“We can anticipate gun aficionados clamoring that ‘who wouldn’t point a gun at an unknown intruder in their home??’ — something we can all surely understand — but let’s play devil’s advocate. What if there wasn’t a gun? What if the homeowner, instead, had a stun gun, a bat; a knife? Isn’t it likely that having that gun in his hand made it too easy for him to pull the trigger (reportedly four or five times) and kill an unarmed teenage boy already making his way out of the house? Of course it is. Guns simply make death — accidental, intended, suicidal — far too easy.” Lorraine Devon Wilke, Beyond Mental Health and Gun Control Is This: Guns Make Death Too Easy [via huffingtonpost.com]
I’m sorry… Since when am I required to give the person attacking me a sporting chance?
The antis want you to fight them “fair”, one on one while they’re destroying and robbing your house. Then for you to provide milk and cookies for them afterwards.
I’m sorry, I didn’t know that home invasions were resolved by the Marquess of Queensberry Rules.
Exactly, what a bunch of crap.
Around the time we had to start giving food a sporting chance, I reckon.
Except cows, chickens, and pigs though, they don’t a sporting chance because they aren’t cute and cuddly, so screw them!
I think cows are cute…
Not me, they seem shifty…
I’ve hung out with them. They’re shady as f**k
“A cow ain’t nothing but a bunch of trouble wrapped in a leather bag” – John Anderson (John Wayne), The Cowboys
I think cows are just yummy. Pigs and chickens too.
Nobody (except in Hollywood thrillers or !maybe gang initiations) gets forced to rob a home. There’s your sporting chance right there … Make the right call, walk away safely. No fuss, no muss.
Ding Ding! Their sporting chance was the one that let them turn away at any possible time before trying to break in my house. Once you get out that crowbar, or try to kick in that door or window, you’ve had every chance there is.
One of my bleeding heart friends once asked me “but what if you shot somebody who was just trying to steal to feed his family? Or needed help, and wasn’t going to hurt anyone? Wouldn’t you feel remorse?”
“Nope. I have a doorbell. If somebody needs help, they generally try your doorbell first. If they’ve decided to let themselves in, they clearly didn’t need my help.”
Give me a 20 shot, 100% reliable, 100%non lethal option, under 3in accuracy @50y, at least 20 min incapacitation, and remove all criminal/civil liabilities from the home owner/defender. Only then would I consider this.
The second they invent this it will be deemed a “phaser ray gun with shoulder thing that goes up” and will still be available only to criminals.
Being a criminal is known to be a dangerous enterprise that can have career-ending events occur in an abrupt and deadly fashion. My opinion is that it should stay that way.
Why is it that criminals have more rights than victims? Oh yeah, lawyers. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Criminal defense attorneys have a very strong interest in ensuring that their potential clients survive long enough to go to trial. It should be obvious why they would support civilian disarmament.
Unarmed teenage boy who broke into an occupied home. Yes guns make death easier easier for 1 man to deal with many, easier for a grand mother to deal with a 20 year old, easier for a man who spends his days behind a desk to defend himself from an ex con that spent the past 5 years lifting weights at the state pen. Guns are called equalizers for a reason.
It’s never good when someone dies, and it sucks that it comes to that in some situations but it does. You don’t unlawfully enter someone’s house and expect to walk out OK in spite of having the best intentions: you never wanted to harm anyone and just needed to take a little something so you can feed your family. Well, life doesn’t always work that way. If you think it ought to be safe to unlawfully enter someone’s house then you probably think bull runs ought to be a good way to get a leisurely walk.
One of my worst fears is that I will shoot a neighborhood kid that made a wrong choice. That said, I hope I pull the trigger before giving ANYONE a chance to shoot me!
Regarding your avatar – different movie – “Do ya feel lucky? Well do ya, punk?”
“It’s never good when someone dies.” Bullshit. It’s annoying and potentially expensive for your legal defense, and there’s a nasty mess on the floor and walls someone has to deal with, but some people NEED to die and sometimes their death is a good thing, worth all the trouble it puts you to.
“You don’t unlawfully enter someone’s house and expect to walk out OK in spite of having the best intentions: you never wanted to harm anyone and just needed to take a little something so you can feed your family.”
This isn’t 18th century France or the sequel to “Les Miserables”. The vast majority of burglaries or home invasions have nothing to do with feeding a starving family by raiding your pantry or ice box. They’re drug addicts looking for something to sell to get their next high, or they’re punks who just want to steal what you worked for so they don’t have to do any actual work. Then there are the occasional “I think I’ll just rape and torture and murder some folks because it gives me a rush” types.
Stealing bread crusts? Give me a break (and a shotgun).
Such misguided compassion.
