85 1 min 10 yrs

In Detroit, granny decided she won’t be a victim anymore. She’s packing and will shoot any scrote who tries to steal her handbag.

In Texas, a 33-year old mother at home with her 6-year old comes face to face with three invaders. They come face to face with her 9mm and get a 1200-feet per second welcome.

I like it when women refuse to be victims.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

85 thoughts on “GIRLS ROCK OUT WITH THEIR GLOCK OUT

  1. I am in favor of no such thing. I’m happy when a marauder gets shot.

    I don’t oppose the right of people to have weapons in the home. Provided that they have received firearms training, provide evidence that they know how to shoot, and who keep weapons away from children.

    You guys need to look at a larger picture. Cherry picking instances of heroic resistance only tells you so much.

    Why didn’t you highlight the same stories that I did? Surely you are aware of such incidents?

    Why don’t you do a few stories on guns used in fit of rage incidents?

    How about a few well written pieces on the rate of gun suicides in the US?

    These are all part of the story.

  2. Nancy Lanza refused to be a victim.

    She had a Bushmaster, a Glock, a SIG Sauer, and a shotgun.

  3. Actually I agree that people can defend themselves with weapons when somone breaks into their home.
    (A right still pretty much denied us Brits.)

    But there is still the problem of “overlap” or “mission creep”?
    Where does self defence with a deadly weapon become an opportunity to threaten?
    I still think the Founding Fathers would be amazed at the way the “Right to bear arms” has been interpreted and applied.

  4. Phantom –

    So what’s your point? You say you don’t oppose the right of people to be armed at home, yet your instinct seems to rebel against the idea.

  5. Living in Britain means you are far far safer from being killed by a gun than you are in the US. That is the overriding reality that I prefer.

  6. any reasonably intelligent adult would agree that for those times when an intruder is at your door and 911 is only several minutes away a gun + training with gun = good self defense

  7. “Living in Britain means you are far far safer from being killed by a gun than you are in the US. That is the overriding reality that I prefer.”
    Yeah,
    but there’s still an awful lot of people who have got it in for you Colm.. 😉

  8. I don’t oppose gun ownership in the home. But of course people are often shot by members of their own household which is a consideration for anyone wishing to have one in the home.

  9. Pete

    For starters, I’d require training in firearms use. You’d also have to pass a marksmanship test.

    And if a 10 year old child ” finds ” a gun in the damned house leading to tragedy, I’d send those parents to jail for a very long time.

    Many gun owners are idiots – they own them for emotional reasons, and they don’t respect them at all.

    Many US states don’t require any training at all in order to buy and keep a gun at home, or to carry one in public places.

    That is part of the problem.

    It is very wrong to cherry pick stories of heroic women who save the day while completely ignoring the very large numbers of tragic incidents involving guns involving children, hothead owners, incompetent owners, the depressed who take their own lives the easy way with a gun. Etc.

    You need to discuss it all if any serious discuss is to take place.

  10. ” But of course people are often shot by members of their own household which is a consideration for anyone wishing to have one in the home.”

    So stop upsetting your wife… 🙂

  11. Colm –

    You say that, and yet your neighbourhood is awash with guns. Makes you wonder what the gun grabbers are worried, eh?

    So, we’re perfectly safe from guns, as we always were, even when our gun laws and society made Texas look effete. That’ll be some comfort to the family of the young man chopped up with swords, on a London street, in broad daylight the other day.

  12. Phantom –

    Yes, “you need to discuss it all if any serious discuss is to take place”, as I’ve told you very many times. No more meaningless stats from you then.

  13. Phantom: there are more murders committed with knives than guns. shall we now ban the knives?

  14. So hands up who thinks it would have been better for the 33-year old mother to be forcibly disarmed before three hostile men broke into her home?

