Gun rights groups say Georgia home invasion proves their point

[martybegan]

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.

But a dead woman at the hands of an intruder is clearly a more acceptable outcome.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Wait.... he ran off.

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

If you understood how to defend one's self, you would understand that it is a lucky thing that this woman and her two children did not get injured. She was out of ammo, but her attacker was not yet disabled. In this particular case, she did not incur injury. However, the truth is that the moment she ran out of rounds she was in grave danger. If the attacker had even a slight knowledge of guns, he would have known already that she was out of rounds, and would not have believed her threats to shoot again. If he had been carrying a gun himself, he would have likely used it. Even without a gun, if he'd known she was no longer armed, he could have easily used his crowbar to attack her. She had seen his face, she could now identify him, she was therefore a the kind of threat to him that often prompts an attacker to kill a victim.

Using a firearm for self defense is a very serious and grave responsibility when one chooses to go that route. When doing so, one has a huge responsibility to learn and understand the fundamentals of using a gun against a human being, and how to use it effectively. In any form of self defense the goal is always the same: Disable your attacker so that they are incapable of continuing to attack you. Anything short of that, you are failing to defend yourself fully because anything short and you cannot be sure that you will not be injured by your attacker. Failing to disable your attacker, and you are left with nothing but luck to hope that he stops his attack.

Using a gun can be an extremely effective way to disable an attacker. It allows you to remain at a distance, which helps to prevent an attacker from engaging in hand-to-hand combat or from using melee or edged weapons. When practiced upon, competency can be much easier to achieve that through hand-to-hand defensive techniques, or competency with other weapon types. When used correctly and with the correct ammo, it can provide significant stopping power. It is the best way to provide personal self defense in almost every possible scenario.

All the same, it bears with it great responsibility, as I said, because it cannot be used frivolously. In order to disable an attacker, you have to be willing to destroy, i.e. kill the attacker. That does not mean that once you've taken an attacker down, you should "finish him off" with a round to the head. It means that you drop him, and stand ready to fire again if he doesn't stay down. If he tries to get up, YOU HAVE TO ASSUME, that he's going to try to attack you again.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Wait.... he ran off.

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

If you understood how to defend one's self, you would understand that it is a lucky thing that this woman and her two children did not get injured. She was out of ammo, but her attacker was not yet disabled. In this particular case, she did not incur injury. However, the truth is that the moment she ran out of rounds she was in grave danger. If the attacker had even a slight knowledge of guns, he would have known already that she was out of rounds, and would not have believed her threats to shoot again. If he had been carrying a gun himself, he would have likely used it. Even without a gun, if he'd known she was no longer armed, he could have easily used his crowbar to attack her. She had seen his face, she could now identify him, she was therefore a the kind of threat to him that often prompts an attacker to kill a victim.

Using a firearm for self defense is a very serious and grave responsibility when one chooses to go that route. When doing so, one has a huge responsibility to learn and understand the fundamentals of using a gun against a human being, and how to use it effectively. In any form of self defense the goal is always the same: Disable your attacker so that they are incapable of continuing to attack you. Anything short of that, you are failing to defend yourself fully because anything short and you cannot be sure that you will not be injured by your attacker. Failing to disable your attacker, and you are left with nothing but luck to hope that he stops his attack.

Using a gun can be an extremely effective way to disable an attacker. It allows you to remain at a distance, which helps to prevent an attacker from engaging in hand-to-hand combat or from using melee or edged weapons. When practiced upon, competency can be much easier to achieve that through hand-to-hand defensive techniques, or competency with other weapon types. When used correctly and with the correct ammo, it can provide significant stopping power. It is the best way to provide personal self defense in almost every possible scenario.

All the same, it bears with it great responsibility, as I said, because it cannot be used frivolously. In order to disable an attacker, you have to be willing to destroy, i.e. kill the attacker. That does not mean that once you've taken an attacker down, you should "finish him off" with a round to the head. It means that you drop him, and stand ready to fire again if he doesn't stay down. If he tries to get up, YOU HAVE TO ASSUME, that he's going to try to attack you again.

This is waaaay too well thought out for this forum. Well said - well reasoned. Props.

