Oklahoma mom shoots and kills intruder

[Jegsimmons]

That's why in america we give home owners and law abiding citizens the chance to balance the playing field.

Ah, that's why all those statistics show a nice correlation between "gun proliferation" and "homicides per capita"...

Switzerland.

Switzerland always makes your argument invalid. And Germany too, they do have a very high number of registered firearms.

And 2.475 homicides per 1 million people.


Plus, you can commit homicides with knifes too, your argument is completely pointless.

ah man, Switzerland and Germany are awesome, i want to take a vacation to Switzerland, i hear its nice. Also, very true.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

My question is, why the hell did the cops take 20 minutes to get there?

And I'm not going to comment on whether or not it was justified, because in threads like these there's apparently no middle ground, and if you say she could have tried some non-lethal options that she had at her disposal before using lethal force, you're apparently "siding with the criminals".

As for the second amendment, there's a whole thread going on in R&P for those interested.

Such as? A baseball bat? You want to get close to someone with a 12 inch knife? A stun gun? A one-shot thing that sometimes doesn't work because of clothes. Pepper spray? Something that can leave them just pissed off or still a threat till the cops finally show up? You're an 18 year old woman with a child and these are two large men who are breaking in. Non-lethal options put you at a huge risk. A gun, however, has great stopping power.

 

[Onegigapwn]

Why do you people care? Intruders get killed all the time.(except it's usually the dad that does it.)

 

[RubyT]

Switzerland always makes your argument invalid. And Germany too, they do have a very high number of registered firearms.

And 2.475 homicides per 1 million people.

How does Switzland make my argument invalid? I know a guy who fell out of the 4th story window and didn't even have a scratch on him. Doesn't mean it's generally a good idea to fall out of a 4th story window.

Still, you might be right, it's not the amount of guns in America, it's the amount of nutjobs.

 

[Vegosiux]

Such as? A baseball bat? You want to get close to someone with a 12 inch knife? A stun gun? A one-shot thing that sometimes doesn't work because of clothes. Pepper spray? Something that can leave them just pissed off or still a threat till the cops finally show up? You're an 18 year old woman with a child and these are two large men who are breaking in. Non-lethal options put you at a huge risk. A gun, however, has great stopping power.

I believe we discussed this already in the thread I mentioned, no?

 

[Toaster Hunter]

If you break into someones house with malicious intent, this sort of thing happens. They got what was coming to them. They got what was coming to them. Sanctity of life is no longer an issue in situations like this.

 

[Hazy992]

That is absolutely justified. That's clearly self-defence (and defence of her baby), and I don't think there'd be a single jury that would convict her (at least I hope not).

Well, just as an interjection, not all the western world has jury trials. Not exactly relevant to the thread, just think it bears mentioning anyway...

I know they don't but in America they do

 

[Phasmal]

She shot a guy with a knife to protect her son.

Thats pretty clearly justified to me. I dont have kids but I would cheefully slit a throat to protect my family, and thats not just bravado. When you are responsible for another young life and someone is threatening that, what are you gonna do? You dont have a choice, either kill some guy who is trying to rob you or get killed.

Sadly, I dont think lethal force in defence is legal here, so I'd have to go to prison.

 

[RubyT]

most notably, washington DC. They banned guns and crime TRIPLED, they unbanned them, crime dropped like a wet sock.

Can you give me a reference for that? Sounds very improbable.

 

[ElPatron]

How does Switzland make my argument invalid?

Huge proliferation of fully automatic assault rifles.

Somehow they have low crime rates, and most crimes are committed with illegal guns anyway. Basically all they do with their assault rifles are suicides and domestic murders. Which can be done with a knife.

Apparently, proliferation of firearms does not relate to the amount of homicides, otherwise Switzerland would have battlefields stained with blood every week.

I know a guy who fell out of the 4th story window and didn't even have a scratch on him. Doesn't mean it's generally a good idea to fall out of a 4th story window.

Logical fallacy, I'm out.

most notably, washington DC. They banned guns and crime TRIPLED, they unbanned them, crime dropped like a wet sock.

Can you give me a reference for that? Sounds very improbable.

This is the worst time for me to see your post.

Because last week I had source for a US state that started issuing concealed carry licenses and crime dropped 50%.

In fact, criminals started targeting tourists only, because that way they would be sure that nobody was going to pull a gun on them.

Unfortunately I have no idea where I saved that link.

EDIT: IT might have been Florida. The crime rate dropped 32% and its homicide rate dropped 58%. But I am not sure.


I have an image for you, nevertheless.

Correlation does not imply causation, but it is still worth noting.

 

[brodie21]

i think the gun laws say that if you shoot an intruder and he falls inside your home you are home free

 

[SodaDew]

If some one breaks into your house and has a knife it's justified to kill them. When police wont make it in time and your life is at risk then I don't see why you shouldn't be able to.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Such as? A baseball bat? You want to get close to someone with a 12 inch knife? A stun gun? A one-shot thing that sometimes doesn't work because of clothes. Pepper spray? Something that can leave them just pissed off or still a threat till the cops finally show up? You're an 18 year old woman with a child and these are two large men who are breaking in. Non-lethal options put you at a huge risk. A gun, however, has great stopping power.

I believe we discussed this already in the thread I mentioned, no?

