Trigger-happy Atlanta mom shoots intruder in the face 5 times


Off-Topic Discussions

101 to 150 of 836 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it'd be "totally awesome" if I could have a dirty nuclear bomb.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
mordion wrote:
I think a personal preference is a real reason.

I believe that mere personal preference is among the least persuasive of reasons, and falls utterly by the wayside when stacked up against the societal imperative of ensuring the safety of children entrusted to the care of the state (and other similar concerns).

Quote:
I don't think that it's up to me, or you, or anyone to decide how much having a smaller magazine decreases someone's enjoyment of a firearm. If they say it matters a lot, then it matters a lot. Even if it only matters because they think it's totally awesome.

Unfortunately, we have to decide how much enjoyment matters in order to weigh it against other concerns. And we often do. Plenty of people enjoy driving cars very fast, for instance, but we marginalize their enjoyment in favor of speed limits that make motor travel safer. So while you may not think it's anyone's place to decide such things, the fact of the matter is that we decide such things all the time.

Quote:
I was hesitant to mention the watercraft issue specifically, because I didn't want to get bogged down in specifics. I suppose I was trying to parse whether you thought 500 deaths (even if accidental) was a reason to ban something or whether you weigh the deaths in a mass murder differently than those accidental deaths. (If you want some kind of hypothetical say accidents with swords or toy magnet swallowing shoot up to 500 deaths this year)

Deaths (and, indeed, any negative outcome) needs to be weighed against the positive. When it comes to laws, that positives generally need to be seen as benefiting society.

Quote:
Thanks, that article was on point, and the kind of thing I was having trouble finding. I still wish I could find some hard numbers comparing suicide attempt rates between households with and without guns, but I don't wish it hard enough to look for more than 10 minutes. :) I did mention in my first post that I suspected gun owners were more likely to attempt suicide, I just didn't see the kind of hard numbers that there are for completed suicides.

Those numbers might be buried somewhere, but they won't necessarily be accurate. It's really quite hard to set these studies up, and the difficulty of nailing down populations is evident in the wildly ranging figures on increased suicide rates (200% - 1000%). While they prove fairly conclusively that gun access increases suicides, I'd hesitate to call those numbers "hard".

Either way, we're incredibly fortunate to be living in a time where it is possible for anyone with internet access to uncover primary sources and published studies on nearly any topic. Speaking as someone with a degree in this area, none of the figures I'm citing are things I'm remembering from my education; rather, the education gave me a strong background in research which I can then use to track down the data I'm looking for. Twenty years ago, it would have meant I could navigate a library's stacks and thumb through journals. Today, it means I can familiarize myself with the contemporary thinking on a specific area of social research in a matter of minutes.

tl;dr: The internet is really, really cool.


meatrace wrote:
I think it'd be "totally awesome" if I could have a dirty nuclear bomb.

I thought the speed limit example was a little easier to relate to, but sure, there's always the extension of the calculus to, "My dad and I had a suitcase nuke growing up and we enjoyed it together so don't infringe on my rights!"


What can I say, there's just something gratifying to me in taking the most extreme example possible when I see no logical stopping point between it and counterexamples.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Quote:
When it comes to laws, that positives generally need to be seen as benefiting society.

That's simply not true, or at least it's true only in the sense that personal preference benefits society. From second-hand smoke, to cars not having engine regulators that keep them below 80mph, or breathalyzers keyed to the ignition, you don't need to prove a societal benefit for everything that also has negative outcomes. The negative outcomes have to be (or should have to be) enormous before society is willing to violate someone's rights to tobacco or sports cars or large magazines.

I'm not talking about dirty bombs here, I'm not even talking about firearms in general. Scott Betts was talking specifically about semi-automatic rifles with large magazines, I am, and have been, responding to his position that such magazines (and such rifles?) be banned.

~500 people are murdered with rifles each year (surely not all of them attributable to large magazine sizes). That number is similar to the number of people bludgeoned or stabbed each year, it's not the reason our murder rate is high. I can see an emotional reaction to want to eliminate the kinds of weapons used in the mass murder of children, and I understand (and agree with) the argument that smaller magazines might have saved lives, but the danger posed by a 30 round magazine (again, not a dirty bomb, rocket launcher or tank) simply doesn't rise to the level of something that needs to be banned on the federal level.