  15. The Gun Nuts think that all stats are meaningless. That’s why they try to shout down and obfuscate at all times.

    As long as you guys keep lyin’ the good guys will have to keep truthin’

    Patty

    Don’t even go there. You’re passing around falsehoods yet again. It takes some personal courage to kill someone with a knife. It takes zero personal courage to pull a trigger. That’s one reason why there are a lot more gun homicides

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/baseballbats.asp

  16. Pete

    My neighbourhood is not awash with guns and I do not know anyone in my area who has been shot dead. However if you had your way, it would be and I would soon start hearing about a lot more killings. I am not naive and I know criminals have guns but I still damn sight prefer our gun laws and the fact that guns are just not part of British life, they are not a political hot topic here, we have nothing like the NRA here and the vast majority of our people don’t have guns, don’t want them and are happy to live without them.

  17. I’m passing falsehoods? bullshit, Phantom. and stop calling me a “gun nut”

    I think you pass falsehoods – you just don’t seem to know it.

    and regarding “personal courage” vis-a-vis guns versus knives – this is an idiotic approach.

    Im surprised that you haven’t dropped the stats approach and pulled out the “tiny violin” argument – “if we only save one life from accidental gun death, we should ban all guns”

  18. Pete is wildly unrepresentative of British public opinion on this issue.

    Just as British ( or Irish, or French… )people have zero desire to see free for all US type gun laws in their lands, the people in NY / NJ etc want no part of NRA desired lawlessness in our part of the country. The popularity of the sensible gun laws here is very high.

  19. Patty

    OK, I’ll call you a baldfaced no good liar then.

    Who told you that there were more knife deaths than gun deaths in the US?

  20. Colm –

    I didn’t know you’d moved from the Elephant & Castle. Actually guns are a part of some British lives, the kind of people who don’t talk in the collective, and the NRA is here.

    As soon as someone is sensible enough to elect me guns will be back on the agenda.

  21. If the Magnolia, Texas incident happened as reported then I am glad the mother and daughter are fine and I am hope she did nail one of the intruders (since that might lead to their capture if he turns up at a hospital with a gunshot wound).

    From a Constitutional and practical standpoint I don’t think people such as thsi motehr should be denied the right to have a gun. But proper and effective background check, registration and the type of gun are all proper subjects for legislation.

  22. “But proper and effective background check, registration and the type of gun are all proper subjects for legislation.”

    background check, gun registration all currently required. law abiding citizens purchasing guns register them and undergo background checks already.

    this is the dishonesty of the Left – pretending that guns in the US are not already regulated.

    it’s the illegal, criminal use of guns that is the problem. and this is not addressed by the gun grabbing Left.

  23. “I’ll call you a baldfaced no good liar then. Who told you that there were more knife deaths than gun deaths in the US?”

    Phantom: don’t be so angry, man. it makes conversation very difficult. this is just a web board, a comment blog. that’s it. relax a little.

    Here’s where I read it.

    The following quote from the link is more reflective of the stats than my original statement which was from memory:

    “FBI data backs up the Facebook post’s claim that in 2011, more people were murdered with knives, “hands or feet” or “club and hammers” than with any type of rifle.”

  24. oops..this is where I read it and pulled the quote. But Politifact link addresses the same thing. Im sure you get the point if you’re in good faith and you want to.

  25. There were more murders by knives than by guns in the US.

    As long as you ignore most of the murders by guns.

  26. Patty – read what I wrote again before you spiral into more lies. I have no desire to take this woman’s gun. I did not write that there is no registration or background checks. The background checks and registration as presently undertaken are not as effective as they could be, there are too many loopholes.

  27. Patty

    That article does not even address number of murders by firearms

    It only deals with the numbers of murders by rifles

    Which are only a small subset of the overall firearm population

    This fact if true, is only of minimal significance.

    There are plenty of rifles but handguns are everywhere.

  28. For starters, I’d require training in firearms use. You’d also have to pass a marksmanship test.

    Phantom – does that apply to the police too?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/25/empire-state-building-shooting-nypd-bullets-shot-all-nine_n_1830007.html

    – New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said all nine bystanders wounded in Friday’s Empire State Building shooting had been hit with police gunfire, CNN reported Saturday morning. –

  29. Yes. it applies to police. One of the things about guns is that even highly trained people can misfire.

  30. Mahons: “Patty – read what I wrote again before you spiral into more lies.”

    Chill, Dude. No need to spiral into more personal invective.

