Mother defends kids, shoots intruder

[tiagosilva29]

Doesn't seem to be working for Chicago.

Nothing works in Chicago. Not even the Bears.

[ew2x4]

So then why did this criminal, who doesn't follow the law, not have a gun?

This is a horrible argument. Embarrassment to simple deduction, really.

You want a equal way to defend yourself? Then, this woman should go to jail. The criminal only had a crowbar. Don't need a gun to defend against that. Another crowbar would be just as effective right?

Again, this is completely flawed logic. Was she supposed to stop and ask the gentleman if he was armed with anything other than a crowbar? There should be nothing equal about defending you and your family from criminals. Besides, what is more humane: beating someone to death with a crow bar or shooting someone?

Do people that criticize this woman have a wife and/or kids? I'm guessing no.

[DocM]

....Yes, the gun possibly saved this families life THIS time and I am very happy for them. However, in the end, guns still take more lives than they save.

You have the ratios back-asswards. FBI estimates 1.5 million defensive uses of a firearm per year, some independent researchers say 2-2.5 million, counting the vast majority where they are NOT fired. That dwarfs the number of unjustified gun homicides - 60% of which are suicides

[shakey]

This is a horrible argument. Embarrassment to simple deduction, really.

Again, this is completely flawed logic. Was she supposed to stop and ask the gentleman if he was armed with anything other than a crowbar? There should be nothing equal about defending you and your family from criminals.

Do people that criticize this woman have a wife and/or kids? I'm guessing no.

LOL - Thanks for showing how the answers to the progunwanters questions are stupid. I agree, all the questions and ways progunners come off would only result in stupid things. Hence why I have brought many actual good questions to this. I still haven't found anything other than opinoin based "facts" as rebuttal. My logic isn't the flawed one here. It's those who want to ignore what other 1st world nations have done, and say that somehow, America is completely different.

[Rohdekill]

5 shots in the face is self defence?

Doesn't even say that she warned him or told him to get out, he broke in and was instantly faced with a weapon and she fired all the rounds off.

Can't wait to see how this is spinned into something positive.

It is EXTREMELY common for anyone in a panic situation to empty their clip and think they have fired only once or twice. Even trained officers encounter this. In fact, it is for this very reason why the military went with burst shots (3 rounds per trigger pull). It was found, during vietnam that soldiers would panic upon a blitz attack and empty the magazine by holding the trigger when issued fully automatic weapons.

I've got to hand it to the woman...even at close range, a panic shooting typically results in more missed rounds than hits.

[shakey]

You have the ratios back-asswards. FBI estimates 1.5 million defensive uses of a firearm per year, some independent researchers say 2-2.5 million, counting the vast majority where they are NOT fired. That dwarfs the number of unjustified gun homicides - 60% of which are suicides

Lets not quote studies done back in 1993.

http://www.gunsandcr...rg/dgufreq.html - proof of my claim.

It's pretty bad, when Cracked.com can prove you wrong....

http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-4-most-meaningless-arguments-against-gun-control/

[macrosslover]

Hard to make something work for a whole nation when you only pick 1 little city. It's got to be a nation wide thing. Can't make it so they just have to cross a border that isn't even checked or secure.

The fact is, you don't know it. It hasn't been done. So please, don't say something is fact when actually, it's an opinion based off of something that doesn't even aim at solving the problem.

If you think that just because its been around too long is a reason to keep it, that's stupid. Really stupid..... so I'd like to direct you to my sig.

Guns aren't a exclusive thing to America. If it was really all that bad, why don't the nations that have regulations on them, have a big problem with illegal gun use? Oh thats right, they don't. Unless you think Americans are all a bunch of savages , or are just surrounded by savages, I see no reason why we can't follow in the steps of all the other 1st world nations. We have proof it works in other nations, all it takes is trying something. Too many ******* in America though it seems... cats that is.

Chicago isn't exactly a little city and even if you do a nationwide ban, there's always Mexico, have to ban guns there too. If somebody really wanted to get a gun they'd find a way in America. And I didn't say since guns have been around so long we should keep them just because, I said that because of that fact it would make them that much harder to get rid of.

