Mom who shot intruder inspires gun control foes

A Georgia mother who shot an intruder at her home has become a small part of the roaring gun control debate, with some firearms enthusiasts touting her as a textbook example of responsible gun ownership.
Associated Press
Jan 10, 2013

Melinda Herman grabbed a handgun and hid in a crawl space with her two children when a man broke in last week and approached the family at their home northeast of Atlanta, police said. Herman called her husband on the phone, and with him reminding her of the lessons she recently learned at a shooting range, Herman opened fire, seriously wounding the burglary suspect.

The National Rifle Association tweeted a link to a news story about the shooting, and support poured in from others online, hailing Herman as a hero. The local sheriff said he was proud of the way she handled the situation.

"This lady decided that she wasn't going to be a victim, and I think everyone else looks at this and hopes they have the courage to do what she done," Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman said Wednesday.

Herman was working from home Friday when she saw a man walk up to the front door. She told police he rang the doorbell twice and then over and over again. He went back to his SUV, got something out and walked back toward the house, a police report said.

Herman took her 9-year-old son and daughter into an upstairs bedroom and locked the door. They went into bathroom and she locked that door, too. She got her handgun from a safe, the report said, and hid with her children. At some point, she called her husband, who kept her on the line and called 911 on another line.

In a 10-minute 911 recording released by the Walton County Sheriff's Office, Donnie Herman calmly explained what was happening to a dispatcher. His part of the conversation with his wife was also recorded.

"Is he in the house, Melinda? Are you sure? How do you know? You can hear him in the house?" Donnie Herman said.

His wife told him the intruder was coming closer.

"He's in the bedroom? Shh, shh, relax. Just remember everything that I showed you, everything that I taught you, all right?" Donnie Herman told his wife, explaining later to the dispatcher that he had recently taken her to a gun range.

It wasn't clear from the recording exactly when they went to range and Donnie Herman told The Associated Press on Wednesday the family didn't want to talk about the shooting.

After Donnie Herman told his wife police were on the way, he started shouting: "She shot him. She's shootin' him. She's shootin' him. She's shootin' him. She's shootin' him."

"OK," the dispatcher responded.

"Shoot him again! Shoot him!" Donnie Herman yelled. He told the dispatcher he heard a lot of screaming, but he seems to get increasingly worried when he doesn't hear anything from his wife.

Melinda Herman told police she started shooting the man when he opened the door to the crawl space. The man pleaded with her to stop, but she kept firing until she had emptied her rounds, she told police. She then fled to a neighbor's house with her children.

The man drove away in his SUV. Police found the SUV on another subdivision street and discovered a man bleeding from his face and body in a nearby wooded area. Police identified the suspect as 32-year-old Paul Slater of Atlanta.

Chapman said the hospital asked him not to comment on Slater's condition, but he said he is not certain Slater will survive. Authorities have a warrant but haven't formally arrested Slater yet. They plan to charge him with burglary, possession of tools for the commission of a crime and aggravated assault, Walton County sheriff's Capt. Greg Hall said.

A phone number for Slater was not listed and it was not clear whether he has an attorney.

Authorities believe Slater targeted a home in another local subdivision but left when confronted by the homeowner, Chapman said.

 

Comments

Speakezy

Good for her! Protecting her family like a good mother!!!

totallyamazed

.
.
I agree, good for her.
.
.

samiam

Obama signs a bill authorizing life time guards for himself but he wants to take my guns away. What a hypocrit!

Isn't it ironic that CT and CA have some of the strictest gun control laws in the country and what good did it do?

wiredmama222

I don't recall anything I have read that says Obama wants to take your guns away. In fact, what I have been hearing all day from Biden is more background checks, less assault weapons (which this woman didn't use) and more responsible emphysis on background checks with people who have had mental illness issues.

I wish people would really state the truth of the matters at hand instead of something that is just simply not true at all. I have yet to hear ONE LEGAL word from either Obama or Biden or anyone from Washington saying they are going to take anyone's guns away. The only one saying that is the NRA and other gun owners groups which is an absolute lie. The government would have to undo the second amendment and you can't do that even with an executive order...even I know that much.

bigsexy

Respect a lot or your posts Wired, but when the government restricts gun laws you are only restricting the law abiding citizen rights. Criminals will continue to get, carry and use firearms no matter what the government does!

Ban high capacity magazines??? The law abiding citizen will abide, but will the criminals? Ban or limit assault rifles??? The law abiding citizen will abide, but will the criminals?

This is far beyond a gun issue, this is a people issue.

wiredmama222

@bigsexy....ty for the comment.

Truthfully, I am trying to understand this. It really isn't a people issue with me. I understand fully that for some, it is and I am trying to get that but am struggling.

