Let’s check the usual talking points, shall we?

She had a gun. FAIL
She had an unsecured weapon FAIL
She had an unsecured weapon with children in the house FAIL
She used a shotgun. Women are too weak deal with Shotguns FAIL
She did not allow police to respond and take care of the situation FAIL

As for the rest of us with a bit of brain, the actions of this lady are FULL OF WIN.

Carry on.

Spread the love

By Miguel.GFZ

Semi-retired like Vito Corleone before the heart attack. Consiglieri to J.Kb and AWA. I lived in a Gun Control Paradise: It sucked and got people killed. I do believe that Freedom scares the political elites.

12 thoughts on “A Bad Mom according to Gun Control.”
  1. She didn’t kill the sonovabitch – FAIL

    Now he’ll go try the same thing on an unarmed victim, and maybe murder them.

    1. Yes, it’s fun to vent like that.
      However, please remember that the purpose (and moral justification) of self defense is to stop the threat. No more. As is well known, most defensive gun use doesn’t involve firing the gun, let alone injuring the attacker.
      It’s true that the criminal might try it again. But preventing that is the job of the police, and not being victimized is the responsibility of each individual. That’s what SELF defense means.

      1. If someone broke into my house and I chased them off, I would have the legitimate fear of them coming back for revenge (maybe not exactly the right word).

        I.e., I chased the guy off. Now he has to reclaim his manhood by ambushing and killing me.

        If you kill the person in the first encounter, you don’t have to worry about some punk trying to get payback for making him shit his pants.

        1. Yes. And if someone breaks down your door, a shotgun blast to center mass is clearly justified.
          The video makes it look like the guy saw the shotgun and instantly turned tail and ran. If she had been fast on the trigger, fine. Once he turned tail, the threat was gone and her justification for firing was gone with it (the legal justification, that is; the moral justification is a different issue).
          It may have been her choice to hesitate on the trigger, or simply happenstance. Either way, I don’t agree with second guessing her actions and bitching because she didn’t fire.
          And yes, if he gets away he might come back. If he doesn’t get away, his friends may be back. Either way, if evil has decided to pick on you, it might do so again. I see no workable answer other than “keep your powder dry”.

        2. He now knows you have a gun, or guns in the house. All he has to do is watch your house, or have his homies watch it, and wait until you are gone so he can rob it and get that gun.

  2. This happened many years ago almost a decade but there is a elementary school near where I live and a couple of cul-de-sacs across it. Some guy tried to rob some place and he escaped and parked his truck in the elementary school parking lot and disappeared. This was before Sandyhook. I had a day off and I walk around the neighborhood and I’m seeing a dozen police cars a SWAT van and a helicopter and news vans wondering what the hell is going on. Not a single ambulance. Later I found out that he broke into a house and tried to carjack someone And the homeowner gut shoted him with a 12 gauge. Later died. The police must’ve thought he was taking children hostage or something. Hence the massive response

    And according to CNN/MSNBC, most Democrats and all anti-gunners it would’ve been morally better if that person had raped and murdered her and then killed her children. To them that is actually a better outcome than her defending herself with a gun. I would like to ask these people that question: Is it morally better for a criminal to rape and murder a woman who is defenseless or for that criminal to be shot dead by woman with a gun? What if it is a home invasion and they use an AR15 to stop them? Make it a straight yes or no answer. If they answer yes that means they have to see the point of justifiable self-defense and concealed carry. If they say no they sound like monsters. But we all know they would say the former but think the latter. Since they can’t say having a gun is a good thing under any circumstance and they can’t come off as being a horrible person they will not give a straight yes or no answer. Then say “Oh, so you think it would be better for her to be raped and murdered then to defend her self and kill her attacker?“ And then when they say they never said that say “well you didn’t say yes”.

    We have a steel security door that swings out. And not the kind that’s just some metal strips in a frame with glass behind it. You could still probably get through with enough effort but it would take a lot more than kicking it. Decorative but functional. But not everyone can afford a $1500 security door. Or to live in a low crime area.

  3. “Is it morally better for a criminal to rape and murder a woman who is defenseless or for that criminal to be shot dead by woman with a gun?” — in the minds of the victim disarmers, clearly the answer is yes (the first alternative is the desirable outcome).
    Interesting that the perp drives a Mercedes. So much for the narrative that burglars commit their crimes because of poverty.

Login or register to comment.