• 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

joko104 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your emotional appeal to influence with fear on people just to be armed and ready to shoot influences one to think that invaders would come even in differing circumstances. What if the invaders, like the psychopathic, ill wishing, sick brains that they are, noticed that adolescents only live in the house and tried to invade thinking it is "easy" pick?

This is a single case that should not be generalized to everyone. The odds of dying from a heart attack are higher. What if it was a wide family with many male adults living there? Should all of them be armed with weapons bellow their pillows, holding their fingers in the trigger, so as to be alarmed at the smallest of of suspicion?

All I here here is an emotional appeal "They're gonna getchya when all alone and unprepared at night! They are gonna harm you powerless if you are without a gun! They are gonna rape, kill, burn your house over and over again while you watch!!" Jeesh, take it easy will you?
 
joko104 said:
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.
Click to expand...

A few months back when my cousin was burglarized leaving no evidence, I was introduced to the terrifying concept of lock bumping:


Worse, since there's no evidence of forced entry your insurance company will stiff you. Fortunately my home mostly has locks that cannot be bumped, the door w/ a Kwikset has a bolt in case.
 
TheNextEra said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Not knowing the entire situation it is difficult to say which guns would have worked and which wouldn't. A wheel gun could have been most adequate with the right caliber and the right load and a the right shots. I would venture to say that the young man's advantage was greatly increased by the fact that he responded with an AR-15 rather than a .380 or a .38 Special. He stopped the threat with an AR-15. That should be all that matters.

No sane defender wants anything less than all the odds in his or her favor. Bigger, faster and more.
 
joko104 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Good post, Joko.

In Paradise Valley (Phoenix) where many wealthy entertainment and sports and just filthy rich people live, they've been having a problem with - home invasions. According to newspaper articles sophisticated alarm systems and big dogs have been only minor deterrents. Of course this kind of thing happens to poor people far more frequently but poor people have no power and thus are not newsworthy it seems.

To my knowledge not one thug has been shot by a homeowner in Paradise Valley. The only people hurt and/or sometimes killed are the homeowners, not the bad guys. I don't know why.

Point is about the only thing that will protect someone from or during a home invasion is someone with a gun. That's just not going to be a cop. Police are rarely the first responder. The victim is the first responder.
 
Thak God for violent video games.
 
DDD said:
Your emotional appeal to influence with fear on people just to be armed and ready to shoot influences one to think that invaders would come even in differing circumstances. What if the invaders, like the psychopathic, ill wishing, sick brains that they are, noticed that adolescents only live in the house and tried to invade thinking it is "easy" pick?

This is a single case that should not be generalized to everyone. The odds of dying from a heart attack are higher. What if it was a wide family with many male adults living there? Should all of them be armed with weapons bellow their pillows, holding their fingers in the trigger, so as to be alarmed at the smallest of of suspicion?

All I here here is an emotional appeal "They're gonna getchya when all alone and unprepared at night! They are gonna harm you powerless if you are without a gun! They are gonna rape, kill, burn your house over and over again while you watch!!" Jeesh, take it easy will you?
Click to expand...

Your emotional appeal to influence with fear on people just not to be armed that invaders would never come even in differing circumstances. What if the invaders, like the psychopathic, ill wishing, sick brains that they are, noticed that adolescents only live in the house and tried to invade thinking there was no possibility of being shot?

This is a single case that should not be generalized to everyone. The odds of dying from a heart attack are higher.

All I here here is an emotional appeal "All those gun owners are gonna getchya or your children when at school and unprepared! They are gonna harm you powerless if you are with a gun! The guns are gonna rape, mass murder, burn your house over and over again while you watch!!" Jeesh, take it easy will you?
 
BretJ said:
Your emotional appeal to influence with fear on people just not to be armed that invaders would never come even in differing circumstances. What if the invaders, like the psychopathic, ill wishing, sick brains that they are, noticed that adolescents only live in the house and tried to invade thinking there was no possibility of being shot?

This is a single case that should not be generalized to everyone. The odds of dying from a heart attack are higher.

All I here here is an emotional appeal "All those gun owners are gonna getchya or your children when at school and unprepared! They are gonna harm you powerless if you are with a gun! The guns are gonna rape, mass murder, burn your house over and over again while you watch!!" Jeesh, take it easy will you?
Click to expand...

What do you want to bet DDD wears a seatbelt?
 
Seems like the neighbors homes are pretty close, have to wonder which ammo was used.
 