    You wrote “proper” a couple of times. You didn’t mention “loopholes.”

    btw, what is the loophole that caused Sandy Hook?

    or simpler yet, what the hell loophole are you talking about?

  31. Patty – quoting me and then writing “this is the dishonesty of the left” is not personal invective? Do you read your own baloney? i don’t blame you if you don’t.

    Our background checks are not always effective and can be bypassed by private dealers. There is no harm making them tighter.

    Sandy Hook doesn’t appear to have any background check loophole that contributed to the tragedy, however in that case the type of gun used should have been banned. We have a lot of better safeguards we could use.

  32. I do not know the regulations governing gun ownership in the USA. I presume it varies between different states. It may seem reasonable to restrict gun ownership to people who register their guns, satisfy criminal records checks, pass recognised competency tests with their particular guns and of course take out insurance cover in respect of all their guns which would pay compensation to innocent victims. This would necessarily impose training costs and registration / licensing and insurance costs on gun owners but only similar to car owners. The penalties for owning guns illegally would need to be harsh and strictly enforced and possibly also applied to legal gun owners found handling their guns whilst intoxicated.

    However I can see that this may be very difficult to impose because it is difficult to take away something which people have had for generations. It is a bit like regulating alcohol and cigarettes. Also I do not know whether the inevitable reduction in legal gun ownership would reduce the deterrent effect on armed criminals significantly. It is difficult to deny that criminals would relish good people being disarmed and I do have sympathy for the view that some school teachers should be armed. But armed teachers would probably only be an effective deterrent if their identities remained secret, otherwise they would be the first targets.

    In a society used to and comfortable with guns, with so many armed criminals, it may be impossible to achieve much change.

  33. Mahons: your insults are PERSONAL. example: “you are a liar”

    my insults are IMPERSONAL. example: “the dishonesty of the Left”

  34. We can discuss how many people are killed by gun-carriers in the US but it appears that the most dangerous carriers of guns are the police.I would have them disarmed for routine patrols if the population is disarmed, and here’s why:

    http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/16/us/michigan-police-shooting/index.html

    – The July 1 shooting happened in a parking lot on West Genessee Avenue, a busy commercial strip on the north side of Saginaw. In a video purchased by CNN, shot by a motorist from across the street, the 49-year-old Hall is seen arguing with a half-dozen officers. For more than three minutes, he walks back and forth, and at one time appears to crouch in a “karate stance,” according to the man who captured the scene.

    It’s then that the police open fire with a reported 46 shots in a five-second hail of bullets.

    “I’m stunned that six human beings would stand in front of one human being and fire 46 shots,” Jewel Hall said. “I just don’t understand that. It’s a lot of pain in that because it only takes one shot, so the question is why?”

    She questioned why none of the cameras in the police cars at the scene recorded the shooting — “none of them work.” –

    So police cameras all failed during a 6-man shooting frenzy BY police on an unarmed man – but the guns all worked: nice work.

  35. “Sandy Hook doesn’t appear to have any background check loophole that contributed to the tragedy, however in that case the type of gun used should have been banned. We have a lot of better safeguards we could use.”

    This is the heart of the debate and the crux of our differences.

    Gun control advocates think that more and better laws will prevent crime.

    The other side thinks that more and “better” laws won’t make a difference. It is already illegal to murder, with or without a gun. Criminals don’t pay any attention to the laws.

    “Gun control” is a way to prevent law abiding citizens from owning guns.

  36. So how many people do the police in the US kill each year?

    http://www.lvrj.com/news/deadly-force/142-dead-and-rising/national-data-on-shootings-by-police-not-collected-134256308.html

    – Looking for the number of burglaries last year in Devils Lake, N.D.? How about the increase in property crimes in Caribou, Maine? The answers (34 and 23 percent, respectively) are readily available from the FBI.

    Want detailed information on how many people were shot by police in the United States last year?

