Woman shot 3 times by 2 home invaders...able to return fire...and lives....

[HereWeGoAgain]

Well....you have never been robbed hence there is no reason to be armed.......nice for you....

I wasn't to concerned about being robbed either....right up till the time it happened.
Thank God for Remington.

It must be nice to be a liberal.....you know each day what is going to happen before it happens....so they never have to worry about being attacked.....hence, they don't need guns

A gun is not always the best thing to have. Look at all the accidental shootings. Studies show you are more likely to be shot if you carry. Cases where they really save a life seem more rare than acidental shootings. Most people are probably safer without.

I think I am going to get rid of all mine, you have convinced me!

If I am ever faced with a home invasion, I will simply appeal to their good nature. They probably aren't bad guys after all. Just misunderstood. And to get them to leave me in peace I will offer up any valuables I can round up. Including sentimental jewelry and such. After they take as much as they want, I will call the police, I am sure finding all my stuff would be no real big issue. If they shoot and kill my family, hell we probably deserved it for not offering up our belongings in the first place.

Might be a good idea. You are 3x more likely to accidently shoot and kill someone than to shoot and kill a criminal. You should get an alarm system.

I wouldnt have a home without an alarm and surveillance system.
Of course I set mine to beep quietly in the bedroom when I'm home.
Wouldnt want to scare em off before I can get a shot at em.

 

[Brain357]

I wasn't to concerned about being robbed either....right up till the time it happened.
Thank God for Remington.

It must be nice to be a liberal.....you know each day what is going to happen before it happens....so they never have to worry about being attacked.....hence, they don't need guns

A gun is not always the best thing to have. Look at all the accidental shootings. Studies show you are more likely to be shot if you carry. Cases where they really save a life seem more rare than acidental shootings. Most people are probably safer without.

I think I am going to get rid of all mine, you have convinced me!

If I am ever faced with a home invasion, I will simply appeal to their good nature. They probably aren't bad guys after all. Just misunderstood. And to get them to leave me in peace I will offer up any valuables I can round up. Including sentimental jewelry and such. After they take as much as they want, I will call the police, I am sure finding all my stuff would be no real big issue. If they shoot and kill my family, hell we probably deserved it for not offering up our belongings in the first place.

Might be a good idea. You are 3x more likely to accidently shoot and kill someone than to shoot and kill a criminal. You should get an alarm system.

I wouldnt have a home without an alarm and surveillance system.
Of course I set mine to beep quietly in the bedroom when I'm home.
Wouldnt want to scare em off before I can get a shot at em.

So rather than have them leave when alarm sounds you want to increase your chances of being shot? Not very smart.

 

[EatMorChikin]

and you are more likely to drown if you own a pool.

That so called statistical analysis is pure crap.

I don't have a pool.

This is why you are stupid beyond comprehension.

He threw out a general, if you own a pool as a hypothetical. And you respond with "I don't own a pool".

Either you are the biggest idiot I have ever debated with, or you are a troll. (And you don't need to respond with, I don't own a bridge). The biggest irony, is that you use the moniker "Brain". I have a name change suggestion, how about "Brain Stem"?

What point have I made that is wrong? You seem not very smart to me.

That they showed up armed, but it was her fault for opening fire. You are an enemy to liberty. You blame the fucking victim, for not handing over the goods and sending Obamas sons on their way.

 

[EatMorChikin]

It must be nice to be a liberal.....you know each day what is going to happen before it happens....so they never have to worry about being attacked.....hence, they don't need guns

A gun is not always the best thing to have. Look at all the accidental shootings. Studies show you are more likely to be shot if you carry. Cases where they really save a life seem more rare than acidental shootings. Most people are probably safer without.

I think I am going to get rid of all mine, you have convinced me!

If I am ever faced with a home invasion, I will simply appeal to their good nature. They probably aren't bad guys after all. Just misunderstood. And to get them to leave me in peace I will offer up any valuables I can round up. Including sentimental jewelry and such. After they take as much as they want, I will call the police, I am sure finding all my stuff would be no real big issue. If they shoot and kill my family, hell we probably deserved it for not offering up our belongings in the first place.

Might be a good idea. You are 3x more likely to accidently shoot and kill someone than to shoot and kill a criminal. You should get an alarm system.

