85-year-old woman forces intruder to call cops

[Butters 0]

She holds would-be burglar at gunpoint until police arrive at her Pa. home

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[millertime24 8]

I cant believe these cocksuckers that have to take from others (specially the elderly) just to get a quick buck. Im glad she did what she did making HIM call the cops on himself.

Muff #5048

[ryoder 1,590]

I knew a crusty old Viet Nam vet (who was also a skydiver) who did the same thing.
He was working as a night security guard, and thought he saw a break-in of a closed gas station next door to the building for which he was responsible. He went around back and looked in the open window of the gas station, and saw the kid rummaging through the desk drawers. At the same time the kid saw him.

Now:
- He had no radio or cell phone.
- The window was too high for him to crawl in quickly.
- If the kid bolted out the front door, he couldn't get around quickly enough to catch him.
- If he went around to the front, the kid could jump out the window.

So his solution was to keep his gun pointed at the kid, ranting and raving like he was going to shoot unless the kid did exactly what he told him to do: Call the police on the gas station's phone.

He said the kid was begging the police to hurry before the maniac with the gun started shooting.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[AWL71 0]

Foolish old lady. She should have reasoned with the burgular. No belongings are worth getting killed over!

(Sarcasm)

Good for her. Another great example of a person PREVENTING crime due to being armed. Love it.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[livendive 8]

Good for her!
Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[kallend 2,154]

Quote

Foolish old lady. She should have reasoned with the burgular. No belongings are worth getting killed over!

(Sarcasm)

Good for her. Another great example of a person PREVENTING crime due to being armed. Love it.

Yup.

Pity that if today is typical, some 33 people will be shot dead in the USA in homicides, plus another couple in accidents. Just collateral damage, it's all good.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[NewGuy2005 53]

Quote

Quote

Foolish old lady. She should have reasoned with the burgular. No belongings are worth getting killed over!

(Sarcasm)

Good for her. Another great example of a person PREVENTING crime due to being armed. Love it.

Yup.

Pity that if today is typical, some 33 people will be shot dead in the USA in homicides, plus another couple in accidents. Just collateral damage, it's all good.

What is the solution?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Foolish old lady. She should have reasoned with the burgular. No belongings are worth getting killed over!

(Sarcasm)

Good for her. Another great example of a person PREVENTING crime due to being armed. Love it.

Yup.

Pity that if today is typical, some 33 people will be shot dead in the USA in homicides, plus another couple in accidents. Just collateral damage, it's all good.

What is the solution?

EVERYONE knows that the solution is to get rid of the guns - then the criminals will all quit their lives of crime and become productive members of society.

The Obamessiah will make it happen with his care-bear tummy beams of HopeChange®.

/sarcasm

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[warpedskydiver 0]

Maybe she should have been beaten to death so that the intruder would not have been intimidated by an old lady defending her life wioth a gun, that is the solution some would prefer.

Some people never offer a solution, but complain at every opportunity.

[birdlike 0]

Thanks for the amusing anecdote,
but we know that this could not have actually happened.

The Left is constantly telling us that people DO NOT successfully use guns for defense. They tell us that no one ever turns up any evidence that it happens.

The Left would never LIE to us, so that proves to me that there are NO cases of successful defensive gun use.

I'll bet that New Republic will soon get to the bottom of this story and find out for us that what actually happened was that she grabbed a broom and threatened the crook with a thrashing until he surrendered.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Foolish old lady. She should have reasoned with the burgular. No belongings are worth getting killed over!

(Sarcasm)

Good for her. Another great example of a person PREVENTING crime due to being armed. Love it.

Yup.

Pity that if today is typical, some 33 people will be shot dead in the USA in homicides, plus another couple in accidents. Just collateral damage, it's all good.

What is the solution?

Why, suspend the Constitution, send troops and police door-to-door to rip apart people's homes, confiscate their guns, and destroy them.

If it saves just one life it'll be worth it!

We'll pretend that even if we get every single gun (criminal and non-criminal) destroyed, no one will be able to manufacture them underground to resupply those criminals who want them.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Foolish old lady. She should have reasoned with the burgular. No belongings are worth getting killed over!

