Jump to content



Photo

Mother defends kids, shoots intruder


  • Please log in to reply
223 replies to this topic

#16 Silpheed2K

Silpheed2K

    Neowinian

  • 299 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 05

Posted 05 January 2013 - 14:48

Well here's our solution to the gun issue then. Ban everything but .38 revolvers. Effective against break-ins, but less lethal in the case a crazed gunman shoots up a school...

Incorrect, all guns are equally lethal when fired correctly. Death is the correct end result. Plus, mass shootings have happened with handguns, but that's no reason to ban them or any other gun. It is gun control laws that caused these shootings in the first place. Gun control only leads to more violence, as the people without guns get enslaved by the people with guns. (government, stronger class of people, rival tribe, etc.)
It is history that proves time and time again that gun control doesnt work and only leads to more violence and harsher conditions.


#17 spenser.d

spenser.d

    Neowinian Senior

  • 10,516 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 03

Posted 05 January 2013 - 14:55

Incorrect, all guns are equally lethal when fired correctly. Death is the correct end result. Plus, mass shootings have happened with handguns, but that's no reason to ban them or any other gun. It is gun control laws that caused these shootings in the first place. Gun control only leads to more violence, as the people without guns get enslaved by the people with guns. (government, stronger class of people, rival tribe, etc.)
It is history that proves time and time again that gun control doesnt work and only leads to more violence and harsher conditions.


First of all, no ****. Second, got anything to back up your other claims, because a great deal of research says otherwise on the whole "leads to more violence and enslavement" front (aka there's nothing to support your claim). Third, my post was largely a play on the very amusing thought that the relatively miniscule amount of times people are actually able to defend themselves with guns somehow even remotely compares to the homicide rate and other damage caused by guns. I'm not all gung ho about gun control, but to think everything is all sunshine and roses because we don't control them more is ridiculous.

#18 TheLegendOfMart

TheLegendOfMart

    Neowinian Senior

  • 9,281 posts
  • Joined: 01-October 01
  • Location: England

Posted 05 January 2013 - 15:04

By your logic, he should have given warning before breaking in too, right? You break into my home, it's open season. More places here in the US are adopting "Stand Your Ground" and "castle" laws because no one should have to play nice when the sanctity of their home is violated. Break into someone's home, expect to get shot. No one has to 'give a warning'. Ever.

Wow are you ****ing for real? Should warn them?! Right.

I don't know anyone who would wait to find out if they have a weapon first. If they break in using that kind of force, chances are you are going to be severely hurt, or killed because they already don't care.

Yeah, and offer tea and discuss what the next move should be, while she is at it?

Seriously?

Cops give multiple warnings before they open fire on someone, you cant just empty your magazine just because someone has broken into your house with a crowbar.

I would pull a gun, give him a warning, if he moved anywhere apart from backwards I would try and shoot them somewhere non-vital. I know its easy to say not being in that situation but you can't just shoot someone in the face 5 times then claim self defence.

Shocking how gung-ho pro-gunners are, looking for any excuse to pull the trigger.

#19 Dot Matrix

Dot Matrix

    Way past cool.

  • 9,307 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11
  • Location: Upstate New York
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 920

Posted 05 January 2013 - 15:07

you cant just empty your magazine just because someone has broken into your house with a crowbar.


Castle Doctrine. Someone's in your house, obviously this guy meant them harm. You have the right to defend yourself without legal repercussions.

Without the pistol, this woman would not have had anything to defend herself. Maybe she knows hand to hand, but in this case that crowbar could still cause her great harm or even death.

#20 Dane

Dane

    Neowinian Senior

  • 6,575 posts
  • Joined: 07-May 03
  • Location: PA, USA

Posted 05 January 2013 - 15:08

Seriously?

Cops give multiple warnings before they open fire on someone, you cant just empty your magazine just because someone has broken into your house with a crowbar.

I would pull a gun, give him a warning, if he moved anywhere apart from backwards I would try and shoot them somewhere non-vital. I know its easy to say not being in that situation but you can't just shoot someone in the face 5 times then claim self defence.

Shocking how gung-ho pro-gunners are, looking for any excuse to pull the trigger.


Most police give warning when it's possible. When fight or flight kicks in they don't give a warning. Just recently a state trooper here was attacked he was stabbed. He instantly shot and killed the guy with no verbal warning.

And it's hard to hit a moving target the size of a leg or arm.

Also here a crow bar would qualify as a deadly weapon. Lethal force could be used.

#21 Silpheed2K

Silpheed2K

    Neowinian

  • 299 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 05

Posted 05 January 2013 - 15:12

First of all, no ****. Second, got anything to back up your other claims, because a great deal of research says otherwise on the whole "leads to more violence and enslavement" front (aka there's nothing to support your claim). Third, my post was largely a play on the very amusing thought that the relatively miniscule amount of times people are actually able to defend themselves with guns somehow even remotely compares to the homicide rate and other damage caused by guns. I'm not all gung ho about gun control, but to think everything is all sunshine and roses because we don't control them more is ridiculous.

There's plenty of evidence to support my argument. Nazi Germany is one of them. Hitler disarmed all citizens before rounding up the Jews. Then they were being put in concentration camps along with being executed. "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control under one of the bloodiest despots in modern history, Joseph Stalin. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1928, Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, Christians, gypsies, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1935, China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents were unable to defend themselves and were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1964, Guatemala established gun control. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1970, Uganda, under brutal dictator Idi Amin, established gun control. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1956, Cambodia established gun control. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.


