Missouri mom uses gun to stop attempted rape of daughter

[virginia mountainman]

But according to "Brady" and the "VPC" this never happens..

The teen was in bed around 5:30 a.m. Sunday when Kizer came into her room with a knife and climbed on top of her.

When he set the knife down on the bed, the teen grabbed it and screamed.

The girl's mother came into the room with a gun, pointed it at the suspect and ordered him out of the house. Police later arrested him.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/laworder/story/86C2C70D9FF325658625773600531694?OpenDocument

It is amazing that some people, WANT to take that mother's gun away...

[niceypoo]

1. Who are these mystery people that want to take the mothers gun?

Lemme guess: The 'gun grabbers?'

GOP talking point number 2375

[virginia mountainman]

2. I could name SEVERAL people in this fine forum who do..

It is not a talking point, it is fact.

[meeshrox]

5. At the risk of opening pandora's box...

I'm sure that most of the people opposed to guns on this forum and around DU are mostly concerned with automatics, like me. Please don't lump, it's not so flattering to anyone's intellect.

I'm also sure that most people on DU and in this forum are glad that mother was able to save her daughter from an even worse trauma than she's already experienced. I'm actually surprised she didn't shoot him. She would have been perfectly in her right. I would have been so outraged, I don't think I could have been so restrained.

[RamboLiberal]

6. How do you define "automatics"? Just curious

And I don't think the comment was aimed at you. I'm surprised SharesUnited hasn't dropped in yet to argue against all guns in civilian hands.

[meeshrox]

8. You know, my husband has busted me before on that...

I should have known better. Automatics are banned, I know that now. Jeez, that's embarrassing to post on the guns forum! (face palm)

I have more of an issue with the higher-powered hunting rifles, etc. It's more of a personal opinion, though. I think it's unfair to an animal, although a skilled hunter can kill with one direct shot. It just seems like the hunting weapons are getting more powerful just for the sake of that, like how drivers in golf are getting redesigned all the time. It doesn't add anything to the skill of the shot. Then again, they are other people's toys and are enjoyed. Just because I don't use them doesn't mean that other people shouldn't.

I don't think the comment was aimed specifically at me, either. I've never posted in this forum before. I don't like broad-brush generalizations, that's all.

[PavePusher]

11. Umm, I guess I'm still confused here.

What do you mean by "higher-powered hunting rifles"?

Do you want hunters to use less "powerful" weapons that are less likely to kill cleanly with one shot? Hunting weapons have not gotten particularly more powerful since the days of hunting elephant with rifles started, but they have become more accurate, and ammo has become more efficient. Though I don't see those as anything to be wary of.

Please elaborate...?

[meeshrox]

30. Surely...

Higher powered rifles would be, to me, the ones with more powder. The larger charge makes the bullet go farther and faster. Larger caliber, too, could be worrisome if it were make larger just for the hell of it, without a real use for hunting or whatever else. When criminals get hold of these larger guns, it's worrisome that they are on the street. OK, so maybe that's a lame reason because it would mean that others couldn't have their fun with bigger and bigger weapons. That's just my take for now. I'm open to persuasion.

[Glassunion]

32. One thought...

Your average street criminal is not going to have a higher powered rifle. They are not very concealable nor are they effective for their trade.

Not to mention even at street prices these more modern, well manufactured firearms are far too expensive.

As far as power goes, I am an avid precision shooter, and enjoy the challenge of longer distance shooting. I only hunt once a year, I do however target shoot about 30 times a year with what you may consider a high powered rifle.

As far as how powerful they are I can safely say that your firearm manufacturer is not making bigger and more powerful firearms just for the sake of doing it. Generally they manufacture firearms with the military in mind, then the civilian population will find what the firearm is more capable of. One of my favorite rifles to shoot with was used in the Vietnam era as a sniper rifle.

[meeshrox]

34. OK, I see firing those larger guns for recreation, into a target. I have no problems with that!

I'm not against weapons, perhaps one day I might come to enjoy the larger weapons at a target range. I simply have no idea because I've never fired a real gun before. I played around with a practice pistol; a friend was kind enough to show me firearm safety and we did some target practice with plastic bb's. I will say that was fun!