 

[Inthemiddle]

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

Okay, I tried to be nice, but you are being a stupid ****. What was the purpose of your little outburst, eh? Was I not respectful in my response? Too bad you are incapable of doing the same.

You want to talk about idiots, you don't even know what the **** you are talking about, but you insist on inserting your own opinion above all others. Why they hell are you talking about "semis"? What does that have to do with this discussion? Yes, the woman used a revolver, but that is not really that important. A double action revolver like this woman used has the same essential shooting effect as a semi automatic pistol - shooting requires only that you pull the trigger; one trigger pull, one shot. Anyone who attempts to distinguish between the shooting action between a revolver and a semiautomatic pistol knows NOTHING about the subject in the first place.

The issue here is round capacity. This woman got of LUCKY. If her attacker had a gun himself, she and her children would probably have ended up dead. And who the Hell are you to condemn her to death just because you want to be a ideological hack?

 

[Inthemiddle]

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.

You're the one who doesn't understand how the law works. Voluntary manslaughter is the INTENTIONAL killing of a human being with circumstances that mitigate criminal responsibility for murder even if they do not excuse the killing. Involuntary manslaughter is the killing of a human being with depraved indifference to human life. If this woman had a missed round exit her home and strike a person, who subsequently ended up dead, that would not meet the threshold for either form of manslaughter.

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

You're right. But what does that have to do with this woman? In any event, you know what else is very dangerous? Having people, like yourself, who don't know how to handle a firearm making laws about firearms.

 

[Black_Label]

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.

You're the one who doesn't understand how the law works. Voluntary manslaughter is the INTENTIONAL killing of a human being with circumstances that mitigate criminal responsibility for murder even if they do not excuse the killing. Involuntary manslaughter is the killing of a human being with depraved indifference to human life. If this woman had a missed round exit her home and strike a person, who subsequently ended up dead, that would not meet the threshold for either form of manslaughter.

She would have been charged with involuntary manslaughter or possibly negligent homicide.
As the shooter of the firearm, you are held personally responsible for every bullet that comes out of it, regardless of the situation. If that stray bullet went through the wall and killed the neighbors 3 year old, do you think "sorry about that, I was busy being a hero!" would be a valid excuse? Try again.

 

[RoadVirus]

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

We'd quit if certain dipshit Liberals would stop threatening to use illegal political methods to enact gun control laws.

 

[RoadVirus]

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.

But a dead woman at the hands of an intruder is clearly a more acceptable outcome.

And possibly dead children. And possibly evidence of sexual assault.

She denied the man his rape fantasies! The evil gun-nutter!!

 

[martybegan]

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.

You're the one who doesn't understand how the law works. Voluntary manslaughter is the INTENTIONAL killing of a human being with circumstances that mitigate criminal responsibility for murder even if they do not excuse the killing. Involuntary manslaughter is the killing of a human being with depraved indifference to human life. If this woman had a missed round exit her home and strike a person, who subsequently ended up dead, that would not meet the threshold for either form of manslaughter.

She would have been charged with involuntary manslaughter or possibly negligent homicide.
As the shooter of the firearm, you are held personally responsible for every bullet that comes out of it, regardless of the situation. If that stray bullet went through the wall and killed the neighbors 3 year old, do you think "sorry about that, I was busy being a hero!" would be a valid excuse? Try again.

She was defending herself and her children in her house, from a CRIMINAL WITH A ******* CROWBAR.

How is that trying "to be the hero"

And for all those who keep up with the "just give them what they want and you won't get hurt" Remember this...

Wendy's massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This one is a little personal, as I was in the store buying dinner less than four ******* hours before these people got rounded up, tied up, and shot. No resistance, no nothing. The skells just decided to shoot them.

 

[martybegan]

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.

But a dead woman at the hands of an intruder is clearly a more acceptable outcome.

And possibly dead children. And possibly evidence of sexual assault.

She denied the man his rape fantasies! The evil gun-nutter!!

its official. Black Label supports the rights of crowbar wielding nuts to attempt to rape people without the risk of getting shot.

 

[del]

all americans should be required to place claymore mines around the perimeter of their property

 

[Inthemiddle]

She would have been charged with involuntary manslaughter or possibly negligent homicide.