    That’s not so easy to find.

    The nation’s leading law enforcement agency collects vast amounts of information on crime nationwide, but missing from this clearinghouse are statistics on where, how often, and under what circumstances police use deadly force. In fact, no one anywhere comprehensively tracks the most significant act police can do in the line of duty: take a life.

    “We don’t have a mandate to do that,” said William Carr, an FBI spokesman in Washington, D.C. “It would take a request from Congress for us to collect that data.”

    Congress, it seems, hasn’t asked.-

    The figures for ‘justifiable homicides’ by police for 2010 are 387 i.e. people shot while committing a serious crime. From the example at 12.13am the member of the public who ‘benefitted’ from armed police was not committing a serious crime, or even any crime at all. This is probably why stats aren’t being kept nor requested.

  37. Criminals may pay a lot more attention to laws than you think. Smart criminals won’t have guns on their person all the time in a place lime the UK – the fact of possession is itself a major crime. Its not in their self interest to always carry a gun. Not so in many US states.

    Now Patty any second thoughts on the 705?

  38. Smart criminals won’t have guns on their person all the time Its not in their self interest to always carry a gun. Not so in many US states.

    Ah – these smart criminals sucker the cops into blasting them to pieces at close range so as to wreck their statistics.

  39. What answer are you waiting for, Phantom? My answer is at 8:19 and 8:22.

    8:19: “The following quote from the link is more reflective of the stats than my original statement which was from memory:”

    and 8:22: “oops..this is where I read it and pulled the quote.”

    I don’t know what else I can add.

  40. Huh?

    I don’t know what those statements mean

    Do you agree that more in the US are killed with firearms than with knives?

  41. Mahons: I don’t think there is the suggestion by the Left that crime will completely disappear with more gun control.

    But there is the suggestion that crime will decrease with more gun control.

    Crime is already illegal. It’s not going to be reduced by more laws.

    I think making legal gun ownership more difficult however will decrease a person’s ability to defend themselves.

  42. Why won’t crime be decreased if there is less access to the most dangerous and unnecessary weapons and we have stronger background checks to keep those who should have guns at all from having them.

  43. I know we’re not supposed to get personal in this space, keep discussions on a distaff policy level (like that ever happens) but has anyone here ever had a loaded gun pointed at their head?

    I have.

    Twenty-seven years ago a mentally deranged woman opened the door of my truck, scooted into the passenger seat and pointed a large gun at my head. She had a license to carry, provided gratis by the local sheriff she helped to elect, without ever taking a single class or going through any registration process. Her gun was unlicensed, purchased on the private market. She was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s three years after she threatened my life.

    I’m alive because one brave, unarmed man reached through the open window and dragged the woman head first out onto the parking lot pavement. The woman with the gun was my soon to be former mother-in-law who was not pleased with the divorce papers I’d recently served on her son.

    That singular experience has given my perspective as a multiple gun owner a bit of considered weight.

    I’d like to hear from those who oppose commonsense tightening of registration loopholes, mandatory weapon training requirements and big clip ammo restrictions in particular.

  44. So you still think that more people are killed with knives than with guns in the US.

    Since the other comments don’t mean anything at all.

    There is a lot of intentional disinformation on this issue by the Gun Nuts. They very intentionally mix the terms ” rifle ” with “. Firearm ” etc.

    I don’t see you as angry or as a Gun Nut. But we do have angry Gun Nuts here. They lie here, every week, and they get furious when they’re called on it.

    Pay attention.

  45. Petr

    In the US there are many more murders with firearms than with knives.

    Patty confused ” rifle ” ( one type of firearm ) with ” firearm ” –there are more deaths from rifles than from knives here.

    My 858 ( from FBI site ) shows this.

  46. Phantom, I don’t understand why 2nd amendment devotees refuse to advocate for responsible gun ownership measures.

    Yes, criminals and crazies will always find a way around any law but our overall society would be greatly well served by a few commonsense requirements of legal gun owners.

