Mom opens fire on home invaders in Detroit to defend children

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
681
38,906
Criminal Mexi Midget
http://www.wxyz.com/news/mom-opens-fire-on-home-invaders-in-detroit-to-defend-children

(WXYZ) - A Detroit mother opened fire Monday night when three suspects broke into her home.

Surveillance cameras caught it all.

The mother tells Action News she "didn't have time to get scared." When she heard the door to her home on Woodrow Wilson being kicked in, she immediately warned the three teenage intruders and then opened fire.

One of the teens dropped a handgun on his way out the door. He then tried to get back inside the house a second time, but was again met with gunfire. Once again, he took off and all three were arrested shortly after the incident by Detroit Police.
glad she knew how to use it.:)
 

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
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.
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
681
38,906
Criminal Mexi Midget
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.
OMG, we agree on something
 

chown33

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 9, 2009
8,347
4,306
Coruscant antipodal seas
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.
Wow, way to torpedo a thread.

/s
 

lannister80

macrumors 6502
Apr 7, 2009
476
17
Chicagoland
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.
 

astrorider

macrumors 6502
Sep 25, 2008
454
10
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.
Have a source for this?

Hemenway also said that Kleck's survey showed armed citizens wounded or killed attackers 207,000 times in one year, contrasted with around 100,000 Americans wounded or killed, accidentally or intentionally, in a typical year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

And those numbers are low estimates:
Estimates over the number of defensive gun uses vary, depending on the study's population, criteria, time-period studied, and other factors. Higher end estimates by Kleck and Gertz show between 1 to 2.5 million DGUs in the United States each year.[1]:64–65[2][3] Low end estimates cited by Hemenway show approximately 55,000-80,000 such uses each year.[4][5]
 

zioxide

macrumors 603
Dec 11, 2006
5,725
3,711
Which this is the exact reasons and use for SYG-type laws and weapons training.
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.
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
681
38,906
Criminal Mexi Midget
With estimates ranging from 50,000 to 2.5m, the figures lack much credibility.
what is an "acceptable" number to you? even at 50,000 that is 50,000 less victims.

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.
SYG is tricky for sure.
 

ElectronGuru

macrumors 65816
Sep 5, 2013
1,492
360
Oregon, USA
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.
 

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
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.
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.

OMG, we agree on something
Image
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.
 

astrorider

macrumors 6502
Sep 25, 2008
454
10
With estimates ranging from 50,000 to 2.5m, the figures lack much credibility.
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.
 

lannister80

macrumors 6502
Apr 7, 2009
476
17
Chicagoland
Have a source for this?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182

RESULTS: During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

CONCLUSIONS: Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense./
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.
 

SLC Flyfishing

Suspended
Nov 19, 2007
1,486
1,639
Portland, OR
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.
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?
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
681
38,906
Criminal Mexi Midget
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.
there is no reason to take away ANY of them.
 

Moyank24

macrumors 601
Aug 31, 2009
4,334
2,421
in a New York State of mind
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?
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...
 

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
there is no reason to take away ANY of them.
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.
 

.Andy

macrumors 68030
Jul 18, 2004
2,946
583
The Mergui Archipelago
Part of the problem with the methodology behind this study is that the focus only on shootings.
That's a strength. It is an objective measure.

Home defense weapons often don't need to be fired to be an effective deterrent.
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.
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
681
38,906
Criminal Mexi Midget
1.So, basically, as long as it looks like a gun (IE a toy or a BB gun), it can be effective as well?

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

Moyank24

macrumors 601
Aug 31, 2009
4,334
2,421
in a New York State of mind
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.
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.