I don't remember your answer though. "Non-lethal" weapons have severe drawbacks to them, for the user. And again, look at her. She's not some sort of Navy SEAL (If you don't know, those are specially trained Navy guys). She's an 18 year old girl. Who is also a mother. What. Other. Choice. Did. She. Have? I'm not aware of any non-lethal weapon as effective at taking down bad guys as a gun is.

 

[spartan231490]

The annoying thing is how follow up stories say the mom won't have charges pressed against her, like they're doing her a favor.

Well, she murdered someone. How is it not unusual to press charges for murder?

That murder is legal in the US whenever someone walks onto your lawn is a different story, but at least that is still being regarded as 'crime untill otherwise'.


Anyway, there's a world of difference hidden in that story that Yahoo doesn't tell us. 'as they enter the home' could've been anything from opening a door while intending to try and steal a few dollars worth of stuff, to being an actual threat.

Obviously, since I have morals, I don't approve of murdering someone who wants to steal $ 10. We had the medieval ages where they did stuff like that, it didn't work. And since it's unclear if the burglars were any dangers, I can't call this justified.

But judging as the first thing the murderer did was run for firearms, and the first question to the dispatcher was if it was okay to murder that guy, I'm betting she's a gun nut who opened fire the moment they stepped inside.

That's murder, no matter how much a pro-violence gun nut wants to twist the story. Someone's not a threat by opening a door.

Well, way to read. She had been locked in her bathroom for something like 21 minutes. Obviously, if they were just after a few valuables, they wouldn't have needed to enter the bathroom, that they did shows a clear intent to harm the woman. Ergo, she was perfectly justified in using lethal force to defend herself. Maybe you should read the OP next time. Or maybe you should think about why 2 robbers who had been in the house for 21 minutes would have any need to force their way into the bathroom if they weren't after the woman and her child.

 

[RubyT]

last week I had source for a US state that started issuing concealed carry licenses and crime dropped 50%.

50%

Don't you just feel idiotic writing this?

BTW, according to Wikipedia, Washington D.C. outlawed guns in 1975. That was repelled in 2008. In 2009 and 2010 there was some marginal reduction in crime rate (7% and 1%) but that was lower than some previous reductions (97: 18%, 98: 15%, 04: 16%) during the gun ban.

 

[Jegsimmons]

most notably, washington DC. They banned guns and crime TRIPLED, they unbanned them, crime dropped like a wet sock.

Can you give me a reference for that? Sounds very improbable.

Sure thing,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/02/learning-from-the-dc-handgun-ban/
This has good stuff too.
http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm
Look at the chart on the right, also allow me to correct my self, it DOUBLED, not tripled.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C.#Gun_laws

 

[RubyT]

Correlation does not imply causation, but it is still worth noting.

Yeah. I could make the same image using the number of smartphones in use.

You should read up on what people who are not 15 and on the escapist forums say about why homicide rates are declining.

But you go ahead and think it's because more people have guns...

 

[ElPatron]

last week I had source for a US state that started issuing concealed carry licenses and crime dropped 50%.

50%

Don't you just feel idiotic writing this?

Florida. The crime rate dropped 32% and its homicide rate dropped 58%.

I'm sorry, but resorting to personal insults is not my way of doing things.

Have fun insulting everyone else who disagrees with you.

 

[Vegosiux]

Such as? A baseball bat? You want to get close to someone with a 12 inch knife? A stun gun? A one-shot thing that sometimes doesn't work because of clothes. Pepper spray? Something that can leave them just pissed off or still a threat till the cops finally show up? You're an 18 year old woman with a child and these are two large men who are breaking in. Non-lethal options put you at a huge risk. A gun, however, has great stopping power.

I believe we discussed this already in the thread I mentioned, no?

I don't remember your answer though. "Non-lethal" weapons have severe drawbacks to them, for the user. And again, look at her. She's not some sort of Navy SEAL (If you don't know, those are specially trained Navy guys). She's an 18 year old girl. Who is also a mother. What. Other. Choice. Did. She. Have? I'm not aware of any non-lethal weapon as effective at taking down bad guys as a gun is.

I'll concede that once you're barricaded in there the way it was, okay, once the door slams open there aren't that many options left.

But in that case why didn't she just fire a warning shot? Sure, as you said, it might have just pissed them off, but in that case the result would be exactly the same, wouldn't it? They break in, she shoots them dead.

But what if it worked? What if it made them back off? Then nobody would die at all. What I'm saying is, there was no "worse" possible outcome from a warning shot an a potential for a "better" one - so why was it not used?

Bottom line is, once that door goes down and the cops aren't anywhere in sight, yeah, you shoot, even I can see that. I'm talking about things that happened (or did not) before that point.

 

[spartan231490]

Personally, I am very disturbed to see someone who places more value on the life of the criminal than the lives of the two innocent people sitting in their home.

See, we're at this again.

"If you're not 100% supportive of the woman that means you are SIDING WITH THE CRIMINALS!"

...could we stop that nonsense already?

I like how you not only cut out the post I quoted, but also cut out the explanation of what I said to make yourself look less wrong, pretty clever. However, it is unfortunately pointless, as I will just clarify now.

You said that killing a person, even in self-defense, should always be punished. Ergo, self-defense is wrong, since you can be punished for it. Then I explained that if you believe self-defense is wrong and should be punished, you are granting moral equivalence between the attacker and the victim. Ergo, the attacker is no more in the wrong than the victim. Ergo, the victim has no right to defend themselves, because the criminal's life is more valuable than the victim's.