When it comes to protecting my safety and liberties, why should I settle for inferior tools? I want the best. For self-protection I rely on a Glock G23. For home protection I rely on a 12-gage shotgun. For protecting my liberties I rely on a FAL .308 semi-automatic assault weapon.
If you have suggestions on better tools to purchase, I’m all ears. 
Del Ray is a neighborhood in Alexandria, VA. The girl was attacked in Lorton/Woodbridge area.
She did not know her attacker. Our theory is that the house may have been targeted because of its occupants, an elderly couple and 3 youngish females. It’s not a neighborhood known for its violence.
I don’t know any more details though. I haven’t heard from her mother today.
I don’t think her problems will be solved by having a gun. I don’t think that’s a theory her family subscribes to anyway.
crafter_man, I’m sorry you think it’s irresponsible to not have a gun. I do not have one, nor do I ever plan to own one. I don’t like guns. I see no reason to have a gun other than for hunting and pure recreation.
It’s sad that no one is really safe anywhere and where the most common solution seems to be buy a gun. Solving violence with violence is always the answer. :rolleyes:
I agree. In addition to having a gun, she would have needed many hours of training by a qualified self-defense instructor.
That’s certainly your prerogative. I refuse to be a victim, and equip myself with the best tools I can afford. I’m just pleased to see you respect my choice (and my right) to carry a gun.
The hard reality is that violence is sometimes the best response. Many good people have resorted to violence while defending themselves. And prevailed.
That’s a pretty dismissive belief you guys have developed from a damned scanty set of facts. On what are you basing it? There’s no mention of any interval of time between her seeing the assailanty and the initiation of the attack in which the woman could have brandished a firearm had one been immediately available. No mention of whether the guy snuck up from behind her, or confronted her face-to-face. Plus, she was able to get to her phone. And if she can get to the phone, she can get to a gun. That, and that alone, would have prevented this guy from continuing his attack, had he been so inclined. There’s no mention of what caused him to desist. The cops would certainly have been of no use; this woman lives in a “semi-isolated” area. The whole thing, the rape and the murder of this woman, could easily have been over before the cops arrived. A person is ultimately responsible for their own safety, and in this case, a handgun would have afforded the greatest safety.
If one reasonably thinks that one might become a target, then one should prepare against that eventuality. As Crafter_Man says, failure to do so can be seen as irresponsible.
Yes, it is. But honest and peaceful, law-abiding people need to prepared for those who would take advantage. And the thing to remember is that you’re merely meeting force with force. Defending onself is not a violent act. To do violence one must have destructive, coercive and malicious intent. Defending oneself from a beating with a tire iron (and worse) has none of these qualities.
Let’s check our dictionaries:
Violence - noun
• Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing.
• Abusive or unjust exercise of power.
Maybe it’s just me and hopefully the OP will clarify, but I read this:
as meaning she was attacked from behind.
Glad to see we’re in agreement here, Unclebeer. When do ya want to go shooting? 
This is interesting. I never knew the word violence was defined as being an immoral act. Assuming this is true, I’ll have to reword my responses to self defense from now on. (I thought the word “violence” only referred to a harsh physical act perpetrated against an unsuspecting person. Thus my comment on using violence against violence. But if violence is, by definition, immoral, then it will need to be reworded…)
is she allowed to own a handgun under 21?
from what we know she was probably ambushed. a gun in this case will only serve to arm the assailant. (unless she was taught to be especially conscious of her surroundings in such situations together with her gun training.)
imho, the best thing to do is to catch every single low life scum like these and make each of them pay. a town with a high ‘solved crime percentage’ will deter more than any thought of a house of armed elderly and children.
That’s nothing more than supposition. As UncleBeer said, if she could get to her phone and use it she could get to her gun and use it in whatever way necessary. A gun is easier to get into action than a phone anyway.
And that’s just fantasy. Violent criminials aren’t frightened by statistics if they’re even aware of them in the first place.
Unfortunately, she would not have been able to purchase one, but I think she could have possessed one.
Or maybe she was clobbered as she was trying to run away from the asshole. You’re reading things into the OP that just ain’t there.
That’s correct. Here’s a summary of the relevant Virginia statute as given by the NRA:
You’re not too far from me. Maybe we can arrange that sometime this summer.
Well, you have what works for you. I (and several others here) am merely suggesting it might not be the best choice for her.
Curious, do you carry that Glock on you 24/7? Sleep with it under your pillow? Otherwise, how can you be assured of your safety?
And what does “protecting your liberties” mean?
I carry it frequently. But you can never really be 100% assured of your safety. You can only increase the odds.
It means protecting my rights & liberties against anyone or anything who is trying to take them from me. Fighting tyranny, for example.
Unless I am at a military installation, a school, or another state, my pistol is never more than five steps away from me. You’d be amazed at how many people don’t know you’re wearing a pistol and think you’re cool but immediately gasp and run for their lives when they find out that you’ve been wearing a handgun in their presence on countless occasions. I guess they think that that makes me a psycho, although that is directly contradicted by the fact that they’re still alive.
