68yo woman brandishes firearm to scare off man.

[ileus]

http://www2.wspa.com/news/2012/jan/09/68-year-old-scares-armed-robber-ar-3014716/


That was a smart decision, because deputies say the armed man tried to force his way into her home.

"The victim being armed herself was able to brandish her weapon and scare the suspect off," Hinton said.



Nick Robertson says he has one message for the man that targeted his street and his home.

"If he comes back he'll have a rude reception by everyone," Robertson said.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Rude 68 YO woman...polluting society with her shooting iron.

I read in another report she used her walker to block the door, I remember someone around here doesn't approve of elderly lessabled persons having firearms.

[Starboard Tack]

1. Looks like a very appropriate use of a gun to me.

[oneshooter]

2. That is a change from what you said here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11727823#post166

[Starboard Tack]

3. That was a response to a former DU member about carrying guns.

This woman was protecting her home from an armed intruder. Something I've always supported.

[oneshooter]

4. Wrong post

Of course they need to be able to defend themselves.

Guns are not the answer. Might as well give them clubs. I'm not saying a gun might not work for a minuscule percentage of folk if they were incredibly lucky, but the highest probability that they would be victimized by their own gun.

[Starboard Tack]

5. Already responded.

Sorry, my friend, but you're pissing in the wind on this one. I support defending the home. I don't support indiscriminate carry. It's not complicated. Attack me on that if you disagree, but don't accuse me of something I don't subscribe to.

Let me be clear. I'd shoot someone trying to break into my home if I felt threatened. I would not shoot someone leaving my home with my laptop. I would not shoot someone trying to steal my car on the street or someone trying to mug or rob me on the street. I would deal with those situations differently.

[oneshooter]

6. You would nt shoot anyone, even if he was attacking you

in your own home.

Why?

Because from your own admission you do not own a firearm.

A little late to get one at that point, isn't it.
Maybe you would have a club instead!

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Starboard Tack]

7. If I had a gun, I would use it.

In my current home, a gun has no place, except for my trusty flare gun, which BTW, I would not hesitate to use, should I feel in danger. I do have several implements that could be used to club intruders, or just push them overboard. If I were living on the farm, I would have a double barrel 12 gauge. Best defensive weapon for the home IMHO.

[PavePusher]

10. That's a poor argument. It's not about the home.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=8973

[Starboard Tack]

12. Poor argument for you, but a strong one for me.

You have to understand PP, that we don't all see things in the same light. For me, the home is sacrosanct. It is an extension of myself and my family. An attack on my home is an attack on me and my family. In that situation I feel justified defending myself with a shotgun.
Out on the street, I may be attacked, but I'm not going to use a gun to defend myself, as I don't consider it an appropriate weapon in a public place. It's really that simple.
You make your choices and I'll make mine. You can advocate for yours and I will advocate for mine.

[PavePusher]

14. A gun may very well be appropriate for public self-defense and can often be inapproriate in the home

Circumstances vary wildy from incident to incident, no blanket policy will cover all.

And frankly, me and my family are "sacrosanct" no matter what our location. An attack on us on a Tucson city street is exactly the same as an attack on us in our home. I will not allow my options to be limited by people who won't be there and refuse to be responsible for the limitations/restrictions they promote.

[Starboard Tack]

15. Attacks happen for a reason

Unless the attacker is mentally unstable, in which case I would prefer not to shoot. I'm not into shooting sick people. The street affords more opportunities to avoid and evade. I can think of no logical reason why anyone would attack me on the street. I don't carry anything they might want and what I do carry is so negligible, and replaceable I wouldn't care.
I was unaware that families are being attacked on the streets of Tucson. That's very sad. I might be looking to relocate, but that's your choice.
Regarding the home, I still feel a shotgun is the best choice in rural or semi-rural areas. Not in the city. I would never have a gun in the home in a city, unless I believed we were under a serious threat.

[TPaine7]

17. A point of clarification

You have to understand PP, that we don't all see things in the same light. For me, the home is sacrosanct. It is an extension of myself and my family. An attack on my home is an attack on me and my family. In that situation I feel justified defending myself with a shotgun.

