87 Year Old NC Woman Uses 9mm Handgun to stop 2 Home Invaders

[ileus]

http://www.citizen-times.com/article/20120818/NEWS01/120818008/Henderson-woman-uses-gun-scare-off-burglary-suspects?nclick_check=1

HENDERSONVILLE — Deputies say they arrested two men who broke into a home and fled after they were confronted by an 87-year-old woman with a gun.


Finally a little good news on the gun front.

So I must ask should elderly people be trusted with firearms? I know we can't trust my father, and had to remove his firearms from his home. Someone around here used to post some kind of test or something I can't remember what it included now.

Discuss:

[AnotherMcIntosh]

1. Good for her. But this is not a "FINALLY-a-little-good-news-on-the-gun-front" story.

Go to Google News and search for "home invasion."

[TruthAnalyzed]

2. The problem is

these stories never make national headlines. Usually it's just a local news affiliate posting the story, and that's that. There are forums where people share these news stories, but they recently wiped their forum database because of speed issues. Could probably find it in the wayback machine though.

I'm always glad to see people defend themselves like this.

[ManiacJoe]

3. The elderly are best handled on a case by case basis.

The family tends to know best when it is time.

When it came to my grandfather, about the time we took away the car keys, the removal of the guns happened relatively soon afterwards.

[formercia]

4. This one qualifies:

[Hoyt]

5. Hat off to lady, particularly for not shooting them in the back or using an assault weapon.

I do think kids have a responsibility to make sure parents don't drive when it's not safe, or possess guns.

[friendly_iconoclast]

7. What's wrong with using what you call "an assault weapon"?

An AR in .223 would make a very good home-defense weapon if loaded with non-FMJ ammunition

[ManiacJoe]

8. FMJ ammo works pretty well in that role, too.

[friendly_iconoclast]

46. FMJ ammo tends to overpenetrate in HD use

[4th law of robotics]

10. Why would it matter what kind of gun she used?

And no, I don't expect you to break from tradition and actually answer me.

[Hoyt]

11. Point is the guns that get your hormones flowing aren't only effective weapons

[4th law of robotics]

12. You've never actually spoken to any gun owners have you?

Well, legal ones. You are an armed robber of course. But I mean people who buy them for self-protection rather than . . ahem, 'work'.

All your arguments are based around this bizarre caricature you've built up in your mind based on your own assumptions and little (actually I'm guessing no) empirical evidence.

[Hoyt]

13. I've probably known more gun nuts than you.

[4th law of robotics]

15. Sure sure, you're an expert in everything

and have lived more than Forest Gump.

Back in the real world however . . .

[Hoyt]

24. I've had law-abiding gun owners pull them on me. I've worked in ERs and send the damage.

My dad was a top target shooter in South East in 1950s and early 1960s and I went to most matches (and often shot afterward). I had a couple of room mates that were honest to god gun nut, bigots -- didn't take long to kick them out. I live among right wingers, and many thing guns are the only thing between them and what the envision as "thugs." I've seen people running for public office with a gun and confederate flag. Had a gubner in early 1970s who made his name by chasing Blacks out of his restaurant with guns and axe handles. Been to plenty of gun stores and seen the fuckers drooling over guns with little purpose other than shooting people or attempting to cure Low-T.

I have met some antique gun collectors who seemed pretty cool. But, as soon as they start talking shit about modern weapons, I move on.

As my father-in-law -- retired military and police (over 25 years in each) -- told some stupid fucker in a restaurant in Alabama who was coat less and wearing dual shoulder holsters -- "you look like a silly fool." I agreed with my father-in-law who was in a wheel chair and close to death at the time.

[TruthAnalyzed]

29. What does that have to do with

people who

-Don't run for office with a gun and confedearte flag?
-Don't chase blacks out of our businesses with guns?
-Don't drool over guns with 'little purpose'(completely subjective statement)?
-Don't open-carry with double shoulder holsters?

You're trying to paint very broad strokes with a very narrow brush. It doesn't work.

[4th law of robotics]

30. You're an armed robber. Of course you've had law abiding citizens pull guns on you

that's kind of what they're for.

