E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSKFOR's Bobbie Miller reports.
An 18-year-old Oklahoma mother fearing for her infant's life shot and killed an intruder after a 911 operator told her, "Do what you have to do to protect your baby."
Sarah McKinley was home with her 3-month-old son on New Year's Eve in Blanchard, Okla., when Justin Martin, 24, broke in with a large hunting knife, NBC affiliate KFOR-TV reported. McKinley told KFOR that Martin had come by a week before, claiming to be a neighbor, but she didn't let him in.
When Martin first showed up at her door, McKinley said she was in mourning: It was the night of her husband's funeral. He had died of cancer on Christmas Day.
"I saw that it was the same man. He had been here Thursday night and I had a bad feeling then," McKinley told KFOR.
Martin returned on New Year's Eve, but this time with another man, and armed with a 12-inch knife. McKinley could hear the two intruders pounding on the door, and knew she had to think fast.
First, she pushed a couch in front of the front door.
Then, she grabbed her son and "walked over and got the 12-gauge, went in the bedroom and got the pistol and put the bottle in his mouth and then I called 911," she told ABC affiliate KOCO.
The 911 operator asked McKinley to confirm that her doors were locked.
The young mother said yes, and asked if it was all right for her to shoot the man if he were to enter her house, reported KOCO.
McKinley said she asked the dispatcher, "I've got two guns in my hand -- is it OK to shoot him if he comes in this door? I'm here by myself with my infant baby, can I please get a dispatcher out here immediately?"
"I can't tell you that you can do that but you do what you have to do to protect your baby," the dispatcher said.
The 911 conversation lasted for 21 minutes. Then the door gave in.
"I waited till he got in the door. They said I couldn't shoot him until he was inside the house. So I waited until he got in the door and then I shot him," McKinley told KFOR.
Martin kicked in the door and charged at McKinley with his knife, but she said she shot at him before he could get to her.
McKinley struck Martin in the upper torso. He was pronounced dead at the scene, according to Oklahoma's News 9.
His alleged accomplice, Dustin Stewart, fled the scene, and later surrendered to police.
Authorities say McKinley's shooting was justified.
"You're allowed to shoot an unauthorized person that is in your home. The law provides you the remedy, and sanctions the use of deadly force," Detective Dan Huff of the Blanchard police told KOCO.
Some other suspicious activity around her home has led McKinley to believe Martin may have been stalking her, reported KFOR. Two of her dogs recently were found dead, she said.
The decision to shoot was difficult, she told KFOR.
"There's nothing more dangerous than a mother with her baby. But I wouldn't have done it if it wasn't for him."
Leave a Comment:
And this is WHY we are allowed to be legal gun owners....he was coming in either way! Good for her!
nuff said! Either shoot once and stop the jerk permanently or empty the clip and say he just kept moving. No one would survive entering my house, especially if I had that much warning. Way to go girl!
Another turd bites the dust. Good job, young lady, and I hope your luck is about to change.
The call lasted for 21 minutes! I assume she lived in the middle of nowhere?
Good for her, a lesson to us all: An unarmed citizen is a victim
My thoughts and prayers are with this young woman....for the loss of her husband and for the need to use deadly force....not a decision to be taken lightly...she did what she had to do and thank God she was armed.
the dumb a$$ didn't realize he was bringing a knife to a gun fight...serves him right.
Kudos to this mom! Too bad she didn't get both of them!
Wow. At 18 years old, this gal has been married, widowed; had a child and killed an armed intruder . . . here's hoping her next 18 years are far less eventful.
Blanchard is a small town with not a very big police force. It still shouldn't have taken 21+ minutes for someone to show up.
This young woman is heroic. I hope that she has good support from family and friends. My condolences and Prayers for her regarding the loss of her husband. Unreal that so much has happened in her short life.
PDK
Took the words right out of my mouth.
Agreed. I suppose the liberals here would rather that she not be able to own a gun, and didn't have one, and now she, and perhaps her child, would be dead?
Can't wait to hear their arguments on this story!
This woman is a hero; also, one less scumbag to drain taxpayer resources. Bravo, and well done!
I consider myself to be somewhat liberal, and I applaud this woman's actions, and totally support her rights to protect herself and her child from an obvious threat. Her bravery is commendable, and her aim, great!
Take your "liberal" comment, and think about what you are saying, with such a broad brush. I would have done the exact same thing, and will, should I ever be in a similar position.
Constitutional,
You characterize yourself 'somewhat liberal', yet you support this woman's right to own and use a weapon. Combined, this suggests that you are in a center-left political position, which is proof that there is still a reasonable middle ground in the American public, if not in most of our politicians.
God bless you, and I hope you and many like you vote for center-left and center-right politicians, rather than stark-raving-mad left or right politicians.
As a mostly liberal person I have no problem with people owning guns to hunt or protect themselves, what I don't agree with is the need to own assault weapons of any kind.
Good for this girl for having the guts to pull that trigger when it was clear that she and her child would have probably been dead otherwise!
Hmmm?? So THIS is why we have the 2nd Amendment. Take note people
I think you assume too much.
I'm as liberal as it gets and I have no problem with what this young woman did. Provided her guns were legally registered.
I, and most liberals, do NOT want to take your guns. That is a lie told by the right. We want reasonable gun safety laws. Registration, training, accountability. If your kid shoots himself or another kid becuase you didn't have your gun locked up where kids couldn't find it, then I think you are guilty of murder.
@pete
I am a liberal democrat and believe that this woman did the right thing.
I think that a fundamental problem we have in this country, relating to debating gun laws, can be attributed to statements like yours that just add fuel to the inflamatory fire.
Liberal does not equal take guns away.
What many democrats stand for is gun "control".
Do I belive that this woman had the right to posess and use firearms? Absolutely!
Do I believe that this woman has the right to own automatic and millitary-style assault weapons bought without a background check at a gun show? No!
If you are truly interested in participating in an honest debate over gun control, it would be helpful to understand the facts of what the debate is about. The minute you start slapping names on those that disagree with your point of view and then don't take the time to even understand what their point of view is... well that's what hurts our society -- because you are choosing to be ignorant of the people and facts of the debate.
Castle Doctrine FTW
Pete, I consider myself to be a liberal, but I'm also a bit of a country girl who was taught how to use (and treat with respect) firearms by her grandfather and various friends over the years. I applaud the actions of this young woman who took the proper measures to protect her family. My heart goes out to her; I hope that she is able to work through the grieving process and build a safe and loving environment for both herself and her child.
Well you should be happy then, because that is a MYTH. There is no such thing as the "gun show loophole".
911: "Ma'am, are your guns legally registered"?
Women: "No"
911: "Then toss them aside and prepare to be murdered by a KNIFE, which probably isn't registered"
I guess this idiot did not think that she had the nerve to pull the trigger. Too bad for him that he guessed wrong. Thankfully this woman had the means to defend herself and her baby, otherwise this would have been a completely different story. All I can say is it is too bad she did not get the accomplice as well. Now the taxpayers will get stuck paying for his room and board while he is in prison.
She did the right thing but she is not a hero for killing. Liberals do not hate gun owners they just hate you morons thinking that you need a gun everywhere you go, and the supposed need of NRA hunters to have assault rifles. Gun control is what I am for.
Hey Pete,
Just another "liberal" here who TOTALLY agrees with the action this mother took. But like a previous "liberal" said, it ain't about taking away peoples guns. It's about the necessary firepower needed to accomplish the objective. In this case, the woman had a shotgun and a pistol. The guy entered, she fired. Intruder neutralized. Objective accomplished. No one needs a military style weapon that can fire 30 or 60 something rounds a second to do what this lady did with a shotgun. Bottom line, the key word in the phrase "gun control" is CONTROL.
Scott
Good post (#1.18). One of the hidden lessons in this story is that the woman's shotgun was very adequate to deal with the home invader. Very few Democrats wish to take such weapons away from any citizen who has not demonstrated that they should be denied that right because they are felons, mentally incompetent, etc.
The problem, as you point out, is that too many gun rights advocates use that right to acquire an arsenal of hand guns, assault weapons, large capacity clips and other firepower designed for the sole purpose of killing other human beings. They resist any requirement designed to keep weapons out of the hands of those who should not have weapons. For example, background checks pertain only to guns purchased from federally licensed gun dealers, but virtually anyone can purchase a weapon at a gun show or from a private party.
Gun rights advocates continually misrepresent both liberals' beliefs and their goals pertaining to the responsible use of guns in this country.
@ peteMT -- as someone somewhere left of center -- I have no problem with someone owning a gun or using it to protect themselves. The problem I have is the multitude of gun owners that are irresponsible—and cause the injury or death of innocent people.
I grew up with hunters. We were taught at a young age to respect firearms, and we were required to have training before we were allowed to go out and hunt. Our guns were safely stored when not in use.
ScottM
Jnikolai
Sorry to inform you that you are completely incorrect. In many states, you can purchase a gun as a "dealer" without having to go through the typical background check.
Additionally, these shows tend to showcase millitary-grade assault weapons.
Lastly, you might want to look at this: www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/backgroundchecks/gunshowloophole which explains the REAL legislation being proposed in Congress for your supposed MYTHICAL loophole.
Yep - I'm a 'liberal' too, and a registered Democrat, and think she did the right thing. I know I would have. This is one of the reasons why I DO continue to support gun ownership.
Actually I'm NOT a liberal - conservatives just think I am because I'm not crazy-right. To be completely frank with the conservatives here - most of us so called 'liberals' are actually pretty moderate. You've all gone WAY far right; we've pretty much stayed right in the center all along and have been there for decades.
Interestingly, this came from a website (www.boomershoot.org/general/myths.htm#Loophole) that tries to make you believe that there is no loophole:
What this passage essentially states is that there IS, in fact, a loophole for those who are not engaged in the full-time practice of selling firearms and this is the loophole that some in Congress are trying to close.
You're right, she's not a hero for killing him. She doesn't appear to think she is. She'll have to live with the trauma of that event for her entire life.
Gun control like training requirements? Age requirements? Would this woman have even been able to defend herself if she were required to meet some ambiguous training requirements? She's 18 in the story and possessed a handgun. Based on Federal law already in place, requiring transfer of ownership of a handgun through an FFL and age limit to FFL transfers of handguns to 18, she could be charged with a felony.
Does she not need a gun everywhere she goes? What if she had been attacked in her driveway, jogging in her neighborhood, or after shopping at the store after he had stalked her to any of those places? Guns used in self-defense are exactly like seatbelts or insurance. You'll probably never need it, but you're screwed if you're in a situation where you do and you don't have it.
Also, please define an assault weapon.
Most of the libs are strictly anti-gun but not all. My ex fiancee was a liberal, yet believed in the death penalty and was also pro-gun.. While I know other libs that own weapons and hunt but want to outlaw all types of weapons, talk about being a hypocrite lol..
Wakeupmaggie:
The "Multitude of gun owners"? What is that supposed to mean? If you're referring to individuals using firearms in crime or those prohibited by law from possessing them (who will not obey ANY sort of regulation or law anyway) then say so. I think your generalization is way out of touch.
On the Dems or Liberals exercising gun control:
Granted the NRA has cried Wolf for so long they use any news about Obama & the left as their whipping post for raising cash. The fact is that there simply is not enough support in congress for ANY regulation which would infringe on firearm owners. There is NO interest, even when the Dems had control of both the Senate and the House. This includes banning or registering the so called "Assault Weapons" which incidentally are a mainstream firearm used for sporting purposes in the USA and elsewhere.
Why the hell should her or anyone's gun be registered? There is nothing in the second amendment that states "the government will keep track of your gun(s)."
God bless her, it is awful that she had to shoot him, but worse that he existed.
Scott,
By prohibiting private sales, you would be enforcing a defacto tax on firearm sales (private transfers to FFLs add what is usually a $35 "transfer fee," which is really any amount the dealer wants to charge for handling the paperwork, which takes about 20 minutes). Now you're jumping in on collective rights grounds which the SCOTUS ruled against in the Heller vs. DC case and McDonald vs. Chicago cases. You're looking at additional anti-constitutional laws. From a "reasonableness," standpoint, how does this make any sense? Another law that only hurts law-abiding citizens while doing nothing to dissuade criminals.
The second amendment goes well beyond just self defense of your home. I wish people would recognize that. Limiting gun ownership in number and to only pistols and hunting rifles ignores the intent of the amendment. The history and facts of the matter are not disputable if you believe in the constitution and it's intentions as well as have a basic understanding of the history involved.