You say that your home is sacrosanct because "it is a extension of {your}self and {your} family. You say that an attack on your house is an attack on you and your family. Because it is an attack on you and your family, you "feel justified in defending {yourself} with a shotgun"

As I read this, the thing that justifies your use of a gun is yourself and your family,; you and your family are what makes the building "sacrosanct." It is an attack on you and your family that justifies use of a gun.

I agree with your logic thus far. It is impeccable.

Out on the street, I may be attacked, but I'm not going to use a gun to defend myself, as I don't consider it an appropriate weapon in a public place. It's really that simple.

What confuses me here is that what made you home sacrosanct--you and your family--are still present when you are attacked outside your home. This begs the question: is it you (and your family) that makes the house sacrosanct and justifies using a gun, or is it your house that makes your life sacrosanct? Put another way, are your life and the lives of your family less valuable outside your home? Why would a group of toughs trying to corner you and your child in a parking garage be violating something less sacrosanct than a group of toughs trying to break into your home when you and your child were there? Are you claiming that that you + your child + your house > you + your child on the scale of sacrosanctity?

If that is your point, it is in direct conflict with the points made in your first paragraph.

You make your choices and I'll make mine. You can advocate for yours and I will advocate for mine.

With all due respect, it appears that you've made two, mutually exclusive choices. I respect and agree with your first choice. I respect your right to make the second choice with respect to yourself (I can't say I respect it as far as defending your child is concerned.) What I don't get is how you reconcile your opinions as stated.

[Starboard Tack]

18. My choices are different for these reasons.

Mainly, out of my respect for public safety. I do not hold with the use of firearms in any public place, unless the area has been cleared, as in a SWAT/hostage type situation.

Using a firearm in my own home is totally on me. It's my space, my call.

My preference in either situation is to use other methods to avoid conflict or defuse a situation.

I can think of no reason why anyone would use a firearm against me. If I could, I might consider carrying.
I am also unlikely to win the lottery, as I don't buy lottery tickets.

I stay away from high risk neighborhoods and I do not present as a target. Works just fine. When I did live in high risk neighborhoods, I maintained a very high level of awareness, which served me well. The dangers I face today are not man made, so I have no need to consider a gun for any situation.

[X_Digger]

19. I notice you didn't actually answer..

Which is it? Is your life and your family's life any less valuable outside your home? Or is there something else that makes your home sacrosanct?

[Starboard Tack]

22. I've had you on ignore so you'll have to read my posts to others.

I have no interest in conversing with someone who only wants to attack without contributing to the conversation. I'll leave you off ignore for a while and see how it goes.
Life has the same value wherever. Carrying a gun I would never use would be pointless.

[X_Digger]

28. How magnanimous of you

[Starboard Tack]

31. I try to be.

You were acting a little peevish, so I thought I'd try out the ignore function, see how it works.

[X_Digger]

33. No, I just called you on bullshit.

It probably won't be the last time either.

[Starboard Tack]

35. Ok, you're determined to misbehave.

My magnanimity is over. Bye bye.

[X_Digger]

36. Oh, whatever shall I do?

[SteveW]

45. Don't mention anything about pot-smoking...

I got a remark canned because I responded to a remark "It's past 4:20" from another poster. I suggested he wait another day, same time.

I got "hidden."

[TPaine7]

20. I think I get what you are saying.

Because in public places it is possible that other people may be harmed, you do not think firearms should be used.

I see what you are saying and agree to a point.

If a person is alone and is under fire, and returning fire may put others in danger, I totally respect the decision not to return fire. For example, the trooper I read about who was being shot at but didn't return fire because it would have involved shooting across a highway. He avoided fire by rolling into the gutter on the side of the highway, only firing when he could avoid endangering the public.

There are many public places where use of a gun is no more likely to harm others than it would in one's house. I already gave the example of a parking garage. There are many other places where you can be sure of your target and what is beyond it.

I don't know the particulars of your house, obviously, but many houses are not particularly protective of those outside. It may be the owner's space, but the bullet doesn't know that. For many pistols, and most certainly for most rifles and many shotguns, the walls of most houses are not very effective backstops.

In many public places, the situation is actually better. For instance, in a parking garage your backstop (a concrete wall) is extremely effective compared to a typical house wall.