Well every couple of years an AR can hit a man three times but not kill him and get herald as a home defense weapon. :roll:

Now here in Oklahoma beginning of 2012 an 18 year old widowed mother shot and killed her intruder with a single shot from her 12 gauge.

Three and the bad guy lives, one and done....

hmmmmm
 
DDD said:
Your emotional appeal to influence with fear on people just to be armed and ready to shoot influences one to think that invaders would come even in differing circumstances. What if the invaders, like the psychopathic, ill wishing, sick brains that they are, noticed that adolescents only live in the house and tried to invade thinking it is "easy" pick?

This is a single case that should not be generalized to everyone. The odds of dying from a heart attack are higher. What if it was a wide family with many male adults living there? Should all of them be armed with weapons bellow their pillows, holding their fingers in the trigger, so as to be alarmed at the smallest of of suspicion?

All I here here is an emotional appeal "They're gonna getchya when all alone and unprepared at night! They are gonna harm you powerless if you are without a gun! They are gonna rape, kill, burn your house over and over again while you watch!!" Jeesh, take it easy will you?
Click to expand...



This is not a single case whatsoever. It is on the news, in the newspapers too, every day. Since 724,000 people die of heart attacks every year, that is not a good example to use, particularly since it tends more to be in the old age natural causes category.

What your message says is that you really didn't care what otherwise would have happened to that kid.

Once again, I wish to point out that NO anti-gun person on any thread has yet to answer this:

Millions and millions of women in the USA are raped. Some of those additionally horrifically permanent injuried, disabled, scarred and quite a few murdered. I have yet to read of any woman being sexually assaulted when she had a gun. Of the millions and millions of women raped, can you point to even ONE example of that happening when she was armed?

Would it be accurate to say that you don't really care so won't respond?

The Tampa news a few days ago ran the most dispicable editorial I've read in a long time - maybe you agree with it. It was very long. A woman explained that she had been raped, been robbed plus had been violently mugged 3 times. In 2004 she bought a gun. Fell in love with it. Practiced often. And she was not harmed by anyone.

But men started telling her that her having a gun meant she was a coward, was afraid of men, and that she should not have guns because that is not the way a woman should act. This apparently after she became a big newspaper editorialist including for the NY Times. So, in her editorial many newspapers ran, she explained that being raped, assaulted and mugged is just part of being a woman and if a woman arms herself in self defense then she is just a coward, is afraid of men, and isn't acting womanly.

As I explained, a person should take the time to make their house secure. Few homes are because of saving a few dollars on cheap locks and doors. And yes, a person should arm themselves in self defense - or accept the risks by recklessly not doing so and then not burdening others with your woes if you apathy about your own safety and others in your house doesn't go well. If you don't care about the safety of you and your loved ones before something bad happens to prevent it from happening, why should anyone care after it does?

And, finally, raping and burning people alive in their own homes as they also burn the resident to destroy evidence, dna etc also no longer is all that rare. Do you read and watch the news?
 
Moot said:
This story is all well and good but it happened over two years ago.

Investigators: 15-year-old son of deputy shoots burglary suspect | khou.com Houston

Recycling old stories to make them appear recent seems to be a fairly new tact by Breitbart.
Click to expand...


So what if it is 2 years old. Maybe if mainstream media covered it...

The Columbine shooting was 15 years ago. PLEASE link to your messages complaining of dragging up old news to try to make a point by the repeated mentioning of Columbine. I am assuming you are impartial in your criticism of old news so of course you have been complaining of people bringing up past mass kills. Link please.
 
joko104 said:
So what if it is 2 years old. Maybe if mainstream media covered it...

The Columbine shooting was 15 years ago. PLEASE link to your messages complaining of dragging up old news to try to make a point by the repeated mentioning of Columbine. I am assuming you are impartial in your criticism of old news so of course you have been complaining of people bringing up past mass kills. Link please.
Click to expand...

Sandy hook wasn't 15 years ago, nor 2 years ago... then again no one presents Columbine like it just happened. ;)
 
joko104 said:
So what if it is 2 years old. Maybe if mainstream media covered it...
Click to expand...
The media did cover it, two years ago. Thats how I was able to remember that I'd seen the coverage before.


The Columbine shooting was 15 years ago. PLEASE link to your messages complaining of dragging up old news to try to make a point by the repeated mentioning of Columbine. I am assuming you are impartial in your criticism of old news so of course you have been complaining of people bringing up past mass kills. Link please.
Click to expand...
I think you are comparing little green apples to big blood red oranges.