[friendly_iconoclast]

47. Oh man, that was just...beautiful

[Union Scribe]

41. DU's Walter Mitty strikes again. nt

[Jenoch]

42. The fact that you

had a couple of room mates (sic) that you considered to be 'gun nut, bigots' explains a lot about your views.

[friendly_iconoclast]

48. You forgot your war wound, your time with NASA and your friendship with Sue the chimpanzee...

[Hoyt]

49. But never had a physical/mental love affair with guns.

[ManiacJoe]

52. Congratulations and welcome to the club.

[spin]

55. I enjoy target shooting and legally carry a handgun ...

But I don't have a "physical/mental love affair with my firearms. I shoot them and then clean after which I put them back in the safe. Occasionally (once a year or so) I wipe them down with a silicone cloth. I rarely show them to visitors unless the visitor expresses interest about a certain firearm that I own.

I view them much as a person who is interested in fishing views his rods and reels, a golfer views his bag of golf clubs or as a handyman views his collection of tools.

My firearms enable me to enjoy what I consider an interesting hobby and they also provide an effective means of self defense in the small chance that I would ever find myself attacked by someone who intends to seriously injure or kill me.

Your imagination often amazes me.

[holdencaufield]

21. I'm curious...

... what, in your mind, constitutes a "gun nut"? Is it anyone who owns or wished to own a firearm? Or is there a more narrow definition?

Please be specific, this should be interesting.

[Hoyt]

23. Not "a firearm." If one exhibits more than a few of following: carry routinely, drool over

"assault/tactical" guns;
-are into large cap mags and similar "accessories;"
-practice "preparing" to shoot people;
-use silhouette targets or pose in front of mirrors;
-profit off gun proliferation;
-spend inordinate time obsessing or fondling their guns;
-can't understand why an 80 year old lady didn't shoot unarmed teenagers in her house when she had a chance;
-thinks we need to arm up to fight the government;
-sees no problem with so-called "militias" even though they clearly are racist organizations;
-struts down street with a gun and video camera to create a scene;
- is into stopping power and all kinds of different loads;
-has weapons for special occasions (like shooting people escaping a natural disaster);
-gets really excited at guns specifically manufactured and marketed to appeal to one's baser instincts;
-are bigots who arm up to protect themselves from those they hate;
-loves NRA and thinks their so-called training offsets their callous, bigot right wing political agenda;
-cheered for SYG;
-quotes folks like Thomas Jefferson as if those callous slave owners have any valid insight on guns in today's society;
-keep popping back up hear spouting right wing gun crud under a new name;
-work for to defeat Obama, or would do so if he even proposed some new legislation to impede the growth of weapons;
-is a Tbagger;
-goes to Tbag or other protest with a gun or two tucked away;
-buys and wears special clothes to pack their guns;
-believe guns should be allowed almost anywhere;
-hope Zimmerman gets off shooting unarmed teenager;
-make vague claims that more guns have reduced crimes;
-can't see beyond their front sights;\
-loves to post photos of their latest lethal toys;

-There are lots more, but this is a good start.

Keep in mind, only takes a few to qualify. So many here probably all ready do.

[bongbong]

27. Good list

You probably made a bunch of the gun-relgionists nervous with your list, seeing as how they might very well fit "gun nut" to a T.

[TruthAnalyzed]

31. So, this is the 'define a derogatory term' game?

Ok, I define 'Firearmphobes' as people who

-Make broad statements about 'gun nuts' or 'gun-religionists'.
-Think that guns are never used for defensive purposes, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
-Can't provide a valid answer for what to do in a dangerous situation.
-Ignore the fact that hundreds of thousands of crimes are committed every year.
-Refuse to discuss, rationally, the effect of guns on a society.
-Present ad-hominem attacks against people who try to use logic and facts.

I could go on, but I'll save some fun for someone else.

The 'define a derogatory term' game is fun!

[4th law of robotics]

32. You realize a lot of those are entirely subjective

Gee I wonder who will be the impartial arbiter as to what constitutes "excessive".

