Pregnant Florida mom uses AR-15 to kill home intruder

The 2A doesn't allow that. Stop making crap up!

 

Can you quote the part that allows murdering innocent people?

Your vehicle can mow down innocent people in public spaces?
A gallon of gasoline and a match can kill many innocent people.
Violent people can harm many innocent people, but in this case, she saved her family and many others.

 

lol only a special kind of person cant take a vicious home invasion with armed masked men, breaking a door down pistol whipping the husband and grabbing his 11 yr old daughter, the 8 month pregnant mother runs into a back bedroom takes an a4r15 and shoots one of them coming for her and the special person tries to denigrate that and deflect from it and make the gun the bad guy LMAO...Stephen King couldnt write a better story

 

Because hes a gun grabber

 

could she have done the same thing with a pistol?

 

Stephen King didn't write it because it's not a good story.

Neither is your story. I didn't say the gun was a bad guy, what I said was clearly the AR-15 is so effective at killing that in this scenario it was able to repel a serious home invasion. Great, but that just highlights how lethal they are and since they serve no other purpose other than killing, we should ensure they aren't sold to people who are crazy or think they should have them to make their male nether regions feel bigger. Only to people who are responsible and well trained to ensure they don't misuse a powerful weapon.

But you let your own personal bias interfere with reason, so that's a problem you need to sort out.

 

I love softballs:

Midland-Odessa shooting
Dayton shooter had a criminal history and mental illnesses that should have been put into NICS
Gilroy-Garlic shooting
Henry Pratt Plant
Santa-Fe High school
Stoneman Douglas because Democrats refused to arrest him
Sutherland Sprints because his criminal history was ignored
San Bernadino attack
Navy Yard shooting

This was what you went with?

 

Yes, that was clearly an assertion of the article and the OP, no?

 

Absolutely. Or a shot gun. Or a bolt action rifle. Or a whole host of weapons. Hell, a bow and arrow would have killed an unarmored intruder.

 

Whats your point?

 

There you go:

The problem isn't the law.

The problem is enforcing the law.

Something that doesn't happen in Democrat controlled areas.

 

One trigger pull takes a lot less time than several hammer swings.

Not only that, swinging the hammer will likely spread blood all over the room; the walls, on the ceiling, while the .223 round will likely only spray blood in one direction from the exit wound.

Makes clean-up a whole lot easier...

 

Andy Williams.

He stole his father's gun and took it to Santana High School in Santee, California. He killed two students and wounded 13 others in March of 2001. My daughter was a freshman there at the time. She knew the shooter and both of the students who were killed (a fellow freshman and a senior).

There are many, many more examples...

 

I don't know that there's any evidence to suggest she had immediate access to a pistol.

Not sure how that matters, though. One less scumbag on the streets, and that's what's important...

 

So what is the difference in person A getting killed with a gun and Person B getting killed with a hammer? Is Person A's death worse then Person B's death? Or vice versa? Dead is Dead. And thus shows the stupidly of gun control

 

False
The threat of lethality is great protection, without killing involved

 

All rifles are effective at killing.

If she'd hit him with a 30-06 he wouldn't have made it out of the house.

 

Which is false? Nothing I said was false.

The threat of lethal force isn't a factor until it's way too late and at that point protection isn't the right word. Protection is preventative. You can't prevent someone from breaking in by owning an AR15 unless you post a sign on your door or register you weapons in a public database for all criminals to see.

 

Exactly my point. All rifles are effective at killing and nothing else, hence why there should be restrictions and precautions on ownership. Just like every other dangerous consumer good out there.

 

Home invaders will now take a lesson from this and arm themselves better.

It's all good, firearm and ammunition sales will go up. Hospitals will have more customers. Undertakers will have more work.

Economically, it's a win.

 

That's the point of the 2A.

Clearly they're very effective at stopping rape, murder and burglary, so seems "nothing else" is false.

One dead, one escaped. So 50% effective in this case with killing, 100% effective in protection.

 

lmao, that's a serious question?

it can't be.

 

Possibly sure but whats your point ? the ar-15 worked just swell

 

not to mention dozens of mass shootings in Baltimore. Chicago, etc, the ones the media ignores.

impressed you took the time, I just mocked the post.

are there people out there that really think that stuff? I have a cat that is super dumb, and even HE knows the facts.

 

That was just off the top of my head honestly.

The vast majority of mass shooters acquired their firearms illegally.

Makes sense that a mass murderer probably doesn't care about all that, eh?