Ga. mom shoots intruder 5 times, saves children

[Big Jim P]

No but they are sources. I challenge anyone to find an unbiased source for anything.

There's a difference in bias between Harvard posting findings and the NRA or some other protege group posting findings.

Of course there is: on bias supports one position while the other supports another.

[Big Jim P]

Primarily the registration requirements (which would be covered under my perpetual license plan) and the renewal requirements.

How is renewal of a license to own a firearm every five to seven years an undue hardship? It's not something that would be overly expensive assuming standard fees apply in my state, for example, it would be $25 every five to seven years. That's a total of ~$185 over a lifetime of seventy years or so assuming we go with the seven year renewal plan. If you want, we could even combine the two steps and include your registration with your licensing.

If a person cannot afford $185 or so over a period of seventy years it is quite remarkable they are able to own and maintain a firearm.

Hold on a sec and I will fully disassemble your idea and respond.

[Vitaphone Racing]

There's a difference in bias between Harvard posting findings and the NRA or some other protege group posting findings.

Of course there is: on bias supports one position while the other supports another.

It's easy to explain why the NRA might be biased. It's difficult to figure how Harvard, a university which accommodates pro and anti-gun groups, would post articles on behalf of the entire school that are biased. People have good reasons to ignore drivel that comes out of pro and anti- gun group websites but the bias card can't be played in every situation.

[Big Jim P]

Mandatory NICS-style check on all purchases including from private sellers,

Already cover in our current system of background checks with the exception of private transactions. Private transactions are just that, private, and requiring a background check on them is an unreasonable intrusion of the government on an individuals right to privacy.

registration of weapons with local law enforcement,

Covered with my plan of perpetual license. The Government will know I am licensed to own a gun. That is all they need to know.

mandatory government approved safety course

Covered in my perpetual license plan, and fully supported by me. The right to bear arms comes with the responsibility to do so safely.

and renewal once every five to seven years,

Covered in my perpetual license. Having to renew without a justifiable reason is itself unjustifiable.

a licensing system for collectors and private sellers

Covered in my perpetual license plan. The government know I am licensed to own the firearms. That is all they need to know.

that keeps track of their inventory as painlessly as possible (Either computerized or filed with local law enforcement on a three or six month basis),

Again covered in my plan. Knowing that I am licensed to own a firearm is all the government needs to know.

mandatory waiting period of not less than 30 days for all purchases including from private sellers,

We already have seven day waiting period in place. 30 days is excessive.

and certified statement from a mental health professional that you are of sound mind.

Covered in my plan and the "innocent until proven guilty" clause. Diagnosed mental illness will already prevent a purchase, an in my plan (as well as the current system) cause ones right to bear arms to be revoked.

Owning guns is a right. I am absolutely fine with people owning any kind of gun they want. I would be fine with selling military-grade firearms to people as long as the above criteria has been met.

Finally: Owning a firearm is a right in the US, and self defense is a basic HUMAN right. Unduly restricting either is as unreasonable as someone refusing to accept the responsibility that comes with that right.

[Big Jim P]

Of course there is: on bias supports one position while the other supports another.

It's easy to explain why the NRA might be biased. It's difficult to figure how Harvard, a university which accommodates pro and anti-gun groups, would post articles on behalf of the entire school that are biased. People have good reasons to ignore drivel that comes out of pro and anti- gun group websites but the bias card can't be played in every situation.

Harvard bias can only be judged on it's own merits. Academias known tendency towards liberal, anti-gun bias and elitism counts against it.

[Jocabia]

It's easy to explain why the NRA might be biased. It's difficult to figure how Harvard, a university which accommodates pro and anti-gun groups, would post articles on behalf of the entire school that are biased. People have good reasons to ignore drivel that comes out of pro and anti- gun group websites but the bias card can't be played in every situation.

Harvard bias can only be judged on it's own merits. Academias known tendency towards liberal, anti-gun bias and elitism counts against it.

Actually, according to the NRA, the collection of data on the incidents involving guns by any unbiased agency is going to result in anti-gun policies. Apparently, the problem is the bias of the researchers, but rather the bias of the data towards limiting access to guns.

That's why they worked to prevent the collection of data by the CDC, a group whose data collection they trust, since they cite the statistics they do collect all the time. And when that restriction still allowed other research focused on safety and health, they expanded the restriction to the entire Department of Health and Safety. Why? Because a bias toward injury prevention and public health, by it's very nature, is a bias against guns according to the NRA.

