The words in the title are those of an Atlanta area husband who had his wife on
the phone in one ear and a 911 operator on the phone in his other
ear.The wife was at home alone with her nine year old twins when a stranger knocked on the door. She caller her husband at work who told her to get her gun and hide in the closet upstairs, which she did. The stranger broke in the house with a crowbar, evidently heard people upstairs and went upstairs.
The wife was on the phone with her husband who calmly says, "If he opens the door, you shoot him, you understand?"
He opened the door.
She shot him.
She shot him five times and missed once. At the moment he is still alive.
In the context of gun control, the timing of such a dramatic incident is striking. The woman has a gun and uses it to pepper a miscreant thug with bullets, in self defense. The gun was a .38 caliber semi-automatic. Pull the trigger and the gun shoots. Pull it again and it fires another. I'm guessing that it too her two seconds to pull it six times. Millions of Americans have such guns in their homes for self defense and recreational use.
The husband is heard to tell the 911 operator, “She shot him, a lot.”
Good for her and her two children. Gun control might have some gray areas and some prickly aspects but this example puts any policy discussion in a vivid context.
Dramatic 911 call released in home intruder shooting
9 comments:
But it definitely is a context that cannot be ignored. As so often happens, the extreme positions on both sides of the issue are what are magnified in the media. The example given at least brings the issue into clearer focus, just as an intruder in an elementary school armed to the hilt promotes discussion in the other direction. The control of guns is a needed discussion. The total abolition of guns is something entirely different.
I would not argue that handguns are not going to be banned but when you say that "certain kinds" of handguns along with other personal arms MAY be regulated, my assertion that the incident above is part of the overall context is manifestly true.
I am not a Second Amendment purist. There may well be some steps that can be taken. I am not optimistic that any will make a difference.
In the future, discussions will require you to drop your anonymous status. Thanks.
We have been through this. My request is for you to cease commenting. I asked before. I ask again.
Thanks.
Goodness, Plodder, you don't seem to care about your readers; that is, you allow comments to posts that you have deleted (i.e., my posts), thus denying readers the context for the responses. How does that speak to the integrity of the discussion, especially when the theme of your blogging was about context?
Your concern is that with me the conversation does not end, but given the only responses left are those in response to me, it might be more accurate to assert that without me the conversation does not begin.
I understand your apparent reluctance to delete the remaining posts, which fairness dictates, for to do do, nothing is left and the absurdity would be even more manifest. God bless you, bro.
I'll let this stand, and God bless you.
Bye.
The ego of the hidden face has no shame. I thought about saying godless choices the hidden make but AI'll stick with gutless.
I don't think discussion is required, as some think they have a right to be heard from behind the closed door.
Good post William.
"... but AI'll stick with gutless."
Anonymous: But, doctor, can I get a second opinion?
Doctor: Sure. And you are ugly.
Anonymous: Well, I asked.
Anonymous... Go ahead and come out of the closet. It is likely you are not as ugly as I.
Post a Comment