You should’ve read all the articles after Sandy. There were a lot of people with “looters will be shot” signs out in front of their property. That was just too much for the writers and readers of rags like Slate and the NY Times to handle. I can’t tell you how many “if people are taking stuff, it’s because they need it to survive” comments I read… because you can eat a 52″ flat screen and somehow the person that was being stolen from didn’t need any supplies to survive themselves. If those pious a-holes lived in those areas, instead of their high security Upper West Side apartments, they’d know that the people taking stuff after the storm were the same ones doing B & E’s before the storm.
Maybe I’m old fashioned, but making death too easy is something to strive for in defense of your family.
I just don’t understand the mindset of not being willing to defend yourself from harm, of not even valuing one’s own life enough to safeguard it through use of force. I understand someone freezing or finding themselves unwilling to use force in the moment, but to write off the use of force wholesale is mind boggling to me.
Ms. Wilke did appear to advocate for homeowners using a taser, bat, or knife to bring violent force upon a home invader. She simply hates firearms. The fact that a 110 pound woman with a bat, taser, or knife is no match even for an unarmed 250 pound physically fit man doesn’t matter to Ms. Wilke. She just wants to get rid of firearms.
I laugh at gun grabbers. They deride us when we say that freedom isn’t free and some deaths are the price we pay for freedom. But it is okay for unarmed 110 pound women and elderly citizens to die at the hands of young, physically fit criminals because it is the price that we would pay for a society “free of gun violence”.
Hmm. Think about that. If some deaths are going to happen either way, wouldn’t it make sense to side with freedom?
What you’re saying is making sense, but you’re giving the antis too much credit. I’m convinced that certain people just don’t understand logic and simply cannot follow a logical train of thought. You can spend 30 minutes explaining things to them and in the end they’ll still say “guns are bad”.
This has happened to me several times, personally. In the end if you want to help any of them, you have to try and understand their mindset, and first convince them that logic can lead you towards the truth.
The problem with that theory is that they literally do not want to understand. They do not want to understand because they don’t give a shit.
“My mid is made up – don’t confuse me with a bunch of facts!”
She I am willing to bet dose not like bats tasers or any other implement that may be used to bring violence.
Imo it is a tactical misdirection made to seem “reasonable” but the pattern of disarmament is just to established.
In the UK ‘the place they constantly refer to as their ideal” it is illegal to carry ANY object for the purposes of defense. The law as executed makes life for someone who has defended them selves or family difficult enough to dissuade others from making that decision and relying on chance to protect them.
It fits with their tactics so far, they start with ideas like registering legal gun owners who rarely commit crimes and banning firearms rarely used to commit crimes because it is “reasonable” even though it cant possibly make a dent in crime if it can be implemented in a meaningful way at all.
Banning ARs and 30 round mags dose nothing for most victims who are assaulted with revolvers or pistols and suffer one or two shots at most.
The fact of the matter is if you could magically make all EBRs and “high cap” firearms disappear the bulk of crime would still be handily conducted with what is left.
If Lanza didn’t have access to an AR he could have done the same thing with uncle Joes sxs guage.
“She I am willing to bet dose not like bats tasers or any other implement that may be used to bring violence.
Imo it is a tactical misdirection made to seem “reasonable” but the pattern of disarmament is just to established.”
I had the same thought when I read the post … I simply did not mention it.
Most home invasions aren’t one unarmed teenager. I suppose those people are just SOL in her world.
More importantly, a homeowner who discovers a home invader has no way of knowing if the invader is a teenager (like that even matters), whether the invader is armed, nor whether the invader has partners.
Homeowners do not have the advantage of hindsight. They usually have one or two seconds to respond. Too bad for the home invader.
I never understand gun grabbers. Rather than chastising criminals who break into homes, they chastise citizens who own firearms. I have to wonder if gun grabbers are criminals themselves … who else would advocate for safer conditions for violent criminals?
“More importantly, a homeowner who discovers a home invader has no way of knowing if the invader is a teenager (like that even matters), whether the invader is armed, nor whether the invader has partners.”
Which is why I check ID at the door and make all home invaders fill out a two page questionnaire…
Are you alone?
Are you armed?
Are you currently high on drug?
Which of my household items are most interested in?
Can’t be too sure, nowadays, all these crazy teenages wondering into people’s homes late at night in search of Moon Pies and RC Cola.
Thank you very much.
Now a friggin’ Moon Pie with anRC Cola sounds amazing.
I find the special sympathy for teenagers a bit confused. One day the squishies talk about teenagers as if they were six-year-olds. But what happens the minute a serious war breaks out? “Draft all the eighteen-year-olds. Nobody can soldier better than they can!” And it is true.
As far as I can tell the left-liberal gun grabber thesis is this: “We get drunk, stoned, have occasional psychotic episodes, often plunge into resentful rages, and don’t think we should get shot just because we’re imposing our very bad day on you.” In other words, they should get a few freebie violence periods, and we should just put up with it. No. That is an insane proposal. Get treatment. Don’t take hallucinogens, bath salts, crack, or meth. You have no right to ignore your mental health or incapacitate yourself with drugs or booze in public…let alone enter my house in such a dangerous condition.