But then basically what you're saying is that it is worth 500 lives a year so that you can have your jollies.
*shrug*


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm certainly glad this woman was able to defend herself and her child. This one example more than makes up for all the accidental shootings that take place in homes with firearms and small children. Anecdotal evidence is always superior to statistics.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well, no, not my jollies. I don't have any rifles, or large magazines for rifles. I find going to the gun range to be boring and expensive, I'm not very worried about anyone breaking into my house, or an Orwellian government that must be fought in the streets. On a personal level I'd very happily sell my right to buy firearms for a lifetime adventure path subscription. I'd give up alcohol for a minis subscription, and, hell, if you really need to you can quarter soldiers in my house once in a while for the companion line.

The issue is making more and more restrictive rules for smaller and smaller gains. You have to recognize that as a society we allow more dangerous things to go on in the name of letting people enjoy themselves, or freedom or whatever you want to call it.


pres man wrote:
When looking at pitbulls and attacks, you have to also consider that the perception of these being vicious dogs is what gets certain people to purchase them and abuse them. Basically the reputation is a self-fulfilling prophecy type thing. People think they are vicious, so people that are likely to abuse them, treat them poorly are exactly the type of people looking for an animal with that reputation. Thus they are treated poorly and end up being violent and thus getting a violent reputation which only makes those people looking for such want to get them so ...

One of the legitimate reasons that they're popular in the cities is that they're a pretty small dog with a large bite for their size: they can fit in your apartment and still protect your stuff. An annoying yapping poodle that serves as an alarm in the burbs is a deterrent because the police will be there in a few minutes. If the cops need to put on body armor to leave their cars to respond to your neighborhood, you may need a little bit more than just an alarm.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pres man wrote:

Translation of Zombieneighbours' comments: "I am a smart british man, while this was a stupid american woman. I wouldn't be as stupid as she was. It was all her fault."

Blame the victim. Nice.

Wo what I should ignore the fact she made bad decisions, which lead to her shooting someone in the face, five time, in front of her children?

I am not "blaming" her. I am just not ignoring her bad decision making.

Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
It's not really fair, either. An untrained civilian in what was probably her first exposure to this type of situation? I wouldn't expect her to think of the most prudent course of action.

She thought about it enough to purchase a gun.

It does not take much effort to go out and get the informaion needed to reduce your risk of crime, and to put in place a simple plan for getting to a place of safety in a emergency in your home. Less effort than purchasing a firearm and firearms safe, and arranging its instilation. I mean, she does have a firearms safe right? She does live with her children after all right?

I am very happy that both the woman, and the children are safe.

But the article does not provide evidence that they where ar risk, only that their was an intruder. For all way know we are talking about a hungry and desperate homeless guy who broke in, discovered them by accident and got shoot for his attempts to get some food. We don't know all the details, so I try to avoid jumping to the conlusion that this is a simple case of "woman heroically defends family with guns which are awesome!"


3 people marked this as a favorite.

If my mom had shot an intruder in front of me when I was nine, I probably would have obeyed her more often as a teenager and would probably have eaten all of my vegetables, done my homework, and be a productive member of society instead of a pot-smoking warehouse worker.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Anyway, back to links of racist America murdering black people:

At-ti-ca! At-ti-ca! At-ti-ca!


Zombieneighbours wrote:


She thought about it enough to purchase a gun.

It does not take much effort to go out and get the informaion needed to reduce your risk of crime, and to put in place a simple plan for getting to a place of safety in a emergency in your home. Less effort than purchasing a firearm and firearms safe, and arranging its instilation. I mean, she does have a firearms safe right? She does live with her children after all right?

I'd disagree with that - having looked into safe rooms (given the UK gunlaws, I'm unlikely to ever get a gun even if I wanted one...or could afford one) they're not that easy to do. If a determined intruder runs across a locked door they'll try and get through. Either because they desire whatever is being protected or because they're violent. A normal household door and lock won't keep them out - I accidentally popped a lock once moving furniture, and kicked through another in a moment of grief. So first of all you need to replace both the door and frame, and make sure it has a high quality lock.

That's assuming you have solid stone or brick internal walls that can also withstand a sustained assault - something not every house can brag. Especially more modern house aren't always as solid as they might look. If a suitably heavy item can be used to go through the wall then it's not terribly secure.