I wouldnt have a home without an alarm and surveillance system.
Of course I set mine to beep quietly in the bedroom when I'm home.
Wouldnt want to scare em off before I can get a shot at em.

So rather than have them leave when alarm sounds you want to increase your chances of being shot? Not very smart.

Nope they want to remove trash from society, which is exactly what should be done.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Well the police are calling it a burglary gone bad. So they must feel they were there to rob her, not kill her. So it is possible being armed got her shot.

If I were a criminal I would target people just like you. Talk about your easy pickens.
Do you gift wrap?

I've never been robbed. With 232,000 guns stolen each year gun owners seem to be easy targets.

I concur.

• Theoretically, knowledge that potential victims have access to firearms could increase the perceived cost of committing a crime to a potential perpetrator and thus prevent the crime from occurring. However, there does not seem to be credible evidence that higher levels of gun ownership and availability actually deter crime. A criminologist once claimed that publicized police programs to train citizens in gun use in Orlando (to prevent rape) and in Kansas City (to prevent robbery) led to reductions in crime.[80] However, a careful analysis of the data found no evidence that crime rates changed in either location after the training.[81] The deterrent effects of civilian gun ownership on burglary rates were supposedly shown by the experiences of Morton Grove, Illinois—after it banned handguns—and Kennesaw, Georgia— after it required that firearms be kept in all homes.[80] Again, a careful analysis of the data did not show that guns reduced crime.[82] Instead, in Morton Grove, the banning of handguns was actually followed by a large and statistically significant decrease in burglary reports.[81]
  
  One study found an association between lower crime rates in states with higher levels of household gun ownership.[83] But the gun ownership data for the analysis were not valid. The source of the data (Voter News Service) stated that the data could not justifiably be used to determine state-level gunownership levels or changes in gun ownership rates.
  Some have argued that when gun prevalence is high, there are fewer burglaries[84] and fewer "hot" burglaries (when someone is at home) because burglars will seek out unoccupied dwellings to avoid being shot.[80,85] But the evidence does not show this. An international compilation of victimization surveys in 11 developed countries found that the United States (with the most guns) was average in terms of attempted and completed burglary rates,[86] and there was no relationship between gun prevalence and burglary rates.[12] Studies in the United States across states and counties found that in areas with higher levels of household gun ownership, there were actually more burglaries, and there were more burglaries when someone was at home, not less.[63,87] One reason may be that guns, like cash and jewelry, are attractive loot fo
  
  REPORT
  + QUOTEREPLY

• Jan 8, 2015#122

that issue is going to be debated for a long time.....however......what has turned out to be even more important.....increased levels of gun ownership, as more Americans not only buy guns, but also carry them for self defense, have not led to more crime......in fact, as more Americans have bought and carry guns.....the gun crime rate and the accidental gun death rate have gone down...substantially, and not up, as the anti gunners predicted they would....

Most gun sales are to people who already own. Ownership is down.

What a load of horse hockey.

 

[Brain357]

and you are more likely to drown if you own a pool.

That so called statistical analysis is pure crap.

I don't have a pool.

This is why you are stupid beyond comprehension.

He threw out a general, if you own a pool as a hypothetical. And you respond with "I don't own a pool".

Either you are the biggest idiot I have ever debated with, or you are a troll. (And you don't need to respond with, I don't own a bridge). The biggest irony, is that you use the moniker "Brain". I have a name change suggestion, how about "Brain Stem"?

What point have I made that is wrong? You seem not very smart to me.

That they showed up armed, but it was her fault for opening fire. You are an enemy to liberty. You blame the fucking victim, for not handing over the goods and sending Obamas sons on their way.

No I am saying her having a gun may be the only reason she was shot. The police seem to think they were there to rob, not kill her. And the police know more than you or I. So in this case she may have endangered herself by having a gun.

 

[Brain357]

A gun is not always the best thing to have. Look at all the accidental shootings. Studies show you are more likely to be shot if you carry. Cases where they really save a life seem more rare than acidental shootings. Most people are probably safer without.

I think I am going to get rid of all mine, you have convinced me!

If I am ever faced with a home invasion, I will simply appeal to their good nature. They probably aren't bad guys after all. Just misunderstood. And to get them to leave me in peace I will offer up any valuables I can round up. Including sentimental jewelry and such. After they take as much as they want, I will call the police, I am sure finding all my stuff would be no real big issue. If they shoot and kill my family, hell we probably deserved it for not offering up our belongings in the first place.