Teach your kids. Look out for your own and your family’s mental health. At my door your right to be a dangerous confused ass stops.
The best way I can think of to determine if a burglar or home invader is working alone or has accomplices is to shoot the first intruder you encounter, then listen for the sound of breaking glass and slamming doors as the others find any possible exit from your domicile.
It’s a pretty good bet they came there looking for a cheap score, NOT a gunfight.
Well this horribly flawed logic is exactly what I would expect out of such a fine publication.
Yes, guns do make death easier, which is a good thing in a defensive situation. If a person chooses to commit an act which will put them in a position where a legally justifiable shooting is a potential threat, it should cause any sound mind to reconsider.
Without guns, those aiming to commit murder, rape, or robberies do not have much to fear. A close range contact oriented weapon such as a bat, knife, or stun gun is far less lethal which will make criminals more brazen and also puts the victim in risk of increased harm. So with this, guns also prevent death or bodily harm to the good guy.
But this does not mesh with the lib mentality, any death is an excuse to wave a bloody shirt especially if it is a poor disadvantaged and mistreated by the world career criminal. Any life to these libtards is worth saving. Hmmm, no. I don’t care how many hugs and praises and forms of government aid you give bad apples, they will continue to be bad apples, and if they plan to victimize another party they deserve to be looking down the barrel of a gun.
And in their next breath they’ll say, “look at the UK, look at Australia where there are almost no gun deaths!”, places where exactly what you describe have become history for all to see. After the UK’s gun ban crime with lesser weapons increased so dramatically they had to ban knives, and Australia takes away first prize in the world in the number of crime victims per capita, with and without guns involved. Flawed logic stemming from a flawed delusion of utopia.
I was tempted to reply to the original article on Huffington Post to bring this point up and to point out that it’s still possible to inflict a fatal injury with a hammer, knife, or softball bat. Point of fact, in the case of an intoxicated or drugged intruder, you may have to really cause a lot of damage or to get them to stop.
I’d imagine that in the dark, with adrenaline and fear driving her on, even Ms. Wilke could kill someone with a softball bat if the intruder was heading toward her loved ones.
HR Ever fought anyone on PCP, Bath Salts etc? I have and trust me a baseball bat is inadequate . I worked at a hospital as an orderly in college and a 5’3″ 125lb guy was brought in by his family. He had been smoking Sherms and he freaked out when saw me and some other guys. At 5’10 and 185 solid pounds I was the smallest of 6 people. This guy gave all of us the worst butt whipping any of us had ever had and we weren’t holding back. So you go ahead with your bat and stun gun (which doesn’t work well against drunks and people on drugs) and I’ll be happy for you.
I was making the point that beating the hell out of someone with a baseball bat to subdue them is likely to result in their death. Even more so if they’re on drugs – you’d probably have to smash their brains out to stop them.
So the author’s idea that you should use a bat instead as a non-lethal weapon makes no sense whatsoever.
You remind me of a guy I knew in the Army. You’re not from Georgia with the name of a New England state as your last name, are you? If you’re the guy I’m thinking of, that would explain a lot. It’d be a one-in-a-million shot, but it would explain your habit of disagreeing with people for sport.
Either way, no, I’ve never tried to subdue an attacker on PCP.
Yes, I have subdued attackers before (several of them in a riot).
Yes, it was difficult.
No, it was not pretty.
Yes, I was treated at the hospital along with several others for injuries we sustained while subduing our attackers.
Yes, people are tough and unpredictable and generally should not be underestimated.
I really hope that covers all the bases.
Any life is worth saving if it’s a criminals, an animals or a terrorist’s; but not if it’s an unborn child’s.
So what does that say about these “compassionate” people?
Many companies over the last century+ have spent a great deal of time and money on R&D to make death by firearms easier and more efficient and more reliable. It seems to be what their customers are asking for.
I know I’m preaching to the choir here…but here are some cases of defensive gun uses from three minutes of searching. You’ll note that in many cases, the defender did not need to fire any shots to halt an attack.
A single mom in Albuquerque shot a would be rapist last August: \
A homeowner in California halts an attack by three men with a gun. One of the suspects surrenders, saying he is “just a kid” and is held for police:
Several cases cited of defensive gun use stopping home invasions this month:
I’d ask Mrs. Wilke why these people who have successfully defended themselves and their loved ones are less valuable than their attackers.
And you know this because you read it and wasn’t there to make the split second decision of whether or not to shoot while under a high stress situation of having someone break into your home or attack you.
Bet you would have let that gangbanger travon bash your head into a gooey paste because it didn’t raise to a level you would consider even defending yourself.
Being touchy feely with criminals is why so many perps enjoy their current profession. Low Risk High Reward.