In answer to YOUR questions, how do you intend to restrict ANY criminal? Do you think the government can confiscate THEIR guns. Like it or not, a criminal is still and American citizen, with all the constitutional rights of their fellow citizens until he breaks a local law, a federal law or a state law. It sucks, but there it is. He has a right to his gun too.

People kill people everyday. You can't stop that. And yes, they shoot each other. But you can stop them from brutalizing multiple people at once. That is what they are trying to stop since SandyHook Elementary.

He%%, I have a gun. Would I shoot someone breaking in? In a heartbeat. But I don't want or need an assault weapon to kill them. A bullet placed squarely in the head is all I need and I can hit what I am aiming at. I don't need to mow them down. It wouldn't make me feel any safer.

The second amendment isn't going to change with a limit on gun control....only going after assault weapons. I get really upset when people misrepresent that. It is as strong and important as it ever was.

Yes, I agree with you that the criminals will be the ones with the assault weapons, but for how long? The ammo will be unavailable as well. You won't be able to buy it. Not with the ban. How long before you cannot get it on the market anymore? You cannot pull it out of the sky.

You cannot buy the assault weapons, or the ammo and so much for the problem with them.

You are not losing a right, not at all. You still have your guns. You still have the right to bear arms, you still have the right to buy guns and rifles.

I guess I don't see the problem. Can you explain to me what the problem is?

safecracker2

Mama, I certainly don't have all the answers but I've whole-heartedly tried to grasp this debate, especially after Sandy Hook.
My opinions parallel with yours, but I believe the problem is bigger than just the guns. There are numerous factors involved that create the "Perfect Storm". With that being said, I am a firm supporter of my 2nd ammendment rights. But our Founding Fathers were packing muskets and cannons, not high capacity assault rifles with armor piercing bullets.
Most legal gun owners have weapons for two reasons. 1) To protect themselves, family, their home and property 2) Hunt for food. Either can be accomplished without an assault rifle.
Numerous U.S. Courts have upheld rulings that do not infringe on the 2nd Ammendment, but restrict who can legally posess firearms and the legal procedure of obtaining them and keeping them. This is why: "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" (Wiki).
I see some changes coming from the government. Hopefully they are logically thought out and middle of the road decisions. Banning the total right for law abiding citizens to protect themselves is not a solution. We all know that a disturbed person will get their hands on a gun, a bomb, a knife, a chemical weapon, or an airplane to carry out their plan.
Thanks for letting me reply. I enjoy reading your posts.

vicariouslyAlive

what you people are failing to realize is that "assault rifles" are already illegal in most places... and if they aren't illegal, you need special permits to acquire them... so by you people saying "assault weapons should be banned" only proves your ignorance of what's really happening... what you people are backing up is for the government to ban a falsely labeled item. fully automatic guns are what "assault weapons" really are. their only purpose is to create an assault. my ar-15 is a semi-automatic rifle, just like the one the guy used to shoot up that school. i attach a flashlight and hunt coyotes with it. i take the flashlight off and hunt woodchucks and rabbits with it. i also shoot at targets with it, one bullet per trigger pull, just like a pistol, just like a revolver, just like a shotgun, and just like the wooden rifles that seem to not be on anyones mind right now. before you guys start spouting off word vomit... become educated abut the topic first... and no, wikipedia is not an acceptable source... that's why most professors wont accept it as a cited source.

wiredmama222

I could comment on your "handle" which does worry me some, so I will leave it alone for a moment. I do understand the so called lingo you and your counterparts use in your defense of the weapons you use. I can't imagine shooting anything but since you hunt, more power to you....it's your choice. But like many, you are so upset and worried about the possiblity of losing your right to "semi-automatic" guns like your AR 15, you cannot see straight. Why is that? What difference does it make? Can't you shoot your rabbits and coyotes with a rifle just as easily? Or do you just enjoy the power you feel with that semi automatic? Is it some "vicarious" living thing in your life or a flash back to something? Or is it just the brute power you feel having it in your hand and knowing you could use it to blow something away quickly?

Using one gun or another shouldn't matter to you if it is just hunting, so a single shot gun should not be that bad.

But you and others seem so awfully fearful of giving up these semi- automatic guns, it has become a real problem. I think there is a LOT more to it than just hunting. I think the fear goes deeper than what you all tell. What fear do you really have? Fear of the government? Of others? Or just plain fear of something on which you cannot place your finger just yet?

Whatever the case, it seems many of these owners of the semi automatic weapons have the same ideas. They want to make sure that any of us who don't like them, make sure those of you who do understand we have NO chance of taking them away from you. Not the government, the law of any kind or the simple act of reason.

You have them and they are going to stay in your tightly gripped fists until you let go. Whatever your fear, it stays right there. We have all heard it a hundred times, in a hundred ways. Like a broken record.

