Woman hiding with kids shoots intruder

[CMike]

There is the assumption that all the bullets will hit the assailant.

According to police stats only approx. 17-22% of police officers firing their guns in duty hit their target (no I am not looking for the link).

Shooting at a moving target, in low light situations, makes it very hard to hit the target, especially if you add on the high stress.

What would have happened if she missed all six rounds? Now she is completely defenseless.

Also, as Quantum said what happens if there are two intruders? Now she is out of ammo.

Doesn't that totally debunk the National Rampage Associations talking point that we need more guns out there to make us safer?

If trained police officers are only hitting their targets 20% of the time, then it's probably worse for civilians who maybe get out to the range a couple times a year....

That's why you don't want to run out of ammo if you need to defend your loved ones and yourself with a gun.

 

[Cecilie1200]

They are alive. She is talking about it. Next.

You are the one with the issue here, I would have preferred she have a Bushmaster with a 30 round magazine.

In fact, I bet the next time someone breaks into her house she will have one.

They are alive. She is talking about it. Next.

One could say the same thing about most crime victims - rape vicims, for example - but I think they might be hoping for more than "You survived, so get over it", even if YOU think that's good enough for them.

 

[Pheonixops]

A lot of innocent people are going to die if we ban guns. The left has enough blood on its hands...

The left is more worried about the poor intruder.

Any examples? Who has stated that they were more concerned with this intruder instead of the victim who protected herself?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A lot of innocent people are going to die if we ban guns. The left has enough blood on its hands...

The left is more worried about the poor intruder.

Any examples? Who has stated that they were more concerned with this intruder instead of the victim who protected herself?

Did you read the thread?

 

[Jarlaxle]

I'm still trying to figure out how you survive 6 shots from a .38
Dude must be inhuman or something. I've seen a revolver take down boars in 2 or 3 shots.

At a guess: low powered .38 loads, not +P or Specials. That's one reason that for home defense...I'll take a 12-bore shotgun.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I'm still trying to figure out how you survive 6 shots from a .38
Dude must be inhuman or something. I've seen a revolver take down boars in 2 or 3 shots.

A lot of it depends on the caliber.

You can get a 44 magnum too.

Hell with that...you can get a .454, .460, or even a Smith & Wesson .500, aka the Springfield Sledgehammer.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

How the heck was he still walking around after getting shot 6 times in vital areas?

WOW guns in the same house with children and not one child was hurt, that's unheard of according to many gun grabbers ain't that right JoeB? The gun did what it was supposed to do stop the intruder. But you asked why it didn't kill hi? It was a 38 now if it would have been a 45 to out come would have been different for the intruder

 

[Jarlaxle]

You guys need to read your own links before trying to use them as examples of the need for automatic or semi-automatic weapons or extended mags. The woman used a .38 revolver. Not an AR15. Not an extended mag.

Had she had 15 rounds to work with the guy wouldnt have walked away. Hence the need for a higher capacity gun. Or a 44 mag.

What if he were wearing body armor? Should she then be allowed to possess armor-piercing bullets? How about grenades? Where does it stop?

Just about any rifle round bigger than a .22LR will go through typical body armor. A regular lead .30-06 will go through a pistol-rated vest like paper.

 

[Jarlaxle]

You libberhoid armchair psychologists crack me up!

I pray to God that I never have to point a weapon at ANYONE, and thankfully 54 years in and I haven't had to yet. But you fucks can die and go straight to Hell if you think you're going to limit my ability to do JUST THAT should the need ever arise.

I used to live in Loganville, and it's a good damned thing this asshole didn't try to come into MY house, we'd still be mopping up the pieces of his nasty Atlanta ass.

It's amazing what a dozen dimes will do to a man coming out the barrel of a 12 gauge shotgun...

You think those Militia types running around in the woods in camouflage fatigues with their AR-15's aren't living out some kind of fantasy life?

Are you claiming they have 'blood lust'? Really?

You're fucking nuts, Mustang, or you've never been to a paintball competition.

Survey says...both!

 

[Triton]

I'm sick of the anti 2nd amendment crap.

I don't care what you think I or any other American needs or doesn't need or should and should not have.

Nor can you infringe upon my rights just because of something another person has done or might do.

