Could a homeowner's gun have saved this woman's life?

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

I better get under the table for cover.

That's where you will find me, Senor!

Ironically, that's where you find a lot of people who end up dead in office buildings and schools when a crazy person with a gun goes on a rampage among disarmed prey. They duck under tables hoping that they don't get found and murdered, because they have abdicated their right to have and carry the means to fight back.

Did you see the movie "Runaway Jury"?
You just described the opening scene.

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If the gun wasn't within arm's reach, then NO, having one would not have saved her life.

LOL ... that's twice this week where I proclaim that ... Kelly wins ... How many gun owners have their gun on them 24/7 ready to defend themselves in the very instant that it may be needed?

Someone worried about her EX/SO would. But a homeowner at night, probably not. I think the chances these peoplpe could have saved her is low, though at least non zero.

So you think that if this homeowner kept a gun in his nightstand, he would be likely to rush downstairs to pleas of "HELP ME!" but leave the gun in the nightstand? Why does that strike you as how it would be likely to go?

-Jeffrey

Quote

They would have had to assess the situation, made a quick decision, get armed, get out there in a prudent yet theatening manner to the killer, and still hope he doesn't shoot the woman right before running off into the night. (Bill, it's unlikely he'd opt for a shootout)

Read the story. They heard the pleas, then went to the door, the woman was there, the woman got dragged away, the woman came rushingback to the door, the man approached and shot her in the back once, he proceeded to close the distance, stood over her and shot several more times.

The homeowner, if he had brought a gun kept in the home for self defense, would (in my estimation) likely have sought to bring the gun to the door if he were going to investigate cries of "HELP ME!" Upon all the rest that transpired, I rather think that he could easily have been mulling a shoot/don't shoot decision for an adequate amount of time. Surely after the first time she was dragged away, he might have even cocked the weapon, and after she came running back and was shot once, he might have fired at the attacker before he reached her and pumped more bullets into her. Call me crazy, but I think he might have been able to save her.

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Zenister 0]

[reply
See, if you have a gun, and it can be useful, you have the option of using it or not, depending on circumstances.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I better get under the table for cover.

That's where you will find me, Senor!

Ironically, that's where you find a lot of people who end up dead in office buildings and schools when a crazy person with a gun goes on a rampage among disarmed prey. They duck under tables hoping that they don't get found and murdered, because they have abdicated their right to have and carry the means to fight back.

the quote that comes to mind is

"it is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees..."

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

>This is the big joke. "Increased police presence." This is going to save lives?

It will decrease crime. It won't solve it. It's a partial deterrent, like a gun.

Apart from arresting criminals so that they cannot commit more crimes -- which the police do only after A crime has been committed - if a police officer were to prevent crimes, he would have be be on-the-spot to step between aggressor and defender. I postulate that this almost never happens. What else could you mean by "prevent crimes"?

Quote

Interesting, since I often see people's belief that a gun absolves them from the responsibility of avoiding threats in the same light. If a gun is a backup to your common sense, great. If it makes the owner think they do not need to avoid bad areas, or that they should not flee danger, or that they are safer - it makes them more, rather than less, prone to being victims.

Bill, come on, WTF do you mean by "I often see..." this? Numbers? Names? If you "often see" people abandoning the common sense of "don't go into bad areas you have no need to go into," then surely you can name some people you know who do it.

Of all the gun owners I know, NOT ONE has allowed his gun ownership turn him into a "badass" who thinks his gun makes him invincible and able to go anywhere, any time, and stand up to any one.

I think you're blowing smoke with this b.s. claim that "you often see" gun owners taking risks because they own guns.

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I better get under the table for cover.

That's where you will find me, Senor!

Ironically, that's where you find a lot of people who end up dead in office buildings and schools when a crazy person with a gun goes on a rampage among disarmed prey. They duck under tables hoping that they don't get found and murdered, because they have abdicated their right to have and carry the means to fight back.

the quote that comes to mind is

"it is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees..."