And no, I don't think we will find the answer on Wikipedia, it isn't there. You won't find the answers either. (I never accepted it as reference sources for my students either).

luvblues2

You own a handgun, right wiredmama? It IS a semi-automatic. Every time you pull that trigger , another bullet comes out. That is the definition of "semi-automatic".

vicariouslyAlive

my username is derived from a song that warns against following the mass media where people only follow the news because it shows mainly tragedy... thought it would make for a very appropriat name...

does your name imply that you're wired on some sort of drug? hmm... doesnt feel good when people swing below the belt does it?

my ar-15 is a semi-automatic... it's also a rifle... 1 trigger pull, 1 bullet. yes, i could kill a coyote with a wooden rifle, but then i'd have to use the other hand to hold the flashlight... but i'd rather be safe and just mount it to my gun allowing me to hold onto my rifle with both hands... a bit smarter wouldnt you agree?

any gun, weather it be a shot gun, a rifle, or a pistol, if you pull the trigger once and only one bullet comes out and you can repeat this 1 for one action without having to manually activating the bolt, is a semi-auto... and yes, the make semi-auto shotguns as well... wheres the cry for banning them? hell... they make fully auto shot guns... but those aren't allowed in this state sadly... sounds like fun...

wiredmomma... like i advised you before... become a bit more educated about the topic that you wish to reply to less you look like the fool.

and oh god... you're a teacher? not to sound too harshly but i hope you keep more of an open mind in your classroom than you do on here... i bet you triumph Shakespeare for all of his works but blithely over look the fact that he was a very violent writer... i bet you're a god fearing person as well... but wasnt he the one that killed all of the first born of Egypt?

you can look through all of history and find any tool used properly and improperly... hammers kill... baseball bats kill.... so do knives, gold clubs, tire irons, some species of flowers, and a whole myriad of objects that also be couynterargued to serve a positive purpose.

and if it is true the you own a pistol... then you ma'am are one of those ignorant types that shouldnt own a gun if you can't even correctly classify the weapon you carry... just throwing that one out there... for having students i'd really expect someone in your position to have done their homework...

wiredmama222

Safecracker...I sure don't "let" anyone reply or stop them...LOL. Feel free and you sure as heck don't have to agree with me. Thanks for the nice words though. Made my day.

I totally agree with what you are saying about the mentally distrubed and what they can do. I kind of blame the internet for helping some of them do what they do as well. You can learn to make a bomb in your kitchen...scary thought. But they can. And yes, this world we live in has become a rough place. We don't know any more who is the "luny" and who is ok. It scares the heck out of me sometimes.

I own a gun, but not one of these "semi automatics" as I have been corrected to say.

I believe in the second amendment and the constitution. What I don't believe in is taking it to the max. I agree with just about everything you said on here and you said it very well.

I, too, see some changes coming. I just hope that the government and EVERYONE takes a big deep breath and relaxes a bit before doing anything. The NRA and the government need to step back a bit and let everyone relax before something really bad happens.

This climate right now is not healthy for anyone. Its too supercharged to make a big decision like this. Some breathing room is in order and I hope they take it. I sincerely do.

luvblues2

.

luvblues2

AGAIN: You own a handgun, right wiredmama? It IS a semi-automatic. Every time you pull that trigger , another bullet comes out. That is the definition of "semi-automatic". That AR 15 is NO DIFFERENT than your handgun except it is probably better at target shooting because of the long barrel. And it looks meaner. Other than that, there is no difference. One trigger pull, one bullet.

safecracker2

Disagree. An AR-15 has the ability of handling a 60 round high capacity mag vs. a .45 capable of 15 (16 with one in the chamber). Quicker re-load time with plenty of bullets to keep on pulling the trigger. That's the difference Mama is getting at.

vicariouslyAlive

my 9mm has the capability of handling a double drum 100 round mag... and i bet i can blow through 4 15 round clips from my 9mm and transition from one to the next and so on faster than you could with an ar-15... smaller clips... smaller gun, easier to handle... i can also carry more slips per pocket with my 9mm walther... so you clip capacity argument doesnt hold water if you're only going after rifles there bud... there are dozens of different makes for the 30 round clip for my gun alone... there's dozens of clips for hundrends of handguns that allow for a large capacity... high cap mags aren't exclusively a rifle thing... look it up on youtube... a guy blows through 100 tracer rounds through his fully automatic glock... but the type of mag will also fit semi-auto glocks as well...

and really... not everyone wants a high cap mag... it puts too much stress on semi-autos because they arent meant to blow through rounds like that... the breaches get too hot and warp... thats why most of use that own these guns only use 10 round mags... keeps us from getting carried away and breaking our gun that costs thousands of dollars... food for thought.

