Trigger Happy Mom..??

Also shocked that 5 hits to the head region didn't jar his head enough to make him disfunctional.
Click to expand...

And how would you know? It looks to me like this goblin started out dysfunctional.
Click to expand...

He was definitely not functioning correctly: Normal people do not break into other people's houses and hunt for the occupants.

He escaped with his life, by the grace of God...... he might oughta reconsider his Life choices from here on in ....not many get that second chance.
 
It would appear MSN editors have changed the title - even their readership called them out on it.
Click to expand...

I would have had more respect for the spineless reporter/journal had they stuck by their preposterous/offensive original Title. Cowards :mad:.
 
Are five shots enough? Yes, unless they aren't, as in this case.
Click to expand...

And by extension, why would you need a hi-cap magazine? When just 10 rounds aren't enough. What if there were two criminals? What if she had pulled the trigger one more time? CLICK! Would he have come after her? My wife keeps 15 rounds of 9 mm loaded by her bedside, and I hope that will be enough if she ever needs it.
 
I would have had more respect for the spineless reporter/journal had they stuck by their preposterous/offensive original Title. Cowards
Click to expand...

Yup. I actually respected Josh Sugarman more than a lot of his ilk because he, at one time he came out said he wanted a ban on all hand guns. The others wanted 'reasonable' control' - like 10 pound trigger pulls, limited magazine capacity, key locks on hand guns, not fire if magazine was out etc. etc.
 
I would have had more respect for the spineless reporter/journal had they stuck by their preposterous/offensive original Title. Cowards
Click to expand...

LOL, when a correction is made and there is no longer a reason to complain about an inappropriate title, you call them cowards?
 
I would love to create an unbiased news organization. One that reports only the facts, with no political agenda. One that does not sensationalize irrelevant details. One that takes every opportunity to educate its viewers/readers/consumers. One that reports stories like this one, as well as the unfortunate tragedies.

Why do we not have this? This is America, the first thing we should have is a reliable news source.
 
LOL, when a correction is made and there is no longer a reason to complain about an inappropriate title, you call them cowards?
Click to expand...

Yup--Did the reporter suddenly experience an "epiphany" thereby now believing the brave mother was heroic and not "trigger happy?" Of course not--they came down on the reporter because of vociferous public outcry resulting in the change in wording, not because of any philosophical change in belief. I was raised whereby if you say something that you believe in you either 1) stick by it by "Manning-Up to subsequent criticism or 2) you retract statement only after issuing an apology/reasoning for the edit (in fact, it's unethical in journalism to revise prose absent an explanatory notation).
 
Originally Posted by CS86
Also shocked that 5 hits to the head region didn't jar his head enough to make him disfunctional.

And how would you know?
Click to expand...

I miss read the first time thinking he fleed right after being shot. I was thinking, Wow, 5 shots to the head and he was able to run!, but the article states:

, but he managed to flee after the family ran to a neighbor’s house.
Click to expand...

I guess he could of been out of it until the family left the house.
 
Good for her, she is a hero.

All of those rounds into head and neck at what must have been near point blank range didn't kill the guy is pretty crazy, sort of makes a point that .38 is a bit under powered.

She did the right thing when the first bullet and the second bullet dont stop the threat, and that is use the rest of the bullets.
 
Last edited:
Read the article again. He didn't delay running because he was physically unable. He did not know she had run dry, and begged her not to shoot him again. She told him to stay put until she and the kids left, and she would not shoot him any more.

He made a conscious decision to wait.

His adrenaline ran out when he was driving away in his car.
 
DNS, I was leaning toward your reaction on the change in the article, but now I fully agree with PT-92's expanded explanation. Apology and overt retraction were called for.
 
ABC news just aired this story and they portrayed her as a hero mom and responsible gun owner.
Click to expand...

I have a lot of left leaning friends and family (as I'm sure most people do), and none of them -- NONE of them -- are in favor of any more gun laws, and all of them respect the other members of our family who choose to lawfully carry. I believe that the "ban all handguns" crowd is as sparsely populated as the "full-auto for everyone!" crowd. It's just that, in the media, there are a higher percentage of leftist extremists and the extremism on the left is just as extreme as the extremism on the right. Those of us who are capable of having a conversation, and meeting in the middle on some things, will hopefully still have a voice when all of the post-Newtown fire has died down.

Good for ABC news. This time.
 
Yup--Did the reporter suddenly experience an "epiphany" thereby now believing the brave mother was heroic and not "trigger happy?" Of course not--they came down on the reporter because of vociferous public outcry resulting in the change in wording, not because of any philosophical change in belief. I was raised whereby if you say something that you believe in you either 1) stick by it by "Manning-Up to subsequent criticism or 2) you retract statement only after issuing an apology/reasoning for the edit (in fact, it's unethical in journalism to revise prose absent an explanatory notation).
Click to expand...

There is very little "journalism" out there these days: They don't report the news- they make the news.
 
This is out of the California Handgun Safety Certificate Program.


"The right of self-defense ceases when there is no further danger from an assailant. Thus, where a person attacked under circumstances initially justifying self-defense renders the attacker incapable of inflicting further injuries, the law of self-defense ceases and no further force may be used. Furthermore, a person may only use the amount of force, up to deadly force, as a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would believe necessary to prevent imminent injury."

It's on the test. I think she did what she was supposed to. She was within the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top