Not really-- it's a statement made over and over again here on the vine by left-wing posters. If you haven't read any of them, then you haven't been on the vine long...
As for the story at hand, awesome job my dear. It takes a lot of brass to pull the trigger on another human being and, lucky for you and your baby, your brass hangs low ;-) To me, you're a hero, and should be celebrated as such. One less nut job in the world, another (his accomplice) off the streets, and you and your baby safe. That's a hero to me, and certainly to your infant! We should all be so lucky as to have a mother such as you.
I would love to know which gun you used-- the shotgun or the handgun-- as well as the caliber in question (if it was the handgun). This is purely my morbidity getting the better of me, but I'd like to know if the bastard was blown away by the 12-gauge or a couple of well-placed shots from the pistol. Not that it makes any difference to the end result-- but inquiring minds want to know.
Geeze, this country is a lost cause.
"I applaud this woman, but...," and go on to state that they support the very mindset/groupthink that makes it difficult for people like this to even own a gun, completely ignoring the fact that she possessed a handgun that, by current federal legislation, she is not legal to own!
How many of you also supported the NDAA?
Maybe the accomplice can be charged with murder. A similar case was recently charged that way in Alaska. Three intruders entered a man's home and the the man shot and killed one and injured the other two. They were charged because someone died while they were committing a felony.
DallMike - the accomplice IS being charged with First Degree Murder. In Oklahoma if you are committing a crime and your accomplice is killed during the crime, you can be charged with premeditated murder.
His post said MOST liberals, not ALL. And he's right. If you notice, most of the anti-gun posters on here are the same people all the time.
I lean left on some issues, right on others. Gun ownership is one where I side with conservatives. Law-abiding citizens have the right to own firearms, and gun control laws will ensure that only criminals have guns. And as we can see from this story, you can't count on law enforcement to get there on time.
Good girl!!
Problem solved - love it.
She saved the Taxpayers a few bucks not having to keep the POS in jail plus a trial ect ect. Break in to my house you will meet the same fate except it will take a few minutes to die this way you can think about what just happened to you!!!
Everyone on her who is "for gun control," should Google and read:
Daily KOS: Why Liberals should love the Second Amendment (that's a left-leaning blog, in case you're wondering)
Also, home. earthlink. net /~owl232/guncontrol dot net. Is a great philosophical debate regarding the mere existence of weapons and private ownership of firearms. Sorry for splitting up the address. I figure this forum blocks link postings.
As a center-right registered Republican (and gun owner), I thank you for this comment!!! It is time to reclaim our respective parties from the radicals!
Yes, I believe with the proper training and permits you should be able to carry a concealed weapon. If she had been attacked outside her home she would have needed one. I mean, come on... 21 minutes???
Civil Rights Adv,
If you really want to own a gun that badly then why not take the time to learn how to use it, and acquire the appropriate clearances through background checks? You have to get a license to drive a car, a truck and a motorcycle, and most people use those things a lot more than guns. Plus they are just as deadly if in the wrong hands. The last thing we need is one more idiot who never learned how to respect his weapon and points the muzzle at something he doesn't intend to destroy.
Wasn't it just a couple of weeks ago that an Amish girl was accidentally shot in the head by a stray bullet because some moron didn't think to check his chamber before cleaning his gun??? The assumption that this woman and her late husband never had time to learn how to use their weapon is more than a bit naive!
A little education only benefits everyone.... except the impatient people.
And where are you getting the idea that she owned the gun illegally? SHE IS 18!!! Federal laws only prohibit sales to minors (i.e. someone under the age of 18). It didn't mention how old her husband was when he died. Perhaps it was his gun anyway. Do you know the couple personally and have full details of how the gun was acquired? I can't see how your argument that gun control would hinder her ability t protect herself unless you have intimate knowledge of the circumstances surrounding its obtainment!
She lived in Oklahoma. Her husband just died. We do not know how old he was. The weapons were likely his and used for hunting as there is a lot of that in Oklahoma. I posted this because of the crack about her being too young to license a pistol. I too, lean to the left on most issues, and I sure feel like she did exactly what she was supposed to do in this situation. She is lucky the weapons were there, she is lucky that someone had taught her how to use them. Now the liberal side of me says that if she keeps them she should make sure they are stored in a locked container so that the next story we read isn't about her child finding the weapons. All most liberals ask is that people recognize what is responsible and then do it. Nothing we do is ever going to protect us from nuts like the guy in Arizona who shot the congresswoman.
First, a hearty round of applause for this young mom.
Secondly, I will not tarnish all liberals by saying that ALL of them want to abolish the Second Amendment. I will in the future, however, be using this case as my example of the IMPORTANCE of the Second Amendment when the usual "Guns kill people" B.S. rhetoric begins. But, in this case, you're 100% correct. A gun DID kill a person. One who was hellbent on victimizing, at the least and who knows what else, what he thought was an UNARMED 18 yr old mother w/ an infant. Karma sucks, buddy.
Pete, What does being a Liberal have to do with it? I'm a Liberal who believes in the right to bear arms. Don't stereotype us Liberals.
C. Smith--I guess enough people have said it by now, but there are plenty of "liberals" who have no trouble with people owning guns for self-defense. In fact, not that long ago, it was the conservatives calling for regulation of the "liberals" who were gun-toting revolutionaries ;-)
I happen to think that if a person is inside her own home and has access to a weapon, that she should be able to use that weapon whether it is registered or not. In one's own home, in a situation like that, it really doesn't matter how she got the shotgun--it is that she had it and knew how to use it that is key. She did absolutely the right things--she didn't shoot through the door, she called 911 and asked for someone to come to the home, and she waited until she was in imminent danger (she also didn't empty the weapon into him after he'd already been rendered non-dangerous).
I would say the same thing if this were an 13-year-old who got in a car and drove carefully down a highway to a hospital with his sick sibling because otherwise the sibling would have died. We don't want 13-year-olds driving--that is illegal. We want people to take tests and be registered drivers. We would rather have patients picked up by an ambulance. But, any port in a storm--if one has no choice, one should do what one has to.
This does not, however, mean that gun registration, licenses, or restrictions on easily concealed or military-style weapons are not good ideas. How people get from one to the other is beyond me.
So where are all the scumbag liberal big mouths frothing about how guns kill and should be banned????
Oh yea, they were the types shot here.....HAHAHAHAHAHA
I'm a bleeding-heart liberal and would never own a gun. But I would never tell a fellow citizen that they couldn't either. That said, I still don't see the purpose of automatic weapons in the hands of the citizenry.
To CivilRightsAdv: Did it ever occur to you that the handgun that she had just might have belonged to her very recently deceased husband? We are not told how old he was, but it is not inconceivable that he was old enough to legally own a handgun. Believe me, it would be very rare indeed to have fully sorted through all of your loved one's belongings in less than a week after his death and to have expected her to think about the legality of her keeping the gun in addition to all of the other necessary arragements that a death entails is totally unrealistic and inhumane. For one who should be compassionate, I'd say you seem to be lacking in that department. She acted wisely and bravely and it is a good thing that she did have both weapons readily available and a cool head and knowledge to use them or the story would have turned out much differently.
And around it goes. The mythic "assault weapon" argument. If the discussion can never get around the fact that the 'assault' weapon fires the same damn bullet, cartridge or round as a hunting rifle, it only 'looks' evil because they are generally black and damn...the military uses them. Assault weapons may have larger magazines, but they are not fully automatic. In fact there are some assault style weapons that have the same magazine capacity that you can find in some hunting rifles, yet the liberals whine and cry about the big bad assault weapon.
you want to center the argument on fact? Get over the color of the gun and the fact that it may have been derived from a military weapon. I can buy a Lapua .338 hunting rifle or a Lapua .338 sniper rifle. Both have the same capacity, fire the same round, but the idiots will cry and whine because my rifle just looks more sinister. If you don't believe that you are being led down the road by politicians that see just one more avenue for control, then wake the hell up.
Showme, yes I did - I figure it was his and possibly an insignificant factor in her life as far as putting her life back together after her mess. The point I was trying to make and still consider to be the point is that according to "sensible," gun laws on the book, she is a criminal in this case. How does that make any sense? At 18, she cannot be in possession of a handgun without supervision by a 21+. My point exactly is that the laws are cold and inflexible and I don't understand how the cognitive dissonance can exist in these boards that people will post that they fully support this particular story, but support gun laws that create criminals out of people like this woman!
I am sorry that I did not post coherently enough to get my point across the first time around.
If most liberals truly believe in gun control, and not banning weapons, than why is it next to impossible for me to get a gun for protection here in New York City? There are tons of guns in the city and crimes committed with handguns as well, not necessarily automatic or semi-automatic weaponry, and yet I was told that I shouldn't even bother trying to legally get a license for any form of weapon, because it would take me years of effort. NYC is a liberal strong hold. See the truth behind what the "liberals" claim on these walls, and how cities they control function.
@CivilRightsAdv
Your reply to my post about private sales at gun shows misses my point completely and, again, takes the conversation to a place where you are defending against a point that I did not make.
I did not say that Americans should not be able to purchase firearms through private sales. I said that I don't believe it should be allowed at gun shows because the loophole allows those sales to be done without a background check.
As for your point about an "unfair" tax, that is a completely different topic, one that has nothing to do with the second ammendment. I think that for your to throw the taxes paid on a firearm purchase into a debate about the right to bear arms shows that you don't know what the second ammendment protects.
Cigarette smokers have long complained about the high taxes that states put on those sales, but there is nothing in the second ammendment that protects you against taxes paid on products.
To all you LIBERALS out there, you say you have no problem with this girls action as long as she had a permit, and it was locked up safe so her children couldn't get it . Well if she had a non-registered firearm and she used it in the same manner to protect her child , WHATS THE DIFFERENCE ? And if it was LOCKED up maybe she wouldn't have time to blast this loser !!! Think about it !!!!!!! Democratic Liberals are soo out of touch !
I wholeheartedly agree that gun owners should at a minimum, take hunter's safety, which teaches proper firearm handling and should be provided free of charge at either local LEO or local DoW (or equivalent) offices. The point I am trying to make by being contrary regarding both those posts are
1) if she were required by government regulation to meet some sort of training requirements, you can assume that there is a good chance that she would not have jumped through the hoops to own the gun in the first place, meaning she would have become a criminal in the act of self defense in this case and
2) regardless of the fact that her husband owned the handgun to begin with, sensible federal gun laws already on the books clearly state that this woman possessed the handgun illegally.
I am trying to make people consider their stance on what really are really reasonable restrictions regarding trying to keep people from killing other people when murder is already illegal and also creating barriers to allowing potential victims to stand on equal ground (or as equal as they are likely to get) with attackers.
You missed the point entirely.
Amused hit it on the head at the end of his post:
John Stewart said much the same thing.
Showme, yes, I did consider that, see my clarification above. I would bet that whether she loved guns or hated them before this, having the handgun in her possession (in the house is in her possession according to the legislation) was the least of her worries after her husband's death.
The tone in my original post didn't come across, or I was not clear enough in how ridiculous I think some (most) of the "reasonable," restrictions on gun ownership are when the ultimate goal is trying to control people who have no desire to be controlled by society!
I completely agree with you. Despite my range time and firearm familiarity, I doubt I would have been as calm in the same situation as this young woman was.
CivilRightsAdv,
defining an assault rifle is easy. It is any weapon that has a firing rate of over 300 rounds a minute and projectile speed over 1000 feet per second (feel free to correct these based on the weapons exemplified to the left; I am not entirely privy to the operational details of guns having never owned one period, information given above was based off of years of watching Myth Busters as they use a lot of high end weaponry). Things like AK-47's and AR-15's for example. No one needs military grade hardware unless they expect foreign military combatants or federal agents to be coming after them.
Average city punks are not going to carrying an assault rifle. Too large to conceal and too bulky to get away quickly and the wacko's that do carry around those in public are not going to car jack you or rob you; they have much harder targets in mind.
@article
This is a perfect example of how the second amendment is now meant to be used; for personal protection, not hunting or any other concoction from the NRA or gun enthusiasts.
Although with the passing of the NDAA maybe we will need to once again protect ourselves from our own military; the waters muddy further, I think this year is going to be an interesting one for sure.
How does smoking cigarette's correlate at all to exercising a constitutional right? There is jurisprudence for protection against certain unreasonable taxation, though I don't know the case names off the top of my head. Basically if the government tries to tax a constitutionally protected activity, the court system has a historical body of work to overturn enforcement. You saying the burden of taxes doesn't apply to the second amendment shows you need to keep researching the topic.