You're right. There is a tendency by those who have enough information about the problem to be "anti-gun". What does that tell you?

[Jocabia]

It's easy to explain why the NRA might be biased. It's difficult to figure how Harvard, a university which accommodates pro and anti-gun groups, would post articles on behalf of the entire school that are biased. People have good reasons to ignore drivel that comes out of pro and anti- gun group websites but the bias card can't be played in every situation.

Harvard bias can only be judged on it's own merits. Academias known tendency towards liberal, anti-gun bias and elitism counts against it.

But you didn't judge it on its merits. You just summarily dismissed it as biased.

[Neu Acadie]

Already cover in our current system of background checks with the exception of private transactions. Private transactions are just that, private, and requiring a background check on them is an unreasonable intrusion of the government on an individuals right to privacy.

Why would an instantaneous background check, which you already agree with, cause undue hardship to a private seller?

Covered with my plan of perpetual license. The Government will know I am licensed to own a gun. That is all they need to know.
Covered in my perpetual license plan. The government know I am licensed to own the firearms. That is all they need to know.
Again covered in my plan. Knowing that I am licensed to own a firearm is all the government needs to know.

I think we are going to disagree here.

Covered in my perpetual license. Having to renew without a justifiable reason is itself unjustifiable.

So a license saying you are qualified in current safety techniques and have kept up with those techniques, along with a renewal to ensure that you are, in fact, exercising your ability to safely operate firearms to the fullest extent of your abilities, would be something you are not opposed to? Because this is not an undue hardship by any stretch of the idea undue or hardship.

We already have seven day waiting period in place. 30 days is excessive.

This is not true in the case of all firearms sales.

Covered in my plan and the "innocent until proven guilty" clause. Diagnosed mental illness will already prevent a purchase, an in my plan (as well as the current system) cause ones right to bear arms to be revoked.

Why do you think that being required to undergo a mental health certification is an accusation of criminal intent? Is the government accusing me of intent to operate a motor vehicle in an unlawful manner by requiring that I wear corrective vision lenses/contacts/etc. to operate a motor vehicle?

Finally: Owning a firearm is a right in the US, and self defense is a basic HUMAN right. Unduly restricting either is as unreasonable as someone refusing to accept the responsibility that comes with that right.

I have a feeling your idea of undue hardship and mine will not cross at any series of points you care to graph.

[Republica Newland]

Oh but what's going on with this gun control I keep on hearing about

OK.Some thoughts from the "pro-defense" or "pro-gun" side,or however you guys want to label us:

1.Blaming the woman of acting based on threat rather than acting based on action is pretty dumb.Even the police (yes,that exact same police you lefties keep rambling about - the one that you say we're supposed to call in such situations - which can apparently magically make everything go away,~oh and did I mention it has a .5 second response time??~ /sarcasm) that exact police acts based on threat rather than acting based on action.

Let me explain.When a gunman is holding a hostage,he may or may not kill the hostage,right? He does pose a THREAT,but he has yet to take ACTION.Well guess what,a police sniper kills him.Acting based on threat rather than based on action.

When a person is holding a gun and a police officer tells him to drop it,that person is posing a THREAT,he hasn't taken any ACTION yet.Well guess what,again,police act based on THREAT rather than based on ACTION when they either shoot him or his gun because he failed to drop it.

So even individuals with extensive training act based on THREAT rather than ACTION and you're going to blame a mother crawled up in a cupboard with her children of doing it? Riiiiight.

2.That burglar breaking into her house is enough to justify her shooting him.The fact that she was hiding with her children in a cupboard and he opened it tops it off.In my opinion there is no room for debate here.

3.6 shots is a bit too much but you have to remember that she was obviously terrified and panicking.Otherwise she wouldn't have hidden herself and her kids in that cupboard.

4.I understand the concept that in the United States (or other places where the general population owns gun) criminals are more likely to own them (and use them) too.It totally makes sense.If I'm a burglar in the UK a blade or a baseball bat should be enough given that I know how to use them because I know that there are very low to no chances of coming across a gun when robbing someone.
This is not something hard to understand.However in the United States if the legal owners do the first step and drop the guns (apparently what some of you lefties want to) that is just plain suicidal,thinking that oh the criminals will just go about and do the same.We need to first take guns out of the hands of criminals,and then,maybe,take them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens,not the other way round.