What the hell are you talking about?
Did you comment on the wrong post?
In that situation with the teenager, the guy defending his home and his girlfriend didn’t do anything wrong.
Of course it’s ridiculous to expect someone confronting an intruder in his home, in the dark, with that intruder advancing toward his loved ones to not respond.
Wrong. He broke into someones house and ignored the guys warning to stop and leave. The teenage was heading for the guys bedroom where the wife was. He deserved what he got. He was not the victom here.
However I’m sure you would have just told the kid to hop in bed with your wife and then take whatever he wanted after he was finished with her. Advertise that in your front yard.
Silly goose; you spelled “victum” wrong!
Yeah, This small computer screen and a touch of dyslexia sometimes makes for some badly spelled words.
If you’ll scroll on down a bit, you’ll see that I’ve made some of the exact same arguments you just did in defense of the same person you’re defending.
And I said that several hours before you commented – check the date and time if you don’t believe me.
Once again, Donald Wilder (the neighbor) didn’t act unreasonably when he shot Caleb Gordley. It’s a sad situation, but Mr. Wilder isn’t to blame. Gordley made the decisions that led to his own death.
Apparently the DA agrees with that opinion because I haven’t read of any charges being filed.
Whether the prosecutor agrees or disagrees is irrelevant to this case for two reasons. First if he wants to keep his job he won’t be able to do that by telling people they cannot protect their homes or families from invaders. Second, by filing charges against the home owner for protecting his home and family would set precedent for future litigation by any scumbag or their family for the perp getting shot in the commission of a felony breaking and entering.
This young man (not a kid) was a perp whether it was by intention or accidental and he paid the price. Homeowners shouldn’t have to base their decision on self defense on wondering if they are going to be sued.
I think whether the prosecutor files charges or not is very relevant to Mr. Wilder.
Having said that, I’ve tired of this circular discussion in which I am berated for agreeing with you, then berated more when you find something to nitpick about after I point out that I’ve been agreeing with you (which you somehow didn’t catch on to).
Anyhow, I concede – You’re right and I’m wrong for agreeing with you.
We agree on many pointsand disagree on others.
My rules: You make forcible entry into my home and you’re not visibly armed, and I order to you to leave and you do, then you get to live and I call the cops. Same circumstances but you continue to come towards me, you get shot. Same circumstances and you’re visibly armed, whether or not you come towards me you get shot. My castle, my rules.
You’re too soft boss. If one of them low-lifes broke into my house, unarmed or not, I tell ’em to f*cking FREEZE! They’re gonna lay right there on the floor until the police arrive. Obviously I wouldn’t shoot if they ran, but if you scare ’em enough in the first few seconds then they won’t have the good sense to run.
Then again, if they had any good sense in the first place, they wouldn’t have broken in.
And after verbal commands have been given, the ball is in their court. If you sit still, good. If you run, too bad but good. And if you do anything that could be perceived as a threat… That was a mistake.
A gun is an equalizer. It makes defense of yourself and your family more feasible. On a different note, death has always been easy. She obviously hasn’t seen how quickly a broadsword, which has been around for centuries, can cut a person in half. Heck, in ancient Japan, the way they rated a sword was by seeing how many people it could cut through at the same time.
Hey but there was NO gun violence in the eleventh century. Must have been a paradise.
Funny the middle ages had the highest rate of murder ever recorded and they used braudswards.
No, they used anything they could lay their hands on. Including their hands. Worked just fine.
“Guns simply make death — accidental, intended, suicidal – far too easy”
Technology makes many things easier. Mankind now knows of firesticks that kill at a distance. Penicillin & planes too.
The same argument could be mad about congresses power to tax. Makes it to easy to pass more taxes. Or NYC police officers continual shooting of innocent bystanders.
Guns in hands also make it easier to protect yourself from some MF the violently entered YOUR home to visit harm to you and steal your belongings.
I usually don’t wish bad things on people but I hope that someone breaks into the editor and writers of the HP and gives them a lesson as to why you cannot depend on the police to protect you.
“Guns simply make death — accidental, intended, suicidal – far too easy.” — Lorraine Devon Wilke
And Ms. Wilke’s point is what?
Cars, tall buildings, and cliffs make death super easy as well. What could be easier than stepping over the edge of a cliff or balcony of a tall building? What could be be easier than accelerating your car to 100 mph and then driving into an immovable object such as a large oak tree? Suicide and murder could not be any easier using these methods.
Alright, so there are easier ways to murder someone. Any criminal could casually walk up behind someone and then bash their skull with a steel pipe or hammer. And lest we not forget the tried and true (and completely silent) garotte technique which requires nothing more than some thin steel cable (commonly used to hang pictures) and two wood sticks.
The possibilities are endless. But then again Ms. Wilke’s comment really isn’t about stopping death. Her comment is a hysterical response to something that she doesn’t like, nothing more and nothing less. She offers no solution whatsoever to the root problem which is simply people who wish to do harm to themselves or others.