A gun is no big deal. It’s not the Bogeyman. It’s an instrument of self-defense. That’s all.
You’re up by Toledo? I’m probably about 2 to 2.5 hours away. I have a range set up beside the house. Later in the year (September?) I’ll be having a get-together for Ohio members of another forum I frequent (www.frugalsquirrels.com/). It will be an overnight thing. We’ll be doing lots of shooting during the day. At night we’ll be camping & drinking beer. Would be great if you could make it. My email address is
Not at all a “pretty dismissive” belief. It was quite clearly admitted that the information from the OP was limited. But here you go:
It’s an assumption, yes, but if you’re waiting around in the dark of night, does it not stand to reason that you’re hoping for surprise? Plus, the OP clearly states that she was “just” getting out of her car. That right there is a time element. If she’d seen the assailant and been expecting danger, don’t you think she would’ve stayed in the car and driven away?
A gun inside the house, yes, but maybe he’d already run off by that point. As you said, no mention of that. And maybe if she’d been carrying a gun on her person, it would’ve been used against her.
Bunches of ifs on my part, recognized and acknowledged, but there are a few ifs on your part, most especially this:
which is no more supported by the OP than my own speculation. You might very well be right here, I admit, but it doesn’t look that way to me.
My point in all of this was never to say that guns are always the wrong choice, just that guns are sometimes the wrong choice. As was pointed out by av8rmike, a whole lotta people in this thread are recommending guns, guns, guns. Well, guns aren’t always appropriate, and when they’re not appropriate, they most certainly are not the greatest guarantee of safety.
I hope this girl recovers psychologically from this terrible event, and then I hope she does everything she can to feel and to be secure. If that means carrying a gun, more power to her. If not, though, then people like you who carry guns should wish her luck with whatever she chooses, and stop poopooing the choice of others when they decide that guns aren’t for them.
If a police officer or state trooper can be shot with his or her own weapon, certainly a ‘very quiet, polite girl’ can.
And just because you can shoot a gun well doesn’t mean you can shoot a person, right? If a person freezes up and/or loses posession of a gun to their assailant they’re worse than fucked, not to mention the possible subsequent shootings and mayhem in the community with said gun.
Well, we’re all spectating speculators to the situation from here in front of our computer screens. The reality is that even if she would have been armed to the teeth, without the proper training, every handgun, long gun, cannon, etc. would have been useless unless the victim had been trained under stress conditions, similar to those that existed when/where she was attacked.
If she managed to break free of the attacker, and THEN filled him full of lead, she’d be subject to charges since the threat had already subsided. Guns, like it or not, are a LAST RESORT. I have a closet full of ammo and a room full of guns, and at best they’re a last ditch effort to save your skin. Granted, if some unfortunate bastard decided to break into my house, he’d be in a real, shall we say, tight spot. Still, I’m a trained and field tested operator, and I’d doubt the victim is.
Your hands are your first line of defense. Stun guns or tasers, pepper spray, and clubs or bats, are the second. Guns are the third and final step to take, courts have upheld this use of force continuum time and time again, and as much as it might suck, it’s reality. As a private citizen, you are able to react only with the force equal to the force you meet. Meaning you can’t shoot a man who’s wielding a menacing looking q-tip. You can however, push him away, (and so on, and so on).
It does indeed suck that we’re not safe anywhere, but safety is a subjective thing. For instance, the obviously ridiculous example that rjung uses about an aircraft engine landing on your head. That’s more of an irony than a reality, and the truth is that you’re several times more likely to have your house broken into than to have a freaking airplane engine dropped on your head. So it’s certianly better to tip the odds in your favor with the appropriate appliances, however they’re utterly useless unless you’re proprerly trained in not only their use, but behaviour while in use.
Not according to the Washington County Sheriff’s Department in Pennsylvania. If you manage to break the grip of someone armed with a lethal weapon, that person is still armed and still a threat.
Again, not what I was taught in my licensing process. I was taught that you don’t have the kind of time to try 85 different tools during one attack, and that so long as you are in reasonable fear for your life or the life of someone else, you are justified in a decision to use deadly force.
I was also told flat out by the county sheriff that the only words he’d ever want to hear out of the mouth of someone who shot an attacker are ‘I feared for my life.’
I’m just a regular, private citizen who got a gun for herself as her 21st birthday present and then learned how to use it. Until the night some crackhead broke into my home, you could’ve said I’d have no idea how I’d react in a stress situation like that, that I might’ve ‘froze’.
In actuality, I did everything I had practiced, and nobody (most importantly me) got hurt in the process.
So, regular people without military or law enforcement experience can’t completely be discounted as being able to effectively defend themselves. I might be just one example, which doesn’t make for proof, but there are (depending on whose numbers you use) anywhere between 200,000 and 2.5 million defensive gun uses in the US every year. Not all of those are being done buy LEOs and military personnel.