John Harville

bigsexy... the entities who ignored the last gun ban were the gun manufacturers who modified their weapons to bring them in line.

KnuckleDragger

Read Dianne Feinsteins new assault weapons ban. It will outlaw all semi-automatic handguns. The majority of handguns sold for self-defense purposes are of the semi-auto variety. You still don't think they want to take away the law abiding citizens guns? By the way, don't you find it ironic that Feinstein has a CCW and carries a semi-auto pistol, but she wants to ban them from commoners like us. You can bet when the bill is completely finished it will exempt members of congress from its provisions just as the rest of them do. The fact is, they will not get any gun control legislation passed because they don't have enough votes for it. Obama wanted to rush this through because emotions were high at the time. It seems that gun control sentiment is now starting to wane again, so Obama is again trying to prey on emotions. You see emotions is all that gun control is about. There is not a single gun control law on the books that has been effective in stopping criminals with guns. The politicians know it.

mikel

wired, not taking away anything from your post. however, in most cases, where a person with a mental illness was the shooter, they have used someone else's weapon or obtained them illegally.

wiredmama222

I know, and the worst part of that is the stupid way some people who HAVE guns don't lock them up or protect them from just that problem.

I totally agree with you. Please read what I wrote to "vicariously alive". I did some online research yesterday. What an eye opening experience about all this over gun control that was.

Honestly, I don't think there is going to be a suitable answer that everyone will like. Not in this country. Someone won't like what this all leads to. There is just too much fear right now to make an honest and approachable solution to a HUGE problem.

I blame two sources for this: The Government and the NRA. Both are equally at fault. The knee jerk reaction to Sandy Hook was the first part with Obama making a promise to the parents of those children and the dispicable response of the NRA and its continued idiotic comments and actions.

If everyone would STOP, wait awhile and calm down a bit, maybe a better solution could be reached. But not right this minute. I can see that.

The only thing that makes sense right now is to get a better data base to include mental illness for background checks and put it into action and stop the person to person sales of guns....like gun shows. Other than that, the whole debate is for nothing. Not right now.

mikel

i read an interesting stat distributed by the fbi: in 2011 323 murders were committed with assualt type weapons and 496 murders were committed with a HAMMER! why aren't hammers being banned?

IKnowIambutWhat...

She'll be forever scarred for this, but thank God she can say she had the wherewithal to grab her gun and save the life of her and her children.

My hat's off to her husband as well. He stayed calm and made sure she did what she had to do.

sanduskysteve

Yes, that was a case of good deed - but do you think after wounding him and he has stopped trying to get to you - that further shooting is a little too much?? Did he have a gun? Don't you think that might have changed things a little maybe?? Shooting an unarmed burglar is a lot different than shooting someone who also has a gun and isn't afraid to use it. And she didn't kill him so he would have had plenty of opportunity to use a gun if he had one.

wiredmama222

Yes, she was very brave and protected her kids, but why call her husband instead of 911? That would have been my FIRST call. Then I would have shot him. I don't need my husband to tell me what to do when the gun is in my hand. I know that much. Get the kids safe, call 911 and shoot.

After adreneline kicks in, you probably would continue to shoot. Who knows, maybe she was just so scared by that time, she couldn't stop shooting. Or maybe he had trained her to shoot until the gun was empty, who knows for sure. Everyone reacts differently. Personally, I would have reserved some shells to make sure he was alone....just in case.

asweetnessabove

Actually wired, a lot of times if you call 911 they will advise not to shoot. I have heard it many of times. I'd rather have my husband on the phone reminding me as her husband did. Just my opinion, but I'd rather have the support of my husband rather than a dispatcher preventing me from protecting my family. And. Do not at all think she went overboard. You NEVER know what the burglar was capable of. I'd rather stop him in his tracks than look over my shoulder after one shot! Good for this mom!

beepx22

Moderators have removed this comment because it contained Personal attacks (including: name calling, presumption of guilt or guilt by association, insensitivity, or picking fights).

LabMan

Well said...especially the steve part

Seen it All

Get real steve! It takes how many SECONDS to empty a gun? Adrenaline rush, man vs woman and children? Seriously, you can't think she could or even SHOULD of stopped shooting once he was hit and didn't fall!

Hats off to this lady, I would of done the same thing! Except I would of been on the phone with 911, not my husband.

sanduskysteve

Hmmm how fast can you empty a gun? Adrenaline rush? Sounds like a real good argument for gun control to me. You guys continuously say that someone with a knife can do just as much damage - not sure I concur with your argument against gun control on that reasoning. But you gave a good reason FOR gun control. And who said the bad guy didn't stop after one shot? And no I'm not sure one shot would have been sufficient unless it killed the bad guy. Wiredmama gave a good argument for NOT emptying the gun - what if he had a friend there with him that ACTUALLY HAD A GUN? Or maybe there were more guns int he house and the friend found one of them? Now the bad guys have a gun too - and the mother is out of ammo. Another bad situation and the gun nuts would have been hollering about needing more guns - when in the end - more guns could have been a really bad thing in that case. Yes, I am speculating here - but so is everyone else, including Seen It All.

