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

a reply to: Krakatoa
point taken.


by no means to digress, 16 years after portugal decriminalized all drugs, guess what their rates of anything are compared to ours. home invasion to score dope :0 , hiv infections.. down by over half

originally posted by: Krakatoa

Barb Moles shot and killed a home intruder who beat her husband with a crowbar and stabbed him with a knife. She now tells a local televison station she is “not just the typical granny.” “You know, never in my whole life did I ever anticipate having to take another life -- especially at age 80,” Moles told KOMO-TV in Seattle, Wash., last week.

Deputies said Steven Sheppard, 25, attacked Leland Moles after breaking into the couple’s home to steal drugs. KOMO reported that when Sheppard encountered Barb Moles, he said one word: “Gun.” Moles, a grandmother of eight and a great-grandmother of three, pulled the trigger four times. Three bullets hit the mark, KOMO reported. “I was just intent upon stopping him,” she told the station. “I didn’t have any other thought in my head. I just knew I had to stop him.”

Story

And this is one of the reasons we need to keep the 2nd Amendment intact. When some drug seeking scum bag decides to try taking advantage of the elderly, beating and even stabbing one, facing a gun from their victim should be their final sight. Had she had to wait for the police to arrive, her husband and likely her, would be dead now.

Having the ability to defend yourself in this country is a god given RIGHT that the government CANNOT infringe.

For every prevented murder and burglary their are 2 dead children from gun ownership.

You can't take one instance where a gun may have helped the situation and claim it as a good case for the entire nation, that is moronic.

Had the home intruder not been so sure that the owners of the house would possess a gun they may not have felt the need to stab the owner to prevent them from using it.

Perhaps a different scenario would of played out if you removed gun ownership and the threat of gun ownership. Home intruder doesn't feel the need to be so violent because gun ownership is not common, he robs the house and leaves, both granny and granddad are left unhurt but shocked. Later police catch the criminal.

^ THAT is how the situation could play out in any reasonable country, instead YOU think its a victory that a man was beaten and stabbed and a criminal shot.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Calling the cops sometimes is not practical

Better to be tried by .. than carried by ... Etc

a reply to: LamontCranston

Total nonsense. I'm not going to argue with you about it.

My husband is a veteran with PTSD - he has guns. I know how to shoot them. I have two that I call "mine".

Antidepressants are not "mind-numbing drugs."
My posts do not in any way "lead you to believe" that I would take your guns. You are just making crap up as you go along.
I'm not a total gun-confiscating jerk, or a control freak.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Points taken. But, you still have not answered these basic questions that I put to you following your statement that "crazy people" should not have guns. As a health care professional, if you were to decide those answers, what would you decide? How would you answer them? I am genuinely interested in your thought on this, especially being in the mental health field, your opinions matter more than any other IMO.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
Having the gun didnt stop her husband from being attacked stabbed and beaten unfortunately.

Only because she did the right thing, and what the LAW states she must do. That is to only use deadly force in RESPONSE to her (or her families) life actually being threatened. Only then, do you resort to making the deadly decision to take another's life in defense of your own. She was in a life threatening situation, and she used appropriate force to subdue her attacker. That fact will not go away, no matter how much you try to wish away those "evil" guns.

How many times have the anti-gun crowd bemoaned that "they should have waited", well, she did (correctly I might add). And still we hear complaints. I will defend my (and your life) if it ever came down to it, whether you are thankful or not. When there is a 100% guarantee that there are no people with the intent on killing me, anywhere, anytime, then I will consider it. Until such time, if you wish to be a victim, swim in it. I will not have the arrogance to try to convince you otherwise, I expect the same amount of respect from you.

ETA: Oh, and to your point, neither did the police. They were not there to stop that, neither was the legal system that let this criminal drug abuser into the general population. In fact, where were YOU to protect them? Slacking off perhaps?

Excellent point, spot on. The system stopped working once the thug successfully slithered in. Or, if you will, as the man no doubt cased the place - thinking the elderly are likely to have drugs. It did nothing for this woman, she had to do for herself.

I, also, wish we had more of a 'citizen militia' training program, as Syrinx wrote of. Training is knowledge and knowledge empowers. Power should be in the 'peoples' hands.

It is the attitude of denial. Denying means you do not know more, teach more, train more... you are too busy denying. American's have a responsibility, because we have guns... The obstruction is actually pulling away from the knowledge i.e how to handle, and be responsible, because you have a gun... Teach them well... You never grab a gun, until you need to grab a gun, and, you'll never need a gun, because we all have and know the responsibilities to keep one, not just how to use one. Just my O2...

