Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Still don't see where an automatic rifle would have helped which is still the argument, these stories are continuously brought up to try to make the lefts views extreme. Only a very small percentage of the population believes all guns should be banned.
On another note people that use revolvers for self defense are only making it harder on themselves, a real country boy like myself uses a pump action shotgun.
Out here in the Rocky Mountain West, a gal's best friend is her shotgun! Even a liberal has to defend herself - especially out here with all those conservative cattlemen and ranchers around. But an assault weapon is overkill in more ways than one. It seems fair enough to me that we keep our rifles and shotguns and get rid of the Bushmasters.
This woman shot an intruder 5 times out of the 6 bullets that her .38 revolver held and all in the face, head and neck. At any rate, he was in her house without permission and refused to back off when he saw the gun.
I don't get the point of your link. I haven't really seen many people saying that you shouldn't have the right to protect yourself, your home or your family. I've seen people protesting certain types of guns.
As for the your premise "is this husband happy"...I mean this could easily be used by the other side. Everyday Snapped runs marathons of women who shot and kill their husbands/boyfriends, sometimes with the very weapons that the men have brought into the house to protect the family. Wife shoots husband six time...is he happy he had a gun for his wife to shoot him with?
Let's face the unspoken issue - fear of guns. Those who are afraid of guns think that by banning them, they will be safe. Of course, when stronger bullies and thugs don't have to fear you having guns, they won't fear attacking you.
The logical resolution would be for universal training in the responsible use of firearms, starting from childhood. Those who do not fear guns will not be so easily goaded into surrendering them, in the hopes of safety and security. For a disarmed populace is never safe nor secure.
A society that is intolerant of predators will be "civilized."
Tolerance of predators is unmerciful to their next victim.
Disarming a society is uncivilized, and a dangerous grant of power to the predators.
He did not just rob the house...Apparently he had something else in mind. He searched the place until he found the family hiding in a crawl space.
What could he have had in mind?...That he searched for her and her child?
Of course she shot him with everything she had - to make sure he was no longer a threat to them.
And that is why people want to have guns - to protect themselves in their own homes, on a lonely highway, on a dark and barren street...Because there are people out there looking to cause harm and even death to complete strangers, for no other reason than to rob them (and kill the only witnesses), to molest them, or simply to kill them. There are nearly 7 billion people in this world - thus many defective minds. We are not made on robotic assembly lines - so there are quite a few defects in number.
It's unfortunate, but often there are situations that the only option for the innocent victim (or target) of anoother persons deranged mind is to destroy it on the spot.
What about the girl in India that was raped, sodomized and eventually dead at the hands of those 6 deranged minds. Don't you think that her and her friend wish they had a gun at the time? They would cetainly be better off...
Um, when you're a burglar you go around opening closets and checking in drawers for valuables. This is typically how you find stuff you want. It is highly unlikely he was searching for people to kill when he opened that closet door. Reports don't even indicate that he had a gun or knife. Was he going to crowbar any occupants to death when any one of them could easily have a much more deadlier or bigger weapon?
Anyone who is worried about intruders or having their home broken into should simply invest in better locks, larger strike plates, surveillance cameras, shatter resistant film on windows, alarms, or just a simple sticker you can put on your window that says, "alarm" on it. If someone breaks into your house while you're at work your alarm can even notify you through your phone. These are all affordable options. Leaving your home unprotected and then purchasing a gun is stupid. You can purchase a gun if you want, but the idea is to keep burglars out of your home, not fight them once they get in because you didn't lock the door.
Just to make sure she got him I guess.
Seriously though, when you have that much adrenaline going through you I would imagine that you would just keep shooting until the bastard went down; at least I know that's how I'd react.
Here is the answer:
Failure to Stop
The classic .38 caliber revolver, with a capacity of six rounds, was the standard sidearm of the United States Army during the Moro insurrection in the Philippines. The Army found at least one dead Army officer with an empty sidearm, and his head split open by a machete or similar weapon. They also found the soldier's killer, who had finally bled to death. Six rounds of .38 were therefore not enough to convince even one determined attacker.
Police instructor Masaad Ayoob's The Truth About Self Protection adds an incident in which a female police officer saw a crazed gunman murder a woman, who then shot her as well before she could do anything. "She lay helpless as she watched a neighbor empty a .22 rifle into the killer; the neighbor then had to club the madman down with the empty rifle, again and again, before he succumbed."
Ayoob does not report the size of the .22's magazine, but the Moro insurrection exemplifies why even a 30-round rifle clip might not be enough to stop a crazed and determined attacker, such as one hopped up on a drug like PCP. "He had 32 Krag balls through him and was only stopped by the 33rd bullet -- a Colt .45 slug through both ears." The Krag-Jorgensen's 30-caliber cartridge was far more powerful than the .22 in Ayoob's example, but not sufficiently powerful to civilize this particular attacker even when fired in mass. Articles: Why Does Anybody Need a 30-Round Magazine?
Um, when you're a burglar you go around opening closets and checking in drawers for valuables. This is typically how you find stuff you want. It is highly unlikely he was searching for people to kill when he opened that closet door. Reports don't even indicate that he had a gun or knife. Was he going to crowbar any occupants to death when any one of them could easily have a much more deadlier or bigger weapon?
Well, I wouldn't be waiting too long to find out. She did the right thing, acting before any harm came to her or her two children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by krichton
Anyone who is worried about intruders or having their home broken into should simply invest in better locks, larger strike plates, surveillance cameras, shatter resistant film on windows, alarms, or just a simple sticker you can put on your window that says, "alarm" on it. If someone breaks into your house while you're at work your alarm can even notify you through your phone. These are all affordable options. Leaving your home unprotected and then purchasing a gun is stupid. You can purchase a gun if you want, but the idea is to keep burglars out of your home, not fight them once they get in because you didn't lock the door.
Not everyone can afford to have those security systems put in. They are not free.
Secondly, intruders have been known to disarm those systems.
More secure locks, etc., all those things you mentioned are a good idea, of course. But they do not stop someone who is intent on breaking in, and when they do get in, if you are home, you are in danger. Having a gun is a wise choice, and that is one reason that the Founders sought to protect the right of self-defense in the Second Amendment.
So now folks who break into your home with a crowbar have to threaten you first with a weapon in order to defend yourself? Or I'm guessing she should have just called 911 and taken her beating until the cops arrived. Amazing.
Well, you know what they say: "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Out here in the Rocky Mountain West, a gal's best friend is her shotgun! Even a liberal has to defend herself - especially out here with all those conservative cattlemen and ranchers around. But an assault weapon is overkill in more ways than one. It seems fair enough to me that we keep our rifles and shotguns and get rid of the Bushmasters.