It isn't JUST gun show checks that the BCAGV and anti-gun politicians have been pushing for years, so you do not get a free pass pretending that it is. They have been pushing and continue to push for FTF background checks. You stated that you don't want people walking into a gun show and picking up an automatic weapon, which is flat out not going to happen. There are already ATF agents and local LEO policing every gun show out there at the request of gun show promoters to reduce liability for the show promoters.
You stated a falsehood, got called out on it by several people, tried to state a little white lie, and then said I missed the point when I offered a counter argument. I'm asking you to think and you're struggling mightily against that.
Whoever said she isn't a hero for doing what she did, think again. If that POS and his POS accomplice had succeeded in attacking her, what was to keep them from doing it to someone else? Or for that matter, who's to say that they haven't victimized other people already?
I just feel awful that this woman had already suffered a major loss in her life then has to deal with the aftermath of what she just went through with these two evil ba$tards.
Way too many "liberals" here calling for ban on assault weapons.
Can anyone of said liberals even define that?
Most of their posts clearly indicate that they are talking about fully automatic machine guns. Here is a news headline for you "liberals". Fully automatic weapons have not been manufactured and sold to US citizens since before 1986. Every fully automatic weapon in the hands of citizens are pre86 and they are all registered with the federal gov (requiring class III license). Fully automatic weapons have been used in less than 10 killings in the last couple of decades.
Semi-auto (one pull of trigger = one bullet) is not fully automatic. Clearly the "liberals" above talking about education need one themselves.
Azrancher said
Really. Did you even read any of the comments here yet or did you see a story on a gun being used and just could not wait to jump on and aim an insult at liberals?
I am a liberal and support proper gun ownership, that is background check to make sure the person is not a criminal and does not have a mental condition in addition to ensuring that they get some basic training on using the weapon.
Oh and good to see that you get such a laugh at the idea of anyone that disagrees with you getting shot. Who is the scumbag here again?
I'm glad we have your "fact" of what an assault rifle is. No quick mussle loaders allowed!
.....
Is " how the second amendment is meant be used?" So change the constitution and amendments for Geo because he thinks so. What a line of crap.
When the second amendment was passed just about everyone (family) depended on guns for hunting and "all of those" other things to include keeping the government in line.
Don't re write the constitution for your convenience and personal opinion. Damn.
I'm a liberal, and I don't have a problem with guns, I have a problem with semi-automatic weapons. Which, in this case the young women didn't use. She didn't need a tech 9 to get rid of this wack job. I think this young women is very brave and I would hope that I would have the same level of bravery if put in that situation, but once again, she didn't need a semi automatic weapon, nor did she need a banana clip to get the job done. But I would imagine some dumb drunk hillbilly with a 3rd grade education might.
"There's nothing more dangerous than a mother with her baby..."
Damn, You are not kidding...
Its a shame that we have drifted away from the topic of this story and started a little mini gun-control debate. Lets get back to the topic...
This amazing young woman.
18 and like the previous posted stated, widowed, a single mother, and has had to shoot and kill a stalker.
How can I contact this woman and send her money?
She not only had the presence of mind to feed her child during the attack, she was able to call 911 and ask permission. Imagine the horror she felt in those 21 minutes. Finally, he broke the door down and she was able to pull the trigger.
We need to help this lady get on her feet.
The issue I have is with the police not being able to respond within 21 minutes. She never should have been put in that position where she had to kill in front of her child.
This appears to be an example of where 'starving the beast' thru tax cuts just does not make sense, because the money always comes out of govt services we really want (police, fire fighters, teachers) rather than pork barrel projects that have politicians to protect them. As a fiscal conservative, I suggest that any honest tax cut should be specific in what it de-funds. Everyone would like to pay less in taxes, but not at the cost of basic services disappearing.
To all the "liberals" who posted to this story - you say that you don't want to take away anyone's guns, you just want "reasonable" laws put in place. Well, myself and a lot of other people don't believe you at all. The gun owners of this country have stood by while laws were passed that went well past what we were told they were. Case in point - The Brady Bill was sold as a handgun law - the famous 3 day waiting period. Sarah Brady paraded her husband around like a circus freak to get the law passed and it worked. But wait - it didn't just cover handguns, it covered ALL guns - shotguns and rifles. Suddenly, anyone who wanted a shotgun or rifle to go hunting, needed to go thru a background check and a "cool down" period. Oh didn't we tell you about that? Sorry, too late. HA HA. You may not want to take away people's guns but that is a basic premise of your party. Tell me would you post to an article stating that a bill has been introduced in Congress to take away all private ownership of guns? Would you say no you can't do that or would you cheer and sing the praises of your party? I (and a lot of gun owners) don't trust "you" at all. How many laws and regulations have been imposed on guns and their owners? Thousands but yet you want more! We are treated like mental cases (gun nuts) because we own guns. Do you have to fill out a form stating that you have not had any mental issues when you go for your drivers license? Would you stand for that? I think not.
As far as the argument to register guns and owners just like we do cars and drivers - how's that working out? Does not having a license stop someone from driving? Can a drunk driver get behind the wheel of his car without a license? Does he (or she) stop and think - Hey I don't have a license. I shouldn't drive! Unless you are stopped for a traffic violation, you can drive forever without a license or insurance for that matter. And get a car registered once (and someone else with a license can do that) and you never have to go back again - you can do it by mail or online!
The people who use guns for criminal acts are a VERY small portion of the population and even smaller if you compare them to the number of responsible gun owners in this country but yet you use that as the reason to punish the responsible ones. The majority pays for the minority - take that logic and apply it to any of the rights we have - would you like it if your First Amendment rights were curbed - like posting to - this comment board for example because someone didn't like what one person wrote? You would be screaming your head off, calling your congressman, getting a lawyer. Why? Wouldn't that be "reasonable"?
Wonderful. I am happy to know that you correctly consider AUTOMATIC weapons assault rifles based on that ROA. You can leave the AK-47s and AR-15s out of the conversation. The original sturmwehger (I bet I butchered that) is where the term comes from and it was an automatic weapon used by the Germans in WWII. The term does not apply to semi-autos. Just because you do not like the way they look does not mean they should be prohibited firearm (what's the difference between the Mini-14 and the AR-15 - one not banned by the '94 AWB and the other was - no cheating with Google).
Dem in Texas,
1) the article states she had a handgun. Being a younger couple, my guess is it was a semi-auto
2) the article did not state (when I read it) which gun she shot the creep with
3) You may think my assumptions make me something, but you are assuming that she would be better off without a semi-auto when that could have been the firearm that saved her.
Two thumbs up, Baracalypse.
I think i'm in love. Now this is gun control at its best...She and her family are in my prayers. lady, you absolutelty did the right thing. wow! what a great story to tell her son later. im sorry for the loss of yor husband. God is truly seeing you through and im sure your husband has a smile on his face.
I disagree and actually feel that you need the education on the topic. First, you brought up the word "tax" after discussing a "fee". Now this is a slippery slope which can bring us to an entirely different topic, but the actual fact is that we are not talking about a "tax", we are talking about a fee and they are very different things.
Next you discuss "unreasonable" and although you think it would be unreasonable, there is quite a large percent of people who don't think it is unreasonable to add that fee.
I am not asking for a free pass, but I am asking that you stop lumping me in with groups that I have repeatedly told you I am not a part of. This implies that you wish to admonish me for the views of others, which doesn't make much sense, since I have not presented myself as a representative of those groups.
My entire point has been to try to enlighten you so that you can understand that being a liberal does not equate to "anit-gun", yet you continue to use that phrase when conversing with me.
While your experience may tell you that you can't go to a gun show and purchase automatic and semi-automatic weapons as well as other millitary grade weapons, the actual facts of what happens in reality would contradict it. People can and do purchase these weapons at gun shows every day. They are able to get away with this because a private seller can do so at a gun show and not have to worry about background checks. This is the loophole that you and so many others try to say is a myth. If it is a myth, then why is there legislation in Congress to close this mythical loophole?
I am at a loss on this. I asked you to tell me exactly what it is that I said that was false and am still waiting for you to do so. Your counter argument was to rail against groups, that I am not representing, as if I were.
I'm not struggling with anything. I'm asking you to respond to the points I'VE made, not the points groups that you don't like have made. I'm asking you to be clear in your points and your response has not been.
@JohnLaz
I think that if you took the time to READ my posts, you'd see that I referred to both automatic and semi-autiomatic.
what is this need to confirm that what she did was "okay" regardless of your "belief systems" when it comes to gun laws. she saved her life and probably that of her child, she could have beat him to death with a skillet for all I care, he needed to die
baracalypse: I did not say I want the police guarding my door; however I want them to respond in a reasonable amount of time. I do not consider 21 minutes to be reasonable when someone calls the police with a potential murderer at their door. What if you do not have a gun, or can not get to your gun? Should your grandmother have to die because you don't like having police around?
Several years ago, my son was assaulted, and we called the police. They said they could come by the next day to file a report. This bum came by our house, and I had to deal with him because the police would not respond. If you prefer a country where everyone runs around with guns and no police, you will love Afghanistan.
I would prefer to live in a country where the police can respond to critical calls within a reasonable amount of time. I am not against people having the right to own guns; I am against cutting police services down to where we all need to carry guns and the rule of law is replaced with vigilantism.
@AtomAnt
If it is possible for you to be calm and objective, then let's talk about your points:
Well, that is more of a trust issue that you have than a commentary on my belief system, isn't it? You don't know me at all. If your response is going to be "I don't believe you." to anything that someone with a different point of view that yours says, then what does that say about your ability to live in a democratic society.
Well, that's actually not true at all. The Brady Bill covers waiting periods for handgun sales. That's what it said then and that's what the law still says now.
The laws governing the waiting period for a shotgun or rifle are not part of the Brady Bill. Actual history contradicts your recollection of events. If you simply took the time to know and understand what the laws are (and how & when they came to be), you would not be inclined to sling all these mis-truths.
Summary of Federal Law
There is no federal waiting period. Under the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), a dealer may transfer a firearm to a prospective purchaser as soon as he or she passes a background check.1 If the FBI is unable to complete a background check within three business days, the dealer may complete the transfer by default.
Federal law does not require private sellers to perform background checks on gun purchasers. Accordingly, persons purchasing firearms from private sellers may take immediate possession of their weapons, unless state or local law provides otherwise.
I would defend my rights as outlined in the Constitution to keep and bear arms.
I (and a lot of gun owners) don't trust "you" at all.
Then what's the point of engaging in a conversation? You don't know me, you don't trust me and you're not willing to budge from your position, even if it is factually incorrect.
I'm not treating you like a nut at all. I'm trying to have a conversation with you. I'm not lumping you in with some group. I am responding to the points YOU are making. You, however, are lumping me in with a group that you percieve to be untrustworthy, yet you accuse them of doing things that they didn't do (see above comments on Brady Bill/Law).
Is this really the analogy you feel best applies here? I think it's working out GREAT that you have to take and pass a test to legally operate a motor vehicle. Your argument (I'm assuming) is trying to make the point that having regulations isn't going to stop someone from driving illegally and I agree. Just like I agree that firearm regulations isn't going to stop criminals from possessing them. I don't believe that I ever made the argument that it would.
But I do KNOW that having these regulations DOES stop thousands from being able to drive legally and since I believe that most people do not wish to be criminals, I believe that these regulations serve to keep honest people honest.
If you have no illicit reasons for owning firearms, then what do you care that you have to get a background check first for?
Why do you feel that it is a "punishment" to have to get a background check? To use your driver's license analogy, do you feel it is a punishment to have to wait a while after getting a learner's permit before you can get your license?
And to respond to your 1st ammendment analogy...Do you know and understand that you don't have ANY first ammendment rights to post anything at all here? This is a privately operated forum (Newsvine) and in order to create your account here, you had to agree to abide by the rules of this forum. This is why your comments can be deleted and your comments can be collapsed by the community for a variety of reasons. And, by the way, the 1st ammendment does NOT give you the right to say anything you like - there ARE curbs on free speech.
I think you just sound like a person that hasn't really read and understands the Constitution, yet you just believe that you should be able to do whatever you want whenever you want - there is no protection in the Constitution for that.
@Soctt M
You assert a lot of your ideas as fact. I don't mean to flame you, but you seem somewhat misinformed. You stated:
While there is an element of truth to your post, generally that private individuals who are not firearms dealers may sell firearms to other individuals without the background check, the way you characterized the firearms in question suggests you are not in full possession of the facts.
You mentioned "automatic and semi-automatic weapons as well as other millitary grade weapons." First, automatic firearms are called "class three" and require specific licences to possess. Class three firearms are strictly licenced and controlled; they aren't traded like baseball cards, and are generally very expensive (comparable to buying a new car). No one with a class three license is going to sell a class three firearm without completing the required transfer paperwork. Your statement also implied that "semi-automatic weapons" are military grade. That is also incorrect. I don't know what other "military grade" weapons you are referring to, or even what you consider "military grade," but your statement suggests a lack of understanding of the terms you are using. I completed a career in the Air Force, and for a time, the .38 caliber revolver was the standard handgun for the Air Force. Perhaps you are implying that anyone who buys a .38 is buying a "military grade weapon." Additionally, the Remington model 870 was the standard shotgun in use in the miltary for years, and is still in limited use. It's pump action, not semi-automatic or automatic. Most of the current shotguns in use by the military are pump action. My point is that many people who have an anti-gun bias seem to have the incorrect belief that all "military weapons" are extremely deadly and are easily obtained. If you want to buy an M-16 fully automatic military asssault rifle, expect a background check, a permit, a mountain of paperwork, and the cost of a new car to own one.
I apologise for sounding condescending; that was not my intent. But I suggest if you are concerned about private individuals meeting at gun shows and selling firearms to other individuals without a background check, you learn the truth so you know what you are opposed to.
Mom should get a medal for her heroism in protecting her child. Too bad the other intruder lives to attack another day.
I just hope he was still conscious long enough to look down and see the gaping hole where his chest used to be....before he collapsed due to no longer having a spine.....
Sorry Scott, but to be a gun dealer and make purchases as such, you have to hold an FFL. And those requirements far exceed the normal background check for purchases. That's why people with FFLs don't have to do a background check on every purchase. Nice try though.
Which are owned by people holding another special permit. And which can only be purchased by or sold to people also holding such a permit. Not to mention that they a extrememly expensive.
You get your facts from the Brady Bunch? That explains a lot. And no, I don't get facts from the NRA website. I prefer the FBI and DOJ websites.
Good for her!! It's a shame that instead of trying to help a woman who just lost her husband, these two vermon intended to do her and her baby harm! What is wrong with people?
By the way, I'm a liberal Democrat and I believe (as most liberals do) in the right to bear arms (especially, to protect yourself). My two sons served in the military (as did my husband), both did tours of Iraq, one did two tours of Afghanistan, and one is disabled - but I'm lucky - they both made it back alive, and we all believe that every person has the right to protect his property and family. I see a lot (not all because not all conservatives are ignorant) of so-called conservatives on here talking crap about how they would like to do "harm" to liberals. I'd rethink that, if I were you. Just because we don't go around making threats to other Americans that we don't agree with, doesn't mean we won't put a bullet where it counts, if we have to.
Kudos to this young lady. I would have done the same thing!
VERY CURIOUS.. did anybody notice that she felt she had to ask permission of a government worker to be able to defend herself against someone breaking down the front door with a knife in hand??
We have been taught we need to ask the governments permission for ANYTHING
bill
Maybe she would rather have the police come and solve her situation rather than have to kill the intruder herself. I think that is a very reasonable point of view. Why would anyone prefer to do their own killing?
Don't you think that calling the police when faced with an intruder is the sane thing to do? It's really not a matter of "asking permission" ...... it's just the correct way to deal with the situation.
Would have to agree don. Personally I don't want to be responsible for the death of anyone. That being said, if anyone threatens my family I will not hesitate to use any force necessary to keep them safe, that includes blasting them in the chest with my shotgun. Thank goodness for the right to bear arms, a right and a way of protection that shouldn't ever be taken away.
I was waiting for someone to say what bill said. That's the first thing that came to my mind when I heard this story. She called 911 and asked if it was OK to shoot the guy?
What if the dispatcher had said no?
Would she have put down the gun and waited for him to kill her?
:"To all the "liberals" who posted to this story - you say that you don't want to take away anyone's guns, you just want "reasonable" laws put in place. Well, myself and a lot of other people don't believe you at all. "
Gosh, Atom, hate to break this to you but we liberals don't care if you believe us or not. 8)
As for those who have tried to explain to pete that we don't want to take guns away, I appreciate your efforts, but surely you know you're wasting your time. It's a rightie mantra that "libruls want to disarm America" and no amount of facts is going to change that.
I am another liberal who fully supports her rights to LEGALLY own a firearm and to use it. The myth that anyone left of Rush your weaponsa lie.
To all of you liberals claiming that it's okay to have weapons just not fully automatic "assault weapons", automatic weapons were illegal to anyone without special permits and background checks even before the now defunct assault weapons ban. The ban was put in place not because of rate of fire but because of appearance and magazine capacity. It doesn't matter to me what a weapon looks like, a weapon's looks only matters to liberals. What matters to me is a citizen's right to defend themselves without interference from the legislative and executive branches.
After hurricane Katrina, cops were illegally entering homes and confiscating any types of firearms. They were effectively leaving law abiding citizens without the ability to defend themselves from criminals.
Excluding automatic weapons and .50 cal rifles, I am against any type of weapon registration requirements. California is a prime example of what happens when registration is required. Registration is a precursor to confiscation.
I am for background checks but against waiting periods. If an estranged spouse threatens to kill you then you may not have 3 days to wait for a background check. Valid ID, and a gun dealer being given access to a national database of active arrest warrants and felony convictions for a quick search, should suffice to sell a gun while a more extensive background check is done. If the purchaser fails the extensive background check then Sheriff's deputies can be sent to confiscate the weapon. Err on the side of individual rights not on the side of unreasoning fear. Those who purchase firearms through legal means commit very few crimes with firearms.
Firearm ownership deters crime. Kennesaw, GA, part of the greater Atlanta metro area, passed a law in 1982 requiring all heads of household to have a gun and ammunition in their home. Property crimes dropped almost 600% in just 2 years. To this day, Kennesaw still has the lowest crime rate in Cobb County.
Silvaria? Look at what happened in California after citizens were told to register their weapons. After the registration period, during which people were assured that their guns would no be taken away, many of their guns were in fact confiscated. In addition, many of those people who had previously legally purchased and registered their weapons were arrested and prosecuted for owning them. Your argument that liberals do not want to disarm is completely false and decidedly proven.
Dem in Texas,
Approx 80% of handguns sold today are semi-auto. The rest of the market is revolvers. Good luck getting rid of semi-autos.
With semi-auto you pull trigger and a round is fired. The gun's "action" cycles ejecting the old casing and feeding a new round. Thereby making the gun ready to fire with another trigger pull.
Actually revolvers are essentially semi-auto also when you look at it. You pull trigger on revolver and the cylinder brings next round into postition and then fires it. Next trigger pull does the same thing.
You are basically advocating to get rid of all guns except bolt action rifles.
While we are at it, lets talk about registration.
Authorities estimate that there about 5 million illegal handguns in NY. None of them are registered. Even honest people have decided to just quietly keep a gun in their house in case of emergency.
Canadian authorities estimate that 2/3 of the gun owning population has still never registered their guns (they have had gun registration laws for about a decade).
Even very honest people will not comply.
Registration does absolutely nothing for crime prevention. If a gun is stolen by a criminal and used to shoot someone later on, the registration to the orignal legal owner does nothing to help solve that crime.
It's interesting to see how many conservatives believe they know what liberals think. If the conservatives could think like liberals they would BE liberals.
For every 1,000 killings via guns, there's a nice little success story that the NRA and 2nd Amendment nuts soak up! Sure she had the right to protect herself and baby and I'm damn glad that pervert/attempted murderer is DEAD! But there are too many people blind to the fact that guns, especially easily concealable guns, do more harm than good.
BTW, if you didn't notice, I only advocate for the banning of things like handguns. If I was in her shoes, I would've used the shotgun instead... and by god I would've hoped it was a fully loaded (not the 3-shells for hunting) pump 12-gauge.
ChrisWanker... fitting. Ban handguns? Then only criminals intent on doing harm would have them. The handgun ban in the U.K. has not stopped criminals from committing robberies and murder with handguns. Weapons bans of any kind only leave the law abiding citizen defenseless. A handgun is the best choice for personal and home defense. A shotgun is too unwieldy to be used effectively in confined spaces or close combat.
You'll notice that the young woman was on the phone with the dispatcher for 21 minutes with no police response. Expecting a cop to be there when you need him/her is like expecting to hit the lottery. Cops do not protect and serve. Cops rarely stop crimes. Cops investigate crimes, make arrests for crimes committed and issue citations to create the revenue that covers their paychecks.
Law abiding citizens like my wife and I are trained and equipped to carry handguns. We are not a danger to innocent people. However, we are a danger to anyone who would pull a gun on us or invade our home.
When minutes count, cops are at least an hour away.
Kudos to her.
Hey Newsvine moderators, would Newsvine be willing to take up a collection to help her out? She's had to endure so much that I for one would like to donate my Newsvine earnings to help her out some. Surely some other decent folks on here would too. So how about it?
Anyone that knows Tyler or Sally please email them about that... I'd like to see it happen.
ChrisWanker....So, what you are saying is that once a person leaves the relative security of their home, they automatically lose the right to protect themselves or unless they are carrying a shotgun ....
And you think that is a reasonable position to take ???
My Taurus Judge fires .410 shot shells...it's like a mini shotgun in the shape of a handgun.....
" It got its name "The Judge" in 2006 when Bob Morrison, Executive Vice President, learned that judges in high-crime areas of Miami, Florida were purchasing the revolver for personal defense in their courtrooms, and after Morrison investigated further, the model designation was changed from 4410 to 4510 to more accurately reflect the revolver's versatility (.45 Colt + 410 shot → "4510").[1] Taurus International reports that the Judge is their top-selling firearm."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taurus_Judge
Seems that alot of you "liberals" claim to support our right to own guns as long as they are only "certain" guns and only a "limited" number. We who own many guns of all types are exactly the people you need to fear the least. How about you worry about longer prison terms for CRIMINALS !!!!!!!!!!!
Good going girl !!!
To the readers ... Please remember to keep this lady in your prayers. It will tough enough without a husband but now the after shock of a first shooting. The next few weeks may be quite difficult.
This includes banning or registering the so called "Assault Weapons" which incidentally are a mainstream firearm used for sporting purposes in the USA and elsewhere.
I certainly hope you are not talking about hunting, because it is not a sport. In a sport both sides know about the game. If you are referring to marksman comps. then you can do that with out automatic or assault weapons.
@Dave-2550157
I appreciate your reply and I freely admit that my terminology may not be 100% accurate.
Having said that, I don't believe that changes my point, which is that you CAN go to a gun show and purchase a firearm from a private seller WITHOUT a background check and that this is the loophole that many claim don't exist.
As for the purchase of an automatic weapon, I did the research and posted the process in a different post here, but it boils down to an extra $200 tax, more paperwork and a longer wait.
My purpose for bringing "automatic" and "milltary grade" weapons into my posts was to point out that these items CAN be bought at gun shows but these are weapons of mass destruction.
If you agree that private citizens do not have a right to weapons of mass destruction (like nuclear material and biological toxins) and should not possess them (and maybe you don't - I'm just making an assumption), then where is the line between a handgun and antrhax or a grenade launcher?
@Jnikolai
You are correct, I meant to type "private dealer".
Which are owned by people holding another special permit. And which can only be purchased by or sold to people also holding such a permit. Not to mention that they a extrememly expensive.
Actually, you need a tax stamp to purchase and a license to sell. The additional cost to purchase is $200 above the firearm cost. And, most importantly, none of that changes my point that you CAN purchase these weapons of mass destruction, which I don't believe you should and I don't believe the 2nd ammendment guarantees you the right to have.
You get your facts from the Brady Bunch? That explains a lot. And no, I don't get facts from the NRA website. I prefer the FBI and DOJ websites.
Are you really going to take this debate into the playground will silly insults that really don't change any facts or have any bearing on anything? I don't know you, but this is the type of behavior that seems to come from the right in order to distract people from the facts.
If you prefer a different source, fine. How about the ATF site:
www.atf.gov/publications/download/treas/treas-gun-shows-brady-checks-and-crime-gun-traces.pdf
This article pretty much debunks anyone trying to spread the word that the "Gun Show Loophole" is a myth. It also gives a statistic of nearly 25% of sellers at gun shows being private dealers.
ATTAGIRL!! Way to show that lowlife scumbag what it means to be a true-blooded American! He deserved everything he got and more. I only hope I end up marrying someone like her - who is willing to defend herself and our child in a pinch when I'm not around anymore.
