CA Homeowner Shoots and Kills Armed Home Invader, Wounds 2 Others as Children Have Sleepover

The fools will ignore the facts, megusta, and either knock down their own strawman, call us liars, or insinuate that we are 'homos". It's all they have. Sad, but funny!

When I first read this I thought it was drug related. Most burglars are cowards and wouldn't enter a home if they knew it was occupied, so why did three armed toughs decide to break into this house? The lack of follow up information from the police is telling me that they are looking into something that is more complicated than an innocent homeowner being a random victim. Time will tell, won't it?

So I wouldn't assume that this is a "good kill" yet. Let the facts come out before you jump in triumph over the death of a criminal.

If it was a drug related crime (maybe a hit), then I suspect that everyone in the house was in mortal danger. We just don't know.

But what do you gun guys think about the ambush in New York where four firefighters were shot, two fatally? Are you celebrating those tragic deaths as an expression of self-defense, or are you going to line up and mouth these empty, trite and so untrue words: "Guns don't kill; people do."

Ekim, does that mean you approve of what the homeowner did? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Yes he had armed intruders attempting to break into his home.force was justified.Why?

We just don't know.

But what do you gun guys think about the ambush in New York where four firefighters were shot, .... Originally Posted by awl4knot

First, the folks inside the home being invaded, "don't know" either .. at the time of the invasion and that's the point.

I'm not sure what "gun guys" are, but I found it absolutely disgusting (angry) particularly when the fire may have been started to attract them, in which case those shooting are felons (having committed arson), or the shooters were trying to hide a crime with the fire and were trying to keep the fire fighters from putting out the fire (in which case the shooters are felons, having committed arson) ... so ....

.... there is a distinction between criminals using firearms against public servants and homeowners defending their homes from criminals using firearms.

No amount of Constitutionally viable "gun control" will prevent criminals from acquiring firearms ... none. To even discuss the issue is a waste of band width. I mean crap, "we" have a current administration that was passing them out to bad guys and they were used against "good guys"!!!

My question about the NY firefighter situation is: Where were the police or local LE?

I just wonder if you would feel the same way if these armed intruders would have broke into your home and threatened your family?
If so ... How would you have handled it, other than cowering in a ball on the floor or on your knees crying & begging them to spare your life? Would you have even thought about your wife (if you have one) or the children upstairs? How would you feel about the visiting children's parents when they recieved a call from the Police Dept informing them of the murders of their children?
My hat's off to this man & my heart goes out to him and his family & friends for what they all must be going through right now ... but guess what ... they are still here to go through it.
I'm not being rude to you ... I'm just asking because I'd really like to know how the minds of people like you think! Originally Posted by megustalatina

I never said anything of the sort. A home invasion is ALWAYS a justified use of force. I don't know who the hell you are, but please show me where I said any of those things you seem to want me to have said.

What I've been saying all long, and is borne out by the wingnut blogs and FOP News, etc., is that gun-nuts will cite every story they can to support unregulated gun ownership. Every time a homeowner shoots a burglar, then it becomes part of the NRA spin machine. Oddly, they stay quiet for a week after a tragedy like Sandy Hook, waiting for their polling info to come back.

Who are people "like" me, asshole!

Actually you're being incredibly rude.

Welcome to the Sandbox, you ignorant bucket of shit.

But what do you gun guys think about the ambush in New York where four firefighters were shot, two fatally? Are you celebrating those tragic deaths as an expression of self-defense, or are you going to line up and mouth these empty, trite and so untrue words: "Guns don't kill; people do." Originally Posted by awl4knot

No. I'm going to tell it like it is. This loony should have never been let out. They already had him locked up for 17 years for killing a family member. Crazy motherfuckers and criminals kill people.

Ekim, does that mean you approve of what the homeowner did? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Who is Ekim, Marshall?

First, the folks inside the home being invaded, "don't know" either .. at the time of the invasion and that's the point.

I'm not sure what "gun guys" are, but I found it absolutely disgusting (angry) particularly when the fire may have been started to attract them, in which case those shooting are felons (having committed arson), or the shooters were trying to hide a crime with the fire and were trying to keep the fire fighters from putting out the fire (in which case the shooters are felons, having committed arson) ... so ....

.... there is a distinction between criminals using firearms against public servants and homeowners defending their homes from criminals using firearms.

No amount of Constitutionally viable "gun control" will prevent criminals from acquiring firearms ... none. To even discuss the issue is a waste of band width. I mean crap, "we" have a current administration that was passing them out to bad guys and they were used against "good guys"!!!