Did the author at the HuffingtonPost miss out on the fact that these are “CRIMINALS”? Or are they trying to turn them into some other protected class of people? Hmmmm
I believe the Progressive meme of “moral equivalency” applies to criminal punks as much as it does to different social and ethnic groups.
I was going to comment on the article, but it was quickly devolving into hate speech. I have an extremely difficult time empathizing with someone who values their life and the lives of their loved ones so little that they would not do anything to protect them.
Now, full disclosure: I don’t know if I could pull the trigger in a DGU if I had to. I may freeze up. It happens to people far better trained than I. It’s a distinct possibility.
The subtle difference is that I am willing to give myself and my family a fighting chance. The author and many, many more who share her viewpoints are unwilling to even do that.
As has been discussed on TTAG many times, the brandishing of a weapon or the firing of a shot will in MOST cases end the encounter with the BG breaking Olympic 100 yard dash records while in full retreat.
If you are diffident about your ability to actual plug the S.O.B., show him the gun, point it TOWARDS him, fire in his direction. If this does not get the desired result, THEN you can decide if you can actually shot him.
The one caveat – NEVER admit to the police that you fired a warning shot and were not trying to shoot him but missed because you were nervous.
I didn’t say locking up was a definite, but it would be naïve to exclude the possibility. The point I was really going for is that without a firearm in the first place your only option is to bend over, grab your ankles….
Rather than put myself in the shoes of the intruder, as the author of that piece clearly did, I’d rather look at it from the perspective of the homeowner. In his place, I probably would not have started any controversy over shooting an intruder in the back, I highly doubt I would have given him the chance to turn around. But let’s play with the other hypotheticals:
Stun gun/TASER: What happens when the battery runs out, and that “unarmed teenager who made a mistake” is not unarmed, and didn’t make a mistake?
A bat: First off, that is making a huge assumption about the physical condition of the homeowner. Also, it was a hallway confrontation, which means in order to get a viable swing, the wielder would have to come down, over the head. It’s going to be just as fatal, given the adrenaline surge, only much more painful and messy, since it’s unlikely anyone who has gotten to the point they felt they must defend themselves would stop hitting until their arms were too tired to continue. Not to mention the fuzzy legality of having a bludgeon as a weapon. You’d better have a glove and a ball to go with the Louisville Slugger, or you could be facing some interesting charges in most states.
A knife: same as the bat. Four or five gunshots are more likely to be survivable than dozens of slash and stab wounds.
The real lesson is far simpler: Don’t break into houses.
Actually, the right way to use a cosh or truncheon in those circumstances is to bring it down sharply alongside the opponent’s head, angled slightly inward and away from the vertical, so that the opponent’s head works to guide the grazing motion onto the collar bone, which evolved to break easily (to spare other parts like ball and socket joints, much as an electrical fuse deliberately blows first).
Of course, this needs luck or training, but it is very effectively disabling. Interestingly, the biblical story of the crucifixion is probably describing the results of this technique when it states that someone’s ear was sliced off with a sword (those swords had fairly blunt edges, and used their points for lethality).
Further digression into antiquated techniques – since the majority of people are right-handed (more than 80%), your blow, if effective at all, will most likely fracture the intruder’s left collarbone, leaving him free, and with an additional adrenalin rush, to continue his attack with his dominant hand and whatever weapon he may be carrying.
This is probably the greatest reason why the old and feeble (and injured) were not common in armies using bludgeons, stabbing, or slashing weapons.
That’s what you might expect, just from using common sense, right?
That’s why common sense is often a bad guide, because there are times when it is wrong, like this one.
By chance, I once did have a broken collar bone (not this way, it was from a motorcycle accident). I can tell you, not just from experience but from reading up about it to see how to cope, that it prevents almost any upper body movement other than slow direct vertical movement, up or down, unless you can arrange to assist it. That is because our bodies are complex systems of compression elements like bones and tension elements like muscles and sinews. Every other kind of upper body movement throws some kind of strain around the rest of the trunk, so that the physical machinery isn’t holding together properly.
Before you are tempted to rebut that someone can override the pain of this under an adrenaline surge, that is quite correct; only, precisely because the machinery is loose, he won’t be able to do the movements he is trying for, and instead he will swing wildly even though he won’t feel the pain just yet. Trust me on this, I have checked it out for reasons of self interest.
Excuse me, isn’t another of the Anti-2A arguments that you are likely to be killed by your own gun? How likely is it that you may have a bat or knife wrestled from you before the incapacitating blow/stab and find yourself beaten or stabbed to death by an enraged intruder? One of the most important and logical reasons for the popularity of firearms since their inception has been the ability to deal death and destruction from stand-off distances. I am 6’3″ and 280 pounds, but at almost 64 years old I do not like my chances of going toe to toe with a drug or adrenalin razed young male intruder. Smith 686, you are my best friend.
