She definitely did the right thing, too bad he's still alive.

In my house at one time I had a wife and three daughters. I taught them all about weapons, mostly handguns, and a shotgun, in their defense at home while I was gone.

I told them, protect yourself, because if ANY man gets in here, all he's going to see is a "female smorgasbord!" Shoot them all until they stop moving, I will sell everything I own, I will sell my soul to keep you out of prison.

Damn good job Mrs. Herman!!!!

This is the first time the liberal media has put out a story depicting the proper use of a weapon in the hands of a would be victim. Now how about reporting the thousands of other cases where a legally owned or carried gun saves a life every year?

Nobody, and I mean nobody, is advocating taking everyone's guns. I am thrilled that this woman and her family are safe, and that she used her firearms responsibly. This is a fantastic use of guns and i encourage responsible use of them.

However, I repeat, nobody is advocating banning guns. 99% of democrats know the 2nd amendment guarantees the ownership of firearms.

Because this woman did not use an assault rifle, us taxpayers will now pay for the intruder's medical care, jail facilities, food, lawyer, etc.

An extended clip would have saved taxpayers thousands of dollars.

NO ONE wants to BAN GUNS. Good grief, pro-gun people, why doesn't this fact sink in? I applaud the lady for protecting her family in her home with a legally owned gun, but also note that she was able to do this without an ASSAULT RIFLE. Wanting to ban certain military style weapons designed to kill gazillions of people in a minute does not equal a BAN ON GUNS. And to jw101: your comment is foolish. Innocent people have been shot going into their own homes, mistaken for intruders by family members. You'd like them all dead via assault weapons. Right, good promo for the saneness of gun owners. Not.

Amen FrugalDem...that's what we're all trying to say.

I don't want your handgun, rifle, shotgun, muzzle-loader, etc. I don't think 30 bullet clips and weapons that fire 100 rounds are even relevant in a case like this. This woman is a hero and exactly what gun ownership is about. The nutcase survivalist that things he's going to take on a government drone/tank/warplane with an AR-15 is the one that's escaped reality.

"An assault rife would have been totally useless in this occasion where she was confined into a crawl space, so the handgun served its purpose and did it well."

Depends on the crawl space.

“Ya know, there's right and there's wrong and then there's not natural, and it's not natural for people to have to shoot people, so it is going to bother you ..."

This guy sure has a smooth way to help bring his wife's blood pressure down. Nice going Melinda.

I never had to shoot anyone but, I must say, in a situation like this, I think I'd still have a hard time pulling the trigger but sure I would.

Man, if this were my wife & kids, I'd have my truck in 4 wheel drive going across back & front yards to get to her. Wow.

What a great story.

As I mentioned umpteen times, you'll never get guns out of the criminals hands (even thoughthis guy "thank God" didn't have one) so if we cannot beat them, we have no choice but to join them and protect ourselves...

The guy reminded me of swamp people. You know, the guys that trap alligators. Shooot 'em, Shooooooot 'em!

Actually, a responsible gun owner should have only needed one bullet. Another example of someone owning a gun and not knowing how to use it well. High capacity clips allow people to feel safe when they don't have a clue how to fire with accuracy.

that is not gun control, that is self protection in an emergency situation and she could have used a knife instead of a gun, or even a bat and play ball with is head, or even she could have used hot super hot cooking oil, or even a stunt gun or pepper spray. and whats more scary is that the other person or invators have gun too. So to control guns I say, use a water pistol to teach a child not to use a gun to shoot someone and little by little we get rid of the bad guys by teaching our children not to use guns and as they grow up they don't and they teach their children not to, its those small percentage of the population that is causing all the problems.

I am so happy this family lived to tell their story and at the same time pissed that this a-hole was fortunate enough not to have died where he laid.... but no one is talking about taking guns away from the public. What we want is to remove military type weapons because a non soldier has no use for them and there is no constitutional right to have such a weapon. A handguns have never been part of the conversation when talking about banning guns. That is the scare tactic conservatives use on pretty much every subject to resist change... exaggerate the proposed change to insight fear on the less informed... oldest trick in the book. Now if progressives were talking about all guns then I too would resist but they are not. We DMV the $hit about gun purchases and we would have less accidental gun deaths, mass shootings and less access for criminals to acquire them. This is some common sense stuff we are talking about

FrugalDemocrat wrote:

Nobody, and I mean nobody, is advocating taking everyone's guns...

Actually, yes, some people are. Is that what will happen? Probably not this go round, but, you can bet that at some point, confiscation is going to be the next step. Have you looked at NY governor Cuomo's recent statements? He did indeed use the word confiscation, before the uproar of his citizenry, at which time he stopped using the word. Don't tell me it's not on the minds of the liberal political elite. The documented cases show otherwise...

oppie-1383989

Actually, a responsible gun owner should have only needed one bullet. Another example of someone owning a gun and not knowing how to use it well. High capacity clips allow people to feel safe when they don't have a clue how to fire with accuracy.

Odds are it was the husband's gun, who was instructing her over the phone how to shoot while on the other line with 911. If she had never shot a gun before, of course her accuracy would be off, whether it was a .38 or a high capacity gun. Regardless, she was still able to stop the guy with what she had.

Since I am Pro-Choice, I will leave it to the individual what he /she uses to defend themselves or their loved ones...be it a .38 Special, Browning Auto-5 shotgun, or a M4gery.

Perhaps the police should be fined $5000 for taking 7 minutes to respond. If the family was harmed it should be 5 million. The ignorant people that want me to give up my guns do not realize that there is no law requiring them to respond. If they are too busy harassing legal gun owners, that tough cookies to you.

Friend I totally concur, where is the multitude of media depicting the proper use of a weapon. Restricting guns laws will only create a black market, and it will work as good as the war on drugs, which has not worked since Nixon declared this fake futile war. Again evidence the government controls the media.

I strongly support a ban on assault weapons in private ownership. If there is the least whiff that an assault weapon has any link to a crime, that weapon should be confiscated.

Having said that, I have an appropriate weapon in my home for self defense. Let me stress that ~ appropriate weapon. If, in the middle of the night, one of my dogs alerts me, I'm certainly not going to mess about with getting an assault rifle out of a gun safe.

BTW, elliot, this is most certainly not the first time the media has reported the proper use of a gun for self defense. One that comes immediately to mind and which got extensive coverage is the case of the 18 year old widow who shot one of 2 intruders defending herself and her infant son. Just 1 week after her husband's death, the 2 attempted to enter her house believing they would find drugs. What they found was a smart, courageous young mother with 2 handguns.

Oppie, she hit him in the face five times. In my book, that's pretty darned good shootin'. I can't explain why he still alive. Apparently, one bullet was not enough for this incident and criminal.

Dear Melinda, I'm sure you are still badly shaken, but take heart. You saved your children and yourself. No one could applaud you more than me (and the rest of the country.) You absolutely did the right things. You hid, you avoided, you protected. You were left with no other choices. 99.9% of the country would have done the exact same thing. It doesn't make it any easier on you right at this moment, but take comfort in our acceptance (and approval) of your actions. The only thing I can think to add is that you might trade up your .38 for a .357, but that's up to you.

Not that criminals are the smartest bunch, but let it be a lesson to them--if they break into our homes, they should be prepared to die for their efforts.

"We don't want to ban guns, just the big scary ones".

When that doesn't prevent gun violence in the future.

"We only want to ban this gun" and then it will be "That didn't work, but we have to do something, so we want to ban this gun".

Don't buy into the BS, anti gunners want all guns banned. They just take the death by a thousand cuts approach to gun ownership.

We learned this through the 80s and 90s. No more compromise, and we work to repeal the BS laws that already infringe on our rights.

Super hot cooking oil? I'm sure the intruder would've loved to have waited for her to boil that...

Oppie, not sure how to take your comment. The lady had a .38 revolver (it's very unlikely she had a .38 super race gun), probably holding only 6 rounds. She hit the guy 5 times. That'samn good shooting by any measure, especially by someone under extreme stress. That's waaay better shooting tha most cops demonstrate when they shoot. (Although cops are often under fire themselves, in both situations you're talking about people in life-threatening situations. Cops also have better training, experience in stressful situations, body armor, and back-up - things the lady didn't have going for her. She also had the additional stress of the threat to her children.)

Clinton's Justice Department estimated that guns are used in self-defense 1.5 million times a year in this country. If only 4% of those uses prevented a murder, they would have saved more lives than the 30,000 or so that are unlawfully taken annually with guns. Considering that many who are killed now are bad guys - sometimes shot by good guys, more likely shot by other bad guys - even if it's a wash between lives saved and lives taken, more innocent lives will still have been protected.

LosMan,
Check out US v. Miller. The government argued that the Second Amendment protects the possession of military weapons by civilians. And handguns have been the target of activists and politicians who would like to see them confiscated (Diane Feinstein has said she'd like to take ALL guns). NY Governor Cuomo said just last week that he was in favor of confiscating "assualt weapons," which, in NY, are registered. How else could he contemplate confiscating them? This gives the lie to the claim that "registration does not lead to confiscation," not only because there are people now openly advocating confiscation, but because there was never a logical reason for registering the guns in the first place. Now there's talk of registering all guns in every state. For what purpose other than eventual confiscation? The writing is on the wall, you are refusing to read it.

You are wrong on all counts.

oppie,

There is a lot wrong with your post, but in short. 1. One bullet isn't always enough even with perfect shot placement, particularly with a relatively low-powered round like a .38 Special. 2. It's magazine, not clip. If you're going to act like you know what you're talking about it, at least get this basic fact correct. 3. A high-capacity magazine has nothing to do with this story since she was obviously using a revolver. 4. Finally, if someone enters my house with obvious intent towards harm, they have forfeited their life. Kudos to this woman for protecting her family, though yes, with 5 shots at close range she should have killed him.

Derek

EXACTLY!!!!

Derek, Dianne Feinstein said and I quote:

“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up [every gun]… Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in.”

That, my friend, is the objective.

Some of you people need to get a clue and understand that everything in life isn't so black-or-white (or a mass conspiracy theory). I consider myself to be a pretty liberal guy, but if you break into my home and stalk my family, I'll not only shoot your ass until your life functions cease to exist, but I'll stand over your body after I'm done and admire my work.

Enough with this "liberal" bias nonsense.

Thank you all for not wanting to take our guns, just our assualt rifles. Thats mighty nice of you. By the way did you know the FBI just put out a report on violence in the US for 2011. Did you know more people were killed in the US with a hammer in 2011 than with a rifle (this is all rifles to include assualt rifles with 30 round clips. 496 killed with hammer-323 killed with a rifle.) If we could only take the AK47s out of the hands of gang members then the number of people killed by rifle would drop by 85%. Do you see where I'm going with this or are you to politically correct to open your eyes to facts? Also from the report- over 600 people killed with fist and hands, nearly twice the number killed by rifle. The type of weapon doesn't matter to evil, it's going to do its thing the same as it has done since Cain.

Just wondering, how can you shoot someone five times in the head (darned good shooting), and they still live? Obviously, it's possible, as it happened here, but physiologically, I don't know how he kept from dying with five hits. Perhaps someone with a medical background can answer my query. Again, I'm just wondering.

(Most police officers I've spoken with have told me that they practice on targets and go for the body shot. The head is small, and a difficult target, compared to chest and abdomen. I would imagine the lady was in close confrontation with her attacker, and he got up close and personal, hence the head shots. Nevertheless, how does one live through that?)

some posters need to check further before exposing their own ignorance.

YES, there are politicians who want to take all guns away.

This is not the first time I have seen this story on NBC (/msnNOW), yet this story is the one that many anti gun-control people (when commenting on other gun related articles) say that NBC would never run.

YES, there are politicians who want to take all guns away.

Yeah, there are also politicians that don't believe in evolution and think climate change isn't a concern because Jesus will be returning in the next 50 years.

There's fringe elements on both sides of the aisle ... what's your point?

military type weapons are already banned a military weapon is fully automatic that means you pull the trigger and all your ammo is fired or until you let up on the trigger fully automatic weapons are illegal you can't buy them a mini 14 rifle is a ranch rifle semi-automatic you have to pull the trigger every time to fire it, it looks like a hunting rifle but i can convert it to look like a military type rifle(replica) but it is still a mini 14 semi-automatic ranch rifle no where close to a military rifle the same goes with a 10/22 rifle in fact a 10/22 looks similar to a mini 14 to the untrained eye and can be made to look exactly like a military type rifle so where do you draw the line you can make a 1969 regular mustang look like a Shelby cobra but it is still a regular old mustang you can take an old hag like Madonna and make her look like Marilyn Monroe but it is still Madonna,you can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig. if you have enough ingenuity you can easily make a thirty round clip from four 10 round clips how do you think they came up with the idea if someone wants something bad enough they will get it and nobody will stop them

Left:
You're not going to ban guns ... you're just not. Deal with it. The problem isn't guns ... I live in Chicago, we have the strictest gun laws in the nation. Yet, kids get killed in the streets every night. I tend to lean left on social issues, but this is just a no-brainer to me. The problem is not guns, but a culture in which caters to the lowest common denominator.

Right:
I think your arguments about keeping your guns to sway a tyrannical government from taking over are rather cute. Yes, yes ... that little pistol in your hand and that "assault" rifle strapped to your back will really come in handy against Abrams tanks, Black Hawk Helicopters, the MOAB, Drones, ballistic missiles, etc. You people are delusional ... now run along and play soldier in your back-wood swamps.

This is the first time the liberal media has put out a story depicting the proper use of a weapon in the hands of a would be victim.

Elliot, what a stupid, dishonest thing to say. We see stories of people defending themselves all the time and everyone is in agreement that it's justifiable. This woman didn't need 10 bullets, she didn't need 30 bullets, she didn't need a gun like those used on the battlefield. If you didn't have to defend your obsession with lies and spin and fear-mongering, people might actually listen to you. As things stand, you sound like a parrot for the gun manufacturing lobby.

Calling 911

in a sutuation

like this is a joke

By time they

get there yoiu

are dead.

You only need

3 things to survive

a gun a chainsaw

and 10 gallons of

stabilized fuel

think about it

Why do you

write in

poem format?

There's probably not one in ten people who don't think this was a very desirable outcome. However, this is hardly a common occurrence where the victim has such a clear advantage over the perpetrator. That this is news speaks to the rarity of such events.

As a matter of fact, contrary to the lunacy in 1.1, a .38 WAS enough. The outcome is clear proof of that.

While it is true that even paranoids have real enemies, there is absolutely no proof that anyone has a plan to strip the population of firearms. Should anyone be so foolish as to make such a proposal, it would be liberals, who cherish their civil rights, fighting such nonsense. The paranoid gun strokers would be sniveling in a fetal position.

because Ihave

this Mc D add

in my face

and cannot

use spell check

I just called them

and told they

how anoying

it is.

Just link their

Food

Chad,

Your Left argument would make more sense if you added in the fact that the people getting shot on the south and west sides of Chicago are done with illegally owned guns. I live in Chicago (NW side) and we are starting to hear gunshots a couple of times a week. Its a gang problem and they dont own those guns legally. They also cant go and purchase them legally. I am sure you know all of this but putting it out there for others that like to use that argument. As far as the rest of your post, yeah I agree there are people on both sides that just cling to idiology and that is why nothing ever gets done. Its like taking my daughter to the park and seeing kids argue over whose ball it is.