Look, I'm glad that kid did what he did and he is a hero for saving himself and his sister. I wouldn't take that away from him. But I question Brietbarts motives for recycling an old story and making it appear like it happened yesterday. Imo, that is deceitful and manipulative.
 
Lutherf said:
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.
Click to expand...



Very well said Luther... pity it will likely fall on deaf ears to those who most need to hear it.
 
joko104 said:
This is not a single case whatsoever. It is on the news, in the newspapers too, every day. Since 724,000 people die of heart attacks every year, that is not a good example to use, particularly since it tends more to be in the old age natural causes category.

What your message says is that you really didn't care what otherwise would have happened to that kid.

Once again, I wish to point out that NO anti-gun person on any thread has yet to answer this:

Millions and millions of women in the USA are raped. Some of those additionally horrifically permanent injuried, disabled, scarred and quite a few murdered. I have yet to read of any woman being sexually assaulted when she had a gun. Of the millions and millions of women raped, can you point to even ONE example of that happening when she was armed?

Would it be accurate to say that you don't really care so won't respond?

The Tampa news a few days ago ran the most dispicable editorial I've read in a long time - maybe you agree with it. It was very long. A woman explained that she had been raped, been robbed plus had been violently mugged 3 times. In 2004 she bought a gun. Fell in love with it. Practiced often. And she was not harmed by anyone.

But men started telling her that her having a gun meant she was a coward, was afraid of men, and that she should not have guns because that is not the way a woman should act. This apparently after she became a big newspaper editorialist including for the NY Times. So, in her editorial many newspapers ran, she explained that being raped, assaulted and mugged is just part of being a woman and if a woman arms herself in self defense then she is just a coward, is afraid of men, and isn't acting womanly.

As I explained, a person should take the time to make their house secure. Few homes are because of saving a few dollars on cheap locks and doors. And yes, a person should arm themselves in self defense - or accept the risks by recklessly not doing so and then not burdening others with your woes if you apathy about your own safety and others in your house doesn't go well. If you don't care about the safety of you and your loved ones before something bad happens to prevent it from happening, why should anyone care after it does?

And, finally, raping and burning people alive in their own homes as they also burn the resident to destroy evidence, dna etc also no longer is all that rare. Do you read and watch the news?
Click to expand...

The problem is that I think you watch the news and are scared all too more often. I went through a bloody Balkan war where unarmed old people, women, children, were in deed being killed, raped, burned, and their possessions were taken away and burned by Serbian forces. This was not a rare happening like this one but it was a daily routine for 77 days.

But even I do not go crying in hysteria and panic as much as you do. When you cry out like that in fear you make it sound like there is such a Balkan war going on in USA. These two thugs choose to attack what they may perceive a "weak" house with only two adolescents living there. It is not like families with adults in them are being systematically targeted from thugs who now have advanced to using home invasions, is it?

You are overgeneralizing from a single case and call me apathetic and that I do not care about these adolescents. That is a groundless presumption. I told you to calm down from panicking like in a manner someone close to you would do by slapping you back into your senses (the technique though vulgar works). Not that I do not care about these adolescents.

So my comments are not about the gun issue that it seems never to get old in USA. It is about you trying to influence everyone here to panic and get them to have guns with your emotional appeals to fear. They should not work to people who use reason for they should be able to see various flaws of overgeneralisation based on single case used as a flawed analogy.

That this case may somehow be applied to all other people in USA requires statistical data.

Whether other people in USA have only and only one solution from threat (apart from buying guns) if they want to be saved from a certain harm - and that of course is to buy guns, is also flawed for one can think of many alternatives to protect oneself.
 
Lachean said:
The AR-15 is not a machine gun, its not capable of fully-automatic fire. Its a Semi-Automatic sporting rifle.
Click to expand...

Back during the time that the fraudulent 1994 “assault weapon”*ban was being worked through Congress, there was a very intense effort made on the part of the news media and the entertainment industry to spread the impression that “assault weapon” and “semi-automatic” referred to guns that fired like machine guns; to make the benighted masses think that it was machine guns and similar weapons that were being targeted by the proposed ban.

There are still too many people stupid enough to believe this, nearly twenty years later.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
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.
Click to expand...

What if he missed with that one and onyl shot and the 2 criminals kept coming?
 
buck said:
What if he missed with that one and onyl shot and the 2 criminals kept coming?
Click to expand...

Where did the bullets that missed the target go?
 
phoenyx said:
I preferred Obama to Romney, but I don't agree with is notion that destroying the 2nd Amendment would be a good idea.
Click to expand...

Canada has some very strict gun regulations. How is that working out for you guys?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom