Ga. mom shoots intruder 5 times, saves children

[Frisivisia]

Unless someone brings a crowbar.

I don't think they realize that a fit man can potentially kill someone with 1 punch to the head,let alone with a crowbar.

Can a "fit man" kill 30 targets in 25 seconds with his fists? To think that somehow any sort of melee weapon is as dangerous as a gun is ridiculous.

[Big Jim P]

I don't think they realize that a fit man can potentially kill someone with 1 punch to the head,let alone with a crowbar.

Can a "fit man" kill 30 targets in 25 seconds with his fists? To think that somehow any sort of melee weapon is as dangerous as a gun is ridiculous.

Can an uncivilized animal kill one person with his bare hands? Yes. Thus that one person should have the means to dispatch his attacker.

[Frisivisia]

Can a "fit man" kill 30 targets in 25 seconds with his fists? To think that somehow any sort of melee weapon is as dangerous as a gun is ridiculous.

Can an uncivilized animal kill one person with his bare hands? Yes. Thus that one person should have the means to dispatch his attacker.

Martial Law = Best Law

EDIT: Also, dehumanizing people, always a good strategy.

[Big Jim P]

Can an uncivilized animal kill one person with his bare hands? Yes. Thus that one person should have the means to dispatch his attacker.

Martial Law = Best Law

Care to explain?

[Big Jim P]

Can an uncivilized animal kill one person with his bare hands? Yes. Thus that one person should have the means to dispatch his attacker.

Martial Law = Best Law

EDIT: Also, dehumanizing people, always a good strategy.

I don't dehumanize people. Some do that themselves.

[Frisivisia]

Martial Law = Best Law

Care to explain?

We don't need the police. If someone attacks me, I have my gun.

This is martial law, rule by violence.

[Frisivisia]

Martial Law = Best Law

EDIT: Also, dehumanizing people, always a good strategy.

I don't dehumanize people. Some do that themselves.

People are people, no matter what they do.

[Smartass alcoholics]

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.

He didn't die.

Then he must be frickin superman, or something. 5 bullets in the head/neck area, and he didn't die?

[Big Jim P]

Care to explain?

We don't need the police. If someone attacks me, I have my gun.

This is martial law, rule by violence.

Martial law is rule by the military. You are looking for the word "vigilante" I believe.

[Big Jim P]

I don't dehumanize people. Some do that themselves.

People are people, no matter what they do.

and some are prone to reducing their own value.

[Big Jim P]

He didn't die.

Then he must be frickin superman, or something. 5 bullets in the head/neck area, and he didn't die?

Once again: Torso. Not head and neck.

[Frisivisia]

We don't need the police. If someone attacks me, I have my gun.

This is martial law, rule by violence.

Martial law is rule by the military. You are looking for the word "vigilante" I believe.

True enough. Martial Law, I thought, was rule by Martial Prowess.

[Frisivisia]

People are people, no matter what they do.

and some are prone to reducing their own value.

Unfortunately enough, people continue to be people.

[Grinning Dragon]

Nuclear weapons are not "arms" in the sense of the 2nd Amendment. Nobody would use weapons of mass destruction to resist a tyrannical regime; such would be self-defeating to say the least. Nor are "injury prevention and health" the reasons for restricting their possession. The consequences of nuclear weapon use bear no resemblance whatever to accidental or negligent discharge, or criminal use, of a handgun, for example. They don't end with "injury". A silly and non-serious question.

What effects do they have that have no bearing on injury prevention and health? Despite your silly attempt at semantics, the term "injury" as used by the CDC obviously includes anything up to and including death.

And as you pointed out, owning arms is a right that the 2nd Amendment protected, not created. The wording the amendment is irrelevant to your point. Mass destruction is often the only way to resist a tyrannical regime. Who are you to tell me what means and methods I may use to attack a military base?

To that I offer the following response:

“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” – George Washington

I give far more respect to George Washington's view on the matter than yours. Likewise to the views of others of the Founding Fathers on the same point. As for "treason", I'm sure you're familiar with Patrick Henry.

Sometimes, I can't tell if you're just pretending to be a Conservative as a joke. Because it's not possible that you don't know that's not an actual quote from George Washington. Do you have so much "respect" for George Washington's views on the matter that you'd lie about what he said?

You're right. Most gun owners aren't law-abiding. They're treasonous America haters. Thanks for making that clear.

Americans are treasonous American haters? Why because they believe in the Constitution and have this thought that maybe the govt should abide by it and just leave the people alone? When a govt fears its people it is freedom, when a people fear its govt it is tyranny.
Si vis pacem, para bellum. Calling millions of law abiding weapon owning Americans treasonous, because they believe in their enumerated right to keep and bear arms is quite the statement of bigotry.

[Smartass alcoholics]

Then he must be frickin superman, or something. 5 bullets in the head/neck area, and he didn't die?

Once again: Torso. Not head and neck.

