My wife is a hero: mom shoots intruder 5 times, saves kids

[safeminer]

5 Headshots and still no kill....
I tought I get unlucky in Battlefield 3....

[MoonShadow]

Well, cops don't like to deal with living witnesses that could afford lawyers knowing the department will shoulder all the legal expenses.

People just want to protect their families. However, if it's justified to begin with, I'll keep shooting until the threat has stopped; unfortunately for the bad guy, that might mean more than is needed cuz he still looks like he's a threat.

This study, by it's design, excludes any shooting that the police themselves can claim is justified.  So this only includes cases of homicide by police, that even the police weren't willing to sweep under the rug.  Intuitively, the real odds of being killed by a police officer are higher if one were to also include on the job shootings.  Since CCW license holders don't have an on-the-job justifiable shooting catagory, such a comparison wouldn't really be valid.

[Minor Miner]

>fired six bullets at the suspect, five of which hit alleged suspect Paul Ali Slater in the face and neck area.
>He was taken to a nearby hospital and is expected to survive.

Guy must be made of steel

Too bad the Amber Lamps got there in time.  

Mom needs a bigger gun!  Bet she gets a .45 or 12 gauge ASAP.

She doesn't need a bigger gun.  She obviously knows how to use that one quite well.  To be able to put all five rounds loaded in a 38 special and hit a target the size of a melon from across a room, particularly while hyped up on adrenaline, is the halmark of a sharpshooter.  Furthermore, the most effective (not most deadly) handgun calibers, statisticly speaking, are the .380 automatic followed by the 22LR.  In every defensive case, your goal is to get the attacker to stop, not necessarily to kill them.  With that in mind, the above small calibers are well known for accuracy as well as their ability for follow-up shots.  The most important factor in a defensive handgun caliber is your personal ability to hit what you are shooting at, everything else is a secondary consideration.  Also, statisicly, the 45 is a terrible choice for a defensive handgun, because the recoil is so harsh that nearly everyone under 6' 2" and 240 lbs has trouble bringing the sights back onto target for a follow-up shot in any speedy fashion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdr14xVetXM

P90 is the greatest home defense weapon for woman and kids and they have 50 rounds in case they miss.   Light weight, no kick to speak of, great for lefties and not intimidating to learn. 

[MoonShadow]

>fired six bullets at the suspect, five of which hit alleged suspect Paul Ali Slater in the face and neck area.
>He was taken to a nearby hospital and is expected to survive.

Guy must be made of steel

Too bad the Amber Lamps got there in time.  

Mom needs a bigger gun!  Bet she gets a .45 or 12 gauge ASAP.

She doesn't need a bigger gun.  She obviously knows how to use that one quite well.  To be able to put all five rounds loaded in a 38 special and hit a target the size of a melon from across a room, particularly while hyped up on adrenaline, is the halmark of a sharpshooter.  Furthermore, the most effective (not most deadly) handgun calibers, statisticly speaking, are the .380 automatic followed by the 22LR.  In every defensive case, your goal is to get the attacker to stop, not necessarily to kill them.  With that in mind, the above small calibers are well known for accuracy as well as their ability for follow-up shots.  The most important factor in a defensive handgun caliber is your personal ability to hit what you are shooting at, everything else is a secondary consideration.  Also, statisicly, the 45 is a terrible choice for a defensive handgun, because the recoil is so harsh that nearly everyone under 6' 2" and 240 lbs has trouble bringing the sights back onto target for a follow-up shot in any speedy fashion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdr14xVetXM

P90 is the greatest home defense weapon for woman and kids and they have 50 rounds in case they miss.   Light weight, no kick to speak of, great for lefties and not intimidating to learn. 

And damned expensive, hard to get in the US, and not very concealable.

[Minor Miner]

And damned expensive, hard to get in the US, and not very concealable.

