80-year-old woman shoots and kills young intruder after he stabs her husband

[TeddyR]

A man from Gold Bar, Wash. — a town of about 2,000 — broke into the woman’s home around 8:30 p.m. Thursday while she was enjoying an evening with her husband, 75, and son, 45. According to a Komo News report, police said the man broke in through the back door. After hearing a noise, the woman walked into the back room, where the 25-year-old intruder stood, wielding a large knife.

Her husband was on the ground.

The intruder had stabbed her husband in the abdomen, felling but not killing him. Before calling 911, the woman took matters into her own hands, according to the Snohomish County Sheriff’s Office. She snuck in the back bedroom, presumably unnoticed, where she grabbed a gun she hides there.

She returned to the main room, took aim and fired several shots into the intruder, killing him.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/04/29/80-year-woman-shoots-and-kills-young-intruder-after-he-stabs-her-husband/

[Indydem]

1. Good for her!

There are some here that would have them all die, powerless and afraid, to satisfy their anti-gun madness.

[Perseus]

2. Ok Wayne LaPierre, one in 1,000 success story, so make the most of it

Add to that the story of the 2-year-old who killed his mother this week, and the 3-year-old who also shot his mother (gun lover mother) in the back, but luckily did not kill her, etc. etc.

What do you think the outcome would have been if the intruder had had a gun and not a knife? Do you really believe the outcome would have been the same?

The fact that people like you seem to miss constantly is that very few people are against owning guns, what most people are asking for is more control so that the bad guys don't get them, maybe one of these days you and LaPierre will get this fact, although I doubt LaPierre will because his only interest is the sale of guns while he is out with bodyguards.

[TeddyR]

4. I think you'll find that most people that post in this group

Also want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. The question is how you go about that. I'm not opposed to additional gun control provisions and training for those who own guns, but I am opposed to any sort of ban. As always, the Devil is in the details.

[1monster]

5. Ditto this:

The fact that people like you seem to miss constantly is that very few people are against owning guns, what most people are asking for is more control so that the bad guys don't get them,

I'm not a gun owner and probably never will be... I'm too aware that I am the kind who would probably hesitate to fire it and would probably have it wrested from my hand and used against me.

But my husband is a gun owner and as long as they are securely locked away, I can live with that.

[sarisataka]

8. "very few people are against owning guns"

But more than a few have this view:

Like replace the 2A with a ban and confiscate amendment and mandatory life sentences for possession?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=184276
While a life sentence for a non-violent crime may seem a bit draconian, it is a step up from summary execution. (another idea that has been proposed here by people claiming to be against gun violence)

[benEzra]

13. Then why are their top legislative priorities...

"The fact that people like you seem to miss constantly is that very few people are against owning guns, what most people are asking for is more control so that the bad guys don't get them"

Then why are the following the top legislative priorities of the gun control lobby?

(1) Making it a felony for *me* (squeaky clean record, 30 years' shooting experience, licensed, trained) to buy a civilian rifle with a handgrip that sticks out?

(2) Making it a felony for *me* to buy or possess regular capacity magazines?

(3) Revoking *my* concealed carry license, or rendering it moot via expansion of no-carry zones?

I'll believe the gun control lobby is primarily concerned about criminal violence when they stop targeting the lawful and responsible. And I'll believe they're not interested in banning guns and magazines when they stop trying to outlaw the most popular civilian guns and magazines.

[beevul]

19. You took the words right out of my mouth, Ben.

I'll believe the gun control lobby is primarily concerned about criminal violence when they stop targeting the lawful and responsible.

And I'll just bet you and I are nowhere near alone in that.

[friendly_iconoclast]

30. "And I'll just bet you and I are nowhere near alone in that." You certainly aren't!

[Mugu]

32. Hear, hear!!! n/t

[Straw Man]

14. So is it your contention ...

Ok Wayne LaPierre, one in 1,000 success story, so make the most of it

Add to that the story of the 2-year-old who killed his mother this week, and the 3-year-old who also shot his mother (gun lover mother) in the back, but luckily did not kill her, etc. etc.

... that gun accidents outnumber defensive gun uses by a factor of 1,000 to one? I'd sure like to know where you got your data.

