PayPal

Thursday, January 10, 2013

Six Rounds aren’t Enough! Georgia Mother's Shooting of Home Invader Puts New Spin on Gun Control Debate

 



 
By Jebby Sanderson
January 7, 2013

The story of a young Georgia mother's actions during a home invasion is putting a new spin on the gun control debate.

A woman was home with her 9-year-old twins when a man began knocking on the door and persistently ringing the bell. The woman quickly called her husband and while he dialed 911, she grabbed the family's .38 revolver, her twins and shuttered them all in a closet.

The suspect then broke into the house and began ransacking it. He walked upstairs and opened the closet door, bringing the woman and her twins face-to-face with the intruder. She acted quickly, firing six shots and hitting the suspect in the face and neck.

He was able to get up and stumble out of the home. Police quickly caught up to him and arrested him.

Radio host Lars Larson pointed out that while the woman acted heroically, had there been more than one intruder, she would have been in real danger because she wouldn't have had enough bullets in that type of weapon to protect herself and her family. He said many people want a gun that is capable of holding more bullets, but "this is what the president's plan will go after."

"This president wants to take away people's rights to own the appropriate tool to repel an invader or invaders into their houses," Larson said.


5 comments:

Baloo said...

Nice piece. Linked and commented on here:
Piers Prefers Perps

Dutch Boy said...

It's not just the number of cartridges the pistol holds - the .38 caliber is a wimpy, old-fashioned round that doesn't have enough punch to stop many intruders dead in their tracks.

Anonymous said...

If large cartridge weapons are banned, does the government really think the criminals are going to comply with the law and turn in their weapons? Of course not. Only law abiding citizens will obey the law as usual and then they become easy prey for the criminals who will still have 100 round cartridges in their assault rifles. Meanwhile, law abiding citizens, having under powered 6 shot revolvers, will be huddled in fear in their darkrooms hoping that the criminals will not knock on their door that night.

As we know, banning weapons will not take them out of the hands of criminals. It just makes regular citizens easier targets.

Let me ask any liberal who opposes the 2nd Amendment something: Who would a criminal choose to rob/rape/kill? Someone who he knows is armed with a revolver at best, or someone who could potentially be armed with an M4 assault rifle? Question 2: If some feral rapists were kicking down your door intent on raping your wife and kids, would you like to wait 15-20 minutes for the cops to save you, or would you like to be able to defend your family with high a high powered weapon?

If nothing else, having the ability to have guns is a deterrent to criminals. Think about the cold war and how America and Russia were both building massive amounts of nuclear weapons. The American government at the time was saying it was a deterrent to Russia to prevent them from launching a first strike. It worked. Now imagine America was told by some entity to stop building missiles and to dismantle their nuclear stockpile in the middle of the cold war, allowing Russia to be the only ones with nuclear weapons. Would this have been a good idea? Some anti gun people say the only purpose of guns is to kill people. Well, the only purpose of nuclear weapons is to kill a lot of people at once. However, I would disagree with both statements. I think guns and nuclear weapons have a primary function of acting as a deterrent and that their secondary function is to kill in self defense.

Yes, I admit there will always be unstable people who misuse guns. That is not an issue with guns, but an issue of mental health health the government tends to ignore.

Final thought: How many people die every year from car accidents? Should we ban the ownership of all cars because a few idiots don't know how to drive and because some morons drink and drive and end up running over some kids? Should we ban all alcohol (again) to make sure people can't drink and drive even though only very few people drink and drive? Banning guns is the same thing. Just because very few people decide to misuse guns, they seek to demonize anyone who supports the 2nd amendment and want to punish all the law abiding citizens by taking away their guns. However, even though many more people misuse their cars, there is no talk about banning cars from the road and taking cars away from all citizens. Strange isn't it?

Anonymous said...

Did she have a dog?

Don't laugh.

Dogs have an acute sense of smell, are very territorial, and a phenomenal ability to hear sounds that we humans cannot.

A dog might have given her plenty of warning, plus would have probably scared the perp.

AnalogMan said...

She hit him five times in the head, so it's understandable that she failed to hit anything vital. Still, a good first effort.