Might be a good idea. You are 3x more likely to accidently shoot and kill someone than to shoot and kill a criminal. You should get an alarm system.

I wouldnt have a home without an alarm and surveillance system.
Of course I set mine to beep quietly in the bedroom when I'm home.
Wouldnt want to scare em off before I can get a shot at em.

So rather than have them leave when alarm sounds you want to increase your chances of being shot? Not very smart.

Nope they want to remove trash from society, which is exactly what should be done.

This woman may have thought that before she was shot.

 

[Brain357]

If I were a criminal I would target people just like you. Talk about your easy pickens.
Do you gift wrap?

I've never been robbed. With 232,000 guns stolen each year gun owners seem to be easy targets.

I concur.

• Theoretically, knowledge that potential victims have access to firearms could increase the perceived cost of committing a crime to a potential perpetrator and thus prevent the crime from occurring. However, there does not seem to be credible evidence that higher levels of gun ownership and availability actually deter crime. A criminologist once claimed that publicized police programs to train citizens in gun use in Orlando (to prevent rape) and in Kansas City (to prevent robbery) led to reductions in crime.[80] However, a careful analysis of the data found no evidence that crime rates changed in either location after the training.[81] The deterrent effects of civilian gun ownership on burglary rates were supposedly shown by the experiences of Morton Grove, Illinois—after it banned handguns—and Kennesaw, Georgia— after it required that firearms be kept in all homes.[80] Again, a careful analysis of the data did not show that guns reduced crime.[82] Instead, in Morton Grove, the banning of handguns was actually followed by a large and statistically significant decrease in burglary reports.[81]
  
  One study found an association between lower crime rates in states with higher levels of household gun ownership.[83] But the gun ownership data for the analysis were not valid. The source of the data (Voter News Service) stated that the data could not justifiably be used to determine state-level gunownership levels or changes in gun ownership rates.
  Some have argued that when gun prevalence is high, there are fewer burglaries[84] and fewer "hot" burglaries (when someone is at home) because burglars will seek out unoccupied dwellings to avoid being shot.[80,85] But the evidence does not show this. An international compilation of victimization surveys in 11 developed countries found that the United States (with the most guns) was average in terms of attempted and completed burglary rates,[86] and there was no relationship between gun prevalence and burglary rates.[12] Studies in the United States across states and counties found that in areas with higher levels of household gun ownership, there were actually more burglaries, and there were more burglaries when someone was at home, not less.[63,87] One reason may be that guns, like cash and jewelry, are attractive loot fo
  
  REPORT
  + QUOTEREPLY

• Jan 8, 2015#122

that issue is going to be debated for a long time.....however......what has turned out to be even more important.....increased levels of gun ownership, as more Americans not only buy guns, but also carry them for self defense, have not led to more crime......in fact, as more Americans have bought and carry guns.....the gun crime rate and the accidental gun death rate have gone down...substantially, and not up, as the anti gunners predicted they would....

Most gun sales are to people who already own. Ownership is down.

What a load of horse hockey.

I've provided a survey, what you have to counter?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Well....you have never been robbed hence there is no reason to be armed.......nice for you....

I wasn't to concerned about being robbed either....right up till the time it happened.
Thank God for Remington.

It must be nice to be a liberal.....you know each day what is going to happen before it happens....so they never have to worry about being attacked.....hence, they don't need guns

A gun is not always the best thing to have. Look at all the accidental shootings. Studies show you are more likely to be shot if you carry. Cases where they really save a life seem more rare than acidental shootings. Most people are probably safer without.

Only if your a dumbass.

Must be lot of dumb gun owners then. But all those involved with accidental shootings probably talk like you before they happen.

40 years of gun ownership and God knows how many rounds...not a single mishap.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

It must be nice to be a liberal.....you know each day what is going to happen before it happens....so they never have to worry about being attacked.....hence, they don't need guns

A gun is not always the best thing to have. Look at all the accidental shootings. Studies show you are more likely to be shot if you carry. Cases where they really save a life seem more rare than acidental shootings. Most people are probably safer without.

I think I am going to get rid of all mine, you have convinced me!

