• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

15-Year Old Boy Uses AR-15 to Defend Himself, Sister Against Home Invaders

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
24,380
Reaction score
7,805
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Around 2:30 PM, two men tried to break in, with one going through the front door and the other in the back.

The boy grabbed the AR-15 and shot at them. The two later showed up at a Tomball hospital. The adult was hit three times and was flown to Memorial Hermann hospital, while the juvenile was taken back to the crime scene.


“We don't try to hide things from our children in law enforcement,” Lt. Jeffrey Stauber said. “That young boy was protecting his sister. He was in fear for his life and her life.”


More stories are coming out about armed citizens defending their lives and property with legally owned firearms.

15-Year Old Boy Uses AR-15 to Defend Himself, Sister Against Home Invaders
Way to go kid. You're lucky to have parents who taught you responsible gun usage.

Guns save lives... and deter the idiots. Gun free zones... disarming citizens is begging for the worst to happen. For women a gun may be the only protection between them and some goon. Certainly most woman do not have the strength to overpower a man.

Had someone been armed at any of these mass killings, the shooter would have caused less mayhem, and may have been deterred altogether.

Here is a question. Gun have been selling like hotcakes... NRA membership is growing quickly... criminals know it. I wonder... with all this gun sales activity, will we see the numbers of non-gang crime fall? Of course, if Obama passes his idiocy, he will claim credit for it. He is largely responsible for the rise in gun sales due to his and his party's long standing hostility to the 2nd Amendment, and their eagerness to exploit Sandy Hook.
 
Last edited:
Good for the kid. Two less predators in society.
 
Way to go kid. You're lucky to have parents who taught you responsible gun usage.

Guns save lives... and deter the idiots. Gun free zones... disarming citizens is begging for the worst to happen. For women a gun may be the only protection between them and some goon. Certainly most woman do not have the strength to overpower a man.

Had someone been armed at any of these mass killings, the shooter would have caused less mayhem, and may have been deterred altogether.

Here is a question. Gun have been selling like hotcakes... NRA membership is growing quickly... criminals know it. I wonder... with all this gun sales activity, will we see the numbers of non-gang crime fall? Of course, if Obama passes his idiocy, he will claim credit for it. He is largely responsible for the rise in gun sales due to his and his party's long standing hostility to the 2nd Amendment, and their eagerness to exploit Sandy Hook.

I preferred Obama to Romney, but I don't agree with is notion that destroying the 2nd Amendment would be a good idea.
 
The kid did not need a machine gun, a single shot hunting rifle would have sufficed. Now we have a poor man in the hospital full of bullets instead of just one, this kids spray and pray shooting technique did nothing but cost us taxpayers money.
 
The kid did not need a machine gun, a single shot hunting rifle would have sufficed. Now we have a poor man in the hospital full of bullets instead of just one, this kids spray and pray shooting technique did nothing but cost us taxpayers money.

Absolutely!!

If this had been a law abiding child instead of some renegade hellion he would have used Daddy's musket and politely asked both visitors to have stood one in front of the other as he loaded an exploding, armor piercing musket ball with which to assassinate them.
 
The fact is that ALMOST any gun in this situation would have sufficed and the fact it was an AR-15 is irrelevant in terms of defending yourself. The AR-15 is not NEEDED to protect yourself with.

With that being said, I don't believe in assault weapons bans nor do I think they should be demonized as I believe that guns don't kill people, bullets fired out of those guns by people do.
 
The fact is that ALMOST any gun in this situation would have sufficed and the fact it was an AR-15 is irrelevant in terms of defending yourself. The AR-15 is not NEEDED to protect yourself with.

With that being said, I don't believe in assault weapons bans nor do I think they should be demonized as I believe that guns don't kill people, bullets fired out of those guns by people do.

From the sounds of things this kid had bad guys approaching from both sides so, as a minimum, semi-auto was a VERY important factor.
 
Way to go kid. You're lucky to have parents who taught you responsible gun usage.