Furthermore, I feel sure that you have read the fact that civilians are safer in DGUs than are police officers. If public endangerment due to shootings was the issue, logic would dictate disarming the police first. Civilians are much less likely, to shoot innocent bystanders.

I can think of no reason why anyone would use a firearm against me. If I could, I might consider carrying.
I am also unlikely to win the lottery, as I don't buy lottery tickets.

Here are some:

1. Mistaken identity
2. Gang initiation
3. Mental defect
4. Fun
5. To take your car
6. Because you dared to intervene to stop a horrific crime being perpetrated against an innocent who would otherwise die
7. Because someone wanted to rape you (yes men are raped too, just less frequently than women and girls)

I also take issue with your unstated premise. It is simply not true that only gun crimes justify defensive gun use. Even if you are a Navy Seal or martial arts instructor taking on a group of street fighters--or a few armed with knives--is a daunting task.

I stay away from high risk neighborhoods and I do not present as a target. Works just fine. When I did live in high risk neighborhoods, I maintained a very high level of awareness, which served me well. The dangers I face today are not man made, so I have no need to consider a gun for any situation.

Good for you. A petite woman who is too poor to move away from the inner city always presents as a target--due to her size. Like over 50% of the population, she has something that a lot of men want. Unscrupulous men will take it by force. Being aware and not presenting as a target may not be a total solution for her.

Furthermore, with respect, you have no idea of what dangers you face today. That's why people buy insurance--none of us have an idea of the dangers we face. If we did, insurance wouldn't work. Only those who needed it would buy it, so there would be no money to be made.

Carrying a gun for defense is simple insurance. It's no more and no less.

[Starboard Tack]

21. Well, at least we agree, to a point.

Let me address the home argument first. As I have said, I would probably own a shotgun and/or hunting rifle if I lived in a secluded house. Not if there were other homes close by. If I were wealthy and lived in a fancy home, I might think differently, but I am not that person. I would never carry a firearm in public, because the risk is too great IMO.

I would definitely advocate for the disarming of the police in terms of handguns, for the same reason.

None of your 7 listed reasons ring true for me.
1. Mistaken identity - I doubt my attacker would wait for me to draw a weapon in that case. Otherwise, I would have time to clear up any identity confusion.
2. Gang initiation - I've lived in gang infested neighborhoods in various cities. Never been an issue and I'm not eager to get in a gunfight with a bunch of gangbangers. I've found that being a friendly guy and getting to know the street people in my neighborhood is the best course of action. I'm also a trained police officer and know how to give off the necessary smell when called for. Works like a charm.
3. Mental defect - Had a couple of those and had little trouble defusing the situation. Plus, I don't believe in shooting the mentally disabled.
4. Fun - that one doesn't compute, but again I doubt I'd have the opportunity to pull a gun.
5. Take my car - Be my guest. Certainly not worth shooting someone over.
6. Intervening to prevent a horrific crime. Been there, done that. Never needed or wanted a gun.
7. Rape - don't think so. And I don't see any female members around here. Mostly a bunch of old white guys.

I might add that I am a strong believer in karma. We reap what we sow.

I have been confronted by hostile groups of people intent on harming me on several occasions. Last time was during the LA riots, when I found myself in a situation similar to that of Reginald Denny. Managed to extricate myself by some fancy driving without hitting or hurting anyone. A gun would have guaranteed my demise.

A petite woman definitely presents more of a target and there are effective tools and tactics available to her besides a handgun.

I worked in insurance in another lifetime and learned that there are no guarantees and in general, insurance sellers prey on people's fears. A gun is no kind of insurance IMO. I consider it more likely to worsen a situation than resolve it. At best it would be a wash.
But, each to his own. We live or die by our choices.

[TPaine7]

23. I hope your luck continues

I'm also a trained police officer and know how to give off the necessary smell when called for. Works like a charm.

"The right smell" may sometimes work, whatever you mean by that. However, I have to ask, if "smell" works so well, why do officers just as trained in smell as you are carry guns? Apparently a gun is a more reliable defense than the ability to "give of the necessary smell."

