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

IMO, and the supreme legal document of my country agrees, the right of a person to keep and bear arms is self evident. It is part of the fabric of society that does not depend upon anyone else to defend you or your family from threats both foreign and domestic. There are other viewpoints on this, yes. However, in the United states of America, this is one of the basic contracts we hold to each citizen. It is not forced upon anyone, it is provided as a choice to exercise that right, or not. In this case, the elderly woman made that decision to defend herself and her husband, in a life threatening situation. She did not go wild shooting everywhere. She used proper restraint and control to neutralize the threat. Four shots, three of which it the mark....period. Once the criminal was not longer a threat, she lowered her firearm and called police.

This was a by-the-book response, with the desired outcome. There were no other casualties, she and her husband will continue to live their lives (I hope she can move beyond the thought of taking a life, that is not an easy decision at all). The criminal will never again threaten, beat, or rob anyone else ever again.

As I stated before, the criminal in this case set the stage of his own death. He made the mistaken decision to invade the home of two elderly people, thinking the were an easy mark. He thought wrong. To others of his kind out there, keep this in mind next time you think someone is an easy mark. They might just be a carrying a firearm or other device for protection.

Unless of course you are in another country that does not allow its citizens to carry a firearm. Then they might just be the easy mark you are looking for, and could provide that treasure/drugs you want. After all, the police, once called, will take somewhere between 15 and 30 minutes on average to arrive at your location. There will be nobody to stop you for that entire time.....once called.

This would be a great point, however, fortunately for the rest of the civilised world we don't have the ridiculous crime rates that your amazing United States of America has.

This was the desired outcome? The death of the criminal? If so do you execute all criminals caught by the police for attempted robbery and assault?

Answer me this one question, without going on a tangent about your antiquated, misinterpreted "contract" that you believe was meant for grannies to own guns.

If gun ownership is such a good thing why is the crime rate, and violent crime rate, proportionately so much higher than other civilised countries that do not follow the same rules?

Potential criminals be on notice, if you beat, assault and rob someone in the United States, you could be facing the wrong end of a firearm. The moral, just stop, don;t do it. Or, go to one of those other "civilized" countries where you might have a better chance at success and not be shot.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
Potential criminals be on notice, if you beat, assault and rob someone in the United States, you could be facing the wrong end of a forearm. The moral, just stop, don;t do it. Or, go to one of those other "civilized" countries where you might have a better chance at success and not be shot.

It's worked great so far , I mean America is a crime free paradise right? I mean its not like 13 toddlers didn't shoot themselves last year in America.

Why stop at guns, start the Give Every Granny a Nuke campaign.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Barb Moles shot and killed a home intruder who beat her husband with a crowbar and stabbed him with a knife.

That's outrageous!

She should have called the Police and waited for them to take care of the Knife and crow bar weilding maniac...now the poor guy is dead, and she'll have to live with those memories of killing a fellow Human being, everytime she looks at the Husband she saved.






(sarcasm, of course)

When a citizen follows the law regarding the right to bear arms, which includes proper training, storage, handling, and use, there are no accidents. When someone flaunts these, they are in the wrong. My advice is do not exercise this right unless you are prepared to follow all these things. However, I will not attempt to prevent you from that right. You do it wrong, and are found guilty in a court of law (due process) you will be stripped of that right.

Simple.

Unless you visit another civilized country that does not provide that self-protection. Then, you are on your own to rely upon a police force that may (or may not) show up on time in the event of your imminent death. Good luck with that one.

a reply to: Krakatoa

People flount laws regarding vehicle ownership and operation every day of the week...resulting in alarming rates of vehicle related deaths and injuries on our roads (and sidewalks) every day.

When people follow the laws and rules governing vehicle operation i.e. drive within the speed limits, don't drive intoxicated, don't drive without due care and attention, maintain your vehicle and all the rest of it...rates of accidents and deaths related to vehicles drops dramatically.

Same thing with gun ownership...follow the rules and laws, exercise common sense and awareness of potential danger, don't become complacent...accidents drop dramatically.

This simple fact of life applies to pretty much every facet of our existence.

a reply to: MysterX

The thing is... cars are useful. They are not meant to be weapons. Guns are meant to be weapons. If cars didn't serve the purpose of travel people wouldn't have them. Guns serve no justifiable purpose.

But thank you both for ignoring the question I asked, its the one all gun nuts hate. I guess you stick your head back in the sand, resting it next to whatever weapon, safe in the knowledge that by flooding your country with these weapons you are somehow all safer.

