Mother hiding with kids shoots intruder

reply to post by GuidedKill


I'm basing it on what the article states, and what you guys are using. My argument is based on the fact that she didn't give warning, which is also what you're assuming in your argument.

Her next purchase should be a new form of insurance, perhaps a 40Cal or better, 15 shot mag.

You break into someones castle, you get shot, end of story.

P

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by polarwarrior

 

Read one of your past posts! Your just tryin to jerk some chains......come on now.......

Yes I do have a pro-gun thread.

And my pro-gun stance still remains in this thread, because I think its good she had a gun, and probably good she shot him....BUT she went waaaaaaaay over the top with the shooting. She should have given a verbal warning, then maybe a warning shot in the leg - not shoot him 6 times, nor in the face or neck, nor tried to shoot him while he was down!

She just proved that people can get scared and irrational, and take lives before thinking. The "shoot first ask questions later" mentality does not help the case for responsible gun ownership.

reply to post by WP4YT


That's what i'm saying, but guidedkill is under the impression she's an expert.

Originally posted by xxdaniel21
reply to post by GuidedKill

 

What if the gun misfired? or missed? or something was wrong? What would she have done? How about other avenues?

Her and her kids would have probably been hurt, killed, and/or raped.

Good thing she lives in a country that acknowledges her right to protect herself and her family with a gun.

My argument is based on the fact that she didn't give warning, which is also what you're assuming in your argument.

we don't yet know if that's a "fact". For all we know she DID give him a warning, but once again I say that once you enter someones home then all bets are off and you lost the right to get any kind of warning

Originally posted by xxdaniel21
reply to post by GuidedKill

 

What if the gun misfired? or missed? or something was wrong? What would she have done? How about other avenues?

That's why I suggest all first time gun buyers who buy for protection to purchase a revolver. They never jam and if there is a misfire just pull the trigger again to move to the next bullet.

reply to post by sconner755


You're completely missing my point. I was using that to say she should have had a backup plan, like another avenue. But you people are beyond it.

I understand she has a gun, but like you said, if it misfired, she could have been "raped/killed, etc" (it's funny how you're coming up with the worst scenarios by the way), which is actually more reason to have a backup

Originally posted by polarwarrior

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by polarwarrior

 

Read one of your past posts! Your just tryin to jerk some chains......come on now.......

Yes I do have a pro-gun thread.

And my pro-gun stance still remains in this thread, because I think its good she had a gun, and probably good she shot him....BUT she went waaaaaaaay over the top with the shooting. She should have given a verbal warning, then maybe a warning shot in the leg - not shoot him 6 times, nor in the face or neck, nor tried to shoot him while he was down!

ok serious question, does that just go for this situation? Or do you think people shouldn't shoot to kill in any type of self defense situation?? I'm not trying to bait you or anything I'm just curious to know you stance on such things.

Originally posted by xxdaniel21
reply to post by RN311

 

You're using his criminal history to justify her actions. That doesn't make any sense. She carried out her actions without knowledge of his criminal history. She shot him not knowing whether it was his first offence, or 10th.

Therefore, there is no justification for her actions. She did it blindly. See what i'm saying?

He may not have died, but that doesn't make it okay. Her intentions could have been to kill him, it was just by chance he survived. Again, no justification for her force.

You are completely wrong. She knew the only criminal history she needed to know. He was in her house.

You have it completely ass-backwards.

There was no justification for HIS actions, not hers. She was protecting her family.

Is this really that complicated?

Originally posted by xxdaniel21
reply to post by WP4YT

 

That's what i'm saying, but guidedkill is under the impression she's an expert.

I in no way said she was an expert, just pointed out the fact that she hit what she wanted to shot. Aim at what you want to shot may not be rule one but it's close. She has a good start.

Maybe she should invest in a nice shotgun, that way she would only have to fire once

Originally posted by RN311
ok serious question, does that just go for this situation? Or do you think people shouldn't shoot to kill in any type of self defense situation?? I'm not trying to bait you or anything I'm just curious to know you stance on such things.

Depends on the situation of course.

Originally posted by xxdaniel21
Fired 6 shots? Jesus. That's a bit much. He had only broken in at that point. He wasn't coming for her or the kids.

That could have possibly killed him. Why intend on killing him when his intention is unknown. That's actually taking his life. I know that he "might" have been crazy, but repeat that word for me. "Might". Does that "maybe" warrant actually trying to kill someone?

I don't understand this logic.

She could have actually learnt how to aim a gun and possibly shot 2 shots... in the legs. The way the article describes it - it's as if she sprayed 6 shots, hoping for the best.

I'm not saying ban guns, i'm just saying ban them from people who don't know how to use them, like this idiot.

In actual fact, she's exactly the same as these psychopaths who go on shooting sprees, only her intention was defense... She still has the same "trigger happy" mindset of those that use them recklessly.

edit on 4-1-2013 by xxdaniel21 because: (no reason given)

Haha she knew how to use the gun very well.

I'd be careful who I was calling an idiot when you are the one who can't understand why shooting an intruder is a good thing.

Originally posted by xxdaniel21
reply to post by sconner755

 

You're completely missing my point. I was using that to say she should have had a backup plan, like another avenue. But you people are beyond it.