[Hoyt]

40. Much in public policy is subjective . I think that list helps define "gun nut."

That was the poster's question above. Mine is but one person's opinion.

How many hits did you get?

[4th law of robotics]

50. I would define a gun-grabber and anti-second amendment type as

one who shows an excessive interest in other people's guns.

I will define what excessive is. I will also consider this a dangerously anti-social and pro-totalitarian mental disorder.

[Hoyt]

53. Not anti-second amendment, but I sure do define it differently from those who view guns as a crutch.

[4th law of robotics]

54. Anyone who uses a gun as a crutch is an idiot

they aren't designed for that, they make a poor substitute and depending on how you orient it you're either fouling the barrel or pointing a gun at yourself. Either of which is a bad idea. Best to use an actual crutch or perhaps a walking stick.

Now who does that?

[Reasonable_Argument]

39. By that standard

Anyone who has shown more than a passing interest in guns is a "gun nut".

[spin]

56. Interesting list ....

You covered almost every firearm owner and defined them as a "gun nut."

I don't own any firearms that would be defined as an "assault weapon" but I have some interest in such weapons just as I do with black powder weapons. Firearms are interesting to me as I have been involved in the shooting sports for years. Perhaps if I move to a more rural area I might consider buying an assault style rifle. I don't "drool over" such weapons nor do I "drool over" my current collection of firearms. That's simply hyperbole.

I have little interest in hi-cap magazines. They are often unreliable and tend to jam. It's very easily to swap out magazines and can be accomplished in a couple of seconds or far less with practice. I don't understand what you consider an accessory as you didn't define the term. A scope is an accessory. Such devices often enable a hunter to more accurately take his game in a humane manner.

Obviously since I have a concealed carry permit it is not unwise to practice shooting at silhouette targets which you obviously consider to be practicing to "kill" people. The object is never to kill your attacker but to stop his attack. You definitely want to know that you can hit a person accurately at a short range if you carry a handgun for self defense. A silhouette target offers the opportunity to access the ability to hit your attacker without endangering others. Bullseye targets are more suitable for target shooting at range. I use both for practice.

I personally rarely sell any of my firearms. I usually sell them for far less money than I paid for them but then they are well used with a least several thousand rounds having been fired through each.

You and others who have a dislike of firearm owners often feel that those who own them often sit around fondling them. In reality most gun owners shoot their weapons, clean them and put them away. I do handle the handguns I legally carry on a more frequent basis but I don't "fondle them."

I see no problem with an 80 year old woman shooting an unarmed teenager who has invaded her house. Nor do I have any problem with an armed 80 year old woman who uses her firearm to simply scare such individuals away. It is her choice and in many states she has no legal requirement to retreat. Often such women find themselves victims of rape. Would you expect that she should use her martial arts skills to stop a much younger attacker or perhaps throw a can of beans at him?

Currently I see no need to overthrow the government. Many people disagree with the direction that our nation appears to be on, but we still can chose to vote out our leaders. Far in the future we might find ourselves living under a tyrant or a dictator. At that time. which again is many years in the future, firearms MIGHT enable a successful rebellion. Such a revolution would require the support of the majority of the citizens in our nation and might possibly be accomplished with non violent means. Any current attempt by some delusional militia group would fail because it would lack the support of the majority of our citizens, cooperation from our military forces and our police. It would fail dramatically and would lead to more restrictive gun legislation. The overwhelming majority of responsible and rational gun owners have absolutely no interest in launching an overthrow of our government at this time.

I have no fondness for militias. They are often extremely conservative organizations that are filled with racial hatred. They might pose a threat but hardly have any support from the majority of gun owners in our nation. I have had some encounters with militia members and found them to be basically fruitcakes. I simply feel that they are "nuts" period.

I don't go looking for trouble. Consequently I don't carry a video camera to record encounters with the police nor do I walk around with a firearm openly displayed in order to provoke an encounter with the police. Of course open carry in public in Florida is illegal. Even if it was I would probably prefer to continue to carry my handgun concealed. I have no desire to worry others or to make a foolish statement.