As long as the assailant keeps coming at you - you need to keep on firing at him. First rule of survival.

Irish, I think my point is still valid though ... stricter gun laws aren't the solution. As you pointed out, we have very strict gun laws, yet the bangers have no trouble getting them and killing whoever they want. My point is, we have a "culture problem," not a gun one.

@ Frugaldemocrat

You say that no one is advocating taking every ones guns away. You are wrong. Diane Feinstein is one who has said in the past that she wanted all guns confiscated. So has many others who align themselves with the gun control lobbies. As far as your statement that 99% of the democrats know the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to own fire arms. That is why 99% of the democrats want the 2nd amendment repealed. Including your beloved Diane Feinstein.

mj899 So your point is?

dave I'm a democrat I don't want the 2nd amendment repealed.

Chad is funny. And he calls a spade a spade.

Why is it that every gun-control proposal is "reasonable," and opposition to them is "unreasonable," when no enacted "reasonable" proposal has ever fulfilled its promise to "make us all safer"?

Among the failed "reasonable" laws are:

Background checks (not fool-proof)
Waiting periods (that don't stop people who have "plans" - like James Holmes - and they usually just affect law-abiding gun owners, because most gun purchasers already own guns, waiting periods do not prevent them from using a gun in a "crime of passion")
Licensing (people who take the time to get a concealed carry permit, and who pass the background check are arguably law-abiding, and the law-abiding don't present a threat to the community. If you think they do, then look at yourself, because you're probably "projecting." Look it up.)
Gun registration (Canada spent billions of dollars to track just long gun transfers - relatively small numbers compared to the number of transfers that take place in the US - for years and gave up when the system resulted in the solving of zero crimes. The only time gun registration has a chance of working is when a firearm is found at the scene of a crime, and can then be traced to the owner. This does not prevent crimes, and, if the gun had been stolen from the owner, doesn't solve any either.)
Ammunition registration (proposed measure)(Registration of long guns solved no crimes in Canada, but you want to track tens of billions of rounds of ammunition that are manufactured every year? You live in la-la land.)
Confiscation (That will work as well as prohibition and the War on Drugs. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a moron. Sorry to call names, but if you refuse to look at recent history and not understand that government prohibitions on substances and articles only creates criminal enterprises to supply same, you ARE a moron. Also, there are only two ways for confiscation to work. First is to go door to door to homes where firearms have been registered. Second is to go from house to house and conduct unlawful searches and seizures. Both would be violations of several constitutionally-protected rights. You must understand that you cannot do damage to one right without doing damage to others. In doing so, once government sets a precedent, there will be no rights that are not vulnerable to similar threats.)

These are just a few of the enacted (and two proposed) laws that have no demonstrable effect (or no predictable effect) on crime or criminals. And you're asking for more of the same? With what evidence that the propositions will work? Remember, you're talking about preventing criminal acts by people who represent less than one ten-thousandth of the gun-owning public, and virtually none of those people who possess guns legally. You're going to take a valuable right away from 100% of that public (the number of lawful gun owners who use their firearms in crimes is statistically insignificant) who pose ZERO threat to the public and tell us that the laws will "prevent gun violence" or "make us safer"? The math says you're loopy. If there were three people in the country and person #1 killed person #2, would you punish persons #1 and #3? More to the point, would you only punish person #3? In effect, this is what "gun control" laws do, they effect only those people who abide by the law, people who, by definition, pose no threat to the community. The best gun control laws can offer is control over people who pose no threat to the public. Because of this, such laws cannot have an effect on criminal behavior. Arguments to the contrary are illogical. The best any law can do is to set punishments for people who commit criminal acts. Gun control laws will do nothing but create criminals of people who never harmed another human being. That is immoral.

"

ReasonableBeing

Now that is gun control!!"

Not really, gun control woulda meant no survivor. Now GA is gonna pay to extend his life.

I agree that the liberals as a whole do not want to ban guns, but some of them certainly talk that way and many of them seem to want all of the law-abiding citizen gun owners' names in a database, and some of them would even go so far as to publicly release the names and addresses of these individuals so that everyone knows just who they are. Sorry if I just don't trust the lot of you anymore on this issue, because it's hard to tell the difference between those of you who are reasonable and those of you who are not.

At the same time, republicans have been generalized unfairly as well. Not all of us are gun-clingers, though almost all of us support the second amendment. Some of us don't see the difference between the guy who collects cars and the guy who collects guns--neither of them seem out to hurt anyone, though a car and a gun have the same capacity to kill (as do mushrooms and bleach and a plethora of other materials that cause death in the wrong hands). Most of us believe that it isn't the gun that kills but the person that kills and would be happy to support greater restrictions on the mentally ill owning and having access to guns and might even consider culpability laws that make the owner responsible if the weapon wasn't secured (like the laws in some places that make the bartender responsible for not cutting off the drunk). Not many of us are preparing to shoot down drones with our AR 15s, but those who happen to be probably aren't reassured by the rhetoric coming from the other side, so it might just be some democrat's fault they are, "Crazy gun-clingers." Please take that into consideration.

I have never met (in person) any liberal who wants to ban all guns. I am sure there are extremists out there who do, but I have never met one. But regardless, it will never happen... EVER.

Although it is funny that those on the right believe that their little walmart gun will allow them to overthrow the US government and it's military. I hope some of them try... not only because it would be hilarious to watch, but that is a Darwin Award in the making. What better way to improve our gene pool then to let these morons try to take out a tank or a drone with their little AR-15?

Dave,

here is an article on which judge Scalia in a decent of a DC gun case states that we do not have the right tow own such weapons

But to the larger point.. both sides are engaging in scare tactics and extremism when it comes to guns. But when you have people not even considering to consider (yes said it twice) improvements to gun laws, we continue to have idiots claim all kinds of stuff. Idiots in DC and regular citizens... The second there is a report of a state actively going into homes getting lawfully purchased guns from ordinary citizens I agree that there would be hell to pay. But a compromise on the subject would never let that happen unless you believe your side would sell you out.

And I'll give you just one reason for registration of guns... there are people out there that buy guns legally and turn around and sell on the black market including south of the border... dont you think that if a person who is buying up guns like that should be checked out for criminal activity? Here's another... a man is institutionalized because he is believed to be a danger to others. Registration would let authorities know that he has a weapon and what type. Cops can then make sure that such weapon would no longer be in the possession of this individual before they are let out.... and many more other sensible reasons to do it. If you are a law biding citizen then you have nothing to worry about.

Chad,

I got ya. I must have read it wrong. You are correct though, we do have a culture problem/gang problem. Our strict gun laws have done nothing but take away guns from law abiding citizens and we have the highest murder rate in the country, go figure.

Ignorant libs.

Notice how the guy was still alive. In fact, he managed to get in his truck and drive away after being shot 5 times in the face and neck area. And yet libs still question why people want high capacity ammo? What if it was two or three men? People do do crimes in groups some times. But what, we should only have 5 bullets so you can feel better about mean old guns. Libs do not like facts, stats or reason. Just fear and exploiting tragedies to push for more control of what they fear. Pathetic

Chad, good afternoon.

I appreciate your post. It's ALWAYS refreshing to see someone who thinks for himself/herself.

You may be interested to know that I'm "liberal" (whatever that means) on many things (such as environmental concerns, animal rights, etc) but am "conservative" (whatever that means) on many other things (such as anti-welfare abuse, anti-illegal immigration, etc.)

mguy,

That is the same thing the English said about a bunch of poor peasants.

Irish

We also have more gun owners than any other country, and that has not stopped any of the violence.

Bottom line: Taking away guns will NOT solve the problem, and giving everyone a gun will NOT solve the problem.

In reality, there is little we can do at this point to change anything. Personally, I would end the wasted drug war and reallocate that money towards violent crimes, shootings, murder, etc.

Please make a note: the lady used a 38 caliber hand gun. Not a military style rifle. as a mater of fact. In close quarters, you are better off with a hand gun then a rifle or shotgun. I would explain, but it would fall on deaf ears who have no real understanding of tactics in general.

.38 caliber may not have been big enough to stop this guy - but I guarantee that our .40 and .45 would stop an intruder. Two to the chest to slow him, one to the head to stop him. Done.

Yeah, it's too bad he lived, but Mrs. Herman - you are one brave, resourceful woman. Kudos to you!

Chicago - where President Obama hailed from as a Senator, did indeed have a ban on guns. Several other Illinois towns (like Evanston) also had bans on owning, or possessing firearms - even in your own home. When the Supreme Court struck down the gun ban, Chicago Pols actively conspired how to thwart the ban on the ban. They openly would like a total ban.

So anyone saing "noone want a total gun ban", I assure you many liberal democratic politicians do - as I suspect a decent percentage of Americans do.

The difference is - they do not have the votes, and they know it.

The Chicago example is so exemplary because it shows the lengths politicians who are true believers will go to thwart the will of the majority to get their way through non-democratic means. (Kind of like how Republicans are trying to steer the dog from the tail).

So I do expect negotiators on the left of the issue to attempt again to create de-facto bans on as many things as they can. Or the old chestnut of adding the "players to be named later" language - which killed the moderate support for previous gun control legislation (i.e. we ban these specific weapons, plus additional yet unnamed weapons that may be added later by parties we will not identify). In other words, bad legislation.

If the President really wants to pass legislation, he needs to court the middle. Which means don't let the true believers undermine the pragmatists. The middle, and the votes, are with the pragmatists on this one

Irish

That is the same thing the English said about a bunch of poor peasants.

Minor difference: their weaponry was similar, both had muskets, horses, bayonets. The English did not have surveillance equipment capable of monitoring almost all communication. They did not control the skies with aircraft. They did not have armored transportation that completely protected them while allowing them to fire on the opposition. They did not have robotic machines that would fly the skies and take out an entire regiment, while they sat safely in their base.

Trying to compare that period in history, with where we are now, is completely ridiculous.

It is more realistic to compare the native Americans with the colonists, as the gap in weaponry can be considered slightly more equivalent to where we are now (but only slightly). How did that turn out for them?

huh, well i guess one out of a hundred aint bad.. oh wait.. it totally is.

lets hear from all the psychotic gun nuts who are STILL too STUPID to notice that NOT ONE SINGLE GUN LAW HAS BEEN PASSED UNDER OBAMA!!!

never ever let reality get in the way of your gun paranoia!

"they're after me guns! they're after me guns again!!!"

gun owners have only one thought in their heads, aside from revenge fantasies. that is that someone is ALWAYS after their guns! lolololololol!

mguy,

Fair enough. We also have to look at how many of these gun crimes are commited by law abiding citizens and how many are commited by thugs that have illegal guns. We have alot of problems in this country and the knee jerk reactions dont solve anything. Just saying.

To those of you who say "nobody wants to ban all guns", I say your blatant ignorance could very well be the downfall of our nation. Here is a quote from the current Senator of California Dianne Feinstein from 1995:

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them … Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here."

Source:

Some say that a majority of gun control advocates do not want to ban all guns. But why then, might I ask, have a majority of the citizens of California continuously elected Dianne Feinstein as Senator since those remarks almost two decades ago? Either they are ignorant of her motives, or you are ignorant of theirs.

HELL YEAH! Good for her!!

mguy,

I agree that comparing the two periods is difficult. But then again that is exactly what the dead beat politicians are doing when they say that the second amendment refers to muskets.

PolitiRage

But why then, might I ask, have a majority of the citizens of California continuously elected Dianne Feinstein as Senator since those remarks almost two decades ago?

Because the Republicans have become increasingly extreme and crazy, so it comes down to the lesser of two evils... as it is with all politicians.

mguy,

The same can be said about several democrats that hold positions. It seems that our government is being run by a bunch of power hungry control freaks. This is on both sides. The sad part is that they will all be relected.

PolitiRage

To those of you who say "nobody wants to ban all guns", I say your blatant ignorance could very well be the downfall of our nation.

And, I say your irrational demagoguery and unwillingness to see anything from beyond a political lens not only "could" be the downfall of our country ... but will be the downfall.

There's ignorance and blatant irrationality to fight on both sides.

The same types of people who were drawing Hitler mustaches on Bush posters, are the same types of people now drawing Hitler mustaches on Obama posters.

Don't be that guy.

Irish

And when they say it only applies to muskets, they are wrong. Of course, you can discuss in great detail the 2nd amendment with historians, and get a different story based on which side the particular historian leans.

Either way, the extremists on the left will never ban all guns... and the extremists on the right, who think they can overthrow the US military with their little pistol, would get stomped in the more hilarious fashion if they tried. Although I really REALLY hope they try... our overall gene pool would drastically improve without them.

Elliott, that is a damn lie. There was the mother who was home alone with her baby and I believe two people tried to break in, she shot them and there have been old people who have shot perps. Stop watching so much fox.

The radical agenda is to chip away at the constitution one bit at a time, regardless of the cause or the issue. They don't expect immediate wholesale change... only moderate but incremental revisions... maybe taking years... to achieve their objectives. This current push will be the start... then next year another incident will instigate more slight change... and in 10 years???

mguy,

YOu are right with that. I think we, clear thinking people, can see that its the extreme portions of the parties that cause most of the problems in this country. Glad to see not everyone on this site is either far left or right. Gets old reading the same bs everyday from the hardcore lefties and righties.

Chad and mguy,

I am out for the day. Nice chatting with you both.

The radical agenda is to chip away at the constitution one bit at a time, regardless of the cause or the issue.

People started saying that before the ink on the constitution dried. We scare easily ... it's part of the human condition.

They don't expect immediate wholesale change... only moderate but incremental revisions

Hmmm ... really?

Sounds like "progress" to me.

Is the goal of our nation not to "build" (keyword build) a more perfect union? This country wasn't forged through perfection ya know....

We are the land of the "free" built on slavery. At the time our Constitution was poured to page, many men and women were living in bondage .... women were treated like second class citizens, etc.

There are many social and ethical prescriptions that our country didn't get right the first time around. Thankfully, through "progressive" change, we've been able to address these problems. And yes, in the words of our founders: "Build a more perfect Union" in the process.

I'm not saying I agree one way or the other in regards to your positions on gun policy. I'm just highlighting the fact that your compulsory fear of the "coming change" (in any regard) is kind of odd considering thus is the nature of our great nation.

This woman and her kids... the man and wife and their nephew against a rabid bobcat who attacked them... I count six lives saved with Smith & Wesson. (I posted seven lives yesterday, my bad, thought the Georgia mother had three kids with her.)

Then there is the story NOT told in the national news of the young Hispanic man in San Antonio who went into a restaurant to kill his girlfriend, and as he texted her before entering the restaurant, "a lot of other people"; all the people ran into a theatre next door, and the off duty female cop cornered the guy and shot and wounded him, saving all the people there. Could have been another massacre, but wasn't thanks to her.

The best part about all of you people saying we just want to take away your assault rifles is that the type of firearm she used kills over 30 times more people than assualt rifles do each year.

@chad-1841583

You completely missed the point of my statement which was to point out that assertions such as those made by the commenter FrugalDemocrat such as "Nobody, and I mean nobody, is advocating taking everyone's guns" are born from ignorance of facts.

When a populace out of ignorance believes, for example, that nobody wants to take away all their weapons and subsequently act on that belief by electing to positions of power those who in fact do want to take away all their weapons, the unintended consequences of those actions are that the elected act contrarily to the will of the ignorant electorate because the electorate was not informed enough to understand who they were voting for and what that person believed.