1.  don't be cheap with home security (you can get for $1500), most people complain about the ammo prices though (and I say "don't waste too many bullets then".   That being said, I do not care that it took $15 worth of ammo to save my kids life and an AR15 could have done it for $7.....
2.  not hard at all.  only for a few months when people jacked AR prices up to $1800 because of the panic over regulation which never happened.
3.  better not to conceal what you are about to kill someone with that is threatening your life.   Not your "out and about on the town" type of defense.

[MoonShadow]

And damned expensive, hard to get in the US, and not very concealable.

1.  don't be cheap with home security (you can get for $1500), most people complain about the ammo prices though (and I say "don't waste too many bullets then".   That being said, I do not care that it took $15 worth of ammo to save my kids life and an AR15 could have done it for $7.....
2.  not hard at all.  only for a few months when people jacked AR prices up to $1800 because of the panic over regulation which never happened.
3.  better not to conceal what you are about to kill someone with that is threatening your life.   Not your "out and about on the town" type of defense.

The P90 is hard to get, because it requires a Class III weapons license, due to the fact that it's manufactured with a 12" barrel.  Perhaps you intended the PS90?

And it's very expensive compared to a 38 special handgun or a 22 rifle, both of which would serve quite well with practice.  And the price difference can pay for a lot of ammo for practice.  I personally carry a Sig Sauger Mosquito, a compact semi-auto chambered in 22lr.  The ammo is cheap and I can hit the target quite quickly, and I don't have to worry about a red mark on my forehead from recoil.

And it's better to conceal a weapon if you're leaving your house, because one doesn't really want to either alarm the liberals in a crowd or to alert the criminal to your defensive capacities.  Or do you think that defense of one's family only applies inside the home?

[Foxpup]

5 Headshots and still no kill....
I tought I get unlucky in Battlefield 3....

Now you know why I laugh when people call these games "realistic". The brain (which is what you're trying to hit) is relatively small compared to the rest of the head, and is well-protected by the skull, which has an annoying tendency to harmlessly deflect bullets which strike at an angle. A headshot has to be delivered very precisely to result in an instant kill. Many suicide attempters find that out the hard way.

[favdesu]

the reason why we don't need guns in Europe is that we are smart enough to leave the house through the backyard.

[termhn]

And damned expensive, hard to get in the US, and not very concealable.

1.  don't be cheap with home security (you can get for $1500), most people complain about the ammo prices though (and I say "don't waste too many bullets then".   That being said, I do not care that it took $15 worth of ammo to save my kids life and an AR15 could have done it for $7.....
2.  not hard at all.  only for a few months when people jacked AR prices up to $1800 because of the panic over regulation which never happened.
3.  better not to conceal what you are about to kill someone with that is threatening your life.   Not your "out and about on the town" type of defense.

The P90 is hard to get, because it requires a Class III weapons license, due to the fact that it's manufactured with a 12" barrel.  Perhaps you intended the PS90?

And it's very expensive compared to a 38 special handgun or a 22 rifle, both of which would serve quite well with practice.  And the price difference can pay for a lot of ammo for practice.  I personally carry a Sig Sauger Mosquito, a compact semi-auto chambered in 22lr.  The ammo is cheap and I can hit the target quite quickly, and I don't have to worry about a red mark on my forehead from recoil.

And it's better to conceal a weapon if you're leaving your house, because one doesn't really want to either alarm the liberals in a crowd or to alert the criminal to your defensive capacities.  Or do you think that defense of one's family only applies inside the home?

I have a question for you. This is unrelated to the topic of P90/weapon choice (upon which I agree with you), but a question on gun related theory in general. First, I want to say that I am not in FAVOR of gun control, but I also DON'T despise it. So, my question is, would like a society in which everyone carries a gun? Or at least, every adult male? I mean sure, I understand that you believe it is important to protect your family, but do you not think that if every man in, say, a restaurant had a gun, and every one of them was inclined to use it if a break-in happened, do you not think it would increase the chance of stray shot(s) killing people rather than the chance that the robber actually has the intention to kill someone if they just cooperate?