Here's to hoping this woman's life takes a turn for the better.
@Ron B-2757074... Fitting.
WHAT?!? England and Wales has per 100,000 population only 0.46 gun related deaths, Scotland has 0.58 and Ireland has 1.21. America has 15.22 per 100,000!!! Heck, even Canada is phenomenally safer with 4.78. Let's also remember that guns in those countries are predominantly used for hunting. Which is what I'm all for!
Your argument is skewed and/or genuinely misinformed.
@Mike in Delray,
I am completely lost for words... Since when do people loose the right to protect themselves anywhere in any situation? Oh,,, you mean with a handgun and when confronting a criminal? Sheesh. I suppose that you failed to recollect that 60% of Americans don't even own a gun, let alone a handgun. And of those 40% of Americans who own guns, 59% primarily use their gun for hunting... NOT PROTECTING THEMSELVES!
Your feeble rant is nothing but flawed logic.
As for your link... I don't care if it's a fully automatic BB gun that creates a mini-nuclear detonation with each round that you can fit in your shirt pocket. In truth, all that I have to say is, "Nice waste of time posting that link hoping that you're going to prove something." And you may have well succeeded since I wasted my time coming up with a retort for it.
People like you who own lots of guns not because you need them, but because it is your "right" to own them, are a significant part of the problem. Without the demand for guns that people like you and the NRA promote our society would not be flooded with weapons ....... and way too many of those weapons are in the hands of criminals. That's right ..... you have a major role in the large number of guns in the hands of criminals, gang members and, too often, children. Without your fear and the use of fear tactics, especially by the NRA, there would be far fewer hand guns and assault rifles in this country.
Too many of those guns are sold without background checks on Craig's List or through ads in newspapers and magazines to people who should absolutely not have weapons. Gun shows only exist because of people like you and are a major source of guns for people who could not possibly pass a background check. When a criminal has a gun, you and the NRA share the blame.
People who legally excercise their constitutional rights are not part of the problem don, they are part of the solution.
And you believe that every kid and every criminal who is carrying a weapon is some Constitutional rights hero? What an absolutely foolish idea.
Let me repeat it for you with emphasis since you obviously didn't get it the first time...
People who LEGALLY excercise their constitutional rights are not part of the problem don, they are part of the solution.
...... and because of the actions of the NRA with support from people like yourself the kids and gang members who buy guns from private parties or from gun shows are not breaking the law. People like you prevent those sales from being illegal. Anyone who has a firearm should be subject to a background check. Anyone.
Thousands of deaths are caused every year in this country with LEGAL weapons, and almost none of those deaths are home invaders or anyone else committing a crime.
Again, Wanker... the U.K. handgun ban has not stopped killings with guns by criminals. Reduced? Minimally (finally, after more than a decade). Stopped? No. I stated nothing skewed nor misinformed. U.K. citizens have no way to protect themselves if confronted by an armed criminal.
-
From the above link: Compared with the United States of America, the United Kingdom has a slightly higher total crime rate per capita of approximately 85 per 1000 people, while in the USA it is approximately 80.
So, in a country with no national handgun ban, we have a lower rate of crime than the U.K.
The overall homicide rates per 100,000 (regardless of weapon type) reported by the United Nations for 1999 were 4.55 for the U.S. and 1.45 in England and Wales. (See link above)
Where did you find 15.22 gun deaths per 100,000 in the U.S. when the U.N. reported 4.55 per 100k for ALL homicides in the U.S. in 1999 regardless of weapon?
You also seem to be turning a blind eye to the fact that gun crime steadily rose in the U.K for years after the ban (nearly doubling pre-ban levels in 2004-2006) and they did not start declining below pre-ban levels until 2008. -
You are also twice as likely to be a victim of a knife crime in the U.K. than a victim of a gun crime in the U.S., even though there is also a ban on carrying knives in the U.K. - based on 163,000 knife crimes reported for England and Wales in 2006 v. 400,000 gun crimes reported in the U.S. for 2006.
The U.K. also has twice the rate of car thefts compared to the U.S. Why? Because potential victims are not armed so that they may protect themselves and their property.
I love the defense laws in Texas and wish they were adopted by the Federal Government for all U.S. citizens. In Texas you can shoot and kill burglars while they are in the act of committing their crime and even while they are fleeing with the property they have stolen. Fact: fewer criminals = fewer crime.
In Texas in 1985 the population was 16,370,000 with 1,075,000 total crimes. In 2010 the population was 25,145,000 with 1,064,000 total crimes. Less gun control equals a lower rate of crime. A higher rate of deaths by guns? Yes. But a lower rate of crime because of an individuals ability to defend themselves.
Links failed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Sorry don, that's completely false. It is just as illegal for an underage person, felon, or any other prohibited person to buy a firearm from a private citizen as it is for them to buy it from a gun shop.
That's what prohibited means.
Jn
Until it is illegal for the SELLER to sell guns to people who do not and can not pass a background check the guns will continue to pass into the hands of people who should not own guns. But gun advocates and the NRA insist on their "rights" and their "freedom" regarding guns and the result is a less-safe society.
@ChrisWanker
Well I am a liberal supporting proper gun ownership (background check and training).
There is a big problem with your cited stats. First, that 15.22 number is both homicide and suicides added together and thus can not be considered a completely accurate representation of guns being used against other people.
Second is that those numbers are from 1993. Recent numbers (from 2000) are much lower
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence#Homicide
Check your stats over closely before using them.
There seems to be some confusion regarding "assault" weapons and "full-auto" weapons legality and right to purchase. For example:
These assertions are both incorrect. With the expiration of the assault weapons ban, citizens can purchase a fully-automatic weapon legally-- they are prohibitively expensive, but can be acquired if one has the coin. Now, it's not as easy as walking into a gun shop, pointing to the $13,000 Thompson SMG on the shelf and saying "Gimme." To purchase a full-auto firearm, a citizen must first pass a background check-- one that is far more intensive than a standard background check for a handgun or rifle. These enhanced background checks typically take around 6 months and involve the FBI, ATF and other federal agencies. Additionally, one must purchase a tax stamp for the weapon, a $200 stamp that makes that weapon (and only that weapon) legal for you (and only you) to own. A Class II or III license is NOT required to own the weapon-- however, it is required to sell the weapon. In other words, the gun dealer making the sale must have this license, not the purchaser (that item seems to get muddled frequently).
So Scott @ comment 1.106 had it right:
Here's a link from a Class III dealer in my state that sorts out the myths from the facts:
http://www.rioranchoarmory.com/tabid/146/Default.aspx
WTF, too bad she didn't shoot the other one as well.
That POS coward took off.
If it makes you feel better, he turned himself in and is being charged with first degree murder.
It's the same in GA. If someone gets killed in the commission of a felony. Even if the cops do the killing it's still a murder charge on the accomplice.
Cat,
Too bad you can get a first degree murder charge and still end up serving 10 years in this country. He will be back on the streets eventually to cause more trouble.
The gov is not doing its job when it comes to the justice system. See example of double murder in Richmond VA last week. The career felon was arrested a few years ago with 2 illegal guns. The federal prosecutor showed him the door and let him go scott free. A felon with 2 weapons go zero punishment when he could have gotten 10 years. The federal prosecutor "delined to press charges." The criminal had been caught with the guns red handed. Fast forward a couple of years and that criminal murdered two people on Christmas day.
Glad you are safe! Good job protecting your baby and sorry about your husband. I am sure he was watching out for you.
Good for her and thank goodness she had the presence of mind to block the door with the couch and grab her guns. My heart goes out to this brave woman for all of the pain she has had to endure in such a short period of time.
This story just got worse and worse! Husband died on Christmas Day. Three-month-old baby. Two dead dogs. And New Year's Eve, two monsters break in!! I actually lean toward some more gun control, but this is one brave, strong mama!! She was completely within her rights and I'm proud of her!
Daisy,
Just so long as you realize that 'some more gun control' is dependent on how much gun control you already have. I firmly believe there is a right way to do it, but most states either tend toward way too much or way too little.
Daisy, it was within her rights because the anti gun fanatics haven't won their BS arguments by eliminating our 2nd amendment rights. Give them their way and this mother would be dead right now.
Kayner, there are very few actual "anti-gun fanatics". My father who was a career military man thinks that guns should be available quite freely, but that the ammo should be VERY difficult to obtain.
As a liberal-leaning woman who lives with her 5 yo child, a Mastiff and 2 cats alone during the week ... we have rifles and pistols in the house. There is NO NEED for ANYBODY outside of the military or police to have an assault rifle. The only "prey" that those guns are designed to kill are the HUMAN kind.
There is a huge difference between gun CONTROL and gun ELIMINATION. What some gun nuts don't understand is the difference between the words control and elimination. Those gun NUTS seem to think that they should be allowed to own ANY gun they want to without limits or background checks. They also seem to think that anybody who advocates for background checks, mandatory gun safety training (which would be a ONE-TIME THING in each state since records could be kept) and keeping assault rifles out of the hands of the general populace means that "they're coming to take our guns away".
This young lady knows the first rule of gun handling ... you don't point it at anybody unless you intend to KILL them. Aim for the center body mass and fire. Guns should not be used as a "deterrent" by waving it around. If you pull it out you better be prepared to use it and aim to kill. Kudos to her for doing what she needed to in order to keep herself and her baby safe.
I'm a liberal. Hell, I'm a progessive, even. I don't want to take your guns. Give it a rest with the talking points, please.
I'm also a mother, and I'd pull a gun on anyone trying to harm my kids. In a second.
CAT-12000657
Your argument is flawed to say the least. Those gun NUTS you refer to are real people, who do not want government in their lives such as bleeding heart liberals do. If you give a government an inch they will take a mile. Perfect example is the PATRIOT ACT which is not patriotic at all. With this piece of legislation they can hold you forever and never charge you with anything. To deal with overwhelming force you must have the means and the ability to defend yourself with any means necessary, even if you have to allow all the citizens to own lethal high caliber weapons. I was raised under a communist regime and they too had a very good gun control law and we all know how things went over there. We have the greatest country on earth and the second amendment will make sure it stays that way. I recommend you go out and buy yourself AK47 a Russian version is the best, it never fails you .
Cat,
In your definition, what is an assault rifle? What are its properties or attributes?
@ Tex,
Any restrictions are unconstitutional? So your open to anyone and everyone owning assult rifles, plastic guns that can get through airport security, your next door neighbors owning an M249 SAW? Come on, no one is going to take the 4 non-working cars you have parked in your front yard.
sounds like a country western song
All kidding aside (too many posters take everything too seriously) she showed a great deal of courage and common sense given a terrible situation. It is very hard to pull the trigger in that situation. I found myself in a similar situation when I was 12 (man broke in, was assaulting my mother), and ended up using the rifle like a baseball bat ... got the job done.
All of you, put yourself in her shoes! I'm alone in my house with my baby. I've called for help. It's not coming. Two men are trying to break down my door. They know I'm alone because my husband died the week before. It's a small town, everyone knows my circumstances.
If I had to choose from a 12 gauge, an AK-47, a mini-mac 14, an SRS Russian assault rifle, and/or a couple .44 mags, -- do you think for one second I would worry about someone being liberal or conservative in their politics, when I made my selection of which weapon I was going to use? With my baby held to my breast, do you believe for an instant that I'm going to worry if I'm violating or exploiting the second amendment? When a couple of men cave in my front door and one is wielding a G-D machete, do you even have a brain fart that he's not going to be toast in about one second? You got that straight. No.
For the last time, it's not about guns, rifles or weapons. It's about people going after other people for whatever reasons. It doesn't matter if it's a firearm, ball bat, knife, car, or attack dog. If someone is bent on doing harm, they will use whatever is available. That's why legally owning firearms is not a problem. It is creatures bound and determined to harm others that are the problem. When they break down your door and come after you and your baby, they are not going to ask if you are a liberal or conservative. They are going to rape, mutilate and murder you, your spouse and your children.
Murder, rape and molestation are not political issues. They are violent crimes. And if keeping my 12 gauge loaded and by the bed is the solution to this problem, then so be it.
Another news report of where the LEGAL use of a gun has saved numerous lives...
The Libs are going to be crying now... Ha! Ha!
I'm a "Lib" - very liberal - and I support the 2nd amendment. Kindly can your generalizations.
It's not a liberal or conservative thing, although many try to paint it as such. Every gun out there was purchased legally. It's what happens afterwards that creates the problems.
Ac not all us libs have a problem with gun ownership, I just think you need learnhow to use it.
