Mom opens fire on home invaders in Detroit to defend children

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jkcerda, Feb 19, 2014.

  1. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #1
    http://www.wxyz.com/news/mom-opens-fire-on-home-invaders-in-detroit-to-defend-children

    glad she knew how to use it.:)
     
  2. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #2
    Which this is the exact reasons and use for SYG-type laws and weapons training.

    And a good example of why we do not want to ban all guns (hear this, other gun supporters in this forum? ;) )

    And good use of the 2nd Amendment (hear this, other gun supporters in this forum?)

    I'm also going to go out on a limb and say that she also knew how to safely secure her gun as well (hear this, other gun supporters in this forum?)

    In short, this is the right place and time to use it, and she did it to the best outcome she could have. Well done to her.

    BL.
     
  3. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #3
    OMG, we agree on something
    [​IMG]
     
  4. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #4
    Wow, way to torpedo a thread.

    /s
     
  5. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
  6. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #6
    she accomplished her task, defense of her home & her children. good enough for me, the teens are in custody.
     
  7. lannister80 macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #7
    Good for her. But for every 1 of these successful defenses, there are >1 accidental deaths in the home due to a gun being present.

    Still a net negative.
     
  8. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #8
    you mean due to negligence? none of my guns or millions of others have fired by themselves.
     
  9. lannister80 macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #9
    Yes, due to negligence.
     
  10. astrorider macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    #10
    Have a source for this?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

    And those numbers are low estimates:
     
  11. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #11
    With estimates ranging from 50,000 to 2.5m, the figures lack much credibility.
     
  12. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #12
    This is more castle doctrine than stand your ground. Castle doctrine is fine. Someone breaks in to your house, you should be able to use whatever means necessary.

    Stand your ground is bad though. It lets clowns like Zimmerman or Michael Dunn go and start/escalate a confrontation, and then murder someone, when they could have just walked away and avoided the situation altogether.
     
  13. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #13
    what is an "acceptable" number to you? even at 50,000 that is 50,000 less victims.

    SYG is tricky for sure.
     
  14. ElectronGuru macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2013
    Location:
    Oregon, USA
    #14
    SYG basically makes your body into a portable castle. But there's a decided lack of walls or doors to provide the certainty of threat so it broadens the measure of what constitutes a threat.
     
  15. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #15
    You're right here. I was thinking hastily when I was writing that up this morning while trying to get out the door. Castle Doctrine would be more suited for this than SYG. Thanks for the clarification.

    Now, if your side could only start to believe that the gun issue isn't black/white (read: control or regulation != take away ALL OF YOUR GUNS), then we could have good dialog. Until then...

    BL.
     
  16. astrorider macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    #16
    Different researchers, methodologies, and agendas unfortunately. Regardless of methodology, I've never seen a study showing accidental gun deaths outnumbering defensive gun use as stated by lannister80; I've seen defensive gun use >> accidental gun death, just not the other way around.
     
  17. lannister80 macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #17
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182

    This applies to guns kept in home only (and they count non-fatal accidents as well), but that's what I meant to refer to in my initial statement (sorry if I wasn't specific enough).

    I did say *death*, which I shouldn't have.
     
  18. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #18
    Part of the problem with the methodology behind this study is that the focus only on shootings.

    Home defense weapons often don't need to be fired to be an effective deterrent. Also, can you cite weather guns being discharged but not hitting anyone is factored into the study's figures?
     
  19. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #19
    there is no reason to take away ANY of them.
     
  20. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #20
    So, basically, as long as it looks like a gun (IE a toy or a BB gun), it can be effective as well?

    That doesn't really help the argument that guns are necessary for home defense - especially with so many other options; alarms, dogs, BB guns...
     
  21. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #21
    52 parents in Newtown, Connecticut would seem to disagree with you, especially given the fact that they still have Christmas presents that will never be opened.

    BL.
     
  22. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #22
    That's a strength. It is an objective measure.

    Which is a weakness of the studies on defensive gun use which results in a huge overestimation of the number of uses. Phone surveys asking people if they have used their guns in defence are terrible. They are subjective. jkcerda posted an article recently (he didn't read) which was a perfect example. One lady claimed to have used her gun 52 times in a year for "self-defence". The results of the survey resulted in gun owners claiming to have killed 13000 "criminals" a year in "self-defence" - these numbers are clearly BS. Extrapolate the figures to the entire population and you may as well just make the numbers up.

    http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=18776665&postcount=304


    And whilst we are talking figures a reminder that the NRA has been instrumental in blocking gun research for decades from receiving any funding.
     
  23. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #23
    1.depends on many things, is the criminal high? can he tell the difference between a real gun & a BB gun?
    2 I for one am NOT at all arguing that they are necessary, but they do help a lot more in QUALIFIED hands than alarms/bb guns.
     
  24. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #24
    Is the gun-owner high? Are they drunk? Can they tell the differentiate a real threat?
     
  25. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #25
    It's the qualified part that seems to be the hang up here (and in many discussions about firearms). And I was just responding to a post which said that guns don't have to be fired to be a deterrent.

    This is a great example of a home defense where there were no injuries and the intruders were caught. Maybe we should have women teaching men how to be responsible with weapons. Especially with the rash of "self defense" shootings by men who hold on to the ideal of shoot first and ask questions later.
     

Share This Page