EdO's

Steve, what would you have done? Do you own a gun? Would you have become a statistic and/or your children harmed? Law enforcement cannot protect you or me from this kind of crime. Make your own decision and live with it.

KnuckleDragger

We already know what steve would have done. He would have cowered in a a corner and begged the bad man not hurt him or his children. Steve would have rather seen his wife sexually assaulted and his children murdered than to harm one hair on that poor misunderstood criminals head.

sanduskysteve

First, let me make something clear - I never said that bad guy should not have been shot. I never said the mother should not have protected her kids. I think the whole thing was done poorly - JUST IN CASE. If you guys read all that I say instead of just want you want to in order to try and make a case against me, then you would see what I really think. Also, a hunting rifle would have done just was well in this case as the handgun, which was emptied on one suspect - when there could have been more waiting outside. Then what would she have done. This guy, according to the police, had already entered another home and actually ran off when he discovered someone was at home. I realize that this mother didn't know that and so actually did the right thing. I'm sure though, he would have ran for the hills after he found out she had a gun and wasn't afraid to use it. Also, I have to agree that 911 should have been talking to the mother who was in danger - not relaying things thru her husband. Besides the fact, that it took longer for the cops to arrive because she did the wrong thing and called her husband first. That few minutes of delay could have made a difference if there were more bad guys either in the house or outside waiting.

vicariouslyAlive

steve... that depends on how seriously she injured the man by shooting him... she was hiding, so she obviously had the element of surprise. but... IF the man would have had a gun and she shot at him and he shot at her and everyone died... at least she was able to try to do something about it... trust me... if someone was breaking into my house with a crow bar or pipe to break the window, i'd sure as hell keep shooting until the person stopped... because what IF they have a gun? im not going to give them a chance to pull it out... im going to shoot until they stop moving. how did she know he didnt have a gun? do you think it would have been smart of here to ask the burglar "hey good sir, you wouldnt happen to have a gun on you while you're breaking into my home?" and then if he did would that make it ok for her to do something?

get real steve... you're pulling at strings that don't exist nor make sense... once someone breaks into someone else's house... words like "excessive" and "possibility" go out the window, especially when children are involved. god help the poor soul that tries to break into my house while my child is sleeping.

wiredmama222

She couldn't have injured him that badly if he got back in his SUV and drove off a few blocks and into the woods. But I see Steve's point.

People react differently in different situations and no two people react the same. Until you are in that situation for real, no one knows how they would react. I hope I would have the forethought to reserve a few shots in case he wasn't alone. Just a thought.

sanduskysteve

Read all of my posts - I did not say she should have stopped shooting him as long as he was still a threat and coming after her and the kids. But the article doesn't say he kept coming after the first couple of shots. she should have used one shot to the head and he would have stopped. And I know that most likely wasn't a possibility there. I agree with your first few sentences, but the rest is still up for discussion and there are no facts to indicate the answers to those issues just yet.

Phil Packer

You mean to tell me, that 911 was called and the police were on their way, yet this guy goes to the upstairs of this big house and right to her hiding place in the crawl space? Why? This sounds like a complete fabrication. Seriously, think about it...

eriemom

The guy heard something. Have you ever tried to keep young children quiet. She had to shoot him. He went looking for the sound that he heard instead of just leaving. Just my opinion and not based on facts.

Contango

The Second Amendment to The U.S. Constitution:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

If the Washington kleptocrats wanna change it, our Founders gave us a method and process of "amending" the Constitution.

The Bill of Rights deals with "individual rights," NOT collective ones.

Read the other nine - they all deal with the individual.

John Harville

Contango... REALLY? Heard of Shay's Rebellion in 1787 and Gen. Washington's concern the government could not protect citizens? One of the main reasons for the Philadelphia Convention which became the Constitutional Convention. As president, Washington pushed for the 2nd to establish the state militias which, by the Constitution, are under the control of the Commander in Chief.
Heard of the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791? Washington ordered in the well-regulated Mililtias of four states and, in 1794, led 13,000 armed militiamen into Western Pennsylvania to put down the citizen attack on the US Government.
The wellp-reguilated state militias - aka National Guard - remain under command of the President.
Heard of the Whisky Rebellion.

Second Opinion

The Whiskey Rebellion was not by well respected citizens, don't distort the facts, they were law breakers.

If the tables were turned Washington would have taken up arms against a tyrant government just like we today have the same right.