No, she would not have. You don't know what you're talking about.

As the shooter of the firearm, you are held personally responsible for every bullet that comes out of it, regardless of the situation.

You are responsible for each round, yes. But that does not mean that you are criminally responsible when you've not done anything criminal. I've already told you the definitions of both types of manslaughter. As long as a defensive shooter exercises due care, there is no criminal responsibility, even for a missed shot. If a person shoots a "warning" shot, aimed at nowhere, then THAT could lead to involuntary manslaughter. But a defensive shooter who simply misses despite exercising due care has done nothing criminal.

If that stray bullet went through the wall and killed the neighbors 3 year old, do you think "sorry about that, I was busy being a hero!" would be a valid excuse? Try again.

So defending one's self is now "being a hero"? Try again.

 

[martybegan]

She would have been charged with involuntary manslaughter or possibly negligent homicide.

No, she would not have. You don't know what you're talking about.

As the shooter of the firearm, you are held personally responsible for every bullet that comes out of it, regardless of the situation.

You are responsible for each round, yes. But that does not mean that you are criminally responsible when you've not done anything criminal. I've already told you the definitions of both types of manslaughter. As long as a defensive shooter exercises due care, there is no criminal responsibility, even for a missed shot. If a person shoots a "warning" shot, aimed at nowhere, then THAT could lead to involuntary manslaughter. But a defensive shooter who simply misses despite exercising due care has done nothing criminal.

If that stray bullet went through the wall and killed the neighbors 3 year old, do you think "sorry about that, I was busy being a hero!" would be a valid excuse? Try again.

So defending one's self is now "being a hero"? Try again.

I know its cliche, but most people would rather be judged by 12 then carried by 6.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Yep....the typical stupid **** liberal shows their ignorance about what a revolver is compared to a gun like a M9 with a clip.

This is the idiot complaining about guns, the face of the anti-gun crowd that probably thinks a shotgun is a machine gun.

was it a semi?

did it have a large clip?


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

 

[GoneBezerk]

Too bad the piece of shit didn't die. Hopefully the judge throws his ass in jail for 20-30 years for being a repeat offender and putting that family in danger.

The family should actually sue him and take every dime he might have because of the trauma he put on the woman and her kids. Those kids now will live with gunshots in the memory and their lives being in danger because that son of a ***** thought he was allowed to rob them.

oh, it's not shocking he was black...

 

[nodoginnafight]

She would have been charged with involuntary manslaughter or possibly negligent homicide.

No, she would not have. You don't know what you're talking about.

Yes, she could be charged depending upon the circumstances.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Shithead....if you break into someone's home and they fear for their life because you are a big black man and she is a woman with kids....she can shoot you in the face until you no longer move.

1) You are a criminal because you entered her house without her permission.
2) You went to where she was hiding, thus threatening her life and her kids' lives.

So she can stab you, shoot you, pummel you with a bat, etc because you are not allowed in her house let alone her bedroom where she is hiding.

You are one stupid ****, no wonder criminals feel they can break the law with scum like you sitting on juries.

She would have been charged with involuntary manslaughter or possibly negligent homicide.

No, she would not have. You don't know what you're talking about.

Yes, she could be charged depending upon the circumstances.

 

[RoadVirus]

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.

You're the one who doesn't understand how the law works. Voluntary manslaughter is the INTENTIONAL killing of a human being with circumstances that mitigate criminal responsibility for murder even if they do not excuse the killing. Involuntary manslaughter is the killing of a human being with depraved indifference to human life. If this woman had a missed round exit her home and strike a person, who subsequently ended up dead, that would not meet the threshold for either form of manslaughter.

She would have been charged with involuntary manslaughter or possibly negligent homicide.
As the shooter of the firearm, you are held personally responsible for every bullet that comes out of it, regardless of the situation. If that stray bullet went through the wall and killed the neighbors 3 year old, do you think "sorry about that, I was busy being a hero!" would be a valid excuse? Try again.

Good Lord! You liberals will fight tooth and nail to try and justify your reasons to ban guns and prosecute those who actually have to use one to defend themselves! That is so very sad.