[Dabs]

Armscor has a new 1911 with 22 TCM ammo. Very nice. Google it for details. I don't know for sure but it may perform like the FiveSeven.

[TheButterZone]

And damned expensive, hard to get in the US, and not very concealable.

1.  don't be cheap with home security (you can get for $1500), most people complain about the ammo prices though (and I say "don't waste too many bullets then".   That being said, I do not care that it took $15 worth of ammo to save my kids life and an AR15 could have done it for $7.....
2.  not hard at all.  only for a few months when people jacked AR prices up to $1800 because of the panic over regulation which never happened.
3.  better not to conceal what you are about to kill someone with that is threatening your life.   Not your "out and about on the town" type of defense.

The P90 is hard to get, because it requires a Class III weapons license, due to the fact that it's manufactured with a 12" barrel.  Perhaps you intended the PS90?

And it's very expensive compared to a 38 special handgun or a 22 rifle, both of which would serve quite well with practice.  And the price difference can pay for a lot of ammo for practice.  I personally carry a Sig Sauger Mosquito, a compact semi-auto chambered in 22lr.  The ammo is cheap and I can hit the target quite quickly, and I don't have to worry about a red mark on my forehead from recoil.

And it's better to conceal a weapon if you're leaving your house, because one doesn't really want to either alarm the liberals in a crowd or to alert the criminal to your defensive capacities.  Or do you think that defense of one's family only applies inside the home?

I have a question for you. This is unrelated to the topic of P90/weapon choice (upon which I agree with you), but a question on gun related theory in general. First, I want to say that I am not in FAVOR of gun control, but I also DON'T despise it. So, my question is, would like a society in which everyone carries a gun? Or at least, every adult male? I mean sure, I understand that you believe it is important to protect your family, but do you not think that if every man in, say, a restaurant had a gun, and every one of them was inclined to use it if a break-in happened, do you not think it would increase the chance of stray shot(s) killing people rather than the chance that the robber actually has the intention to kill someone if they just cooperate?

A number of adult females already carry guns, and I would prefer every sane woman carry and train with a couple, exclusively of what men do. If the extremely rare criminal with no self-preservation instinct decides to commit armed robbery in a society where everyone except children are armed, then they will be doing so to not only commit suicide, but hope that a crossfire happens. It is up to every sane adult to follow the firearm safety rule on "know what's beyond your target", not get tunnel vision, and avoid crossfire (and if anyone notices a crossfire potential, to shout "watch your crossfire!" repeatedly until trajectories are made safe).

Plus, in the case of a restaurant, typically most will be sitting down, and the rest will either be 1) in line 2) waiters, cooks, bartenders, etc 3) people paying and going to the bathroom, all standing up. The typical robbery is committed with very shallow penetration into the building, so those standing at the front will either take or give fire first, before anyone else can react. If it gets past the front, those seated will have an up-angle shot at the robber, and should have a clear sight picture, able to avoid hitting other seated people.

[Dabs]

Here is a video of an attempted armed robbery in a restaurant:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsVCHE7ayPE

Somebody picked the wrong diner.

[Minor Miner]

I have a question for you. This is unrelated to the topic of P90/weapon choice (upon which I agree with you), but a question on gun related theory in general. First, I want to say that I am not in FAVOR of gun control, but I also DON'T despise it. So, my question is, would like a society in which everyone carries a gun? Or at least, every adult male? I mean sure, I understand that you believe it is important to protect your family, but do you not think that if every man in, say, a restaurant had a gun, and every one of them was inclined to use it if a break-in happened, do you not think it would increase the chance of stray shot(s) killing people rather than the chance that the robber actually has the intention to kill someone if they just cooperate?

Your question is based on a society that is not already armed and is more or less moot.
The USA has 300M guns.   If we ban them, they do not go away as most are unregistered.   Therefore, there is no effiing way I will give up being armed when the people that seek to do harm will not obey any new 2nd amendment ignoring law.
But, why don't you look up the stats on accidental shootings vs. texting deaths or prescription deaths etc.   In a country of over 310M, it is very small.
I do not want to debate the entire merits of the 2nd amendment but another reason I support it is that no country in their right mind would attempt a land based invasion of a country that has an entire population armed.   The cost is too high.  Think Switzerland with 310M people.