Without a fairly major investment the best you can easily and cheaply do is getting a door that will hold long enough for you to get out via a window or rear exit. Which is what we have, being poor. We also keep a can of Deep Heat spray, used for soothing various injuries, near the bedroom door...because a face full of that will give people a problem. Also, a sword.

But compared to buying and securing a gun safe, the cost of making a room truly secure is fairly high.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I guess for some folks a firearm used as intended for home defense will never be ok.

Liberty's Edge

Guns for home defense are fine. What most of us would like is a reasonable tiered licensing system for firearms.

aka: Everyone gets a background check, most people can get small caliber stuff on just the background check, but large caliber/automatic weapon grade stuff requires actual licensing similar to driving a car.

But it is easier for the NRA to scream "They tryin' to take your guns!" than to discuss that kind of reasonable proposal.

Speaking of which, why didn't the NRA suggest we arm young black men to better protect themselves after the Trayvon Martin incident?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This isn't about the NRA. This is about this one specific event.
A woman protected her children from an intruder after trying to hide from them. Only when confronted did she shoot. This is a best case scenario involving firearms for home defense.
Then ZN comes up with "maybe he was a homeless guy looking for food". I dunno, do you suppose the woman and her children were hiding in the refridgerator? Seriously?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:

I got like ten paragraphs in (out of dozens; that's closer to a book than a blog post) and found him a) trying to defend the idea that teachers should be able to concealed carry in classrooms, and b) that the average number of people shot in mass shootings where the shooter is stopped by civilians is 2.5 (the thorn, here, being that an event doesn't qualify as a "mass shooting" until four people have been shot and killed, which means that most of the "mass shooting" events he's referencing in this stat - a stat he doesn't bother to cite a source for, either - were not mass shootings, which in turn makes his argument toothless and dishonest).

Someone who cannot bother to read an entire argument before discounting it has absolutely no grounding with which to accuse others of intellectual dishonesty. Further, you've got a wonderful catch-22 going here. If you stop an attempted mass shooting early, it is not a mass shooting.

Whether or not you believe that someone with a concealed carry permit could stop a mass shooter, the reality is there is no reason not to allow concealed carry in every location that is not secured (e.g. metal detectors and security at the door). The fundamental truth is, was, and has always been that "gun free zones" are only ever free of law abiding gun owners. Someone intent on committing felony crime, or intent on a mass shooting, is not going to be deterred by a sign that prohibits carrying a firearm. I do not understand how anyone with any amount of reasoning skills can possibly defend the concept or implementation of the "gun free zone".

In Utah they've allowed teachers (K-12) to carry concealed for 12 years without incident. In Colorado they've allowed the same in many college campuses (incidentally, without incident) for a similar amount of time (and have allowed students to carry as well). There is there is no down side in practice, and the potential for enormous up side, even laying aside the benefit of allowing more personal freedom vs. more restrictions. All the hypothetical Brady Campaign "BLOOD IN THE STREETS AND IN OUR CLASSROOMS, SHOOTOUTS OVER PARKING SPACES AND GRADES" never manifested, and it never will.

Scott Betts wrote:

Five rounds to the face were not required. Probably one round to the face would have done the trick. It's clear that he suffered a mortal wound(s) and would have died without treatment. It's also clear that this woman's six-round capacity revolver was more than sufficient to put an end to the crime.

So I'm afraid I don't understand why you believe this justifies a magazine nearly triple that size. You want it to justify it, so you develop half-arguments that superficially appear to support it.

What is clear is that despite 5 bullet wounds this man was capable of continuing to function. He was capable of walking, moving down stairs, talking, and driving for some time afterwards.

This also means, incidentally, that had he been intent on her harm he was also likely capable of caving her skull in with his crowbar despite 5 exceptionally placed shots.

Let me be honest, you strike me as someone who has very little knowledge of how ballistic wounds affect the human body. Maybe you've watched too many movies of someone getting shot and falling over dead, I don't know. Had you finished Larry's article you might have gotten a primer in it, but let me go ahead and explain in brief.

Barring extreme damage to the brain, the human body physiologically only ceases to function (as in the target falls down, then falls unconscious) in the short term when its blood pressure falls too low - basically as a result of bleeding out. As the result of single bullet wound that typically takes a long time - more than long enough to harm someone else (especially the person who shot you).

