Sanders]

75. The studies suck, that is the point of the whole article you folks are apoplectic about.

Painful, huh? I know how important those ancient "studies" are to the whole gun defence thingy myth, how else can you justify the arsenals hoarderd in the basements all through Gunnerland waiting for an attacker....any time now....any time....then the criminal gets it!

[hack89]

76. Controllers have been bitching that the NRA has been blocking the CDC from studying guns.

Now that you got your wish shouldn't you be paying attention to what they say?

[Fred Sanders]

77. The NRA is your friend, no friend of any liberal I know.

[hack89]

78. What does that have to do with my post?

The NRA was blocking the CDC from studying guns. The CDC now has the power to studying guns despite what the NRA wants. Shouldn't you be happy that happened? Why are you now ignoring the CDC? Didn't get the answer you expected?

[Fred Sanders]

79. Republicans defunded/blocked it again, try to keep up.

"But today the CDC still avoids gun-violence research, demonstrating what many see as the depth of its fear about returning to one of the country’s most divisive debates. The agency recently was asked by The Washington Post why it was still sitting on the sidelines of firearms studies. It declined to make an official available for an interview but responded with a statement noting it had commissioned an agenda of possible research goals but still lacked the dedicated funding to pursue it."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/14/why-the-cdc-still-isnt-researching-gun-violence-despite-the-ban-being-lifted-two-years-ago/

[hack89]

80. Yet they did do a study in 2013 - why are you ignoring it? nt

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

84. A new take on an old saying

One refusal to answer, maybe a mistake;
...two refusals to answer, shame on them;
...three refusals to answer, shame on me.

How's your head feeling?

[branford]

81. Don't believe the myth that the government does not study gun violence, it's simply untrue.

The funding for the CDC was originally cut because they were engaging in gun control advocacy, rather than scholarly research. The CDC issue hardly stopped actual research concerning all aspects of firearms throughout the government and private sectors.

If you want to cite government research, how about studies from National Institute of Justice, at the U.S. Department Of Justice, as recently as January 2013.

All the NIJ does is study and report on justice and related matters. They are generally nonpartisan number crunchers and academics, who if anything tend to lean liberal. I should know, I worked there prior to law school (my research was alternatives to incarceration and disparities in arrest and sentencing of minorities).

The memo does not exactly support most of the positions and proposed legislation from gun control advocates.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/1-kispbj31jpD1LvnFSDevryH2RmVvoLw1slOBZTe-suuy96Qq69nF9BhTmcw/edit

[friendly_iconoclast]

86. Sadly, your post is as accurate as most of your others. From 2013:

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=R1

PRIORITIES FOR RESEARCH TO REDUCE THE THREAT OF FIREARM-RELATED
VIOLENCE

Committee on Priorities for a Public Health Research Agenda to Reduce
the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence

Executive Office
Institute of Medicine

Committee on Law and Justice
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education

Alan I. Leshner, Bruce M. Altevogt, Arlene F. Lee, Margaret A. McCoy,
and Patrick W. Kelley, Editors

INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE AND
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

(page 2, emphasis added)

NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.

This project was supported by awards between the National Academy of Sciences and both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (#200-2011-38807) and the CDC Foundation with the Foundation’s support originating from The Annie E. Casey Foundation, The California Endowment, The California Wellness Foundation, The Joyce Foundation, Kaiser Permanente, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and one anonymous donor. The views presented in this publication are those of the editors and attributing authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the organizations or agencies that provided support for this project

[samsingh]

83. i glad she and her family survived the invasion

[friendly_iconoclast]

87. The gun-averse have a visceral hatred towards those who employ armed self-defense:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172137873

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024527951#post5

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117263352

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x460088

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x196856#196923

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=128303

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=453338&mesg_id=454170

[ileus]

92. 2 guns = twice as rude to her house guest. rudetoterette.