  47. Its not that Patty reaches the wrong conclusion, its that she is not even thinking about the points under discussion at all.

    Daphne

    Sorry to hear about that. But yes you touch on some of the most important points. We have a lot of common ground on this issue, and I think that most Americans would agree with them.

  48. Bad shit happens, Mahons.

    Which is why we should all be focused on how we can best keep firearms beyond the reach of idiots, lunatics, dolts, criminals, gangbangers and negligent parents who harbor the Adam Lanza’s of the world.

  49. The NRA has been of two faces on this issue.

    They encourage gun owners to learn gun safety, and they give well respected classes on it.

    But, astonishingly, they oppose making such training mandatory – even in states with lax concealed carry rules. So they’re ok with untrained people walking around with loaded guns, if they choose not to learn how to use those guns.

  50. I’m not an NRA member so I can’t speak to their particular agenda or political advocacy memes. I can say the haven’t done themselves any favors in upper-end suburban communities with their current louche talking points.

  51. Let’s stop the bullying and calling people liars.

    Daphne –

    Do you drive with your doors locked now? I do, whether I’m driving through a respectable area like where I live or a gun-ridden inner-city neighbourhood such as where Colm is.

    Phantom –

    Yes, knives are used to kill more people than rifles (sorry, “military-style assault weapons”) in the US. But it’s rifles which gun grabbers want to take from the people.

    Handguns aren’t under discussion (that would come next), it’s rifles. Yet many more people are killed by knives than by rifles.

    Bottom line: if the point is saving lives then knives ought to be banned. As well as fists and feet, which are also used more often than rifles to kill.

  52. Pete

    Maybe Patty meant to say something else, but what she did say was

    there are more murders committed with knives than guns. shall we now ban the knives?

    Which is what we responded to. And she then botched repeated requests to clarify her point.

    If one wants to be taken seriously, one should pay a minimum of attention to the matters under discussion.

    You now raise what you presume to be her point. Well la de da, maybe it is.

  53. And no one is proposing the banning of rifles.

    What is proposed is the banning of massacre weapons such as Bushmasters.

  54. What’s a “massacre weapon”?!

    The Bushmaster is just a rifle, a semi-auto rifle. Forget the cosmetic bits, it’s just a semi-auto rifle for goodness sake.

    Look, watch this from 5:54. Watch an American police officer convert a “normal/hunting” .223 rifle into a “military style massacre assault weapon” in just a few seconds with a few cosmetic changes. From a hunting rifle to instant doom, yet the mechanism doesn’t change. It’s just a few cosmetic changes.

    Go on, go watch it. It’s a few moments of your time, that’s all.

  55. Pete,
    I watched it. As a non gun owner who would only ever shoot in a war situation I found it boring.
    But it did serve one purpose.
    It proves my case that easy access to weapons is NOT a good idea, no matter what anyone says.
    Example.
    I am pretty good at annoying people.
    I call it humour, or challenging, or pomposity pricking, or stating my own opinion even if it is against the flow of popular opinion.
    But I accept that some will just see it as “annoying.” So on that basis, on the web they may choose to ignore or ridicule.
    Not a problem.
    Let’s say though I go to live in America. My neighbour may be a “redneck” or a “sophisticate.”
    He very quickly decides he doesn’t understand me, and from what he DOES understand, he doesn’t like me. I get up his nose.

    Disputes break out. He (understandably) decides he doesn’t fancy physical combat, but remembers that in his locked up gun cupboard he has one of these..

    (http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/12/17/bushmaster_ar_15_national_review_writer_says_it_s_not_that_powerful.html)

    or one of these…

    He broods
    He drinks
    He decides I am an arrogant limey bastard….

  56. So? He then ignores you or punches you on the nose. Would you live next door to me? Or Daphne? Or Troll? Yes? We’re armed.

    Now easy access to weapons is not a good idea, you say. The tens of millions of victims of government holocausts and massacres and pogroms would disagree.

    Agit8ed, you often talk about the Holocaust in here. In 1938 Jews (and subject races) were banned from owning or dealing in weapons and ammunition. If they hadn’t been disarmed it would have been much more difficult to subsequently kill so many.