You don't want to own a semi-automatic rifle (That's what an AR-15 is btw, not an "assault weapon") Fine, don't own one. But don't take away my right to own one.

You leftist control freaks and your complicit media sure have been quiet about this and the San Antonio shooting where a woman with a gun stopped a gunman before he could kill anybody.

You don't have the balls to repeal the 2nd amendment, no, you will just ignore it and chip away at it to the point where if you have too big of a credit card bill this will be grounds for denial for the government permit as is starting to happen in NYC or banning anything that can hold more than 8 rounds or some other nonsense that does nothing but infringes upon our rights.

 

[Jarlaxle]

This will never make national news, it is against the agenda of the socialist/communist/wantabe dictators that want to eliminate freedom and liberty and replace it with a class system where the gov't is the elite and the rest of us are SLAVES!

You are absolutely right, it is the natural order of things, the short sightedness of my friends is they are too cheap, you cant take someones gun away from them by force when they are poor, they must be prosperous and happy, then they will give up the guns to protect there good lifestyle.

And I hope this woman was punished accordingly, and her child put in a safe, secure, and clean foster home.

Dammit, you are out of your cell and you took off your helmet! Did you skip your Thorazine AGAIN, kid?!

 

[yidnar]

You guys need to read your own links before trying to use them as examples of the need for automatic or semi-automatic weapons or extended mags. The woman used a .38 revolver. Not an AR15. Not an extended mag.

so if she had shot the filthy bastard with an AK,or an AR15 would she have been guilty of some wrong ??

 

[ScienceRocks]

No one is taking my guns away. Ever...

Your stupid dictatorship can kiss my ass.

 

[Inthemiddle]

And I hope this woman was punished accordingly, and her child put in a safe, secure, and clean foster home.

Wow. Unbelievable. A woman defends herself and her children against an intruder in her home, and you think she should be punished.

 

[Noomi]

And I hope this woman was punished accordingly, and her child put in a safe, secure, and clean foster home.

Wow. Unbelievable. A woman defends herself and her children against an intruder in her home, and you think she should be punished.

I am not a huge fan of guns, as you all know - but even I can agree that this woman did the right thing in protecting herself and her family.

 

[auditor0007]

A lot of innocent people are going to die if we ban guns. The left has enough blood on its hands...

The truth is that the majority of those who are in the middle or to the left have no issue with people owning guns. They just aren't quite sure about the need for owning a full arsenal of automatic weapons. But it's just good propaganda to spew out that the left wants to take away everyone's guns.

 

[Noomi]

A lot of innocent people are going to die if we ban guns. The left has enough blood on its hands...

The truth is that the majority of those who are in the middle or to the left have no issue with people owning guns. They just aren't quite sure about the need for owning a full arsenal of automatic weapons. But it's just good propaganda to spew out that the left wants to take away everyone's guns.

I think this is basically what it comes down to.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A lot of innocent people are going to die if we ban guns. The left has enough blood on its hands...

The truth is that the majority of those who are in the middle or to the left have no issue with people owning guns. They just aren't quite sure about the need for owning a full arsenal of automatic weapons. But it's just good propaganda to spew out that the left wants to take away everyone's guns.

What American owns an automatic weapon? do you know anyone who has one?

 

[DiamondDave]

This mislabeling by the lefty extremists is alarming... Nobody is talking automatic weapons.. No M-60's, no thompson sub-machine guns...

We are talking simple semi-automatics with magazines that hold enough that you don't have to reload in self defense, or when shooting targets, or when hunting, or when just deciding to play around with pumpkins in the back yard to see how you wish to turn it in to mush

 

[martybegan]

A lot of innocent people are going to die if we ban guns. The left has enough blood on its hands...

The truth is that the majority of those who are in the middle or to the left have no issue with people owning guns. They just aren't quite sure about the need for owning a full arsenal of automatic weapons. But it's just good propaganda to spew out that the left wants to take away everyone's guns.

THIS is why people who support gun rights don't trust people who want to increase "common sense" gun control. Its because they often have no clue about the technological side of the very items they want to ban.

Its like someone discussing banning automobiles ranting on about the danger the external combustion steam boilers in cars being smoke and spark hazards.