My question about the NY firefighter situation is: Where were the police or local LE? Originally Posted by LexusLover

No. I'm going to tell it like it is. This loony should have never been let out. They already had him locked up for 17 years for killing a family member. Crazy motherfuckers and criminals kill people. Originally Posted by threepeckeredbillygoat

There you go again, LexusLover. You are assuming that the homeowner was an innocent guy. We don't know anything about the incident other than four guys with guns were shooting. That isn't the normal home burglary situation. For all we know, it could have been a drug deal that went bad, and if so maybe the homeowners' facing a felony murder charge? I'm not denying him the right to self-defense: I'm just not placing him on the mantel as a patron saint of the Second Amendment, yet.

And do you just realize that your "questioning" of LE for not being at fire scene is really telling. You seem to be admitting that the gun situation in this country is so out of control that it's police malpractice not to respond to a fire scene to protect the firemen from armed crazies. I'm sure that the FOP is just loving your criticism.

It may be a daunting task to winnow down the 300 million guns in this country so they are only available to law-abiding citizens, but it can be done over time, with lots of money and a coordinated effort. If you leave it to the states, there will be some that will become the source of weapons that get into the hands of the "crazy motherfuckers and criminals."

You and threepeckerbillygoat should ponder this reality. There is no way to institutionalize every person who (a) who has a mental problem that may lead to danger to others and (b) is or has been a criminal. What you are talking about is a life sentence for everyone who fits these definitions. That is cruel and unusual punishment under any definition. And the public doesn't want to pay the billions that such mass confinements will cost.

So the only alternative is to limit access to weapons to only those citizens who meet stringent eligibility requirements. Maybe we should tax guns like other killers such as cigarettes and alcohol? Love your guns? Well pay up! Cook County, Ill just passed a $25 gun tax to cover the costs of health care to the victims of gun violence. Over 600 people were treated for gun shot wounds in Cook County in 2011, at an average cost of $52,000. I suspect much of that was government money. Thank you very much, gun guys and girls, you're using our tax dollars to support your habit.

Awl, how many of those gunshot wounds in Cook County were inflicted by legal gun owners carrying legal guns. My guess is most of that was criminal on criminal violence, and most of the guns were illegal.

There you go again, LexusLover. You are assuming that the homeowner was an innocent guy. We don't know anything about the incident other than four guys with guns were shooting. That isn't the normal home burglary situation. For all we know, it could have been a drug deal that went bad, and if so maybe the homeowners' facing a felony murder charge? I'm not denying him the right to self-defense: I'm just not placing him on the mantel as a patron saint of the Second Amendment, yet.

And do you just realize that your "questioning" of LE for not being at fire scene is really telling. You seem to be admitting that the gun situation in this country is so out of control that it's police malpractice not to respond to a fire scene to protect the firemen from armed crazies. I'm sure that the FOP is just loving your criticism. Originally Posted by awl4knot

The last "innocent" person was Jesus Christ. Tomorrow is his birth day, according to the books. Everyone else gets to defend their home from other crooks and criminals. So far crooks and criminals still have Constitutional protections and that also means "equal protection" of their homes from criminal assaults.

"We" are not strangers down here to drug deals gone bad and home invasions ... unfortunately. Even if the homeowner IS A drug dealer ... he still has a right to defend his home from a home invasion ... on a hooker board you might not want to get on that slippery slope ... would "we"?

As for my question ... I wasn't suggesting "malpractice" ... I was responding to the procedure in the communities in which I am familiar that LE shows up when there is a house fire, building fire, or other structure fire. Arson is an LE matter and so is the safety of those inside and surrounding the fire ... if for no other reason than to keep people back to a safe distance and not interfere with fire fighters ... like shooting at them !!!!!

In fact I have seen cross-trained firefighters and police as well as emt's ... they work together and closely ... many know each other personally. I was just taken back by why LE was not there .... my recollection is that NYC lost police as well as firefighters trying to get people out of the WTC.... am I correct?

Shots fired at a fire scene should have gotten LE response from multiple agencies in the area ... balls to the wall. Did you see the street and parking lot in Conneticut?? That may be a "policy" matter, but it ought (arent' you proud MBA-Syracruse?) to be SOP for all emergency responders to have LE present.