[pinger]

19-year-old with a baby says 911 operator told her to "do what you need to do."

I expected something like: Don't worry, a police car is coming in three minutes, hold on.

[termhn]

I have a question for you. This is unrelated to the topic of P90/weapon choice (upon which I agree with you), but a question on gun related theory in general. First, I want to say that I am not in FAVOR of gun control, but I also DON'T despise it. So, my question is, would like a society in which everyone carries a gun? Or at least, every adult male? I mean sure, I understand that you believe it is important to protect your family, but do you not think that if every man in, say, a restaurant had a gun, and every one of them was inclined to use it if a break-in happened, do you not think it would increase the chance of stray shot(s) killing people rather than the chance that the robber actually has the intention to kill someone if they just cooperate?

Your question is based on a society that is not already armed and is more or less moot.
The USA has 300M guns.   If we ban them, they do not go away as most are unregistered.   Therefore, there is no effiing way I will give up being armed when the people that seek to do harm will not obey any new 2nd amendment ignoring law.
But, why don't you look up the stats on accidental shootings vs. texting deaths or prescription deaths etc.   In a country of over 310M, it is very small.
I do not want to debate the entire merits of the 2nd amendment but another reason I support it is that no country in their right mind would attempt a land based invasion of a country that has an entire population armed.   The cost is too high.  Think Switzerland with 310M people.

Yeah I don't want to debate the merits of the 2nd amendment either, just the practicalities. And I agree with you on your 2nd point, I think that smoking, twd, etc. is a much more important issue than guns.

[termhn]

And damned expensive, hard to get in the US, and not very concealable.

1.  don't be cheap with home security (you can get for $1500), most people complain about the ammo prices though (and I say "don't waste too many bullets then".   That being said, I do not care that it took $15 worth of ammo to save my kids life and an AR15 could have done it for $7.....
2.  not hard at all.  only for a few months when people jacked AR prices up to $1800 because of the panic over regulation which never happened.
3.  better not to conceal what you are about to kill someone with that is threatening your life.   Not your "out and about on the town" type of defense.

The P90 is hard to get, because it requires a Class III weapons license, due to the fact that it's manufactured with a 12" barrel.  Perhaps you intended the PS90?

And it's very expensive compared to a 38 special handgun or a 22 rifle, both of which would serve quite well with practice.  And the price difference can pay for a lot of ammo for practice.  I personally carry a Sig Sauger Mosquito, a compact semi-auto chambered in 22lr.  The ammo is cheap and I can hit the target quite quickly, and I don't have to worry about a red mark on my forehead from recoil.

And it's better to conceal a weapon if you're leaving your house, because one doesn't really want to either alarm the liberals in a crowd or to alert the criminal to your defensive capacities.  Or do you think that defense of one's family only applies inside the home?

I have a question for you. This is unrelated to the topic of P90/weapon choice (upon which I agree with you), but a question on gun related theory in general. First, I want to say that I am not in FAVOR of gun control, but I also DON'T despise it. So, my question is, would like a society in which everyone carries a gun? Or at least, every adult male? I mean sure, I understand that you believe it is important to protect your family, but do you not think that if every man in, say, a restaurant had a gun, and every one of them was inclined to use it if a break-in happened, do you not think it would increase the chance of stray shot(s) killing people rather than the chance that the robber actually has the intention to kill someone if they just cooperate?

A number of adult females already carry guns, and I would prefer every sane woman carry and train with a couple, exclusively of what men do. If the extremely rare criminal with no self-preservation instinct decides to commit armed robbery in a society where everyone except children are armed, then they will be doing so to not only commit suicide, but hope that a crossfire happens. It is up to every sane adult to follow the firearm safety rule on "know what's beyond your target", not get tunnel vision, and avoid crossfire (and if anyone notices a crossfire potential, to shout "watch your crossfire!" repeatedly until trajectories are made safe).

