Shotgun Foils Home Invasion

[GBFan]

A California homeowner foiled an attempted home invasion Thursday when she grabbed her shotgun and fired near the suspects.

Police say two males broke into a home nearby and were able to steal a few items before targeting the 59-year-old’s home.

Carla, who did not provide reporters with her last name, told MyFoxLA.com that she woke up when her dog started barking.

She said she saw one man in her backyard and another waiting by the car. Carla’s 90-year-old mother was also inside the home at the time, MyFoxLA.com reported.

Dressed in her nightgown, Carla grabbed her shotgun and fired at the ground near one of the suspects.

“Hopefully this is going to tell these guys you know, I’m not a sitting duck,” she told MyFoxLA.com. "I've got a gun and I know how to use it," she said.

“You have to at some point in time, take responsibility yourself for your own safety and that’s all I was doing,” she said.

Police say neither suspect was shot and were able to flee in a white sedan. Police have only released that they are described to be Hispanic.

Authorities reported that there have been at least four home invasions in the area in recent months.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

so?

 

[GBFan]

so?

LOL

 

[Lagboltz]

This illustrates how the average home owner might respond.

 

[Texas_tea]

This illustrates how the average home owner might respond.

Stories like the one GBFan posted are all over the non MSM news. They are common place here in Texas with the exception that more times than not the perps are met with much worse consequences.

I don't recall reading any stories where the home owner shoots themselves. Sometimes people are shot accidentally during home invasions or perceived home invasions.

But, these cases are extremely rare and certainly pale in comparison to the number of cases where homeowners have successfully protected their homes and families thanks to our 2nd Amendment Right!!

I have seen the MSM fear tactics and propaganda stories where the homeowner is more likely to injury someone unintentional while protecting their homes and families. It's just that ... propaganda!

I am sure that is why you are confused here.

 

[Lagboltz]

Stories like the one GBFan posted are all over the non MSM news. They are common place here in Texas with the exception that more times than not the perps are met with much worse consequences.

I don't recall reading any stories where the home owner shoots themselves. Sometimes people are shot accidentally during home invasions or perceived home invasions.

But, these cases are extremely rare and certainly pale in comparison to the number of cases where homeowners have successfully protected their homes and families thanks to our 2nd Amendment Right!!

I have seen the MSM fear tactics and propaganda stories where the homeowner is more likely to injury someone unintentional while protecting their homes and families. It's just that ... propaganda!

I am sure that is why you are confused here.

Me confused? You are confused. Don't you know I was just joking!? The video set to the cadence of classical music is hilarious. My caption to that video was just a joke!

 

[pocketfullofshells]

did anyone here say ban shotguns? I must have missed it.
Also if you want to post a random news story and pretend it mean jack shit, there are about 10,000 news stories that can be posted of people who where just murdered by a gun...far far more then this story. Lots of them, by the family gun that you guys think protects everyone.

 

[GBFan]

did anyone here say ban shotguns? I must have missed it.
Also if you want to post a random news story and pretend it mean jack shit, there are about 10,000 news stories that can be posted of people who where just murdered by a gun...far far more then this story. Lots of them, by the family gun that you guys think protects everyone.

Once again, you are factually wrong ... there are more 'saves' by the gun every day than there are murders ... sorry. (Just pisses you off when the facts don't support your preconceived notions, don't it?)

 

[Texas_tea]

Me confused? You are confused. Don't you know I was just joking!? The video set to the cadence of classical music is hilarious. My caption to that video was just a joke!

Perhaps an emoticon or something similar would have suggested your sarcasm.

Usually, you are on the Left side of most topics and I took your comment at face value.

If indeed, you were being sarcastic .... then my bad ... of course!

 

[Lagboltz]

Perhaps an emoticon or something similar would have suggested your sarcasm.

Usually, you are on the Left side of most topics and I took your comment at face value.

If indeed, you were being sarcastic .... then my bad ... of course!

Everyone has got to learn that conservatives overgeneralize liberals and liberals overgeneralize conservatives. Or maybe I'm overgeneralizing right now, but if so, that supports my point.

 

[Lagboltz]

Once again, you are factually wrong ... there are more 'saves' by the gun every day than there are murders ... sorry. (Just pisses you off when the facts don't support your preconceived notions, don't it?)

When you state an opposing view on someone else's statistics it would really help if you found a reliable source to back up your own belief of those statistics.

 

[GBFan]

When you state an opposing view on someone else's statistics it would really help if you found a reliable source to back up your own belief of those statistics.

I apologize -- I assumed that, if you actually thought the statistics were incorrect, you would look them up yourself. I gave you an excellent opportunity to prove me wrong ... or, more importantly, to learn something.