Anyway, good post

a reply to: Krakatoa

I'm fairly liberal on many issues. Not gun control. Granted, we the people, cannot defend ourselves against tanks and the like but it is quite comforting to know that if someone enters our home and poses a threat we can neutralize it. I have a hard time understanding gun control/confiscation advocates. This is about the freedom to defend one's self. Good on granny. She did the right thing. It is a bit unfortunate that the guy died and didn't go to jail and maybe a rehab. Unfortunately the best method is "shoot to kill". Especially for an 80 year old.

Look at CT and NY gun laws. Sad.

originally posted by: SudoNim
For every prevented murder and burglary their are 2 dead children from gun ownership.

Perhaps (I would like citations for this claim though) that is true. However, there are already laws on the books regarding firearm ownership, storage, and child endangerment. Are MORE laws (that will not be followed by the irresponsible) needed, or enforcement of existing laws? You cannot preemptively convict someone of a crime that has not happened (yet). It is very sad when a child gets hold of a loaded firearm and hurts/kills someone or themselves. However, that is less gun related issue and more a poor parenting issue. Perhaps we need to consider requiring licenses and tests for would-be parents now?

originally posted by: SudoNim
You can't take one instance where a gun may have helped the situation and claim it as a good case for the entire nation, that is moronic.

Agreed. But, it is a prime example of one instance in which when the laws and procedures are followed (even by an elderly 80 year old woman) it had the desired outcome. This means that TRAINING is essential, doesn't it? If you are trained (ie. "well regulated") you have a better chance of not having unintended consequences when firing a firearm. Fear and hiding from a problem rarely (if ever) is a viable long-term solution to anything IMO.

originally posted by: SudoNim
Had the home intruder not been so sure that the owners of the house would possess a gun they may not have felt the need to stab the owner to prevent them from using it.

Perhaps a different scenario would of played out if you removed gun ownership and the threat of gun ownership. Home intruder doesn't feel the need to be so violent because gun ownership is not common, he robs the house and leaves, both granny and granddad are left unhurt but shocked. Later police catch the criminal.

Unlikely. When a person is on drugs, or suffering withdrawl, all bets are off. Logic is the first casualty in that scenario. Ask anyone that has had to deal with a drug abuser that is violent. Thinking anything other than that is living in a fantasy land of butterflies and unicorns. I happen to live in the real world, where there is real danger, and no magical wish will change that fact.

originally posted by: SudoNim

^ THAT is how the situation could play out in any reasonable country, instead YOU think its a victory that a man was beaten and stabbed and a criminal shot.

Again, only in Xanadu. Last I checked my atlas, that place did not exist here on Earth.

This is what I really don't get about the American mind frame, you flood your country with guns and then claim its not a gun-related issue when they are used to kills someone.

America has a huge gun problem and I'm not just talking the amount of deaths. You spout this 2nd Amendment b*llsh!t like its actually something meaningful.

You stockpile guns, brag about them on here and post pictures of them and then claim its all for self-defence?
I'd use a knife in self-defence if it really came down to that, you don't see me waving around a collection of knives.
It's almost as if you want to be given the chance to use it.

In the very, comparatively, rare possibility that I would be in a situation where someone has a gun I would not engage, simply because they would know its extremely unlikely anyone else has a gun and they do not need to use theirs. I could then let the law enforcement to deal with the issue.

In your messed up country the criminal is already on edge because every granny, toddler and texan nutcase has a gun so they are more likely to use theirs.

How the hell can you cling onto the belief that guns are actually good for protection of your family when your crime rates are through the roof, the average American is in more danger BECAUSE of your gun fascination.

I mean hell, just to stay close to other civilised countries in terms of stats and figures you completely changed your definition of "violent crime" so that it covers less than other countries. Yet you are still miles ahead of everyone else in terms of stats.

You keep telling yourself the 2nd Amendment was meant to allow every tom d1ck and harry to have a gun and keep pretending its a good thing for your country.

a reply to: SudoNim

OK, I can respect your position. Can you respect mine as well? I have not resorted to personal attacks, yet you persist in denigrating an entire country using terms such as;

• moronic
  
• 2nd Amendment b*llsh!t
  
• messed up country
  

I think the best solution here is to agree to disagree. And, if it came down to it, I would still defend your life with a gun if I needed to, let's just hope it never gets to that decision (unlikely since you might never visit this "messed up country").

a reply to: SudoNim

a reply to: SudoNim

For every prevented murder and burglary their are 2 dead children from gun ownership.