Accusing me of being unwilling to see anything beyond a political lens is somewhat ridiculous considering I was responding to an inherently political statement.

Also, your attempt to change the subject of the discussion I commented on and challenge me on a different issue altogether is pointless as it does nothing to further the discussion, nor does it even attempt to refute my thesis that ignorance might in fact cause the demise of our nation.

I believe, therefore, your comment is, invalidated based upon the aforementioned criteria. If you desire to start a discussion about how ultimately it is rampant politicization that will destroy our country, be my guest. Do, however, understand that your asserted thesis has nothing to do with mine, and is therefore unacceptable as a challenge to my own.

For those of you that have commented that there was no need for her to have a high capacity MAGAZINE (NOT clip), she was lucky that there was only one intruder as she emptied her gun in him and he managed to get out of the house. Suppose there had been two or three? That is not uncommon in home invasions.

'Shoot him again!' husband tells wife hiding from home intruder.

And the point of the story is.....?

If you desire to start a discussion about how ultimately it is rampant politicization that will destroy our country, be my guest.

I don't really need to start anything .... one merely needs to read your comments for a perfect case-study into how stringent ideology and political paranoa stifles other areas of reason and logic.

Accusing me of being unwilling to see anything beyond a political lens is somewhat ridiculous considering I was responding to an inherently political statement.

Politics have varying degrees of "policy" that meld, mess, and transpose over varying degrees of philosophical thought. My point (for you) was that some people (insert yourself again) seem more interested in party affiliation, vs the relevance of their ideas at any given time.

I don't know that she really needs a high capacity clip as much as she needs to work on her aim a bit . And a .38 is fine low budget gun for one on one but I think a 9mm with multiple clips would be better if there is more than one invader though it does cost a bit more .

I think all guns should be sold with trigger locks , while that won't stop a pro thief from getting and using the gun it will prevent most of the my kid got a hold of my gun and killed someone kind of crap .

Hats off to this women and good shooting! Love that he asked her to stop, yeah just like I'm sure he would've stopped as he assulted her. Only thing that would've made it better is for this POS to be wearing a toe tag like he deserves. Prevent any scum lawyer from making a case and save the taxpayers money. I'm pretty easy going and have an open mind but break into my house and threaten my family I will do whatever it takes to ensure you will no longer be a threat. Which includes a slug and two rounds of buckshot from my shotgun and more if for some reason it came down to me needing to reload. Handgun is good but for close quarters facing down the hall, away from my children's room, (I've thought about it and planned out like you should) shotgun is perfect, with somewhat less chance of something going thru a wall or anything like that.

I agree there are issues that we need to address but the worthless do nothing emotioned fueled agenda driven proposal we keep reading about are nothing more, long but short on real substance.

Anyway glad to see this on here especially after that one sided BS article from earlier about violence and its worthless apples to oranges comparisons.

It is time to stop the nonsense and start working together America. We can do it if we choose, just need to ignore the fringe groups and start looking down the middle again.

Established case law states that since she was able to flee the situation her use of a gun is unlawful. The police would then arrive at some future time and file a report on the crime and, since no one was hurt, place the report on the inactive file. Probably the only reason that the police responded in just 7 minutes is that the crook was injured, if the woman or her children had been injured, the responce time would probably be half an hour or so.

Smitty-4183671

My point is : we need to relay on our own skills and tools to save our bacon when the S$%h hits the fan.

If 911 takes more than 30 seconds to arrive, they will arrive too late. I would like to know how many have died while talking to 911 dispatch trying to get help

.

I hope some day I can get my wife to look at guns as a necessary tool to help insure survival in a world that is become less civilized by the day. I own 3, all can be accessed and firing within seconds if needed, though not one is loaded. Pity the poor fool who tries to break into my home, IF I'm home.

nightwalker28

The best part about all of you people saying we just want to take away your assault rifles is that the type of firearm she used kills over 30 times more people than assault rifles do each year.

DOH!! That is the point where the gun control argument becomes completely illogical, and they resort to arguments such as "well, why do you need an assault rifle?" As if that is reason enough to ban something.

That is the same thing the English said about a bunch of poor peasants.

Did you take American History in school, Irish? The founding fathers were hardly poor peasants, and much of the fighting was done by professional military men.

What really pisses me off are captions like the one under the picture. "Allegedly"? This is the reason people who want to own guns for protection should always be allowed. Criminals have more rights than the rest of us. You broke into a house with a crow bar. Tracked the family around the house and broke through doors trying to get to them. @!$%# allegedly. Its too bad he didn't tell her to put at least one in the head.

I love the way liberals just make up stuff to support an untenable position. Jumpin' Joe himself contradicts your argument that Obummer doesn't want total gun bans. When Jumpin' Joe brings his recommendations, Obummer will try to get as many of them signed into law as possible. Then, as Jumpin' Joe himself pointed out, Obummer will take up his mighty pen in his mighty hand and smite the few legal weapons that we have left by using Executive Orders. You all need to go back and look at all the EOs from his first term and what freedoms he struck down by governing by fiat. It still amazes me that he got reelected.

no matter your opinion on guns it appears the lady did everything possible to avoid having to shoot this guy. what else was she suppose to do. i have no problem with reasonable gun laws. those to keep the guns out of the hands of crazy people or criminals. the problem with the gun debate is some want all guns wiped off the face of the earth which is never happening and some want everyone to have a machine gun with them when they go to the mall. seem like there is a reasonable middle ground

MSNBC...finally put out a story...worthy of reading after the trash they printed out this moring...

This seems to be an actual discussion, not everyone agrees but an exchange of thoughts that does end in a slur! I shall join. I HOPE EVERYONE READS

It should be fairly obvious how I feel about firearms. I'm no genius or Rhodes Scholar but I'd like to think I'm well read, reasonable and responsible. Like everyone else in here over the past few weeks I've either been asked or have read the same question over and over again. "Why do you need an assualt rilfe?" This question is generally followed up with some rhetoric about the 2nd amendment, push comes to shove and the fight ensues. Since Sandyhook I've put alot of thought into that very question, "Why do I NEED a gun, period?" The answer is I don't. I couldn't come up with one reason why I NEED a gun. The 2nd amendment and this story notwithstanding. Please note the word is NEED. Some it sounds logical when people draw the conclusion; people don't need guns. Guns are used in heinous crimes. Guns should be banned. The beauty of this argument is it has multiple applications.

I haven't had an alcoholic drink in a long while. I don't recall the last time I had any alcohol, at least a year. There's no virtuous reason for this, I'm not an alcoholic or been involved in any alcohol related incidents. I just haven't had any desire. Alcohol causes problems in society. DUIs are predominate, I don't know the exact stat but we all know it exists. There is a large number of deaths and severe injuries caused by DUIs, again I don't have a stat. High school and college student are involved in serious alchol related incidents (aside from DUIs) all too frequently. Remember the recent story about the college freshmen who was pledging a fraternity and consumed so much alchohol so quickly that his body just shut down and he died? I beleive his blood alcohol was somewhere in the .35 to .40 range, lethal to say the least. Would it surprise anyone if alchol was involved in the current Ohio rape case? Domestic violence is another by product of alcohol. Let's face it if anyone says they NEED alcohol they're basically admitting they have a problem. Applying the above argument because it seems logical; People don't need alcohol. Alcohol has been linked to a multitude of deaths, serious injuries and other avoidable incidents. Alcohol should be banned. I can feel peoples arguments formulating already. Did anyone say, " I don't drink and drive!"? Or "I drink responsibly."? If I just made you angry, you should be angry at me. I don't drink, it's my choice. Because I don't drink, I won't miss it much and it won't bother me if it's illegal. The reasonable, rational, and responsible people, who enjoy a drink from time to time, should be furious. Who am I to tell you what your rights you have or what you need? How is it fair to hold you accountable for the actions of the irresponsible? Kind of how I felt when Governor Caumo said," I own a shot gun. We aren't talking about shotguns. We're talking about High capacity assault rifles!" What I heard was, "We're not talking about me. We're talking about you." The NRA can STFU too. They do not speak for me. The gun show loop hole should have never existed in the first place. Firearms should never change hands without resonable certainty that the purchaser is elgible, responsible and safety profient. Unfortunately the law abiding folks will have to "suck it up" a bit. Remeber going to the airport after 9/11? You and I aren't terrorists, were just trying to get to where-ever. So why are we standing here in our socks and shorts with a telescope in our butt?

I don't think alcohol should be illegal any more than I think guns should. I advocate two things responsibility and accountability. When it comes to firearms everything falls back to the very first rule of safety, "Treat every firearm as if it were loaded." Education is so important not just guns but security and safety too. Everyone is all spooled up and most folks don't even know what they're looking. Schools are conducting drills where kids are hiding in closets etc. but I don't think the faculty is being instructed in any kind of practical, vigilant observation. I'm reminded of the Louis Black comedy skit when he talks about conducting nuclear bomb drills in school back in the late 50s and early 60s. Al the kids had to get under their desks because it was the signle safest place on the planet from a nuclear blast.

Incidently I don't charge for pistol instruction (you have to buy your own ammo though, I'm not Bill Gates here). Don't tell the NRA they might have an embolism (I think the "R" secretly stands for revenue instead of rifle)

m-guy

Just as an answer to your "can't resist the government with your AR-15 comment", I need you to look at the beginning of the current conflict in Syria. The rebels didn't fight the gov't with their personal weapons. They used their weapons to overwhelm gov't weapons depots and caches, then armed themselves from there. Know where your local National Guard armory is?

zapper45701

Just wondering, how can you shoot someone five times in the head (darned good shooting), and they still live?

Oh I don't know, maybe by being a hard-headed criminal?

Then there is the story NOT told in the national news of the young Hispanic man in San Antonio who went into a restaurant to kill his girlfriend, and as he texted her before entering the restaurant, "a lot of other people"; all the people ran into a theatre next door, and the off duty female cop cornered the guy and shot and wounded him, saving all the people there. Could have been another massacre, but wasn't thanks to her.

Too many stories like this don't get reported by the old liberal media, but they should.... and if so may change peoples perception of gun ownership!

This story is about a very brave woman protecting her children and a husband who taught her the basics of self defense! Kudos to both.... I hope my wife is just as prepared! And I firmly believe every American should know how to load and fire a gun!

NRA...is a good thing ...idiots...are are a bad thing...idiots with guns are a worse thing...a disarmed public without guns is the worser thing...

Please don't say all Democrats and Liberals want to take your guns away. I'm a registered Democrat and I fully believe in the 2nd amendment as well as this woman doing what she had to do to protect her family. She was well within her rights.

"Shoot him again, husband tells wife hiding from intruder"

NBCNews headline again skews the whole story. If you didn't read the story you would think the husband was a wacko! Just more distortion from a media that doesn't get it!

Because this woman did not use an assault rifle, us taxpayers will now pay for the intruder's medical care, jail facilities, food, lawyer, etc.

An extended clip would have saved taxpayers thousands of dollars.

Good point, JW101 but the liberals were never about saving money, only spending it..... and if liberals don't like guns, then they don't think anyone should have guns... that's the way libbies roll!

Chuck,

Full autos are not illegal. You need a background check, endorsement from a local law official, you need to buy a tax stamp, you have a waiting period, and you have to be willing to pay an absorbent price for the machinegun.

Knob Creek, Ky has a machinegun shoot/gun show evey year.

Homework for the LIBs: How many crimes have been committed with legally owned, fully automatic, machineguns in the past 30yrs?

oppie-1383989

Actually, a responsible gun owner should have only needed one bullet. Another example of someone owning a gun and not knowing how to use it well. High capacity clips allow people to feel safe when they don't have a clue how to fire with accuracy.

Actually, police officers are trained to shoot a full clip at suspects, so they don't miss. What the gun nuts here don't, or don't want to, understand is that most rational people feel as the President does- we need sane gun regulations and that this woman is a hero who we wouldn't want her to do anything different. And it is the paranoid hatred coming from the right that cost the Republican Party the last election. The right talks the garbage that I see them spew here and everyone realizes that they can not be trusted with a political office, let alone a machine-gun.

I guess I'll have to upgrade my 2 380's with hollow points with 2 40 cal. with hollow points. The bad guys must be so high on crack or meth there's just no stopping them within reason. Maybe I better buy that AR-15 or AK-47 with 30 round clips I've been looking at. Oh right, I already did! Thanks Obama and Biden for making me spend more of the money I no longer have on my right to NOT be a victim. And to think I've always been a good Dem...although I do lean far right when it comes to my ownership of guns. As a Veteran of this country, it makes me sick that these sissy (NON VET) politicians want to tell me I can't have the same gun I was trained on. Remember... there's only one way you will get my guns.

Where's Willie? Sailcat? Takeahikea? Bobcat got your tongue?

Rob Warner, how does stripping of your Constitution equate to "rational people"? That racist in the White House will use his executive powers to do just that... and YOU are ok with it???

"sane gun requlations"?? We have those now, just no one wants to admit it...

I'm ashamed of every demoncrat in the US... they've allowed a racist to be President, and now you're appaulding him of stripping our Constitiutional rights...

What happens when he'd done away with the 2nd Amendment, how long until the other go??

Lets all get something straight about the Second Amendment and gun ownership shall we:

1. The 2nd Amendment GUARANTEES that the Right to possesses firearms for a US citizen--it DOES NOT say if Washington or the UN allow it, it is an absolute Right and is an integral part of the Rights that are guaranteed in the US to all citizens.

2. Adams, Jefferson, Washington, etc. were no fools (like the clowns we have running things at the moment), they positively understood that firearms are the ONLY defense a US citizen has against the tyranny of the government.

3. The right you currently enjoy, i.e., to disagree with me is ONLY due to the Rights you have under OUR 1st Amendment--free speech. Which in turn is dependent upon the 2nd Amendment (to prevent some moron with a shiney suit and $500 shoes from making a proclamation--just like a real Roman Emperor--except now it's called a "presidential [sic] order" as if that gives it some legal authority which it DOES NOT have.

So, what actually is negotiable about the freedom to keep and bear arms, simple. Nothing.
Can you change it... you can try, but I would not recommend it.

************ THERE WILL NOT BE A GUN BAN OR GUN CONFISCATION OF ANY KIND ************

Politicos KNOW the Terrible Consequences of Either or Both. Guns And Weapons of CHOICE are manufactured AROUND THE PLANET Just WAITING to be SOLD to Anyone; Excellent Russian Ammunition is ALREADY Being Sold Across America. Ban and Confiscate ARMS Here?? And AND! AND!!! The Liquor flowed, FLOODED, into America DURING Prohibition. Illegal drugs are Injecting into America During This "War On Drugs" And WHAT Does ANYONE Think will happen with A Gun Ban/ Confiscation Attempt?????

If a DRUNKARD get behind the STEERING WHEEL of a CAR and kills someone, we blame the DRUNKARD.
If a LUNATIC/CRIMINAL gets behind the TRIGGER of a GUN and kills someone, we blame the GUN?!? 0_o

EVERYONE who understands the Second Amendment NEEDS to MUST get off of this board and CALL THEIR REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS and let them know where you stand. If Feinstein gets everything she wants, 80% of ALL guns currently out there will be CONFISCATED. And when you DO call them, keep the following in mind:

If Executive Orders have the same "weight" as law, we ALL MUST consider the following; (Let the reader and the current ACTING President PAY SPECIAL ATTENTION TO THE FINAL THREE PARAGRAPHS):

Unconstitutional Official Acts

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

SINCE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW IS VOID, THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES FOLLOW THAT IT IMPOSES NO DUTIES, CONFERS NO RIGHTS, CREATES NO OFFICE, BESTOWS NO POWER OR AUTHORITY ON ANYONE, AFFORDS NO PROTECTION, AND JUSTIFIES NO ACTS PERFORMED UNDER IT....