This SQUATTER in the White House is doing everything possible to destroy our Constitution.

Piers MORON mocked our Constitution by calling it Americans "Little book" Four generations of my family DIED for this 'LITTLE BOOK", and one died in France in defense of this coward Piers and is buried in Normandy.
And why not mention the fact that we heard about the Civil War, where the Constitutional Convention PERMITTED succession from the Union and your grand Federal Govt through Lincoln threatened the Supreme Court with imprisonment if they didn't keep their mouths shut.

It would be nice if you remembered Jefferson's quotations and warnings instead of picking out of a barrel things that you desire to manipulate.

Centauri

"Piers MORON"? You mean Piers Morgan?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R...
"You're An Unbelievably STUPID Man Aren't You!" Piers Morgan To Pro-Gun Guest

This Piers Morgan is an idiot. If he cannot debate, then he calls people names.

goofus

Hmmm, the Whiskey Rebellion instigated by Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists. Imposition of a new tax on homebrew didn't set well with entrepeneurs, being taxed 28% on a 50cent gallon of whiskey for east of the allegheny mountains consumption didn't sit well with entrepeneurs. Those nasty rebels tarred and feathered s few taxmen so George Washington a successful distiller in his own right sent the militia to Pa. Defended by the Mingo Creek militia of about 1,000 men. Nothing happened 4 rebels were killed, two civilians were killed and on of Washington's men were killed. Question, where was Washington's militia when Massy White and her children were massacred by indians as well as the Russ family massacre to name a few. Guess what people when the anti-federalist Thomas Jefferson was elected, the tax went away!!!!! Imagine people getting upset over petulant taxation!!!!

deertracker

What is the real debate here? No one has ever suggested she acted improperly by defending herself and her family. The present gun debate is not about being able to protect yourself. We all have the right to do that, especially in our own home. There is no attempt anywhere to "take" your guns. That argument is absurd. Comparing this situation to the mass shootings is even more absurd. One has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the other. Some of you just like to type I guess!

Contango

@ deertracker:

Go peddle that "there is no attempt anywhere to take your guns" tripe in the liberal-Progressive "paradise" of Chicago and IL.

There have been several instances over the yrs. where individuals with handguns who Constitutionally protected themselves from intruders had them confiscated!

In IL, ya need a FOID card to even look at a gun in a gun shop.

http://www.isp.state.il.us/docs/...

deertracker

You got a link for that?

Contango

@ deertracker:

You write that my links are crap and now you want one? Do your own research.

One I remember reading about was a 90 yr. old black guy who killed one intruder and held off two others and the cops confiscated his weapon!

Remember: Ownership of a handgun is/was illegal in Chicago. There are NO gun shops in Chicago.

safecracker2

The one I read had to do with an 81 year old man and only one intruder, so not sure if I'm referring to the same one. In that case, the elderly man was previously convicted of a felony, and a previous charge of unlawful possessing a gun and could not legally own a firearm under the Gun Control Act. That explains why his gun was confiscated. He was charged with illegally having a firearm in the intruder incident, but the charges were later dropped. The way the Act is written, they legally could not return the gun to him. He says he'll probably just go out and buy another one.

deertracker

Maybe just maybe if guns were illegal that is why it was confiscated. I could care less about Il. since I live in Ohio. As usual you are WAY off topic. Americans have the right to bear arms. Period. However, there's no effort out there to change that. What is so wrong with trying to make things safer?

beepx22

well since you mentioned safety, the guns they are trying to regulate and get rid of were used in less murders than hammers and clubs in 2011. probably holds true in 2012 too, though those numbers aren't out. rifles of any sort are rarely used in crimes.

Contango

@ deertracker:

So you think living in OH will protect gun owners? :)

Ever notice how gun grabbing liberal-Progressives tend to think alike?

The IL politicos want a state law requiring ALL firearm sales and/or exchanges be reported even between individuals.

U.S. Senator Durbin is involved. Oops!

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013...

Pres. Obama signed the NDAA which allows for the indefinite detention of terrorists without due process!

And THEY get to define what a "terrorist" is.

Keep accepting the stripping of your freedoms by the Washington kleptocrats.

shucks

Yaaawwwn !

The Bizness

I have no problem with people having guns on them...just don't hurt me and I respect your choice.

KnuckleDragger

If you are not trying to kill or cause serious bodily harm to either myself or my family, then you have nothing to worry about. In fact you likely would never know I was carrying unless I told you.

Second Opinion

Obama is a LIAR and a TRAITOR, period. He signed an executive order which provides 24/7 armed protection for him for life but while Senator he voted down a bill that allowed a woman to own a gun to protect herself IN HER OWN HOME.

