The suspect repeatedly knocks on the door, then repeatedly rings the doorbell, then breaks in and starts ransacking the home.. all while a Georgian mother and her twin children were inside.

This was in Georgia BTW.



The woman quickly called her husband and 911 while grabbing the family'��s .38 revolver and hiding herself and her children in a closet in the attic.

Armed with a crowbar, the suspect made his way upstairs and opened the closet door. Not backing down, the woman fired all 6 shots, hitting the suspect 5 times in the face and neck.

Radio host Lars Larson pointed out that while the woman acted heroically, had there been more than one intruder, she would have been in real danger because she wouldn't have had enough bullets in that type of weapon to protect herself and her family. He said many people want a gun that is capable of holding more bullets, but this is what the president's plan will go after.

This president wants to take away people's rights to own the appropriate tool to repel an invader or invaders into their houses, Larson said.

What do you think of that?

this womans gun WAS enough to save her but yet we still will make it about 'this president' because of the WHAT IFS?

wow

it would be interesting to hear just HOW often that 'what if' has happened and ended in some homeowner losing their life for not having enough ammo,,,,,smh

Well what do you suppose would happen had there been two intruders and the second was armed with more than a crowbar?

This is one of the major differences between those with common sense and those with liberal ideas. Chance favors the prepared.

If that "what if" only happens once and a person is killed by the intruder then it's happened one too many times. People have a right to protect themselves, and in this case their children, by what ever means are necessary. Restricting a persons means to protect themselves is unjust, period.

and what if there would have been TWO intruders and both had guns?

she would be dead, if that was their aim, as she can only shoot one bullet at a time,,lol

and in the time she is shooting the other can shoot her,,

its a silly scenario with an unpredictable end,, however many bullets she could shoot,,,

Here is the problem. She fired every bullet she had at the one person. To me that sounds like she acted out of fear and rightfully so. But if there had been two intruders and even if she had a gun with more bullets in it. She would have probably still been in danger because she would have spent every bullet on the first guy and the second guy still would have killed her and possibly her kids.

If she had kept calm, which isn't easy in that kind of situation, She possibly could have gotten him with one bullet to the head or heart and would have had enough to defend herself against a second attacker. Any way that is the flaw I see in this argument.

Personally I think a better gun to use for home defense is a shot gun. You don't have to be a marksman to hit your target. You just need the right shot. Like -00 buck.

I think this is the case where she didn't initially unload, but wounded him, and the husband (on the phone) instructed her to make sure he was dead so she emptied the gun,,,

Possibly. Then it could be murder on her part if it is determined that he was no longer a threat because of his injuries. If she just simply acted and shot him four times in the head after shooting him in the neck without instruction she would probably still be in the clear.

Is the second intruder standing behind his buddy who is standing in the doorway gonna shoot through his buddy randomly? Doubtful.

If the perp is still moving you keep squeezing the trigger.

why would he have to shoot through him? he would already be shot,,,,

I would be willing to bet...a lot.

guns make it real easy ,,,,,



smart, legally speaking

disgusting, morally speaking

Dang homeowners and their guns, ain't a perp safe no more...

homeowners have always been able to have guns and always will be

I doubt many mentally ill or criminal have the 'credit' to actually 'own' their home,,lol

All he wanted was a little money to buy some crack....geez.

The safeness of the perp depends on the skill of the shooter. lol

Home owners that are convicted felons can't have guns.

Correction. They can not legally have guns. It doesn't mean they can't get them. hahaha

no doubt

also, I still doubt MOST Criminals lead the kind of lives that would lend to the 'credit' needed for homeownership