11 year old girl defends herself and home with pink rifle!

I watched a little of that trial and it was stated several times that the youngest daughter WAS raped....

And you say "the attackers didn't rape the victims, but they did kill them......" wow.....

So what are you saying? That those sadistic barbarians aren't so bad... they're more like serial killers, not rapists......

What a shame they didn't have a loaded weapon in their house. That was one of the worst cases I'd heard of......

 

It doesn't matter what they thought! They decided to break into someone's home and there was a young girl home!

WHY are you always making excuses for the CRIMINALS?!

 

I think anyone with a functional iq of above 50 who was interested in honesty would admit an 11 yo shoiluld mever be put in a position where they have to defend themselves with a gun.

All your bs about maturity and such is just that, bs. No 11 year old should be put in that situation.

Shame on the older cousin or whatever for leaving even f just for a minute.

Oh and shame on you for trying to equate saying that to saying those criminals shouodnt have been shot.

 

You should read what you post......

"They had a rifle so I was thinking, 'What should I do? 'What if they shoot me?'" Gutierrez said.

That's when she made a beeline for her mother's room.

"I ran back into my mom's room and grabbed her little pink rifle, and there was two bullets in there," she said.



This is not a 'rare event' - I don't know where you get that (*)(*)(*)(*)-eyed idea!

The NRA is an organization of law-abiding citizens who have the 2nd Amendment backing them up - if you don't like the NRA - who cares?

Well, you've definitely proven one thing - you have one cold attitude towards a young girl who has intruders in her home.

All you've done here was defend the criminals........

 

What the hell are you babbling about? I said WHAT about 'equating saying that to saying the criminals shouldn't have been shot'? You're not making any sense here......

Look, if you can't handle the idea of 10,11,12 yr old kids being taught how to handle firearms. that's your problem! And yes! the maturity of the kid and how they handle responsibilities does make a difference w/the parent's decision at what age to teach them.....

There was a thread here not long ago about a 14 yr old boy home alone w/his sister and a couple intruders broke in. Because the teen had been taught about firearms, he got his dad's rifle and he & his sister could talk about what happened later.

I'll bet his dad started training his son when he was around 11,12 yrs old.

This 11 yr old girl had a frightening experience, did what she was taught to do, everything turned out ok for her and most of you bash her parents and excuse the criminals...... oh well! That's life in liberal land......

 

What was the argument the Low Information Voters use?

Oh, yeah, that's it:

If it saves JUST ONE life, it's worth it.

Clearly having a cute little pink rifle that shoot real cute little bullets saved at least one life, so clear gun freedom is worth it.

Do it for the children!

 

Given that most people who use their weapons in self-defense rarely do more than say "I got a gun, you better git", most self-defense firearms issues aren't reported to the cops, who have a known tendency to treat the compeitition (law abiding self-defending citizens) as criminals.

It's been reported that up to two million self-defensive gun actions are taken annually. A more conservative estimate by the CATO Institute says that number is 100,000 instances.

Some 30,000 people die in the US from gunshot wounds. Subtract out the half that shoot themselves, nobody cares about the losers.

Subtract the quarter that result from criminal on criminal violence, we shouldn't deter good citizenship.

That leaves some 7,500 shootings of uncertain purpose.

Last time the Mayor checked his own personal numberline, 100,000>7,500 by roughly 15:1

Ergo, defensive uses outweigh offensives uses, and is thus a net societal good.

You socialists believe most strongly in the Greatest Good For the Greatest Number, don't you?

Or is that only when you can use a slogan to fit some people with slave collars?

 

The news story says those criminals entered the girl's house carrying a rifle.

You can bet your ass that the socialists dearly wanted that girl to be shot by the criminals, so she could become another pretty face on their freedom stealing posters.

They're seriously annoyed that her mother bought a girly cute pink rifle.

- - - Updated - - -

King Obama, Fascist and Traitor.

Joe Plagiarizer Biden, Court Jester.

Hillary Cattle Futures Blue Dress Clinton, useless never accomplished anything on her own hag.

Every liberal who claims they don't.

 

People with guns have done far less damage to this country than the millions of mindless drones that vote DemocRAT year after year after year. Clearly we need RAT control, not gun control.