Incidentally, more holes (or bigger holes) = faster blood loss = faster unconsciousness. It does not matter if a wound is mortal to your opponent if he is still capable of doing the same unto you.

Even laying aside this argument, here's another against magazine size limitations.

They don't matter at all to a mass shooter. Do you shoot? Do you know how long it takes to swap out a magazine in a pistol? I'm no Navy Seal and I can do it in less than 1 second. Even a comically non-proficient shooter (my mother for instance) could do it in 2 seconds. I don't buy, and have never bought, the argument that if mass shooters did not have access to normal capacity magazines it would reduce the death toll. That's even assuming you are able to get the tens or hundreds of millions of magazines in circulation today out of circulation.

A mass shooter can easily carry a dozen magazines instead of a half dozen.

Do you know who can't? Someone who is concealed carrying.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zombieneighbours wrote:


- Things I would not do, get myself cornered in a crawl space.

- Get my self into a position where my children have to witness me shoot some one.

- Get myself into a position where I feel I have no option but to shoot some one, and there by have to live with the fact I had done so.

You're pretending that you have full control over whether or not you get put into these situations. News flash, the guy that comes into your home to rob you isn't going to give you a 30-minute notice so that you can avoid all of these situations.


Scott Betts wrote:
mordion wrote:
Nope, I understand and respect the reasons you'd like to ban them, but the first half of the sentence is a bad argument.
I'm not using it as a reason to ban anything. I'm saying that there are reasons for banning such weapons that do exist. Normally, the reasons in favor of banning the weapons would have to be weighed against the reasons not to ban them. However, since there are no real reasons not to ban them, no weighing needs to take place. There are legitimate reasons for banning them, and no legitimate reasons not to that might provide a counterargument to banning them.

I think this is a bit dismissive of other people's opinions. Who decides what's legitimate and what's not?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Citizen Betts being dismissive of others' opinions? No! I don't believe it!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like Scott but most of his posts come off that way.
May or may not be the intent.


ciretose wrote:

Guns for home defense are fine. What most of us would like is a reasonable tiered licensing system for firearms.

aka: Everyone gets a background check, most people can get small caliber stuff on just the background check, but large caliber/automatic weapon grade stuff requires actual licensing similar to driving a car.

But it is easier for the NRA to scream "They tryin' to take your guns!" than to discuss that kind of reasonable proposal.

Speaking of which, why didn't the NRA suggest we arm young black men to better protect themselves after the Trayvon Martin incident?

You should really do some entry level reading into this, before you talk about it.

What is small caliber? What is large caliber? Incidentally, high caliber weapons are those that are typically used for hunting, while smaller caliber weapons are the ones people are attempting to ban. Six and Seven from the left people want to ban. The ones further down on the right they claim they want to defend.

Small caliber weapons (e.g. .22) are ineffective for home defense. I could shoot you twenty times with a .22 and you could still walk away. You could similarly shoot me with a small caliber weapon and still have me club your brains in with a crowbar.

Automatic weapons have been incredibly regulated since the 1930s (National Firearms Act), and saw even further regulation in the 60s (Gun Control Act) and 80s (Hughes Amendment).

The NRA argues people are trying to "take our guns" because most gun control advocates are trying to "take our guns". I don't know how much more simple I can make it. The new assault weapons ban outlaws a significant number of things that I own, and that my friends or family own.

I'm guessing the reason that the NRA didn't suggest young black men carry guns around is because 1. the facts of the case are not in any way clear, with regard to attacker and victim, 2. Trayvon was too young to buy a firearm, much less carry (21), and 3. because young African American men are per capita dramatically more likely to be both offenders and victims in homicides. I can imagine that the African American community has its own strong feelings on firearms, considering their young men are ten times as likely to be murdered with a firearm by by their young men.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zombieneighbours wrote:
pres man wrote:

Translation of Zombieneighbours' comments: "I am a smart british man, while this was a stupid american woman. I wouldn't be as stupid as she was. It was all her fault."

Blame the victim. Nice.

Wo what I should ignore the fact she made bad decisions, which lead to her shooting someone in the face, five time, in front of her children?

I am not "blaming" her. I am just not ignoring her bad decision making.