I could not help but be struck by the similarity of the posters' statements and the actions of the very real people who have found themselves in a very real situation like what they described. Unarmed victims scrambling for the best HIDING spots are just people waiting to be slaughtered, hoping for the LUCK that they will not be found before someone CAPABLE of dealing with the threat arrives. (Or the threat blows his own brains out.)

It's the argument of the damned. And what's sick is that they force themselves to be damned, by not preparing. And if they survive, they argue that getting rid of guns is still the solution!

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The homeowner, if he had brought a gun kept in the home for self defense, would (in my estimation) likely have sought to bring the gun to the door if he were going to investigate cries of "HELP ME!" Upon all the rest that transpired, I rather think that he could easily have been mulling a shoot/don't shoot decision for an adequate amount of time. Surely after the first time she was dragged away, he might have even cocked the weapon, and after she came running back and was shot once, he might have fired at the attacker before he reached her and pumped more bullets into her. Call me crazy, but I think he might have been able to save her.

You're presupposing a lot for the guy who had just been woken up. Even not in a slumber, a lot of people move very slowly in a crisis. They are not the ones you want bringing out a firearm to try to save someone else.

As I said, non zero chance. Without being there, I can only state the obvious that it didn't happen. Bringing her into the house and locking the door would have been a much more useful first step, one with a much greater probability of saving the woman. At that point the home shotgun would be invaluable.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

The homeowner, if he had brought a gun kept in the home for self defense, would (in my estimation) likely have sought to bring the gun to the door if he were going to investigate cries of "HELP ME!" Upon all the rest that transpired, I rather think that he could easily have been mulling a shoot/don't shoot decision for an adequate amount of time. Surely after the first time she was dragged away, he might have even cocked the weapon, and after she came running back and was shot once, he might have fired at the attacker before he reached her and pumped more bullets into her. Call me crazy, but I think he might have been able to save her.

You're presupposing a lot for the guy who had just been woken up. Even not in a slumber, a lot of people move very slowly in a crisis. They are not the ones you want bringing out a firearm to try to save someone else.

As I said, non zero chance. Without being there, I can only state the obvious that it didn't happen. Bringing her into the house and locking the door would have been a much more useful first step, one with a much greater probability of saving the woman. At that point the home shotgun would be invaluable.

All I'm saying is, he got downstairs. I don't think it's unfair to suggest that if he could wake from bed, and get himself out of the bedroom and down to the front door knowing that the reason he's doing so is because he just heard a woman screaming for help, that he might grab his defensive handgun as well. Is it so hard to imagine that a person who has deliberately prepared himself by owning that handgun would have the presence of mind to not go out to investigate a frantic call for help with it in hand?

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>This is the big joke. "Increased police presence." This is going to save lives?

It will decrease crime. It won't solve it. It's a partial deterrent, like a gun.

>But "increased police presence" as a means to PREVENT crime is a
> joke, bill.

It does prevent crime. Police take an active role in stopping crime; that's sort of their job. Same thing with firemen, or EMT's, or dog catchers. Remove most of the firemen from a town and see if fires become more or less destructive.

> A really bad joke -- worse because it makes people complacent in
> the belief that they don't need to be responsible for their own
> safety, and that ends up costing lives when the bitter truth reveals
> itself in the heat of a criminal act.

Interesting, since I often see people's belief that a gun absolves them from the responsibility of avoiding threats in the same light. If a gun is a backup to your common sense, great. If it makes the owner think they do not need to avoid bad areas, or that they should not flee danger, or that they are safer - it makes them more, rather than less, prone to being victims.

Madison VS. Marbury, IIRC... decision states that the police have no responsibility to protect private citizens, only the public as a whole.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[PhillyKev 0]

I live in a good neighborhood for being in the middle of a large city. My friend who lives a few blocks away was walking home one night when a guy jumped out from behind an alley and said "give me your wallet". My friend did what many people on here advocate. He ran. The mugger chased him, knocked him down, pistol whipped him, shoved the gun in his throat and took his wallet.

