So a situation where likely no one would have died turned into a situation where someone died. And this is a net positive for you?
I'm sure her detailed knowledge of firearms should have reassured her that all further attempts by the robber to fire the weapon would have failed. Unfortunately, you were not at the scene of the crime to point this out to her (although I take your use of the word "likely" to indicate that even your own personal omniscience might possibly have failed in this situation).
It takes like 5 seconds to unjam a gun.
I have some sympathy for the robber (I'm sure he didn't want to be an impoverished crack addict), but once you point a gun at someone else, you become responsible for the result.
How, exactly, do Democrats support dead thieves? Is that just something you're making up to support a lame narrative? So weird...
I'm a Democrat, have my CCW, and hunt. Imagine that. So weird...
Learn to spell, bright boy. Reading a book every now & then instead of furthering your brain rot by spending your day on this forum will do wonders for that. So weird...
This headline was enough to give me a big smile, and I didn't even know the races of the shooter and criminal. Good for granny!
It's great that this woman did what needed to be done to protect herself but I would have to imagine that if she were white and the perpetrator were black, this story would have gained a lot more traction
You have to be pretty effed up to support the armed robber and attempted murderer over a very old granny just defending her food truck. Shame on you, Liberals.
Where, exactly, did you read that the robber is supported? You're just making this up to support the narrative. I'm liberal and I would have done the same as she did.
the reason to have assault rifles is not to protect ourselves from other people, it's so we can protect ourselves from the government in case they ever become antagonistic. In that sense we do need powerful weapons because the government certainly has strong weapons. I'm not saying I'm supporting anarchy, but the founding fathers knew it was possible this country would become tyrannical and gave the people a way to combat that.
If thats the reason we need AR15's, shouldn't citizens also be able to stockpile tanks, missiles, fighter jets, nukes, chemical weapons, and any other weapon needed to be on an even playing field with the government?
Citizens using AR15's against other citizens is happening... fact. Our need to prepare for war against our own government is just fear sold to us by gun lobbies and paid off politicians... who want to SELL YOU GUNS and TAKE YOUR MONEY.
If you like to hunt, get a normal hunting rifle. If you live somewhere where you need self defense, buy a hand gun. (and take a training course, practice, and lock up your gun in a safe place). But needing an AR15 is just ridiculous because the founding fathers told me I could. Think for yourself.
Bizarre arguments. So a criminal pulls a weapon a tries to rob an old woman, she defends herself, and there's sympathy for him? I'm glad you people come from a place where iceheads don't exist. He would have killed her in a heartbeat for $20. In my country she would now be charged and in the brig. In don't agree with open slather gun play, but in this instance, it seems fairly obvious what went on. And by they way, in the same way no one forces you to shoot EPO, getting into ice/crack/smack/coke etc is a choice as well. In my mind there is no 'society is to blame' defence.
If you like to hunt, get a normal hunting rifle. If you live somewhere where you need self defense, buy a hand gun. (and take a training course, practice, and lock up your gun in a safe place). But needing an AR15 is just ridiculous because the founding fathers told me I could. Think for yourself.
you are pretty damn ignorant then. you must not live in a state that is overrun with feral hogs or have any experience with hunting. The AR15 platform is the single most effective tool in controlling the population from either a stand or using thermal/night vision. because of the large groups and the fact they scatter, you get the best results with a maneuverable weapon that is semi-automatic. There are some situations a bolt action with silencer or shotgun from a helicopter is more effective, but for the most part a AR15 or even AR10 is best.
I know hundreds of fellow law abiding hunters that have AR15's, they aren't shooting up schools. Based on the statistics I think other demographics like transexual, mental health, and democrat political affiliation is more worthy of prevention focus.
Good for her. Not a single thing you can criticize her for on these facts: she was not in any way the aggressor, she attempted to retreat as best she could under the circumstances (backed away and closed the food truck window), and only fired when the perp kept advancing (re-opened the window) and tried to fire his own weapon.
The more availability of guns, the more people murdered by guns. The rate in homes is telling. Homes with gun owners have a nine times greater chance of dying from guns. They are not personal protection. They are personal danger. And if you don't get shot, someone else probably will with the gun stolen from your house or car. That's how plenty of banned would be gun owners get their guns.
Here is the exact text of the second Amendment, which you do not know and surely have not read:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It's all relative to a regulated militia. There is no individual right to bear arms without regulation. And that's how the Supreme Court rightly read it until 2008's Heller decision.
