Guns save innocent lives

A Reno, Nev., woman had just dropped off her children at a local clinic and was returning to her minivan when she saw a man vandalizing the vehicle. The woman yelled at the vandal, who then approached her in a threatening manner. That's when the 39-year-old mother of four drew a .32-cal. pistol from her purse and told the man to stop. When he continued to advance toward her, she shot him once in the chest. Her attacker, Karan-Vir Singh, was expected to be charged with destruction of property.
...
A Tampa, Fla., resident shot and wounded a man who attacked him as he entered his home early one morning. Michael Perdue was returning to his home at S a.m. when a masked man forced him inside the house. Perdue was able to retrieve his gun and shoot the intruder three times before the man fled. Albert Lee Jones was arrested hours later when he sought medical treatment for multiple gunshot wounds. Jones was charged with aggravated battery, attempted armed robbery and armed burglary. (Tampa Tribune, Tampa, FL, 06/09/03)

http://home.earthlink.net/~glsimmons7/Extra/NRA/Armed.html

:+ :+ :+

Let's see how this one turns out . . .

At least that is what we are told when someone takes out the local McDonalds with an Uzi or some desensitized kid shoots up a school.

I don’t automatically subscribe to the belief that the presence of guns makes us murderers, the addiction to death and violence does that.

However, guns don’t deserve a damn bit of credit in any situation just as much as many say they don’t deserve the blame. I like to think of every argument I have ever had in my life and recollect whether or not that situation would have been helped by the presence of a gun.

Responsible gun owners don't use their firearms in an argument. They use them when a threat crosses a threshold that will result in bodily harm or death to from an attack. You need to re-examine your whole way of thinking when it comes to the use of guns in self-defense. I have had a few moments in my life where a gun was needed to hold off a threat. And like the majority of defensive uses with firearms in this country a shot was never fired.

nm

:toast:

....when assholes get access to them.

Sure she had a right to be scared. Sure she had a right to be angry. And sure, they guy deserved punishment for his crime, but shooting people in the chest should be a last resort to be used only when your life or safety are in imminent danger, or are perceived to be in imminent danger. A couple of shots in the leg would probably have been a more measured response.
Just because you own a gun, and because you witness someone commiting a crime, doesn't give you the right to shoot to kill, unless there is an imminent danger. In the second case, an upper body shot would probably have been justified.

>The woman yelled at the vandal, who then approached her in a threatening manner.

A vandal who turns to approach a woman her in a threatening manner is fair game. Unless the gun owner is a crack shot the goal is to shoot for center of mass to stop the attacker. If he had turned and ran then there would not have been a need to shoot.

...tried to reason with the man who had been vandalizing her car and when confronted approached her in a threatening manner. Or maybe she should have shot his belt buckle so his pants would have fallen around his knees. :puke:

Lefty,
You really don't know a thing about self-defense, do you.
RoeBear

Than the NRA's favorite candidate, GW Bush.

By the way, did he grab her? Was he within a few feet of her? Or did she shoot from across the parking lot? The story doesn't say. You apparently have drawn your own conclusion about the incident. I prefer to base my statements on the existing facts, Secretary Rumsfield.

...with the conversation? Awful nice of you to take the side of the criminal, you did note that he's the one the police arrested didn't you?

"You must be friends with the criminals"
"You must not support freedom"
blah blah blah

Bush fabricated a threat that did not really exist. He used the excuse to kill people that he shouldn't have been killing.
I merely questioned whether the parking lot shooter was jutified in attempting to take a human life. God forbid this country should ever degenerate further to the point where everybody starts to think like the NRA, and believe that all shootings are justified without considering the facts.

Next you're liable to mention that this unelected drunk is the NRA's favorite...

...how did we get from a discussion about a woman defending herself to a discussion about Bush and Rumsfield? Is your argument that weak? Because Bush lies she must be lieing? What?

Then you say: "I merely questioned whether the parking lot shooter was jutified in attempting to take a human life. God forbid this country should ever degenerate further to the point where everybody starts to think like the NRA, and believe that all shootings are justified without considering the facts."

Well it would appear that it was a justified use of force because the police arrested him not her.

And just so you know- it is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that someone, especially a woman, aim for the extremities when defending themself. You always aim for center mass first. That's the middle of the chest. Why? Because that's the largest target on a person and the most likely to immediately stop a threat. Shooting a bad guy in the arm or leg only pisses 'em off.

it only reinforces what we already know...self defense with a firearm really pisses off the anti RKBA crowd.

Now the death penalty for vandalism.

Next week shop lifing.

She didn't shoot him while he was vandalizing the car she shot him when he approached her in a menacing manner. What kind of person continues his advance after a verbal warning and seeing a gun drawn? Do you think he was coming up to her to say that he had seen the error in his way?

Since nobody died in any of the incidents mentioned here I have to wonder whether or not you bothered to read the original post.

That obvious problem aside, it seems that you are engaging in a common fallacy of distraction by blurring the distinction between administration of punishment, which can only be done lawfully by the justice system, and use of a firearm for self-defense.

Do you understand that someone who shoots another person as an act of revenge or punishment has committed a very serious crime?

I owe you both an apology. I posted this then tried to delete it upon re reading the article.

It didn't work.

So feel free to attack my post that shouldn't be there.

Personally I think shooting someone is a tad over the top. That's just my opinion.

You're miles above some of the other contributors here.

I salute you.

:toast:

Personally I think shooting someone is a tad over the top. That's just my opinion.

I'd sure hate to be in a situation where I had to make that choice. So far that has not happened. Brandishing a knife is the most intense thing I've ever had to do in self-defense. It worked BTW.

It's actually quite funny. I'd just balled out Township for doing the same in the Pellet Gun Bill thread.

Which is by the way is extremely funny.

:toast:

...I too add my appreciation of an apology.