There are literally thousands of situations where a gun would be the only credible choice when one is cornered, surrounded, trapped, etc., through no lack of vigilance, street smarts or reasoning. They are admittedly rare situations, but once will suffice to justify a lifetime of carrying.

I have been confronted by hostile groups of people intent on harming me on several occasions. Last time was during the LA riots, when I found myself in a situation similar to that of Reginald Denny. Managed to extricate myself by some fancy driving without hitting or hurting anyone. A gun would have guaranteed my demise.

A rational gun owner caught in a situation where fancy driving could work would use fancy driving. Having a gun does not equal using a gun. It is very hard for me to see how a gun would have "guaranteed {your} demise," unless you're of the opinion that a gun in the glove compartment would have somehow forced you to open the compartment, take out the gun, and forget the option of driving away.

I don't ascribe such abilities to steel, wood and/or polymer objects.

[Simo 1939_1940]

26. Wow. Just.............wow.

I might add that I am a strong believer in karma. We reap what we sow

So if you lead a clean life you can expect not to be victimized? And what does your "karmic theory" imply about those who are victimized?

A gun would have guaranteed my demise.

I'm almost afraid to ask.......how? If you had a concealed handgun and utilized "fancy driving" the results would have been identical. Unless of course you believe that the evil hoo-doo present in the firearm would have driven you to act differently.

[Starboard Tack]

27. You got it. Simo. Congrats.

Handguns carried for use against other humans is not good karma.

[PavePusher]

29. Only if you are insinuating that they are all carried with nefarious intent.

And that seems to be exactly what you are doing.

Again.

[Starboard Tack]

30. No. Intent doesn't need to be nefarious.

I'm not speaking for others either. But for me, carrying a loaded hand gun in public would not be good for my karma. I would also be carrying the thought, in the back of my mind, that I might end up using it. And that would not be good. I'd rather take my chances in finding a less dramatic way to avoid or resolve conflicts. I might lose my life, but not my integrity. My integrity is not negotiable. My life is a journey. Where I go and when I get there are not important in the final analysis. How I travel that road is what counts to me.

[ManiacJoe]

41. This is the type of post more folks need to be making here.

You have outlined your beliefs and explained how they guided you though the thought process of how and when lethal self defense fits into your life.

While the conclusion you have reached does not work for many folks, myself included, I respect that you have given this the serious thought that is needs.

[Starboard Tack]

42. Thank you. Respect.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

43. I must agree, also.

Bravo for reason and logic.

[Starboard Tack]

44. Thanks. Same to you.

[PavePusher]

49. The problem being that he wants to fit his conclusion to everyone else. n/t

[Simo 1939_1940]

48. "I'm not speaking for others either."

Well if that's the case, pity that you didn't use the word "I" instead of "we" in your sentence.

[Simo 1939_1940]

50. On the subject of both karma & integrity.......

What does your nasty characterization of gun owners do for your karma, and how does it enhance your integrity?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11727494#post3

[Starboard Tack]

51. It helps balance my karma and enhances my integrity.

Everything I said has been reinforced by what I've been told here. Feel free to point out any untruths.

[Simo 1939_1940]

52. Feel free to point out where anyone has said anything close to this:

That's why we kicked the English out, so we wouldn't end up like them. Bunch of wusses don't even carry guns. They think they're tough, kicking and punching and stabbing each other, but that's not an efficient way to kill people.

You pretend to be above slurring - but you fool nobody. If you think comments such as these enhance your integrity - far be it from me to awaken you from your sweet slumber.

[Starboard Tack]

53. I guess you just did by reposting it. I appreciate that.

But seriously, let's parse it.
"That's why we kicked the English out, so we wouldn't end up like them."
This is the entire basis of 2A and your precious RKBA. We extricated ourselves from the grip of the monarchy. Did you miss that day in school?

"Bunch of wusses don't even carry guns." - OK, maybe you got me there. I must have gotten carried away for a moment. Can't imagine why.