Luckily he only got a concussion, needed a few stitches and only spent a couple days in the hospital and lost his money.

[Botellines 0]

He was lucky. Had he have carried a gun, he could have drawn it only to find out that the other guy was a bit faster and not only would have lost his wallet, but also his life.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

He was lucky. Had he have carried a gun, he could have drawn it only to find out that the other guy was a bit faster and not only would have lost his wallet, but also his life.

Yes, being robbed, beaten and hospitalized is certainly lucky. I wish I had that kind of luck.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

He was lucky. Had he have carried a gun, he could have drawn it only to find out that the other guy was a bit faster and not only would have lost his wallet, but also his life.

He was lucky. He could've been shot and killed because he was at the ABSOLUTE MERCY OF HIS ATTACKER

There, fixed that for ya.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

For fuck's sake, John. Did you even read my post before? I in no way implied that he was wrong.

Oh my, such language from a beautiful young lady.

Yes, I did read your post. It was rather vague. The entire message was simply; "You, my friend, are in the minority."

That left a lot open to interpretation. I started out with a response which simply sought clarification, by asking; "Does that make his behavior wrong?"

I thank you for now clarifying that statement with your indication that it does not denote that you disapprove of his gun-carrying.

As for the rest of my comments, those were intended as general comments, rather than something specifically directed at you. I apologize for not making that more clear, and for causing you to take offense.

John

[kaerock 1]

Try re-reading my posts, it's been addressed (although lightly).

Try this as well: Add more tolerance, compassion and fiber to your diet...you'll strain a lot less.

-R

Quote

Quote

Do you think it's a better use of time preparing to become the next victim than to actually try to fix the reason you might ever be a victim at all? Precious energy spent on touting your right to bear arms could be better spent fixing the problems in this society that would give people a reason to need to protect themselves.

You make the mistake of thinking that having a gun for protection against those elements of society that "social outreach" has not yet fixed is somehow exclusive to working toward the fixes you mention.

Even if we reached that point, where jobs and education are so wonderful, you believe that there could then never be the aberrant psychotic, or just greedy malcontent, who is looking for the even easier way to wealth?

How does your pie-in-the-sky touchy-feely approach help us in the now? (even if it could help is in the later)

-Jeffrey

You be the king and I'll overthrow your government. --KRS-ONE

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

He was lucky. Had he have carried a gun, he could have drawn it only to find out that the other guy was a bit faster and not only would have lost his wallet, but also his life.

Key words: "could have". On the other hand, with a gun, he might have saved himself from injury, and loss of his money.

Apparently you didn't bother to peruse these references when provided earlier in the thread. I'll give you another chance here.

The NRA's "Armed Citizen" files:
http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx

The KABR's "Operation Self Defense" files:
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/opsd/

These files contain thousands of stories of self defense with guns, which contradict your presumed outcome.

Furthermore, you should take a look at this study's conclusion:

Attack, Injury and Crime Completion Rates in Robbery and Assault
Incidents:

Rates of Injury by Victim's Method of Protection:


Robbery  Assault

Physical force ............................  51%      52% 

Tried to get help or frighten attacker ....  49%      40%

Knife .....................................  40%      30% 

Non-violent resistance/evasion ............  35%      26%

Threatened or reasoned with attacker ......  31%      25% 

Other measures ............................  27%      21% 

No self protection ........................  25%      27%

Other weapon ..............................  22%      25%

Gun .......................................  17%      12% 


From:   Kleck G, "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America", 

Table 4.4.

Source: Analysis of incident files of 1979-1985 National Crime        

Survey public use computer tapes (ICPSR,1987b).

Note:   Percentages do not total to 100% since any single criminal

incident can involve several different types of self-

protection methods. 

Notice which method of protection offers the best chance of avoiding injury? It's a gun.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

He was lucky. Had he have carried a gun, he could have drawn it only to find out that the other guy was a bit faster and not only would have lost his wallet, but also his life.

