Great-granny, 80, got a gun, kills a home intruder who attacked husband

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

So, you cannot answer these simple questions? Typical. Once you can answer them in a professional and adult manner, I am willing to listen. At that point we can have a discussion....until then, I still put them on the table, awaiting an honest answer before we discuss infringing upon my constitutional rights.

Just curious. Would she get less points if she only winged him and he was arrested?

a reply to: intrepid

Points? I don't follow.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: intrepid

Points? I don't follow.

GTA man. Grand Theft America.

a reply to: Krakatoa

What kind of "honest answer" do you want?
There isn't a "qualifications and prerequisite experience list" - because, there aren't any people tasked with taking away your guns, dude!!!

Anyway - okay.
Sorry for cutting against the grain here.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Krakatoa

What kind of "honest answer" do you want?
There isn't a "qualifications and prerequisite experience list" - because, there aren't any people tasked with taking away your guns, dude!!!

Anyway - okay.
Sorry for cutting against the grain here.

You, yourself said that "crazy people" shouldn't have guns, am I right? I am just trying to discern the parameters that you would place on calling someone crazy, and removing their constitutional rights. Yet, you still evade the questions(s)?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs
I will be very upset if a MSW (?) is making a decision as to whether I could or could not do own a gun. Given from what I know most if not all mental health professional are hard core liberals which put them very much in the "we know what is best" side of the divide.
And from experience SW's want us all on med's. Two friends were in the VA system and their SW's were insisting that they be on anti depressants and other mind numbing drugs. This was after they had been examined buy psychiatrists who said that no they did not need med's and refused to proscribe any for them.
Your posts lead me to believe that you will never allow someone to own a gun if the laws are changed.
And for what it's worth I have a CCW permit and in the last few months I have only needed to carry once. So I am not a gun toting redneck freak. My wife and kids can all safely use a weapon, and will shoot to defend life and property. Also I might observe that your it won't happen here has been spoken in countries that have confiscation.

a reply to: intrepid

What are you tying to say?

a reply to: LamontCranston

A few questions. Is the 2nd, even in it's perverted version today, going anywhere? Then..... why are we even discussing it AGAIN?

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: Krakatoa

LOL - this is one of those uncomfortable moments when the government appears to look busy and be "distracted" with more pressing issues rather than admit that the death of the thug was the most righteous and cost-effective (to the taxpayer) way the scenario could have ended.

What we can deduce however, is that a US government muppet will NOT appear on national TV condemning the dead thug and praising Granny for exercising her God given 2nd amendment right to defend her husband (and herself).

if we didnt treat drug attics like criminals instead of people crying out for medical help this would not have happened at all.
all that young man probably needed and couldn't get was help fighting his additions.
the cash cow that is the government's war on drugs is getting uglier.
we had the most OD and Suicides drug related ever last year. and this year is on a good start in beating those numbers.

of course most will see a gun debate when i see a case of a failing drug policy.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Every year, the people in your field try to figure out how to turn every typical bit of human behavior into a condition, diagnosis, or symptom of an illness in order to support the pharmaceuticals and synthetic brain altering chemicals industry, specifically SSRI class of drugs. That is not a conspiracy at all, that is observations of the facts of "newly discovered " diagnosis's from the geniuses who know best. Well who gets into your head and gets to take away your rights??

In a couple of years we will be hearing that restless leg syndrome is an early indicator of hostile behavior due to anxiety that should be added to a list of this that will have your rights stripped.

No, sorry establishment approved behavior manipulator, I will never trust the likes of you or your opinions. That profession, IMO, will always be a threat to liberty and sovereignty of the poor bastards that go to have their thoughts recorded and reported.

a reply to: intrepid
If I knew real answers to those and other question I'd be picking winners at the track.
But basically I think there will be further changes to the 2nd, it's probably in inevitable.
As to why it's being discussed it's one of those topics that arouse people.

a reply to: intrepid

It is related to the thread topic....that is why it is being discussed. The thread topic is about an 80 year old woman, who watched as her husband was terrorized, beaten, and stabbed int her own home. She made the difficult decision not to be a victim, and fight back against the drug seeking criminal. It is due to the 2nd amendment being intact that she (and her husband) are alive today.