....What bad decision making? Using too small of a gun? Not finishing him off with a kitchen knife while he was down?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Obviously, calling her husband (who then called 911), retreating to the crawlspace and hiding with her children wasn't enough to prevent the crowbar-wielding hungry homeless man from going through every room (including the kitchen?) looking for food. Idiots.


ciretose wrote:

Guns for home defense are fine. What most of us would like is a reasonable tiered licensing system for firearms.

aka: Everyone gets a background check, most people can get small caliber stuff on just the background check, but large caliber/automatic weapon grade stuff requires actual licensing similar to driving a car.

But it is easier for the NRA to scream "They tryin' to take your guns!" than to discuss that kind of reasonable proposal.

Speaking of which, why didn't the NRA suggest we arm young black men to better protect themselves after the Trayvon Martin incident?

Perchase of firearms does require a background check, this is a huge misconception. Also to carry them in public in anything but a locked case requires even further investigation in most states. The level of check does vary greatly and should be addressed/ standardized, but handguns and anything on an AR platfrom cant simply be bought no questions asked at any reputable dealership. If you do your research you will find that almost all gun crime that is not a crime of passion goes back to a stolen weapon, a straw purchase, or a disreputable dealer. Further laws on purchasing will make it tougher on honest folks to get guns, but those with the intent to commit a crime will not have any trouble getting their hands on a weapon. Where new laws need to be addressed is if your weapon is used an a crime by another, or if you sold a gun to someone who shouldnt have legally owned one.

If I serve you a drink too many at a bar and you kill someone in your car...I can be charged for negligance. If my gun is used to shoot up a bank because I didnt have it properly secured...the same rule should apply.

Also..not to get off on too much of a rant. But the whole mag size/ AR arguement is purely based on a knee jerk reaction to asthetics. It makes no difference what your using, if you attack a large unarmed crowd, pistols, shotguns, ARs are all just as dangerous with even a modicum of preperation. Passing counter measures for specific weapons means very little. What needs to be addressed is how mental health is not treated in this country, and how personal responsibility is virtually ignored beyond the people commiting these horrible crimes first hand.


"Even laying aside this argument, here's another against magazine size limitations.

They don't matter at all to a mass shooter. Do you shoot? Do you know how long it takes to swap out a magazine in a pistol? I'm no Navy Seal and I can do it in less than 1 second. Even a comically non-proficient shooter (my mother for instance) could do it in 2 seconds. I don't buy, and have never bought, the argument that if mass shooters did not have access to normal capacity magazines it would reduce the death toll. That's even assuming you are able to get the tens or hundreds of millions of magazines in circulation today out of circulation.

A mass shooter can easily carry a dozen magazines instead of a half dozen.

Do you know who can't? Someone who is concealed carrying"

Also this...and he isnt even taking into consideration banding the mag's together back to back.

I swear 80% of people who spout off what gun laws "should be" have absoloutely zero experience with them first hand. Uneducated opinions are dangerous.


Scott Betts wrote:
Five rounds to the face were not required. Probably one round to the face would have done the trick. It's clear that he suffered a mortal wound(s) and would have died without treatment. It's also clear that this woman's six-round capacity revolver was more than sufficient to put an end to the crime.

First off, we are talking about a revolver here. It is not likely she got off all six shots in the span of 1/2 a second. Which meant the guy didn't instantaneously pull back from the door. One bullet didn't stop him. The fact that she hit with five of the six shots also meant either she was a very capable and cool and collected shooter or he was damn close to her. (we have talked about accuracy in the past)

Secondly, if you had read the original article, you would have seen that both her and the guy didn't realize she was actually out of bullets. She told him to stay down or she would shoot again. This gave her and her children a chance to get away. If the guy had realize she was in fact out of bullets, who knows what he would have done. He was able to get up and make it to his car and try to drive away, so he wasn't entirely incapacitated. Luckily for everyone, he didn't try to attack them while they were leaving, if he had, then we would have seen that six bullets might not have been enough.

Also, in the original article, it is mentioned I believe that the crawl space was off the home office, not the kitchen. So no this crowbar wielding invader most likely was not looking for food. No poor starving homeless guy shot in the face by trigger-happy gun owner. Also the gun may have actually been the woman's husband. She may have never considered that she might need to use it until this day.

Liberty's Edge

I'm perfectly OK with how the mom handled this. Apparently the cops are too, professing their admiration at her resolve and handling at her first shooting better than one of their officers.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I'm certainly glad this woman was able to defend herself and her child. This one example more than makes up for all the accidental shootings that take place in homes with firearms and small children. Anecdotal evidence is always superior to statistics.