He's a similar news story and situation, with a different outcome:

* * *

Troy Jennings, 46, had gotten into an argument with a woman he previously lived with, Judith Carr, on Tuesday night... During the argument, Jennings managed to break the steering column on Carr’s Ford Expedition, but Carr called her 20-year-old son Donald to pick her up.

Carr received threatening phone calls at her mobile home throughout the night from Jennings, and around 8 a.m. Wednesday morning, Jennings rammed his GMC pickup into the bedroom area of the home.

Jennings then grabbed a hammer from inside his truck and shattered the window into Carr’s bedroom. Carr ran from the room, and at the same time, her son Donald ran in and shot Jennings twice with a 22-caliber rifle.

* * *

Without that gun in the home, Judith Carr could have been murdered by having her head smashed in with a hammer. And even though the attack happened by surprise, a homeowner had time to retrieve his gun and use it in lawful self-defense, probably saving his Mom's life.

Source: The Daily Commercial

The question for you is; would you have preferred that this lady and her son been unarmed inside their home, facing an angry, vengeful man with a hammer?

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

He was lucky. Had he have carried a gun, he could have drawn it only to find out that the other guy was a bit faster and not only would have lost his wallet, but also his life.

You have GOT to be kidding?

You utterly missed the point that the guy ended up at the mercy of the criminal either way?!

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Try re-reading my posts, it's been addressed (although lightly).

Try this as well: Add more tolerance, compassion and fiber to your diet...you'll strain a lot less.

-R

Yeah, well, the only place around here you can pick those up is at the smarmy, liberal, touchy-feely organic foods store -- and do you know what they get for them!? Like $7.99 a pound!

That, and they have a sign on the door that says, "Concealed firearms prohibited."

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[christelsabine 1]

After reading all that posts of gun-friends explaining why owning weapons is so important, just let me express my deepest thanks to the Big Chief that I live in !

And I will always try my best to assist strictest gun controls / laws in my mother country.

Violence causes violence causes violence causes....
you know, that thing throwing a stone into silent water, watch the rings...

Question adressed to peace-loving PJ:

What am I supposed to do to protect myself as soon as I step on NYC's concret in November? Call a taxi, ask for next gun shop, arm myself from toes to teeth.... and then start to enjoy NY's city life after work?

Any good advice is appreciated, thx in advance

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

He was lucky. Had he have carried a gun, he could have drawn it only to find out that the other guy was a bit faster and not only would have lost his wallet, but also his life.

He's a similar news story and situation, with a different outcome:

* * *

Troy Jennings, 46, had gotten into an argument with a woman he previously lived with, Judith Carr, on Tuesday night... During the argument, Jennings managed to break the steering column on Carr’s Ford Expedition, but Carr called her 20-year-old son Donald to pick her up.

Carr received threatening phone calls at her mobile home throughout the night from Jennings, and around 8 a.m. Wednesday morning, Jennings rammed his GMC pickup into the bedroom area of the home.

Jennings then grabbed a hammer from inside his truck and shattered the window into Carr’s bedroom. Carr ran from the room, and at the same time, her son Donald ran in and shot Jennings twice with a 22-caliber rifle.

* * *

Without that gun in the home, Judith Carr could have been murdered by having her head smashed in with a hammer. And even though the attack happened by surprise, a homeowner had time to retrieve his gun and use it in lawful self-defense, probably saving his Mom's life.

The question for you is; would you have preferred that this lady and her son been unarmed inside their home, facing an angry, vengeful man with a hammer?

John, John, John... why did they need a GUN? Why couldn't they have gone hammer-to-hammer with the attacker? That way, they could be assured that no stray shots would kill any innocent bystanders, and any kids who might have randomly entered the household could not manage to kill themselves with a hammer.

Plus, something tells me that Judith did not do all she could have done to calm Jennings down from his rage. Sometimes a soothing, understanding tone can work wonders on the criminally, violently insane...

Plus, I don't think Judith had exhausted her options of going back in time and making sure that Jennings had had good employment, proper health care, and that society had provided a good environment for him to grow up in...

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

What am I supposed to do to protect myself as soon as I step on NYC's concret in November?