Guns save lives... and deter the idiots. Gun free zones... disarming citizens is begging for the worst to happen. For women a gun may be the only protection between them and some goon. Certainly most woman do not have the strength to overpower a man.

Had someone been armed at any of these mass killings, the shooter would have caused less mayhem, and may have been deterred altogether.

Here is a question. Gun have been selling like hotcakes... NRA membership is growing quickly... criminals know it. I wonder... with all this gun sales activity, will we see the numbers of non-gang crime fall? Of course, if Obama passes his idiocy, he will claim credit for it. He is largely responsible for the rise in gun sales due to his and his party's long standing hostility to the 2nd Amendment, and their eagerness to exploit Sandy Hook.

There's an awful lot of whistling n the dark going on these days. Feelgood for the fearfilled.
 
I preferred Obama to Romney, but I don't agree with is notion that destroying the 2nd Amendment would be a good idea.

I don't agree that any of the actions proposed so far qualify as "destroying the 2nd amendment."

From the sounds of things this kid had bad guys approaching from both sides so, as a minimum, semi-auto was a VERY important factor.

A semi-auto pistol would also have worked.
 
Here is a question. Gun have been selling like hotcakes... NRA membership is growing quickly... criminals know it. I wonder... with all this gun sales activity, will we see the numbers of non-gang crime fall? Of course, if Obama passes his idiocy, he will claim credit for it. He is largely responsible for the rise in gun sales due to his and his party's long standing hostility to the 2nd Amendment, and their eagerness to exploit Sandy Hook.

Except to date not a single law has been passed that could be remotely considered "hostile to the 2nd amendment" by the Obama administration.

So it's literally just purchases made out of fear.
 
While I'm glad the boy and his sister are ok.

Good shot and all that.

I don't think this is something we should celebrate too much.

I don't think we should aim to live in a society where 15 year old kids have to shoot people.

And while there will always be bad guys and we have to be ready for them... we should not be overtly happy about kids having to shoot people.
 
While I'm glad the boy and his sister are ok.

Good shot and all that.

I don't think this is something we should celebrate too much.

I don't think we should aim to live in a society where 15 year old kids have to shoot people.

And while there will always be bad guys and we have to be ready for them... we should not be overtly happy about kids having to shoot people.

WTF?

Nobody is happy that he had to shoot someone but we are happy that he assessed the situation and did shoot someone that was a threat.

We'd all love to live in some peaceful utopia full of gumdrops and rainbows but we don't.
 
.

Guns save lives... and deter the idiots.
If thats true then we should be one of the most safe countries in the world.... The opposite is true....
 
Have you not been paying attention? Several people are talking about banning those too.

lots of people on BOTH sides are talking crap they have no intention or power to do.

Several people say 9-11 was an inside job.

Get real, the kid didn't need an AR nor a 30 round mag to end the threat.

Defense of the home isn't going anywhere, many need to take a deep breath and act like they have a pair.
 
lots of people on BOTH sides are talking crap they have no intention or power to do.

Several people say 9-11 was an inside job.

Get real, the kid didn't need an AR nor a 30 round mag to end the threat.

Defense of the home isn't going anywhere, many need to take a deep breath and act like they have a pair.

But he had an AR and got the job done. Furthermore, he didn't go on a rampage just because he had the means to do so. He did what needed to be done and nothing more....just like 99.99 percent of lawful gun owners would have.
 
Way to go kid. You're lucky to have parents who taught you responsible gun usage.

Guns save lives... and deter the idiots. Gun free zones... disarming citizens is begging for the worst to happen. For women a gun may be the only protection between them and some goon. Certainly most woman do not have the strength to overpower a man.

Had someone been armed at any of these mass killings, the shooter would have caused less mayhem, and may have been deterred altogether.