If I am ever faced with a home invasion, I will simply appeal to their good nature. They probably aren't bad guys after all. Just misunderstood. And to get them to leave me in peace I will offer up any valuables I can round up. Including sentimental jewelry and such. After they take as much as they want, I will call the police, I am sure finding all my stuff would be no real big issue. If they shoot and kill my family, hell we probably deserved it for not offering up our belongings in the first place.

Might be a good idea. You are 3x more likely to accidently shoot and kill someone than to shoot and kill a criminal. You should get an alarm system.

I wouldnt have a home without an alarm and surveillance system.
Of course I set mine to beep quietly in the bedroom when I'm home.
Wouldnt want to scare em off before I can get a shot at em.

So rather than have them leave when alarm sounds you want to increase your chances of being shot? Not very smart.

I'll know whether to shoot or not before they even know I'm aware of their presence.
I was lucky the day three mexicans attempted to invade my home.
Have it happen to you once and you might change your mind.If you're lucky enough to live through it that is.

 

[westwall]

Brain....the story doesn't say who shot first......

Nope that's why I said make you wonder. I'd be curious to hear more details. Especially who started shooting first.

if the home owner shot first she had every right to do so.

The scum bag pieces of shit were threatening her safety the second they forced their way in

Yes but that may be why she got shot. In which case she would have been safer not being armed.

If you want to take the chance of being unarmed in while criminals invade your house that's your choice.

It didn't end too well for the Petit family in CT

Ghastly Details In Conn. Home Invasion - CBS News

So now tell me you would still rather be defenseless.

Yes, braino feels that the lives of criminals is more important that the lives of good honest citizens. No amount of logic will change braino's ideals.

 

[westwall]

I wasn't to concerned about being robbed either....right up till the time it happened.
Thank God for Remington.

It must be nice to be a liberal.....you know each day what is going to happen before it happens....so they never have to worry about being attacked.....hence, they don't need guns

A gun is not always the best thing to have. Look at all the accidental shootings. Studies show you are more likely to be shot if you carry. Cases where they really save a life seem more rare than acidental shootings. Most people are probably safer without.

Only if your a dumbass.

Must be lot of dumb gun owners then. But all those involved with accidental shootings probably talk like you before they happen.

40 years of gun ownership and God knows how many rounds...not a single mishap.

60 for me, and likewise.

 

[westwall]

Nope that's why I said make you wonder. I'd be curious to hear more details. Especially who started shooting first.

They brought guns didnt they? seeing as they are the ones who are the criminals, brought the guns, Id lay the blame on them, if they pointed the guns at her then she was right to shoot.

Nah, braino doesn't think like a reasonable person.. The perps only brought the guns to scare the people. They had no intention of actually hurting anyone don't ya know. They just wanted to frighten them a little.

That is often the case. If every criminal with a gun started shooting people we'd have a much higher homicide rate. The police are treating it as a burglary gone bad, not murder. So it is quite possible that having a gun is the only reason she was shot.

Then why did the criminals use weapons in their home invasion?

Home owner might shoot at them?

Oh? So criminal behavior deserves to be protected by lethal means, but honest homeowners don't? I see. You're one of those idiots who think that criminals are better than regular law abiding people.

 

[westwall]

I've never been robbed. With 232,000 guns stolen each year gun owners seem to be easy targets.

I concur.

• Theoretically, knowledge that potential victims have access to firearms could increase the perceived cost of committing a crime to a potential perpetrator and thus prevent the crime from occurring. However, there does not seem to be credible evidence that higher levels of gun ownership and availability actually deter crime. A criminologist once claimed that publicized police programs to train citizens in gun use in Orlando (to prevent rape) and in Kansas City (to prevent robbery) led to reductions in crime.[80] However, a careful analysis of the data found no evidence that crime rates changed in either location after the training.[81] The deterrent effects of civilian gun ownership on burglary rates were supposedly shown by the experiences of Morton Grove, Illinois—after it banned handguns—and Kennesaw, Georgia— after it required that firearms be kept in all homes.[80] Again, a careful analysis of the data did not show that guns reduced crime.[82] Instead, in Morton Grove, the banning of handguns was actually followed by a large and statistically significant decrease in burglary reports.[81]
  
