Let's talk about when guns DID save the day.

In My Humble Opinion
21

:rolleyes:

Let us begin with FACTS, shall we?

Assault rifle: An assault rifle is a selective fire (selective between automatic, semi-automatic, and burst fire) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.

Only a few rifles fit this definition, no matter what anti-gun groups say. They don’t get to make up shit just because it suits their agenda. A BAR isn’t one. It uses a 30-06 cartridge, which is decidedly NOT an intermediate power caliber. An AR-15 isn’t one. It is a semi-automatic weapon.

There are, statistically, very few real assault rifles in the U.S.
Somewhere between 230 and 250 thousand registered machine guns, half of which are owned by police and other govt. agencies.

So, maybe 120 thousand full-auto weapons in civilian hands, and maybe 20% of those are true assault rifles. The rest are pistol caliber guns. About 20-24 thousand sprinkled among 350 million people. They’re not common. We keep them in the safe, go to the range, then put them back in the safe. We don’t carry them for protection, generally speaking. They’re just too valuable. We don’t leave them in the closet or under the bed for intruders. We use other things.

Plenty of folks have used an AR-15-type weapon to prevent crime, assaults, and home-invasions, but as mentioned above, these are not assault rifles. They are simply - and properly - called rifles.

Here’s one
And another.

Why don’t more rifle-totin’ good guys stop mall and school shootings? Because we don’t carry our AR-15’s to the mall or to school, or the movies. Well, some of us do…:smiley:

Angel, Mom didn’t hit the intruder once…

Melinda Herman fired a six-shot revolver at the intruder, hitting him five times, in his torso and in his face. Surprisingly, he managed to flee.

From here.

She did about the best she could, given the circumstances, and still didn’t kill the fucker. What if he kept coming? With a gun or knife, or his crowbar? She’s empty.
Would you like to tell Melinda, or better yet, dead Melinda’s kids that 6 shots is plenty for Americans to have?

The FBI used to carry revolvers. It didn’t work out for them. This turned out to be a sea-change in attitudes for everyone who carries a gun.
Hollywood has brainwashed so many into believing that getting shot=dying instantly, unless it’s our hero who gets shot in the shoulder. Then, not only does it **not **send him across the room skidding into the counter, but only hurts a little, and he gets bandaged by the EMTs and limps home.

Bullets rarely kill a person instantly with one shot. It often takes several. Please don’t believe what you see in the movies.

22

When I hear gun stories about people like Melinda Herman, I wonder if having the gun made the situation worse.

If there was no gun in the house, would she instead have an alarm installed? She could hit the panic button and the intruder would likely flee.

If she didn’t have a gun, would she have fled from the house with her kids? Why hide in a closet instead of getting away from the intruder?

When she started shooting, where did all those other bullets go? It seems she easily could have shot her children in her panicked state.

It seems that gun owners can put too much reliance on the gun as a way to be safe. If the Herman family didn’t have a gun, would they have instead thought of other ways to be safe (install an alarm, create an escape plan, etc.) The gun should be the absolute last line of defense after trying everything else. She should have grabbed the gun, activated the alarm, and fled from the house. If the intruder was still after her, then use the gun as the last resort.

23

She and her children are safe now. :slight_smile:

24

She was barricaded in the attic with her children. What insight do you have to show that she could have fled the house? Do you know the floor plan? Do you know how long it takes for an alarm call to come in? Its at least several minutes before the alarm company even gets the call. Then it goes through dispatch (sometimes several layers of dispatch). Then the police are sent. Who knows how close they are. Your Monday morning quarterbacking is very weak.

25

ducati, clearly this is a prime example of how well my memory works. Thanks for finding the story and clearing up my errors. However, I still think it’s completely ridiculous to argue that we need high capacity clips because six isn’t enough to kill a person with.

26

I’d say something between a matchlock and a seven round magazine.
:slight_smile:

27

ducati, a lot of people do not use the term assault rifle as a thing to ban. They call them “assault weapons,” which is a real, defined thing, albeit a name that is intentionally design to fit specific features.

[quote=“filmore, post:22, topic:654177”]

When I hear gun stories about people like Melinda Herman, I wonder if having the gun made the situation worse.[/quote
You make a lot of assumptions about a situation based upon an article you read.

*> If there was no gun in the house, would she instead have an alarm installed? She could hit the panic button and the intruder would likely flee. *
Most home thieves are burglar. They want your stuff, but do it when you’re not home, and many flee if caught. I don’t have enough information from the story, but it seems that this guy was not trying for burglary, but instead home invasion or robbery. It sounds like he knew she was there.

> If she didn’t have a gun, would she have fled from the house with her kids? Why hide in a closet instead of getting away from the intruder?
I have a single door in my house. Other exits are windows, but they’re second story over a hill. It is really not practical to try to escape in that situation.

*> When she started shooting, where did all those other bullets go? It seems she easily could have shot her children in her panicked state. *
She also could’ve put them behind her, as I suspect most mothers would do. In tense situations like this, people do make poor decisions and get shaky hands. But it’s not like shooting your kids because the bullet passes through a wall.

> It seems that gun owners can put too much reliance on the gun as a way to be safe. If the Herman family didn’t have a gun, would they have instead thought of other ways to be safe (install an alarm, create an escape plan, etc.) The gun should be the absolute last line of defense after trying everything else. She should have grabbed the gun, activated the alarm, and fled from the house. If the intruder was still after her, then use the gun as the last resort.
You have a point that guns aren’t a replacement for these other things, but also seem to say that they are mutually exclusive with alarms and such, and that gun owners become cognitively impaired and cannot think of other methods of deterring crime.
Also, not having had an alarm since I was a kid: do people normally set alarms while they are home (non-motion, obviously)?