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

NO ONE IS BOUND TO OBEY AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND NO COURTS ARE BOUND TO ENFORCE IT.

Jon Roland: Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a "law", and should not be called a "law", even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it.

ALL CITIZENS AND LEGAL RESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES, BY THEIR PRESENCE ON THE TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES, ARE SUBJECT TO THE MILITIA DUTY, THE DUTY OF THE SOCIAL COMPACT THAT CREATES THE SOCIETY, WHICH REQUIRES THAT EACH , ALONE AND IN CONCERT WITH OTHERS, NOT ONLY OBEY THE CONSTITUTION AND CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICIAL ACTS, BUT HELP ENFORCE THEM, IF NECESSARY, AT THE RISK OF ONE'S LIFE.

ANY UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACT OF AN OFFICIAL WILL AT LEAST BE A VIOLATION OF THE OATH OF THAT OFFICIAL TO EXECUTE THE DUTIES OF HIS OFFICE, AND THEREFORE GROUNDS FOR HIS REMOVAL FROM OFFICE. NO OFFICIAL IMMUNITY OR PRIVILEGES OF RANK OR POSITION SURVIVE THE COMMISSION OF UNLAWFUL ACTS. IF IT VIOLATES THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS, IT IS ALSO LIKELY TO BE A CRIME, AND THE MILITIA DUTY OBLIGATES ANYONE AWARE OF SUCH A VIOLATION TO INVESTIGATE IT, GATHER EVIDENCE FOR A PROSECUTION, MAKE AN ARREST, AND IF NECESSARY, SEEK AN INDICTMENT FROM A GRAND JURY, AND IF ONE IS OBTAINED, PROSECUTE THE OFFENDER IN A COURT OF LAW.

Huge point to be made!

She ran out of bullets so if there had been another intruder in her house that she wasn't aware of she would have been in dire trouble.

An assault rifle or similar rifle/gun with a larger clip would have provided her with that extra capacity had she needed it.

I'm so happy that this lady and her kids are OK, she did a fantastic job considering the circumstances.

I think your arguments about keeping your guns to sway a tyrannical government from taking over are rather cute. Yes, yes ... that little pistol in your hand and that "assault" rifle strapped to your back will really come in handy against Abrams tanks, Black Hawk Helicopters, the MOAB, Drones, ballistic missiles, etc. You people are delusional ... now run along and play soldier in your back-wood swamps.

Why do you think the government would still have control of all those military forces? That certainly wasn't the case in the Civil War. It wasn't the case in the Revolutionary War. Many of us were in the military, or still are in the military. If ordered to turn on our mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters, many of us would refuse. We would turn our weapons on Washington instead. We took an oath to protect our nation for all enemies, foreign and domestic. We would hunt down the traitors who would sell out the American people's liberties.

NO ONE wants to BAN GUNS. Good grief, pro-gun people, why doesn't this fact sink in?

The reason it doesn't sink in is because those of us who are knowledgeable about firearms know that banning "assault weapons" ,i.e. military looking semi-automatic rifles, or their large capacity clips will do nothing to prevent the tragedies we are seeing all too often in our society. We are also aware that after the gun control crowd succeeds in banning this subset of firearms, these tragedies will continue, leading them to go after another category, and another after that.

I would argue that a rifle, semi-automatic or not isn't even the best choice of weapon for these indoor rampages. A pump shotgun would be more effective against a group confined inside a building, and a pair of handguns would be just as effective in close quarters and much easier to conceal. The only place where a semi-automatic rifle would be more effective is in an outdoor sniper situation, like the Texas Bell Tower, or DC Sniper incidents.

So us 2nd Amendment advocates are faced with a group that seems to be acting irrationally. The only way their apparently "knee jerk reaction" of banning "assault rifles" seems rational to us is if it is only the first step in a long term effort to ban all repeating firearms, if not all firearms entirely. Because that is the only way to stop crazy, evil people from using firearms to commit mayhem.

I suppose that if I really believed that it would stop these events from occurring, I would support banning private ownership of guns myself, but it wouldn't. Look at what killed most of our soldiers in Iraq, improvised (homemade) explosive devices. They are just as effective as firearms for indiscriminate killing and can be constructed from commonly available materials. They are not that difficult to build, but if you couldn't figure it out, imagine how much carnage you could cause in a confined group with a five gallon can of gasoline and a Bic lighter.

So if we seem to be reacting irrationally, it is because we are faced with an opponent who appears to be either irrational or slyly working towards a hidden agenda.

Why do we need high capacity magazines?

Because we don't want to die for lack of being able to shoot back.

This courageous woman did what she had to do, never underestimate what a mother will do to protect her children. Unfortunately, she ran out of ammunition before the job was finished. Had there been more than one assailant she would just be another statistic.

Ok morons, no one is talking about banning hand guns like this .38. The discussion is about enforcing back ground checks for anyone purchasing a gun, banning assault rifles and high capacity magazines. But I guess you have to have over a 3rd grade reading level to get that.

Great comment Chad. I totally agree. People need to realize that the goal of the Constitution was to create a more perfect Union. Not just at its inception, but also over time. That is, it is our intent to continue making the Union more perfect than it was yesterday. To do this, the best part of the Constitution was written: OUR ABILITY TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION IN ORDER TO ADAPT TO THE TIMES AND IMPROVE THE NATION AS WE STRIVE TO MAKE A MORE PERFECT UNION. In other words, the beauty of the Constitution as it was written is our ability to change it. It was not set in stone because the signers at the time understood that things change over time and nothing was going to be set up perfectly the first time.

I believe we need to repeal the second Amendment and replace it with another one that makes more sense. The idea that guns are needed for a militia has become a joke since the Civil War. We can ratify an Amendment that would repeal the second Amendment and make it legal for private citizens to own, purchase, sell, and possess civilian grade weaponry for the purposes of protecting one's self, and any other persons on their property from threatening intruders, wild game hunting in authorized or designated hunting areas, in connection with requirements for employment as directed by their employer. All persons must undergo a background check and weapon safety course and psychological evaluation prior to acquiring any firearms. All firearms should be registered with the local authority. The federal government should be able to regulate gun manufacturers so that military grade weaponry can only be sold to the military. People should also be required to shoot a hundred rounds at a gun range as part of a gun safety course. Every county should have a gun range that is run by the county or state police that is available for the general public.

There are all sorts of things you could add on such as use for sport and competition. It won't solve all the issues with gun violence, but it will settle the stupid second amendment arguments.

"Why do we need high capacity magazines?"

We don't.

"Because we don't want to die for lack of being able to shoot back."

You don't need a high capacity mag to shoot back. If you are not a cop or in the military you have no business engaging in a shoot out. Do what you have to to incapacitate an intruder, get out, and wait for the cops to show up and do THEIR job. (And by "get out", that means get your kids out, too. I shouldn't have to state that but given the bricks out there...)

"This courageous woman did what she had to do"

What she did was not courageous nor does it make her courageous. Too many people have such low standards for what is courageous. What she did was done out of desperation. I would have given her a bit more credit if she wold have confronted the intruder immediately after she got the gun out.

"never underestimate what a mother will do to protect her children"

What's that all about? Just some random comment? Many women would not have dealt with the situation as well. That doesn't make her courageous. It makes the others cowards.

"Unfortunately, she ran out of ammunition before the job was finished"

The intruder was incapacitated. The "job" WAS finished. She was not an executioner or murderer. Murder is wrong."

Had there been more than one assailant she would just be another statistic."

She was still a statistic, just not a dead one. Had there been four intruders it wouldn't matter what she had, if they had the same she most likely would be dead.

If you need 50 rounds to stop an intruder, you need to take your ass to a shooting range more often before you accidentally kill your kids. If you close your eyes and just start blasting away, you shouldn't have access to any guns.

All I heard over the last several weeks is "if we can save at least one life isn't it worth it?". The answer is: Yes it IS worth it. How did this woman save 3 lives? With a gun.

Gun control defined:

The theory that people who are willing to ignore laws against rape, torture, kidnapping, theft and murder will obey a law which prohibits them from owning a firearm.

Cynisturb

I believe we need to repeal the second Amendment and replace it with another one that makes more sense

You appear to have a handle on the constitution, based on your post above. All I will say is GOOD LUCK on changing the 2nd or for that matter any for the Bill of Rights. Those first 10 are not only in the US Constitution but also in MANY state constitutions as well. As for the 2nd... you need congress to pass legislation to repeal/replace it then you need 2/3 of the states to ratify that change.. I believe the record is 18 MONTHS from congress to ratification and it was on a less hot button issue. With 48%, and rising, of all households owning at least one legal firearm it just isn't going to happen in the next 6 generations.

Log me in as one vote for repealling the 2nd Amendment AND the 3rd Amendment. These are really useless rights and don't belong in the Bill of Rights or US Constitution.

JOIN THE NATIONAL ARCHERY ASSOCIATION

"The reason it doesn't sink in is because those of us who are knowledgeable about firearms know that banning "assault weapons" ,i.e. military looking semi-automatic rifles, or their large capacity clips will do nothing to prevent the tragedies we are seeing all too often in our society."

I am knowledgeable about firearms. I was in the military. I believe banning military grade weapons (assault rifles) and high capacity magazines WILL DO SOMETHING to prevent mass shootings. It would at least reduce the body count. If you are going to assert otherwise, then give a valid reason why and perhaps, let's say, something called evidence to justify your position instead of gun-nut rhetoric and slippery slope arguments.

"We are also aware that after the gun control crowd succeeds in banning this subset of firearms, these tragedies will continue"

Unfounded assertion.

"leading them to go after another category, and another after that."

Paranoid delusion framed in a slippery slope argument.

"I would argue that a rifle, semi-automatic or not isn't even the best choice of weapon for these indoor rampages."

That's why people who go on shooting sprees or want to engage in other illegal activity prefer rapid fire weapons with high capacity magazines.

"A pump shotgun would be more effective against a group confined inside a building, and a pair of handguns would be just as effective in close quarters and much easier to conceal."

And people use those for those reasons, as well. Of course they like using the high capacity magazines, too. I would if I was going to do something like that.

"The only place where a semi-automatic rifle would be more effective is in an outdoor sniper situation, like the Texas Bell Tower, or DC Sniper incidents."

OK, so...?

"So us 2nd Amendment advocates are faced with a group that seems to be acting irrationally."

You are faced with two groups. The other group goes on shooting sprees.

"The only way their apparently "knee jerk reaction" of banning "assault rifles" seems rational to us is if it is only the first step in a long term effort to ban all repeating firearms, if not all firearms entirely."

That's the problem. That's the only way it seems rational to YOU. And your response is another "knee jerk reaction" by claiming "From my cold, dead hands" or "Hell no! The answer is MORE and BIGGER guns for EVERYBODY".

"Because that is the only way to stop crazy, evil people from using firearms to commit mayhem."

No it isn't. Mental Health facilities were defunded by the conservatives. There are plenty of ways to mitigate gun violence without taking away all the guns. Part of the problem is illegal guns and those who obtain guns illegally. But too few of you are even willing to discuss that. Anything that would help, you are against, mostly before you even hear us out. The idea that guns will keep the government in check is a joke. I do not support the second amendment but I do support reasonable gun ownership. If gun manufacturers didn't sell assault weapons to anyone except the military, we wouldn't have assault weapons in the hands of maniacs on the street.

"I suppose that if I really believed that it would stop these events from occurring, I would support banning private ownership of guns myself, but it wouldn't. Look at what killed most of our soldiers in Iraq, improvised (homemade) explosive devices. They are just as effective as firearms for indiscriminate killing and can be constructed from commonly available materials. They are not that difficult to build, but if you couldn't figure it out, imagine how much carnage you could cause in a confined group with a five gallon can of gasoline and a Bic lighter."

Yeah but we don't really have a problem with IED's in schools or theaters. Notice how people don't go on shooting sprees with crossbows or spears. Notice how death tolls dropped when Tommy guns were banned.

"So if we seem to be reacting irrationally, it is because we are faced with an opponent who appears to be either irrational or slyly working towards a hidden agenda."

If there is an agenda, it isn't hidden. Unlike effective bans on abortion, which actually IS an agenda by conservatives.

"You appear to have a handle on the constitution, based on your post above. All I will say is GOOD LUCK on changing the 2nd or for that matter any for the Bill of Rights."

I wasn't commenting on how realistic it was. Personally I would rather work on getting money out of politics first, which is a monumental undertaking itself.

"Those first 10 are not only in the US Constitution but also in MANY state constitutions as well."

Irrelevant. The US Constitution trumps EVERY State Constitution.

"As for the 2nd... you need congress to pass legislation to repeal/replace it then you need 2/3 of the states to ratify that change."

Congress can be bypassed by 2/3rds of the states holding a national convention. It's never been done, but it can be.

"I believe the record is 18 MONTHS from congress to ratification and it was on a less hot button issue."

Amendments 1-10 ratified in 811 days

Amendment 11 ratified in 340 days

Amendment 12 ratified in 189 days

Amendment 13 ratified in 309 days

Amendment 14 ratified in 757 days

Amendment 15 ratified in 342 days

Amendment 16 ratified in 1302 days

Amendment 17 ratified in 330 days

Amendment 18 ratified in 394 days

Amendment 19 ratified in 441 days

Amendment 20 ratified in 327 days

Amendment 21 ratified in 288 days

Amendment 22 ratified in 1439 days

Amendment 23 ratified in 285 days

Amendment 24 ratified in 514 days

Amendment 25 ratified in 584 days

Amendment 26 ratified in 100 days

Amendment 27 ratified in 74003 days

Shortest (100 days, lowering voting age to 18) and longest (74003 days, restricting raises in congressional pay) were the last two

Average (not counting the 27th amendment) is 617 days (20 months)

So it is not worth it? Not plausible? I don't get your point.

"With 48%, and rising, of all households owning at least one legal firearm it just isn't going to happen in the next 6 generations."

So we shouldn't even try? We should just accept frequent mass shootings as life in America? So let's not do anything about it?

"All I heard over the last several weeks is "if we can save at least one life isn't it worth it?". The answer is: Yes it IS worth it. How did this woman save 3 lives? With a gun."

31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007. 17,352 of those were suicide deaths, and 12,632 were homicide deaths. That beats your 3.

You still should not be able to tell me I can't have an AR 15 or AK 47 just because you people think they are an "assault" rifle. Anything can be call an "assault" something if you assault someone with it!!! Assault fists, assault hammer, assault bat, assault CAR, assault knife, assault rope, assault pen1s, assault frying pan! These guns are not called "assault" weapons except by the media. That is NOT their names! If you assault someone with it then its an assault weapon. To anyone that likes guns they are just another cool gun! Thats like me telling you that you cannot drive a car that goes over 60 mph because thats not needed.

Minor difference: their weaponry was similar, both had muskets, horses, bayonets. The English did not have surveillance equipment capable of monitoring almost all communication. They did not control the skies with aircraft. They did not have armored transportation that completely protected them while allowing them to fire on the opposition. They did not have robotic machines that would fly the skies and take out an entire regiment, while they sat safely in their base.