[Duckhunter935]

51. Nice and typical

Start with the insults. Penis jokes next?

[shenmue]

6. I'm fine with self-defense. You're lying.

[sarisataka]

9. You speak for yourself

Many posters come here with the advice 'just be a victim and hope for the best'

Some examples here http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172189869

[MynameisBlarney]

7. Fucking bullshit.

And you know it.

[sarisataka]

15. No it's true

We recently had a poster express their opinion on "allowing" elderly people to use firearms in self-defense

So the physically strong are supposed to put our LIVES on the line for the
elderly and infirm?

Later in thread:

They have a right to self defense, but they are putting me in harm's way by giving them guns.

Still later:

So you're telling grandma that she could prevail in a knife fight against the 20-something meth-head who has just broken into her home?

.
***
Unless grandma is disabled, yes, she could.

Read it all here- http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=188977

[ileus]

3. This si why we must always stay progressive on the 2A.

[louis-t]

10. Hey, that's one, for April!

USA!USA! Pay no attention to the hundreds killed this month by accident, neglect, stupidity, "I was cleaning my gun and it went off", "I didn't know it was loaded", blah, blah.....

By the way, good for her, though a baseball bat would have worked just as well.

[sarisataka]

16. What would you say

if I present an anti-gun source that says April will have over 4500 defensive gun use incidents?

[louis-t]

22. Ha! How many of them were guys going into a bar

with a gun tucked in their belt? How many were guys hearing a noise at night and running into the street waving their penis, uh piece? How many were assholes with guns rolling around under the seat of their car? There is no way you are going to "prove" that there were 4500 legitimate, "guy was trying to rob me and I shot him", "guy broke into my house and I shot him", "guy was robbing a store and I shot him", "guy pulled a gun on me and I got the drop on him and shot him", honest-to-goodness, real-life incidents of provable defensive gun uses in the entire country, Canada, the U.K. AND the rest of the EU in the month of April. And that includes the ones where "didn't even have to fire a shot" is included in the claim. And I don't care how anti-gun the source is. Even if this were provable, it's still nowhere near the number of "2 million times a year" your buds at the NRA claim is true. Present away. Keep living in that fantasy world.

[sarisataka]

25. Well since you have an open mind,

The Violence Policy Center, headed by Josh Sugarmann,

To end the crisis {of gun violence}, we have to regulate -or, in the case of handguns and assault weapons, completely ban -the product. We are far past the {point} where registration, licensing, safety training, background checks, or waiting periods will have much effect on firearms violence.
Read more at: http://www.azquotes.com/quote/806595

released the report Firearm Justifiable Homicides and Non-Fatal Self-Defense Gun Use, http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable16.pdf

In the report they acknowledge 163,600 DGUs for the years 2012-2014. Simple math breaks that down to 54,433 per year, 4544 per month and 149 per day.

Now you can accept these numbers from a group calling for extensive bans or you can accept any of several other studies, all of which are higher. (I have no "buds" at the NRA nor have I claimed the 2 million number is accurate) Alternately you can refuse to accept any and all data from any and all sources. Intellectually that puts you in the same room as climate change deniers and biblical fundamentalists.

In the real world we accept things that are factual, even when we do not like what the fact is. In a fantasy world you deny everything which does not fit into the arbitrary view you determine exists regardless of evidence to the contrary.

I know what world I am in.

[louis-t]

42. So, you must believe that the "liberal media"

just doesn't report these things because they are just so biased. 4,500 defensive gun uses a month that just somehow don't make it into news reports? We hear of 1 about every 3 months? The other 13,000 just slide under the radar? Fuck you people.

If there truly were 4,500 such cases per month, hundreds of thousands in just the last few years, nearly every person in the nation would know someone who had "defended" themselves with a gun. I know of no one. Not one. Not even someone who has told a story that I suspect was not entirely true. I know a lot of gun owners and I've been around for 60 years. I do, however, know of many people who have been killed, shot, shot at, nearly shot, or merely threatened with guns by people who should never have been allowed to have a gun, or people who killed or nearly killed simply because a gun was available and handy.