 

Her best option was to run to her mother's room and get the gun she was trained to use, so that if YOUR ASSUMPTIONS about the intruders intent were wrong, she'd be ready to protect herself with the best tool available. She'd have been better off with an AR-15, or a good semi-automatic shotgun, but a cute little .22 rifle will do.

Why take chances with your daughter's life? The mother did the right thing and trained her child, the child did the right thing and used her training, and you're doing the right thing if you're trying to get brownie points from Obama.

- - - Updated - - -

There is no difference.

Only time.

Let's just draw one of those Red Lines In The Sand and say "no more stolen freedoms".

 

They were unarmed?

Really?

What does that statement mean? That they had no guns? Clearly three adult intruders couldn't kill, rape, or seriously injure an 11 year old girl without guns, so she must have been completely safe, right?

Or did you mean that they didn't have any knives, either, so they'd never cut her, and naturally they'd be too stupid to think to look in the kitchen for a knife if they did want to cut her, so, again, she's totally safe, according to you, right?

ONE fully grown adult male can easily overpower and do whatever he damn well pleases with any 11 year old half-grown girl he finds alone in a house that he's robbing. Including hauling her off and making her disappear forever.

And you Low Information Voters want to pretend the GIRL VICTIM would do something wrong by killing everyone of them to protect herself.

She might feel a little sad about that, but, hell, with the proper help, she'd realize that taking out the trash is a duty people have to face once in a while, and there's nothing wrong with it, nothing at all.

Guilt is for you people. Americans don't waste guilt on trash.

 

You can read what I was saying. I was trying to bring up the point of the consequences for parenting, resulting from this documented case. So, since it has been ignored again and again, I try to ask the question again. Are the accidental deaths and injuries by firearm use in hands of children to be ignored, just for the sake of letting them defend themself? Is that really what you and others are proposing?

 

I love stories like this one. When low life losers get their arses kicked by a little girl.

 

res ipsa loqator.................owned

 

res ipsa loqitor.................owned

 

This is a sad attempt at spinning. She was alone, no matter what you say. She was only 11 years old, no matter what you say. It was her parents fault that she was alone, no matter what you say.

NRA members are law-abiding? I find it interesting how so many NRA members are involved in violent crime and 'need' their guns... and fear criminal background checks.

 

so your anti-Gun?

 

So you would be ok if your 11 year old daughter was in the home and two armed men just burst in and started to rummage around the place loading your valuables in a box.
Maybe her crying would aggravate them enough to feed her the buttstock of the rifle to the teeth? Still ok with that?
Man, I cannot comprehend being a willing victim.

 

We are not criminals, and we dont fear criminal back ground checks. We go through them every time we buy a gun at a gun shop or from a FFL.
The NRA even was behind those instant FBI checks years ago.
Nice fail at trying to demonize us.

 

so you're in favor of criminal Rights instead of self protection. Admit it, you don't want people to be able to defend themselves, and when they do so successfully, they're in the wrong and the criminals live to go about their criminal activities. What a shameful thing to think

 

Then why is the NRA trying so hard to stop criminal background checks?

There was a time when the NRA was far less radical. They supported criminal background checks. This isn't very profitable for their gun manufacturers so they no longer support it.

I'm not demonizing NRA members. I'm just pointing out that many NRA members appear to be involved in violent crime. It's no wonder they oppose criminal background checks. I've noticed how often people in this forum say that they "need" their guns. It's very suspicious. I guess anyone operating a meth lab would need a gun.

 

the first part of you post is pure emotional bunk. However, the last statement needs verification to be legitimate.

really.................got proof or are you spinning more bunk? Links or you are deliberately being misleading

 

So now we are just stooping to calling us criminals and meth dealers.
Nice.
You lose.

 

Says the guy who just completely misinterpreted my post.

How is stating facts "emotional"? Here are the facts:
- She was alone.
- She was only 11 years old.
- It was her parents fault that she was alone.

I don't see how that's emotional, but I guess it's opposite day.

I didn't know this was a game. I take this stuff seriously because guns are involved in so many deaths each year.... twice as many gun-related homicides in the US than all the other developed nations combined.

I didn't say that all NRA members are meth dealers. Just some of them.

 

links or you are fabricating a falsehood