[Glassunion]

60. I'm glad you enjoyed practice.

Overall, if you really think about it, high powered rifles really are a non issue as far as crime goes. The media would have you think otherwise.

[meeshrox]

61. Sure, I can see that...

the media are great at misdirection. Still, I wonder how things would be different if it weren't so easy to purchase such weapons near the Mexican border. It's easy enough apparently to smuggle and put them into the hands of drug gangs. But, I think the problem is better solved with the repeal of NAFTA (and other diplomatic/economic policies such as legalization of drugs) and not prohibition of guns.

[oneshooter]

35. One of my favorite rifles is capable of killing a 1200lb American Bison (Buffalo)

at 200-800 yards. It was developed in 1856, and improved in 1870.

Is this one of your feared "Higher Powered rifles"?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[meeshrox]

36. I would suppose that fits the description, but I'm not really impressed by that.

I'm not against these excessive weapons. When those were used regularly, it was necessary to be able to eat. Unless, of course, people could learn to bow hunt/spear a bison?

Look, I'm not here to propose that these weapons be taken away, or "grabbed". I am expressing that some of the larger "higher-powered rifles" and such are unnecessary. Although, I did not previously think about shooting at a range for fun. I'm sure I would enjoy that at least a little. :)

I know plenty of people that game hunt. It's not a game to me, and killing an animal if you're not going to eat it is brutal and I don't think brutality is something to admire. Nor is bragging about a weapon that can kill a 1200-pound bison, in my opinion. Then again, that's my opinion and I'm expressing it on the guns forum. Take from that what you would like.

[oneshooter]

37. But the technology is over 130 years old.

This rifle used Black Powder and cast lead bullets.

They were used to hunt Bison. For the hides. They were a needed part of the Industrial Revolution.

As a side "benefit" it also helped to control the "Red Menace" of the Tribes that needed the Buffalo to survive.

This rifle was designed and built to kill large game. It used the finest technology of the day, just like the "high powered" rifles of today.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[GreenStormCloud]

39. Really? The two most popular cartridges in America are 30-06 and .30-30.

The .30-30 was designed in 1893, and is 117 years old. The 30-06 was designed in 1906, and is 104 years old. The .50BMG entered service in 1921, and is 89 years old. There are other, newer cartridges, but their power is about the same or less.

Criminals rarely use long guns for their crimes as they are hard to carry and conceal.

[rrneck]

16. I think perhaps that the

redesigned guns to which you refer are the result of cosmetic changes rather than any increase in power. As far as I know, the most common big game hunting round in use is still the 30.06, designed in 1906.

Rifle calibers exist in a range of ergonomic utility bounded by the size of the weapon designed to fire them, the amount of recoil they produce and the price of the weapon. A .50 caliber rifle is very powerful, but it's also really big, heavy, and very expensive. Generally, heavy caliber rifles also kick like hell and the ammunition is also very expensive.

But all in all, rifles come in the same range of calibers they always have - .20, .30, .40, and .50 caliber. The most common hunting rifles are usually in the high twenty or low thirty caliber range.

I think a more powerful rifle gives a hunter a greater operational envelope for a clean kill. It's possible to bring down a deer with a .22 I guess, but it will be much more likely to just wound the animal and make it more difficult if not impossible to track it down and dispatch it. Better to use a "thirty something" bullet and if it doesn't put him down right there, it will be easier to track him down and dispatch him if he's not already dead by the time you find him.

That's about as far as my understanding of the subject goes. Others on this board could expound in greater detail.

[TPaine7]

22. I like your honesty.

You are a rare jewel among anti-gun posters on this site:

I should have known better. Automatics are banned, I know that now. Jeez, that's embarrassing to post on the guns forum! (face palm)

What class! No change of subject. No fancy footwork. No clouding of the issue. No disappearance without a trace. You made a mistake and acknowledged it frankly. I have to respect that, no matter how strongly I may disagree with you on any given point. I don't believe I've seen honesty quite that impressive from someone on the pro control side in here before.