Here is a question. Gun have been selling like hotcakes... NRA membership is growing quickly... criminals know it. I wonder... with all this gun sales activity, will we see the numbers of non-gang crime fall? Of course, if Obama passes his idiocy, he will claim credit for it. He is largely responsible for the rise in gun sales due to his and his party's long standing hostility to the 2nd Amendment, and their eagerness to exploit Sandy Hook.


Wait! This can not POSSIBLY be true!

Many anti-gun folks have PROVEN that the AR15 is so horrifically deadly that one round will OBLITERATE anyone it hits.

So it is IMPOSSIBLE that boy shot someone THREE TIMES with the unthinkably deadly AR15 and that person lived.


Someone should contact that media outlet and explain that the story MUST be a fraud because one could be shot 3 times with an AR15 and still live.
 
The fact is that ALMOST any gun in this situation would have sufficed and the fact it was an AR-15 is irrelevant in terms of defending yourself. The AR-15 is not NEEDED to protect yourself with.

With that being said, I don't believe in assault weapons bans nor do I think they should be demonized as I believe that guns don't kill people, bullets fired out of those guns by people do.


No, it is very unlikely that boy would have been hitting them with a handgun as obviously the AR15 - a long rifle - was not hitting them chest center. People who don't have guns think a gun is a gun is a gun. Most people could not hit a cow with a handgun at 15 feet in panick impulse shooting.

The .223 is THE smallest rifle round other than .22.

Apparently the view is that REALLY the two should have been shot with a semi automatic 12 gauge or semi auto 30.06. Shoot someone 3 times with one of those and that person is dead.

The FACT is it is extremely unlike that boy could have done that with a handgun and obviously not a bolt action "hunting" rifle.
 
I don't agree that any of the actions proposed so far qualify as "destroying the 2nd amendment."



A semi-auto pistol would also have worked.


So says the person who knows nothing about shooting firearms.

Impulse aiming is primarily instantly looking down the barrel - or just pointing it wildly - with no time for a novice or anyone but the most trained to sight up the "U" with the tag at the end of a 4 inch barrel. A handgun is so short that most people will be wildly off with a handgun. A rifle is a 2 foot long pointer - making impulse shooting at a short distance extremely easy.

People who are not very familiar with handguns think its like the movies. You shoot a bad guy and they instantly fall dead. You point a gun in the direction you want and the bullets go exactly where you want them to go. Mostly people, given all the time they want, could not hit a can at 10 feet and a gallon pail at 20 with a handgun.

It is the platitudes by anti-gun people completely detached from realities - and finding any statement or slogan to try to erase the countless examples of people defending themselves and their homes - that make discussion in real terms basically impossible.
 
Last edited:
The kid did not need a machine gun, a single shot hunting rifle would have sufficed. Now we have a poor man in the hospital full of bullets instead of just one, this kids spray and pray shooting technique did nothing but cost us taxpayers money.

The AR-15 is not a machine gun, its not capable of fully-automatic fire. Its a Semi-Automatic sporting rifle.

The fact is that ALMOST any gun in this situation would have sufficed and the fact it was an AR-15 is irrelevant in terms of defending yourself. The AR-15 is not NEEDED to protect yourself with.

With that being said, I don't believe in assault weapons bans nor do I think they should be demonized as I believe that guns don't kill people, bullets fired out of those guns by people do.

Sure its not needed if he gets them with a less effective gun, but thats no guarantee. Do you have a problem with AR-15's for self defense?

I don't agree that any of the actions proposed so far qualify as "destroying the 2nd amendment."

Really? Not even CT's Senator Meyer's proposal to make it a felony to own any firearm capable of more than a single shot?

A semi-auto pistol would also have worked.

Yeah, maybe? So might have an arrow. But if you have superior firepower at your disposal in a situation warranting it, I see no reason not to.

Either way, I hope they don't ban semi-auto pistols too. Yes that has also been proposed. Are you paying attention?

If thats true then we should be one of the most safe countries in the world.... The opposite is true....

Then why is the crime rate going down as the number of guns in circulation going up? What about the crime rates where people are allowed to carry guns? Your argument is specious at best.

