This Doesn't Make Sense

[Paul_of_TX]

I don't understand how anyone gets into this situation. Did she run out of ammo? If so then she needs to learn that you can never have enough ammo? She must also be a terrible shot since there was only one guy who broke into her house and apparently didn't have a gun. I'm thinking that even the limited 10 round mags hold enough rounds to protect a homeowner in this case. If not she should have spent more time at the range. I would also recommend a shotgun for home protection. A shot gun will not cover an entire wall like some idiots claim but it sure will make a small area like a door way a very uncomfortable place to be when you have to squeeze thru it.

Terrifying moment home invader stalks fleeing victim to the roof | New York Post

 

[Cowbilly32]

Paul, I guess maybe I am missing something. In the link you provided there is no mention of a gun at all so I don't understand your comment about running out of ammo, time at the range, etc. I hope you will elaborate.

 

[Paul_of_TX]

"In the link you provided there is no mention of a gun at all"

Precisely! That makes no sense to me at all. The only reason you should be on your roof hiding from an attacker is because you have run out of ammo. She chose that by not having a the means to protect herself and that is what I can't understand.

 

[apvbguy]

don't feed the trolls

 

[stewie-Y]

"In the link you provided there is no mention of a gun at all"

Precisely! That makes no sense to me at all. The only reason you should be on your roof hiding from an attacker is because you have run out of ammo. She chose that by not having a the means to protect herself and that is what I can't understand.

Well, she does live in Commiefornia. Can you have a loaded handgun in your house there or does it have to be locked up in Fort Knoxx?

 

[Shockwave]

Well, she does live in Commiefornia. Can you have a loaded handgun in your house there or does it have to be locked up in Fort Knoxx?

Pretty much any comment about Commiefornia, KKKfornia, and any such is just sad and degrades intelligent discussion. It's a state. It's the world's 8th largest economy. And you can get a firearm if you live there. A legal ruling just struck down their 10-day waiting period, and California-compliant firearm laws are, while silly, hardly a barrier to purchase or ownership. So let's please just drop all that.

Other states have similar restrictions. Yet in the scheme of things, concealed carry, magazine limits, so-called "assault rifle" restrictions and such are getting rolled back around the country. The general tide of things is moving in a good way.

In the case under discussion, yes, the homeowner should have had a firearm and the ability to use it against a home invader. Nevertheless she survived and LEO handled the matter. Good outcome. Especially good because she didn't have to deal with a deadly force situation. While all of us would applaud a successful SD application, that usually results in an average $20,000 legal defense, civil suit, and other negative repercussions. Best to avoid all that if possible.

 

[Paul_of_TX]

"In the case under discussion, yes, the homeowner should have had a firearm and the ability to use it against a home invader."

I agree that a firearm is the best option when someone wishes to do you harm but there are other methods. Simple things like reinforcing the door with a good deadbolt, strike plate and longer screws going into the wall frame. After that have an exterior door installed on the master bedroom with good locks. There are ways besides owning a firearm. It just doesn't make any sense to not place any thought into protecting yourself.

 

[bofh]

Pretty much any comment about Commiefornia, KKKfornia, and any such is just sad and degrades intelligent discussion. It's a state. It's the world's 8th largest economy. And you can get a firearm if you live there. A legal ruling just struck down their 10-day waiting period, and California-compliant firearm laws are, while silly, hardly a barrier to purchase or ownership. So let's please just drop all that.

Can't do that. That state's firearm laws are draconian in comparison to other states, the shrinking handgun roster due to the microstamping requirement would be just one example. The S&W Shield without the thumb safety will not be available in that state, neither will be Gen 4 Glocks or the Glock 42 (.380 ACP). Ever.

Other states have similar restrictions.

No they don't. There are only a few that come close, like MA and NJ.

Yet in the scheme of things, concealed carry, magazine limits, so-called "assault rifle" restrictions and such are getting rolled back around the country. The general tide of things is moving in a good way.

They are getting rolled back in many states, but not in CA. That state is moving in the wrong direction: Link Removed

In the case under discussion, yes, the homeowner should have had a firearm and the ability to use it against a home invader. Nevertheless she survived and LEO handled the matter. Good outcome. Especially good because she didn't have to deal with a deadly force situation. While all of us would applaud a successful SD application, that usually results in an average $20,000 legal defense, civil suit, and other negative repercussions. Best to avoid all that if possible.

The responding LEOs just drew their gun. No-one was shot. If she had a gun, she could have done the same. Most self defenses with a gun involve zero shots fired.

This is a home invasion case. If a state has good Castle Doctrine laws on the books, I don't see $20,000 in legal defense costs. However, this is CA.

 

[bofh]

Pretty much any comment about Commiefornia, KKKfornia, and any such is just sad and degrades intelligent discussion. It's a state. It's the world's 8th largest economy.

I had to write a separate post as this argument is just silly. China is the 2nd largest economy in the world. I definitely do not want to live there. Would you?