Trying to compare that period in history, with where we are now, is completely ridiculous.

The Syrian government had all of those same advantages in the begining of their little civil dust up, yet things aren't working out so well for them now. Libya?

Cynisturb

So we shouldn't even try? We should just accept frequent mass shootings as life in America? So let's not do anything about it?

I am stating that everyone should PICK their battles. Attempting to change the 2nd amendment at this time would be stupid... or are you from CO/CA where they keep placing the same issue on the ballot time after time until it squeaks by simply because people tire of hearing about it?

31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007. 17,352 of those were suicide deaths, and 12,632 were homicide deaths. That beats your 3.

LOVE LOVE LOVE how the anti gun types consistently throw in suicides as part of the gun debate. MOST of those completions would find other ways to kill themselves. I would also suggest that few if any of those suicides used a so called assault weapon.

You also fail to note that the number of firearm deaths continues to DECLINE year after year, and actually decreased quicker after the assault weapons ban expired, as more firearms are owned legally by society in general.

Before we create more laws that the government chooses to IGNORE how about we enforce what is already there. Before you ERODE the constitution of a basic right lets be certain that won't be the beginning of the end of all rights as we know them now.

Irrelevant. The US Constitution trumps EVERY State Constitution.

LOL NOT irrelevant. The fact that at least HALF of state constitutions have a citizens right to bear arms clause/section shows that the 2/3 requirements won't be met. http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm You would have to convince those states to change THEIR constitutions before you could even HOPE to get the 2nd modified or repealed. Again that goes back to pick and choose your battles.

Why does every one keep saying she missed him? I have a Taurus .357 (it also fires .38 rounds) it only holds five rounds, I read the article twice and no where in it does it say the revolver held six rounds.

This story is the perfect expample of why we should have the right to own guns, to protect our children, our family, our homes and ourselves! Guns scare me and they should. They are deadly weapons. A gun should NEVER be pointed at another person unless the person holding the gun intends to shoot the person it's being aimed at. And if someone comes after my children or myself, I would hope to be focused enough to be able to put a bullet in them and keep pulling the trigger, and hopefully hitting my target, until all bullets are gone and the attacker is seriously wounded to the point to where my children and myself could get away safely. just as this woman did. And if I had my husband on the phone while it was happening, he would also tell me to shoot him, to UNLOAD on him!

We have several handguns, a couple of rifles, and a pellet gun. I live with a hunter who was raised around guns and who is very educated on firearms and the safety of. They are kept safely away from our children, but when our two daughters are old enough and mature enough, they will be taught how to handle these weapons safely and effectively. I hope both of my daughters choose to own guns when they are adults for their own protection. Whether they choose to or not, they will know how to handle a gun and how to handle it safely.

I think that it should be mandatory for anyone who owns or purchases a gun to have to take gun safety classes. To be certified in the proper use and safety of firearms. Why would anyone want a gun and not want to learn how to use one effectively and safely? That's just ignorance IMO.

As long as there is good in the world, there will be evil. Killers will kill, whether it's with bullets or whatever. I would rather be prepared to defend my family and myself if someone were to choose us as a target. I would not be able to live with myself if harm came to my kids or my husband and I wasn't able to do anything to stop it because I chose NOT to own a gun.

And PISTOL INSTRUCTOR, I understand what you said completely, and I feel exactly the same as you when it comes to alcohol.

oppie - What a load of excrement. Anyone that has had to defend their life or the life of others in a situation like that does not take the time to carefully aim and make sure they only use one round. Even the police will tell you that what you see on the movie or TV screen is made up. When the adrenaline is pumping and you are in fear for your/others lives, you can not rely on one round. You shoot and keep shooting till the person stops moving. There are even several instances of Law Enforcement Officers emptying their guns at a bad guy and not hitting once.

The Dems want our guns...

Oh really? When has this every been stated by anyone?

I have a couple of things:

1) From the report I read only one round was in the head. Still godd shooting.

2)

I am knowledgeable about firearms. I was in the military. I believe banning military grade weapons (assault rifles) and high capacity magazines WILL DO SOMETHING to prevent mass shootings. It would at least reduce the body count. If you are going to assert otherwise, then give a valid reason why and perhaps, let's say, something called evidence to justify your position instead of gun-nut rhetoric and slippery slope arguments.

Just because you were in the military doesn't make you an expert and Clinton's ban didn't do anything according to the FBI. Remember Columbine? Refresh my memory, didn't that take place during the assualt weapons ban? It can't be!!! And what did slick willey (President "I lied under oath" Clinton) do? Initiated the COPS program to place police in schools. More guns in school. Nobody complained.

3) This isn't tv folks. The badguy doesn't fall down after being shot once.

Finally my wife, after reading about the Georgia shooting, wants me to teach her to shoot.

So glad this woman was strong enough to shoot and keep shooting, as well as thinking fast to protect herself and those kids. We all know what this waste of flesh thug would've done to her and the kids in only another minute. Good that the husband was on the phone for support.

For any decent, law-abiding person considering moving to Atlanta, don't. Just don't. This is what the entire Atlanta area has devolved into over the past decade ... wherever you go, it is wall to wall crime, kidnappings, carjackings, murder, rape, burglaries, gangs and drug - and lots of it. The cops in all the surrounding counties can't keep up. There's also a lot of fraud and corruption up and down the various local city and county governments. Individual citizens know they are pretty much on their own and understand shoot to kill is their only option. Only wish one of those bullets had finished this one off. They need to get some hollow points.

The National Rifle Association tweeted a link about the shooting, apparently using it as an example of responsible gun ownership.

THAT is the difference. The overwhelming majority of people that are for "gun control" want "responsible gun ownership." The majority does not want to take away your guns, as the NRA likes to make people believe. They want "responsible gun ownership." THAT is what needs to be addressed without the rhetoric from the extreme of either side. And have a reasonable definition of assault weapons. Allowing a manufacturer to change a color or grip should not make an otherwise restricted weapon unrestricted, which happened in the last real attempt at reasonable gun control, the Assault Weapons Ban.

She did not need 100 rounds as some previously have intelligently suggested. She did not need an assault rifle or a .50 cal either. She had a handgun she knew how to use and she used it properly.

I AM for gun control. I am not for taking handguns away from responsible adults. I AM against assault weapons and 30 round pistol mags. I am not for 10 round mags. I prefer the limit to be 15.

scubagolf, do you own a speargun for fishing, she could have used instead and drug that son of bitch around the house several times., jajajajaj

This only proves that one doesn't need assault weapons to protect them in all situations.

I think I finally understand the position of the two sides in the 'gun rights' battle.

Side A says the intruder should be shot until dead. Shoot to kill.

Side B says the lady protected her self and children.' Shoot to defend/protect.

scuba: You must, at least in a comparative sense, have an advanced degree in reason. Thanks for posting.

Newtown kids were killed with pistols, not the assalt rifle, it wasn't used. The killer had no need for it, so why do you want to get rid of it? What point do you think you are making except maybe relieving your dislike for the NRA and conservatism. If you want to make a difference, try some logic that actually addresses the issue. 12,000 people killed yearly with handguns, 1200 with fists, 600 with clubs and hammers, 358 with anykind...repeat...anykind of rifle. People like to blow themselves up in the mid-east and take 20 or 40 people with them, terrible.

When my daughter got her driver's license, I bought her a pistol and taught her how to use it. There were no guarantees but at least, I gave her a chance.

When will these gun control folks understand that the right to bear arms is about Americans being able to defend themselves from tyranny domestic and abroad???? Do you think that an attack on Americans will made with handguns and 10 rounds of ammo? If that is the case then the threat will just wait until we are out of ammo or shoot us from far away. I for one would be happy if everyone in my town had 100s of rounds of ammo and several guns. I do not fear my neighbors. An unarmed population will very easy to overthrow.

Bonneville Guy. Thanks for pointing out what the idiots on this page, and the damnable lying media would have held from the rest of us. ONLY pistols were used in the Newtown shooting, so the lying sob's are doing NOTHING to help prevent a Newtown type event!!!!!!!!!! They are just once again trying to pass an agenda they have held for years and will always keep trying!!!!!!!!

And that is to start with something that LOOKS sleek and evil and progress down to the point where every gun of every kind is removed from our hands!!!!!!!!!! Just start small and progress to the end game slowly, so that no one notices till it toooooooooooooo late!

First they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did nothing. Then they came for the Gypsies, but I was not a Gypsie so I did nothing!!! Then they came for the Christians, but I was not a Christian so I did nothing!!!!!!!!!! Then they came for me, but there was no one left to help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is why the NRA will never, and should not ever give an inch!!!!!! If they ever do it will be the start of step 2, 3, 4 and then will start on swords. Just like Australia!!!!!!!!!!

As for the beginner of this aurgument started. The woman shot and killed the intruder with a handgun so why should we argue about keeping assault weapons????????????

What if had been two or three men who had shotguns, assault weapons or uzis(which is a popular drug gang weapon). Do you think she would have had a chance to save her children being so out gunned? I think not!!!!!!!!

However, the real reason behind the second admendment is not home safety!!!! It is safety from an intolerable government!!!!!!!!!

One of the first modern governments to ban citizens having weapons was Nazi Germany..... And we all know why THEY wanted no guns!!!!!!!! Do you think 13 million innocent people would have gone to the concentration camps if they could have shot the SS who came for them??????????

As a final note. If these people get that far and guns are banned will we then get the further laws like England has where a man WILL go to jail for shutting an intruder????? Happened in England even though the person shot was a convicted rapist who got early parole!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Allright Willbfree, 67 Bonneville - you realize that the AR-15 is not a pistol, right? I hope this goes to show that responsible gun ownership can be a lifesaver. However, high capacity clips and assault-style rifles are not necessary. Perhaps if this scumbag had brought along a few hundred of his best friends to carry out the attack it would make sense, but she had the right weapon to defend herself. To all the people on this board yelling see! see! Gun Control Bad! Just think, does this case really help the proposed assault weapons ban and ban on high-capacity clips?

OK, for those who are grossly ignorant about firearms, a "clip" and a "magazine" are not the same.

1. In modern semi-automatic firearms they are mostly magazines.
2. One example of a "clip" is that device used in the M1 Garand.

It is disconcerting to see people arguing for or against something they know very little about.

Example: Feinstein said, indicating the depth of her research on the issue, on Dec. 21st that she had personally looked at pictures of guns in 1993, and again in 2012.

And Mark proper training is you defend yourself and shoot to kill...So there's a side C....

inMyday, apologies, magazine. It's 2:45... little sleepy. Either way, since she had a 6-shot .38 revolver, arguing the high-capacity argument wouldn't apply to this situation, anyways... I can't recall any high-capacity revolvers anytime lately, just quick-change loaders.

Who gets to decide who is "responsible" and who is not? Obummer? A Federal weaponry commission? Who?

I would like to buy her the next round, Another set of rounds to reload her gun. Glad to hear the family is ok. Great job Melinda.

67 Bonneville Guy you are a total moron

According to the state's chief medical examiner, H. Wayne Carver, many of the victims were shot multiple times with the same "long weapon"—the Bushmaster rifle

Candiotti, Susan; Yan, Holly (December 16, 2012). "Connecticut school shooting: Latest developments". CNN. Retrieved December 16, 2012. "Carver, who performed autopsies on seven of the victims, said the wounds he knew about were caused by a "long weapon" and that the rifle was the primary weapon used."

"Newtown Shooter Used a Rifle Popular Among Gunowners". The New York Times. Retrieved December 16, 2012.

Sad to say, lots of people have had to die for our rights. Human rights have not been won cheaply. Not one of them has been wasted.

The point is the intruder DIDN"T have a GUN! What would have happened if he had an assault rifle (the right tool for home invasion BTW). Gun ownership for responsible people is useless if you have to arm up for an attack from an assault rifle!
If the proliferation of guns gets much worse you can say goodby to the four word phrase "hand over the money" too be replace with the sound of gun fire.

This was a brave woman who had just the right weapon to save herself and her children. So many pea-brained gun advocates are going around shouting that Obama wants to take our guns. Stop being a**holes! No one wants to take your guns, you idiots! Get a clue for Pete's sake! If you had a brain that wasn't up your anus you would understand that having a gun for self defense is just fine with almost everyone in this country. It's the mentally deranged who think it should be all right to buy a bazooka just because the second amendment says they have the 'right to bear arms'.

It is this unreasonable stupidity on the part of a majority, yes I say, a majority of gun owners that is adding to the violence and murder in our streets. I've yet to meet a single one of these responsible law-abiding people who want to swagger around with military hardware, and ammunition belts slung over their shoulder.

Wake up you idiots! When a person uses an appropriate weapon to defend themselves it is not proof that carrying AK47's is going to make anyone safer, even you. Nobody wants to take your guns away so murderers and rapists can defile your families. That's just stupid nonsense from responsible law abiding idiots.

IWonder-932455
except for the dumb asses that can read the 2nd amendment

Responsible gun owners can own & use firearms of most any type as a hobby, sport, etc...this includes handguns & "assault" rifles in my opinion.

As for the ridiculous notion you can "ban" something and protect everyone as intended, I offer this: What is really desired to be banned, is bad behavior. There are already laws against things like murder. Does that stop bad behaviors from occurring? No, you can't really regulate bad behavior. You can only offer deterrents and consequences, not actual prevention. Police can't protect you through prevention. They can only respond after the fact or act as a deterent, much like in the opening article where this woman had to defend herself while police were en route. Lastly, looking at banning of drugs or the days of prohibition...how did those work out for keeping those things off the streets and criminal elements from carrying out bad behaviors?? Common sense folks!

fyte 4 justice

The outcome might even been worse for her if Had had a long gun. The right tool is a revolver safe and maneuverable and when the bad guy takes it from you he can't shoot you 470 times

DocJ the independent

What? Your argument is so ridiculous its scary. That's the kind of logic that has caused the problem! Just aa an a exercise why don't you try and take a shot at debunking you ideas before you post!

The alleged intruder, identified as Paul Slater, 32, of Atlanta, was shot five times. He remained at a hospital.

There's proof positive that woman was a straight shooter!

Good for her, and good for their entire family!

Why the guy didn't leave when he figured out someone was home is just crazy. You have to assume he would have hurt someone, or everybody, in that family, if she didn't have that gun.

i like this story...38 a spin'n woman winds up win'n...got that boom.boom.boom...boom.boom.pow...

What kind of a lunatic breaks through multiple locked doors to get at a woman and her children? If he is a burglar, what does he want with her children?

And he pleaded for her to stop. Good! I'm glad he's still alive, too. I want to see this f*cker in court. I want to see what kind of a "man" goes after a woman and her kids when he could have just grabbed their stuff and left.

And littlechanges, unfortunately I agree with you. I don't visiting Atlanta. Not at all.

I for one am glade she didn't kill him... I can wait for him to go to prison so he can tell the story!

wonder if pierce morgan will lead with this gun story tonight? nahhhh!

pierce...LOL...who the heck would watch...the wus wonder of the world...

Too bad she couldn't have reloaded and finished what she started. Now, if he survives his wounds, the taxpayers will be saddled with supporting his poor excuse for a human being's a$$ for the rest of his life or if the prosecution wants to cut a deal, for political or financial reasons, the next 5 to 15 years with time off for good behavior after which he'll get out and do it again. See him in court? See him planted in the ground. Put him out of the Human race's misery. C'est la vie.