  One study found an association between lower crime rates in states with higher levels of household gun ownership.[83] But the gun ownership data for the analysis were not valid. The source of the data (Voter News Service) stated that the data could not justifiably be used to determine state-level gunownership levels or changes in gun ownership rates.
  Some have argued that when gun prevalence is high, there are fewer burglaries[84] and fewer "hot" burglaries (when someone is at home) because burglars will seek out unoccupied dwellings to avoid being shot.[80,85] But the evidence does not show this. An international compilation of victimization surveys in 11 developed countries found that the United States (with the most guns) was average in terms of attempted and completed burglary rates,[86] and there was no relationship between gun prevalence and burglary rates.[12] Studies in the United States across states and counties found that in areas with higher levels of household gun ownership, there were actually more burglaries, and there were more burglaries when someone was at home, not less.[63,87] One reason may be that guns, like cash and jewelry, are attractive loot fo
  
  REPORT
  + QUOTEREPLY

• Jan 8, 2015#122

that issue is going to be debated for a long time.....however......what has turned out to be even more important.....increased levels of gun ownership, as more Americans not only buy guns, but also carry them for self defense, have not led to more crime......in fact, as more Americans have bought and carry guns.....the gun crime rate and the accidental gun death rate have gone down...substantially, and not up, as the anti gunners predicted they would....

Most gun sales are to people who already own. Ownership is down.

What a load of horse hockey.

I've provided a survey, what you have to counter?

Oh boy a "survey". Background checks are actual evidence, and facts. Surveys are not. I lie to survey takers all the time. They are not a credible source for anything.

 

[Brain357]

A gun is not always the best thing to have. Look at all the accidental shootings. Studies show you are more likely to be shot if you carry. Cases where they really save a life seem more rare than acidental shootings. Most people are probably safer without.

I think I am going to get rid of all mine, you have convinced me!

If I am ever faced with a home invasion, I will simply appeal to their good nature. They probably aren't bad guys after all. Just misunderstood. And to get them to leave me in peace I will offer up any valuables I can round up. Including sentimental jewelry and such. After they take as much as they want, I will call the police, I am sure finding all my stuff would be no real big issue. If they shoot and kill my family, hell we probably deserved it for not offering up our belongings in the first place.

Might be a good idea. You are 3x more likely to accidently shoot and kill someone than to shoot and kill a criminal. You should get an alarm system.

I wouldnt have a home without an alarm and surveillance system.
Of course I set mine to beep quietly in the bedroom when I'm home.
Wouldnt want to scare em off before I can get a shot at em.

So rather than have them leave when alarm sounds you want to increase your chances of being shot? Not very smart.

I'll know whether to shoot or not before they even know I'm aware of their presence.
I was lucky the day three mexicans attempted to invade my home.
Have it happen to you once and you might change your mind.If you're lucky enough to live through it that is.

Change my mind? Think the facts are clear that often having a gun is a bad idea.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

and you are more likely to drown if you own a pool.

That so called statistical analysis is pure crap.

I don't have a pool.

This is why you are stupid beyond comprehension.

He threw out a general, if you own a pool as a hypothetical. And you respond with "I don't own a pool".

Either you are the biggest idiot I have ever debated with, or you are a troll. (And you don't need to respond with, I don't own a bridge). The biggest irony, is that you use the moniker "Brain". I have a name change suggestion, how about "Brain Stem"?

What point have I made that is wrong? You seem not very smart to me.

That they showed up armed, but it was her fault for opening fire. You are an enemy to liberty. You blame the fucking victim, for not handing over the goods and sending Obamas sons on their way.

No I am saying her having a gun may be the only reason she was shot. The police seem to think they were there to rob, not kill her. And the police know more than you or I. So in this case she may have endangered herself by having a gun.

So you're telling me the police said that the guy didnt intend to use his weapon while committing robbery? I call bullshit.
Because we of course know people never get shot while being robbed...
If someone confronts you with a firearm you ALWAYS assume they are willing to use it. I dont care if it's a criminal or a cop,the only difference is how you react to em.

 

[Brain357]

Brain....the story doesn't say who shot first......

Nope that's why I said make you wonder. I'd be curious to hear more details. Especially who started shooting first.

if the home owner shot first she had every right to do so.

