The Gun Counter

NORTH BEND, Wash. -- A homeowner shot and killed a man who broke into the bedroom where the homeowner and his girlfriend were hiding.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

"Regardless of whether he was armed or not the homeowner did the right thing," said West. "This guy showed so much restraint. He could have shot him earlier, based on the situation at hand but he didn't. He waited and waited and waited and gave this guy the opportunity to leave before he finally said I have no other choice."

That's what the cop said.

Applause!

I'm glad that we are actually seeing stories like this. The era of the "duty to retreat" mind-set must be finally ending. Considering the usual media bias, there are probably many similar stories that don't come to light.

My heart goes out to the homeowner who pulled the trigger. He obviously wasn't relishing the idea of having to take someone's life, but the turdhead in question gave him little choice. For most people involved in such situations, it usually becomes a life-altering event, even though he's 110% in the right.

Since the homeowner and his girlfriend are victims of a violent crime and traumatic results, I hope the state's Victim Witness Assistance Program(s) get them some counseling. Going through something like this together will usually do one of two things, drive the couple closer together (now she has a man who's willing and demonstrated the ability to protect her), and I wouldn't be too surprised to learn they get married in the next several months - the other is that she had no idea she was with a man who could use such violence to protect himself (not that he was also protecting her too), and now she's with a man who killed another human being WHILE SHE WATCHED, so she's traumatized and leaves him.

I hope it's the first scenario, unless they were only playing and weren't really attracted to each other that much and had no plans on making it a long-term relationship (or one or the other was/is married to someone else).

Either way, I hope they can both take the stress of the shooting and the aftermath, and hopefully, the media won't make him out to be the bad guy or print LOTS of stories about what a good guy/kid he was.

NOTICE HOW THE MEDIA IS NOT RELEASING THE SUSPECT'S DESCRIPTION (and/or if he was armed, they say they don't know yet if he was armed - which is horseshiite)???? After all, we DON'T want to interfere with the Treyvon-Martin scenario being pushed so hard right now, do we?????

I doubt many women understand how much violence men are capable of, nor how much stronger men are than women - the ones which do, I suspect, are either police/soldiers, or have lived very unfortunate lives.

Aglifter wrote:I doubt many women understand how much violence men are capable of, nor how much stronger men are than women - the ones which do, I suspect, are either police/soldiers, or have lived very unfortunate lives.

Exactly. I have always said that women would be more at risk if private ownership of guns was actually banned.

Termite wrote:

Aglifter wrote:I doubt many women understand how much violence men are capable of, nor how much stronger men are than women - the ones which do, I suspect, are either police/soldiers, or have lived very unfortunate lives.

Exactly. I have always said that women would be more at risk if private ownership of guns was actually banned.

But then MANY of the population would become instant criminals (like almost everyone on this forum).

Of course, that's also a DAMNED good reason to have a compound bow and/or crossbow, which have come a LONG ways since the days of old. Crossbows are now able to hit over 350 feet-per-second, and carry a decent amount of energy to the target!! Stick a broadhead on that bolt shaft, and going through a person shouldn't present too much of a challenge.

308Mike wrote:Of course, that's also a DAMNED good reason to have a compound bow and/or crossbow, which have come a LONG ways since the days of old. Crossbows are now able to hit over 350 feet-per-second, and carry a decent amount of energy to the target!! Stick a broadhead on that bolt shaft, and going through a person shouldn't present too much of a challenge.

The original armor piercing weapons.

308Mike wrote:

Termite wrote:

Aglifter wrote:I doubt many women understand how much violence men are capable of, nor how much stronger men are than women - the ones which do, I suspect, are either police/soldiers, or have lived very unfortunate lives.

Exactly. I have always said that women would be more at risk if private ownership of guns was actually banned.

But then MANY of the population would become instant criminals (like almost everyone on this forum).

Of course, that's also a DAMNED good reason to have a compound bow and/or crossbow, which have come a LONG ways since the days of old. Crossbows are now able to hit over 350 feet-per-second, and carry a decent amount of energy to the target!! Stick a broadhead on that bolt shaft, and going through a person shouldn't present too much of a challenge.

In the middle ages, there was some kind of movement to ban crossbows.

Tyrants are all the same.

Jered wrote:

308Mike wrote:

Termite wrote: Exactly. I have always said that women would be more at risk if private ownership of guns was actually banned.

But then MANY of the population would become instant criminals (like almost everyone on this forum).

Of course, that's also a DAMNED good reason to have a compound bow and/or crossbow, which have come a LONG ways since the days of old. Crossbows are now able to hit over 350 feet-per-second, and carry a decent amount of energy to the target!! Stick a broadhead on that bolt shaft, and going through a person shouldn't present too much of a challenge.

In the middle ages, there was some kind of movement to ban crossbows.

Tyrants are all the same.

If I remember correctly some pope or another found them unacceptable because it allowed the low-born to kill a nobleman with very little training so he decreed that they should not be used. I don't believe anyone cared what he thought.

Cobar wrote:

Jered wrote:

308Mike wrote: But then MANY of the population would become instant criminals (like almost everyone on this forum).

Of course, that's also a DAMNED good reason to have a compound bow and/or crossbow, which have come a LONG ways since the days of old. Crossbows are now able to hit over 350 feet-per-second, and carry a decent amount of energy to the target!! Stick a broadhead on that bolt shaft, and going through a person shouldn't present too much of a challenge.

In the middle ages, there was some kind of movement to ban crossbows.

Tyrants are all the same.

If I remember correctly some pope or another found them unacceptable because it allowed the low-born to kill a nobleman with very little training so he decreed that they should not be used. I don't believe anyone cared what he thought.

I seem to recall that they banned the use of them against Christians, however, they encouraged the use of them against the Saracens.