(For future reference, automatics are not literally banned--they are highly regulated and super expensive.)

I have more of an issue with the higher-powered hunting rifles, etc. It's more of a personal opinion, though. I think it's unfair to an animal, although a skilled hunter can kill with one direct shot. It just seems like the hunting weapons are getting more powerful just for the sake of that, like how drivers in golf are getting redesigned all the time. It doesn't add anything to the skill of the shot. Then again, they are other people's toys and are enjoyed. Just because I don't use them doesn't mean that other people shouldn't.

I am fully sympathetic to your sentiments. I too don't want things to be too easy for the hunter. But If the hunter hits an animal, I want that animal to die quickly so as to minimize suffering. Personally, I find the idea of hunting revolting but I realize that it is necessary. We have eliminated or sharply diminished other predators and in the absence of sufficient predation, deer and other animals will reproduce to the point of starvation. Hunting is more humane by far.

I am no expert on guns, but I don't think modern hunting rifles are much better than rifles from decades ago in range or accuracy. (If I am wrong, someone please correct me.)

Just because I don't use them doesn't mean that other people shouldn't.

Wow! A breath of fresh air.

I don't think the comment was aimed specifically at me, either. I've never posted in this forum before. I don't like broad-brush generalizations, that's all.

I don't see the comment--"I could name SEVERAL people in this fine forum who do {want to take that mother's gun}"--as a broad-brush generalization in any sense of that term. The comment references individuals, not any group. I think your reading of it was influenced by your personal beliefs and feelings on the subject. Taken as written, it is not a generalization at all.

I've never posted in this forum before.

A pity. We could use more sensible people with your beliefs on this forum. I know it's rough in here, bare knuckles and sharp elbows are in no shortage. But I try to maintain a "bite only when bitten" policy. And when I see integrity like yours, I can't help but be impressed. For the sake of the forum, I hope this isn't the last time we hear from you.

[meeshrox]

31. Thanks for the recognition, I'm flattered.

I guess that doesn't say much about some of the bitter language on this forum. I can understand that emotions run high. I'll be sure to come back and post when I feel that I can contribute. I don't know much about guns or ammunition, although a friend has taught me basic gun safety and let me shoot a practice pistol. It had plastic bb's in it, quite fun. I'm sure I'll be out at a gun range soon enough to try out the real thing.

[GreenStormCloud]

40. Those are called "airsoft guns". They are great training aids.

Airsoft guns enable people to engage in realistic scenarios with complete safety, as long as you wear the protective gear. I gave one to my wife and we practiced the most likely scenario, with variations, that she would face, until she could react without having to think out each step. (How you train is how you fight.) When the real event happened a few weeks later, she was able to use her real gun to save her life from an attacker. She knew exactly what to do as she had practiced it many times with me. She didn't even have to shoot the bad guy - he ran away.

[TPaine7]

41. You don't have to be knowledgeable on guns to contribute to this forum.

I'm far from a gun expert, and yet I'd like to think I contribute. I talk about other facets of the issue of private ownership and self-defense use. For instance, in this recent OP http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=318728&mesg_id=318728 I gave my opinion on the morality of taking chances with the lives of the innocent in order to spare the life of a deadly aggressor. No (or at least very little) gun expertise required.

But I see above that you are already contributing without technical gun expertise.

What starts hostilities, quite often, is people coming in here wrapped up in self-righteousness and haughtily condemning gun rights supporters on the basis of "facts" so false that we all see through them instantly. The "facts" they spew have been refuted soundly, dozens of times. The righteous ones get corrected on their technical, historical, legal or logical errors and refuse to admit their mistakes. They spin, lash out, call names, deflect, seek to cloud the issue or leave.

That's what we're used to around here.

[jazzhound]

52. Permit me to thank you for your honesty as well.

I have to admit to getting testy more frequently than I'd like, but the excruciating dishonesty gets old. I admire those who are able to stay consistently "Obama poised".

