9-Year-Old Shoots Home Invader!

One nine year old picks up a gun and saves the day and it is news. Much like man bites dog, that's news too but only because there are hundreds or more dog bites a year. Is that too abstract for some to understand?
 
One nine year old picks up a gun and saves the day and it is news. Much like man bites dog, that's news too but only because there are hundreds or more dog bites a year. Is that too abstract for some to understand?

yea, usually the family is banned from owning a gun because of some ridiculous gun law and the kid ends up dead
 
One nine year old picks up a gun and saves the day and it is news. Much like man bites dog, that's news too but only because there are hundreds or more dog bites a year. Is that too abstract for some to understand?

yea, usually the family is banned from owning a gun because of some ridiculous gun law and the kid ends up dead

"Usually"? "Banned from owning a gun"?. ""Kid ends up dead"?

How odd. I must be behind on the news, because I have never heard of a family being banned from owning a gun with the resuilt that the kid ends up dead. But, then again, I don't watch Fox News.
 
One nine year old picks up a gun and saves the day and it is news. Much like man bites dog, that's news too but only because there are hundreds or more dog bites a year. Is that too abstract for some to understand?

yea, usually the family is banned from owning a gun because of some ridiculous gun law and the kid ends up dead

Nice try gun lover. The facts belie your intent, more children are killed accidental by guns by a great factor than examples wherein a child 'saves the day'.

"usually the family is banned from owning a gun because of some ridiculous gun law" is dishonest and ridiculous. Not surprising given the author.
 
One nine year old picks up a gun and saves the day and it is news. Much like man bites dog, that's news too but only because there are hundreds or more dog bites a year. Is that too abstract for some to understand?

yea, usually the family is banned from owning a gun because of some ridiculous gun law and the kid ends up dead

Nice try gun lover. The facts belie your intent, more children are killed accidental by guns by a great factor than examples wherein a child 'saves the day'.

"usually the family is banned from owning a gun because of some ridiculous gun law" is dishonest and ridiculous. Not surprising given the author.



While not entirely clueless, you post reeks of the usual chest thumping 'look what a loving, concerned citizen I am' bravado.

I understand your intent....but you come off as a jerk.


"CNN Article Admits Gun Accidents Among Children Are Literally 1 in a Million
APRIL 12 2013
Despite incidents such as the recent death of a 6-year-old New Jersey boy shot in the head by a 4-year-old playmate, as well as the accidental shooting of a Tennessee sheriff’s deputy’s wife by a 4-year-old boy, accidental firearms deaths are rare among children.

According to the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 703 children under the age of 15 died in accidental firearms deaths between 2001 and 2010, the latest year for which the agency’s statistics on fatalities are available. During the same period, 7,766 children under the age of 14 suffered accidental firearms injuries — about one injury for every million children."
CNN Article Admits Gun Accidents Among Children Are Literally 1 in a Million


To provide perspective for my awarding you the title of 'jerk,' here is an endeavor which, I suspect, you'd endorse:
CAFE standards mandated by Obama:

"Back in 2002, the National Academy of Sciences did a study on the effects of CAFE. They found that over the three decades CAFE has been in effect, downsizing of cars and trucks for fuel economy has cost us about 2,000 lives per year.

This death toll figure was arrived at long before President Obama recently upped the CAFE standards by 30% and more. The death toll going forward will be even higher."
"Pajamas Media » The Hidden Death Toll of Higher CAFE Standards
PJ Media » The Hidden Death Toll of Higher CAFE Standards



In case you miss the point, or points...

a. defensive use of guns saves far more lives than it costs.

b. government policy in raising gas mileage costs far more innocent children's lives than then you are wringing your hands about in your post.



And you say?
 
Not sure what your point is

That 9 year olds should be armed?
Robbers are stupid?



For those of us who are law-abiding-citizen-centered, a heart-warming story.


For Liberals, "Not sure what your point is."


That's the point.

You evaded his question.




Let's say, arguendo, that I 'evaded his question.'
Normal folks might say avoided....


Even so, that infraction pales in relation to the fact that, as useless as you are, you continue to use valuable oxygen that could be of benefit to higher forms of life than you.



If you still have the fez and the tin cup, maybe you can get your old job with the organ grinder....
 
Shit.....the gun grabbing nutters hate stories like this!!! They already look like bozo's and then stuff like this!!!:eusa_dance:


My son is 12 and can take out a small varmint at 300 yards with his .17HMR.

And when SHTF week comes, all the gun grabber limpwristers are going to stack the shit stained drawers at the exits in hopes of thwarting the bad guys looking for your good stuff.

Two Circuit Judge's loaded up with 410 buckshot ensures the bad guys have a real bad day when they step one foot on my property!!!!!!:rofl:


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13L4NNi7e_Q"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13L4NNi7e_Q[/ame]


Public Service Announcement for the limpwristers......dont forget to get the laundry hampers with all the multiple holes.:rock::rock::rock:
 
Last edited:
I love to hear/read about kids who stop bad things from happening. :) :) :)

God bless you and the boy always!!! :) :) :)

Holly

P.S. I heard about the boy yesterday when I saw him being talked about the news. It was said on there that he was 10 years old. Why can't people ever get a story absolutely right the first time?
 
Shit.....the gun grabbing nutters hate stories like this!!! They already look like bozo's and then stuff like this!!!:eusa_dance:


My son is 12 and can take out a small varmint at 300 yards with his .17HMR.

And when SHTF week comes, all the gun grabber limpwristers are going to stack the shit stained drawers at the exits in hopes of thwarting the bad guys looking for your good stuff.

Two Circuit Judge's loaded up with 410 buckshot ensures the bad guys have a real bad day when they step one foot on my property!!!!!!:rofl:


Circuit judge - YouTube


Public Service Announcement for the limpwristers......dont forget to get the laundry hampers with all the multiple holes.:rock::rock::rock:




In order to make Liberalism, Big Government Statism, palatable, they have to show that the entity is capable of solving all of mankind's problems successfully and efficiently.


When individuals can handle their own problems, the acceptability of confiscatory taxation and inordinate regulation becomes less so.....

When government agencies are shown to be corrupt and inefficient, the same is true.



The contract...'give us your vote and we will coddle you from cradle to grave' has been broken.

Both the IRS scandal, as well as a 9-year-old protecting his home, both show the weakness of Liberalism.
 
^^^ This is why that if I absolutely had to shoot anyone, it would be in the legs because then they couldn't run off and leave, but yet they would still be alive.

God bless you and always!!! :) :) :)

Holly
 
^^^ This is why that if I absolutely had to shoot anyone, it would be in the legs because then they couldn't run off and leave, but yet they would still be alive.

God bless you and always!!! :) :) :)

Holly

First of all, if he has a gun, shooting him in the lower extremity won't necessarily put him out of action -- he will very likely be able to use his gun quite effectively even if he can't walk.

Second, what makes you think you can hit his leg or foot, particularly if he is running or even walking? Moving targets are darned hard to hit, and running feet move extremely fast.

Third, a shot to the leg isn't guaranteed to be non-lethal; if you hit the femoral artery, he may well bleed to death before further help arrives.

If you aren't justified in using lethal force, you have no business shooting at him at all. If you are justified, why mess around with a target area that is hard to hit and unlikely to be very effective?

The place to aim is wherever you will be most likely to hit and end the threat quickly.

(Shout out to AWARE.org for the quotes.)
 

Forum List

Back
Top