^ We were just talking about that one - God grant that no one is ever put in the position to have to make that choice. But he left her no choice - she was 87! What would have happened to her if she had not had a shot gun?
[PAX] Gun control
- Thread starter Xander
- Start date
I believe she was actually in her 50s... but no matter, she defended herself, and she tried to get help first. The man broke into her property (climbed over a locked fence, evidently) and made quite a few threatening statements/actions.
Based on my knowledge of the situation, she did exactly what I would have done, and was devastated, as I would have been.
Based on my knowledge of the situation, she did exactly what I would have done, and was devastated, as I would have been.
I've shot handguns and riffles before. The power that they have scares the shit out of me; I don't want to own a gun.
However, I am pro gun. We all legally own a million other things that can be used to kill people, but for some reason they aren't a problem. Also, people are going to acquire guns no matter what. In my opinion I'd rather have criminals buy traceable guns then buying serial number free guns on the black market (don't mistake that as a huge portion of my arguement for being pro-gun, but it's food for thought).
However, I am pro gun. We all legally own a million other things that can be used to kill people, but for some reason they aren't a problem. Also, people are going to acquire guns no matter what. In my opinion I'd rather have criminals buy traceable guns then buying serial number free guns on the black market (don't mistake that as a huge portion of my arguement for being pro-gun, but it's food for thought).
Whatever her age, i sympathize with her. She seemed genuinely upset with having to shoot the intruder. Clearly, i'm not on the side of the intruder, and I can't say how i would respond in her situation, so i'm not in a position to judge.
But she seemed very nervous and a bit panicked early on in the phone conversation before the intruder threw the chair and broke in. So, i'm a little unsure. If she was going to use the gun, why didn't she fire a warning shot somewhere in the house, to ward him away? Not that this would've necessarily stopped him but it could have caused him to think differently and leave. But that option didn't seem to be on the table, and i'm not sure why.
Last edited:
Yeah, I'm not so sure why either, but it sounds like the guy was quite intoxicated/methed up to the point of being crazy, so making rational decisions along the lines of "SHIT! That lady has a shotgun! I'm outta here!" might not have been the actual outcome of a warning shot.
Plus, he may have had a gun and the warning shot may have caused him to fire on her.
I don't know. )-:
The reason I don't own a gun is because of the statistic that most homeowners are shot with their own gun. I know a man who was shot in the head with his own hand gun by the guy who broke into his home. He had to totally learn how to walk and talk all over again. He's still partially paralyzed.
There are some questionable assumptions being proposed here in support of self defense.
Just because i have the right to own a gun, doesn't mean i have the right to use it, and use it however i want and choose. And the most responsible, well meaning, and nicest person in the world in one minute can become become a frustrated, angry unintentional killer, who lost their composure for a moment, because of anger, rage, etc. the next minute. Someone who's a bit overeager can easily abuse the right by rushing to use it too quickly.
And what's not being acknowledge much less addressed is the belief that just because you have a gun and can use it to defend yourself, that it's the only way to defend yourself. It seems as if the right to own a gun in self-defense becomes the right to see the gun as the only option i have in self defense, when other methods would've been sufficient, less violent, or lethal. The need to use a gun in one situation should not be an automatic license to use it in another. Each situation is different.
This kind of black and white thinking involved in gun ownership is focused too squarely on rights, and very little on responsibilities.
Just because i have the right to own a gun, doesn't mean i have the right to use it, and use it however i want and choose. And the most responsible, well meaning, and nicest person in the world in one minute can become become a frustrated, angry unintentional killer, who lost their composure for a moment, because of anger, rage, etc. the next minute. Someone who's a bit overeager can easily abuse the right by rushing to use it too quickly.
And what's not being acknowledge much less addressed is the belief that just because you have a gun and can use it to defend yourself, that it's the only way to defend yourself. It seems as if the right to own a gun in self-defense becomes the right to see the gun as the only option i have in self defense, when other methods would've been sufficient, less violent, or lethal. The need to use a gun in one situation should not be an automatic license to use it in another. Each situation is different.
This kind of black and white thinking involved in gun ownership is focused too squarely on rights, and very little on responsibilities.
Last edited:
I always got worried about guns when kids in my high school gave off the idea that it is "cool" to have a gun, like an irresponsible right of passage. I understand, if you were brought up on grounds of proper use in your family, and/or have decided to have proper certification, knowledge and storage , but there are too many deaths, especially in the city, where a mix of uncontrolled emotions, social pressure, and availability causes fatal outcomes. I always have heard stories from classmates of their loved ones and friends who have died at my age or younger due to these factors.
Sure, people don't just go around randomly shooting others, or shooting anyone who rings your doorbell -- you don't, in fact, have any right whatsoever to do those kinds of things, whether or not you have the right to own a gun.