I start with an incident when I was about 5. My Mom told my uncle (my father's brother) that he could come by and crash on the couch after work on the night shift if he was too tired to drive all the way back home to Detroit. She forgot she told him that, forgot to tell my father, then woke up in the middle of the night and nudged my father. "There's someone in the house." My father grabbed his shotgun and almost shot his own brother. I will never forget the sounds of that night. Fuck you people.

Then there was a kid I knew in junior high school who was murdered by his mother because she was going through a divorce and didn't want the kids going with the father. She shot and killed her kids and then herself. Too bad the kid didn't have a gun, he could have shot his mother in self defense, then lived with THAT the rest of his life. Fuck you people.

I remember a kid in college who came in with a bandage on his cheek. I did not know him well. Apparently, his buddy was fooling around with a handgun and it discharged. The "I didn't know it was loaded" scenario. He was lucky.

Then there was my friend Chris, who shot himself in a moment of despair over a woman. Permanent solution to a temporary problem. Maybe he would have found another way if he didn't love guns and didn't have them around all the time. But maybe if it wasn't so convenient, he would not have killed himself.
Fuck you people.

So, you accept things that you think are "factual" because you want to believe them, not necessarily because they make sense, are logical or physically possible. You are willing to believe some "study" because it suits your needs. I often wonder what the motivation is behind these "studies". How are the questions worded? How do they pick the participants? How many of the "I perteck-ed myself with a gun" people are just bragging to validate their ownership of a weapon?

[sarisataka]

48. You take anecdote

As data yet reject numbers derived from government agencies (presumably neutral). Which of us is accepting and denying "facts" based on whether they like them.

Note I am replying without saying fuck you in return. Some people are able to have civil debates on this topic. Those who cannot are almost always pro-control.

[louis-t]

43. By the way, I just read the report you included.

The first page of the report verifies what I said about the NRA claims:

"Pro-gun advocates – from individual gun owners to organizations like the National Rifle Association – frequently claim that guns are used up to 2.5 million times each year in self-defense in the United States."

"Much discussion about the protective benefits of guns has focused on the incidence of self-defense gun use. Proponents of such putative benefits often
claim that 2.5 million Americans use guns in self-defense against criminal attackers each year. This estimate is not plausible and has been nominated as
the most outrageous number mentioned in a policy discussion by an elected official."

And in the conclusion:
"And contrary to the common stereotype promulgated by the gun lobby, those killed in justifiable homicide incidents don’t always fit the expected profile of an attack by a stranger: in 27.0 percent of the justifiable homicides that occurred in 2013 the persons shot and killed were known to the shooter."
And:
"When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is most
striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, how rarely firearms are used in self-defense."
Nice cherry-picking, though.

[sarisataka]

49. Fast read

Fairy tales usually are.

If you did indeed read the entire report, you read the section that gives the total numbers of DGUs. You can read the footnote that states the VPC took this data fron the National Crime Victimization Survey.

The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) series, previously called the National Crime Survey (NCS), has been collecting data on personal and household victimization since 1973. An ongoing survey of a nationally representative sample of residential addresses, the NCVS is the primary source of information on the characteristics of criminal victimization and on the number and types of crimes not reported to law enforcement authorities. It provides the largest national forum for victims to describe the impact of crime and characteristics of violent offenders. Twice each year, data are obtained from a nationally representative sample of roughly 49,000 households comprising about 100,000 persons on the frequency, characteristics, and consequences of criminal victimization in the United States. The survey is administered by the U.S. Census Bureau (under the U.S. Department of Commerce) on behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (under the U.S. Department of Justice).

Still calling this source a biased "study"?

Just to blow you mind, the CDC (the same CDC everyone on the control side wants to study gun violence) report Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence believes the NCVS is undercounting DGUs. The CDC instead stated

Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals

.

Cherry picking is selecting only the data you like. (such as reading the first and last pages, ignoring inconvenient data in between) (also did you notice that the reason Kleck's findings are implausible is because- well just because. They never actually refute the finding or state where he made errors. Personally I do think his number is too high but I do not have the statistical skill to analyze it; it is simply my personal belief)

IMO the entire VPC report is 100% Grade AA bullshit. Sugarmann has advocated using deceit to create support for gun control. Why should I believe anything from a person who admits he will lie?