Plus, in the case of a restaurant, typically most will be sitting down, and the rest will either be 1) in line 2) waiters, cooks, bartenders, etc 3) people paying and going to the bathroom, all standing up. The typical robbery is committed with very shallow penetration into the building, so those standing at the front will either take or give fire first, before anyone else can react. If it gets past the front, those seated will have an up-angle shot at the robber, and should have a clear sight picture, able to avoid hitting other seated people.

Would you really want to trust every adult with a weapon? There are a lot of stupid people in this country,and adrenaline can make even smart people do dumb things.

[RodeoX]

Would you really want to trust every adult with a weapon? There are a lot of stupid people in this country,and adrenaline can make even smart people do dumb things.

yes. I think the default should be to trust. We do the same for a far more dangerous tool, the car. Any nut job can get a car and go on a horrendous killing spree. Driving is by far the most dangerous thing you do. If someone demonstrates they can't drive safely or sober, we take away their right to drive. I approach guns the same way.
As you point out, some will not rise to the occasion.

[MoonShadow]

So, my question is, would like a society in which everyone carries a gun?

I'm going to answer this question in two parts, because there is a short answer and a long answer.

The short answer to "would you like a society in which everyonhe carries a gun?" is probably not.

The long answer is because we live in a society that, historicly speaking, has defaulted to permissiveness with defensive weapons, and as a result of that those who choose to carry a firearm in public are a self selected group.  Since they are self selecting, those same people make their daily choices based on the perceptions of risk versus inconvience.  When in an area, or choosing to proceed into an area, with a reputation of elevated risk of violent crime; such people are likely to carry.  The corrolary is that those same people are generally likely to leave the weapons at home when they travel in or through an area with a reputation of safety.  The percentage of people who carry all of the time is very small, and usually related to their occupation, i.e. cop, prosecutor, corporate investigator, etc.  The vast majority of this self-selecting group is very trustworthy with weapons, as my prior article should demonstrate.  As previously stated, I have a concealed carry license that is valid in upwards of 30 states today, but to be honest I rarely actually carry a weapon in public.  I live in one of the safest cities in the United States with over half a million residents, and it also happens to have one of the highest per capita rates of CCW license holders and the hightest per capita rate of class III weapons ownership in the United States.  So excluding the mandatory gun possession in Switzerland and like places, the highest rate of machine gun ownership on the entire planet, probably across all of human history.  Like Switzerland, crazy people are not unheard of, but misuse of those weapons is so rare that such incidents can be counted on one hand, if it's even happened here at all.

In summary, permission to carry a weapon is not equal to the practial reality that all adults would actually do so; and if a majroity of adults ever felt they needed to, then there are other things wrong with that society that gun control couldn't possiblely help resolve anyway.  I can see of no logical reason to not trust those who choose to carry that they know what they are doing.  Stats show that they are at least as trustworthy as the uniformed police in this regard, and gun control isn't going to improve that issue.

 Or at least, every adult male? I mean sure, I understand that you believe it is important to protect your family, but do you not think that if every man in, say, a restaurant had a gun, and every one of them was inclined to use it if a break-in happened, do you not think it would increase the chance of stray shot(s) killing people rather than the chance that the robber actually has the intention to kill someone if they just cooperate?

Those who choose to carry are under the same obligations as the police to not harm bystanders, and it's also a leap of logic to assume that every CCW gun owner is 1) carrying in the resturant and 2) willing to intervene on behalf of the store owner, or even other patrons.  Being robbed while heeled becomes a risk versus benefit calculation with regard to responding with force, since the robber doesn't know you're armed also.  Some choose to hand over the cash and deal with it latter.  But not having the gun means that is never an option if the situation were ever to arise.  I'm in favor of defaulting to the condition that my daughter has the choice to defend herself using whatever technology is available to her, at least until she personally demonstrates that she is not really an adult.  After all, we all know people who are just children walking around as adults; and if they should ever show that they are willing to harm others then they shouldn't be able to retain the right to carry a weapon.  But that is not most people.  That is, in fact, a very small fraction of adults; even in our childish and violent modern culture.  Again, history shows that those who are willing to go to the trouble and expense of getting a CCW license are exactly the kind of people that a free and safe socity would prefer to be in the majority among the armed in public.

