Gun rights groups say Georgia home invasion proves their point

[ScreamingEagle]

Gun rights groups say Georgia home invasion proves their point - CNN.com

Melinda Herman fired a six-shot revolver at the intruder, hitting him five times, in his torso and in his face. Surprisingly, he managed to flee.

Gun rights groups say this shows that law-abiding citizens should be allowed to buy their weapon of choice and as big a magazine or ammunition clip as they like.

They remind people that Melinda Herman had only a six-shot revolver.

"It's a good thing she wasn't facing more attackers. Otherwise she would have been in trouble and she would have run out of ammunition," said Erich Pratt, director of communications for the Gun Owners of America.

"She shot him five times and he still didn't drop. This is going to endanger people's safety."

 

[Truthmatters]

was it a semi?

did it have a large clip?


Now what are the REAL statistics on this verses gun crimes killing innocent citizens?

 

[hazlnut]

Gun rights groups say Georgia home invasion proves their point - CNN.com

Melinda Herman fired a six-shot revolver at the intruder, hitting him five times, in his torso and in his face. Surprisingly, he managed to flee.

Gun rights groups say this shows that law-abiding citizens should be allowed to buy their weapon of choice and as big a magazine or ammunition clip as they like.

They remind people that Melinda Herman had only a six-shot revolver.

"It's a good thing she wasn't facing more attackers. Otherwise she would have been in trouble and she would have run out of ammunition," said Erich Pratt, director of communications for the Gun Owners of America.

"She shot him five times and he still didn't drop. This is going to endanger people's safety."

Wait.... he ran off.

She didn't kill him, isn't that a good thing?

 

[Black_Label]

Gun rights groups say Georgia home invasion proves their point - CNN.com

Melinda Herman fired a six-shot revolver at the intruder, hitting him five times, in his torso and in his face. Surprisingly, he managed to flee.

Gun rights groups say this shows that law-abiding citizens should be allowed to buy their weapon of choice and as big a magazine or ammunition clip as they like.

They remind people that Melinda Herman had only a six-shot revolver.

"It's a good thing she wasn't facing more attackers. Otherwise she would have been in trouble and she would have run out of ammunition," said Erich Pratt, director of communications for the Gun Owners of America.

"She shot him five times and he still didn't drop. This is going to endanger people's safety."

All I'm seeing here is why did the wife call the husband and not the police, and if she didn't drop someone with 6 shots she is a horrific shooter.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

was it a semi?

did it have a large clip?


Now what are the REAL statistics on this verses gun crimes killing innocent citizens?

i'm sure you would care about STATISTICS if you were faced with attackers.....

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Gun rights groups say Georgia home invasion proves their point - CNN.com

Melinda Herman fired a six-shot revolver at the intruder, hitting him five times, in his torso and in his face. Surprisingly, he managed to flee.

Gun rights groups say this shows that law-abiding citizens should be allowed to buy their weapon of choice and as big a magazine or ammunition clip as they like.

They remind people that Melinda Herman had only a six-shot revolver.

"It's a good thing she wasn't facing more attackers. Otherwise she would have been in trouble and she would have run out of ammunition," said Erich Pratt, director of communications for the Gun Owners of America.

"She shot him five times and he still didn't drop. This is going to endanger people's safety."

Wait.... he ran off.

She didn't kill him, isn't that a good thing?

6 shots and she didn't kill him........she needed a 30 round clip......

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Gun rights groups say Georgia home invasion proves their point - CNN.com

Melinda Herman fired a six-shot revolver at the intruder, hitting him five times, in his torso and in his face. Surprisingly, he managed to flee.

Gun rights groups say this shows that law-abiding citizens should be allowed to buy their weapon of choice and as big a magazine or ammunition clip as they like.

They remind people that Melinda Herman had only a six-shot revolver.

"It's a good thing she wasn't facing more attackers. Otherwise she would have been in trouble and she would have run out of ammunition," said Erich Pratt, director of communications for the Gun Owners of America.