I am all in favor however, of letting the CDC study this subject completely unfettered by partisan agendas.

[louis-t]

58. Uh, You did cherry pick. The first 2 pages had

all of the info I posted. I had to look really hard to find the parts you mentioned. That's called cherry-picking. That's exactly what you did. Where did you find the part that says he "advocated using deceit to create support for gun control"? And you even admit, like I said, you are relying on your "personal beliefs". Also, it has been a number of years since any real data has been collected regarding gun violence because your friends at the NRA scream bloody fucking murder any time someone wants to study gun- related violence. Do you really mean to tell people that at least as many people every year stop a crime using a gun as there are crimes committed with a gun? You're serious? You really believe that?

[sarisataka]

59. You had to look for the data

I presented because it was deliberately de-emphasized, buried deep in the report. The VPC puts the numbers they want you to see right up front, knowing most people won't bother to read the whole thing.

What is "real data" to you?There was a report last week about the link between suicide rates and gun ownership. The Professor bemoans that the CDC cannot collect such data. However when you read the abstract he states,

Suicide and firearm ownership information was obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

If they can't collect such data, how was he able to obtain it from them?
http://www.highlandernews.org/23802/professor-discovers-link-gun-ownership-higher-rates-suicide/

Again- no NRA friends.

Do you really mean to tell people that at least as many people every year stop a crime using a gun as there are crimes committed with a gun? You're serious? You really believe that?

The CDC does and I am willing to concede they are more qualified to judge than I.

[louis-t]

60. Mmm, I see. Deliberately de-emphasized.

My ass. You do know that the CDC has to walk on eggs when doing anything remotely resembling a gun study. The law- THE FRIGGIN LAW says that they can't do anything that would be considered advocacy for "gun control". They are under constant threat of being defunded. Congress just extended the ban on anything they consider "advocacy". As far as your Highlander article, did you actually read it? "Currently the CDC is not allowed to appropriate funds for studies that “advocate or promote gun control.” Just like I said. Not sure what you mean by "abstract" but I see nothing in the article that indicates he got his info from CDC. Have you noticed that when you do a search on these subjects, 8 out of the first 10 articles are from gun advocacy sources? Guns and Ammo, Guns.com, etc. I see a big difference in reading the actual study then reading the Guns and Ammo report on the study. Only cowards threaten to defund if they know they won't like the results of any study.

[sarisataka]

61. "Abstract"

a summary of the contents of a book, article, or formal speech

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1111/sltb.12243/

I tend to read articles and check sources. I do not accept the words of any advocacy group, pro or con, at face value. Others eat up studies they agree with like honey-coated ice cream; studies they don't like they reject 'because'

[gejohnston]

26. the NRA never claimed there were up to two million a year

the number comes from here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

Cook and Lugwig are economists that do gun studies funded by either the Joyce Foundation, which astro turfs the Brady Campaign and VPC, and Kleck is a criminologist.
http://criminology.fsu.edu/faculty-and-staff/college-faculty/gary-kleck/

Most of these studies are a couple of decades old when crime, including murder, was at least twice per capita than what it is today. This was also when only Vermont, Washington, and Vermont had liberal concealed carry laws. It would be interesting what the estimates would be today with more people carrying, or at least legally carrying, and half the crime rate.

[Marengo]

27. All 80 yo women are expected to have the stamina and strength to defeat a knife armed 25 yo...

with a baseball bat? You're joking, right?

[louis-t]

44. The son was there. Did you even bother to read?

Jeez.

[Marengo]

55. What did the son do? What action did he take?

[beevul]

57. She should be forced to rely on the patriarchy?

Really?

[beergood]

36. "a baseball bat would have worked just as well."

not really, projectile weapons provide an advantage over melee weapons.

there's a reason modern military's use firearms instead of swords. they require less strength, and training.

[louis-t]

45. Now you're just trying way too hard.

This thread has become a swamp, attracting lots of mosquitos.

[beergood]

62. thank you

the mosquito was my favorite member of coon and friends.