[Big Jim P]

Already cover in our current system of background checks with the exception of private transactions. Private transactions are just that, private, and requiring a background check on them is an unreasonable intrusion of the government on an individuals right to privacy.

Why would an instantaneous background check, which you already agree with, cause undue hardship to a private seller?

A transaction between two individual is not any business of anyone else. Here the government has the advantage of declaring anyting illegal. Point conceded.

I think we are going to disagree here.

agreed, You wish renewable license at the government whim, I advocate one that the government has to provide evidence of their need to restrict.

So a license saying you are qualified in current safety techniques and have kept up with those techniques, along with a renewal to ensure that you are, in fact, exercising your ability to safely operate firearms to the fullest extent of your abilities, would be something you are not opposed to? Because this is not an undue hardship by any stretch of the idea undue or hardship.

gun technology is not static, agreed, I will concede the need for current training, only for those who are purchasing weapons incorporating new technology.

This is not true in the case of all firearms sales.

The instant background chec covers that, and my plan cover THAT.

Why do you think that being required to undergo a mental health certification is an accusation of criminal intent? Is the government accusing me of intent to operate a motor vehicle in an unlawful manner by requiring that I wear corrective vision lenses/contacts/etc. to operate a motor vehicle?

Why do you assume that I am mentally incompetent? Why does the government assume that I am a criminal? Innocent until PROVEN guilty.

I have a feeling your idea of undue hardship and mine will not cross at any series of points you care to graph.

Perhaps. perhaps not.

[Falcania]

Oh but what's going on with this gun control I keep on hearing about

OK.Some thoughts from the "pro-defense" or "pro-gun" side,or however you guys want to label us:

1.Blaming the woman of acting based on threat rather than acting based on action is pretty dumb.Even the police (yes,that exact same police you lefties keep rambling about - the one that you say we're supposed to call in such situations - which can apparently magically make everything go away,~oh and did I mention it has a .5 second response time??~ /sarcasm) that exact police acts based on threat rather than acting based on action.

Let me explain.When a gunman is holding a hostage,he may or may not kill the hostage,right? He does pose a THREAT,but he has yet to take ACTION.Well guess what,a police sniper kills him.Acting based on threat rather than based on action.

When a person is holding a gun and a police officer tells him to drop it,that person is posing a THREAT,he hasn't taken any ACTION yet.Well guess what,again,police act based on THREAT rather than based on ACTION when they either shoot him or his gun because he failed to drop it.

So even individuals with extensive training act based on THREAT rather than ACTION and you're going to blame a mother crawled up in a cupboard with her children of doing it? Riiiiight.

2.That burglar breaking into her house is enough to justify her shooting him.The fact that she was hiding with her children in a cupboard and he opened it tops it off.In my opinion there is no room for debate here.

3.6 shots is a bit too much but you have to remember that she was obviously terrified and panicking.Otherwise she wouldn't have hidden herself and her kids in that cupboard.

4.I understand the concept that in the United States (or other places where the general population owns gun) criminals are more likely to own them (and use them) too.It totally makes sense.If I'm a burglar in the UK a blade or a baseball bat should be enough given that I know how to use them because I know that there are very low to no chances of coming across a gun when robbing someone.
This is not something hard to understand.However in the United States if the legal owners do the first step and drop the guns (apparently what some of you lefties want to) that is just plain suicidal,thinking that oh the criminals will just go about and do the same.We need to first take guns out of the hands of criminals,and then,maybe,take them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens,not the other way round.

You keep repeating your own posts verbatim. Perhaps you should ask yourself why other people are not addressing your posts the first time you post them.

[Republica Newland]

Oh but what's going on with this gun control I keep on hearing about

OK.Some thoughts from the "pro-defense" or "pro-gun" side,or however you guys want to label us:

1.Blaming the woman of acting based on threat rather than acting based on action is pretty dumb.Even the police (yes,that exact same police you lefties keep rambling about - the one that you say we're supposed to call in such situations - which can apparently magically make everything go away,~oh and did I mention it has a .5 second response time??~ /sarcasm) that exact police acts based on threat rather than acting based on action.