Uh-huh. Is this an actual verifiable statistic, or just another in a long line of hyperbolic nonsense made up on the fly? Most folks who have prevented a burglary, such as myself, with a gun--which wasn't fired, oh by the way--don't report it. So I'm going to guess that this stat is one you made up on the fly. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

You can't take one instance where a gun may have helped the situation and claim it as a good case for the entire nation, that is moronic.

Umm...ok. ...and in your next sentence you claim that one instance of a burglar, who is, by the way, the bad guy in this story...just so you know, demanding guns somehow gives credence to your claims. Can't have it both ways.

Had the home intruder not been so sure that the owners of the house would possess a gun they may not have felt the need to stab the owner to prevent them from using it.

See above.

Perhaps a different scenario would of played out if you removed gun ownership and the threat of gun ownership. Home intruder doesn't feel the need to be so violent because gun ownership is not common, he robs the house and leaves, both granny and granddad are left unhurt but shocked. Later police catch the criminal.

He stabbed and beat the husband then demanded guns. So he'd have been a kinder, gentler vicious thug...? Is that where you're going with this? What world do you live in again??

^ THAT is how the situation could play out in any reasonable country, instead YOU think its a victory that a man was beaten and stabbed and a criminal shot.

A victory? No one died. What happens to little old lady if she didn't have a gun with which to defend herself and her husband. So, yeah, a victory.

We can play what if scenarios all day long... The gun saved her from being, in all likelihood, badly injured and her husband further brutalized, because it was in the hands of a tough as nails grandma.

You can roll over and show your throat and beg for mercy if you so choose, she didn't, and good for her!

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: SudoNim

For every prevented murder and burglary their are 2 dead children from gun ownership.

Uh-huh. Is this an actual verifiable statistic, or just another in a long line of hyperbolic nonsense made up on the fly? Most folks who have prevented a burglary, such as myself, with a gun--which wasn't fired, oh by the way--don't report it. So I'm going to guess that this stat is one you made up on the fly. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

You can't take one instance where a gun may have helped the situation and claim it as a good case for the entire nation, that is moronic.

Umm...ok. ...and in your next sentence you claim that one instance of a burglar, who is, by the way, the bad guy in this story...just so you know, demanding guns somehow gives credence to your claims. Can't have it both ways.

Had the home intruder not been so sure that the owners of the house would possess a gun they may not have felt the need to stab the owner to prevent them from using it.

See above.

Perhaps a different scenario would of played out if you removed gun ownership and the threat of gun ownership. Home intruder doesn't feel the need to be so violent because gun ownership is not common, he robs the house and leaves, both granny and granddad are left unhurt but shocked. Later police catch the criminal.

He stabbed and beat the husband then demanded guns. So he'd have been a kinder, gentler vicious thug...? Is that where you're going with this? What world do you live in again??

^ THAT is how the situation could play out in any reasonable country, instead YOU think its a victory that a man was beaten and stabbed and a criminal shot.

A victory? No one died. What happens to little old lady if she didn't have a gun with which to defend herself and her husband. So, yeah, a victory.

We can play what if scenarios all day long... The gun saved her from being, in all likelihood, badly injured and her husband further brutalized, because it was in the hands of a tough as nails grandma.

You can roll over and show your throat and beg for mercy if you so choose, she didn't, and good for her!

He demanded guns? I thought this was a raid for money/drugs. You are a walking pile of contradictions. If, as you've just claimed, he was looking for guns then surely the fact that guns were present in the house was the motive. No guns in the house = No break-in?

Your argument is as ignorant as it is selfish. Trying to call people cowards or roll over, this isn't about the right to defend yourself with extreme measures when absolutely necessary, its about the cause. All you do is look at the outcome.

As for what world I live in? Unfortunately the same as you, luckily for me and the majority of the rest of the civilised world its not in America. And I'm a hell of a lot safer because of it.

Where's the praise for this Granny with a gun?

www.nola.com...

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: SudoNim

For every prevented murder and burglary their are 2 dead children from gun ownership.

Uh-huh. Is this an actual verifiable statistic, or just another in a long line of hyperbolic nonsense made up on the fly? Most folks who have prevented a burglary, such as myself, with a gun--which wasn't fired, oh by the way--don't report it. So I'm going to guess that this stat is one you made up on the fly. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

You can't take one instance where a gun may have helped the situation and claim it as a good case for the entire nation, that is moronic.