Personally, I always preferred a 20 ga. pump, racking the shell into the chamber is enough warning that I'm serious & I don't have to be very close or have perfect aim...just saying!

Lots of astronomers are looking for more worlds.

How many worlds are there, anyway?

Well, let's see, there is the man's world, where for many of us, it's every man for himself.

There is the idealist's world where humans are some kind of angelic, noble creatures.

There is the woman's world where, la la lala la, I can take any chance that I want to and nothing bad will happen to me.

And then there is the real world, where, physically she does not have a chance and few humans are angelic. She'll buy a lottery ticket, when she's a thousand times more likely to get abused and raped.

That is one of the scariest sounds on the planet. To all you gun grabbers; The right to keep, and bear arms does not have to do with any type of weapon, or hunting. A 10/22 Marlin works just the same as an AR15 in .22 caliber. One looks like a great gun to teach kids respect for firearms, and the other looks like a great gun to teach kids respect for firearms. See the difference? Same gun, different looks. Get over it, because we won't!

There could just as easily have been 2 or 3 intruders and most likely a six shot revolver wouldn't have been fast enough to take out all three intruders... But, a semi-automatic with a clip of 15 rounds or more would give a innocent victim a chance for survival.

She only shot him 5 times out of 6 in the head at close range, and he STILL lived. HAD THERE BEEN ONE MORE ATTACKER SHE COULD HAVE USED MORE THEN 10 BULLETS, OR A BIGGER GUN. WTF do you not understand? To say "if there was two or more she would have died anyway" is B.S. Give her my 17 round 9mm with +P hollowpoints or my semi-automatic .223 rilfe and she could have defended herself against multiple non-gun armed attackers (even some armed ones too).

Arms, shoulders, clothing, body type, and size never have anything to do with how a bullet behaves huh? Every shot is not the ideal head on/straight shot either and you bullet might need to penetrate more then the "minimum" or "average". Slow/weak bullets can actually bounce or slide off the skull non penetrating it because of how thick the bone is. I have heard of many .22 LR handguns not penetrating the forehead at point blank range for example.

Rifles are "easier" to aim at almost any distance and handle recoil better. Meaning you can more accurately and quickly put rounds into your target. Meaning more bullets into the bad guys, less missed shots, and less innocent people killed. WTF is the purpose of a dull knife, how useful of a tool is it?

I cannot hunt with a handgun in many cases simply due to the distances and be "sporting". I only paid $100 more for my semi-automatic rifle then I did for my handgun. I would have to buy a "hunting" rifle for another $300-$500 to get a decent one, but I am not "into" hunting. I would be into hunting if the food supply dried up however. If I only have the money for one gun why not get a semi-automatic rifle or a shotgun (range limited just like handguns unless you know the distance to the target).

100 bullets equals 100 deer, 100 cows, 100 bear, etc. and if the food supply dries up what is going to happen to the bullet supply btw? Natural disasters never happen and revolutions never happen either huh?

Not all criminals have or use guns either since they need money to "buy" them (not cheap), or they need to "steal" them. The moron in NY that owns shotguns (which kill more people then rifles on average each year) wants to confiscate semi-automatic rifles...

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

Good for her! It's just too bad she didn't get a head shot.

You can always tell the people that just regurgitate what they hear in the media about firearms. They use words like assault weapons, and assault rifles(which have been illegal, without a special stamp from the ATF, since the 1930's..Automatic, burst, etc.). They repeat what they hear, without truly knowing what they are talking about...They are a flock of Sheeple. Willing to believe, and do what they are told because its easier then thinking for themselves.

She should have pumped 10 more rounds in to the filthy animal

Liberal to Police Officer,

Officer arrest that gun, it shot those people.

They never blame the loose nut behind the wheel or the trigger. Are cars a weapon, ask the person who got run over, my driving instructor used to say a car is 3000 lbs. of dynomite waiting to go off.

The only thing that prevented Japan from invading the west coast was the number of guns that the people had.

Do I like guns? No

Do I own a gun? No

Do I like the NRA? No

Did I ever shoot a human being? Yes

Do I think weapons are needed? Yes

Do I trust our government? No

Do I believe in the 2nd Amendment? Yes

Is there anyway to stop the horrible killings? No

Why? Because there are lot of loose nuts behind the triggers, take away the guns, all you did was increase the price on the black market for the gun dealers who will sell weapons to anyone with money. SOS only the bad guys will have guns.

Will I ever own a gun? soon as the government says I can't own one. WHY? because I don't trust the people in our government who has spent from 17 trillion to 19 trillion of our money, and are thinking of increasing our taxes. In other words Taxation with Representation is worse then Taxation without Representation.

Whose fault? Ours, when my city has 47000 people and only 7000 voted, How about yours?

Why don't we do something? because of fear from our government, back in the old days the people would have communicated with each other, formed a plan, bought Tar and Feather's and ran the crooked, greedy politicians out of town after tar and feathering them. Today people say it is what it is, and I alone can't do anything about it.

Is the Mayor of your town untouchable? Does he have his own special police body guard? Does he listen at the town hall meetings?

Weapons - used them but don't like them, give them up -- No. Look around you are you afraid to go out at night?

Do you have bars on your windows? 12 foot high fences with barbed wire at the top to keep you safe in your yard or your apartment parking lot complex?

Normandy invasion - 52000 war fighters.

American invasion of illegal immigrants -- 10.5 million to 20 million

Poor illegal immigrants - cost us 371 billion, bring in discease, sickness, etc.

Our government would love weapon laws, remember the rich don't care about human life or luxeries, all you are is a pawn in their game, something to be used to make them money, don't believe it Wally Cart has 5 people in the top ten richest people in the world, all averaging from 15 to 25 billion. Yet they still pay their employee's 7 to 19 dollars an hour.

If you don't get the point, then look around you with open eyes.

AND YEA I just bought my wife (as I am not there 3-4 days out of the week) what is considered an Assault Rifle to defend her self and my 2 sons (she can shoot) if one of these Animals or School Shooting Children Psychopaths attacks

IWonder-932455

I think you need to read some American history (and not some propaganda piece from FOX News). The Constitution clearly states the one and only reason for citizen gun ownership, that being to form and maintain a "well regulated militia" to protect a young nation from invasion ("the security of a free state"). The Constitution itself was the mechanism for controlling an oppressive government, with checks and balances, free elections, and certain defined elements proclaimed inviolable rights being restricted from government intervention. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." -the First, and MOST IMPORTANT, Amendment.

smerf

I certainly get your point, you racist lunatic.

To John and all those who said Melinda had the right weapon for the job. What if there had been more than one intruder and with guns instead of a crowbar. Would five rounds have been enough to save the wife and kids?

I am a gun rights supporter who knows the intent of the second amendment was to guarantee the people their liberty in the face of tyranny, but sometimes I wonder if there really is a need for magazines to hold more than fifteen rounds

Idiots still think gun control means they are taking all your guns. I have yet to see a single person say they want them all out of your hands.

Gun CONTROL, not

Gun seizure

Gun forfeiture

Gun surrender

They are asking for a measure of control over what is available. If this lady had an assault rifle and 30 round mag, the guy would have been dead (yay!) and half of that magazine would have made holes in the walls of her neighbors house and who knows where else.

Keep you hand guns, keep your shotguns, keep your rifles. But what you don't need for home defense is a spray and pray weapon.

iwonder: Define 'liberal'. See Webster/Encarta.

Leading Gun Advocate Killed By Gunshot To The Head | Addicting Info.... goes both ways and most of us are not talking about denying gun ownership - just greater regulation. Hello?

I'm a gun owner, FYI. Difference is I can pass a background check in the toughest state in the union. Why are GOP afraid of this???

Also, why donesn't the neocon braintrust here think about the implications of reading this article on liberal MSN.com. Now, show me an anti-gun article of equal weight on FauxNews.

HMMMMMMMMMMMMM
LOL

You see, what some people don't understand is that gun control doesn't take away your right to own a gun, or use one for self defense. I am for gun control, but I support stuff like this. I am glad this family had a gun and used it to defend themselves from the intruder. What people don't understand, is that most people for gun control actually support the second amendment and right to own guns.

I have always maintained that the perfect weapons for home self defense are either a shotgun or a 9 mm handgun. If you can't get them with that, then chances are you aren't gonna survive the encounter anyway. Now there is certainly room for variation on that, and by no means am I saying we should only be able to be allowed to own those kinds of guns.

However, my point here is that anyone who says they need their 44 magnum or their assault weapon for self defense is full of it. But I still support the second amendment and right to own guns for things like self defense.

Well she sure needed more than what that 38 did. He was still alive. If she had a clip that held more bullets the guy would not have been pleading for his life. Now they go to court and she is sued cause he lived. 15- 30 responsible needed rounds and it would have ended quickly

I Wander. Yes you do. Don't blame liberals, I know a plenty of them against gun control. Piglizard, it doesn't say "young" nation in the constitution. The forefathers knew very well HOW an OLD government (England's) takes away rights and thus put it as the second amendment for ALL TIME in the U.S. Can't say the first amendment is for TODAY but the second amendment isn't. Either you take the whole constitution or you burn it.

Gun control IS somewhat of a problem. Here's the thing. I lived in France for a long time, and there's plenty of gun control there, however the Mafia (yeah, the good old boys from Italy living in Marseilles) STILL have assault rifles, and kill plenty of people. So.. those who ABIDE the "gun control" will be at a disadvantage to those who do NOT. For those who think all guns should basically be banned. Well, then you've got a HECK of a long way to go, because the next step is realizing that homemade bombs will be on the upswing (oh YEAH... gee, there were PLENTY of bombings in France and still are! WAY before 9-11 by the way) and then if ANYONE should care to go have a look you'll have a LOT of figuring when you see that mass KNIFE killings are de riguer in countries that have super GUN control. You can't. if someone's on a kill mission there's not a THING you can do to stop them from their mission, other than protect yourself. (Or get them off the stupid anti-depressants that cause homicidal and suicidal ideation.) ME? I want a gun for self-protection. Used to have an AWESOME german shepard, but plenty of landlords won't allow dogs. They DO allow guns.

Shot five times and "remains at hospital"..holy!..did we just discover 50 cents brother???

Extremely disappointed in the headline, "Shoot him again!".... This is a woman fearing for her life, being pursued and stalked by a madman, and yet the headline seems intended to make her husband look like the crazed lunatic. If my wife were in that crawlspace and some monster was trying to get at her and my kids, I would tell her to empty every round she has into him, be it one or a hundred. At that point, one would not be thinking about sparing the life of the intruder, only about making sure he COULD NOT harm you or your kids.

This article points out exactly why so many people are buying and keeping guns these days (it's why I now have one locked in a safe in my bedroom). There are more and more crazies out there, and I don't want to be huddled in my crawlspace wishing I'd have bought a gun.

Anyone happy that this thug is alive is a moron....So that he can go to court and have some liberal lawyer find a loophole to get him out for "attempted robbery". He won't serve nearly the time in prison he deserves. Next time, he'll just plan better and probably have a gun of his own.

She should have killed him and eliminated all these liberals from getting him a light sentence "because we need to understand his poor upbringing." non-sense that they spew or they will let him plead guilty to a lesser sentence. He'll be free in 5 years or so.

If you ever get the upper hand on an intruder, finish him off and don't let those liberals in the justice system let them out. Criminals today don't suffer nearly enough for their crimes.

The problem with the gun debate is the NRA members IQs are inversely proportional to their weight. It makes logical discussion impossible.

One word..... WINNING!

GREAT STORY!!!!

Amused Muse,

And littlechanges, unfortunately I agree with you. I don't visiting Atlanta. Not at all.

Atlanta is a great city. Our murder rate in 2012 is down from 2011 where we had 87 murders. 87 murders is the lowest level since 2009 where we had 80. Overall the murder rate is down to the levels it was in the 1960s. I wonder if their is any correlation with Georgia also being a concealed carry state? If you want to talk about a crap load of murders then you need to talk about Chicago. Chicago had 435 in 2011 and 2012 finished out at well over 500. Guess what? Chicago had some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.

oppie-1383989 Comment collapsed by the community

Actually, a responsible gun owner should have only needed one bullet. Another example of someone owning a gun and not knowing how to use it well. High capacity clips allow people to feel safe when they don't have a clue how to fire with accuracy.

Which is why trained police officers only carry single shot pistols, and never, ever empty their guns into perpetrators.

Mark they only carry "single shot pistols" as a sidearm...They also have "multiple shot rifles" and shotguns in their squads...

Piglizard420..."The Constitution clearly states the one and only reason for citizen gun ownership, that being to form and maintain a "well regulated militia" to protect a young nation from invasion ("the security of a free state")."

Check this out and if you happen to be better scholar, let us know your "interpretation":

American Usage and Style: The Consensus. Here's what he has to say:

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' only to 'a well-educated electorate' — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

Read more here: http://constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

Barry & Ole Joe would rather have her waiting another 20 minutes for the police...... wonder how that call would have went?

This was one person against one intruder with only a 5-shot weapon. There are cases in which a group of assailants can cause harm. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,531968,00.html) A wealthy Florida couple who cared for disabled children was murdered when a group of men planned an attack. There could be a real need for higher capacity weapons. Miss a few times, have multiple intruders which might be on drugs allowing them to not feel the first couple rounds... You get the idea. I'm all for responsible gun ownership. We need to look at the people handling weapons, not the weapons themselves.

Steve-446003 - "Barry & Ole Joe" would rather she did exactly what she did. It is ignorance like yours that makes it so difficult to have a real conversation about gun violence. As soon as someone starts bringing the words "well regulated" into the conversation about "A well regluated militia" we get the nuts like you out in droves crying that "they wanna take away our guns!", which is just silly and moronic. Please, actually take a minute to listen to an opposing idea before deciding what that person thinks!

The woman had a 38 caliber revolver. A 38 has very little stopping power. Especially when you're dealing with someone that is out of their minds on drugs. I believe that's why her husband kept telling her to shoot him again. That and the emotional impact on the husband of only being able to be on the phone while his wife and his children were being attacked. I can't even begin to imagine what that would be like. For the life of me I don't see why the type of gun matters? If you look at all the data, even the data that doesn't support your strongly held belief, gun homicides are down from 1996. If you look deeper into the data you will see that even though the US population has increased and the number of guns possessed by Americans has increased gun homicide per 100,000 of population is decreasing every year. A lot of that, I believe, can be attributed to more states allowing concealed carry. What really needs to be looked at, without the taint of a political agenda, is those individuals with serious mental health problems.

SCUBAGOLFJIM, well said! Thank you!

A headshot would have done the trick. Now we have to keep giving this guy medical treatment for his wounds throughout his entire life... I'm betting he sues for damages... I'm sure there are lawyers out there chomping at the bit...

Clearly Self defense. She didn't confront him, the SoB was stalking her and the two children through out the house. It was last resort and everyone is going to laugh this one out of court.

Thats the sad part of the story. Since he survived the shooting, theres a chance he will sue the victims for damages and possibly win. Thats how screwed up the system is. Another reason for accuracy.

Yes, once again we have a REAL display of gun control!!!!!!!!!! And that is what should be made a law!!!!!!! Everyone who wants to buy weapons should be taught both gun safety AND should go through the WHEN TO SHOT program tha almost every police officer must go through!!!!