Not to mention that someone your size bent on harming another could target a smaller man or a woman and have the advantage of much more strength and mass on their side in an attack.
A 100 pound woman could be an easy victim. But if she were to press your 686 into the ribs of her attacker and fire twice, I suspect that her attacker would suddenly find that the fight just got a whole lot more fair.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why some people think that a world in which the larger and stronger can victimize the smaller, weaker, or older with impunity is the height of civilization.
I broke my left clavicle in 1969, in a bicycle accident. Your assessment is dead-on. There is no way to overcome the motion limitations inherent in such an injury. The frame is broken; there is little one can do. Horizontal movements are impossible, beyond a very limited range. You can go up and down, a little, but not much. If you attempt to go beyond this restricted range, the two broken ends of the clavicle will rub together. One try will be enough to discourage you from further attempts. With a broken frame, mustering any sort of strength to defend yourself is pretty much out of the question; it just doesn’t work.
Getting the thing set is a memorable experience. I’ve had a broken leg set; it was nothing compared to the resetting of the clavicle: they basically strap your arms akimbo on a kind of torture rack, then pull until the two ends of the collarbone snap into place. Many people pass out from the pain. I nearly did.
After the torture, they put your shoulders in a kind of brace that is removable for bathing, but it holds your shoulders in a high position; raise your shoulders up as high as you can – that’s it. For six weeks or so.
With your shoulders up this high, and one out of commission, good luck with wiping your ass.
Strange. Mine was in 1976 in the U.K., and all they did was provide an undersized sling, smaller than for a broken arm as it didn’t need to provide even arm support but just to take the arm’s weight off the shoulder. The collar bone itself they just left alone, telling me that, just as it was optimised by evolution to break before other things, so also it had been optimised to heal easily without intervention. And so it came to pass.
Behold, the bankrupt philosophy that a bad guys life is some precious resource which must be protected.
In point of fact, the least valuable thing on Earth is the life of a scumbag invading another man’s home.
Yes, but he’s an “alleged” Bad Guy until convicted in a court of law. Who appointed US as judge, jury and executioner? (/sarc)
Cliff, If the perp breaks into my home then he has sentenced himself to whatever punishment I dish out including getting shot. Don’t do the crime if you cant do the time or take the lead.
You know what happens to people with stun guns, bats, and knives?
They get shot.
IF the story’s true, I don’t think the homeowner should’ve shot the kid in the back.
That said: his house, his rules. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Don’t get so damn drunk you don’t know where your own house is.
Somewhat related, but a drunk guy got into my friend’s house and crashed on his couch. He woke up with a Mossberg 500 aimed at his face and a stern warning never to make the mistake again.
Use a knife or a bat? Arent these the same clowns that tell us that a bad guy will just take a gun out of our hands and use them against us? If that were true, why in the hell would I greatly decrease my effective range to arms length?
No way! Don’t you watch movies?
When people are stunned with stun guns they go unconscious immediately and stay that way for hours. And, one good stab to the gut is instant death for any would be assailant, good pocket knife or stun gun is all you need.
Yes, I’ve seen this many times in movies – the good guy throws his K-bar from 30 feet away, the Bad Guy gets hit in the chest and he falls dead instantly without making a sound.
This technique is obviously much more efficient than shooting people where the possibility of a single shot being incapacitating is problematic.
When did street crime become the Knights of the Freakin’ Round Table? I’ll abide by the law, to be sure, and that means all of the law, including threat or use of deadly force if circumstances imposed upon me by a criminal demand it. However, don’t expect one iota of concern for good manners out of me in the midst of defending myself against a reasonably believed-to-be deadly threat.
Who ARE these whiny criminal apologists who would afford every home invader and burglar innumerable time-outs, do-overs, and chances to cry “King’s X”, while the rest of us get but a split second of terror to determine how best to save our families, followed by a lifetime of second guessing by others?
There are consequences for refusing to live by the non-aggression principle. Even if it’s not your thing, you violate it at your peril. If you break into another human’s being’s domicile in the middle of the night, you better be ready for whatever comes your way. Only a woman who has never had her physical security called into question can write drivel like this. Trust me, if Lorraine Devon Wilke had her home broken into in the middle of the night, she’d be telling her boyfriend or husband to go check out the commotion.
“Afterwards, when the heat has cooled, when intervention has had impact; when the passage of time has lent greater clarity and less anguish to the situation, most of us can look back at a fight with a loved one and be stunned that a vase was thrown across the room in a fit of anger.” I’ve never thrown anything in any fit of anger. Sounds to me like she’s the one who can’t control her emotions. That’s a character flaw.
…I wish I could say I haven’t thrown ANYTHING in a fit of anger. I can say I have never thrown anything in a fit of anger caused by a person.