[Lord Method Man]

Good shooting on the mother's part. First I've read about this :)

[linsook]

Chicago isn't exactly a little city and even if you do a nationwide ban, there's always Mexico, have to ban guns there too. If somebody really wanted to get a gun they'd find a way in America. And I didn't say since guns have been around so long we should keep them just because, I said that because of that fact it would make them that much harder to get rid of.

i think the bulk of guns that mexicans gets are mainly smuggled in from, you got it, usa. so guns and money flow into mexico and drugs flow the other way.

[spenser.d]

Miniscule? It actually happens all the time. The people who feed you that propaganda never tell you about it. On top of that they like to mix in justifiable homicides (in self defense) with criminal homicides to skew the numbers further. Here's some examples for you.

These incidents alone support my argument and prove that it is the truth.

edit:

@McKay: if you are going to quote me out of context in an effort to skew what I've said, then you don't even deserve a reply because you have no credibility.

That's 7 examples over a 15 year timeframe. Do you know how many people were killed needlessly by guns in the US in that timeframe? Tens of thousands. The amount of times people are able to defend themselves is extremely miniscule in comparison.

[Biotoxic_hazard_835]

5 shots in the face is self defence?

Doesn't even say that she warned him or told him to get out, he broke in and was instantly faced with a weapon and she fired all the rounds off.

Can't wait to see how this is spinned into something positive.

Are you trying to start a flame war ? Cause your comment point on that direction. When a person enters your house by force and with a crowbar in his hand you can be sure he is not selling Girls Scout cookies, he comes to harm you and your family and you have every right to blow the living crap out of him. Maybe, just maybe you should think twice what you're going to post before posting something that can make you look like a troll or that is plain nonsense.

[Lamp0]

Are you trying to start a flame war ? Cause your comment point on that direction. When a person enters your house by force and with a crowbar in his hand you can be sure he is not selling Girls Scout cookies, he comes to harm you and your family and you have every right to blow the living crap out of him. Maybe, just maybe you should think twice what you're going to post before posting something that can make you look like a troll or that is plain nonsense.

Just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. I am not saying the woman did the wrong thing here, but surely you can understand that someone might question as to why she didn't shout a warning rather than wait for him to come upstairs. I mean, obviously she was scared & most probably in a panic.

I am not being sympathetic to the criminal at all. I am sympathetic to the women, I can only imagine a home invasion is undoubtedly an horrific ordeal & having to shoot someone would make it all the worse.

[chrisj1968]

they'll just say thieves need armed guards.

don't be ludicrous on an issue as this. the only ones to make light of this issue would have to be the left. ~semper fidelous

[SupportGeek]

So then why did this criminal, who doesn't follow the law, not have a gun? Sorry, reality is, you don't know jack about what regulations can actually do. Look at other nations that are doing better than America, and you will see it works. You want a equal way to defend yourself? Then, this woman should go to jail. The criminal only had a crowbar. Don't need a gun to defend against that. Another crowbar would be just as effective right? Being scared doesnt give you a reason to have deadly force. Be a man, and stop thinking that everyone is out to get you, and that everyone will be armed. This criminal wasn't. Many aren't. Make it harder to get, guns become more expensive, then only big time mobsters would be able to afford them really. It's called supply and demand. Learn basic economics, and you would understand such things. Oh, and if you are going to say something is proven, please, provide that proof. I've seen nothing show that it can't be stopped, but many nations have already shown that it can and does work when it is regulated. Europe, Australia..... I could go on, but I'd like for you to share your proof. It hasn't been tried here... so how can you say that? Please provide proof to your claims.

So your "proof" that gun control MIGHT work is to point to countries that are in no way similar to the US, culturally, geographically, judicially, or demographically and say "See! It worked there!" thats laughable at best, pure ignorance otherwise.

Translation of your argument boils down to this: you have no clue that gun control works in any way shape or form, and you have NOTHING to back up your wild claims.

In fact, you know your position is so weak, your next best defense is to make up ad-hominim attacks on gun enthusiasts claiming they are scared or "not men". Please, go learn something about the topic at hand, you do nothing but continue to make yourself look uninformed in every one of these threads.

It hasn't been tried here... so how can you say that? Please provide proof to your claims.

It has, constantly, Look no further than Chicago and New York City, tightest gun control in the country, highest murder rates too.

Macross lover had a link posted above

[JaredFrost]

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.

Actually, he did, he rang the doorbell several times, his intention was to rob an empty house.

But I agree, he entered the house unlawfully, does he deserve to die for it? probably not, but it's an unintented consequence of his life choices.