The scum bag pieces of shit were threatening her safety the second they forced their way in

Yes but that may be why she got shot. In which case she would have been safer not being armed.

If you want to take the chance of being unarmed in while criminals invade your house that's your choice.

It didn't end too well for the Petit family in CT

Ghastly Details In Conn. Home Invasion - CBS News

So now tell me you would still rather be defenseless.

Yes, braino feels that the lives of criminals is more important that the lives of good honest citizens. No amount of logic will change braino's ideals.

In this example the criminals were not shot, the honest person was. Seems you are more concerned about the criminals.

 

[westwall]

I don't have a pool.

This is why you are stupid beyond comprehension.

He threw out a general, if you own a pool as a hypothetical. And you respond with "I don't own a pool".

Either you are the biggest idiot I have ever debated with, or you are a troll. (And you don't need to respond with, I don't own a bridge). The biggest irony, is that you use the moniker "Brain". I have a name change suggestion, how about "Brain Stem"?

What point have I made that is wrong? You seem not very smart to me.

That they showed up armed, but it was her fault for opening fire. You are an enemy to liberty. You blame the fucking victim, for not handing over the goods and sending Obamas sons on their way.

No I am saying her having a gun may be the only reason she was shot. The police seem to think they were there to rob, not kill her. And the police know more than you or I. So in this case she may have endangered herself by having a gun.

So you're telling me the police said that the guy didnt intend to use his weapon while committing robbery? I call bullshit.
Because we of course know people never get shot while being robbed...
If someone confronts you with a firearm you ALWAYS assume they are willing to use it. I dont care if it's a criminal or a cop,the only difference is how you react to em.

braino is a troll. Don't feed the trolls.

 

[Shipwreck]

Filthy welfare rats. I hope they die.

 

[Brain357]

I concur.

• Theoretically, knowledge that potential victims have access to firearms could increase the perceived cost of committing a crime to a potential perpetrator and thus prevent the crime from occurring. However, there does not seem to be credible evidence that higher levels of gun ownership and availability actually deter crime. A criminologist once claimed that publicized police programs to train citizens in gun use in Orlando (to prevent rape) and in Kansas City (to prevent robbery) led to reductions in crime.[80] However, a careful analysis of the data found no evidence that crime rates changed in either location after the training.[81] The deterrent effects of civilian gun ownership on burglary rates were supposedly shown by the experiences of Morton Grove, Illinois—after it banned handguns—and Kennesaw, Georgia— after it required that firearms be kept in all homes.[80] Again, a careful analysis of the data did not show that guns reduced crime.[82] Instead, in Morton Grove, the banning of handguns was actually followed by a large and statistically significant decrease in burglary reports.[81]
  
  One study found an association between lower crime rates in states with higher levels of household gun ownership.[83] But the gun ownership data for the analysis were not valid. The source of the data (Voter News Service) stated that the data could not justifiably be used to determine state-level gunownership levels or changes in gun ownership rates.
  Some have argued that when gun prevalence is high, there are fewer burglaries[84] and fewer "hot" burglaries (when someone is at home) because burglars will seek out unoccupied dwellings to avoid being shot.[80,85] But the evidence does not show this. An international compilation of victimization surveys in 11 developed countries found that the United States (with the most guns) was average in terms of attempted and completed burglary rates,[86] and there was no relationship between gun prevalence and burglary rates.[12] Studies in the United States across states and counties found that in areas with higher levels of household gun ownership, there were actually more burglaries, and there were more burglaries when someone was at home, not less.[63,87] One reason may be that guns, like cash and jewelry, are attractive loot fo
  
  REPORT
  + QUOTEREPLY

• Jan 8, 2015#122

that issue is going to be debated for a long time.....however......what has turned out to be even more important.....increased levels of gun ownership, as more Americans not only buy guns, but also carry them for self defense, have not led to more crime......in fact, as more Americans have bought and carry guns.....the gun crime rate and the accidental gun death rate have gone down...substantially, and not up, as the anti gunners predicted they would....

Most gun sales are to people who already own. Ownership is down.

What a load of horse hockey.

I've provided a survey, what you have to counter?

Oh boy a "survey". Background checks are actual evidence, and facts. Surveys are not. I lie to survey takers all the time. They are not a credible source for anything.

Background checks show sales are up. You have something that shows lots of these are new gun owners?