Woman raped, 5 days later rapist comes back for more, gets A SHOTGUN BLAST TO THE FACE!

Sad thing is it takes 5 years before anyone even finds out about the story. Media covers up all black on white crime.

the black guy may have been mentally unstable or may have been on drugs. he wasn't thinking rationally.

there are so many ways to die. the big black guy could have set fire to her home, or brought a knife the 1st time, or could have driven a car into her as she's getting out to go grocery shopping.

i applaud the woman for borrowing a gun for self-defense so she could have at least a fighting chance against a bigger, stronger man.

Great story.

But there are far more stories about people owning guns for "protection" who get killed by their own guns. (Or accidentally kill a family member.)

Does "The Armed Citizen" or "Heartland News" want to do a news bit on that?

This woman is lucky she didn't get shot with her own gun, a statistically more likely outcome than actually protecting oneself with a gun.

HobNob wrote:

I remember reading ion the newspaper in about 1980 or so about a woman that got raped one night in her apartment.

When it was over, she told the rapist, "Ohmygod, you are the most incredible man ever. I've never had it so good. Come back tomorrow and we'll do it again. I'll make you sandwiches and beer. But only you. Please don't leave me waiting."

Then she went to the police. And the police went back to her place the next day, and they were waiting when the dumb rapist showed up for more.

She didn't need a shotgun. She just used her brain.

Or if she had a shotgun when he came back, she wouldn't have needed the police.

do you want the truth? wrote:

Great story.

But there are far more stories about people owning guns for "protection" who get killed by their own guns. (Or accidentally kill a family member.)

Does "The Armed Citizen" or "Heartland News" want to do a news bit on that?

This woman is lucky she didn't get shot with her own gun, a statistically more likely outcome than actually protecting oneself with a gun.

I'm so tired of this nonsensical reasoning. So if someone mishandles a gun, then it's the guns fault? The gun didn't malfunction ( it can but rarely does), the owner used it incorrectly! People buy guns and then don't learn how to use them properly.

Furthermore, how many people have been the victims of violent crime who could have prevented it if they had a gun?

Take the doctor in Connecticut who was beaten, his wife and daughter raped, and the house set ablaze leaving the wife and 2 girls to die. Maybe, if he had a gun, he could have prevented it.

bladerunner wrote:

I'm so tired of this nonsensical reasoning. So if someone mishandles a gun, then it's the guns fault? The gun didn't malfunction ( it can but rarely does), the owner used it incorrectly! People buy guns and then don't learn how to use them properly.

What's the end result of the owner of a biological weapon

Furthermore, how many people have been the victims of violent crime who could have prevented it if they had a gun?

Take the doctor in Connecticut who was beaten, his wife and daughter raped, and the house set ablaze leaving the wife and 2 girls to die. Maybe, if he had a gun, he could have prevented it.

Did your home firearm protect you, bladerunner? Or, as the numbers state, was it used to harm a non-criminal?

woop wrote:

Missouri is the pit of America. We should excavate the whole state, pave it over, and make it a huge skate park.

+1

Good to see someone taking Papa Joe's advice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIuk3G9Xixc

Jeff Wigand wrote:

bladerunner wrote:

I'm so tired of this nonsensical reasoning. So if someone mishandles a gun, then it's the guns fault? The gun didn't malfunction ( it can but rarely does), the owner used it incorrectly! People buy guns and then don't learn how to use them properly.

What's the end result of the owner of a biological weapon

Furthermore, how many people have been the victims of violent crime who could have prevented it if they had a gun?

Take the doctor in Connecticut who was beaten, his wife and daughter raped, and the house set ablaze leaving the wife and 2 girls to die. Maybe, if he had a gun, he could have prevented it.

Did your home firearm protect you, bladerunner? Or, as the numbers state, was it used to harm a non-criminal?

I've had this handle on letsrun.com long before anyone knew who Oscar P was. Secondly, I think you are assuming that he accidently shot his girlfriend. I have doubts about that.

Were you trying to make a counter argument? I don't see disagreement.

Again, like I said in an earlier post, the important intent of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that the gov't never sees that forcably controlling the masses as a viable option. It doesn't make sense for the Constitution to mention particular means of doing so because technology changes. As long as law abiding citizens can own fire arms of a level that is significant in the eyes of the gov't, the 2nd Amendment is being upheld. Moreover, legislating a line between traditional style rifles and modern quickly becomes a quagmire because the functional differences between the two are full spectrum and very gradual. But I think most people can agree that fully automatic is unnecessary for civilian use.

good kush wrote:

good thing mr. obama didn't take her guns away! that, kiddos, is why we have the second amendment :)

Whose gun did Obama take away.

bladerunner wrote:

I've had this handle on letsrun.com long before anyone knew who Oscar P was. Secondly, I think you are assuming that he accidently shot his girlfriend. I have doubts about that.

You think someone else did it?

You said that restricting certain weapons is infringing on the right to bear arms. I said that laws already exist that restrict the purchase of certain weapons and certain individuals from purchasing, and they are not unconstitutional because of the wording "A well regulated Militia".

read this book

do you want the truth? wrote: This woman is lucky she didn't get shot with her own gun, a statistically more likely outcome than actually protecting oneself with a gun.

if you want to play the numbers game, then fine. more people die from car accidents or cancer or accidental falls or accidental poisonings than from accidental gun discharges in america.

stupid people who are untrained can get themselves killed if they don't follow the precautions.

the fact remains: a small, frail, old woman can use her right to self-defense with a gun against a big black man who's crazy.

1. "A felon can go to a gun show and buy a gun without a background check"

Contextually false. All retail vendors at gun shows must run a background check on all firearms purchases. Private sales are a different matter - A private sale is a legal transaction as long as (a) it is an in-state transfer, and (b) the seller must verify that the buyer is eligible to possess a firearm. A private sale can take place anywhere - a gun show, a dog show, a running shoe show, the parking lot of a grocery store, etc. It is up to the seller to verify the legal status of the buyer. If the seller fails in this, he/she is liable for prosecution. In short, there is no such thing as a "gun show loophole", there is only a private sale "loophole" if you want to call it that. Whoever repeats the "gun show loophole" mantra is simply repeating a rank lie.

2. "The 2nd Amendment states that guns can be regulated (beyond general regulation of commerce)"

Again, the 2nd Amendment specifies regulation of the MILITIA, not of the private ownership of firearms. And the term "regulation" in context refers to the organization and training of the militia. It says nothing about regulating the sale, possession, or operation of firearms among civilians, especially when they are not participating in "regulated" militia activities.

Oh, and kudos to the woman for finally doing what she should have done the first time the man attacked her. Sadly, so many women (and metrosexual men) have a seeming disdain for guns until that terrifying moment when they realize they really need one but don't have one.

I said that further restrictions on semi auto AR-15 style rifles would be infringing and silly.. And you are talking about fully automatic weapons. I don't see what you're arguing against. In the end, gun laws need to be sensible.

I think I had a rapist hit on me last night. He wanted me to take white Chicklets. He said he needed gum. Then he started pushing them on me several times after I told him I didn't want the gum. He takes one, puts it into his mouth for two seconds, spits it into his hand, and offers it to me. I refused again. 5 secs later he licked my face! Now it makes sense- he wanted the roofies off his tongue