Get real, the kid didn't need an AR nor a 30 round mag to end the threat.

Defense of the home isn't going anywhere, many need to take a deep breath and act like they have a pair.

Sounds to me like he needed his gun, and the 30 round magazine that comes STANDARD with AR-15's. I don't know what you beef is with standard capacity magazines.
----------------------------

All gun ignorance aside, good job kid.
 
Last edited:
The article is also telling people something else...

The NEW crime is not just burglary hoping someone isn't home. Its home invasions. That is the new crime and a perfect one against anyone who isn't truly prepared for it. In this story it was bold too. There was no attempt to learn if anyone was home. Rather, two attackers/crimes broke in thru 2 doors.

In home invasion, once inside the house, the invaders can do anything they want to whoever it there for however long they want to. Rape. Torture. Murder. Anything. And since people tend to carry their money with them and the invader(s) have all the time they want as few people set alarms when home they can search and steal more too. Of course, the incentive is to kill the witnesses in the home.

In dealing with a home invader and particularly if more than one (which is now more common than not), an inexperienced shooter and not psychologically prepared, totally startled person is at a disadvantage even if getting to his/her handgun. They are TOO hard to instant impulse shot. A long barrel weapon is what is best suited. I would recommend a semi auto 12 gauge shortened to legal minimum, but a semi auto rifle or shotgun is 100 times a better choice than a handgun.

This message is to point out that increasingly people are NOT safe in their homes. In your home you are alone. This is more and more understood by criminals and druggies needing money and will do ANYTHING to get it. It is known to sexual predators too.

It used to be you were safest in your home. But now, if you are not properly armed and prepared, and if you have flimsy doors and crappy locks, it is becoming one of the most dangerous places to be. It takes 1 second to kick in 99% of home doors. It takes 3-5 seconds for the perps to find you. And then they are in total control as long as they want to be and can do anything they want to you and your loved ones - hour after hour if they want to - and many do.

So have a gun - long barrel semi-auto - and lock your bedroom door. You may want to replace the cheap hollow core bedroom door with a solid one and put on other than a $15 bedroom lock.

Put in a Medecco - and use LONG screws for the receiver plate. Add the support plate that wraps around the door at the lock too. Less than $20 at Home Depot. But one on all exterior doors and your bedroom(s) doors. It is virtually impossible to pick or kick in a Medecco - with the bucks. Find them on Ebay.

BTW, did you know there are master sets of keys anyone can get for typical Kwikset and Schlag door locks - and both are remarkably easy to pick. Finally, a deadbolt is vastly stronger and more difficult to get past. Have one. A good one. Use it.
 
While I'm glad the boy and his sister are ok.

Good shot and all that.

I don't think this is something we should celebrate too much.

I don't think we should aim to live in a society where 15 year old kids have to shoot people.

And while there will always be bad guys and we have to be ready for them... we should not be overtly happy about kids having to shoot people.

I think we would all be happier if there was no violent crime to begin with, but that simply isn't feelistic.
Had the kid not been able to use that weapon the story could very well have been "Two Children Die in Home Invasion" and the left would have used THAT as a reason to do away with legal gun ownership.
 
I think we would all be happier if there was no violent crime to begin with, but that simply isn't feelistic.
Had the kid not been able to use that weapon the story could very well have been "Two Children Die in Home Invasion" and the left would have used THAT as a reason to do away with legal gun ownership.

Or an unsolved murder - for which the police would expend all efforts investigating and questioning the parents, relatives and neighbors as the clearly obvious suspects - and possibly end up prosecuting the parents on "circumstantial" evidence and because in their opinion the parents weren't acting right about it, plus they both didn't say the exact same words all 1o times they were both interrogated. And a disguntled relative would claim they were bad parents as support - and OMG if they found the parent had life insurance policies on those children.
 
If thats true then we should be one of the most safe countries in the world.... The opposite is true....

I think we rate somewhere around #10 as far as that is concerned...
 
Back
Top Bottom