For an example of the dishonesty I refer to, see post #1 and all those that follow from that member.

[meeshrox]

53. I don't know if I could go that far (Obama poised)

on other forums on which I frequently post, there are times then I've gotten short and testy with posters. It can be difficult when you're passionate about something. Thanks!

[SteveM]

67. I also am glad you posted!

You may be interested in knowing that a number of the common deer "high powered" rounds have been down-loaded; that is, reduced in power for softer recoil, slower speeds and shorter practical range. These are appealing to smaller (and older) hunters, and have plenty power to effectively kill a deer. And as you might expect, these .270 "lites," like denatured beer, cost more!

[AtheistCrusader]

25. The idea of a 'higher powered' hunting rifle is

to kill a larger animal, like a deer or an elk, or even bigger game like moose or bear, you need a weapon that is many times over more powerful than you would need to kill a human. A deer isn't much heavier than a human, but the orientation of it's body, and protective bones mean, you want something in .30 cal, and the .223 caliber rifles like the AR-15 that our military uses on people (via the military version of the AR, the M-16, or the similar M4) are too small and underpowered to reliably kill a deer. Therefore, in most states, the AR-15 is illegal for hunting deer. One shot may kill, but it probably won't die right away, and may run miles, and suffer greatly before bleeding out.

(.24 caliber is usually the legal minimum for hunting deer. Elk are 1/3 to 2x as heavy)

[SteveM]

66. The "power" of hunting rifles has been rather constant...

over the last 50 years. Certainly, some people who are into "magnum" rifles like some others are into "muscle cars" will buy too much gun, but the most common calibers for deer and other big game have been around most of the 20th century, and are plenty enough to do the job. Examples: .30-'06 has been around since 1906, the .270 since 1925, the hoary .30-30 since 1894, etc. Newer bullets have been developed, but most of these are aimed at reducing the caliber and the recoil (the popular .243 is often referred to as a "woman's caliber" because of its rather mild recoil, even though many men use this round).

The main reason for using "high powered" rounds is so that an animal (a deer) will go down on the spot, or only run for a few dozen yards before falling. This makes recovery of the animal more likely, and the need for a second shot less likely. I'm not sure how using (presumably) a less powerful rifle would be fairer to an animal.

BTW, full-auto guns are not illegal, just more highly regulated and then by the federal government. I don't think more than two hundred thousand Americans legally own full-auto weapons. Those in the know claim a full-auto weapon starts at $10,000 and goes up fast from that amount.

[Katya Mullethov]

7. Automatics arent the only troubling thing

There is a French pistol designed to launch as many as 9 ,deadly, .454" missiles into it's victims in a most rapid fashion... and when those 9 have all found their mark it has yet one last messenger of death left in a central shotgun barrel . And as if that weren't enough , through some maniacal loophole in federal firearms laws these can be purchased through the mail , by felons , and "them" . And this really freaks me out .

I hear there is another company that has developed a gun making the claim "It's the gun you load on Sunday and shoot all week ". They even have the audacity to advertise it as such , and in a very in your face and boastful manner .

[Callisto32]

54. Ah the Le Mat and Henry.

Still viable weapons, if you can get .44 Henry ammo.

[oneshooter]

55. The new repop Henrys are in 44-40, still available.

[Callisto32]

56. Yeah, I was talking about the originals though.

I haven't ever seen .44 Henry rimfire ammo that I would consider shooting. I'm not saying it isn't out there though. Somebody probably still makes the stuff.

[oneshooter]

57. Old Western Scrounger has, or had, 10,000 rounds made in Italy.

Don't know how much is left. Rounds were loaded with smokeless powder and cast lead bullets.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[east texas lib]

64. Well I swan, that's terrible!

I'm afeared yem caint' dew much 'bout them thar fancy French popguns, hombre. 'Bout all yew kin dew is try to figger out whoins "them" is. An' everbody that ain' "them" mus be "us", I reckon.