[termhn]

So, my question is, would like a society in which everyone carries a gun?

I'm going to answer this question in two parts, because there is a short answer and a long answer.

The short answer to "would you like a society in which everyonhe carries a gun?" is probably not.

The long answer is because we live in a society that, historicly speaking, has defaulted to permissiveness with defensive weapons, and as a result of that those who choose to carry a firearm in public are a self selected group.  Since they are self selecting, those same people make their daily choices based on the perceptions of risk versus inconvience.  When in an area, or choosing to proceed into an area, with a reputation of elevated risk of violent crime; such people are likely to carry.  The corrolary is that those same people are generally likely to leave the weapons at home when they travel in or through an area with a reputation of safety.  The percentage of people who carry all of the time is very small, and usually related to their occupation, i.e. cop, prosecutor, corporate investigator, etc.  The vast majority of this self-selecting group is very trustworthy with weapons, as my prior article should demonstrate.  As previously stated, I have a concealed carry license that is valid in upwards of 30 states today, but to be honest I rarely actually carry a weapon in public.  I live in one of the safest cities in the United States with over half a million residents, and it also happens to have one of the highest per capita rates of CCW license holders and the hightest per capita rate of class III weapons ownership in the United States.  So excluding the mandatory gun possession in Switzerland and like places, the highest rate of machine gun ownership on the entire planet, probably across all of human history.  Like Switzerland, crazy people are not unheard of, but misuse of those weapons is so rare that such incidents can be counted on one hand, if it's even happened here at all.

In summary, permission to carry a weapon is not equal to the practial reality that all adults would actually do so; and if a majroity of adults ever felt they needed to, then there are other things wrong with that society that gun control couldn't possiblely help resolve anyway.  I can see of no logical reason to not trust those who choose to carry that they know what they are doing.  Stats show that they are at least as trustworthy as the uniformed police in this regard, and gun control isn't going to improve that issue.

 Or at least, every adult male? I mean sure, I understand that you believe it is important to protect your family, but do you not think that if every man in, say, a restaurant had a gun, and every one of them was inclined to use it if a break-in happened, do you not think it would increase the chance of stray shot(s) killing people rather than the chance that the robber actually has the intention to kill someone if they just cooperate?

Those who choose to carry are under the same obligations as the police to not harm bystanders, and it's also a leap of logic to assume that every CCW gun owner is 1) carrying in the resturant and 2) willing to intervene on behalf of the store owner, or even other patrons.  Being robbed while heeled becomes a risk versus benefit calculation with regard to responding with force, since the robber doesn't know you're armed also.  Some choose to hand over the cash and deal with it latter.  But not having the gun means that is never an option if the situation were ever to arise.  I'm in favor of defaulting to the condition that my daughter has the choice to defend herself using whatever technology is available to her, at least until she personally demonstrates that she is not really an adult.  After all, we all know people who are just children walking around as adults; and if they should ever show that they are willing to harm others then they shouldn't be able to retain the right to carry a weapon.  But that is not most people.  That is, in fact, a very small fraction of adults; even in our childish and violent modern culture.  Again, history shows that those who are willing to go to the trouble and expense of getting a CCW license are exactly the kind of people that a free and safe socity would prefer to be in the majority among the armed in public.

Nice response, thanks . In depth, and I think I agree with you on most things you said. I've just been wondering, wanting to get a look at what a gun-supporter's mind is thinking. I'm trying to formulate my own opinion on the matter still.

[TheButterZone]

Yes. Innocent until proven guilty/found civilly liable.