[vkkv]

11. This news situation rarely happens. So, "what if possession saves ONE precious life"?

How about saving nearly THIRTY-THOUSAND LIVES each year with some reasonable gun laws?

And yes, I do own a few firearms - no handguns - IMO handguns should be completely banned along with semi-automatic assault rifles.

We don't allow citizens to own rocket launchers and handgrenades for a good reason. Why allow other mass killing weapons?

On top of banning all handguns, I would like a law that is a mandatory 5 year prison sentence for owning any unregistered firearm and 10 years for brandishing a firearm - loaded or not.

[TeddyR]

17. You may already know this

About 2/3 of the 30,000 number are suicides. Taking guns away from suicidal people doesn't prevent them from using a different method.

I don't think "weapon of mass destruction" means what you think it means. https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/wmd/wmd_faqs

I disagree that handgun ownership should be banned - that position is very much in the minority according to polls and in any event unconstitutional. And before you can put people in jail for owning an unregistered firearm you have to require registration, and most states don't.

I'm all for reasonable gun laws. What do you propose (other than unconstitutional handgun bans)?

[vkkv]

18. We've outlawed rocket launchers, yes?

Isn't that an infringement on the 2A?

There are more gun restrictions at an NRA sanctioned gun range than there are on the streets of most of this country.

[beevul]

20. No, we actually haven't.

See the national firearms act of 1934.

[vkkv]

23. Good luck buying one... eom

[beevul]

24. Don't need it. I have no desire to own one.

You asked:

We've outlawed rocket launchers, yes?

I answered.

If I had any desire, there are all kinds of NFA weapons available, up to and including fully functional tanks, jets, howitzer type weaponry, out there. More kinds of full auto weaponry than you can shake a stick at.


And legal.

[Marengo]

28. Quick google search located operational RPG7ds for sale in the USA...

Not terribly difficult if one has the money, license, and time (and legal to own in one's location) as I understand it.

[gejohnston]

29. In the market?

One is a Brit site. There might be some in the US, but I'm not in the market although a howitzer would make an interesting lawn ornament. It would be quite the conversation piece.
http://www.gunstar.co.uk/Rocket-launchers-for-sale/A/Other-Military-Guns
http://ww2live.com/en/content/world-war-2-sale-extremely-rare-heavy-towed-howitzer-155mm-1944

Even without the NFA or any other law, there would be no market for them. If there is no market, nobody is going to sell it. Before NFA, Thompson sales were almost nonexistent outside of LE, armored car companies like Brinks, and maybe a few rich people who could turn money into noise at the range. The mob had a few. Dillinger stole his from the cops. After the first World War, Colt offered the BAR for civilian sales, they sold exactly zero. Price had something to do with it, since each would be the price of a new car at the time.

[TeddyR]

31. The fact that gun ranges don't permit

People to shoot other people is a good thing, right? Are you advocating for street violence?

[vkkv]

34. Wow, that come back has GOT to be the most childish thing anyone could come up with.

NRA sanctioned gun ranges do not allow:

1) Open carry.

2) You CANNOT even TOUCH your gun when in "cold" mode.
"Cold" = range visitors walking around casually like we would on the 'street' or in public ANYWHERE.
And not only is it forbidden to TOUCH your gun, but your firearm has to be UNLOADED! With the bolt OPEN and MAGAZINE REMOVED.

Just imagine HOW MUCH SAFER our streets would be if we all followed the NRA gun range rules.

The NRA is a lobby group for gun manufacturers.
The word "rifle" in the acronym is meaningless these days.
The NRA should be known as NHGAARA = National Hand-Gun and Assault Rifle Assoc.

[beergood]

35. so much wrong with what you wrote

all shooting ranges have the no touch rule when the range is cold. thats so you don't accidentally shoot someone as they go down range to switch targets, check grouping and so on. as soon as everyone is finished and behind the line. the range is now hot, meaning you can handle, load, and fire your weapon at will. until the range is cold again.

[gejohnston]

40. Yes our streets would be much safer if drug dealers

and gangs would follow NRA range rules. They would be just as safe if they simply found legitimate work instead of selling poison and killing each other.