Umm...ok. ...and in your next sentence you claim that one instance of a burglar, who is, by the way, the bad guy in this story...just so you know, demanding guns somehow gives credence to your claims. Can't have it both ways.

Had the home intruder not been so sure that the owners of the house would possess a gun they may not have felt the need to stab the owner to prevent them from using it.

See above.

Perhaps a different scenario would of played out if you removed gun ownership and the threat of gun ownership. Home intruder doesn't feel the need to be so violent because gun ownership is not common, he robs the house and leaves, both granny and granddad are left unhurt but shocked. Later police catch the criminal.

He stabbed and beat the husband then demanded guns. So he'd have been a kinder, gentler vicious thug...? Is that where you're going with this? What world do you live in again??

^ THAT is how the situation could play out in any reasonable country, instead YOU think its a victory that a man was beaten and stabbed and a criminal shot.

A victory? No one died. What happens to little old lady if she didn't have a gun with which to defend herself and her husband. So, yeah, a victory.

We can play what if scenarios all day long... The gun saved her from being, in all likelihood, badly injured and her husband further brutalized, because it was in the hands of a tough as nails grandma.

You can roll over and show your throat and beg for mercy if you so choose, she didn't, and good for her!

He demanded guns? I thought this was a raid for money/drugs. You are a walking pile of contradictions. If, as you've just claimed, he was looking for guns then surely the fact that guns were present in the house was the motive. No guns in the house = No break-in?

Your argument is as ignorant as it is selfish. Trying to call people cowards or roll over, this isn't about the right to defend yourself with extreme measures when absolutely necessary, its about the cause. All you do is look at the outcome.

As for what world I live in? Unfortunately the same as you, luckily for me and the majority of the rest of the civilised world its not in America. And I'm a hell of a lot safer because of it.

Where's the praise for this Granny with a gun?

www.nola.com...

How is that story even relevant here? Unless it is a diversionary tactic to disingenuously link the conversation about THIS situation, to an unrelated situation. We are not talking about that NOLA woman here. The women in this story actually FOLLOWED the laws with regard to firearm ownership and use in a self-defense situation.

In other news, a 5 year dies of a self inflicted gun shot after finding a handgun underneath it's grandmother's pillow. For every life that a gun saves another is lost. I wish instead of arguing and saying this way is right or this way is wrong we just accepted that violence happens. Life is hard and it isn't fair. Sad, but true. I'm living the harsh reality myself.

originally posted by: BrokedownChevy
In other news, a 5 year dies of a self inflicted gun shot after finding a handgun underneath it's grandmother's pillow. For every life that a gun saves another is lost. I wish instead of arguing and saying this way is right or this way is wrong we just accepted that violence happens. Life is hard and it isn't fair. Sad, but true. I'm living the harsh reality myself.

And that is a case of bad parenting. And not following the rules of firearm ownership. It could be a case of lack of firearm education as well for both adult and child. Both, I might say, are covered by existing laws and regulations.

Bad parenting in other civilised countries doesn't lead to toddlers getting their face shot off. Only in backwards countries like yours.

Keep thinking having a country filled with guns is keeping you safe, by living in America you and your family are at much higher risk. Post as many of these stories as you like, hide behind your out-dated, antiquated 2nd amendment its only yourselves that your hurting. It's also why America is a joke to the rest of the world.

originally posted by: SudoNim
Bad parenting in other civilised countries doesn't lead to toddlers getting their face shot off. Only in backwards countries like yours.

Keep thinking having a country filled with guns is keeping you safe, by living in America you and your family are at much higher risk. Post as many of these stories as you like, hide behind your out-dated, antiquated 2nd amendment its only yourselves that your hurting. It's also why America is a joke to the rest of the world.

And considering your constant need to berate myself and my entire country, I can only assume you come from one that is rude and inconsiderate. Must be ...... Unless you start acting and behaving like an adult and stop the petty name calling, I will step aside from responding to any more of your demeaning posts. If you wish to discuss it on a higher more evolved level, I am more than willing to do so.

Until that time, I await your social evolution. Have a nice day.

a reply to: Krakatoa

I'd rather be rude and inconsiderate than dangerously ignorant.

There is no "higher more evolved level" once you start arguing the pro's of America's gun problem you already scraping the bottom of the barrel.