"They think they're tough, kicking and punching and stabbing each other, but that's not an efficient way to kill people."
It has been pointed out many times in this group/forum that the Brits are way more violent than the Yanks. They prefer to kill and maim with knives and blunt instruments like fists, feet and heads. It has also been pointed out here, on many occasion, that the trusty handgun is a far more efficient "stopping" tool. Also it is repeatedly stated that in order to "stop" a "thug", the shooter should aim for center mass, preferably with 2 shots (the old double tap), perhaps followed by the single tap to the head (coup de grace).
Please note the euphemism "stop" for "kill".

"You pretend to be above slurring - but you fool nobody. If you think comments such as these enhance your integrity - far be it from me to awaken you from your sweet slumber. "

Above slurring, moi? Jamais, mon ami! I can get down and dirty with the worst of 'em. It's how one slurs that counts. Some shoot their slurs from the hip. I practice judo slurring, often preceded by a warning shot from my flare gun. You should try it. It's lots more fun, a helluva lot less dangerous and really great for a sound night's sleep.

[Simo 1939_1940]

55. "I practice judo slurring......."

Nice of you to admit that you slur, at least. I'm sure it does wonders for your karma.

Now feel free to have the last word --- done with you here.

[ellisonz]

8. Looks like a legitimate use to me. n/t

[PuffedMica]

9. How absolutely rude of her to use a gun that way

The poor man was probably scared out of his wits. He could have injured himself running away or maybe even had a heart attack. All he wanted was her stuff.

[mvccd1000]

11. One thing I'd like to point out...

... is that (in my experience, anyway) this typifies a "defensive use of a gun."

People don't necessarily have to go around "emptying clips at fleeing perps while endangering innocent bystanders" to successfully use a gun defensively. Often, simply showing it is enough to deter a crime.

Obviously, these uses rarely get counted in any statistics used by either side, but particularly the side that wants to make them illegal.

The question, "Why would you need to carry a gun - who are you going to shoot?" is a bit misleading... most of the time nobody has to be shot to successfully use a gun defensively.

[Atypical Liberal]

13. She should have just done some Judo moves. Far more scarey.

[X_Digger]

16. Or psyched him out and been his 'buddy'. Or somesuch. n/t

[safeinOhio]

24. or had her doors and windows secured against this type of attack,

the next guy might not run away.

[X_Digger]

25. Yeah, screw people who might actually be in need..

Not worth the risk, eh?

[safeinOhio]

32. If really in need

a 68 year old lady can call the police to come help him with their flashlight. Then you might be right, the guy might have really needed some crack.

[X_Digger]

34. I prefer to live in a society where..

Someone will attempt to help others, even on the off chance that it's a ruse.

But that's just me. Feel free to hole up and watch.

[safeinOhio]

37. Bless you for helping others.

I just hope that doesn't require 68 year old women to open their doors to strangers at night. She could be, really, helping strangers by calling the police to let them know a poor guy is banging on doors at night in need of a flashlight. The police have lots of flashlights and could make sure the request is ligit. You might want to let all the seniors in your neighborhood know to have them call you at night if there is a problem. I've let the little old lady across the street, 88 years old and lives alone, to call me anytime, day or night.

Fact is the "off chance" of a ruse goes up with seniors at night.

[X_Digger]

38. The couple next door have my number.

He's 75+, and a retired railroad mechanic. We've both came out at night when someone crashed into the utility box and great big arrow sign the last time the city was breaking up our street to lay a new water line. He called 911 and spoke to dispatch while my wife and I helped the guy and two girls out of the car.

I wouldn't require anyone to do anything. But I prefer to foster a society where people actually help each other, rather than sitting back behind the curtains.

[safeinOhio]

39. Very noble of you.

Would you suggest to that neighbor to call you if someone he didn't know knocked on his door at night asking for help? Or, would you tell him not to hide behind the door and help every stranger at night that knocks on his door? Would seem to be safer to call you than open the door. The stranger would be helped by your generosity and the senior could avoid the risk of a crime against him.

[X_Digger]

40. If he asked, I would advise him to use his judgement, like a thinking individual should.

He doesn't appear to be paranoid over every bump in the night, and hasn't demonstrated such fear that would cause him to remain indoors when he thought someone needed help.

Nice guy. I hope I'm still as caring when I reach his age, and not bitter, afraid, or paranoid.

[Starboard Tack]

54. Or she could have decided to live on Tinker Bell Hill where it's safe.