"She shot him five times and he still didn't drop. This is going to endanger people's safety."

All I'm seeing here is why did the wife call the husband and not the police, and if she didn't drop someone with 6 shots she is a horrific shooter.

i'd say she did pretty good....she hit him 4 times in the torso and 1 in the face....the guy fell on the floor and she and the kids ran out but he got up and kept going.....in fact he got in his car and drove away until he crashed a block away....

the guy is breaking into her house in broad daylight.....there was no time for the police to get there....before getting murdered she probably preferred talking to her husband rather than a 911 operator....

do you think the 911 operator would have talked her through using the gun like her husband did......?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

all the gun controllers run away from this thread......reality bites.....

 

[Inthemiddle]

was it a semi?

did it have a large clip?


Now what are the REAL statistics on this verses gun crimes killing innocent citizens?

*stays calm*

TM, take a look at what you've said here for a moment. You're looking to compare criminal-against-innocent statistics to innocent-against-criminal actions. Yes, there are lots of examples of criminals using semiautomatic pistols in such ways as injure or kill innocent people. But that is not reason to punish innocent people, and interfere with their ability to protect themselves against criminals. What I find happens often in this gun control debate in our country is that many people supporting stronger gun control do so because they don't understand that their well intentioned proposals will have significant unintended consequences. I think that is the case here with your argument.

 

[Truthmatters]

you bullshit doesnt fool or scare people anymore you idiots.

This case proves all she needed was a regular hand gun and NOT a semi

 

[martybegan]

you bullshit doesnt fool or scare people anymore you idiots.

This case proves all she needed was a regular hand gun and NOT a semi

No, it shows that limiting someone to 6 shots for no other reason than "GUNS ARE SCARY" puts them at a disadvantage.

They only thing that saved her was the guy lost his nerve when he got hit, if she had missed a few more times, she would now have a shot, and very pissed off criminal in her midst.

 

[Papawx3]

Melinda Herman fired a six-shot revolver at the intruder, hitting him five times, in his torso and in his face. Surprisingly, he managed to flee.

Wait.... he ran off.

She didn't kill him, isn't that a good thing?

No. It means that if he survives his wounds, he'll still be breaking into other people's homes in the future.
It also means that Melinda needs to spend more time at the firing range.

 

[Black_Label]

you bullshit doesnt fool or scare people anymore you idiots.

This case proves all she needed was a regular hand gun and NOT a semi

No, it shows that limiting someone to 6 shots for no other reason than "GUNS ARE SCARY" puts them at a disadvantage.

They only thing that saved her was the guy lost his nerve when he got hit, if she had missed a few more times, she would now have a shot, and very pissed off criminal in her midst.

All this shows is that the woman was a horrible shot, and that puts innocent people's lives in danger. One missed, and thank god it didn't hit a neighbor or innocent bystander.

Until someone is heavily trailed in firearms, she should have hid in the attic, and called the police, not her husband.

Also the man was unarmed, if he was, she likely would be another statistic for trying to be a hero.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Pulling up isdolated case doesn't work for your side any better than it works for the thread asbout the gun nut who got murdered (allegedly) by a gun in his own home.

Look at the numbers - overall. Not just isolated cases. You can find at least one isolated case that appears to support darn near ANY political position. It's stupid to try.

 

[martybegan]

you bullshit doesnt fool or scare people anymore you idiots.

This case proves all she needed was a regular hand gun and NOT a semi

No, it shows that limiting someone to 6 shots for no other reason than "GUNS ARE SCARY" puts them at a disadvantage.

They only thing that saved her was the guy lost his nerve when he got hit, if she had missed a few more times, she would now have a shot, and very pissed off criminal in her midst.

All this shows is that the woman was a horrible shot, and that puts innocent people's lives in danger. One missed, and thank god it didn't hit a neighbor or innocent bystander.