But, since that seems to be too much work ....

Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day. [1] This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. [2]
* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.[3]


* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.[4]


* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.[5]


* Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).[6] And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."[7]

https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm

Whereas ....

In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day and more than three deaths each hour.1


73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010.2


Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2010, following poisoning and motor vehicle accidents.3


Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period.4


In the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the U.S., however, every seven weeks.5


Homicide


Guns were used in 11,078 homicides in the U.S. in 2010, comprising almost 35% of all gun deaths, and over 68% of all homicides.6


On average, 33 gun homicides were committed each day for the years 2005-2010.7


Regions and states with higher rates of gun ownership have significantly higher rates of homicide than states with lower rates of gun ownership.8

http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/


So, let's do the logic test (we'll even accept the Clinton figures of 1.5 million) - 1.5 million saves annually vs. 54,581 negative incidents.

OHHHH --- you'll notice that nobody mentions that some percentage (we have no idea how many) were injuries/death inflicted on the crime perpetrator, rather than on the victim (but we'll ignore that).

Now, if I apply a little junior high math, I think that means that less than 4% of all gun incidents end 'negatively' ... or, as we 'gun nuts' prefer to think of it, 96% of all gun incidents end well.

Now, you know why you should carry a gun ... if you're stopped in an alley without a gun, you have a 100% chance of being robbed or injured. If, on the other hand, you are stopped in the alley WITH a gun, you have a 96% chance of survival.

 

[Lagboltz]

I apologize -- I assumed that, if you actually thought the statistics were incorrect, you would look them up yourself. I gave you an excellent opportunity to prove me wrong ... or, more importantly, to learn something.

But, since that seems to be too much work

Why do you think I want to prove you wrong? You are over-generalizing what you think a liberal thinks again. I suggested you furnish statistics from a reliable source. You found them from "gun nuts" sites. Your anti-gun Clinton researchers paragraph has a footnote [5] that doesn't exist. Try going there, or find an existing reliable quote for that assertion.

The statistics do not include how many guns were used by perps in armed robberies, rape, assaults, etc without being fired. You only list death rates. Also you quote, “firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.” What your quoted source is doing is largely an invalid statistics spin by comparing brandishing a gun by a citizen and not comparing it to brandishing a gun by a perp.

If that's the best you can do it leaves the question unanswered.

 

[GBFan]

Why do you think I want to prove you wrong? You are over-generalizing what you think a liberal thinks again. I suggested you furnish statistics from a reliable source. You found them from "gun nuts" sites. Your anti-gun Clinton researchers paragraph has a footnote [5] that doesn't exist. Try going there, or find an existing reliable quote for that assertion.

The statistics do not include how many guns were used by perps in armed robberies, rape, assaults, etc without being fired. You only list death rates. Also you quote, “firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.” What your quoted source is doing is largely an invalid statistics spin by comparing brandishing a gun by a citizen and not comparing it to brandishing a gun by a perp.

If that's the best you can do it leaves the question unanswered.

You asked stats, you got stats ... interpretation of them is up to the reader. Once again, you THINK you have found a single discrepancy that, therefore, discredits the whole presentation (btw - I don't agree with you), when you should be considering the totality of the presentation. You CHOOSE to consider the sources as not being credible, but your only justification for that is you think there is a missing footnote. (The footnote you THINK is missing is actually there ... in fact, it is a noted anti-gun author being quoted on the pro-gun site).

You will notice that I intentionally researched one pro-gun and one anti-gun site in order to get perspective. If you choose to discredit one because it doesn't agree with your preconceived opinion, then I can think of no way to MAKE you think lucidly about the subject.

As I initially said, the sites failed to talk about how many 'perps' were injured, or killed, as well as it made no differentiation whether the perp or the victim was the carrier of the gun. If anything, that skews the data toward the anti-gun position, so again, your objection makes no sense.

I can't think of any good reason to argue statistical methodology with you .... that is a deflection of the second order. If you can present statistics that refute the supposition that guns save more people than harm them, I will be happy to look at them. Of course, I would expect you to give it the same even handed treatment that I did, and provide statistics from both sides of the discussion.

 

[Lagboltz]

Well, you got things mixed up. Only the "80 times more often" quote was an apples to oranges spin. That in itself did not invalidate anything else.

The rest of your post was from two "gun nut" sites. The footnote [5] was certainly there, but opening the site the footnote referenced gave a time-out error. You might give that a try to see if it is up or not. That reference is crucial to your "Clinton figures" that you emphasized.

When I cite statistics I always go to the origin of the statistics, not to sites that quote and spin those statistics. I never ever quote stats from liberal sites.

That still leaves your stats unsubstantiated.