(Sarcasm)

Good for her. Another great example of a person PREVENTING crime due to being armed. Love it.

Yup.

Pity that if today is typical, some 33 people will be shot dead in the USA in homicides, plus another couple in accidents. Just collateral damage, it's all good.

What is the solution?

Outlawry. Most of the people doing the killing and dying are criminals. After a few convictions we can declare them outlaws no longer subject to legal proections. The criminals wanting to kill their competition can then do so without fear of legal reprisal. They can kill themselves off and leave the country to the rest of us who don't want to kill each other.

We could also say to heck with the constitution. Declare a 24x7 curfew in high-crime areas where anybody who neither lives nor works there gets an immediate trip to the slammer when picked up by police.

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Quote

Foolish old lady. She should have reasoned with the burgular. No belongings are worth getting killed over!

(Sarcasm)

Good for her. Another great example of a person PREVENTING crime due to being armed. Love it.

Yup.

Pity that if today is typical, some 33 people will be shot dead in the USA in homicides, plus another couple in accidents. Just collateral damage, it's all good.

Yeah. And one day you just may be wishing you had a gun as some punks are beating you to death. Just a thought.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[birdlike 0]

Quote

We could also say to heck with the constitution. Declare a 24x7 curfew in high-crime areas where anybody who neither lives nor works there gets an immediate trip to the slammer when picked up by police.

First of all, sounds like more of the same: punish and impinge on the law-abiding because of what the criminals do. (That's essentially what gun laws boil down to, of course.)

Second, how would that address those who do live in the area who are committing crimes there?

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Pity that if today is typical, some 33 people will be shot dead in the USA in homicides, plus another couple in accidents. Just collateral damage, it's all good.

So what do you propose that would have a prayer of successfully ending this? Mind you, it has to pass constitutional muster.

And if your ideas run to "confiscate all the guns" please remember that the last guns that will remain to be confiscated will most certainly be those belonging to violent criminals.

And if you confiscate property, the Constitution mandates that you give fair compensation to those from whom it is taken.

Let's see, 300,000,000 guns... assume an average of $500 per gun... (Some are about $100, and then again, some cost thousands!) We're a cash-strapped nation right now, so where are you gonna get $150,000,000,000 to do this?

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[kallend 2,154]

Quote

Quote

Pity that if today is typical, some 33 people will be shot dead in the USA in homicides, plus another couple in accidents. Just collateral damage, it's all good.

So what do you propose that would have a prayer of successfully ending this? Mind you, it has to pass constitutional muster.

And if your ideas run to "confiscate all the guns" please remember that the last guns that will remain to be confiscated will most certainly be those belonging to violent criminals.

And if you confiscate property, the Constitution mandates that you give fair compensation to those from whom it is taken.

Let's see, 300,000,000 guns... assume an average of $500 per gun... (Some are about $100, and then again, some cost thousands!) We're a cash-strapped nation right now, so where are you gonna get $150,000,000,000 to do this?

A search of the archives will reveal my suggestion, and it is NOT confiscation so your rant is wasted.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Pity that if today is typical, some 33 people will be shot dead in the USA in homicides, plus another couple in accidents. Just collateral damage, it's all good.

Pity that if today is typical, some 112 people will be killed in automobile accidents. Just collateral damage, it's all good.

Quote

A search of the archives will reveal my suggestion...

A search of the archives will reveal my response to your suggestion.

Hey, if you're not willing to talk about it here, then why did you invite it with your usual anti-gun claptrap?

[billvon 3,120]

>Pity that if today is typical, some 112 people will be killed in
>automobile accidents. Just collateral damage, it's all good.

Good point, in that both guns and cars are potentially dangerous, and can injure both the user and other people if they are used carelessly (or even maliciously.)

The risk that cars pose is partially mitigated by requiring licensing, registration and basic safety features on all cars (seatbelts, brakes, taillights etc.) Would you oppose such an approach to guns?