Deny ignorance right? Dear lord!

a reply to: SudoNim

When a question is asked in a professional and non-insulting manner, I am happy to answer. Until that time, any post that attempts to denigrate myself or my country will be ignored by me. Your choice.....simple.

originally posted by: SudoNim
a reply to: MysterX

The thing is... cars are useful. They are not meant to be weapons. Guns are meant to be weapons. If cars didn't serve the purpose of travel people wouldn't have them. Guns serve no justifiable purpose.

But thank you both for ignoring the question I asked, its the one all gun nuts hate. I guess you stick your head back in the sand, resting it next to whatever weapon, safe in the knowledge that by flooding your country with these weapons you are somehow all safer.

Deny ignorance right? Dear lord!

You are being deliberately ignorant, trying to conceal your ignorance with an attack...a tired old strategy that is obvious for all to see.

You completely and utterly ignored the point.

Which tells me you are probably a fanatic, who wouldn't be able to comprehend logic in this area if it jumped up and kicked you in the arse.

Incidentally, the granny in the report would argue most strongly that her GUN came in extremely useful in saving the life of her Husband who was being attacked by a nut with a crowbar and a knife.

A car wouldn't have been much use during that particular event, much like the 5 to 10 minutes waiting for the Police to arrive would have been equally useless...if the object was to survive a knife weilding nutcake of course.

You even failed to notice the irony that the nut had a crowbar and a knife that was used to attack the couple...and NOT a gun.

So the only gun in this story was one used to SAVE innocent lives!

But the fact the couple are still alive, and the would-be murderer isn't, probably doesn't register with you.

Ah! Deny all ignorance right?

Not once have I suggested that the granny was wrong to defend herself, you assumed(wrongly) that.

What I am saying, which unsurprisingly seems to have flown over both your heads, is that taking this case on its individual merit is both dangerously arrogant and foolish.

If I shoot the next 30 people that walk through my front door, you would celebrate if one of them turned out to have been a criminal. For every instance that a life is saved or crime prevented due to gun ownership laws in America there are numerous more that are created because of gun ownership laws in America. It's that simple.

Other countries don't have this problem because crime isn't so embedded in our country. We aren't paranoid enough to have to carry a weapon at all times. We don't need to, our countries work better. We have less crime. Facts.

My argument isn't that the Granny shouldn't of shot the man who attacked her husband, its that in our countries she wouldn't of needed to, because the attack would of never taken place.

She's defending herself with a gun because your crime levels are so ridiculously out of control.
Your crime levels are ridiculously out of control because of your gun ownership laws.

The cycle needs to stop.

a reply to: SudoNim

This thread is about this elderly woman (and could be anyone's granny or mother), who, because she had the ability to defend herself, the training, and the will, did so and saved not only her but her husbands life from a criminal invader. That invader, armed with a knife and crowbar (both deadly weapons) was then confronted and shot dead by his next potential victim.

You are trying to derail and expand this into a larger debate between countries and cultures. That is not the purpose of this thread. However, you are free to create your own thread on that topic, and discuss the pros/cons of your country's approach as much and as broad as you like.

But, I politely ask that in this thread, please stay on the topic at hand, the issue of this woman that successfully defended her own life, without the need to wait for police to arrive too late. That, my friend, is the crux of this lesson. If ever you are in this situation, confronted by an attacker, that has shown no qualms about assaulting or killing you or your family (a repeat offender criminal by the way), at least here you have multiple choices.

A. Call the police to handle the intruder, and wait for their arrival
B. Defend yourself with whatever means at your disposal (a firearm if you are so licensed)
C. Hide and run the risk that the attacker will find and kill you and/or your family

Personally, I do not prefer to put my life into someone else's hands, when they are already busy with other crimes, and might take an unknown amount of time to arrive. I also do not choose to try and hide, as they will find you if they are that determined and do not show any remorse for breaking the law up to that point. I prefer to defend myself. Others might make a different choice. But I for one am glad we have this option in this country.

a reply to: SudoNim

When a question is asked in a professional and non-insulting manner, I am happy to answer. Until that time, any post that attempts to denigrate myself or my country will be ignored by me. Use of profanity is not professional.

Your choice.....simple.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: SudoNim

When a question is asked in a professional and non-insulting manner, I am happy to answer. Until that time, any post that attempts to denigrate myself or my country will be ignored by me. Use of profanity is not professional.