Let me explain.When a gunman is holding a hostage,he may or may not kill the hostage,right? He does pose a THREAT,but he has yet to take ACTION.Well guess what,a police sniper kills him.Acting based on threat rather than based on action.

When a person is holding a gun and a police officer tells him to drop it,that person is posing a THREAT,he hasn't taken any ACTION yet.Well guess what,again,police act based on THREAT rather than based on ACTION when they either shoot him or his gun because he failed to drop it.

So even individuals with extensive training act based on THREAT rather than ACTION and you're going to blame a mother crawled up in a cupboard with her children of doing it? Riiiiight.

2.That burglar breaking into her house is enough to justify her shooting him.The fact that she was hiding with her children in a cupboard and he opened it tops it off.In my opinion there is no room for debate here.

3.6 shots is a bit too much but you have to remember that she was obviously terrified and panicking.Otherwise she wouldn't have hidden herself and her kids in that cupboard.

4.I understand the concept that in the United States (or other places where the general population owns gun) criminals are more likely to own them (and use them) too.It totally makes sense.If I'm a burglar in the UK a blade or a baseball bat should be enough given that I know how to use them because I know that there are very low to no chances of coming across a gun when robbing someone.
This is not something hard to understand.However in the United States if the legal owners do the first step and drop the guns (apparently what some of you lefties want to) that is just plain suicidal,thinking that oh the criminals will just go about and do the same.We need to first take guns out of the hands of criminals,and then,maybe,take them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens,not the other way round.

You keep repeating your own posts verbatim. Perhaps you should ask yourself why other people are not addressing your posts the first time you post them.

I would be delighted to hear your answer to it.

L.E. actually after reading it again I realize most of it is actually "original" content.Yes,it does support my earlier posts but does that change the fact that it contains new information?
People from your side do what you say I'm doing even more so.

[Inyourfaceistan]

You keep repeating your own posts verbatim. Perhaps you should ask yourself why other people are not addressing your posts the first time you post them.

I would be delighted to hear your answer to it.

L.E. actually after reading it again I realize most of it is actually "original" content.Yes,it does support my earlier posts but does that change the fact that it contains new information?
People from your side do what you say I'm doing even more so.

Welcome to NSG...

We/They do that...

[Big Jim P]

Oh but what's going on with this gun control I keep on hearing about

OK.Some thoughts from the "pro-defense" or "pro-gun" side,or however you guys want to label us:

1.Blaming the woman of acting based on threat rather than acting based on action is pretty dumb.Even the police (yes,that exact same police you lefties keep rambling about - the one that you say we're supposed to call in such situations - which can apparently magically make everything go away,~oh and did I mention it has a .5 second response time??~ /sarcasm) that exact police acts based on threat rather than acting based on action.

Let me explain.When a gunman is holding a hostage,he may or may not kill the hostage,right? He does pose a THREAT,but he has yet to take ACTION.Well guess what,a police sniper kills him.Acting based on threat rather than based on action.

When a person is holding a gun and a police officer tells him to drop it,that person is posing a THREAT,he hasn't taken any ACTION yet.Well guess what,again,police act based on THREAT rather than based on ACTION when they either shoot him or his gun because he failed to drop it.

So even individuals with extensive training act based on THREAT rather than ACTION and you're going to blame a mother crawled up in a cupboard with her children of doing it? Riiiiight.

2.That burglar breaking into her house is enough to justify her shooting him.The fact that she was hiding with her children in a cupboard and he opened it tops it off.In my opinion there is no room for debate here.

3.6 shots is a bit too much but you have to remember that she was obviously terrified and panicking.Otherwise she wouldn't have hidden herself and her kids in that cupboard.

4.I understand the concept that in the United States (or other places where the general population owns gun) criminals are more likely to own them (and use them) too.It totally makes sense.If I'm a burglar in the UK a blade or a baseball bat should be enough given that I know how to use them because I know that there are very low to no chances of coming across a gun when robbing someone.
This is not something hard to understand.However in the United States if the legal owners do the first step and drop the guns (apparently what some of you lefties want to) that is just plain suicidal,thinking that oh the criminals will just go about and do the same.We need to first take guns out of the hands of criminals,and then,maybe,take them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens,not the other way round.

You keep repeating your own posts verbatim. Perhaps you should ask yourself why other people are not addressing your posts the first time you post them.