[niceypoo]

9. GOP talking points are facts?

Really?

I will never understand why certain Democratic gun owners feel a need to latch onto irrational GOP talking points as if that were the only rational course of action.

[PavePusher]

12. You haven't been paying attention, have you?

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnobody.html

[niceypoo]

13. Yes, I have

My republican brother spews the same, lame, RW 'gun grabber' talking points

[AtheistCrusader]

26. We could list regular posters for you by name

though one rises above all the others, however that would be against DU posting rules, as a 'callout'.

I assure you, read enough threads, and you will find people who espouse exactly that talking point. And empty, end-runs around it, such as cessation of all firearms sales and ammunition manufacture.

[niceypoo]

27. You can find isolated individuals who believe just about anything you can dream up

A few individuals on a message board are not a movement.

[TPaine7]

28. "A few individuals on a message board are not a movement."

Here is the OP's offensive statement, the one that started this whole discussion:

It is amazing that some people, WANT to take that mother's gun away...

That's what you objected to. It says nothing about a movement. It says nothing about gun control equaling a ban. In fact, I don't see what offends you about it. Could you go into more detail about what in the original OP's statement offends you?

It appears that you took something from the OP--a GOP talking point of some sort--that I can't find there.

[niceypoo]

33. What offends me are Democrats who spew rightwing talking points

...but that is probably obvious by now.

[TPaine7]

38. Yes, but you brought the spewing of right wing points up in a reply to the OP.

There is no right wing point in the OP.

You are taking out the offense you feel on the wrong statement. It is a fact that people on this board want to take away that mother's guns; it is not an NRA talking point.

[PavePusher]

29. Please point out the factual inaccuracies there...

and support your refutations with evidence.

Thanks!

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jazzhound]

3. Come back when you've done some remedial research into the subject of

gun "control". Every major pro-"control" advocacy group initially advocated for a ban on firearms, and only backed away from openly expressing this position when it became strategically ineffective.

And if you think that there aren't any politicians who harbor prohibitionist intentions, kindly supply me some of that high-grade narcotic you are ingesting.

[niceypoo]

10. Words are cheap

Gun control = ban

GOP talking points abound

[jazzhound]

15. I never suggested that gun "control" = ban. Weak strawman.

I was responding to your uneducated assertion that there aren't people who want to "grab guns".

[DonP]

18. Willful ignorance of reality is not a progressive value - educate yourself.

GOP talking points, straight from the Democrat Platform for 2008 and whitehouse.gov?

Quick somebody inform the party leaders that they are GOP shills.

Then you can explain why the AG and SoS both have called for a ban on the most popular target rifles being sold today.

So much fail in so few posts.

[one-eyed fat man]

19. Let's try this S-L-O-W-L-Y

The whole anti-gun movement has been based on shifting goalposts and changing rules. Time and time again they redefine what they claim are "reasonable" or "common sense" prohibitions while in all cases every one of the organizations' charters calls for the complete elimination of civilian gun ownership.

"We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily - given the political realities - going to be very modest. Of course, it's true that politicians will then go home and say, `This is a great law. The problem is solved.' And it's also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time. So then we'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal - total control of handguns in the United States - is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get all handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition - except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors - totally illegal." Pete Shields, Handgun Control Incorporated, 1976-The New Yorker

They even outlined a few of the intentional deceptions they planned on using to achieve their eventual goal.

"Handguns should be outlawed. Our organization will probably take this stand in time but we are not anxious to rouse the opposition before we get the other legislation passed." - Elliot Corbett, National Council For A Responsible Firearms Policy, 1969, Washington Evening Star.

"The semi-automatic weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase that chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." — Josh Sugarman, 1988, Violence Policy Center.