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Would you oppose such an approach to guns?

DUH

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

The risk that cars pose is partially mitigated by requiring licensing, registration and basic safety features on all cars (seatbelts, brakes, taillights etc.) Would you oppose such an approach to guns?

A search of the archives will reveal my response to your suggestion.

[billvon 3,120]

Yeah, it was a rhetorical question - but outlines the danger behind the old cars to guns comparison. They're not all that equate-able.

[AWL71 0]

Alcohol and drunk driving causes way more death than guns but no one is screaming for alcohol restrictions. Why not? Because it is culturally accepted by the majority so those losses are OK.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Pity that if today is typical, some 112 people will be killed in
>automobile accidents. Just collateral damage, it's all good.

Good point, in that both guns and cars are potentially dangerous, and can injure both the user and other people if they are used carelessly (or even maliciously.)

The risk that cars pose is partially mitigated by requiring licensing, registration and basic safety features on all cars (seatbelts, brakes, taillights etc.) Would you oppose such an approach to guns?

First off, there is no licensing, safety or registration requirement for a car unless you're going to drive it on the street. So that's moot, for the person that is buying a gun for home defense.

But let's go with the 'treat guns like cars' theme.... that means:

Any 17 year old that can pass a VERY basic test can buy/carry a gun. No background checks, no mental checks, no fingerprints. Show up, take the test, get your license in the mail a couple weeks later. No disqualification for prior felony convictions, either - just like a driver's license.

Said license would allow carry ANYWHERE in the country - just like a driver's license.

Carrying a gun without a license would be a $100 ticket that would come off your record in one year - just like a driver's license.

No requirement for any license on private property, no limit to the number / size / performance of the guns - just like cars. No bounds on where / who you can buy them from and sell them too - just like cars.

Sounds good to me.

If the above is NOT what you meant, then your talk of 'treating guns like cars' is a damn lie.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

First off, there is no licensing, safety or registration requirement for a car unless you're going to drive it on the street. So that's moot, for the person that is buying a gun for home defense.

But let's go with the 'treat guns like cars' theme.... that means:

Any 17 year old that can pass a VERY basic test can buy/carry a gun. No background checks, no mental checks, no fingerprints. Show up, take the test, get your license in the mail a couple weeks later. No disqualification for prior felony convictions, either - just like a driver's license.

Said license would allow carry ANYWHERE in the country - just like a driver's license.

Carrying a gun without a license would be a $100 ticket that would come off your record in one year - just like a driver's license.

No requirement for any license on private property, no limit to the number / size / performance of the guns - just like cars. No bounds on where / who you can buy them from and sell them too - just like cars.

Sounds good to me.

If the above is NOT what you meant, then your talk of 'treating guns like cars' is a damn lie.

I could easily go for that.

You might be forgetting that the insurance premiums will likely be so high that only Bill Gates and Warren Buffet will be able to own guns and take them off private property.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

First off, there is no licensing, safety or registration requirement for a car unless you're going to drive it on the street. So that's moot, for the person that is buying a gun for home defense.

But let's go with the 'treat guns like cars' theme.... that means:

Any 17 year old that can pass a VERY basic test can buy/carry a gun. No background checks, no mental checks, no fingerprints. Show up, take the test, get your license in the mail a couple weeks later. No disqualification for prior felony convictions, either - just like a driver's license.

Said license would allow carry ANYWHERE in the country - just like a driver's license.

Carrying a gun without a license would be a $100 ticket that would come off your record in one year - just like a driver's license.

No requirement for any license on private property, no limit to the number / size / performance of the guns - just like cars. No bounds on where / who you can buy them from and sell them too - just like cars.

Sounds good to me.

If the above is NOT what you meant, then your talk of 'treating guns like cars' is a damn lie.

I could easily go for that.

You might be forgetting that the insurance premiums will likely be so high that only Bill Gates and Warren Buffet will be able to own guns and take them off private property.

Insurance isn't a point of the discussion - nice strawman, though.

NONE of the above is applicable to purchase for home defense - only for carry in public.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706