Yeah, gun control works... if you're a tyrant and a dictator. Gun control is a tactic used by tyrants to disarm people before committing their crimes against humanity.

#22 TheLegendOfMart

TheLegendOfMart

    Neowinian Senior

  • 9,281 posts
  • Joined: 01-October 01
  • Location: England

Posted 05 January 2013 - 15:12

I just don't understand the mentality, I'm not saying she didn't have the right to defend herself, her kids or her home, but there is such thing as excessive force.

I can just picture pro-gunners whooping and cheering that she shot someone, he could have easily died. I don't think burglary should be punishable by death, this isn't Judge Dredd where someone is judge, jury and executioner.

There's plenty of evidence to support my argument. Nazi Germany is one of them. Hitler disarmed all citizens before rounding up the Jews. Then they were being put in concentration camps along with being executed. "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."



Yeah, gun control works... if you're a tyrant and a dictator. Gun control is a tactic used by tyrants to disarm people before committing their crimes against humanity.

It's nice how you cherry pick facts, for every one of those you picked there is an opposite one where gun control has brought down gun homicides to single or double figures in the respective country, not five figures like the US.

#23 Dot Matrix

Dot Matrix

    Way past cool.

  • 9,307 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11
  • Location: Upstate New York
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 920

Posted 05 January 2013 - 15:15

I just don't understand the mentality, I'm not saying she didn't have the right to defend herself, her kids or her home, but there is such thing as excessive force.

I can just picture pro-gunners whooping and cheering that she shot someone, he could have easily died. I don't think burglary should be punishable by death, this isn't Judge Dredd where an ordinary civilian is judge, jury and executioner.


As far as I'm concerned she acted bravely. She stood her ground and didn't freak out like most women would. No excessive force here, just a mother defending her kids.

Get between a mother bear and her cubs, and tell me she uses "excessive force" when she mauls you to death without warning.

#24 TheLegendOfMart

TheLegendOfMart

    Neowinian Senior

  • 9,281 posts
  • Joined: 01-October 01
  • Location: England

Posted 05 January 2013 - 15:16

Didn't freak out, 6 shots with 5 hitting someone in the head isn't freaking out? It looks more like she was trying to murder him than incapacitate him.

You are seriously comparing human beings with morals and ethics against animals?

#25 Guest_xiphi_*

Guest_xiphi_*
  • Joined: --

Posted 05 January 2013 - 15:18

Who cares if he could've easily died? If he wants to live and keep his body unharmed, then he shouldn't break into someone's house. You break into my place, I'll make sure you don't come back one way or another.

#26 TheLegendOfMart

TheLegendOfMart

    Neowinian Senior

  • 9,281 posts
  • Joined: 01-October 01
  • Location: England

Posted 05 January 2013 - 15:20

I can't be the only person who thinks it's wrong to just kill someone because they broke into your home?

#27 -Himanshu-

-Himanshu-

    Everybody Lies.

  • 1,673 posts
  • Joined: 10-September 09
  • Location: Milky Way
  • OS: Windows 8 Pro WMC x64
  • Phone: Nokia 5235

Posted 05 January 2013 - 15:22

Seriously?

Cops give multiple warnings before they open fire on someone, you cant just empty your magazine just because someone has broken into your house with a crowbar.

I would pull a gun, give him a warning, if he moved anywhere apart from backwards I would try and shoot them somewhere non-vital. I know its easy to say not being in that situation but you can't just shoot someone in the face 5 times then claim self defence.

Shocking how gung-ho pro-gunners are, looking for any excuse to pull the trigger.


Yes. They were not trained cops on a scene with intel or experience. A mom with kids, scared and not ready. I am not exactly a fan of what she did, I would have tried non lethal attack first. But can't say what she did was wrong, she defended herself and family, and in that case you are not thinking about strategy and stuff.

#28 Guest_xiphi_*

Guest_xiphi_*
  • Joined: --

Posted 05 January 2013 - 15:25

I can't be the only person who thinks it's wrong to just kill someone because they broke into your home?


I assume you won't have any problems with me knocking on your door and demanding you hand over your money and other things with no questions asked, right? I'd even remind you to have a good day and thank you for your contributions.

#29 Dot Matrix

Dot Matrix

    Way past cool.

  • 9,307 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11
  • Location: Upstate New York
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 920

Posted 05 January 2013 - 15:26

I can't be the only person who thinks it's wrong to just kill someone because they broke into your home?


You break into my home, all bets are off. When you take shooting lessons in self defense, you are taught to aim for the middle torso. It's the biggest area to hit, and will easily incapacitate, but it can also kill. Aiming for the legs or whatever is out of the question, because you'll almost never hit them, and waste your rounds. W

hatever happens, happens, but if you don't want shot, or harmed, then you shouldn't be breaking into occupied dwellings.

Sorry mate, you're not winning this argument.

#30 TheLegendOfMart

TheLegendOfMart

    Neowinian Senior

  • 9,281 posts
  • Joined: 01-October 01
  • Location: England

Posted 05 January 2013 - 15:29

Sorry mate, you're not winning this argument.

Clearly because its a thread full of gung-ho rambos who think its acceptable to murder someone because they broke into your home looking for things to steal.

There is no evidence he wanted to harm the occupants, he rung the bell constantly and since no one answered he thought the property empty, she didn't give him chance to escape she just wildly emptied the clip into his face.

Disgusting how people are defending this.



Click here to login or here to register to remove this ad, it's free!