Their apologists piously bleat about gun crime, yet their leaders boldly proclaim:

"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns." - Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1994

"Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic — purely symbolic — move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation." - Charles Krauthammer, 1996, Washington Post

Leaders of the gun control movement have unashamedly and publicly proclaimed how they intend to reach their goals. They have proclaimed nothing short of total ban on civilian ownership of firearms will satisfy them, but they are willing to do it incrementally and using intentional deceits to mislead the uninformed. They have shown themselves to be complete, total and absolute liars, except for ONE TRUTH:"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." - U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

So I ask, "Were they lying then or are they lying now?" Why is taking them AT THEIR WORD, "talking points" or somehow delusional?

Which of your positions is the less tenable, blissfully ignoring what gun control proponents have said for decades or denying they meant it?

[SteveM]

68. Gun controller/prohibitionists have been using GOP talking points for years.

Try the Brady Center. Founded and run by Republicans from the get-go. Don't forget the controller/banners William Bennett and Charles Krauthammer.

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. I guess that would be me.

I argue for rational gun control, strict registration of all guns, and severe penalties for failure to safeguard guns from falling into the hands of criminals, therefore I am a gun grabber out to take everyone's toys away.

[spin]

17. Since registration all too often leads to confiscation ...

if you support "strict" gun registration than you might well be a person who wishes to confiscate firearms.

Canada has had a gun registration system for many years. It has been described as an expensive failure and may be repealed soon.

When you say you are for "rational gun control" you have to define what you mean by rational. To some people, it means that only the police and the military should be allowed to possess firearms and only while on duty.

While I agree that we need to enforce severe penalties for activities such as the straw purchase of firearms or gun smuggling, I wonder how far you are willing to go when you propose penalties for a failure to safeguard guns from criminals.

Even a very expensive gun safe is not theft proof.

Liberty Safe is the standard by which all other gun safes are measured. Every Liberty gun safe is built using exceptional security and superior fire ratings. Plus, our gun safes do more than just protect guns. With fire ratings as high as 2.5 hours, we protect and secure what's important to you. While no gun safe, fire safe or home safe is fire or theft proof, a Liberty gun safe is designed to last longer than other brands. We even certify them through independent professional safecrackers at Underwriter's Laboratory. Nearly all of our safes are UL Listed for security, including the top rated Presidential and National Security home, fire and gun safes - hand-crafted vaults that provide unsurpassed protection from theft and fire. Whether it's for your valuable collectibles, heirlooms, and personal assets, Liberty has the safe for you. emphasis added
http://www.libertysafe.com/

So from your post, I really can't say if you favor confiscation or actually have an interest in improving existing gun laws while preserving RKBA.

If you do favor confiscation, just come out and say it. It's no big deal, you have every right to your opinion. You will find many posters in this forum who will disagree with you, but if your opinion has merit - it should stand up to criticism.

[benEzra]

21. Depends. Do you want to ban "assault weapons" and semiauto handguns? (n/t)

[Euromutt]

48. No, but it does make you a question-begger

I argue for rational gun control <...>

Everybody favors some measure of gun control. Whether the specific measures that you advocate are "rational" is, however, entirely open to discussion. I am not willing to accept a priori that they are reasonable, and certainly not the concomitant implication that anyone who opposes such measures is ipso facto being unreasonable.

It's the same reason I dislike phrases like "reasonable, common-sense gun control"; they're an attempt to frame the debate from the outset rather than discuss the proposed measures on their merits, and to my mind, that's an indication that whoever's advocating them doesn't honestly believe those merits are sufficient.

[TPaine7]

49. Very. Well. Put. n/t

[jazzhound]

20. Getting back to your GOP talking point "point", you flaunt your lack of

willingness to honestly investigate/discuss the gun "control"/gun rights issue with this comment. To assert that Democratic gun-rights supporters argue their case in the same manner in which RW gun rights supporter argue theirs is just plain assinine. Here's an example of (mostly) RW political discourse from the XD (gun) talk forums:

http://www.xdtalk.com/forums/political-view/

And of course you're unaware that the only high profile member of the gun control debate to be awarded the highest honor (The Michael Hindelang Award) by the Americal Society of Criminology on the subject of gun "control" is Dr. Gary Kleck ---- a lifelong liberal Democrat. For those with the integrity and courage to confront their biases, his book with Don Kates is a great starting point:

http://www.amazon.com/Armed-New-Perspectives-Gun-Control/dp/1573928836/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275682626&sr=1-1

EDIT: The chapter "Absolutist Politics in a Moderate Package" is highly relevant to this discussion.

