Pregnant Florida mom uses AR-15 to kill home intruder

Good mother.

 

Not the point. Ar 15s are good. If it had been banned and confiscated she'd be dead.

You want her dead?

 

if course, that's common sense, and also ignored by the media, gotta fit that agenda, no round pegs in square holes, the major stories all fit perfect.

 

There's probably a difference since mass shooters don't kill with hammers.

 

Why then don't mass shooters choose gasoline?

 

It's cute.

And you don't even wonder why people have gotten to going to church armed.

 

Person A, Person B dies. What is the difference?

 

Women that are eight months pregnant who are attacked by two thugs with guns don't kill with hammers.

 

One concern I have reading this

What I would like to see from the people who object to this woman owning an AR-15 is what their personal plan is for combating a home invasion. As I have posted before, I know four families (including an immediate family member) who have experienced a home invasion. So liberals, what is your plan? And don't come back with the live in a good neighborhood BS. The people I know who were attacked lived in good neighborhoods. The reality is many ultra liberals own guns. They just don't want other people to own guns. NYC is a prime example of liberals government, i.e., where people like Donald Trump and Howard Stern get a CCW license, whereas the average person does not. I also have to add that I do not want to hear anything about Australia, other than an update on how the wild camel slaughter is going.

 

There were two intruders. How many muzzleloaders should she have?

An AR is near the top of the list of weapons women have the greatest ease of using in home defense. The small caliber + high velocity + low weight + high stability of the weapon makes it ideal for those with light builds and less upper body strength. The only thing better (for women) may be a 5x7 carbine such as the PS90, or a bullpup 5.56/.223 like the Tavor, both of which are prohibitively expensive compared to a medium quality AR.

 

And what tops an AR is an AR with a suppressor.

Apparently Republicans dropped the ball on the hearing protection act.

 

False again.

Threat of lethality can be a great deterrent

 

The Sandy Hook Shooter. He killed his mother to get his guns. This is very illegal to do.

The Sutherland Springs shooter (Texas church Shooter) was not allowed to buy guns. It was illegal for him to do so, but he bought it from a legitimate gun shop anyway (not their fault, the fault is of the U.S. military.)

The San Bernardino shooters bought their guns in a straw purchase (illegal in California) from a friend of theirs.

The Columbine boys bought some of their guns illegally (namely the handguns).

 

A muzzle loader would have worked against two men with pistols?

 

Actually, they showed the purpose. There is a definite purpose for the AR-15. It's a great self defense weapon that is easily used by people with smaller stature. The woman's husband and child's lives were saved by that rifle. It would have been much harder for her to do that with a handgun. The conundrum is that any weapon that is suitable for self defense is also suitable for offense. There is no way to separate the two.

 

Sorry but Seth Aaron Ator legaly bought his gun through a private sale and not through the black market.

Nope

Santino William Legan has bought is guns legally in Nevada.

Gary Montez Martin has bough his gun using a FOI card provided by Illinois State Police.

It was an administrative error, but he bought them legally.

The guns that Dimitrios Pagourtzis used belonged to his father, who had bought them legally,

You joking right ?

A friend bought an AR-15 for Rizwan Farook, but both his hand guns were purchased legally.

Nope.

Aaron Alexis bough is Remington 870 shotgun perfectly legally in a Lorton store.

You like them because you don't think anyone's going to check what you're saying.

 

Probably not. A rifle is much easier to aim and fire accurately. The only advantage a handgun has is concealability.

 

I challenge you to kill 50 people in a crowd with a hammer.

 

These were armed intruders. Please actually read the article before commenting.

 

We have the right to keep and bear arms because guns are capable of killing. That is what they are needed for, and that is why we have the right to own guns. Self defense is among the most primary of rights, and a gun is the most effective method of self defense.

 

An AR-SBR with a suppressor, yes. A 'full length' AR with a suppressor would become ungainly IMO, being too long with too much weight 'forward' to bring on target quickly, especially in close quarters. Much of the benefit of having a lightweight weapon would be negated, though a suppressor would reduce recoil a bit.

Though, both SBRs and suppressors are only legal with a $200 permit from the ATF and some other bureaucratic waste, like owning them in a Trust....

 

It's a pretty good mix of getting guns legally and illegally for mass shooters. A categorical statement saying one or the other would be false.

 

Can you reply to what I posted? Here it is again?

Can you quote the part that allows murdering innocent people?

Your vehicle can mow down innocent people in public spaces?
A gallon of gasoline and a match can kill many innocent people.
Violent people can harm many innocent people, but in this case, she saved her family and many others.

 

Well, by definition, mass shooters use guns. If they used gasoline, they would be mass murdering arsonists. And, that does happen. A Japanese man burned down an anime studio that rejected his work. He killed 33, harmed at least 36 more. We should be thankful that they use guns rather than gasoline. Gasoline is much more dangerous.


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-49027178

 

I'm glad you tried.

The Midland-Odessa shooter had previously failed a background check to purchase a firearm. That means he bought one knowing he was not legally authorized to buy one. That's called an illegal purchase.

The Gilroy-Garlic shooter was not 21. He was precluded by CA law to own an AR15. That's called an illegal purchase.

The Henry Platt shooter was a felon who was precluded from owning a firearm. IL failed in their background check. It was still an illegal purchase.

The Santa-Fe shooter stole the firearms. That's obtaining a firearm illegally.

The San Bernadino shooters acquired their firearms illegally. Private sales are not legal in CA. Modifying them and using 30 round magazines was also illegal.

The Navy Yard shooter had a long history of mental illness that made it illegal for him to own a firearm. The state and employers not doing their job didn't make it legal for him to own one.