I don’t really have a problem with 30 round mags, although I think the GOA guy’s argument that we need them because Ms. Herman only had 6 rounds is ridiculous. Revolvers are specifically 6 rounds +/- and speedloaders make them even more effective.

28

You don’t have to have the alarm set. You can have panic buttons installed throughout the house. Hit the button and the alarm goes off. The advantage of panic buttons is that you can have them close by at all times. You can’t exactly do the same thing with guns, unless you want loaded guns around the house for the kids to find.

She initially called her husband when the intruder was knocking on the door and didn’t go away. The husband told her to hide and call 911. So at that moment, she instead could have hit the panic button, grabbed the gun, and fled out the back door with the kids.

Even if she was going to hold her ground, she should have told the kids to flee out the back door, got the gun, and got in a defensive position where she could shoot at him when he entered the door. Or just shoot through the door once she realized he was breaking in.

If there was no gun in the house, would her husband still told her to hide in a closet? Or would he have told her to flee? I believe the husband thought the gun would keep her safe. But if there were no gun, he may have come up with a different solution which may have even been better than hiding in a closet with the kids.

From the news story, it appears she didn’t have training for this type of situation. But this is exactly the situation where you need a gun. I believe they got a gun and thought that was all they needed. Instead, they should have considered the gun just one component of their security plan. In addition, they should have had regular training so that they did not panic when they had to use it. From what happened, I’m guessing she had not prepared for this situation.

29

They are safe and the bad guy isn’t. :slight_smile:
I’m not sure what you’re getting at, perhaps that it would be better if she had not had to shoot the guy.

30

I was going to try, but teh stupid has critically wounded me.

Ima go lie down.

31

And YOU! You’re in time-out!

32

If the intruder had a gun instead of a crowbar, likely she would have been shot. She would have been safer if she was nowhere near the intruder.

The point I’m trying to make is that some gun owners treat the gun like a magic shield. Instead of fleeing from the intruder, they hide in their house with their gun. Or upon hearing a noise in the night, he grabs his gun to investigate, not considering that it’s an armed intruder with body armor waiting for him. They put themselves in harms way because they have a gun. If they didn’t have a gun, they might not be so likely to put themselves in a close-contact situation with the intruder.

33

Let me light the match first, dammit.
:slight_smile:

34

Are you saying they should run like hell, or pull the long, skinny thing that comes out the bottom until it stops making noise?

35

In the case of a mom with kids, run like hell. I’m not sure what you mean about the long, skinny thing. Remember, the situation started with the intruder at the door. She made several mistakes which backed her into a corner where a gun was her only option. Obviously, once she’s trapped in the closet with her kids, having a gun is much, much better than not having one. But she didn’t have to end up in that situation. She could have instead fled with her family out the back door to the neighbor’s house.

When I think of situations which should be mentioned in this thread, I think it should be cases where the hero made prudent choices. For example, a homeowner who defends his family from a drug-crazed intruder who is not deterred by the alarm klaxons and a doberman biting his ass. Then it’s obvious that a gun was necessary as the last resort.

36

In a novel, Matt Helm tells someone how to protect themselves with a gun. “Point it at the center of the body, and pull the long, skinny thing that comes out the bottom until it stops making noise.”

One doesn’t know if the intruder is a drug crazed whatever, a rapist, a burglar, or in my case, a guy who doesn’t want my Wife to testify. In a certain neighborhood of my city, there are so many false alarms from home alarms that the police routinely wait fifteen minutes to respond. If I shoot an intruder in my house in my state, I have no legal problem. If he chases me outside and I have to shoot him, I do.
Just shoot the bastard when he breaks in. The worst case scenario is that he is going to kill someone. There is no time to figure out why he is there, to wait for the police, or to gather the kids up and escape. Just shoot him. The good guys stay alive. That’s what counts. :slight_smile:

37

I’m not a fan of the prose, but one example can be found here: The Gary Fadden Incident.

38

There are a lot more handguns out there, sure, but guns like AR-15s aren’t exactly rare. Most gun enthusiasts have at least one. Heck, I’ve got three, and two more lower receivers on the way that I’m planning to build. The reason probably has more to do with the fact that (compared to handguns) they’re big, heavy, and not so portable. ('Specially my sniper build, which weighs in at about 15 pounds loaded plus scope, and it’ll only get heavier when I add a silencer. :D)

Rifles are very useful for hunting, war, and the other shooting sports; not so much for common crime or for common self-defense. I know that if I were ever facing an axe murderer bashing down my front door, I’d go for my 1911 first and last.

39

Nonsense. Rifles are less easily concealed than pistols, so when it comes to carrying a concealed weapon in public they are less useful. By all other useful metrics a rifle is superior to a pistol. Although your self-defense plans are your own business, reaching for 7/8+1 rounds of .45ACP when 20/30+1 rounds of 5.56NATO is an option is a bizarre choice. Are you by chance a National level competitor in one of the various shooting disciplines that allows the use of the 1911? Are you missing a limb or hand which might preclude you from effectively using an AR-15 in self defense?

40

How did you guess that I was the national champion of the One-Armed One-Legged 500-yard Pistol Freestyle competition??

In seriousness, no, I don’t shoot competitively, but I’m much more comfortable using a pistol at close range and in tight quarters such as the interior of a building. My 1911 and I are good buddies, and it’s the gun that I practice with the most often; it’s ready and familiar. If, on the outside edge of probability, I was at home with my full arsenal available and I encountered a problem that 9 rounds of .45ACP could not solve, it could be quickly followed by 30, 60, or over 9,000 rounds of 5.56mm NATO, but I would be lying if I said I had plans for such a scenario. Or if I do, they’re in a drawer somewhere with my plans to invade Canada, filed firmly under “Probably Won’t Need.”