I'm very liberal (in a large family of republicans). And I completely support her right to shoot this piece of ****. Not everyone on either side is the same. AC, you would be the first to cry foul if we generalized about conservatives.
Another gun-supportin' "lib" here. Good for her. My only complaint about the story is that she only gone of them. Wish she'd have shot them both!
This liberal strongly believes in the 2nd amendment, not only do I have a conceal permit, I carry my 9mm everywhere. Don't stereotype everyone in the same group, otherwise you're just another conservative nitwit.
wrong, the "libs" applaud the appropriate and intended use of second amendment rights, as opposed to, say, "gun nuts" whining about their "right" to carry a loaded piece on a plane, in school, in a mall, or wherever else their lack of clutching their iron surrogate makes them feel castrated.
It is the Libs who are trying to remove the gun that the woman used to save her and her childs life...
You need to check into that counselling recomendation...
Sigmund Freud had a diagnosis for people with a fear of guns. It concerns retarted sexual and maturity development...
I too asam also Liberal. I am 200% for what this woman has done. this is the correct use of weapons. Now for the woman who shot her husband when she was drunk because he would not give up the TV remote...that is a different story.
AC hates all liberals and is proud to say so.
So be it... nitwit it is then.
I am what you called a "lib" and I ain't crying! Ha right back at ya! I say good for her. So like Rick said can your generalization's.
AC, you had to take this tragic story and use it for your own agenda and to laugh at people. Classy.
Poor young girl in this article (That in my opinion is not at all politically based) has had a almost a lifetime's worth of tragedy and trauma in the last few days/weeks and the commentary turns into yet another political spar... How sad.... My heart and prayers go out to her and her child...
AC, I am a liberal, I also have a CCW. Exercising one's constitutional rights is an American thing having nothing to do with liberal or conservative. By your regressive reasoning only cons can exercise constitutional rights. Go play in the freeway and leave the us alone
@AC
I am a liberal democrat and believe that this woman did the right thing.
I think that a fundamental problem we have in this country, relating to debating gun laws, can be attributed to statements like yours that just add fuel to the inflamatory fire.
Liberal does not equal take guns away.
What many democrats stand for is gun "control".
Do I belive that this woman had the right to posess and use firearms? Absolutely!
Do I believe that this woman has the right to own automatic and millitary-style assault weapons bought without a background check at a gun show? No!
If you are truly interested in participating in an honest debate over gun control, it would be helpful to understand the facts of what the debate is about. The minute you start slapping names on those that disagree with your point of view and then don't take the time to even understand what their point of view is... well that's what hurts our society -- because you are choosing to be ignorant of the people and facts of the debate.
Scott, what controls do you advocate?
Training mandates are popular with anti-Civil Rights advocates. Would this woman have even been able to possess these weapons legally if she were required to train? Training is expensive; adding a couple hundred dollars to the cost of an already expensive tool would definitely dissuade a wide swath of the most vulnerable-to-violence population from owning a tool that puts them on even ground with violent offenders.
Federal law prohibits handgun sales to citizens under 21, yet this article clearly states that this 18-year old woman owned a handgun. Transfer of ownership of handguns requires transfer through an FFL, so under "sensible," gun laws, this woman might be tried as a felon for possessing a handgun. Good thing she is in Oklahoma as opposed to Illinois, California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, or Washington DC where prosecutors would jump on the chance to create another criminal in this situation.
Automatic weapon purchases have been restricted for general purchase since 1968 requiring paying some extra money for a tax stamp. You will NOT find automatic weapons at a gun show. You will find beef jerky, stupid tee-shirts, overpriced military surplus guns, reloads, and once in a blue moon, an honestly good deal. The kind of people who are going to skirt current gun laws aren't going to be able to afford the market inflation caused by the '68 GCA. I am curious about what you think the "gunshow loophole," is.
If you are truly interested in participating in an honest debate over gun control, it would be helpful to understand the facts of what the debate is about. The minute you start parroting flat out falsehoods about gun ownership in the US, you look like you are ill equipped to be debating them in the first place. There are plenty of "I support gun control, but this story is great," posters on this forum who support laws that would turn this woman into a criminal.
Anti-gun groups may not want to take guns away, but they definitely support keeping someone like this woman from even having one in the first place.
The bottom line is that murder is illegal and there are crazy people out there who just don't care and if there are more laws on the books, those people STILL won't care and you'll be paying more to keep people who do, but didn't know any better in prison. (please search for the two recent cases of NY arrests of out-of-state visitors who were arrested for carrying in NYC)
Just ignore AC. He's a total troll and a hater.
In all the time I've been on here I've never seen him post one positive comment.
In Oklahoma: At 18 you can purchase a handgun, rifle, or shotgun from a private seller. You only have to be 21 to purchase from a licensed dealer. So, she was well within her rights to have those guns in her possession. Minors even have the right to own firearms as long as they were given to them by family. A minor may also be in possession of a firearm so long as they have a hunting license.
Um, CRA ... it is not against the law for a widow under the age of 21 to INHERIT a handgun from her husband who died of cancer. It is against the law for a Federal Firearms DEALER to sell her one. But since her husband was not a firearms dealer who SOLD her the gun, she is not barred from owning/possessing the gun that she INHERITED as her husband's next of kin. She can't even legally SELL IT based on your argument since she's not 21 so what would you have her do? Bury it? If the gun was registered to her husband who died a WEEK prior to the shooting, she would not have had the time to transfer ownership through FFL since the estate has not had time to go through probate in just a week. So ... she is NOT in violation of the FFL for having the handgun in her home.
Federal Laws are to be interpreted STRICTLY unless otherwise expanded upon. The fact that the FFL (which I read prior to writing this comment) only restricts the PURCHASE of a gun to those above the age of 21 and not the POSSESSION of a gun (through inheritance or as another example gift from a parent to a minor in terms of a rifle/shotgun) then the law is meant to be read that she is restricted from purchasing a handgun through a Federally Licensed dealer (which most gun shows are NOT). She is NOT restricted from licensing the gun, either ... just from purchase from a Federally Licensed dealer. She can show that she inherited the handgun from her husband and thus is NOT in violation of the law.
@CivilRightsAdv
Wow! Where to begin.
Let me first say that I want to respond to your points, one-by-one, and that I will do my best to follow my own doctrine of not trying to be inflamatory.
That's a great question and the beginning of a good open dialog, however I'm not sure why you have followed it with 3 paragraphs that seem to be a rebuttal to points that I did not make.
I didn't mention anything about this. But, while I do believe that anyone who wishes to own a firearm should be properly trained in its use, I do agree that mandating training is an overreach that would be impractical to implement. Having said that, there are many ways to get free training on gun safety.
A few points here:
Given these facts, I don't belive the above paragraph has any bearing on this conversation.
If the sale of automatic weapons require paying some extra money for taxes, that doesn't mean they are illegal to sell and purchase, only more expensive. Semi-automatic weapons are sold at gun shows and the sale and ownership by private parties of both (fully and semi) are examples of a control I would be in favor of. I see no valid argument that the Constitution protects your right to own a weapon of mass destruction like these weapons certainly can be. Do you want to protect yourself? Are you a hunter? Do you like to shoot for sport? If so, great and I support your right to own firearms that allow you to do those things. But, just as you might agree that private parties shouldn't be allowed to own Ricen, Mustard gas or Anthrax, I believe semi and fully automtic weapons should not be accessible to the general public.
What, exactly have I said that is untrue?
Again, you've used a label that is inaccurate. I support firearm controls, but I am not a member or, nor would I describe myself as "anti-gun". And, I think it's clear from my post as well as the majority of the other posts here that no one has a view that this woman should not have had the right to posses a firearm. To suggest otherwise only indicates that you wish to debate someone other than those who are posting here.
No, I don't think that is the bottom-line. I think the bottom-line is that you have the misperception of what I and the others in this forum have been saying. Your agument above is so broad: "Since there are bad people out there who will use guns to do bad things, we should be able to have guns."
Yeah, I agree with that sentiment, but cleary there must be some kind of rules and contstraints? We could probably agree that a 10 year old shouldn't be able to buy a gun right? Ok, so there should be an age limit on the sale and purchase of firearms and we agree on that. All I'm saying (and I think most of the others posting here) is that we advocate smart common-sense "controls".
I'm not "anti-gun" and I'm not trying to take your constitutional rights away. I'm just tring to advocate a society where we are not allowed to carry weapons that are clearly intended for a purpose that the constitution was not talking about.
For those of you assuming this woman had no fire arms training, can you tell me what you are basing this assumption on? She obviously had some training as she hit the guy the first time and obviously knew how to operate a fire arm!
Scott M-536256...(#6.21) ...." I'm just trying to advocate a society where we are not allowed to carry weapons that are clearly intended for a purpose that the constitution was not talking about."
And what pray tell do you think the 2nd.Amendment was talking about ??....It wasn't talking about hunting or plinking tin cans off fences....It was Guaranteeing the right of every Citizen to keep and bear arms, that if the need ever arose to form militias....the people would not have to go and acquire weapons....They would already have them......And why might that be necessary ??.....Because the Founders recognized that there may come a time when the citizens may have to remove a tyrannical Government .
""An armed man is a citizen. A disarmed man is a subject."
Some quotes from the Founders on the 2nd. Amendment....
""I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people
is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George
Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention
to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
""A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves
…"
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer
to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.
http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm
There are many more to read there.
Charles,
Violent people attack innocent people everywhere. Outdoors, in schools, at malls, etc. What is your problem with someone carrying for protection when they go out?
Scott,
You wanna get rid of all semi-autos? Gimme a break. What good is a bolt action hunting rifle against an intruder? If you miss first shot you may not have time to work the bolt and chamber another round before they reach you. Furthermore, it has been shown that anyone with a little practice can cycle a and shoot a lever action rifle as fast as a semi-auto. Guess that means you wanna take those too, leaving us with single shot only guns?
Semi-auto consitutes 75% or more of the handgun market too.
Please, she used a shotgun/pistol (didn't see where it specified what weapon she actually used to kill this POS) NOT a tech 9, or an M240, or a glock with a 30 round banana clip. No problem with guns from this lib, just the stupid people that have them (not saying everyone with guns is stupid, just seems all the stupid people have guns).
Jack,
I simply made the argument that if "reasonable," restrictions on firearm ownership means a training requirement and she were not sufficiently (by law) trained to own a firearm, then she would not have been allowed to protect herself.
If she had the shotgun pointed at the door and shot the creep when he came through, that would not have required more than a passing familiarity with the weapon.
Simply put, training was not required for this young woman to save her life, though she might have been familiar through shooting. I think if she had a CCW permit, the story would have prominently noted the fact (pretty sure states require you to be 21), which means she would have had training. Otherwise her training probably would have consisted of shooting on her own, with her late husband, or with family members. Making training a barrier to ownership does not espouse common sense to me.
Scott,
I am sorry that I got a bit hot under the collar responding to you.
I stand corrected.
Automatic weapons require a tax stamp to purchase; I think they are approximately $500 in addition to the cost of the firearms. I think most automatics start at the $2,000 range. You have to file paperwork through the ATF for the stamp, otherwise it is illegal. As you can see there are already 3 substantial layers of control against anyone just waltzing into a gun show to pick up a weapon - LEO from multiple agencies acting on reasonable suspicion to check sales, market prices, and taxes. As I already stated, the ATF and local LEO patrol gun shows already. Any automatic weapons they might see would be sharply watched.
I am contending that you are parroting a line the BCAGV has planted in the media. Otherwise, please provide source materials regarding the public harm gunshows do.
Regarding your last three paragraphs, the problem is that there are plenty of reasonable and unreasonable restrictions already on gun control. You HAVE to paint this with a broad brush! It's a constitutionally protected right to own and carry firearms that many groups wish were not included in the bill of rights.
This is a line that gun owners hear all the time. "I'm not anti-gun, but...," "I like to hunt, but...," before adding their opinion for what the second amendment should include. Obviously SCOTUS has the impetus to balance some public good against individuals' rights. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. You also can't shoot someone with a gun. If you can't shoot someone with a gun and you are planning on it anyway, how are all these laws that mostly affect law-abiding citizens (oops, until they break one of those myriad laws - see the recent story about those two NYC tourists) doing anything effective is my question. The thing is, the argument for "reasonable," restrictions always comes through the personal prism of the person saying their idea/opinion/demand is reasonable.