Until someone is heavily trailed in firearms, she should have hit in the attic, and called the police, not her husband.

Bullshit.

If you want to go run and hide in the attic, thats fine. But to deny someone the right to defend themself is the ultimate in cowardice. The criminal being in her house was the cause of her shooting, and thus the person responsible for any harm caused by her weapon use, including his own harm.

I guess you prefer crimimals to victims. Typical limousine left progessive sentiment.

 

[Black_Label]

No, it shows that limiting someone to 6 shots for no other reason than "GUNS ARE SCARY" puts them at a disadvantage.

They only thing that saved her was the guy lost his nerve when he got hit, if she had missed a few more times, she would now have a shot, and very pissed off criminal in her midst.

All this shows is that the woman was a horrible shot, and that puts innocent people's lives in danger. One missed, and thank god it didn't hit a neighbor or innocent bystander.

Until someone is heavily trailed in firearms, she should have hit in the attic, and called the police, not her husband.

Bullshit.

If you want to go run and hide in the attic, thats fine. But to deny someone the right to defend themself is the ultimate in cowardice. The criminal being in her house was the cause of her shooting, and thus the person responsible for any harm caused by her weapon use, including his own harm.

I guess you prefer crimimals to victims. Typical limousine left progessive sentiment.

You need to learn how the law works. If that stray bullet went through the wall and killed the neighbor, she would be in jail right now on manslaughter charges.

Having someone that clearly doesn't know how to handle a firearm is very dangerous.

 

[Truthmatters]

would you people quit pretending someone is going to come and take EVERY gun in the country away?


talking to gun nutters is like talking to the brain damaged

 

[ScreamingEagle]

you bullshit doesnt fool or scare people anymore you idiots.

This case proves all she needed was a regular hand gun and NOT a semi

No, it shows that limiting someone to 6 shots for no other reason than "GUNS ARE SCARY" puts them at a disadvantage.

They only thing that saved her was the guy lost his nerve when he got hit, if she had missed a few more times, she would now have a shot, and very pissed off criminal in her midst.

All this shows is that the woman was a horrible shot, and that puts innocent people's lives in danger. One missed, and thank god it didn't hit a neighbor or innocent bystander.

Until someone is heavily trailed in firearms, she should have hid in the attic, and called the police, not her husband.

Also the man was unarmed, if he was, she likely would be another statistic for trying to be a hero.

horrible shot.....? are you kidding.....? she hit the guy 5 out of 6 shots.....

too bad she didn't have a 30 round magazine......she might have hit him 25 times....

also you idiot.....the man WAS armed.....with a crowbar.....like the sheriff said he could have been investigating a TRIPLE MURDER instead....

 

[ScreamingEagle]

would you people quit pretending someone is going to come and take EVERY gun in the country away?


talking to gun nutters is like talking to the brain damaged

you lefties won't even allow candy cigarettes......what makes you think you'd allow ANY sort of gun if you got your way.....?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

All this shows is that the woman was a horrible shot, and that puts innocent people's lives in danger. One missed, and thank god it didn't hit a neighbor or innocent bystander.

Until someone is heavily trailed in firearms, she should have hit in the attic, and called the police, not her husband.

Bullshit.

If you want to go run and hide in the attic, thats fine. But to deny someone the right to defend themself is the ultimate in cowardice. The criminal being in her house was the cause of her shooting, and thus the person responsible for any harm caused by her weapon use, including his own harm.

I guess you prefer crimimals to victims. Typical limousine left progessive sentiment.

You need to learn how the law works. If that stray bullet went through the wall and killed the neighbor, she would be in jail right now on manslaughter charges.

Having someone that clearly doesn't know how to handle a firearm is very dangerous.

waaaaah.....i bet you'd like it if she accidently hurt someone else while trying to protect herself and her kids....

if she was in jail for that i'd say the law is fucked up....the invader should be the one charged....