This is why it is being discussed. Since it is a clear example of saving 2 lives....albeit at the cost of another. However, the criminal that was killed was threatening to instill serious life-threatening harm to both of them. He setup the situation of his own death.

I only hope that poor woman and her husband can recover and put this behind them. Taking a life, no matter the situation, is traumatizing.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Yeah, that was the point. So why does it need to be front and center? Pretty sure this happens in the States daily. Not really news is my point.

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Krakatoa

Yeah, that was the point. So why does it need to be front and center? Pretty sure this happens in the States daily. Not really news is my point.

OK, so that is your opinion. You are entitled to it, so why are you here of you do not want to discuss it? It is not up to you to decide what is and is not "front and center" as far as I know. If you are open to discussing how it applies to this situation, you are welcome to join the discussion here.

I still await someone's answer to who decides and sets up a "more diligent screening of potentional buyers".

Answer me this:

• What are the parameters of this screening process?
  
• Who makes these decisions?
  
• Is it a political decision, bipartisan, or based upon constitutional law?
  
• Are they done behind closed doors by people that are already protected by men with firearms?
  
• Does it include due process by the law, or is just based upon the suspicion of possibly someday committing a crime?
  
• Is there a process in which you can have your right re-instated that is not so burdensome or expensive to make it impossible?
  
• And the big question, IS IT CONSTITUTIONAL?
  

Also, with regards to preventing "crazy" people from owning a firearm, what are those intended criteria?

• Tell me, who defines "crazy"?
  
• What is the definition?
  
• Is it a fixed definition, or will it have the ability to be modified and expanded over time?
  
• If so, how easy is it to make a change in the scope?
  
• Does it require due process to define/change or just some group of doctors and politicians making that decision?
  
• Does being on some form of medication qualify as "crazy"?
  
• Will there be an upper age limit that puts someone into that classification?
  

These are relevant since if this woman had fallen into one of these categories and classified as not having the ability to own a firearm, she and her husband would likely be dead now. And, possibly the attacker never found and free to repeat this pattern with another elderly man/woman.

This is why it is important to ask these questions now, before a decision is made.

originally posted by: odzeandennz

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: Krakatoa

LOL - this is one of those uncomfortable moments when the government appears to look busy and be "distracted" with more pressing issues rather than admit that the death of the thug was the most righteous and cost-effective (to the taxpayer) way the scenario could have ended.

What we can deduce however, is that a US government muppet will NOT appear on national TV condemning the dead thug and praising Granny for exercising her God given 2nd amendment right to defend her husband (and herself).

if we didnt treat drug attics like criminals instead of people crying out for medical help this would not have happened at all.
all that young man probably needed and couldn't get was help fighting his additions.
the cash cow that is the government's war on drugs is getting uglier.
we had the most OD and Suicides drug related ever last year. and this year is on a good start in beating those numbers.

of course most will see a gun debate when i see a case of a failing drug policy.

I happen to agree with you. When the medical treatment was halted and many of the patients were released in the 80's, it set the stage we see now. When the penal system became a for-profit organization, it required a constant stream of revenue, and drugs provided that revenue stream. I believe it would put a serious dent in violent crime if actual treatment was provided for those addicted to drugs of all kinds. However, if the decide not to be treated, we cannot force them to be there as far as I know. How do you deal with that situation, when a person refuses to be treated?

This criminal in the thread topic had been arrested and served time for drugs in the past. I thought there was a drug treatment program as part of the prison sentence in cases of drug related crimes? If so, it obviously didn't work in this case.

Grandma did exactly the right thing, she defended herself, and her already injured husband.

There is no other side of the story here.

This criminal broke into their home. He's a third their age. She did exactly the right thing.

I'm sorry she had to do something like that.

"I'm not your typical grandma, in case you hadn't noticed."

I almost cried when I read that...that's my grandmas, both of 'em, to a T. They couldn't careless what anyone thought of them. They'll do what is necessary to defend their family. People don't like it? That's just really too bad.

The world needs more grannies like this one. One's who can love you like no other, yet instill terror with a mere glance.