Zing! Now that's some fine snark!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Guy Humual wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I'm certainly glad this woman was able to defend herself and her child. This one example more than makes up for all the accidental shootings that take place in homes with firearms and small children. Anecdotal evidence is always superior to statistics.
Zing! Now that's some fine snark!

Also fun when someone sights "statistics" but does zero research, posts no real numbers themselves, and does no annalysis to understand what those numbers actually mean nor the how;s and why's of there generation.


JonGarrett wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:


She thought about it enough to purchase a gun.

It does not take much effort to go out and get the informaion needed to reduce your risk of crime, and to put in place a simple plan for getting to a place of safety in a emergency in your home. Less effort than purchasing a firearm and firearms safe, and arranging its instilation. I mean, she does have a firearms safe right? She does live with her children after all right?

I'd disagree with that - having looked into safe rooms (given the UK gunlaws, I'm unlikely to ever get a gun even if I wanted one...or could afford one) they're not that easy to do. If a determined intruder runs across a locked door they'll try and get through. Either because they desire whatever is being protected or because they're violent. A normal household door and lock won't keep them out - I accidentally popped a lock once moving furniture, and kicked through another in a moment of grief. So first of all you need to replace both the door and frame, and make sure it has a high quality lock.

That's assuming you have solid stone or brick internal walls that can also withstand a sustained assault - something not every house can brag. Especially more modern house aren't always as solid as they might look. If a suitably heavy item can be used to go through the wall then it's not terribly secure.

Without a fairly major investment the best you can easily and cheaply do is getting a door that will hold long enough for you to get out via a window or rear exit. Which is what we have, being poor. We also keep a can of Deep Heat spray, used for soothing various injuries, near the bedroom door...because a face full of that will give people a problem. Also, a sword.

But compared to buying and securing a gun safe, the cost of making a room truly secure is fairly high.

Not a safe room. A gun safe. They range between £120 and £1000 for a safe that will meet most owners needs. They are a minimium requirement for gun ownership in the UK, as gun owners must prove that they can secure their firearms where burglers,children and stupid buggers cannot access them.

Liberty's Edge

@Lazurin Arborlon - Purchase of firearms requires a background check unless it is at a Gun Show, where a large number of purchases are made.

And you tried to move the argument with the rest of your post to concealed carry.

Liberty's Edge

40% is a decent guess of how many are sold without background checks. The info is old, but there is nothing newer according to this fact checker.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You will also not the article says James Holmes bought through a licensed dealer. Your instinct might be to go "A HA! Closing the loophole would do nothing!"

You would be wrong of course, because Holmes doctor reported him as dangerous months before...but there was no mechanism to stop his purchases or notify law enforcement of them.

So when he went to buy the gun, if his doctor could have flagged him he would have shown up in the system and been unable to purchase the guns and ammunition...well, unless he went to a gun show...

Sovereign Court

Peter Stewart wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Well I don't agree with that. Chasing him off was the best case scenario in my mind. Unless your goal is to kill him, then maybe 17 rounds wouldn't be enough, but me personally I'd be happy with chasing him off.

Don't misunderstand me. I am not speaking of chasing the guy down and attacking him as he flees. Instead, I'm pointing out that despite being shot 5 times in vital areas he was capable of decent motor control for some time e.g. had he been intent on attacking he could have continued to do so.

My preference would be that so long as you are capable of attacking, I am capable of shooting.

Right, but there is a fight or flight mentality here, the lady being cornered couldn't run and the criminal probably wasn't that interested in fighting after the first bullet to the head. I'm thinking he didn't count the shots and continue the confrontation because he knew she'd spent her six rounds. I'm thinking that she was panicked and fired her six almost immediately. And I'm also thinking that then the rest of the confrontation was him stumbling around trying to escape. The intruder would have probably ended up dead if she had 17 rounds and I don't see that as an improvement to this story.

Sovereign Court

Lazurin Arborlon wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I'm certainly glad this woman was able to defend herself and her child. This one example more than makes up for all the accidental shootings that take place in homes with firearms and small children. Anecdotal evidence is always superior to statistics.
Zing! Now that's some fine snark!
Also fun when someone sights "statistics" but does zero research, posts no real numbers themselves, and does no annalysis to understand what those numbers actually mean nor the how;s and why's of there generation.