[Straw Man]

54. You clearly don't understand range rules.

NRA sanctioned gun ranges do not allow:

1) Open carry.

2) You CANNOT even TOUCH your gun when in "cold" mode.
"Cold" = range visitors walking around casually like we would on the 'street' or in public ANYWHERE.
And not only is it forbidden to TOUCH your gun, but your firearm has to be UNLOADED! With the bolt OPEN and MAGAZINE REMOVED.

Just imagine HOW MUCH SAFER our streets would be if we all followed the NRA gun range rules.

The reason ranges ban open carry is that the range officer is tasked with supervising multiple shooters and must be able to visually ascertain that all firearms within his sight are in a safe condition when the range is cold. Adding personal carry weapons to the mix just muddies that waters. The goal is to eliminate any possible confusion between loaded and unloaded firearms.

You cannot touch your gun when carrying openly or concealed on the street either. This is considered "brandishing" in most jurisdictions, and is against the law. The exception, or course, would be when and if you defending your person.

[ileus]

33. I happen to value my one precious life.

[beergood]

37. there's

no such thing as a "semi-automatic assault rifles."

an assault rifle is select fire, while semi autos are one shot with each pull of the trigger. with enough training a person can fire just as quickly with a bolt action or pump action. just google smle mad minute. http://www.historicalfirearms.info/post/43102565094/the-mad-minute-marksmanship-training-in-the

[vkkv]

38. Semi-auto refers to the loading of the next round AUTOMATICALLY by blow-back method.

ARs, semi-auto pistols all load by means of the pressure of the fired round pushing the bolt back (blow back) ejecting the now empty shell and the loading of the next round into the chamber as the spring-loaded bolt comes back into cocked postion. The next round can be fired simply by pulling the trigger - no MANUAL loading of each round is required.

This type of loading of rounds in known as "Semi-Automatic".
"Automatic" would be firing multiple rounds by just pulling the trigger once and holding it down.

You wrote """"no such thing as a "semi-automatic assault rifles."'" Yes, assault rifles can be included in the "semi-automatic" category due to select fire.

[beevul]

39. No. They can't.

" Yes, assault rifles can be included in the "semi-automatic" category due to select fire.

No they really can't. They're not legally in the same category, and so they're a red herring in any discussion of so called "assault weapons", because "assault rifles" by definition, are not limited to semi-auto, while so called 'assault weapons' are.

[gejohnston]

41. no they aren't.

select fire guns are still machine guns under the NFA.

[louis-t]

46. Gee, I'm so glad we have the gun techs here

to 'splain everything to us an' split hairs an' tell us how wrong we are about ever'thing cuz they knows their stuff.

[Straw Man]

47. You're welcome.

Gee, I'm so glad we have the gun techs here

to 'splain everything to us an' split hairs an' tell us how wrong we are about ever'thing cuz they knows their stuff.

When you want to regulate something, it's important to understand what you're regulating and why. Wouldn't you agree?

[Marengo]

56. I wonder if that one would be okay with legislating women's reproductive rights...

from a position of ignorance?

[beevul]

50. I'm guessing you'd prefer less biased sources of information...

I'm guessing you'd prefer less biased sources of information like these:

[beardown]

53. Amen to over technical elitists

I with you Louis.

I had a bad pain in my back and my doctor said we'd need to do some x-rays and most likely MRI's and possibly exploratory surgery. Fortunately, for me. While I was having a beer at a bar the drunk next to me said that if I just took several Advils and hang upside down from the monkey bars that it'd cure my back. Now while it's true that I ruptured two disks when I tried it and now I'm in a wheel chair for the next several months, but I'm not going to let that force me to let knowledgeable techno-elites tell me what to do.

Screw the techs, go with truthiness and your gut baby.


Egads, I've lived long enough to not only see where ignorance is now a virtue in America, but to have posters rally around it.

[safeinOhio]

12. Take all weapons away from men

and give them to older women.

as long as everyone has a plan, that would just be another one.

[beevul]

21. What about the men who live with older women?

Then what?

[bluestateguy]

52. Thank God for McDonald v. Chicago

Totally the right decision.

And even better, the taxpayers don't have to pay for his trial!