Those who spout uneducated rubbish while refusing to listen to opposing views from highly credentialed persons who share their political beliefs are cowardly fools. Wish there was a "nicer" way of saying it, "niceypoo", but there really isn't. By the way, do you think that stereotyping people on the basis of race, gender, and sexual preference is "nice" too?

[X_Digger]

24. "Talking point" meme usage #3,781

As you've hopefully seen in the other replies, there's no shortage of (mostly) democratic politicians who have or continue to advocate for bans (handguns, "assault weapons", etc.)

[proteus_lives]

23. These stories make the antis grind their teeth in anger.

Good for the mother.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jgraz]

44. Aaaand... my point is proven.

It took you 17 minutes. You're slipping, T.

[TPaine7]

45. I'll try to up my game.

I'll confess all, for the record. I have to keep my cred, J.

I take pleasure in

a) the prevention of murder
b) the prevention of rape
c) the prevention of kidnapping
d) the prevention of assault
e) the prevention of robbery

I take pleasure in the exceedingly rare cases when the police prevent these crimes. (That's the approved, socially acceptable pleasure which I'm sure a good man such as yourself shares).

But there's more. I know it's sick. I know it's twisted. I know I need help. But I can't help it. I take pleasure in the prevention of those crimes by an intended victim or a loved one. I actually prefer a mother stopping a thug from raping her daughter to him successfully completing his crime.

*hangs head and slinks away*

[proteus_lives]

50. Well done.

I missed the deleted posts but this one is worthy of :applause:!

[jazzhound]

51. What proteus said. n/t

[Callisto32]

58. Sick? Twisted? No ways, my friend.

The desire to see decent people served upon a platter to the basest and most vile among use are the sick, twisted ones.

Walk Tall! Take the moral high-ground you rightfully inhabit. Those that would turn people into victims should be hanging their heads and slinking away.

[friendly_iconoclast]

59. This, x10 nt

[Hoopla Phil]

46. Good for mama. n/t

[Nailzberg]

47. Obviously guns are bad.

[saras]

62. You go rape someone ELSE's daughter, you cad!

Ordered him out of the house, to go do God knows what, until the police eventually tracked him down. Being a right-winger, she protected her own, and let her neighbors fend for themselves. To call 911 and keep the guy there until the police came would be too much trouble for other people's benefit, something only a liberal would waste time on. With a gun AND his knife, old-fashioned conservatives would have just gelded the guy...

While I would never will a rape on the daughter, the mother is a fucking idiot, and I don't think she's competent to have firearms, so yeah, I'd take her gun away, or make it call the cops when she picks it up.

[friendly_iconoclast]

63. She's an fucking idiot because she didn't hold him at gunpoint?

How very illiberal of you!

[jazzhound]

65. Exactly how naive, insensitive *and* assuming can you be?

How do you think you would have reacted in that extremely tense situation? You demand that the mother put herself in a tactically compromised situation by holding the gun with one hand while dialing the cops with the other?! Are you nuts?! We aren't even aware of the layout of the house!!

Did you even notice that the (attempted) rapist was someone that both women knew and that he was arrested shortly afterwards by virtue of that fact?

Then there's your assumption that the woman was a "right winger" because she chose the sensible and ultimately effective manner in repelling the assault!! Are you aware of the large number of Democrats who own firearms?

Trying to remember when I've seen so much FAIL in own post, and having a hard time.

[SteveM]

69. So the Titanic's lifeboat came without T.V. and cocktails, huh?

My goodness, she prevented a violent crime and in still-dangerous circumstances, forced the thug out of the house. But here you are, bitchin' that she didn't do all you think are necessary. She did the best she could, and that was plenty. Please seek perfection elsewhere.