I understand she has a gun, but like you said, if it misfired, she could have been "raped/killed, etc" (it's funny how you're coming up with the worst scenarios by the way), which is actually more reason to have a backup

No, I completely got your point. It's just your point was idiotic.

When an intruder enters your home, and you are there with your kids, your first priority is protecting your kids. That's what she did.

Her plan A was to unload all six shots from her revolver. Her plan A worked.

Who the hell cares if she had a back-up plan?

OP, How dare you post a story of how a gun saved the lives of children. Those children could have been KILLED. How did the mother know the burgler had a gun? She had no business shooting someone when she didn't know whether he was armed. An innocent man was SHOT for God's sake!

....and other nonsense arguments. Sarcasm off.

What is the takeaway here kids? That's right, a .38 is not the best defense weapon. Not the worst, but go for the .45. While it worked here because she was out of harm's way, had she been face-to-face with this piece of garbage, he was not stopped by FIVE .38 rounds and things could have been much worse.

Originally posted by xxdaniel21
Fired 6 shots? Jesus. That's a bit much. He had only broken in at that point. He wasn't coming for her or the kids.

That could have possibly killed him. Why intend on killing him when his intention is unknown. That's actually taking his life. I know that he "might" have been crazy, but repeat that word for me. "Might". Does that "maybe" warrant actually trying to kill someone?

I don't understand this logic.

She could have actually learnt how to aim a gun and possibly shot 2 shots... in the legs. The way the article describes it - it's as if she sprayed 6 shots, hoping for the best.

I'm not saying ban guns, i'm just saying ban them from people who don't know how to use them, like this idiot.

In actual fact, she's exactly the same as these psychopaths who go on shooting sprees, only her intention was defense... She still has the same "trigger happy" mindset of those that use them recklessly.

edit on 4-1-2013 by xxdaniel21 because: (no reason given)

WOW. I was being somewhat sarcastic, knowing that there are people this ignorant. I didn't know they were on this thread already.

Dude, I wish one day you are in your home and someone breaks in and threatens your life, and you have a gun to defend yourself. And when it's all said and done, I want to know how much restraint YOU showed. Did you just shoot him in the legs? Fire a warning shot? My money is on an empty gun and crapped pants.

Originally posted by polarwarrior

Originally posted by RN311
ok serious question, does that just go for this situation? Or do you think people shouldn't shoot to kill in any type of self defense situation?? I'm not trying to bait you or anything I'm just curious to know you stance on such things.

Depends on the situation of course.

Put yourself in her position your a mom at home alone with your two young children, someone breaks into your home and finds you in your hiding spot. What are YOU going to do??

Before you answer consider the fact that your scared your kids are scared and the only thing your worried about in protecting them. Are you really going to aim at his legs (which I would be willing to bet the only reason she got his face and neck is because she was aiming at his center mass and in the heat of the moment hopped up on fear and adrenaline they landed a little high) but aiming at the legs, doesn't seem effective to me. She wasn't sure if he was armed, by shooting higher up you take away his chance to shoot back if he's armed.

I see people in this thread calling that woman a psycho, saying she was not justified in her use of force. Apparently you have never had anything close to this happen to you, never been in a situation where you were in danger or have had to defend your life. Try to imagine what she went through. She's in her home, with her kids and a man breaks in. She tries to hide, hoping he will just take what he wants and leave. But, he goes looking for them. What do you think he had in mind? Don't know? Neither did she. If he was planning to just rob the place, why go find her and the kids? I would love to see what you would do in a situation like that. Not wishing it on anyone, but when you fear for your and your children's lives, you will do what's needed. Run all you like, I'll stand my ground.

OK did anyone of you actually read the article

First off he knocked at the door, her first reaction was to run and hide WTF!!!

My Mum doesnt open the door to strangers, she asks through the door whos there, if she doesnt know them she doesnt open it.

If she had of simply asked "Whos there" he would have made up a lie and moved on, if not she could have said "I have a gun and will shoot", he wasnt armed so would have fled. He wasnt a convicted rapist. He was in jail for battery, not robbery or anything else so most likely he beat up another crim. If his other 6 arrests were serious ie murder rape kidnap it would have been in the article as it was obviously pro gun.

2nd he didnt "find them" he stumbled upon them while most likely trying to rob them. A shot fired at the roof when he tried to open the door would have scraed the crap outta him and he woulda run.

If she hadnt of been living in fear all this could have been avoided. Thats the problem with all you gun lovers.
You live in fear of something, whether its your gov or muggers or burglars it doesnt matter, YOU ARE ALL SCARED and it affects your judgement.

It seriously seems like you gun lovers are just itching for a chance to use your shiny toys, the fact some of you are saying you wish he was dead or good on her just shows how sick the average gun owners mentality is.

This video is the reason people shouldnt have guns, it was legal, he passed all necessary checks yet he still went out and killed 2 people who didnt endanger his life in any way shape or form



Vast majority of people who own guns Im sure are just dying for the day they can use em like this guy.

You all say theres a conspiracy to take away your guns, I think theres a conspiracy to have you all armed to the teeth. Who makes the guns? who makes money from you all buying guns? The same people who run your country!!!!!
It seems as long as you have guns you bend over and take whatever your corrupt corporation of a government dishes out.

Im done flame away gun nuts