Obviously if you legally carry a weapon for self defense it is only logical that you would wish to carry ammunition in it that will effective "stop" an attacker. If you target shoot you wish to have very accurate ammo to produce tight groups on your target if you do your job. I reloaded ammunition for my shooting for many years and it was a challenging task to find the most accurate loads for each of my firearms. For self defense purposes I carry factory ammo that is designed for the task of effectively stopping an attacker. Long range accuracy is not quite as important to me as shooting an attacker at 25 yards is unrealistic in most circumstances. I'm a civilian not a member of a SWAT team.

In the case that a natural disaster happens I do wish to have an effective firearm to defend my home. I personally have chosen a 12 gauge double barreled coach gun. Unlike a handgun this is indeed a very lethal firearm.

In a natural disaster such as a hurricane you are basically on your own. You may not be able to contact the police even on a cell phone and if you do and the winds are too high they might not respond. If they do, downed trees might make the roads leading to your house impassible. I have lived through hurricanes and very strong tropical storms in Florida. Fortunately I have never had to use a firearm for self defense although predators often take advance of the aftermath of such storms to pillage. That's why armed national guard members often patrol damaged areas.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this statement:

-gets really excited at guns specifically manufactured and marketed to appeal to one's baser instincts;

If you are referring to an honest citizen's right to own a firearm for home defense or to legally carry on the street, I would suggest that what you call "baser instincts" is merely the inherit instinct that many have to be able to effectively respond to an attack by a predator. Some people are very passive by nature and are entirely willing to submit to the desires of their attacker. This might be admirable to some but I and many others feel our life or health has value not only to ourselves but also to those who depend on us. Is the life or health of a predator who fails to obey the laws of our society more important?

Of course I don't get "really excited" about guns "manufactured and marketed "to appeal to one's baser instincts." Currently I am entirely satisfied with the firearms I own although I will admit that I do consider newer firearms. If I find a firearm that is far superior to those I own, I will consider buying it. It's a lot like deciding if I should replace my current vehicle with a new one that offers better safety, features and superior gas mileage. There are often many times that a newer item is superior to what was manufactured in the past. For example I am watching a high def LCD TV as I reply to your post. The picture quality is far better than the TVs I owned in the past. I will admit that I was somewhat excited to get it and I don't regret purchasing it.

I am not prejudiced in the least. I have white, Black and Hispanic friends. Some people are good and some evil. Race has nothing to do with this.

I personally hate bigots. I have personally introduced people of all races to shooting when I felt they were honest trustworthy citizens and had expressed an interest in the sport or owning a firearm for self defense. That's why I strongly support "shall issue" concealed carry and other similar laws as such laws do not discriminate.

You list:

-loves NRA and thinks their so-called training offsets their callous, bigot right wing political agenda;
-cheered for SYG;

"Stand your ground" laws simply make commonsense to me. I see no logical reason to be required to first retreat if attacked by an individual who intends to seriously injure or kill me and has the capacity to do so. I did nothing wrong, my attacker did. I also have no problem with other victim rights laws such as "castle doctrine." Of course such laws should be well written and if there are any SERIOUS questions, the shooter should have to defend his actions in a trial.

As far as the NRA why do you oppose firearm training? Obviously any one who decides to own a firearm should have safety training. If you own a firearm for home defense or have a carry license it is extremely important to know your local laws. Does the Brady Campaign offer safety courses or classes on concealed carry? The NRA quite possibly has the best instructors for gun safety, hunter safety and for law enforcement. The organization also promotes shooting as a hobby and sponsors shooting competition. It also works to help sun ranges to provide a safe environment.

I do disagree with some of the NRA-ILA (the political wing of the NRA) positions. This organization is largely supported by donations. Consequently I throw all their literature into the trash can unopened. I merely send my dues to the NRA yearly as I support the firearm training they offer and enjoy the shooting sports. I will admit that I tend to vote against any politician who favors truly draconian gun laws irregardless of party affiliation. I consider such people unqualified to hold public office. That is my opinion and many here will disagree. Fortunately most of the local Democratic politicians in my area are strong supporters of RKBA.