@Mike in Delray
I agree Mike. But, do you think that the 2nd ammendment also protects my right to keep and bear a nuclear bomb? How about anthrax? If you do, then I'm very concerned. If you don't, then clearly you belive there should be a line drawn somewhere. I belive the line should be at weapons that go beyond hunting and sport since the weapons you'd need in today's world to defend agains a tyranical government would far exceed even these. There is just no reason to have them.
@JohnLaz
Hmm, seems like your second point (above) kinda debunks your first point and bolsters my point.
Which is it? 75% or more than 75%? Could it be 73%? How about 57%? When you have some actual facts, let me know.
@CivilRightsAdv
Here's what the process actually entails and, as you will see, it's $200 above and beyond the cost of the firearm, not $2000. Much more reasonable, I think.
You will need to:
It is this special tax that will allow you to legally own the weapon. Once you have all this together along with the required paperwork from the seller, you will ship it all to the BATFE who will then have one of their 10 or so inspectors sit down and review it. Any little error will cause it to be rejected and sent back.
Once the paperwork finally comes back, the seller can then legally ship/transfer the weapon to you. You CANNOT take posession of it before this time or it will be the same as being in possession of an unregistered machine gun which carries a stiff penalty in federal prison.
And that is all there is to it.
Now, I'm sorry to have bloated this post up with that, especially since this really isn't the point of my post. My point is that you CAN buy firearms from PRIVATE sellers at gun shows without going through a background check. This is the law as it stands now and is the loophole I am discussing. There is nothing for a law enforcement officer to stop at a gun show as this is perfectly legal.
And, I am asking you to please indicate what, exactly, that line is (3rd time I've asked now). Because this really isn't a topic that I spend much time on and I don't even know what BCAGV is, much less what they advocate. Again, I am speaking for me, not some group.
Regarding your last three paragraphs, the problem is that there are plenty of reasonable and unreasonable restrictions already on gun control. You HAVE to paint this with a broad brush! It's a constitutionally protected right to own and carry firearms that many groups wish were not included in the bill of rights.
And I think it's a line you should get used to hearing. But, because you hear it all the time, does that make the point less valid? I hear all the time that dinosaurs used to roam the earth. I may be tired of hearing it, but the fact remains. Adding the word, "but" after a sentiment is not evil and I'm quite sure you can't get though any debate without using it this way. It does not make your opinion superior to mine.
And your answer is that it makes it more difficult for *some* criminals to obtain them. Will it deter all of them? No.
So I ask you to give me your opinion on the following two situations:
Well I think that is semantics, of course. But, I would argue that "reasonable" is something that all concerned parties can live with. Like a compromise or negotication. In business, a good compromise or negotiation is one where both parties leave the table unhappy ie. each party has to be willing to give a little. As I have said, I have no desire to take away anyone's guns. I just want good screening and *some* line drawn between firearms for personal use and weapons of mass destruction.
I am a gun collector, if i had the money i would legally attain all the weapons such as fully auto, silencers and such. I think its my right. You say there is no need for it, well in this state there is no need for any automobile that goes above 80 miles an hour. Since going that fast is illigal.
I was in the army for 12 years so i do have lots of training in all weapons, and even people that dont like guns are comfortable around me when i have mine. Yet some people would take that right away from me. And trying to get rid of semi-auto weapons is just rediculous on all accounts.
Anyways i am glad to see this turn into a gun debate, not that any of us will convince anyone else our views are correct and thiers are wrong.
I applaude this young lady, i hope she found a way to cover the poor babies ears, shotties are loud. Though better a little deaf then dead i suppose.
A sale between private citizens could happen anywhere. Just exactly HOW whould you intend to enforce a background check requirement? An unenforceable law is pretty much worthless.
LOL!! All of you libs who claim to support her right to own are only doing so because she was on the right side. If we were reading about 2 men who broke in and shot a family you would be screaming for more gun control.
Scott,
There was a question in there for you. Since lever actions can be cycled as fast as semi-autos with a little practice, do you propose banning lever actions as well and leaving people with bolt actions only?
I have done the research. You can do some too. More than 75% of handgun market is semi-auto. Actually around 80% last time I heard. But I am not the one propsoing a ban on semi-automatic firearms, you are.
As far as I am concerned you are fool.
You might can legally own a handgun in Oklahoma at 18 but if it uses centerfire ammo you couldn't legally buy ammo until your 21.
Good for her.
I hope the shotgun blast didn't upset the baby too much! Otherwise good for her that's one piece of trash that will never try to harm another person! My sincerest sympathies go out to her for the loss of her husband also!
Good for her! Finally a young person does something respectful - protecting her baby and herself. She needs to stand tall knowing she did the right thing.
I don't know that I'd call it 'respectful'. Rational, reasonable, justified, sure. But if anything, what she did was show a lack of respect for scum that deserved no respect.
Wow, you must live in a dismal place if you think young people never do anything respectful. At least once a week I am fully impressed, brought to tears, filled with or or any number of positive things that are being done by the "young people" in my community. I guess I'm lucky to live in a place that still teaches respect. Although I AM a firm believer that respect is EARNED not freely given. I had a grandmother who was such an awful person that I had NO respect for her beliefs, but I still respected her as a person because she gave life to my father who is a wonderful person...therefore, she couldn't be all bad.
Are you for real? "Finally a young person does something respectful"? I'm sorry but that's just ridiculous. I know you probably meant respectable... and you can find examples of young people around the world doing respectable things, what, did you live a despicable life as a young person or something?
Actually, the majority of young people are respectful to their elders. It's only a handful of people that the media seems to bring the most attention to (for some unknown reason) that are marking things miserable for the rest of us. And usually, they have parents that are either drunk or drugged out of their skulls, or just plain don't give a damn about anything, except that their "precious angel" can't do wrong.
NEWSFLASH - All kids behave badly at times. You should've seen me when I was a teenager. :P
Within a week her husband dies, two dogs are dead, a stranger threatens she and her baby and she needs to shoot someone, ultimately killing him. I hope she is able to get the counselling and support she undoubtedly now needs.
She got all the counseling and support she needs..shotgun and handgun, they listen real well, and only speak when needed.
Maybe it's easy for you to kill someone and not be somehow affected by it. I hope not.
She was being stalked ! She saved herself untold mental anguish by killing someone who broke down her door and brandished a big knife. I would never give it another thought if I were her.
Who says she now needs counselling?
If I were a widow that had gone through such trauma, I think I would need counseling! Not as in "I am a nutcase and need meds to function" but more "I need a listening ear to unburden myself in my time of grief". This guy was a total jerk, and she shouldn't bother shedding a single tear for him, but for him to force her to make that decision...yeah, I think she'll need some talk therapy. Even if it's just a close friend or relative.
For some reason, I have a strong feeling that she were being stalked by the two criminals, if I were her I would move to another Town or place, don't forget dead guy had a partner, right now in prison, but, we don't know if they may have another on partner on the loose, I will be terrified with the ideia, I hope the police will check on the possibility of another person being involved, and protect her and the baby. She had gone thru a lot, she need counceling and a lots of help now; She is a very corageous young women, I wish her all the best. I would had done the same thing.
People who have never taken a life tend to underestimate the long term effects of it. Sure it was the right thing for here to do... but that doesn't mean it won't affect her. Just talk to any returning soldier that had to kill someone in combat to survive. That @!$%# still leaves mental scars even though it was the necessary thing to do.
She protected her child and herself. Who cares about which law she either complied with, or broke. If a person, especially a female, cannot protect her child, what is left???
To bad the other one got away
If by "got away" you mean he escaped, he turned himself in, either way he's still in custody.
Yeah he got away, but he is alive and now we have to spend the money to try him, put him in jail (maybe) and then he will get out and do it all over again, the viscous cycle of the liberal and the criminal.
It's too bad she didn't get him also.
Turned himself in because she would be justified in hunting him down. Maybe not right, but justified.
Somebody threatens my baby, he'd better not be anywhere I can get to him, ever.
The cops couldn't make it there for 21 minutes?
Which is WHY you carry your own firearm. Don't get me wrong, cops rock. But they are not omnipresent and cannot always get there in time. You need to be able to defend yourself should the need arise.
In this case, that was a good thing. If they had arrived earlier, they would have arrested him. He would have been out in a few days, then continued to terrorize this woman. Justice now served.
How long after the shooting did the copsarrive? Unless she lives in a very rural area, there is no excuse for the absence of an officer.
The police exist to clean up bloody messes and to find the criminals responsible... not to stop crimes in progress. Smith and Wesson are the ones we trust to do that.
MTBuck - If it's who I think it is she lives on a county road, so yes it's a rural area.
Epithermal - since when are police not supposed to stop crimes in progress? If they walk into a robbery situation, are they supposed to let it finish before they do anything?
Catjmj, you missed Epithermal's point. He said that the purpose they exist for is not to stop crimes in progress, but to solve them afterward, and that's true. Cops are not hired, trained, and equipped for the express purpose of stopping crimes in progress. SWAT is for that, and even then only for crimes like hostage taking.
If cops can get there while the crime is going on, then stopping it is expected, but they aren't held accountable for crimes they don't get to in time.
This summer, a man here shot and killed a teenager who was burglarizing his car. Wish he would have called 911 before he started shooting. Entering a car that you are not in and entering a house that you are two very different things.
SWAT are cops. I never said they should be accountable for crimes they couldn't get to in time, but if they have the ability to get there while a crime is being committed, then they should stop the crime in progress.
Since the Supreme Court ruled that the police arent responsible for protecting the american people. Thats like asking who gived you the right to vote, I just wish people would learn more about gov.
Blanchard is a rural town.
Catjmj: In short, yes, that is exactly what the police are to do. I have a number of friends that are police officers that are specifically instructed and guided to not enter a premises where a crime is in progress, if there is a chance they may be injured, but to, yes, mop up after the fact. given that, I would rather have the ability to protect myself than become worm food for lack of the option.
Janelle, I don't know where you live but in Texas it is perfectly within your rights to shoot someone who is breaking into your car. In TX you can even shoot them as they are fleeing after committing burglary. I just love Texas.
But the 911 call took 21 minutes??? They couldn't get a cop there in that amount of time??
She lives in a rural area.
In the small and poorer counties, there is no deputy on duty at night much of the time, they do not have the funds to pay for that coverage. So, as back up they have to wake someone up, get them dressed and prepared (armed, etc.) and drive to the location (in overtime). Unlike us in EMS, that sherrif's department is not held to a reponse time standard so the deputy may or may not have been in a hurry to get going - or been waiting for some backup because it sounded like a possible domestic issue and most department's policy is to come in 2's to those and other types of calls. Also, they may have called the state police/highway patrol to come but those guys could be anywhere and do not have the saturation that a city with 24/7 officer coverage usually has. Blanchard is 16 miles from downtown Norman and looks to have no large cities in it.
Echoing many others, it's a hard thing for an 18 yo mom to handle. But, she did what she had to and taking all the testosterone out of it (if you see her comments), it's a hard thing she'll have to live with on top of the other hard things she had at the same time. I've said my prayers for her.
Fully automatic weapons are illegal for the average person to own. An 'assault' weapon has the same (often smaller than most hunting rounds) caliber as target and hunting weapons of which many are semi-automatic. The left DOES vigorous oppose the owning of 'assault' weapons which have primarily cosmetic design features and are no more or less lethal than a target/hunting/home defense weapon. It is humorous to see them here supporting this young woman's actions yet defending the Brady Bill components that argue against her gun having more than 5 rounds in it. etc.
After having been vetted by the Secret Service 3 times (helping guard Regan with a loaded weapon as a sworn officer, then on the EMS detail for Clinton twice), I still ran afoul the 'name recognition' rejection issue from the FBI purchasing a weapon a few years ago - that after successfully purchasing one while working and living in the same location and home. I missed a good deal and it took 4 months for the FBI to 'vette' me despite a clean record and previous scruitanies as above. So the 'Brady Bunch' (pun intended) hurts law abiding qualified people too. Still I am glad for the security in some ways, though the people who purchase weapons for the wrong reasons do not do so within the process, nor does the process eliminate or reduce (statistically) in anway crimes perpetuated by those weapons. I'd suggest the Feds use all those funds for that program to bolster ATF and Secret Service (they do more than guard the President) staff and infrastructure to go after the true sources of weapons used in crimes.
I'm actually quite anti-gun but I love this story. This guy had it coming. Young mom had to do what she had to do to defend herself and her baby. And she had the patience to wait 21 minutes? I can only imagine.
Well then rabbit, if you had your way she would have been raped/killed while waiting for the police. Criminals care nothing for gun laws and that is why law abiding citizens should be able to own and carry firearms. Should they abuse that right, i am all for seriously punishing them, but not punishing folks because criminals main/kill/etc with them.