Anyone who voted for this SQUATTER needs to have their heads checked out, only a fool can't see what this traitor is determined to do to this county.

http://www.whitehousedossier.com...

eriemom

Give it a break.

shucks

If ANYTHING from that site can be believed-- here's how that article starts:
"As a state senator in Illinois..."
Take a chill pill.

sanduskysteve

Hmmm - so Obama had to sign an executive order to get 24/7 protection for life???? I'm so very confused about your source for this one... Are you not informed about government at all? Has FNC and Rush, Beck, Hannity and the gang never informed you of anything? Did you not know that all Presidents current and past have 24/7 protection for life?? Even many other ex-government higer-ups enjoy this privilege.. This is NOT new and Obama did not create it! I'm also not sure that Obama had any control over who gets to own a gun as long as they can legally do so under the law. Since when were women told they can't own a gun because they are a woman? As for the article that you posted - it appears to be a site that is operated by the GOP and republicans - so it doesn't hold much water for me. But - it doees appear that Obama is for gun control - I think everyone is or should be for gun control. Even the second amendment (in case you guys who love to quote it never actually read your quotes) states that the right should be "well-regulated". If you want to believe that the militia referred is you individually - then YOU should be well-regulated. It's in the amendment - I didn't make that up. The article is suspect at best - and there is still nothing at all done by Obama or on his behalf that signifies he is going to come and take your precious gun away - maybe a gun you shouldn't have and don't have a really good need for - but not a gun for your protection of your home and family or hunting for food.

BytheBy

ACTUALLY sanduskysteve, perhaps YOU should do a little research you would know that the bill reverses a previous law that limited Secret Service protection for former presidents and their families to 10 years if they served after 1997.

Maybe you should know what you are talking about before you spout off about anything else.

TBMA2012

@wiredmamma222 "A bullet placed squarely in the head is all I need and I can hit what I am aiming at". I think your mistaken if you think thats how it would happen. For one with adrenaline pumping and everything else ....slim chance you will get a head shot. Second..... In that type of situation, if you think your going to have time to aim your also mistaken. On top of that most situations that involve a gun, especially when it comes to someone breaking in your home...... most of the time will be within arms length. So you might want to rethink that plan.

The Big Dog's back

In Alaska 94% of adults have weapons, yet Alaska's violent crime rate is higher than the national average. Explain righties.

sanduskysteve

Hey, Dog, you are not actually expecting an answer to that one are you? Nobody has answered my repeated questions about australia and japan yet either - they do a lot of talking about China though - I didn't ask about China and don't know anything about China.

The Big Dog's back

If they didn't hear it on hate radio or fox they don't comment.

BytheBy

These changes have done nothing to reduce gun-related deaths in Australia.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/a...

sanduskysteve

A few things - you haven't told about this article int he link. One is that Australia's gun death is 1/15th of that of America. The number since the passing has declined rather than increased as it has here. And although you cannot prevent ALL gun-related deaths, there has not been another mass murder by guns since the gun laws were passed in 1996. So, I'd say even YOUR link still proves their law was effective. And they did not ban all guns either - hunting is still allowed in Ausie and will continue to be. So, as usual, your proof only backs up what I said in the first place and I believe I said there has not been another mass murder since the law was passed - I was right in my statement - just because there are still gun related deaths does not prove me wrong - but - you stated that the changes have done nothing and that is wrong, they are still falling at a steady rate - your link states it pretty clear.

vicariouslyAlive

yes... the amount of gun deaths are lower... but so is their entire population... there are more gun owners in the states than australia has actual citizens... that's be like saying monroevile has less crime than sandusky and calling monroevile a better city because of it...

less people means less death... that's not a fact of anything other than the law of statistics...

BytheBy

:

BytheBy

Show me the link. All stats I am seeing have Alaska with one of the lowest violent crime/murder rates in the country.

shucks

.

he said she said

'The man pleaded with her to stop, but she kept firing until she had emptied her rounds, she told police. She then fled to a neighbor's house with her children.'

She didn't invite this man into her home and was defending her children from who knows what and he has the brass balls to beg her to stop shooting him? I would have emptied my weapon too!

31 Fountain

She should have had a bigger Cal.he would have stoped after the first shot,rember 1 shot fired 1 person dead' OUT

sanduskysteve

What evidence do you have that he kept coming after her after the first shot??? If, in fact, he was begging her to stop, he apparently wasn't much of a threat anymore - nor would he have been still coming after her and attempting to do her harm.

vicariouslyAlive

then let someone into your house and you dont know if they are there to rape or rob you and we'll see if you stop going after them until they are out of your house... and since you obviously don't believe in gun... i'd love to sit by and watch that slapfest... i highly doubt that just because the guy gell that you'd let him just lay in a place that he has no reason to be in in the first place. again steve... one of us here is telling you to get real...