You may feel that those who support gun rights are wrong and that is your right. You may feel that everything that the NRA says is totally wrong and once again you have the right to that viewpoint.

I have carefully considered the arguments on both sides of the issue. It is my opinion that sometimes the NRA is wrong to totally oppose any improvements in our current gun laws. However when I look at the agenda of those who oppose RKBA, I find that much of what they propose are merely foolish "feel good" laws that would have little or no effect on reducing gun violence in our nation. I feel our nation could make headway on this problem if both sides were willing to find common ground and compromise. In our current political environment in which both sides of many issues are cemented in to their position, compromise seems a lost art. This has to change if we ever hope to escape from the quicksand our nation finds itself mired in. First we need to quit insulting each other. (For example all your insults and hyperbole may be great fun for you to post here but it will accomplish nothing and in fact will only alienate those who disagree with your position.)

You state:

-quotes folks like Thomas Jefferson as if those callous slave owners have any valid insight on guns in today's society;

I would suggest that the Founding Fathers were far wiser than either you or I and quite possibly any of the leaders we have today. Obviously they live in a far different time and place. You criticize Jefferson as he was a slave owner. Let's examine some facts:

Thomas Jefferson lived in a Virginia planter society economically dependent on slavery.[150] Although a slaveowner himself, he believed slavery harmful to both slave and master.[151] His views on the institution of slavery and African slaves are complex; many historians have regarded Jefferson as a foe of slavery, while many others disagree.[152][153]

Early in his political career Jefferson took actions in opposition to slavery and to bring its abolition as the more he pondered slavery the more he was sure it must be ended. [18][154] [155]In his initial draft of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson denounced the British government's role in the international slave trade, which he opposed as inhumane.[note 5][156] While in Congress in 1784 he proposed to ban slavery in all the territories, though this was not enacted.[157]

Although Jefferson always desired to end slavery, [155] [158] he believed slavery was the custom of his state while his tobacco crop relied heavily on slave labor. [159] During his lawyers years he took on cases involving slavery and on one occasion refused to defend an overseer who whipped a slave to death. He drafted the Virginia law of 1778 prohibiting the importation of enslaved Africans. In 1784 he proposed an ordinance banning slavery in the new territories of the Northwest. From the mid-1770s he drafted and proposed a plan of gradual emancipation where all born into slavery after a certain date would be emancipated." In 1785 the revisors authored a measure but to Jefferson's objections it contained no provisions for emancipation or plans for freed slaves. Limits were set on the expansion of slavery to only the descendants of female slaves, and after the age of 25 they would become free. The bill was never passed by no fault of Jefferson who thought this provision was better attempted by way of an amendment. [160][161] In 1807, Congress passed and Jefferson signed into law a bill prohibiting the trans-Atlantic slave trade on the first day of 1808, the earliest date permitted by the Constitution.[162]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson

Of course you disagree with Jefferson's support of RKBA and feel that today he might have a far different view. You might be right. However I personally believe that many of the founders including Jefferson would have had the same views on RKBA today. The founders were very opposed to tyranny and firmly believed in individual rights. Of course they realized that firearms in the wrong hands can lead to tragedy. I feel that the founders would strongly support many of our current gun laws but would also oppose gun bans and confiscation of all firearms. They most likely would see no problem with civilian ownership of many firearms used by our military. They also would have had no problem with allowing an honest citizen to carry a firearm for self defense.

While I do not support the Tea Party and disagree with their views on many subjects, in a Representative Democracy such as what we have, Tea Party members have a right to their views. I see no major problems with a person who is legally carrying a firearm having one in one of their gatherings as long as he/she doesn't misuse it. Can you show one incident in which a member of the Tea Party illegally shot another person at one of their rallies?

I personally feel that it is very foolish to openly carry a firearm at a political gathering as it definitely generates negative publicity. That is the choice of the Tea Party members and their "leadership" and as long as they violate no laws, I see no problem. If they chose to appear to be total idiots, so be it. People who open carry firearms merely hurt their cause.