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?

She panicked and instinct kicked in, so yes, no better than an animal, humans are animals whether you like it or not

Possibly the worst kind of animal, the kind that thinks it has more of a right to live than the other animals.

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

That's just it though, she didn't know why he was there, his story, nothing, all she knew is this guy just broke into

her house, already showing he's not an "ethical and moral" human animal.

I've had my house broken into, I have a baseball bat I keep for such situations. I gave the person a warning and he scarpered, I didn't run over and beat him to death with the bat because he dared to break into my home, there is such thing as reasonable and excessive force.

What about all the countries that currently have gun control and only double figure firearm deaths per year compared to the US 10,000+?

Completely different situation, first you're a male and you probably weren't hiding in a closet with your little daughter.

The US is just doing their part to solve over population. :shifty:

------

I'm pretty much on the gun contol side myself, but in this situation, an already worthless human being broke into someones house

for an unknown reason, actions must be taken to ensure you survive, if that means the other person doesn't, so be it.

This is how the world has worked for hundreds of millions of years, way before humans came into the picture and it'll be like that

when our bones are exibits in museums created by hyper-evolved crows.

Also, I can't be the only one that finds it suspicious that she called the husband and his first reaction to someone ringing the doorbell

was, GO HIDE AND CALL THE COP!!, what kind of business is this guy into?.... very suspicious indeed. :shifty:

[DocM]

Lets not quote studies done back in 1993.

Many more people and gun owners now, and a much more favorable legal environment, so it's reasonable to think the number stayed the same or went up, not down.

http://www.gunsandcr...rg/dgufreq.html - proof of my claim.

It's pretty bad, when Cracked.com can prove you wrong....

http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-4-most-meaningless-arguments-against-gun-control/

Cracked isn't necessarily a better source than the FBI, but even Cracked says -

other studies range from 50,000 to 2 million

Which averages out to over 1 million, and agrees with middle of the road studies**, and even at the unrealistically low 50,000 is several times the number of non-suicide gun deaths.

And, a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology. says civilians use guns to defend themselves or others at least 989,883 times per year

I still win the proportionality argument.

** Harry L. Wilson, Guns, Gun Control, And Elections: The Politics And Policy of Firearms, ISBN 0742553485, Rowman & Littlefield, 2007.

[LaP]

5 shots in the face is self defence?

Doesn't even say that she warned him or told him to get out, he broke in and was instantly faced with a weapon and she fired all the rounds off.

Can't wait to see how this is spinned into something positive.

Well when this is really a case of self defence, and in this case it is, it doesn't really matter how many shots were fired. She did what she had to do to protect herself and the kids. My problem with some of the others event in the last 2 or 3 years is that often they are not always clear case of self defense like this one. You know like shooting a thief who is running away, shooting someone who is already down or even shooting non armed people on a road ...

[necroxd]

So then why did this criminal, who doesn't follow the law, not have a gun?

Sorry, reality is, you don't know jack about what regulations can actually do. Look at other nations that are doing better than America, and you will see it works.

You want a equal way to defend yourself? Then, this woman should go to jail. The criminal only had a crowbar. Don't need a gun to defend against that. Another crowbar would be just as effective right?

Being scared doesnt give you a reason to have deadly force. Be a man, and stop thinking that everyone is out to get you, and that everyone will be armed. This criminal wasn't. Many aren't. Make it harder to get, guns become more expensive, then only big time mobsters would be able to afford them really. It's called supply and demand. Learn basic economics, and you would understand such things.

Oh, and if you are going to say something is proven, please, provide that proof. I've seen nothing show that it can't be stopped, but many nations have already shown that it can and does work when it is regulated. Europe, Australia..... I could go on, but I'd like for you to share your proof.

It hasn't been tried here... so how can you say that? Please provide proof to your claims.

Chicago, Illinois. South Los Angeles, Washington D.C.

[*RedBull*]

I say good for that woman protecting herself and kids from the intruder. He had a crowbar, searched the residence obviously looking for someone and not something. When the woman took the kids up stairs and hid. All the intruder had to do as a burglar is just take stuff. That didn't happen. He searched until he found what he was there for. The woman. It is only idiotic say what the woman did was excessive. I'm just disappointed that she wasn't able to kill him with her first shot. For those with an idiotic view point, who can't seem to imagine if it were their wife and kids, pray it don't happen. Cause I'm quite certain that man with the crowbar searching the house until he found what he wanted did not have good intentions.

