Georgia mom shoots home intruder five times

by Bonnie_Clyde 112 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Braehead

  Hi

  Isn't this a freedom of choice issue?

  Why should the behaviour of some psycopathic criminal determine what a person can legally do?

  He shot someone - ban my guns. He stabbed someone - ban my knives. He beat someone - ban my sticks. He spat at someone - ban my saliva.

  Should all cars be banned because someone was speeding and caused a fatal accident?

  In the US both guns and cars need regulation, age restrictions apply, being able to pass a competency test before usage, &c and both can be used as tools to kill.

  BTW - where did Anders Breivik come from?

  oh, and don't hijack this thread saying hi to a newbie :-)
• 

  undercover

  I noticed how the mother took her children and hid, yet he still found them. And just like a mother in nature fights to protect her brood, so does a human mother. She was protecting her children. She didn't just start shooting on sight, as he broke in, though she would have been justifted, she took measures to flee, but they failed. Cornered she used what she had to protect her children and herself.

  The warning that has to be issued along with the story is that even though it worked for her, guns aren't for everyone. Some people will not be able to pull the trigger, or will hesitate, or will panic. But for someone comfortable with them, and properly trained, this shows how a properly used gun can save lives of innocent people.

  But I don't think this story should change the discussion - and the changes that need to happen - about gun control in this country. Not gun bans, not drastic methods of disarming the citizenry, but better control and regulation and stiffer penalties for law breakers. And add into that, a plan to educate future generations on better, safer gun use. Just as opinions and habits changed in other deadly habits, we can work to lessen the deadly outcomes of guns handled badly by future generations. It's not an easy fix, it's hard, but you can't ignore the problem. But you can't go too far in the other direction and make it so restricted that a mother properly trained in the use of fireams can't protect her children should the need arise.

  edited to say hi to the newbie...
• 

  RubaDub

  Five bullets almost weren't enough to save herself and her two children. Wonder what would have happened if there had been two (or more) intruders?

  Bonnie_Clyde ...

  Great point. If there were more intruders then she definitely needed more firepower.

  This shows the falacy of laws restricting fully automatic weapons here in the USA. She was limited to guns that require you to pull the trigger each time to fire a bullet. Fully automatic weapons, as used by the military, provide a much higher level of safety. Hold the gun at your hip, squeeze the trigger, and begin spraying bullets everywhere. Ask questions later.

  While a typical military rifle may be limited to about 30 shots before reloading, many can be fitted with drum (revolving) magazines that can hold as many as 100 cartridges. If you heard a noise in another room and empty the 100 shots into the walls, you would likely kill anything in the house.

  Bonnie_Clyde, I agree with you, if everyone owned high-powered weapons, we would all be safer.

  Rub a Dub
• 

  sammielee24

  Yep. She could have has an assault weapon, held it at her hip and sprayed five intruders all at once. She could have - or she could have sprayed so well she blew holes through the walls and killed all her own kids at the same time. She might have got the five intruders as well as killed her own kids - anything is possible. sammieswife
• 

  J. Hofer

  that "ask questions later" is a little problematic after the use of lethal ammunition. usually there's not much left to ask afterwards.
• 

  Berengaria

  I'm for less government control and give all law abiding citizens whatever guns and training they want ... don't forget - the holocaust started with gun control

  But first they squashed the Labor Unions.
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  Yep. She could have has an assault weapon, held it at her hip and sprayed five intruders all at once. She could have - or she could have sprayed so well she blew holes through the walls and killed all her own kids at the same time. She might have got the five intruders as well as killed her own kids - anything is possible.

  Perhaps one day it might be possible for people to realize the only time people fire a weapon like that is in the movies.

  Protip: Actually knowing what you are talking about helps. You should try it sometime.
• 

  WTWizard

  And how many of these things could be prevented simply by displaying a gun and threatening to shoot an attacker? Often they are wusses, and will run if they think they are going to be shot. The ones that are stupid enough to continue deserve to be shot--which would further deter others that might burgle homes or rob people on the streets. More guns, more people who are smart enough to threaten after being attacked and make good on such threat if it becomes necessary, less idiots that are dumb enough to initiate robberies or home invasions. And the ones that are stupid enough to continue one are removed from the gene pool, so they don't breed more idiots.

  Also, suppose someone starts shooting into a crowd for no good reason. These people are going to get their guns illegally, often by stealing them from who knows where. How many people with a concealed weapon would it take to start shooting right back at the shooter in that event to keep the death toll down? Is it better to have perhaps one innocent person and the shooter dead than to have 15 or 20 innocent people dead? Often, the shooter will blow itself into the police or commit suicide after. Not to mention, if guns are banned and no one has access to them, if they were bent only on maiming and killing (instead of getting guns banned), they would do what terrorists do in other countries and simply blow themselves up or throw Molotov cocktails instead of shooting. Yet, guns it is--to get guns banned so the government can impose whatever slavery they wish.
• 

  sooner7nc

  You know when I left this thread 5 hours ago we were really on to something.

  Firstly, you don't put the weapon at your hip and spray unless (1) you're in the movies (2) you're a dumbass Arab in Baghdad or Somalian in Mogadishu or (3) you're playing Call of Duty and are clueless as to how to play the game well.

  Scenario (1)- Young person of either sex alone at home hears an intruder. Person pulls a semi-auto handgun, let's say the commonplace Glock 17 with a full 17 round magazine plus 1 in the chamber for a total of 18 rounds. The person engages the intruder with the firearm.

  Scenario (2)- Same person, same intruder except the person has an M4 sized AR-15. That means it has a 16" light contour barrel with standard trigger and iron sights. The person engages the intruder with the firearm.

  Let me ask you all this question; which firearm (assuming a fairly equal amount of competency) is safer for anyone in the vicinity other than the shooter or the intruder?

  I anxiously await your answers.
• 

  sooner7nc

  By the way lets assume a 20 round mag in the AR.