As for Tony D. Have you ever been trained in weapontry? You NEVER shot for the head, unless you know the enemy has body armour! The chances someone, even a fairly well trained shooter, can make a head shot in an emergency situation is REAL tough.

Remeber though, if you shot an intruder in England, YOU are going to jail!!!!!!!!!!! The left wing there has not only banned guns, but self defense itself!!!!!!!!! And if we let the left wing start down the path of gun control THAT is where WE will wind up!!!!!!!!!

Our leaders in cities like Chicago, Detroit and LA would rather see the defenseless citizens go to jail rather then being able to defend themselves!!!!

Not much reason for suing... unless she kept firing after he was completely incapacitated. The only case I can remember in recent memory where her actions would be liable was for someone who shot an intruder until they were on empty, went back, reloaded, and came back and shot the unconscious man several more time. You're allowed to defend yourself, but not purposely kill the guy if they're already incapacitated. So yeah, headshot would have worked. Since she didn't reload, there's 0 chance she'll be have this come back on her.

counter sue ; ; him back for diminish mental capacity...psychosis fear he'd come back and her gun would jam...she could live in fear for years over this idiot...and her son to...

Tony read the story . he was shot five times in the face . that my friend is a head shot . congrads to her . now up grade to a 40 cal

Typical dispatcher...wait for the police. If you own a gun, you should be trained in its use. If you have it in the house for protection then that is exactly what it is used for. You don't wait for the police who may end up in an accident responding to your house, or take the wrong turn because they're new police officers. When your life is being threatened, you eliminate the threat. I'll bet the little "dispatcher" wouldn't hesitate to take action rather than wait for the police. When your life and the life of your children are threatened in our house, you ELIMINATE THE THREAT". PERIOD, END, OVER, terminate. close, wrap-up, conclude, cease, expire, ax, halt or end....the threat.

Oh, and please, any law enforcement reading this. That doesn't happen...they don't do that. I know "cops" (constable on patrol) just as good as you do...look at the name.!

To the people that say Obama doesn't want to ban firearms, take a look at this by his biggest anti-gunner, Dianne Frankenstein. This is only part of the article. They want to ban everything with a removeable magazine, regardless of capacity.

96

The Dianne Feinstein Assault Weapons Ban Has Nothing to Do With the Newtown Massacre

Gun control has been on the minds of our society and politicians over the past year after high profile shootings such as in Newtown, Conn., and Aurora, Colo. Just recently the summary of a new Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) being proposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) was released. It's more aggressive than the one that was passed in 1994, and it doubles down on the same failed policy that did little to address gun violence. Let's break it down.

The new bill would ban the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:

-120 specifically-named firearm;

-Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic;

-Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds;

So it expands the list of banned firearms and reduces the requirement of two military characteristics down to one. Remember, these military characteristics have no bearing on the lethality of the firearm. In addition, the bill is banning all semiautomatic rifles, handguns, and shotguns that "can" accept a detachable magazine and those that have fixed magazines. What this does is basically ban all semiautomatics and firearms without detachable magazines (harder to reload) that accept more than ten rounds.

It's also worth pointing out the language here that it bans the "sale, ban, importation, and manufacturing." So what that means is that once you own one, its yours. You can't sell or transfer it to anyone else. So what happens if you pass away? Does the government then confiscate it?

The new bill would strengthen the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:

-Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test;

-Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test;

-Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior make

Willbfree

As for Tony D. Have you ever been trained in weapontry? You NEVER shot for the head, unless you know the enemy has body armour! The chances someone, even a fairly well trained shooter, can make a head shot in an emergency situation is REAL tough.

Apparently you missed the part that they were in the attic and the CRIMINAL was coming UP into the attic. The first/only part visible at that point would be the head. The FACT that after the first shot the CRIMINAL continued to advance indicates they had NO intent on stopping. If you know anything about an attic you would know that most don't offer up a lot of room and the exposed part of the CRIMINAL would remain the head.

@ SDN

What if there had been three or four attackers?

And what would an AWB have done to stop the attack in California today? California has a ban on any long gun with a detachable magazine. A lot of good it did. I'm just glad the kid couldn't aim very well, and probably used bird shot as opposed to slugs or 00 buckshot.

The plain and simple truth is there are easy ways to bypass all the laws (three 10 round magazines can easily be coupled so that switching mags takes approximately one second. So by banning 30 round magazines and allowing 10 round magazines you've added a whopping three seconds to the time it takes to fire 30 rounds) being discussed. Further, I've yet to see anyone provide conclusive data showing that the AWB helped prevent mass murders. Am I saying it couldn't? Of course not. But the way the law was written would be like banning Ferraris and then defining a Ferrari based solely on the body style and ignoring the transmission and motor. Columbine was more deadly than Aurora and it happened during an AWB.

I don't care how distasteful you anti-gun folks think it is, armed guards who are wearing plain clothes and carrying concealed, and do not leave the school grounds all day will do more to curb stuff like this than an AWB. If armed guards don't work/are superfluous, why do we assign them to our President and his children? Yeah, exactly...

And before someone cites Columbine as an example of armed guards not working, know this: the "armed guard" was eating his lunch off campus and had to respond to the call of shots fired. He engaged Harris from 60 yards with his pistol and was prohibited from following him inside the school when he retreated. How much good does an armed guard do if he's outside a school full of children he's supposed to be defending?

@ace,

She doesn't scare me as much as that low life SOB named Kerry, knew him in the Navy, sorry I didn't kick his butt back then. He was an ensign in the Navy, an ensign being to lowest of the low in the officer ranks, but he was in charge of a river boat in Nam, but now how did a low life ensign have so many film productions made of him, showing what he was doing,especially that one film of him getting out of his river boat and walking like McArthur going back in the Phillippines, then this low life piece of whale crap, rats out the people fighting over there saying that they were murder's because they were killing Cong over there who had surrendered, but couldn't or didn't bring up names or as an officer in the USN didn't have the gonads to stop it. (probably still has brown stains in his briefs from shaking so hard) I mean as a 2nd class in the Navy I stopped it, he is still probably shaking in his boots.

Now the worst part, Osama Obama has this guy up for Secretery of Defense!!!!

Our military is finished. This lower than whale poop rat will probably take the weapons off of our military and put them into battle with pea shooters.

Don't believe it, look up river gun boats, they used to have his story up there, and you know what I don't think any of them liked him.

Obama is making us weaker with his inexperience. He may pass these laws but nobody is going to enforce them. Not sure what the answer is in protecting our kids and families from nut jobs. Oh wait. The 2nd amendment?. I think it is supposed to protect us from this type of government laws as well.

Peace.

Too bad there aren't anywhere as many of these "responsible use of guns" stories to eclipse all of the bad ones.

ChrisWanker

Too bad there aren't anywhere as many of these "responsible use of guns" stories to eclipse all of the bad ones.

Forgive me if I have you wrong from history here... are you trying to be sarcastic? The only reason there are NOT as many stories like this one is NBCNEWS chooses to not publish them. As it is they only picked this one up because the other media outlets had already done so when this was news.

trust_verify,

No, absolutely not being sarcastic!

For every "good story" there are more "bad stories". Which is REALLY too bad! Seriously! Imagine how dramatically crime would drop if there were.

BTW, I'd recommend going to FBI.gov and look at the uniform crime rates and compare them with defensive use of guns.

BTW, I'd recommend going to FBI.gov and look at the uniform crime rates and compare them with defensive use of guns.

Been there done that.. they don't track homicides prevented.. only deaths count. They won''t be counting the story where the grandma prevented a robbery (by knife) either as there were no injuries.. they WILL count it as an attempted robbery though if they ever catch the perp and charges are filed.

You have to use other sources to get defensive use. Google is a great place to start.

For thoseof you complaining you don't see more stories like this is that Fox News wants you to think there are no stories being published. Follow more sources of news. And also read some that are from outside of this country. Try Reuters, BBC, or even Al-Jazeera. You'd get a better picture of what's really going on in the world.

This is not the first story of this kind I've read recently. And I suspect we will see even more of them as the gun control debate heats up even more (if that's possible).

Yeah, the pleading for her to stop caught my eye too. You know, he could have stopped breaking through locked doors any time he wanted. Hope she got a shot or two between his legs.

The SOB will probably sue her now for shooting him. Too bad he lived.

She had only six shots because she was shooting a .38 caliber REVOLVER. They don't have 'clips' and are not quick to reload.

The .38 was abandoned decades ago by law enforcement because it was not powerful enough and didn't have sufficient capacity. It is difficult (not impossible) to kill a large individual with a .38, but even a 9mm is better (though my bil carred a .40 Glock while on duty).

Good thing there were not TWO bad guys...

They don't have 'clips' and are not quick to reload.

If you have a speed loader they can be.

Jeffreey... uhhh.... not for most people. Only highly trained individuals that practice OFTEN with speedloaders can use them effectively. More often than not the shooter jamms up the revolver or the speedloader doesn't release the shell into the cylinder properly and then they jam the cartridge trying to close the cylinder. For your average shooter (NOT a "gun nut") who probably even handles his/her weapon maybe a couple of times a year at most... speedloaders are problematic. Magazine fed handguns like a Glock or similar weapon is typically much better.

Kal: One could make a compelling argument that 6 rounds was sufficient. The creep went to the hospital.....uh, yeah, and she and her children were safe. 30 rounds were proven unnecessary. No speculation required.

If she ran out of ammo before she hit him and he continued, it would have been a case where a high capacity magazine and an automatic weapon would have saved lives. If the Principal at Sandy Hook had an automatic weapon, she would have stopped Lanza. If one of the firefighters in Upstate NY did not have his weapon, perhaps more first responders would have died. I own a weapon, I am for better control, and I believe more people should want a weapon and should follow safety precautions much better. The criminals will always have guns. The insane will find way to get un secured guns. If you own a gun secure it and learn how to use it.

Really? You really believe that a middle aged woman equipped with and assault rifle and minimal training would have had a chance against the 20 year old psychopath wearing tactical body armor armed with a small arsenal? He caught them off guard, they stood little chance of living even if they were able to get to where they stored any type of gun.

When the founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment it took about a minute to load and fire one musket round. The firepower available to the public these days allows an individual to massacre a sizeble group before having to reload, posing an astronomically larger threat to innocent people today than the weapons of the 18th century.

Excellent post FtBrgtrnd.

I couldn't agree with you more.

Mr Moderate, I understand what you are saying but I don't think the second amendment was written with a certain type of weapon or firearm in mind. It was written based on a principle. Back in the 1800's they didn't have psychopaths going around killing children in schools or in churches or social gatherings either. It is todays society that has changed.

She hit the dude 5 times FT and Kal. I'm not thinking that this situation required a high capacity mag.

I am in agreement with virtually all responders that this young mother did EVERYTHING RIGHT in hiding and then defending her children against the vermin which invaded their home. Too bad that she didn't have a .45 instead of a .38. All such vermin should be hunted down and killed wherever found. The ONLY THING such animals understand is the use of force, usually DEADLY FORCE ! Kudos to MOM for keeping her head and plinking that of the invader. The NRA ought to make her a paid up LIFETIME MEMBER.

Sow Your Seeds - They most certainly did have those psychopaths. They didn't have 24 hour newservice to allow swaths of lazy people to sit around all day and learn about any tragedy that had occured in the world that day. They also took said psychopaths an locked them up before such things could occur, or if they did miss one who went on a spree--well, the gallows for you.

SDN

check out how many bullets a hi-capacity clip holds...

There is no 'one size fits all' defense weapon. The proper gun is the one you shoot well, can use safely, and you feel comfortable with..

Especially if you're a novice.

"john-2978068

SDN

check out how many bullets a hi-capacity clip holds..."

Please learn about what you are talking about. A MAGAZINE is a device that holds rounds to be chambered in a firearm. A CLIP is a device used to reload a MAGAZINE. An AUTOMATIC RIFLE fires rounds downrange until the trigger is released or until ammunition is exhausted. A SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLE fires one round at a time every time the trigger is pulled, chambering another round on the recoil. An ASSAULT RIFLE is a rifle produced for military purposes and fires automatic, semi-automatic, and sometimes select fire (3 rounds per burst in an automatic fashion) depending on the position of the selector. An AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle as it only fires in semi-automatic. It isn't suited to military service as it is too limited in it's functions and isn't designed for assault(military combat actions). It is a civilian rifle designed to fill a sports niche: range shooting. The semi-automatic version of the AK-47 is the same. And on and on.....

So please, people, if you are going to argue for gun control; educate yourself on what it is you are discussing. Otherwise you are ignorant and unqualified to put forth a truly reasoned argument.

"john-2978068

How do all these dumb gun happy ideas that are so flawed keep circulating.
Too bad the invader didn't have an assault rifle!"

So you are wishing death on this woman because she defended herself and her children. You are one sick puppy, john.

ya, they showed up after it was all done, great job

Average police response time....Moments to minutes

Average .45 response time 1325 FPS

To me the math is pretty easy......

It's those very seconds that are so vital and this momma bear protected her family to the fullest and thankfully successful extent.

Way to go Mrs. Herman; you are a most wonderful mother!!!!

Just in time to file a police report and take statements. Average response times are approximately 8 minutes.

@ trust_verify

I thought there was a ruling that Police actually have no duty to protect you. Warren v. District of Columbia

I am so glad she was able to protect her and the children.

Stop following the herd, mooo

I thought there was a ruling that Police actually have no duty to protect you. Warren v. District of Columbia

talking to the choir here. As noted by others, police will take a report and solve a crime... not prevent one from happening in the first place.

Law enforcement agencies have no mandate or responsibility to protect private citizens or their belongings.

That right and responsibility is that of every human being - the defense of their continued existence.

For those that would allow a gov't entity to take that responsibility for them, you have just exchanged your status of free citizen for that of ward of the state.

If that's what you want, (only the police and military should have guns), you live in the wrong country. Good luck anywhere in Europe.

I may have missed the context of Trust_verfiy's original txt and the followup Nanavana@nc,

"A PERFECT example of "when seconds count, police are only moments away"? How were we supposed to interpret? either you mean Police get there quick and the mom should not have fired at anyone Or you meant the mom just had seconds and there is NO Way the police will make it in those precious moments?

Warren v. District of Columbia

Stop following the herd, mooo

you are forgiven LOL.

That's not true. No one is taking away your guns unless you're a mentally unstable person. Note that she had a .38 and was able to defend herself successfully.

You don't see all the comments? No one is trying to take everyone's guns away. That is propaganda spread by pro-gun crazies. Get off the boat and have some sanity.

She obviously knew how to use her gun properly, and it got the job done. She did what she needed to save herself and her kids.

Huge difference between this and some whacko shooting up school children or a crowd of people with guns he has no GOOD reason for handling or owning.

"No one is taking away your guns unless you're a mentally unstable person,"

Then galgirl better watch out, she seems to be bent on lying about the government wanting to take your gun away. But what else is new with these fanatics?

If they try to outlaw guns, they will increase the criminal popuplation by many, since we will not turn in our guns.

“If I could’ve gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them — Mr. and Mrs. America turn ‘em all in — I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.” -Feinstein, 1995

"Confiscation could be an option" -Cuomo, 2012

Don't worry, nobody wants to take away our guns.