Your choice.....simple.

You say that, but you keep replying.

A. Call the police to handle the intruder, and wait for their arrival
B. Defend yourself with whatever means at your disposal (a firearm if you are so licensed)
C. Hide and run the risk that the attacker will find and kill you and/or your family

Those are not the only three answers. You are pushing your own agenda by giving three bias filled suggestions.

Why not.

A. Call the police if there is no immediate threat and wait for their arrival
B. Defend yourself with whatever means at your disposal (a firearm if you are so licensed) risking the lives of anyone else in the house (1 out of the 4 shots missed right?), risk that the attacker will fight back and kill you
C. Hide and run the risk that the attacker will find and kill you and/or your family

See how ridiculous you make some options sound?

You brought up the point about "Having the ability to defend yourself in this country is a god given RIGHT that the government CANNOT infringe." So if you cannot defend your statement I suggest you re-think it, there is nothing "god given" about that antiquated document.

If you can't see the bigger picture then I guess its useless to keep explaining why you are wrong. If you can't see the connection between violent crime and guns then its already a lost cause.

Why do you think the burglar attacked the husband? Maybe because he assumed the house would have a gun on property and he felt the need to take the husband out violently.

What scenario do you prefer,

Criminal enters the house, threatens the occupants at knife point, robs them and then leaves, occupants then call the police and they can search to arrest the man.

Criminal enters the house, immediately starts stabbing the husband to stop them from using any weapons in the house, granny appears and shoots him 3 times and shoot another bullet that misses and hits something else.

In one scenario a man is brutally stabbed the other no-one is hurt.

a reply to: SudoNim

I made the statement that it is a GOD given RIGHT because that is how it is worded in the founding documents. I am sorry you do not agree with them, or see then as antiquated. I guess the Magna Carta is also antiquated then? Or (even though I am not religious) the Ten Commandments, or the Tenets of the Koran? The human psyche has not changed in thousands of years. We still have all the same feelings and emotions, still kill each other for anything. Those sets of "rules of life" are still relevant until such time as we as a species has evolved past our petty emotional differences.

As for my options, they are MY options. As you shown, you have other options. Presenting them in an adult and non insulting manner is all that was needed (as you did above). One of them you state "..risking the lives of anyone else in the house." Yes, sometimes there is risk in involved in protecting oneself. However, in this instance, she waited until it was life threatening to use deadly force. We can speculate all day about the criminals potential actions and other motives. However, we know that this was a repeat offender, and in search of drugs (elderly folks typically have a lot of them due to the pain associated with aging). The majority of the time a criminal in search of drugs is either high at the time or suffering withdrawals. As such, reason and logic go out the window in that case. Trying to use logic to describe how a repeat criminal high or going through withdrawals is an exercise for the foolish. It makes not sense in itself to try. You need to simply react the their actions.

It takes only moments for someone to break into a home. There is no time to think, "Hmmm, that is odd. Perhaps I'll cal the police in case there might be trouble". His actions sealed his fate. And I for one and glad that innocent people were able to protect themselves successfully against a deadly threat in their own home. And it is due to the 2nd Amendment that this was possible. Her firearm was useful for defense. Up to that time it lay dormant (unless she went to practice at the range and train to be more proficient when.if the time came).

You may differ in your opinion, and that is fine. In your world, there may not be the violent people and drug problem we have here. I certainly hope you never have to witness that type of living there in your safe world. Unfortunately, you know what country I am from, whereas I do not know yours. So, I cannot verify your statements with hard facts about the lack of deadly or violent criminals in your perfect world. I suspect, if you open your eyes wider, it is not so perfect and people are attacked and do die from violent criminals.

Life is a case of constant risk management at best. Assess the risk, decide upon a mitigation plan. If you plan does not mitigate the risk, then you either accept the risk or you change your ability to mitigate that risk. Ignoring risk rarely is a winning plan IMO.

a reply to: SudoNim

Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto said: "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."
Some say it is a true quote, and some say not, but take it for what it's worth....

a reply to: SudoNim

Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto said: "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."
Some say it is a true quote, and some say not, but take it for what it's worth....

originally posted by: Ohio_Ron
a reply to: SudoNim

Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto said: "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."
Some say it is a true quote, and some say not, but take it for what it's worth....

Who needs to invade you when your busy killing each other.

Is that what you are worried about, sign up to sensible gun ownership laws and suddenly you'll be invaded.