Mother calls 911, asks if she can shoot an intruder

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
That she should have waited any longer than she didSure...there's ONLY 34...keep thinking thatProbably used in self defense then the owner locked up for it

Somehow I think the only way Hal will realize anything is if he's forced to defend himself with his shotgun, and then get locked up for it.

Keep in mind he comes from the nation that prosecuted and punished a 50 year old woman for having an family heirloom of a pistol that just happened to be in fire-able condition.
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
you might want to watch the clip. there is no way that she would have shot her husband

He knows that, he's just looking for an excuse as to why she shouldn't have a gun to begin with. In other words, he's a moron.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
Somehow I think the only way Hal will realize anything is if he's forced to defend himself with his shotgun, and then get locked up for it.

Sold it.

Keep in mind he comes from the nation that prosecuted and punished a 50 year old woman for having an family heirloom of a pistol that just happened to be in fire-able condition.

You mean we prosecuted a woman for knowingly owning an illegal firearm?! No way?! That never happens in the US, I'll bet. It's not like you guys arrest Marines who have a concealed carry permit, for carrying it in the wrong state unknowingly.
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
...that being said she should have waited slightly longer IMO, ...


You almost had me...almost, until I read this. Here I thought you had come to your senses and changed your mind that people should have the right to defend themselves with any necessary means in their own homes, but then you go back to your ol' Neckbeard...I mean, HAL ways with this stupid, idiotic, psychotic statement.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
Delusion for sure

So everyone who disagrees with you is delusional?

That's almost worthy of a sig...thought you were never OK with any killing?

Only in self defence.

I said "probably"

Ah.

You almost had me...almost, until I read this. Here I thought you had come to your senses and changed your mind that people should have the right to defend themselves with any necessary means in their own homes, but then you go back to your ol' Neckbeard...I mean, HAL ways with this stupid, idiotic, psychotic statement.

I definitely think people should have the right to defend themselves with any means necessary in their own homes, I've always said that and never said anything different as long as the attacker is trying to kill them and they have no other option.
 

corwin

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2006
8,644
9
81
So everyone who disagrees with you is delusional?
No...waiting 21+ minutes while someone kicks in your door and comes at you with a knife and saying they should have waited longer to shoot them is most definitely delusional
I definitely think people should have the right to defend themselves with any means necessary in their own homes, I've always said that and never said anything different as long as the attacker is trying to kill them and they have no other option
As long as it's not a gun they use and as long as they wait long enough to be sure they're really trying to kill them right? Like after you're dead?
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Yes it is, it's called democracy.



40 people were killed with a gun in the UK last year, that's rare enough that I don't need to worry about it and to show that banning guns is clearly working. Keeping it that way is the reason not to.



Ah.

75 people were killed with guns last year. I'll bet that every single one of them wished they had a gun to protect themselves.
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
I definitely think people should have the right to defend themselves with any means necessary in their own homes, I've always said that and never said anything different as long as the attacker is trying to kill them and they have no other option.


The fact that you do not believe people should have the right to own a gun means you DON'T believe that they have the right to defend themselves with any means necessary.

What about this don't you understand?
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
No...waiting 21+ minutes while someone kicks in your door and comes at you with a knife and saying they should have waited longer to shoot them is most definitely delusional

Because it differs with your opinion.

As long as it's not a gun they use and as long as they wait long enough to be sure they're really trying to kill them right?

Nope they can use a gun, they do need to be sure they are really trying to kill them.

75 people were killed with guns last year. I'll bet that every single one of them wished they had a gun to protect themselves.

If that's the case then the BBC have lied to me. I don't really care what they wished.

The fact that you do not believe people should have the right to own a gun means you DON'T believe that they have the right to defend themselves with any means necessary.

What about this don't you understand?

Ah, I see what you mean, I agree, they shouldn't have certain means, such as guns, aside from that they should use any means necessary, I also don't think they should be able to defend themselves with anthrax or a nuclear weapon. Do you? If not then you don't think people should be able to use any means necessary.
 

corwin

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2006
8,644
9
81
Because it differs with your opinion.
No because it's delusional...should she have waited until he actually stuck the knife in her or the child?
Nope they can use a gun, they do need to be sure they are really trying to kill them.
Ah, I see what you mean, I agree, they shouldn't have certain means, such as guns
So which is it now?
aside from that they should use any means necessary, I also don't think they should be able to defend themselves with anthrax or a nuclear weapon. Do you? If not then you don't think people should be able to use any means necessary.
Not viable personal self defense weapons so stupid argument...
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
No because it's delusional...should she have waited until he actually stuck the knife in her or the child?

No she shouldn't, can you explain why it's delusional.

So which is it now?

People shouldn't be given guns to defend themselves, they shouldn't have that means. Some people do for unrelated reasons.

Not viable personal self defense weapons so stupid argument...

So people shouldn't be given any means necessary? What about land mines they'd make great personal defence weapons? So yes to those? Claymores perhaps? Pop one inside your front door and that will deal with intruders.
 

corwin

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2006
8,644
9
81
No she shouldn't, can you explain why it's delusional.
Explain how much longer you think she should have waited? Any longer and she would have been stabbed...so saying "no she shouldn't (have waited to get stabbed)" and "she should have waited longer" is delusional
People shouldn't be given guns to defend themselves, they shouldn't have that means. Some people do for unrelated reasons.
Yes they should
So people shouldn't be given any means necessary? What about land mines they'd make great personal defence weapons? So yes to those? Claymores perhaps? Pop one inside your front door and that will deal with intruders
Still stupid argument against guns...
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
Explain how much longer you think she should have waited? Any longer and she would have been stabbed...

I see, so the moment he entered through the door his plan was to hurl the knife accross the room into her?

so saying "no she shouldn't (have waited to get stabbed)" and "she should have waited longer" is delusional

See above.

Still stupid argument against guns...

But I thought "any means nessecary" was the argument here?
 

corwin

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2006
8,644
9
81
I see, so the moment he entered through the door his plan was to hurl the knife accross the room into her?
So you know how close he was to her...you didn't answer the question, how long do you wait? 1 foot? 2 feet? 3, 4, 5, 6? Someone just spent almost half an hour breaking in to get to where you are, how much longer do you really need to wait?
But I thought "any means nessecary" was the argument here?
You're arguing against guns as always...
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
So you know how close he was to her...you didn't answer the question, how long do you wait? 1 foot? 2 feet? 3, 4, 5, 6? Someone just spent almost half an hour breaking in to get to where you are, how much longer do you really need to wait?

Depends how long it takes to know that he's trying to kill you.

You're arguing against guns as always...

That I am.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
21+ minutes is more than enough

Four hours wouldn't be enough if the guy spend all that time outside.

Then try using intelligent arguments instead of bringing up incendiary, biological and explosive devices.

It's called reducio ad absurdum, exctending your argument to extreme proportions to illustrarte the absurditiy of it.
 

Blitzvogel

Platinum Member
Oct 17, 2010
2,012
23
81
Take away guns, and we still have knives/shanks/etc. Ban those, and we can still use stones, bricks, or maybe choking wire. Intent is the problem with people, not the fact that they have weapons available to them to kill people. It's a social problem, and one that you can't control without some kind of 1984 or THX1138 type scenario.