The more availability of guns, the more people murdered by guns. The rate in homes is telling. Homes with gun owners have a nine times greater chance of dying from guns. They are not personal protection. They are personal danger. And if you don't get shot, someone else probably will with the gun stolen from your house or car. That's how plenty of banned would be gun owners get their guns.
We're not Europe or Australia, please tell with 190 million guns in the United States how you would be able to take all the guns from both law abiding and criminals instead of a situation where just criminals had guns and with no threat their armed activity increased.
So as typical Democrats have a utopian bleeding heart mindset where they want to be, but they have no clue how to get there (just like the economy and other things).
'If You Are Not a Liberal When You Are Young, You Have No Heart, and If You Are Not a Conservative When Old, You Have No Brain'
That wouldn't change much if guns were outlawed because 95% of shootings are by criminals. But more innocent people would get killed because they wouldn't be able to protect themselves.
We're not Europe or Australia, please tell with 190 million guns in the United States how you would be able to take all the guns from both law abiding and criminals instead of a situation where just criminals had guns and with no threat their armed activity increased.
So as typical Democrats have a utopian bleeding heart mindset where they want to be, but they have no clue how to get there (just like the economy and other things).
'If You Are Not a Liberal When You Are Young, You Have No Heart, and If You Are Not a Conservative When Old, You Have No Brain'
You are being disingenuous. Show your source, a credible source, and link to it, stating that Democrats want to "take all of the guns." You can't do it because it isn't true.
What is so bad about being sensible with gun laws? Why are background checks a bad thing? I've got a Mossberg 500 .20, a Remington 870 .12, a .17 HMR for picking off pests and rodents off of my property, and a Springfield Hellcat 9mm for my CCW. Just for good measure, I have a TenPoint Nitro for bow season.
I'll happily submit to a background check. Anyone that has nothing to hide should as well. Sensible background checks will help keep guns out of the hands of yayhoos that don't know what they're doing. While we're at it, gun safety classes should be required everywhere.
If someone were to break into my house or business, and they didn't see me, hearing me pump the Mossberg will be enough to send them hightailin'.
Yeah, I'm a Democrat. Most Democrats that I know are in favor of sensible gun laws - not taking guns. You're just trying to advance a lame narrative, though. Republicans on the whole, not all of them, are not willing to offer solutions and pretend that a gun problem does not exist. Let's have some solutions and not a "guns for everyone" mentality.
There are no checks for illegal aliens at the border. But you want me to be checked for a legal purchase. Until we stop an ongoing invasion, people need to be armed.
We're not Europe or Australia, please tell with 190 million guns in the United States how you would be able to take all the guns from both law abiding and criminals instead of a situation where just criminals had guns and with no threat their armed activity increased.
So as typical Democrats have a utopian bleeding heart mindset where they want to be, but they have no clue how to get there (just like the economy and other things).
'If You Are Not a Liberal When You Are Young, You Have No Heart, and If You Are Not a Conservative When Old, You Have No Brain'
You are being disingenuous. Show your source, a credible source, and link to it, stating that Democrats want to "take all of the guns." You can't do it because it isn't true.
What is so bad about being sensible with gun laws?
Don't you think we're very leery about new gun laws when most Democratic cities don't even enforce the current gun laws? We don't say that gun laws only impact the law abiding for no reason.
If you like to hunt, get a normal hunting rifle. If you live somewhere where you need self defense, buy a hand gun. (and take a training course, practice, and lock up your gun in a safe place). But needing an AR15 is just ridiculous because the founding fathers told me I could. Think for yourself.
you are pretty damn ignorant then. you must not live in a state that is overrun with feral hogs or have any experience with hunting. The AR15 platform is the single most effective tool in controlling the population from either a stand or using thermal/night vision. because of the large groups and the fact they scatter, you get the best results with a maneuverable weapon that is semi-automatic. There are some situations a bolt action with silencer or shotgun from a helicopter is more effective, but for the most part a AR15 or even AR10 is best.
I know hundreds of fellow law abiding hunters that have AR15's, they aren't shooting up schools. Based on the statistics I think other demographics like transexual, mental health, and democrat political affiliation is more worthy of prevention focus.
Anyone using a AR15 to perform a mass shooting has a mental health problem, but making it easier for them to get their weapon so you can shoot hogs with no aim isn't my priority.
And this is why we need to ensure we don't let these school shootings force any fun control. The right to defend yourself and your property is what is at stake here.