Busting my knuckles on a particularly stubborn bolt while contorting my big ass around an engine has caused a couple of wrenches to be thrown.
That’s the point. Killing somebody with a bat or baton is and should remain hard.
Hell, killing someone with a gun is hard, 6 out of 7 people shot with handguns survive.
I believe that this statistic is greatly skewed by the speed and quality of medical care provided, AND the number of times the perp was hit in vital areas by projectiles of adequate caliber and velocity.
This would appear to be a societal flaw, but I am at a loss to come up with a viable solution other than better ammunition, better shot placement, and more rounds down-range.
According to Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, Obama and the other race war inciters, whites must submit to beatings from people of color. Oh, and there is no such thing as the “knockout game.”
As an historical note, Jesse Jackson got his start in the ’60s/’70s in Chicago with what was called the “Push Coalition.” This was supposedly a call to PUSH for equality, but part of their program was to give black people a sense of self-esteem and “takin’ it to whitey” by encouraging them to walk the crowded streets of downtown Chicago and intentionally pick a random white person and give them a hard and otherwise undeserved push.
This would seem to be the genesis of the “knock out game” which has just taken the concept to a new level. What’s next, “The Stabbing Game?”
That ladies article is almost too asinine to comment on. Nonetheless I would ask her how the elderly or the disabled like myself should defend ourselves and our loved ones? Perhaps she would suggest we just lie down and die instead of shooting someone that broke into our home because we neglected to do our research on the intruder and find out that he was “universally well liked.” Wow, the absurd has reached new levels.
Come on. Maybe the kid coldn’t get a job and was desparate. Maybe he was helping feed his family. This was act by the rich to deprive the poor of their “fair share.”
I used to keep a bat and golf club for protection. I never want to be so unprotected again.
As for someone mistakenly entering my home well to bad for them.
I still keep a 6-cell Maglite by the back door, just in case. The difference between now and years ago is that it’s now strictly backup to a .45.
How exactly did a teenager with no arms break into the home?
Even then, he could kick you to death depending on the size difference.
More people are murdered each year with hands and feet than with rifles.
Just to clarify, a bat, and a knife qualify in every court in this country as lethal weapons, as does disparity of force due to age difference or male/female or force of numbers. This is why it is considered reasonable to use a gun to respond to all of the above. So what the author is stating is that they approve of leathal force only if it requires putting the homeowner in bad breath grappling distance to the bad guy. (and yes, if you break into someone’s house you are a bad guy, regardless of your personal troubles)
And went into someone elses house uninvited.
This silly ass person wants us to believe that we are better off to take the risk of not killing an unarmed teenager who entered our residence illegally, than to take the risk of being killed or maimed by an armed criminal entering our residence illegally. That’s hysterical (and I mean that in the sense of screaming out loud “What the hell are you thinking?” hysterical)! I am guessing statistical data is on my side when I say to her, “Here’s a clue, historically far, far more unarmed homeowners have been killed, maimed and terrorized by armed criminals illegally entering their residences than unarmed teenagers entering peoples’ residences illegally, so explain to me how you arrived at this ridiculous, moronic statement. You cannot and you know you cannot. So, take the money you got from HuffPo for writing this garbage and go buy yourself some bloodred shoes to show your contempt for all the truly innocent people you just said ought to be killed in lieu of one criminal, stupid teenager. At least that would be ONE honest thing you’ve done.
Yes, guns make death ridiculously easy. But, the ease of taking a life (be it accidentally or intentionally) with a firearm comes with natural checks and balances.
No, I’m not referring to registration or limiting ammo capacity etc etc
I’m referring to balances like consequences [for shooting someone who doesn’t intend to lethally harm you for example], intelligent thought, and safety principles. To anyone familiar (and experienced) with firearms, pulling the trigger with intent to kill is NEVER as simple as this quote would like you to think.
GEE WHIZ .. Let;s just go back to the cave man days and we can all beat each other to death with clubs .. GREAT IDEA!!
whenever someone brings up stun guns as viable weapons you can immediately write that person off as an idiot.
Those situations described happen and are tragic, but can there be three stories that have been ignored where someone with no rage, sleeping or watching TV, has been invaded in their own home, and “because of a gun”, the one who would do plannned violence was stopped. If you were to choose, who should survive that type of encounter?
Intentional violent crime out numbers the crimes and tragedies of blind passion.
I always said it’s not a sport wor contest you break into my house. But maybe I’m going to reconsider that. Maybe the game. Like the price is right. What’s behind door number two? Homeowner with a gun. Damn!
I always say home invasion is not a sport or contest. But I’m willing to reconsider. Maybe its like “The Price Is Right!”. What’s behind door number two? That’s right Bob. Homeowner with a gun!!! Awwww, thug loses. Insert sad face.