[necroxd]

I say good for that woman protecting herself and kids from the intruder. He had a crowbar, searched the residence obviously looking for someone and not something. When the woman took the kids up stairs and hid. All the intruder had to do as a burglar is just take stuff. That didn't happen. He searched until he found what he was there for. The woman. It is only idiotic say what the woman did was excessive. I'm just disappointed that she wasn't able to kill him with her first shot. For those with an idiotic view point, who can't seem to imagine if it were their wife and kids, pray it don't happen. Cause I'm quite certain that man with the crowbar searching the house until he found what he wanted did not have good intentions.

You make a very good point.

[Stoffel]

Chicago, Illinois. South Los Angeles, Washington D.C.

Why do people always think they are smart when they can come up with a couple of cities that tried more restrictive gun laws?

It doesn't work if you can just cross the border with no checkpoints, and get to the guns that are illegal in your city or state.

It needs to be a country wide regulation.

Is that so hard to understand or are you just trying to be thick?

[DocM]

I say good for that woman protecting herself and kids from the intruder. He had a crowbar, searched the residence obviously looking for someone and not something. When the woman took the kids up stairs and hid. All the intruder had to do as a burglar is just take stuff. That didn't happen. He searched until he found what he was there for. The woman. It is only idiotic say what the woman did was excessive. I'm just disappointed that she wasn't able to kill him with her first shot. For those with an idiotic view point, who can't seem to imagine if it were their wife and kids, pray it don't happen. Cause I'm quite certain that man with the crowbar searching the house until he found what he wanted did not have good intentions.

Spot on!!

[Hardcore Til I Die]

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.

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.

I think it depends on the intent of the burglar. In England, burglary is defined as "Entering a building or part of a building as a trespasser with intent to commit theft, rape, grievous bodily harm or murder." The latter three arguably should be punishable by death. If someone is trying to rape, wound or kill you, then you should be able to defend yourself with any force necessary.

The difficulty comes in knowing what the person's intent is. The burglar doesn't sign a contract saying that they're only there to steal your stuff. When you have family in the house, it becomes a more sensitive issue still.

If the burglar tries to run, THAT is when it would be wrong to attack them. Unless they have your property, but even then you shouldn't cause them serious harm, just stop them from getting away so you can recover your property.

A trespasser who enters someone's home where there might be family (including children) to think of will always run the risk of being seriously injured by somebody protecting their home, themselves and their family.

[seta-san]

5 shots in the face is self defence?

Doesn't even say that she warned him or told him to get out, he broke in and was instantly faced with a weapon and she fired all the rounds off.

Can't wait to see how this is spinned into something positive.

you break into someone's face and all you should see is guns pointed at you firing. Was he going to kill the children? rape them? kidnap them? Who the **** cares. He just needs to be shot.

I think it depends on the intent of the burglar. In England, burglary is defined as "Entering a building or part of a building as a trespasser with intent to commit theft, rape, grievous bodily harm or murder." The latter three arguably should be punishable by death. If someone is trying to rape, wound or kill you, then you should be able to defend yourself with any force necessary.

The difficulty comes in knowing what the person's intent is. The burglar doesn't sign a contract saying that they're only there to steal your stuff. When you have family in the house, it becomes a more sensitive issue still.

If the burglar tries to run, THAT is when it would be wrong to attack them. Unless they have your property, but even then you shouldn't cause them serious harm, just stop them from getting away so you can recover your property.

A trespasser who enters someone's home where there might be family (including children) to think of will always run the risk of being seriously injured by somebody protecting their home, themselves and their family.

no. you still shoot even when they run. They don't get a pass simply because they realize you have a gun. all that means is that they survive to intrude into people's homes whom don't have guns. This is a happy story of heroism.

[thechronic]

How did she have every right to blow his head off in the article it doesn't even say that she gave him a warning, he broke into the house not knowing there was anyone there, that doesn't give someone an automatic right to empty whatever weapon they have into someones head, that's why there are police and judges.

Yeah because she knew without doubt that the man who broke into her home wouldn't hurt her or her children. :rolleyes: and i am very much anti-gun btw but there is no way i'd trust someone to do the right thing if they broke into my home.