You state:

buys and wears special clothes to pack their guns;

I legally carry a concealed weapon. It IS a requirement in my state that the weapon is CONCEALED. Obviously it only makes sense for me to buy clothing that will effectively conceal my weapon. What is wrong with that?

I personally believe that firearms should not be allowed everywhere. I do oppose gun free zones where armed security is not present as such areas attract people who have serious mental issues and wish to slaughter a number of people before they are stopped.

Zimmerman will get his day in court. That's fair. It will be up to a judge or a jury to determine his guilt or innocence. That's the way our system should work. I feel the "stand your ground" law in Florida should be rewritten to remove any ambiguities or confusion that may currently exist. The prosecution will present their evidence and Zimmerman's defense will attempt to counter. This is a far better system than trial by the media. (I should note that I feel Zimmerman was in the wrong when he left his truck.)

I never have claimed that more guns = less crime. However the violent crime rate in our nation has returned to levels last seen in the 60s despite the fact that "shall issue" concealed carry has swept across our nation and the sale of firearms has skyrocketed in recent years. Please explain why this is a fact. Surely if more guns = more crime this would not be true despite all the efforts of our law enforcement agencies.

Your comment:

-can't see beyond their front sights;\

might apply to target shooting as a target shooter tends to focus on the front sight of his firearm. Self defensive shooting at close range is far different than target shooting. I practice to hit a target at close range without using the front sights. It's not easy but it can be done rapidly. The simple realities is that in a real life or death fight your concentration will be largely focused on your attacker or his weapon.

Once again you appear to have little knowledge of what you are talking about.

Finally a picture of a firearm you are discussing is worth a thousand words. I try to avoid posting "gun porn" in this forum but sometimes it makes my point clearer.

Obviously to you I am a "gun nut." I believe that you and many others view this as an effective insult. I don't. Admittedly I am not real expert on firearms but I do know FAR more about the subject than many oppose RKBA and who post here do.

I'm no real expert on history either but I enjoy studying history. I have been called a history nut in the past and I felt the term was a compliment. I was talking to a Black lady a few days ago and she had no real knowledge of Abe Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation. I explained it to her and she was fascinated. She felt that I had an unusal grasp of the subject. I felt that the school system in my area was a TOTAL failure (which it is).

Yes, I have been called a "history nut". I take such an insult as a compliment just as I do when you label me as a "gun nut."

You spend a lot of your time posting here. You appear to have gained little or no knowledge about the gun culture and those who legally and responsibly own firearms for sport and for self defense.

I bother to take the time to reply to you merely because you present an excellent opportunity to counter your insults with rational argument. Many others who have little knowledge of firearms and those who own them hold views similar to yours.

If I chose to do so I could present far better arguments against RKBA than you do. To debate any subject it is wise to know the strong points on both sides of the argument.

I would suggest that you do some research and present some rational points to support your view. It would make relying to your post far more challenging. I welcome that.

[TruthAnalyzed]

14. Correct.

The most effective weapons for self-defense are

Shotguns - buckshot not birdshot. #1 buckshot to be precise. Best stopping power.
Rifles - For easy aiming, and good stopping power.
Handguns - For ease of carry/wielding. Least stopping power.

It has nothing to do with hormones. It has everything to do with wound-channel size, temporary-cavity size, and hydro-static shock.

[Hoyt]

16. You sure are wasting a lot of life overanalyzing shooting people.

[TruthAnalyzed]

17. Could you clarify your sentence for me?

It really is unclear as to how you are using the word 'shooting'...

I put a lot of analysis into my research for which guns I would buy for the self defense of myself and my family. It doesn't make sense to get a tool that won't do the job it needs to do.

I sincerely hope that you never come to harm in a situation that you could have avoided.

[Hoyt]

25. I and 280 million have those situations, but somehow we prevail without polluting society with guns.

[TruthAnalyzed]

28. Are you referring to a different post?

So, you just manage to 'prevail' when you are attacked by criminals with weapons?

How many ten/hundreds of thousands of times a year is someone attacked, mugged, beaten, raped, or killed? Do you call that 'prevailing'?