Source? OP has it listed as "face and neck area"

[Big Jim P]

Martial law is rule by the military. You are looking for the word "vigilante" I believe.

True enough. Martial Law, I thought, was rule by Martial Prowess.

Not in the modern sense.

Oh, and police are minutes away. A gun in in your hand now.

Not to mention, it seems rather hypocritical to depend on an armed officer to defend yourself instead of doing so yourself. What's the matter? Afraid of getting your own hands dirty?

[Big Jim P]

Once again: Torso. Not head and neck.

Source? OP has it listed as "face and neck area"

Look through the thread. Several news reports were linked.

[Big Jim P]

and some are prone to reducing their own value.

Unfortunately enough, people continue to be people.

An fortunately enough, when a person reduces themselves to the uncivilized state, there are others to put them down.

[Grinning Dragon]

True enough. Martial Law, I thought, was rule by Martial Prowess.

Not in the modern sense.

Oh, and police are minutes away. A gun in in your hand now.

Not to mention, it seems rather hypocritical to depend on an armed officer to defend yourself instead of doing so yourself. What's the matter? Afraid of getting your own hands dirty?

Well it isn't called, "call 911 and die" for nothing you know.

[Republica Newland]

I don't think they realize that a fit man can potentially kill someone with 1 punch to the head,let alone with a crowbar.

Can a "fit man" kill 30 targets in 25 seconds with his fists? To think that somehow any sort of melee weapon is as dangerous as a gun is ridiculous.

Why are you going off-topic here? We were talking about the incident on hand.But you obviously don't have a counter argument for that.Apparently every time the argument is about to lead to a conclusion you evade it and go into what if's.

And what firearm can kill 30 targets in 25 seconds may I ask? A .50 caliber machine gun?! That's something impossible to accomplish even for a SEAL or SAS operative.

And no,melee weapons being as dangerous as guns isn't ridiculous at all. They can be even more dangerous than guns in certain situations.In a melee vs. gun scenario - such as when the melee weapon-wielding person is at close enough range and/or when the person wielding the gun has an underpowered firearm.

[Union of Confederate Socialist Republics]

Care to explain?

We don't need the police. If someone attacks me, I have my gun.

This is martial law, rule by violence.

That's a description of anarchy. Also if there was no police, everyone could go and kill anybody they wanted.

Not to mention that you got the term "martial law" wrong.

[Republica Newland]

We don't need the police. If someone attacks me, I have my gun.

This is martial law, rule by violence.

That's a description of anarchy. Also if there was no police, everyone could go and kill anybody they wanted.

Not to mention that you got the term "martial law" wrong.

Here's a thought - a little scenario:
Everyone has guns.
Now.In the event that some retard does go batshit insane and starts shooting people - the situation all takes care of itself. Given that the majority of the US population are neither criminals nor mentally ill people - which is common sense.

[Isola degli Alberi]

I'm personally of the opinion that a person has the right to defend her home with equal or lesser force, and that if a person reasonably suspects her life to be in danger, that person is legally allowed to use lethal force.

Not sure if it has been noted, but the woman would also have been reasonable in a fear of rape. I'll provide a link to a sociological study that shows that rapes oftentimes accompany burglaries. The study was conducted in the 80s, and from a sample of over 100 convicted rapists, 39% committed rape during a robbery.

The study is a bit dated, and I'm not suggesting that the burglar was definitely going to rape the woman, especially since the woman was armed. But when a stranger breaks into the home, there are many unknowns. If nothing else, it is interesting food for thought.

She probably should have given a verbal warning before opening fire, but she was acting within the confines of the law. Georgia has stand-your-ground laws.

[Falcania]

That's a description of anarchy. Also if there was no police, everyone could go and kill anybody they wanted.

Not to mention that you got the term "martial law" wrong.

Here's a thought - a little scenario:
Everyone has guns.
Now.In the event that some retard does go batshit insane and starts shooting people - the situation all takes care of itself. Given that the majority of the US population are neither criminals nor mentally ill people - which is common sense.

The situation takes care of itself through the civilised and wonderful method of lots of people being shot and killed. Hurray for guns! Hurray for America!

[Crogach]

That's a description of anarchy. Also if there was no police, everyone could go and kill anybody they wanted.

Not to mention that you got the term "martial law" wrong.

Here's a thought - a little scenario:
Everyone has guns.
Now.In the event that some retard does go batshit insane and starts shooting people - the situation all takes care of itself. Given that the majority of the US population are neither criminals nor mentally ill people - which is common sense.

That seriously depends on whether the bystanders you're referring to are actually trained to keep their heads in a fast-paced, high-stakes situation, can aim reasonably well at a moving target, and can coordinate quickly with each other to avoid a barrage of misdirected fire. If the answer is yes (as it would be with police, soldiers, or people with militia/home guard training) then you're right; if the answer is no then the aforementioned retard will probably die, but so will with ten or fifteen other people felled by stray bullets.