Home invasion gone bad...for the bad guys

Linky

Listen to that audio. Scary and intense.

 

intense indeed.

but... 20 minutes to arrive from the point of giving the adress.... damn thats slow =/

 

its rural.

You see, because of the Sierra mountains, lands close to the mountain range on the east side was always drya nd arid, thus there were little large settlements.

 

Tough woman...a lot more useful than the operator. I don't really approve of guns, but it's hard not to here.

 

A specific beneficial instance does not prove the concept.

If someone manages to guess lucky in a bet you do not suggest that their guesses should be treated as irrefutable fact in every instance.

 

she killed him, i don't know but could not she just ask for him to leave?

even so, she could have just shot him in the legs, why did he have to die?

 

Not everyone lives in urban england.

 

Good girl. Handled the situation very well. It's an open and shut case - as soon as the guy threatened her and broke the glass she was in the right to defend her self with any means necessary, and she had the foresight to have a decent weapon handy for self-defense.

 

That's what I meant. In that specific instance it possibly could be justified. Of course, it also could have been the case that the guy would break in, she'd scream, he'd go "you're not pat, who t3h fuck are you?" and then "sorry, wrong house".

But I guess we'll never know.

 

id think some diplomacy and dialogue would have helped a lot in keeping that guy alive

 

diplomacy and dialogue < DRUNKEN RAPE

 

Would you rather her end up dead in her own house?

There's a reason we have this.

 

What does that have to do with anything?

Also I really find the idea of congratulating someone for killing someone else abhorrent.

 

Actually, location has a lot to do with this. Even within the United States, there are vast differences between violent gun crimes per capita dependent upon location. South Dakota, for instance, has a murder per capita rate lower than the UK/England, and about 4 times less than that of the United States at large, despite having some of the most liberal gun ownership laws in the world.

Also, she should be commended for having the courage to defend herself and not become a victim. She should be an exemplar for other people who might be predisposed to be otherwise unable to defend themselves.

 

Well, Chris, here in America is different.
A lot of the states between the coasts have a lot of rural areas. The response time for police there range from 5-30 minutes, depending on how far you are from your nearest police station. When unwanted intruders come, you never know what they want. Unfortunately there are crazy people out there who will kill you without asking. Also, and burglars who hit rural homes have a much higher chance of escaping because of the lack of witnesses, or the slow police time. In fact, it may be hard for people to even find you dead if someone kills you.

Also, in some areas, guns are just necessary. There are still ranchers and farmers and other primary economic sector people in the states. There are natural threats such as wolves and coyotes. And still a lot of people take shooting as a sport. I actually have this kid in my school whos a junior Olympic shooter.

 

I mean what does that have to do with the logic of specific instances not justifying the general rule?

I'm not arguing gun control, I'm arguing logical methods. It is perfectly possible to logically object to guns even when faced with a situation in which they are useful.

Your stance on an issue should consider all possible instances of it, you shouldn't change it just because you had a personal experience or read about someone else's because that's one instance in possibly millions of instances that would be influenced by the stance you take.

 

Bend over and take it

 

killing people is awesome. bitch shouldve blew off his head

 

I see someone on a street corner being raped, I'm going to pull my glock and at the very least wing him. All there is to it. The people who get guns and shoot people generally have gotten the guns illegally.

Moreover, this country it based on certain liberties.

From my state's law (taking this from the castle doctorine page, as it's easier than quoting the actual law - which I did look up when I moved here.):

I bolded one part, which I love. THere are states I won't live in - they're states that have laws that force you to retreat and then ask the attacker permission to shoot him. Maryland is one of those states. Massachusets is another (residents of Mass: Massholes.) When someone comes at me - or someone close to me (by close, I mean proximity, even someone I've never met before) - you can be damn sure I will use force to defend myself or others. I'm a firm believer in the use of force when needed. Moreover, had I been near any of the police killings that have happened in the last two months in WA, you can be damn sure I would have pulled my gun to defend the police, and not felt bad about it.

Don't like guns? Cool. Stay in the UK. The US and UK are VERY different at the end of the day - and as people have noted, outside of the cities, police response time is rather poor - and in the case where someone comes at you with a knife, you don't have time to call 911 and wait for the police; you either defend yourself or end up being injured or killed.

Go read John Locke:

And just so you righteous Brits can continue to feel righteous...Locke is from England.

 

How much more obvious can I make it that I really don't give a crap either way about the legality of guns?

You can legalise or illegalise them, I'm merely pointing out a general logic point and a moral point about how feeling happy about killing people makes you a dick.