  57. The government holocausts, massacres and pogroms were mostly shocking because they happened in supposedly civilised nations which had been taken over by evil oppressive regimes.
    Most countries in Europe and the rest of the developed world didn’t decide that “Oh! we see what happened in Nazi Germany, so we had better allow all citizens to own arms in case it happens again.”

    I am not against gun ownership, but it should be closely and continually monitored. Not allowed on the basis of the Second Amendment written 200+ years ago. I keep on saying it; those men would be horrified at the way that amendment has been interpreted.

  58. Agit8ed –

    Your final point is correct; “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, they said, yet that right has been infringed many times.

    Yes, those holocausts, massacres and pogroms happened in supposedly civilised nations (and communist ones, but that’s by the by) and yet they happened.

    So they can happen here or in the US. Yes, they absolutely can happen here or in the US. The German people were the most culturally sophisticated around in the early 1930s, yet they willingly followed the regime which destroyed them.

    Yes, it can happen here or in the US.

  59. ” If they hadn’t been disarmed it would have been much more difficult to subsequently kill so many.”

    The Warsaw Uprising disproves that point Pete. The Jews had gone from being fighters in their own land to being fearful and controlled in exile. But as in Warsaw they realised that they had to do something or be murdered by the Nazi regime. They got weapons.

    The purpose of the State is to keep order and to protect its citizens. As I said, the fact is that Europe and the rest of the world didn’t decide to arm its citizenry because of what happened in Nazi Germany. And over all it has worked pretty well.

  60. Agit8ed –

    No, the purpose of the State is absolutely not “to keep order”, and it absolutely cannot protect you at all times. If you had been around at anytime in human history, until a few decades ago, the idea that the State must disarm you and protect you at all times would have been alien. Most people would have found it incomprehensible.

    “To keep order” – ?!! There’s an open door excuse for tyranny. Sod that.

  61. Pete,
    I ain’t going to argue with you. But the fact is that western democracy took over from monarchies and dictatorships, and by and large more people have been better educated, better fed, had more prosperity and opportunities than ever before.

    Currently the system has swung too far towards political control and intervention. That I accept. But it could swing back again if enough people demanded it.The easy availability of weapons just complicates things.

  62. And all those good things are down to what’s left of capitalisma and free markets. I’m glad you’re not arguing with me. You and I are a million miles apart philosophically.

    Given that democracy is inimicable to, and the enemy of, liberty, property rights and wealth, good luck in hoping “enough people demand” that things swing back.

  63. A fundamental purpose of any state is to keep order and to protect those living in it as best as practically possible.

    I’d have a hard time thinking of any state that strove towards decency that didn’t try to do these things. What possible use would be a state that didn’t try to do these things?

    Even small Wild West towns had sheriffs.

  64. “You and I are a million miles apart philosophically.

    Maybe so, but we do agree on some things. But on this one I think you are out on your own. Never mind, Six Nations on Saturday! The wife and I shall be watching, secure in the knowledge that our tv licence is up to date… 🙂

  65. Perhaps instead of a never-ending stream of pointless legislation that is largely ignored, our ‘lords and masters’ could try comprehensively educating the masses in both the use of firearms, and in social responsibilty, and followed by suitable punishment for those who transgress.

    Who knows, such a broadening of the education curriculum may even benefit those who don’t own guns. My guess is that the problem is too far gone for for such a solution, and the media hysteria is just that – hysteria! – and not forgetting a favorite to add to the list of broken political promises.

    As has frequently been said – ‘you have made your bed, now go and lay on it!’

  66. Given that democracy is inimicable to, and the enemy of, liberty, property rights and wealth, good luck in hoping “enough people demand” that things swing back.

    What’s your alternative for mere hoping for the end of democracy? Some sort of action? If so, what specifically?

  67. “… then botched repeated requests to clarify her point.”

    actually, Phantom, I gave you more than an adequate response and I spent more than adequate time discussing with you.

Comments are closed.