I'll answer even though you didn't address me. Do nothing. You've already said that is your desire anyway. If someone robs you gun point, smile politely and hope they don't shoot you. If they do, be proud of your choice.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

He was lucky. Had he have carried a gun, he could have drawn it only to find out that the other guy was a bit faster and not only would have lost his wallet, but also his life.

He's a similar news story and situation, with a different outcome:

* * *

Troy Jennings, 46, had gotten into an argument with a woman he previously lived with, Judith Carr, on Tuesday night... During the argument, Jennings managed to break the steering column on Carr’s Ford Expedition, but Carr called her 20-year-old son Donald to pick her up.

Carr received threatening phone calls at her mobile home throughout the night from Jennings, and around 8 a.m. Wednesday morning, Jennings rammed his GMC pickup into the bedroom area of the home.

Jennings then grabbed a hammer from inside his truck and shattered the window into Carr’s bedroom. Carr ran from the room, and at the same time, her son Donald ran in and shot Jennings twice with a 22-caliber rifle.

* * *

Without that gun in the home, Judith Carr could have been murdered by having her head smashed in with a hammer. And even though the attack happened by surprise, a homeowner had time to retrieve his gun and use it in lawful self-defense, probably saving his Mom's life.

The question for you is; would you have preferred that this lady and her son been unarmed inside their home, facing an angry, vengeful man with a hammer?

[billvon 2,772]

>Apart from arresting criminals so that they cannot commit more crimes
>-- which the police do only after A crime has been committed - if a police
> officer were to prevent crimes, he would have be be on-the-spot to step
>between aggressor and defender. I postulate that this almost never
>happens.

Then I suspect you don't know many cops. A friend of mine recently became a cop in LA, and deals with an average of 2-3 domestic disturbances a night, where they go and physically separate two people going after each other. Another friend of mine, a NYC cop, spent most of his time stopping drunk drivers before they hit anyone. He averaged 3-4 arrests a night on weekends.

>Bill, come on, WTF do you mean by "I often see..." this?

Go back and read AggieDave's post from a while back. He was at an ATM, in an excellent defensive machine (a truck.) Someone came by; he looked crazy. He approached him. Dave was worried. He could have driven away; but he had a gun and so he showed it to the guy. The gun gave him enougn confidence to stay in a bad situation instead of fleeing.

>Of all the gun owners I know, NOT ONE has allowed his gun ownership turn
> him into a "badass" who thinks his gun makes him invincible and able to
> go anywhere, any time, and stand up to any one.

I agree that it is rare. It is even more rare that someone will refuse to take precautions because they figure there are lots of cops around.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

After reading all that posts of gun-friends explaining why owning weapons is so important, just let me express my deepest thanks to the Big Chief that I live in !

And I will always try my best to assist strictest gun controls / laws in my mother country.

Violence causes violence causes violence causes....
you know, that thing throwing a stone into silent water, watch the rings...

That is a load of crap.

If I am going peacefully about my day, armed for protection against attack, and someone attacks me violently and I shoot and kill him to end the attack, I don't continue to go about my day being violent: I have stopped the violence. This ad infinitum thing you claim is false on its face.

Quote

Question adressed to peace-loving PJ:

What am I supposed to do to protect myself as soon as I step on NYC's concret in November? Call a taxi, ask for next gun shop, arm myself from toes to teeth.... and then start to enjoy NY's city life after work?

I wouldn't go to NYC or any other city that bans me from protecting myself. Besides, they are doing a corporate/sanitizing makeover of NYC that is robbing it of all character it ever had. The place SUCKS now.

Did you read that they are replacing ALL of the newsstands with homogenized ones that will be owned by one big company? The owners who have had newsstands in their families for decades will now have to rent from this megacorp. Just because the city wants more money: the new stands will have advertising plastered all over them. (The newsies are suing the city for a 1st Amendment violation, stating that they are being forced to associate with advertisers they do not agree with.)

That, and the Disneyification of Times Square/42nd Street... make me want to puke.

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"