Maybe the lady in Oklahoma should've taken a crowbar to that intruder -- it would have, after all, been an option. I'm just not so sure it would have been terrribly effective.
(P.S. I guess what I am wondering is, what else should she have done? Did she have any other viable options other than allowing him to enter her house and do whatever? Keeping in mind he was probably a lot larger than her(she?), not rational, and based on all evidence, intent on doing harm?)
Maybe the lady in Oklahoma should've taken a crowbar to that intruder -- it would have, after all, been an option. I'm just not so sure it would have been terrribly effective.
(P.S. I guess what I am wondering is, what else should she have done? Did she have any other viable options other than allowing him to enter her house and do whatever? Keeping in mind he was probably a lot larger than her(she?), not rational, and based on all evidence, intent on doing harm?)
Last edited:
Of course no one is going to argue that a crowbar would've been effective in her situation. I don't think anyone, including myself, is arguing that she should just sit there and wait till he approaches her and tries something physical. That would be ridiculous. That's not the point.
The point is when we take it too far, and don't consider that in some situations, not necessarily hers, that there other options, but that we don't use them because we have a gun. It easier to think you have no other options because you have a gun, so the gun becomes the only option when it may not be necessary. Again, each situation differs.
Last edited:
This concerns me as well and is a good example of very irresponsible gun ownership.
Actually, if you listen closely, she did fire a warning shot, after he broke the glass - this ws the first shot - then the second was a hit...at least that is what I interpreted when I listened again...
If that's the case, then fine. But during the phone conversation, i didn't hear her say, she was going to fire a warning shot. Instead, I heard someone who was nervous (understandably), but a bit gittery. She didn't wait for any advice from the dispatcher. She pretty much told the dispatcher what she was going to do, after being told by the dispatcher that she has legal right to defend herself. I'm not sure why she wasn't immediately transferred to a police officer once she called. And based on reports, the man did not have a gun.
Last edited:
Yes, the males in my family seem to believe this wholeheartedly. Sigh. FLOWERS are cool, people. Flowers. Somebody out there agree with me, dammit.
I know I am not going to convince anyone.
And I am not anti-gun... it's just.... ugh. So, so, juvenile. Dirty, loud, smelly, nasty things that kill people sound a lot cooler when you're not the one having to shoot an intruder. Or the one having to re-learn how to walk. A lot cooler.
I would have no qualms in shooting a violent intruder, really.
I guess I'd feel kind of bad if the person had mental issues.
Even then, if you're remotely adept at shooting, you can just take out a kneecap or something.
If they're sane, and simply just a violent criminal, then fuck 'em, aim to kill.
If I were going to break into somebodies house, I would expect them to shoot me...
I guess I'd feel kind of bad if the person had mental issues.
Even then, if you're remotely adept at shooting, you can just take out a kneecap or something.
If they're sane, and simply just a violent criminal, then fuck 'em, aim to kill.
If I were going to break into somebodies house, I would expect them to shoot me...
Last edited:
This is my main point. I am 5'4" and I weigh 92 pounds at the most. I can't scare anyone. It just won't happen. If someone has got it in their mind that they are going to hurt me, they will probably succeed if I don't have a way to protect myself. Sure, I could kick and scream and struggle, but do you know what would probably keep my attacker at a distance? A gun. I have spent my entire life living in a city known for violent crime. It usually makes the top three in the nation. So, I am inclined to acquire a hand gun in the near future. I feel it would be in my best interest. Plus, I was raised in a family where guns were prominent. Of course, I was a girl so I didn't actually get a chance to fire a gun until a few months ago, and I must say It was fun. I thought it would scare me, but it really didn't. I think I might turn it into a hobby, maybe pick up hunting and go to the range, and I see no reason to regulate that. I am not harming anyone by shooting for sport.
I also want to agree with several of the posters before me. The government can regulate citizens rights to own weapons all they want, but that is not going to solve the illegal gun problem. I don't see how it makes any sense to take away my right to legally own a firearm in an attempt to stop the guy down the street from having a hand gun that isn't registered. All it is going to do is make me more vulnerable, because I followed the letter of the law and handed over my weapon. He didn't. Then he decides to break into my house. I'm screwed. They are going to have to find some other way to deal with illegal firearms and black market weapons, because regulating the weapons of your everyday, law abiding citizen isn't going to help with that.
Oh and here is a cliche for you: Guns don't kill people. People kill people. There was murder before there were firearms. You could take all of the guns out of society and people would still find ways to kill. It wouldn't be as easy, we would have more creative murders, but the fact is we would still have murders. Would we have less murders? Maybe, who knows? I doubt it. People would just think a little more outside the box.
Eh, my two cents... and it's not very coherent... sorry about that.