Deborah - you need to read recent statements from Mario Cuomo and several past staements from Dianne Feinstein... they do indeed advocate confiscation of all guns. Every last one. It may be that many people only want what they consider reasonable controls, but for the last forty years, their definition of "reasonable" has come across as "we want them all." When the legal gun owners object, the grabbers say "then we only will take 50% of them" - and when the gun owners again say no, the grabbers say "but you are so unreasonable."

good point WOLF libtards will never admit thier true intentions no matter how many times they admit to it!

Actually, you are trying to take our guns away. You're just trying to take a gun you can't understand why anyone would need or want, so that must mean there can't possibly be a reason, right?

I'm sure you all understand quantum mechanics and General Relativity, right? Because nothing that you can't fathom can possibly be true, right?

The plain and simple truth is there is no reason for taking 30 round magazines and AR-15s from law abiding, stable citizens, anymore than there's a reason to take revolvers.

And all you anti-gun folks screaming that 10 round magazines and revolvers are okay, what will you say when someone walks into a school with a duffel bag of 10 round magazines or 10 fully loaded revolvers and does the same thing? Will you be crying to ban everything but muskets and bow and arrows?

The fact that it is distasteful is irrelevant; the answer is highly trained security guards at every school who are in plain clothes and carrying concealed so young children aren't disturbed. This would serve as a deterrent for any kind of attack, including the ones in 2010 in China that left 18 children dead and dozens wounded. These attacks were all perpetrated with bladed weapons. I really don't understand how this is so hard to comprehend.

@PA GIrl123

Just because you can't fathom a set of circumstances under which someone would need an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine doesn't mean such a set of circumstances doesn't exist.

Further, if no one needs them then why are they issued to military and LEO?

More persons die from hammers and knives every year in the US than from AR-15s, or any rifle for that matter. Go to the FBI's website if you don't believe me.

And I want you to try to put yourself this woman's position, except I want you to pretend that when that door flung open there were four large men standing there. Still think a revolver is enough?

I'm not against more legislation; our gun laws need shoring up. But I am against flat out banning a weapon platform because a lot of sheeple who know nothing about firearms are screaming for it. If assault weapons bans work so well why did Columbine occur? And I don't want to hear about how there was an armed guard there...he was off campus eating his lunch, responded to the call, engaged Harris but was prohibited by protocol from following him into the building. We need armed security who enter the building before the first student and leave only after the last does so.

To those of you that can't fathom why anyone would need military type weaponry, consider this: The Second Amendment wasn't written for sportsmen, it was written with the intent of ensuring that the government couldn't become totalitarian by ensuring that the citizens of this nation could fight back. To those of you who say it can't or won't happen: pull your head out of the clouds, history has already proven you wrong many times over. To those of you who say we citizens can't possibly hold our own against our government: the founding fathers were guerillas, revolutionaries, and terrorists who managed to handle one of the most powerful military forces of the time with basic weaponry. Once again history has proven you wrong. I know some of you will call me a war-mongering kook or such like, but that is far from the truth. I hope it never happens but if it does, I hope the people of our country can match our forebearers fortitude and backbone.

Listen to all the Democrats and left wing Liberals as they keep pleading their case that they aren't after handguns !!! TOTAL B.S. , how many handguns are banned in NY and Massachusetts , even old style 6 shot revolvers because they don't have a safety on it or any other law they can think up to TAKE OUR GUNS AWAY !

It got the job done.

Clearly the 38 was enough to protect her family. No one needs an assault weapon!

Too bad the guy lived. He'll be out in 18 months to do it again. A 30 round clip may have saved a future victim.

Assualt Weapons are already against the law. Assault weapons fire more than 1 bullet per pull of the trigger. Try and fire a true assault weapon at a firing range and what will follow is a hell-storm of Police, Sheriff and ATF busting down your door.

I am pro-gun.

An assault rifle does not have to be fully automatic to be considered an "assault rifle".

Full-autos are not illegal, they are regulated as Class 3 Firearms. Legal to get if you can jump through all the hoops and pay the $200 tax. I have no problem having to get a Class 3 FFL to get an assault rifle. If I really want one, I'll pay the $200.

I don't think they can be banned though, because of the 2nd Amendment. This is the reason why full-autos are not banned either. They just require greater scrutiny to get one.

And since the Class 3 laws were enacted, I have never seen a case of a legal machine gun being used in a crime.

Sadist.

@JH, really? And just how is a woman to get 2 nine-year-olds and an assault rifle into an attic crawl space?

You know, there are excellent reasons we want assault weapons out of the hands of the mentally/emotionally unstable.

WTH is the definition of a gun nut?

Jeff, you are mixing up assault weapons with automatics--Just an FYI. As for the other commenters, she shot him in the face 5 times, and it didn't kill him. Personally, I would have preferred him dead. If it takes an assault rifle to do that, so be it. If it takes 30 rounds, again, so be it. My family is far more important to me than the life of a criminal who is intent on hunting me and my kids down while I'm trying to hide from him. That's just the way I am.

Double posted

@Jeff...I know what you're saying but just saying "semi auto" does not adequately describe the short, lightweight, folding stock recoilless rifles that are designed to mimic the weapons used by the military and which are horribly lethal in their own right. Semi auto can mean a wide range of weapons from heavy, long barrel hunting rifles that are designed to kill animals to the above described assault "style" weapons that ARE used in the mass killings we have been witnessing in this country.

Most people, I think, do tend to call a weapon an assault rifle if it, looks like, smells like, is used like an assault rifle regardless of whether it has "full auto" capability or not (which as you know is just one component of the weapon).

I don't think that splitting hairs about the definition of what constitutes an assault riffle is helping - it just gets people arguing over definitions and not discussing what we need to do (whatever it turns out to be) to end this glut of senseless violence in our country.

I own guns too and I think that this woman did everything right and as a result the bad guy was stopped and her kids are safe.

obviously, it was enough.

I think we all agree that it was a good thing she had the .38 special, but I'm sure those five shots made quite the mess, and 30 shots from something like a 762 would have been overkill, and sadistic.

A pistol with a 12+ shot magazine would have been needed if there were more than one person hunting this woman and children down. There is no reason for a "burglar" to search for the occupant of a house unless they have rape and/or murder on their mind. To think that evil people operate independently all of the time and there will never be a reason to own a so-called assault rifle or large capacity magazine is overly optimistic.

I don't think there are too many people saying that Maliko. I think most people just want to have a discussion about how we can curb gun violence. There has to be a middle ground on some of these issues, but some seem to want it to be all or nothing, and that is why the debate is out of hand. We need to tune out the far left and far right and get back to the middle where a lot of us are.

"Had that been my family I would have wanted my wife to have an assault weapon and fill the guy full of holes. A 38 was not enough."

Yep, those parents in Newton would have to agree with ya - oh that's right they wouldn't! Stories different, yep, but over kill is still just that OVER KILL! I'm curious if this guys wife (like him & others here) was such a seemingly proud gun owner(s) etc. why was she so reluctant to fire - even kill an intruder in her home???

Apparently it's not that simple to do after all - yet, I would not hesitated to fill his butt full of lead to protect my kids - PERIOD! There are people here spouting their Obama is doing this/that crap because well if they didn't have that man to hate - they could use this one (to bad he didn't die REALLY!!!) or the one died in FL! The boogie man comes in all hues, shapes & sizes & sometimes when you have a gun or a room full of um you still die - ask Keith Ratliff's family cuz STUFF HAPPENS & in this instance the stuff required a gun, yet in Newton the stuff required a mental professional to bad all it had was a BUNCH OF GUNS & THEY WEREN'T ALL .38's - so the holes put in those poor children WERE THEY BIG ENOUGH FOR SOME OF YOU SHAMEFUL COMMENTER'S???

Maybe an AR in .45 and only 5 rounds if she could maneuver it in a confined space... The AR can be fitted with many different calibers to name a few, 9mm, .45, .410 shotgun and the .458 Socom. AR's are literally a Swiss army knife of firearms. I don't care if I can only have 10 rounds or less in it (Some states only allow 5 rounds in the woods anyway) but I want to keep it and hand it down to my to my child (If she's not a nut). I do plan to get a .458 Socom upper for a Boar hunt if they ever come back in stock? On a side note I have no criminal record, I have a CCDW and all of my stuff is legal and kept in safes.

Some of you probably wont make it past the "AR" in the first sentence before commenting or getting nasty. For those of you that make it this far... I want to say Thank You for listening.

Ahhhh Aspirin. You hit on something there. One of the provisions that doomed a previous assault weapon ban was the "or weapons that could be modified to function / look like an assault weapon"

Reasonable sounding enough. Except, that describes vast numbers of hunting and sport guns. The average semi hunting rifle could have a barrel cut-down and a stock replaced, and would function essentially the same as an assault weapon - sans the high capacity mag.

It was a bad law, and was shot down accordingly. The left screamed "the gun nuts wont accept even reasonable restrictions". They would be surprised what the gun owning public would accept if you took the disingenuous slippery slop lingo out of it.

Six was enough this time. What if there had been 2 of them? You don't need a high capacity magazine until you really need a high capacity magazine.

Think for a minute about why the creep was not killed with 5 shots to the head. The poor woman was absolutely terrified and her hands were undoubtably shaking, a lot. His head was the first thing that poped through the crawl space door and she just started firing. Most of the shots probably were grazing and/or did not hit an area with anything vital, such as his brain, behind it. We don't know where the bullets struck other than somewhere on the head. If most of them hit his cheeks or chin for example they would not be lethal.

chuck: right next to the definition of 'liberal'. In the round file.

If 5 rounds to the head aren't enough to kill, then why are high capacity magazines unresonable. It was good that she had the .38, but it would have been better if she would have had something with more punch and more rounds. I hear some of you talking overkill; there is no such thing if it saves your ass. I know you liberals will hate this, but as far as I'm concerned the criminal has no rights in my house. Attack me or mine and I will save us all money if I can and "execute" your ass on the spot. You waive your rights as soon as you attempt to break in. Tell me how I'm wrong!

BTW, those of you who like to propose hypothetical situations to prove your gun control agenda; read Massad Ayoob sometime. He is the premier firearms combat expert in this country.

Yes. I read that book (I read In the Gravest Extreme, but I think he's written others) and it was a very sobering as well as enlightening experience. It didn't make me want to go out and buy a gun, but I think it should be required reading for everyone who owns a gun, or who intends to buy one, or even someone who chooses not to buy a gun. Some very good, practical philosophy.

A friend of mine, a veteran very knowledgeable about guns, told me the best weapon for home defense would be a trench gun or a riot gun, something like a shotgun, and it fills up the entire doorway with shot. Although I agree it would probably not have been useful in this case. Or maybe it would; one blast would have taken the guy's head off as he opened the hatch to the crawl space.

I am a liberal, I support the 2nd Amendment, and don't want to take anyone's guns away unless they are criminals. But there are a couple of things that bother me about the whole gun issue. We can all agree, I think, that we want responsible gun ownership, I think. How to define that may need some thought, but please bear with me. I've read that responsible gun ownership includes keeping the guns locked up, out of the hands of children, and secured so they cannot be stolen. Fine; I see that.

So here is this woman whose home is being invaded, a horrific experience, I have no doubt. She grabs her gun (from where?) and herds her children ahead of her toward safety. If the gun is being properly secured, how can she do that in the time available to her? And since she has two nine-year-old children, I'm sure she would have wanted to keep the guns away from the children for safety. How many times have we read of children shooting their playmates or siblings because they found a loaded gun somewhere and either mis-handled it, or just wondered what would happen if they pulled the trigger? I can think of a few cases here in California where that has happend in the recent past.

So this is an honest question because I want to enter the debate with better knowledge than I have now: How do you secure the guns appropriately so they are safe from the children, can't be stolen, but are easily accessible in a case such as this? It seems contradictory. I haven't seen this question addressed anywhere in the recent 'gun debate' I suppose it would be called.

I agree also that we need to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable. But who gets to decide that? When I read the foaming-at-the-mouth rants from some of the gun advocates who comment on these stories, I'm thinking those are exactly the people I think shouldn't have guns because they seem so unstable and unconnected from reality.

Most (I'd like to say all, but I'm doing my best to avoid sweeping statements) mental health professionals will say that it's difficult to make the determination as to who is stable and who is not. Do we define unstable as someone who has spent time in a mental health facility? Good luck with that one; HIPAA rules won't allow it, for starters. Or is it someone who takes psychotropic or anti-depressant drugs? Again, HIPAA (better known to most probably as the Patient Privacy Act, though that's not its official name) keeps that knowledge out of the hands of everyone (in theory, at least).

Is it someone who ideates killing (either individual or mass) in session with a therapist? Or even goes to therapy in the first place? Well, the therapist is bound by the HIPAA rules as well, although that may not be the case if the ideation is in the nature of illegal sexual activity. And if the therapist is going to be forced to cough up that information (i.e., amending HIPAA for certain actions) then either the patient/client isn't going to share those thoughts, or will stop coming to therapy when that is exactly the person who should be in therapy.

There is no slam-dunk answer to the mental health determination issue that is going to meet privacy and legal standards. We are a long way away from being able to determine beforehand who is a likely mass-killer, or even a single-person killer. We often read, in reports of the crime, that the person showed no aggressive tendencies in advance of the attack.

By all means, I want guns kept out of the hands of criminals. And yes, when criminals are found with guns, those should be confiscated. But I'd like to think that even the most ardent gun-rights supporters would agree that criminals should not be allowed to possess guns.

But neither wholesale confiscation (and I don't agree with anyone who supports such an action, DiFi and Gov. Cuomo to the contrary notwithstanding), nor arming everyone to the teeth is going to solve the problem. The ultimate solution is somewhere in between those extremes. I do not see that establishing a waiting period for a gun purchase poses an undue burden on gun ownership, nor do I have a problem with background checks. I'd like to see a licensing and registration requirement, as well as a ballistics database for every gun sold. I'd also like to see the gun-show loophole closed, and private sales of guns prohibited. None of those, in my view, poses an undue burden on the purchase of a gun.

I don't want to see armed guards in every school because I think it sets up exactly the kind of "fear the government" mentality we want to avoid. If we are to be a nation of laws, not of men, then we have to trust that the law will protect my rights as well as yours. It also teaches children a very bad lesson: he who has the gun has the power. I do not believe either of those attitudes is acceptable in a free society.

She probably had no time to do anything other than grab her kids and the gun and retreat locking doors after her.

They will and will say Congratulations to the Lady for using a gun for what is was intended for. So what's your beef. You don't really believe that the President and Vice-President want your guns do you?

"You don't really believe that the President and Vice-President want your guns do you?"

Yes, actually I do. The liar-in-chief has proven that he will say anything to get his way. And his puppy biden will go fetch when he is told.

"The liar-in-chief has proven that he will say anything to get his way."

Even though he has expanded gun rights to allow people to carry in national parks.

Even though Boner got 98% of what he wanted.

Even though he is constantly caving to the minority party.

Even though he didn't lie to get us in a war for oil.

Terry....you are dumb

she missed one, bad shot, wasted round, jajajaja.

How do you know she missed with one? The article doesn't name the make or model of revolver, but many responsible gunowners keep a revolver chamber empty upon which to rest the hammer. Thus making a six cylinder weapon a five-shooter.

Or it may only hold five rounds? My Taurus .357 only holds five rounds.

and the gun will be loaded again :)

richard are you responding to what i say

I'd probably trade the .38 for a 9 mm or a .45 auto though