It's much easier to report what some guy told you. Especially if that guy has beliefs similar to your own. 78% of people know that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Guy Humual wrote:
Lazurin Arborlon wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I'm certainly glad this woman was able to defend herself and her child. This one example more than makes up for all the accidental shootings that take place in homes with firearms and small children. Anecdotal evidence is always superior to statistics.
Zing! Now that's some fine snark!
Also fun when someone sights "statistics" but does zero research, posts no real numbers themselves, and does no annalysis to understand what those numbers actually mean nor the how;s and why's of there generation.
It's much easier to report what some guy told you. Especially if that guy has beliefs similar to your own. 78% of people know that.

43% of statistics are made up on the spot.

Sovereign Court

thejeff wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Lazurin Arborlon wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I'm certainly glad this woman was able to defend herself and her child. This one example more than makes up for all the accidental shootings that take place in homes with firearms and small children. Anecdotal evidence is always superior to statistics.
Zing! Now that's some fine snark!
Also fun when someone sights "statistics" but does zero research, posts no real numbers themselves, and does no annalysis to understand what those numbers actually mean nor the how;s and why's of there generation.
It's much easier to report what some guy told you. Especially if that guy has beliefs similar to your own. 78% of people know that.
43% of statistics are made up on the spot.

Funny, I thought that number would be higher. Well I like the cut of your jib sir, I shall take your word for it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:


43% of statistics are made up on the spot.

I believe it's actually 60%. (NSFW: naughty word or two)

The Exchange

BigNorseWolf wrote:


They're trying, but biology is a funny thing.

Interjecting back into the conversation after a day away from computers is, apprently, a clumsy affair. Nontheless I would like to bring this from the first page back into the conversation.

Anyway, maybe there is some sort of serious research going on about this kind of thing that I am not awere of (given that I can only be awere of such research through newspapers, there is a high chance of that), but I suspect it's not half as serious as it should be.

Really, when you look at the scientific accomplishments and inventions in some fields at the last 50 years or so I find it hard to believe that if appropriate resources were directed to the subject, it would be solved. It's really only a question of priority. Maybe, until recently, there was a low priority on finding effective, personal self defense items that were NOT lethal. Now that the U.S president has officialy decreed gun wielding as part of a large scale national problem, maybe something will change.

Until that happens, guns will continue to be a mixed blessing (in cases like this one) and curse (in many other cases). They must be viewd as a very temporal solution, though, and I feel people on either side of the "gun wielding" fence should urge their govrenment to take action and seriously search for another.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:

This isn't about the NRA. This is about this one specific event.

A woman protected her children from an intruder after trying to hide from them. Only when confronted did she shoot. This is a best case scenario involving firearms for home defense.
Then ZN comes up with "maybe he was a homeless guy looking for food". I dunno, do you suppose the woman and her children were hiding in the refridgerator? Seriously?

No, they where in a crawl space. The location where families often store items that have value, but which they no longer use.

Valuables = food and shelter for months to come.

He probably wasn't homeless and looking for food, and I specifically said we do not know all the details, based on the available reports. Which is why I said we shouldn't jump to conclusions.

That argument goes for my first statement. For instance their maybe good reasons why she was unable to get herself and family to safety, rather than hiding in a dead end.

Other assumptions; that an intruder equals a danger. Violence rates for burgleries is around 7%, and of those 61% the burgler was unarmed. In only twelve 12% of violent burglaries, does the assailant have a firearm. Most burglers are not looking for a violent outcome. So just cause you've been confronted, does not mean you are in danger.

By no measure was this an ideal outcome. A guy was shot, in front of terrified children.

Crime does not happen for no reason. People commit crimes out of needs and wants which they cannot achieve in other ways. Even though he probably was not homeless, there are certain predictions you can make about him, which are likely to be true. He was probably known to the family, he was probably living close to or below the povity line, and he was likely a drug or alcohol addict. The guy who broke in, is almost certainly, in some way also a victim(not including those five shots to the face) not of the home owner but of the society in which he lives.

American scores worse than almost every other developed nation, no nearly every measure of societal health.