LabMan

What do you expect him to say....keep them coming?

vicariouslyAlive

then what did he expect the mother of the story to do? leave the guy that didnt belong in her house alone just because he dropped? just because he hit the floor doesnt mean he still cant harm someone.

Dr. Information

After seeing this guy wasn't dead she should of put one right in his skull to finish this scum bags life.

EZOB

I am begging thieves and what have you not to break into My house. If they do, no amount of begging on their part will I show mercy. If I run out of bullets (Very Very unlikely) I'll beat them with a club. There will only be one story. For those of you who haven't figured it out, the "Honest and Law Abiding Citizens" who have recently bought the asssault weapons and 30 round magazines aren't protecting themselves from thieves and the like. They are worried (and rightfully so) they will heve to protect themselves from our own Government. History has a way of repeating itself, we aren't any different. Better to have them and not need them than wish we had more fire power.
By the Center of disease control and the F.B.I.
Firearm deaths-11,493 Non-firearm Homicides 16,799
Unintentional poisoning--31,758
Medical Erorrs--195,00Tobacco--529,000
unintentional falls---24,792
Lives saved by American guns--at present over 300 million in the United States alone and not counting all those we have defended. Yes, American guns are feared World Wide, take away our guns and we'll become more of a Third World Country.

thinkagain

The national debt is nothing in size compared to Liberal hypocrisy! Now they stand on a pile of dead school children, but still haven’t cleaned the blood off their hands from abortions.

That being said, "self-defense" is something afforded by the law of the land, not by the teachings of Christ.

For those worldly people that live in fear, why is it necessary to own more than a sidearm or rifle to alleviate those fears?

Perhaps owning high capacity magazines and assault style weaponry, like riding a Harley, are phallic substitutes for men lamenting the insignificant endowment nature cursed them with…

vicariouslyAlive

yes... because i choose to shoot a gun make that is not only capable of holding a scope and a flashlight at the same time for hunting, or chose to not have to reload my gun manually every time i fire because some of the animals i hunt travel in groups... means i have a small phallus... good one... continue the name calling... oh, it must be the fiscally responsible nature of the ar-15 platform that means i have a small one... because i can change out barrels depending on what game im going after instead of having to own multiple complete guns... that must be it.

when will you poorly educated people learn to read... we've gone over this a dozen time... assault style weapons are fully automatic ones... the only difference between my ar-15 and that wooden thing you all must be seeing in your head as a hunting rifle is i don't need tool's to switch barrels or attach scopes, lights, or slings... again... 1 trigger pull, 1 bullet... and high cap magazines aren't exclusive to rifles... they make them fun just about every style of gun there is... the ruger 10/22, the most famous rifle known to man because of its size being good to teach children how to hun, is a low cal. rifle that has hundreds of different types of high cap. mags... even for the wodden stocked ones... they also have high stock mags for pistols, shotgun, and even some revolvers have more than 6 available shots... so you all need to quit acting like high cap. mag.s are a rifle only thing... again... educate yourself on what you're all talking about before you open your mouths.. you might fare better in an argument with the grownups...

oh, and it's not living in fear... it's pertinence... people carry around condoms for the same reason they carry around guns. it's better to have one and not need it than to need it and not have it... so by your definition of fear, anyone that prepares for anything is living in fear... i guess i have to tell my daughter that the only reason i saved up for a college fund for her all of her life was only out of fear instead of pertinent thinking...

asweetnessabove

Very well put!!!! You def know how to tell it. I agree with everything you have posted 100%. Now to make the president listen to all of us responsible gun owners... Let's start with you :)

thinkagain

Rambling reductio ad absurdum gobbledygook…at least you admitted you have a small one… :)

vicariouslyAlive

no, your generalization of what people choose to do some how shows a reflection on the girth of their anatomy is ignorant and obtuse thinking. and based on your response of incoherent prattle and yet another insult shows more ignorance.

i own only side arms and rifles. im not guarding my house with machine guns or rocket launchers. i use the best tool for the job that needs being done. i do agree, private ownership of fully automatic assault weapons would be absurd... but then again i guess that's what it's already mostly illegal.

it should be a standard that anyone that wants to comment on how a gun works in order to regulate it should have to shoot that kind of gun first... it would save time trying to explain the difference between assault weapons and sporting rifles... but alas... people would rather blather on about something they know little about than do their due diligence before opening their mouths.

thinkagain

If you're not a crazy person, and your guns are locked away from children, people who are not in their right mind, and criminals, then you're not who most people are worried about.

What the gun nut ilk are really saying is, they will refuse every healthy attempt for a safer society solution. You can cry a river but new strict gun control is on the way.

Cracked Cherry

If your going to shoot someone, aim for the heart or the head to stop them in their tracks.