It may be a daunting task to winnow down the 300 million guns in this country so they are only available to law-abiding citizens, but it can be done over time, with lots of money and a coordinated effort. If you leave it to the states, there will be some that will become the source of weapons that get into the hands of the "crazy motherfuckers and criminals." Originally Posted by awl4knot

Not a snowballs chance in hell. There will always be black-market weapons. Pass all the laws and regulations you want. If someone wants a weapon, there will always be someone willing to sell them one. There are plenty of countries around the world that allow no private ownership of guns, you really think that no one there has a gun under the mattress?

And please explain how leaving this to the states would make the market any different than leaving it to the feds.

And yes, I'm lining up the trite response now

or are you going to line up and mouth these empty, trite and so untrue words: "Guns don't kill; people do." Originally Posted by awl4knot

The gun didn't hold itself up, aim itself and pull its own trigger....some crazy motherfucker did. Outlawing or restricting guns will do nothing to keep one out of his hands, if he really wants one.

Awl, how many of those gunshot wounds in Cook County were inflicted by legal gun owners carrying legal guns. My guess is most of that was criminal on criminal violence, and most of the guns were illegal. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

+100

"illegal" or illegally obtained ... pick it ... doesn't matter.

Not a snowballs chance in hell. There will always be black-market weapons. Pass all the laws and regulations you want. If someone wants a weapon, there will always be someone willing to sell them one. There are plenty of countries around the world that allow no private ownership of guns, you really think that no one there has a gun under the mattress?

And please explain how leaving this to the states would make the market any different than leaving it to the feds.

And yes, I'm lining up the trite response now
The gun didn't hold itself up, aim itself and pull its own trigger....some crazy motherfucker did. Outlawing or restricting guns will do nothing to keep one out of his hands, if he really wants one. Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

Never thought that there wouldn't be a black market for guns; it just wouldn't be flooded with 300 million guns.

No, you can't leave it to the states because some of them don't give a damn about the rest of the country and will sell to anyone. Nope, it's the FEDS who have the power to regulate commerce who have to do it.

You don't know what will work unless you try something. You're just frightened to death that someone will take away your pretty little killing machines in an attempt to stop the mayhem and murder. It's a selfish and emotionally empty motivation. "I want my guns and don't care about the children in Connecticut, Colorado, Virginia or anywhere." If you did, you would try something, anything to protect them.

It is true that a gun is an inanimate killing machine. So is a hydrogen bomb. Both require a person with homicidal intentions to activate them. The fact that they need activation doesn't make them any less dangerous. As Marvin Gaye and Tammy Wynette sang so sweetly, "It takes two...."

So the phrase is a trickster's and sophist's attempt to deflect attention from the inanimate object's deadly purpose: to kill and maim human beings.

Here's my new slogan; "Atomic bombs don't kill; people do."

The more you guys try to justify your positions, the sillier, and sicker, they become.

Awl, how many of those gunshot wounds in Cook County were inflicted by legal gun owners carrying legal guns. My guess is most of that was criminal on criminal violence, and most of the guns were illegal. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I agree and that's exactly the point. Our current guns laws are an abysmal failure; so we need to revamp them so only law-abiding citizens will need to have a limited number of guns for legitimate purposes: (1) home defense; (2) hunting and (3) joining the militia.

These are the legitimate purposes protected by the Second Amendment. Justice Scalia who wrote the opinion in the Heller case said that the federal government has the right to impose reasonable controls on the possession of weapons so long as the fundamental rights are maintained. So how would limits on the number and types of guns violate the Second Amendment? The answer is simple, they won't.

So all this paranoid double talk tells me that it's selfishness and a lack of caring for others that is impelling this opposition.

If you make our schools safe, you make our streets safe, and if you make our streets safe, you make our homes safe, It's that simple. And you do that with an effective gun limiting policy. You don't it by making our nation into an armed camp.

so we need to revamp them so only law-abiding citizens will need to have a limited number of guns for legitimate purposes: (1) home defense; (2) hunting and (3) joining the militia. .... Originally Posted by awl4knot

Like dollar bills ... if you stacked all of the guns for "legitimate purposes" in one big stack ... and then handed them out to "law abiding citizens" .. (do you count speeding violations? or traffic convictions? or include warnings on traffic violations? when determining if one is "law abiding"?) .... within that year probably 1/3 of the guns will belong or be with someone else ... !!! "legally" or otherwise!

Then you have to keep an eye on the border to see what's floating or walking across the border into this country .. north, south, east, or west.

"Drugs" are outlawed in this country (well most places !!!). And "drugs" get in by the billions of dollars! Why not guns? ..

You might as well outlaw fire ants, and try getting rid of them with a fly swatter. Oh, come and get mine! Knock and ask first.