Do you know how to read Gouranga? Seriously? That's why I said I loved this story. She defended herself and her baby. For once just agree with someone that has different views on gun issues - I did with you in my reply. We're on the same page already on this one. Don't just read "anti-gun" and come back with "Herp derp - if we don't all have assault weapons that means we want young mothers and their babies to be raped and killed. When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns, blah, blah, blah."
Sounds like situational ethics. You really can't have it both ways - no one should have guns unless they are in imminent danger - and as for 'blah, blah, blah' you forgot 'nanner nanner' to really drive your point home.
Rabbit, I would encourage you to give some thought to "anti-gun," stances. I used to be pretty indifferent or even slightly anti-gun, thinking for the longest time as it was not an issue in which I had any stake.
Please consider that "sensible," gun laws already on the books prohibit handgun purchases from FFLs until the age of 21. This young woman possibly defended herself with a handgun that she may have been prohibited from buying under current gun control legislation.
Another favored talking point for anti-gun advocates is reasonable training. The article fails to state whether or not this 18 year old woman was adequately trained to handle a firearm, but she undoubtedly saved her life and that of her baby's from this sick freak using a tool that put her on even ground to fight him. If she never thought she would need a gun in her life (most gun owners will never ever need to use their gun in self-defense0 and gun laws required her to be sufficiently trained, would she have stood any chance in this situation? Would your average Joe or Jane? Cost of both the firearm AND hundreds of dollars in training could be prohibitive, not to mention the difficulty of even finding a place to train (see Washington DC and Chicago for some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country, high gun crime rates, and difficulty to even navigate the legislation around guns).
There are a myriad other issues that arise from "sensible," gun laws that just don't make sense when you shine a light on them. Please do some research on the other side of the fence. For example, what is an assault weapon?
What Gouranga so in-eloquently posted is based on frustrations that pro-Civil Rights people have with anti-Civil Rights groups based on a lack of critical consideration. The stance you have directly impacts people like this woman being able to do exactly what she did. Because you feel good about this particular story does not negate the fact that the politicians you vote into office and the gun control you personally support takes people like this woman and criminalizes her trying to spread a wide-net to legislate gun ownership against the most extreme cases of violence that the media pastes on their front pages to generate paper sales and page clicks. Thanks for reading.
It is unlawful to sell or give any firearm to any person under 18 years of age, except a rifle or shotgun given by a parent to a child for education, hunting, or sport.
So she was WELL within her rights to own both weapons.
rabbit: If you are anti-gun then you have to accept that some people will not have the right to defend themselves in these types of situations. I'm not saying you're okay with the crimes that may have been committed had she not been able to defend herself, but you have to accept them as the highly probable result of "anti-gun" gun control.
Rabbit,
I will present other people's arguments (which I agree with) in a more logical and less aggressive stance. You say you are 'quite anti-gun', but you support this use of guns. That means you should logically support gun control laws that would have allowed this woman to own her guns and store them in such a way that they would be accessible and usable in a matter of minutes (21 in this case, but I'd argue for less). Make sure your stance on gun control laws in general is consistent with this case, or that you are willing to sacrifice women like this to save those you believe would be unduly harmed by such laws (the 18 year old girl shot to death by her boyfriend who had similar weapons under similar conditions but put them to a different use).
Gun control is a sticky topic, with lots of points on both sides. I think we can all agree we want guns out of the hands of criminals, and I think most of us agree that we should have the right to store guns in our homes, but from those two extremes there's a lot of give and take. For every extra person or situation you allow a gun, there are innocent people that can be killed AND can be saved.
Requiring things like gun safety training can help weigh the results toward saved and away from killed, but ultimately, things can always go wrong. That is something we all have to accept, either way.
But Rabbit, isn't that the case? Like Gouranga said, if we were all living the way you want everybody to live, this young lady wouldn't have owned a gun (unless it was illegal), and since we know that help never made it there in time, she would have been raped (I assume) and killed (I am sure). He didn't break her door down and come at her with a 12 inch knife to have a social cup of tea. Now, it could have been the other way around, say the same shotgun but in HIS hands and not hers. Same gun, right/wrong. We only want you (the anti-gun crowd) to understand that it's NOT the gun, it's who is holding it.
CivilRights - You have not given one fact to back up your opinions. It seems that you are the one that is "ill equipped" to debate.
Reasonable22
What?
Reasonable22, I've read the whole page. I think CivilRightsAdv has given the better debate. Scott is way off & incorrect on some of his points of view. IMHO
You did every thing right. Hope you and your baby rest well after this. Very sorry to hear of your earlier loss, especially on Christmas day. Life is not always kind. You sound like a strong woman, so best wishes.
I hope that she can rest easy and recover from both the loss of her husband and taking the life of another human being - even if he was the scum of the earth and deserved being killed. This mom is a hero to her child.
She didn't stop to think about the rights of the person trying to beat down her door. He just wanted to potentially rob\rape\kill this lady and her son. Who gave her the right to take this man's life? She should be locked away in prison.
Ok...I can't even keep typing with a straight face. Good job! I applaud this woman's strength in dealing with all the recent, life shattering losses and her ability to rid this world of a piece of filth. Kudos.
Justice has been served….good job Sarah
You go girl
Kudos to her!! I have read WAY too many articles in the news in which the story does not have a happy ending for the homeowner.
I would have done exactly the same had I been home alone with my daughter in that situation.
Its a suburb of Oklahoma city.. Police have some 'splainin' to do about the 21 minutes. State police could have been there in time from Ok city. I live in MA, and here, the intruder would have been the 'victim' and she'd lose her kid and be looking at life in prison. This state is sooooo f---ed up.
Actually Jimski, you really need to look at a map and see just how much area is covered by Oklahoma City.
I live here and let me tell you this is one very very very spread out city.
It can take 45 minutes to get from one side of town to the other(city limits) in Oklahoma city.
Then add around another 20 miles outside the city limits to get to Blanchard, plus she didn't live in Blanchard itself but outside of it in the country.
I live in MA as well (Medfield) and can definitively say that you are 100% wrong about the intruder being treated like a victim.
I don't think there is any place in America, where if you shoot an intruder, who poses an imenent threat to you or your family, you would be culpable.
Why don't you call your county prosector's office and ask them if you would be within your rights to shoot an intruder who has broken into your home and coming after you with a knife while you are alone with your baby?
And...even in the fantasy world that you describe, I'd love to see how quickly a prosector gets "reassigned" for prosecuting a young mother protecting herself and her child with lethal force after an armed intruder breaks into her home without any provocation.
Actually you are incorrect. How many times has someone done the right thing and was actually punished for it? Numerous times. It is not a fantasy world where people always make the right choices, mistakes are made so your generalization is incorrect. As for anyone else that seems to think anyone with liberal beliefs wants to take your guns away has it ever occured to you that you may be wrong? There is NOTHING wrong with gun control at all. I do not believe that guns should be outlawed, but proper safety training and usage should be a requirement as owning a gun is a right but even then "rights" come with responsibility to use the firearm safely.
Politicians that state otherwise are obfuscating the issue and unfortunately the public does not always look beneath the surface of a political argument instead taking it at face value. This women is NOT a hero for killing someone. She is a responsible parent that made sure her baby was taken care of and safe. Best wishes to her and her family. She did the right thing!
We have sex ed and drivers ed but we have no education about guns in schools.
That is a tragedy. That is one of the errors of our ways. We are too pc to teach our kids about guns and gun safety.
Kazutam: Oklahoma City is the largest city in the USA. That is square miles not population. I read that many years ago and found it to be an interesting fact.
Outstanding! Glad to hear that the baby and mother are safe. The intruder got what was deserving for what he was attempting to do to her and/or baby.
Yea what about that 21 min on the phone & still no cops. Where the hell is your police force. I'd look into suing the He-l out of them for failing to respond. Thank all gods big & small you were armed & knew how to use one.
She lives in a rural area. Her address is a county road address so it's not like they could just go to 123 Main St. It took a bit longer to find. Thankfully, it all worked out in the end.
If you can get pizza delivered to your house in under 30 minutes, then the police should damn well be able to get there in under half the time.
You do realize that Domino's (the 30 minutes or less folks) stopped doing that because their delivery drivers were causing lots of problems, right? Also, unless my math is wrong, 21 is less than 30.
Many of these rural police departments and county sheriff's office are allowed deputies/officers based on the population of the area, not the geographic size of the area. Thats per state constitution. So you may see a large rural county but only a few deputies per shift to cover the entire area.
Yuma county Arizona is over 80 miles wide with the city of Yuma on the far west side. Have a problem on the far east rural side and your looking at over 1 hour waiting for an officer.
Thats why you learn to depend on yourself, not others for your survival.
Sorry, Vet. But police departments do not have a legal duty to respond to individual calls for assistance. No joy on a lawsuit.
As the saying goes, "When seconds count, the authorities are only minutes away."
Vietnam Vet, see post #11.9 someone has already tried that.
Catjmj - The article did not state how long it took the police to arrive, It only states that she was on the phone for 21 minutes before she shot the intruder. It could have taken the police another hour to get there. You have no way of knowing from the information provided.
Typically Ron, the 911 operators remain on the line until emergency personnel arrive.
This woman did everything correctly. I can't believe the guys kept trying for 21 minutes. They couldn't have been too smart. Tough on them.
Very sorry this woman had just lost her husband. Hopefully he loved her and their child as much as she loves her child.
I hope any friends, family and neighbors help take care of this family.
Calm and in control. Even waited until the assualtent entered the house before she shot. Good job. The scary part, there are some that read this and think she used excessive force. Some would say to shoot some one with a gun is wrong. Reminds me of the line, What kind of person brings a knife to a gun fight?
assaultent?
"Oklahoma laws are clear on home defense. I think they're clear to most individuals that you can defend yourself in your home," said Detective Supervisor, Dan Huff, with the Blanchard Police Department.
Funny how the article left this part out. Bottom line: you break into a house in Oklahoma, it's perfectly legal for the resident to kill you. That should be the law EVERYWHERE.
In NC:
You can shoot through the door if they are trying to breakin...
Once they have entered - You can not shoot unless they threaten you or your family...
You can not shoot if they pickup your TV and start to leave...
Most states have different laws, you need to know the laws for the state you are in...
Deaisme is 100% correct. In Oklahoma, you are allowed to use lethal force if someone is attempting to harm you, your property, or your family.
I am a well armed single mom and trust me, I would not hesitate to do the same thing. Many years ago some men broke into my home in the middle of the night. Luckily they decided to run off as soon as I yelled down that I had a gun and knew how to use it. You should have heard them run off as fast as they could. Had I not that that gun they would have been in my bedroom in seconds, and God only knows what would have happened then. Legally purchased weapons in the hands of law obiding citizens deter crime and, as in this case, kill bad guys and protect innocent people.
BillofRights, but what if an innocent person happened to be driving down the street at the time, or if she shot and it went through a neighbor's wall? Responsible gun ownership is knowing who and what are in your sights when you pull the trigger.
I hope you have improved your home security because now that these perps know you have a gun they may come back for it.
The difference between libs and righties on guns is that libs own them fro protection and hate them, while righties own them, love them, and want many more. They are also scared to death to be anywhere without them.
Gun sales keep increasing. Expect more shootings in the future.
I live in Phoenix and in the middle of the night I could drive to the other side of town in 21 minutes. WTH took so long??? Thank god law abiding citizen are still allowed to defend themselves with deadly force in the country.
Whats sad is 100 years ago this doesn't even happen cause everyone assumed other people had a gun a knew how to use it. Now all the bad guys assume we dont.
She lives in an isolated, rural area. Not a major metropolis.
Scott M-536256
@Mike in Delray
I agree Mike. But, do you think that the 2nd ammendment also protects my right to keep and bear a nuclear bomb? How about anthrax? If you do, then I'm very concerned. If you don't, then clearly you belive there should be a line drawn somewhere. I belive the line should be at weapons that go beyond hunting and sport since the weapons you'd need in today's world to defend agains a tyranical government would far exceed even these. There is just no reason to have them.
@JohnLaz
Hmm, seems like your second point (above) kinda debunks your first point and bolsters my point.
Which is it? 75% or more than 75%? Could it be 73%? How about 57%? When you have some actual facts, let me know.
You try to act so knowledgeable about guns when you don't know the difference between a lever action and bolt action? You can "cycle" a lever action must quicker than a bolt action so his comment is correct and yours is wrong. How about finding out what you are talking about before posting and calling someone else out!!