Ah, Lorraine… Yes, guns make death easier. Suicides by guns are generally more successful than other options, excepting jumping off buildings. The truth is that death is easy, period. It is even more than easy, it is guaranteed. It is the singular most basic fact of human existence. We will all die.
I am not all that afraid of dying, though I’d rather it be a considerably more future event. I am very concerned, though, with living. I do not define living as the opposite of death but more about how I live daily, what I live for, and how I conduct myself. And I refuse to live in fear, quaking at the thought of someone on the corner looking at me funny, or not going out at night because bad things happen after dark. Life itself is worth protecting, absolutely, but even more important is living, and people cannot do that well when they are constantly afraid.
I do not own and carry firearms to prevent me from dying, but to ensure I am living as fully as I can. Confident. Self-reliant. And without fear. Maybe you should try it sometime. It can be quite the eye opener.
As others have said, “my house, my rules.”
And one of my rules goes like this:
If someone has forced their way into my home, uninvited, I’m not playing a game of 20 questions to ascertain their intent. To quote some guy from somewhere: “Not my job, man.” If he forced his way into my house, I have a reasonable presumption he’s not there to do any of the following:
– give me Jehovah’s Witness leaflets
– sell me a vacuum cleaner
– give me a free Book of Mormon
– peddle magazines, cookies, candy or any other such product.
None of those people have ever forced their way into my home (or car, or office, etc).
If some woman wants to wail and cry about how her boy (or some random stupid youth) was gunned down in someone else’s house, then my first response to her is “You failed as a parent. You should hang your head in shame, because the job wasn’t rocket science, lady.” In the case she cites in NM, let’s look at the facts: The youth got out of the house. Parental failure #1. Went off to a party and got drunk. Parental failure #2. Climbed into a window of a house rather than knock on the door. Failure #3.
Women keep wanted to give kids like this “another chance.” I don’t. The kid played stupid games and won a stupid prize. That’s how evolution works, folks, and that’s the way evolution is supposed to work. The world is a harsh place. It’s even harsher for people who are stupid.
Lol, isn’t that the point? The more “violent/dangerous” the defense the more effective deterrent.
Oh, GOD! Yes. There is no room for “you escalate, I might escalate a hair more”. COCKIESHANDERS!
He’s in your home against your wishes. Shoot him dead, before he kills you. And you are free to assume he wants to, in such a situation.
I don’t owe him one single thing beside the negation of his threat.
I have no doubt that Ms. Lorraine Devon Wilke would unload a full clip into an intruder in her house threatening her squeeze/children at 3 a.m. quicker than you could say “Jack Robinson” if the circumstances permitted. Anyone who was sane would. It’s the natural, hard-wired into our brain “Fight or Flight” reflex. She has existential issues.
Restricting firearms ownership may (or may not have) prevented any given, specific incident. What is clear from places like the UK or Cambodia (am I remembering that essay featured on TTAG incorrectly?) is that restricting firearms gives criminals a de facto advantage over their potential victims. It’s also clear from even a cursory look into statistics that the deaths prevented by firearms ownership are greater than the deaths caused by firearms prevalence.
Restricting firearms ownership is morally wrong, it leads to an increase of violence which makes it wrong in a practical sense, and the arguments for it are factually wrong.
Even in that discussion on Huffington Post, most of the posters are pointing out that guns aren’t the problem in the cases the author cites.
Particularly in the case of the teenager. He entered the home illegally at night in a very intoxicated state, blew past the renter, started up the stairs toward the renter’s sleeping girlfriend, ignored commands to leave and a warning shot, ignored being shot once and continued advancing, and was finally killed with several more shots.
It’d take a pretty hard-hearted man to say that a teenager deserves to be killed for being stupid, sneaking out of the house, and getting drunk. Teenagers do that.
But he did make choices that put himself in a situation that resulted in his death. It’s tragic. I feel for the kid’s parents (and also for the renter, who has to feel horrible about this situation). The kid likely wasn’t a “bad” kid or a thug. But he did what he did and no one twisted his arm. Someone should have taught him about consequences before he got himself into such a bad situation that resulted in his death.
Up until I saw your comment, I thought the teenager scenario was a hypothetical. But yes, your description is of someone who deserves to be shot, at the very least in that he disregarded a lawful order to halt.
Nope, there was actually a teenager shot.
What bothers me most about this is that it paints the intruder as the victim and the guy who was defending his home and his girlfriend as some kind of bad guy. That’s just not the case. It is reasonable to defend yourself and your loved ones when an intruder comes in at night, advances on loved ones, refuses to leave, and even ignores a warning shot. The DA apparently thought this too because as far as I’ve read, no charges were filed.
At the end of the day, if you don’t want to get shot, you just shouldn’t get drunk and invade someone else’s home in the dead of the night. That’s what lead to the teenager’s death… not the Glock used by the guy defending himself.
Two farts in a giggle box; why stop there? Why not suggest a BANANA for righteous self-defense?