Given that gun ownership, death penalties, and prison are of questionable efficacy in preventing crimes, while better home security, rehabilitation focused interventions and treatment for drug and alcohol problems are all effective means of reducing it...perhaps it is time you stop as a nation trying to solve crime with guns, and start treating the underlying condition.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:
pres man wrote:

Translation of Zombieneighbours' comments: "I am a smart british man, while this was a stupid american woman. I wouldn't be as stupid as she was. It was all her fault."

Blame the victim. Nice.

Wo what I should ignore the fact she made bad decisions, which lead to her shooting someone in the face, five time, in front of her children?

I am not "blaming" her. I am just not ignoring her bad decision making.

....What bad decision making? Using too small of a gun? Not finishing him off with a kitchen knife while he was down?

Hiding in a crawl space, where she could be trapped and forced to use potentially lethal violence in front of children...

not purchasing an escape ladder so she can get her self and the children out...

not having purchased a very loud panic button based alarm...


meatrace wrote:
I think it'd be "totally awesome" if I could have a dirty nuclear bomb.

I know you're being facetious, but is there anyway to safely store a dirty bomb? Wouldn't you poison everyone within miles of your house?


Zombieneighbours wrote:


Hiding in a crawl space, where she could be trapped and forced to use potentially lethal violence in front of children...

not purchasing an escape ladder so she can get her self and the children out...

not having purchased a very loud panic button based alarm...

Do you think that particualr robber will try to rob another house?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I also think that the children learned that if you corner a woman and her kids in her house, you may get shot in the face. A lesson perhaps the other gentleman did not get as a child.


Kryzbyn wrote:
meatrace wrote:
I think it'd be "totally awesome" if I could have a dirty nuclear bomb.
I know you're being facetious, but is there anyway to safely store a dirty bomb? Wouldn't you poison everyone within miles of your house?

A dirty bomb is relatively easy to store safely. You would only needs waterproofed concrete box(preferably mostly underground). Don't know the dimensions of the box, but not to difficult to work out those dimensions.

The hard one is safely transporting it for when you take it dear hunting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If I ever have to shoot someone in my house I'll be damn sure they don't survive the encounter. Otherwise the jackass will probably end up suing me and probably winning based on our F'd up justice system.

Here's hoping it never comes to that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:


Hiding in a crawl space, where she could be trapped and forced to use potentially lethal violence in front of children...

not purchasing an escape ladder so she can get her self and the children out...

not having purchased a very loud panic button based alarm...

Do you think that particualr robber will try to rob another house?

Once he has recovered and spent time in prison, he is statistically likely more likely to re-affend than a non-offender is to offend for the first time. If the social and economic pressures on him are strong enough, I have absolutely no doubt he will. The criminal record he will aquire also make it more likely that those pressures become significant enough to trigger recidivism.

The factor most likely to prevent it, is long term physical or learning disability resulting from the injuries. But hey,that means he is less likely to become a successful member of society, and because of the way american health and social care provision seems to work, he will likely bedependant on a friend or family member, there by pushing them closer to the point where criminal activity becomes attractive as a way to make it in the world.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zombieneighbours wrote:

Hiding in a crawl space, where she could be trapped and forced to use potentially lethal violence in front of children...

It seemed to have worked out ok.

Quote:
not purchasing an escape ladder so she can get her self and the children out...

So you're going to unravel an escape ladder and get two sleepy 9 year old kids down it, without them falling off it and without alerting the guy with a crowbar where you are?

Uhm.. no.

Quote:
not having purchased a very loud panic button based alarm...

They are useless. People assume they are car alarms and ignore them.

When i get my place, this is what burglars will hear upon opening the door...


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:

Hiding in a crawl space, where she could be trapped and forced to use potentially lethal violence in front of children...

It seemed to have worked out ok.

Quote:
not purchasing an escape ladder so she can get her self and the children out...

So you're going to unravel an escape ladder and get two sleepy 9 year old kids down it, without them falling off it and without alerting the guy with a crowbar where you are?

Uhm.. no.

Why do you need to not notify him where you are? Most home invaders will not be actively looking for a confrontation. You being out of the house means they have free reign until the police show up. That is a win for them. They also know that the cops have probably already been alerted, so they wont be spending too much time at your place after they hear it.

You let your s!+~ get stolen, you get out safely, and your insurance will cover major losses. Its much better than risking a confrontation, traumatizing your children, and possibly not getting the upper hand.

101 to 150 of 836 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Trigger-happy Atlanta mom shoots intruder in the face 5 times All Messageboards