Address the content, not the fact of that it was posted.

[Big Jim P]

You keep repeating your own posts verbatim. Perhaps you should ask yourself why other people are not addressing your posts the first time you post them.

I would be delighted to hear your answer to it.

L.E. actually after reading it again I realize most of it is actually "original" content.Yes,it does support my earlier posts but does that change the fact that it contains new information?
People from your side do what you say I'm doing even more so.

But their side is RIGHT. How dare you post anything to the contrary?

[Wielki Lechia]

Another case of guns saving lives. Good thing we have the second amendment.

Yeah because the intruder was definitely intent on murdering her and her children, that's why he knocked and rang the doorbell, to see if anyone was home. He assumed nobody was and broke in.

She murdered him, plain and simple, on a hunch. yay guns.

And you know for a one-hundred percent fact that the man would of left the woman and her children around after finding them? That he wouldn't act of panic and do something harmful to them? You know for a fact this man wouldn't of, say, raped the mother? You know ALL this for a fact?

Can I have your magical seeing crystal ball?

[Reichsland]

An idea?

I just heard this on a local call-in radio show.

We have to sign our names on a list at the pharmacy in order to buy Robitussin cough syrup.

Why not just sign a list when we buy ammo?

Another idea: require liability insurance for firearms. If your weapon is used to kill someone (illegally), you must pay damages. It would raise the cost of firearm purchases considerably, for one thing. For another, it could help establish a victim compensation fund.

And what if someone broke in, stole your weapon then used it to kill someone else? Should the person who owns the gun be held accountable for something the couldnt control?

[Neo Mitanni]

Harvard bias can only be judged on it's own merits. Academias known tendency towards liberal, anti-gun bias and elitism counts against it.

Actually, according to the NRA, the collection of data on the incidents involving guns by any unbiased agency is going to result in anti-gun policies. Apparently, the problem is the bias of the researchers, but rather the bias of the data towards limiting access to guns.

That's why they worked to prevent the collection of data by the CDC, a group whose data collection they trust, since they cite the statistics they do collect all the time. And when that restriction still allowed other research focused on safety and health, they expanded the restriction to the entire Department of Health and Safety. Why? Because a bias toward injury prevention and public health, by it's very nature, is a bias against guns according to the NRA.

You're right. There is a tendency by those who have enough information about the problem to be "anti-gun". What does that tell you?

What it tells anyone who gives it any critical thought at all is that these brilliant researchers are the people Ben Franklin warned about. They would sacrifice freedom for security, and deserve neither.

"Injury prevention and public health" are interests that are far outweighed by preservation of individual liberty. The only place you will find an injury-free and completely healthy society is inside the Pearly Gates.

[Republica Newland]

Yeah because the intruder was definitely intent on murdering her and her children, that's why he knocked and rang the doorbell, to see if anyone was home. He assumed nobody was and broke in.

She murdered him, plain and simple, on a hunch. yay guns.

And you know for a one-hundred percent fact that the man would of left the woman and her children around after finding them? That he wouldn't act of panic and do something harmful to them? You know for a fact this man wouldn't of, say, raped the mother? You know ALL this for a fact?

Can I have your magical seeing crystal ball?

Come to think about it.I am morally OK with the "murdering" part.Even if there wouldn't be a hunch.Because he broke into her home.

yay private property

[Bottle]

"Remember when all the #NRA guys said that Travon Martin would still be alive if he'd had a concealed 9mm? Me neither."

-John Fugelsang

[Republica Newland]

"Remember when all the #NRA guys said that Travon Martin would still be alive if he'd had a concealed 9mm? Me neither."

-John Fugelsang

Right,because that has everything to do with our case.

That case hasn't even been settled yet.

[Union of Confederate Socialist Republics]

Okay... so I understand that she saved the children by capping a thief who was going into a closet.

Title sounds a bit misleading.

[Republica Newland]

Okay... so I understand that she saved the children by capping a thief who was going into a closet.

Title sounds a bit misleading.

She was hiding with her children in that closet.

[Hades imperium]

does it matter if he entered to kill the people of steal stuff either way its a crime?

[Union of Confederate Socialist Republics]

Okay... so I understand that she saved the children by capping a thief who was going into a closet.

Title sounds a bit misleading.

She was hiding with her children in that closet.

. . .

I'm now thinking of how ironically dangerous that was.