[TruthAnalyzed]

18. Can you clarify for me, Hoyt?

Is it that people buy guns that give them a hormone boost?
Or is it that people buy guns that they have, through intellectual research, determined are the proper tool for the job?

Which of those is bad? Or is it just lose-lose?

[holdencaufield]

19. I'll beg you not...

... to discuss what does, and does not, get my hormones "flowing"

At least until you've bought me a drink.

[jody]

6. At what age does one become elderly? nt

[Starboard Tack]

9. I doubt the elderly are a major problem when it comes to guns.

Like anyone else, provided they don't go out in public with their guns, I have no problem with keeping them at home. Not sure a 9mm is the optimum weapon, but as they are still legal, it's an individual's choice.

[holdencaufield]

20. The biggest problem with the elderly is ...

... they tend to shoot very low-velocity in the the high-velocity lane.

[TruthAnalyzed]

22. You're a funny dude(ette).

[Starboard Tack]

45. Maybe it's you who need to slow down a little.

[Hoyt]

26. What is really amazing and laudable about this lady is she didn't shoot them. Some here would have

blasted away and said, "how did I know they didn't have a gun" or similar BS taught to them by some dumbass gun instructor.

[TruthAnalyzed]

33. What is really amazing

is the fact that gun owners only actually fire a weapon between 2-8% of the time that they brandish it to prevent a crime, yet firearmaphobes assume that anyone with a gun will just start 'blasting away' and go all 'trigger happy' at the slightest chance.

[Hoyt]

37. Go back and read some of the threads, and tell me there are not

A bunch of callous toters out there.

[TruthAnalyzed]

38. Why would I try to base my view of reality

on the content of online threads?

That has nothing to do with what I said, why can't you stay on topic? There is plenty of research to support that guns are rarely fired in a Defensive Gun Use, especially the statistics on legal homicides by civilians using guns.

[Remmah2]

35. Too bad she had hi-cap magazines and cop killer bullets.

[Jenoch]

43. You apparently don't know

much about CCW gun instructors. More than half of the classroom instruction in the Minnesota classes is spent on explaining how much shit the CCW holder will be in if they actually pull out their weapon, let alone actually firing it at someone.

[Hoyt]

44. They aren't doing a good enough job,, and it doesn't happen in every state.

[spin]

58. Back up your statement with statistics and facts. ...

Otherwise it is merely your opinion.

[Jenoch]

59. At least he has

an opinion, misguided as it is, unlike the opinionless SecularMotion.

[Remmah2]

34. I really have a problem with her poor decision making process in pulling a 9mm.

Should have been a .45.

[TruthAnalyzed]

36. Clearly

she couldn't afford the extra cost for .45 ammunition, as that is the only reason not to use it. She's probably saving her dimes in case the Rs manage to take away her SS and Medicare.

[tularetom]

51. Sadly not all elderly people can be trusted with firearms

Obviously this lady could but there are many that can't be.

My dad was one of them. After my mother died he took to sitting in the back yard firing a 12 ga. shotgun at pigeons that lit on his fence, tree branches or wherever. The neighbors tried to talk to him but he got belligerent, so they called me and I had to drive 1000 miles to take the shotgun, his Winchester 94 deer rifle, and a 1911 away from him. I'll always be grateful they contacted me instead of calling the cops and thankful I got there before he hurt anybody (including himself).

That was the last time I saw him. Shortly thereafter he went in for surgery for an intestinal blockage, had a stroke in the hospital and never recovered.

[CokeMachine]

57. Very Sad

My parents live 1,000 miles away and I try to see them a few times a year. Ya never know when will be the last time and I don't want any regrets. I don't look forward to the time when we'll have to do things for their and others safety. Take Care!!

[rDigital]

60. My grandmother keeps a .410 shotgun under her bed.

Just like driving, if the elderly can carry responsibly, then they should.

[Jenoch]

61. My father used to keep a

youth sized .20 guage pump under the couch in the motorhome.

[trouble.smith]

62. the predators thought they had selected some easy prey out of the herd.

stupid predators.

[rDigital]

63. Sometimes the sheep have teeth. The predators would be wise to remember this and move on to

a less dangerous profession.