Woman Hiding in Attic Shoots Intruder Five Times to Protect Her Children

Leave a comment

This is from Town Hall.

This is a great argument for a firearm with high-capacity magazines.

If she had a firearm with high-capacity magazines she could have kept shooting.

She would have been able to  keep shooting until the threat was neutralized.

t seems as though real life examples of guns saving — rather than taking — innocent life go largely unreported (or flat-out ignored) in the mainstream media. Therefore, I have decided to post thefollowing must-read story in its entirety (via Cameron Gray):

A woman hiding in her attic with children shot an intruder multiple times before fleeing to safety Friday.

The incident happened at a home on Henderson Ridge Lane in Loganville around 1 p.m. The woman was working in an upstairs office when she spotted a strange man outside a window, according to Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman. He said she took her 9-year-old twins to a crawlspace before the man broke in using a crowbar.

But the man eventually found the family.

“The perpetrator opens that door. Of course, at that time he’s staring at her, her two children and a .38 revolver,” Chapman told Channel 2’s Kerry Kavanaugh.

The woman then shot him five times, but he survived, Chapman said. He said the woman ran out of bullets but threatened to shoot the intruder if he moved.

“She’s standing over him, and she realizes she’s fired all six rounds. And the guy’s telling her to quit shooting,” Chapman said.

The woman ran to a neighbor’s home with her children. The intruder attempted to flee in his car but crashed into a wooded area and collapsed in a nearby driveway, Chapman said.

Deputies arrested 32-year-old Atlanta resident Paul Slater in connection with the crime. Chapman said they found him on the ground saying, “Help me. I’m close to dying.” Slater was taken to Gwinnett Medical Center for treatment. His condition is unclear, but Chapman said he was shot in the face and neck.

In February, Slater was arrested on simple battery charges, according to the Gwinnett County Sheriff’s Office. He has been arrested six other times in the county since 2008.

Kavanaugh was the first reporter at the scene as deputies investigated. The victim’s husband told Kavanaugh he’s proud of his wife. He was on the phone with her as the intruder broke in.

“My wife is a hero. She protected her kids. She did what she was supposed to do as responsible, prepared gun owner,” Donnie Herman said.

He said he’s thankful for his family’s safety.

“Her life is saved, and her kids’ life is saved, and that’s all I’d like to say,” Herman said.

Of course, gun control advocates can speculate all they want about the intruder’s true motives. “Wait a second,” I imagine them saying. “We can’t be 100 percent certain he was prone to commit violence. Perhaps he was simply trying to rob the place!” But the fact is, because this woman was armed — and unhesitating — she and her two children are alive today. That is beyond dispute. Sure, it’s virtually impossible to know exactly what was going through this creep’s mind when he unlawfully entered a stranger’s private residence, but it’s fair to say that his intentions were not good. What if, say, he attacked this terrified woman and her innocent children with the crowbar he used to gain entry to her home, and she didn’t own a firearm? I shudder at the thought of what might have been — especially had this woman not exercised her Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and thus was unable to defend herself.

UPDATE – A number of readers are wondering where this incident took place. It happened in Georgia.


Should Smokers Be Forced To Buy A License?

Leave a comment

This is from The Last Resistance.

It will be ok to smoke pot but not tobacco.

The nanny state of  New York strikes again.

If the tobacco industry is destroyed how many people will be affected.?


If I had to describe New York Mayor Bloomberg’s large soda ban in 10 words or less, this is how I’d do it: asinine, ridiculous, insane, laughable, invasive, patriarchal, insane, unnecessary, insane and useless. That being said, what could be worse, or more laughably inane than a discussion about a “smokers license?” The answer is nothing.

According to a local CBS affiliate in Washington DC:

“In this week’s PLOS Medicine medical journal, two leading tobacco control advocates debate the merits of the smoker’s license. Simon Chapman, a professor at the University of Sydney, proposes that users would have to apply and pay for a mandatory license in the form of a smartcard that would be shown when buying cigarettes. Dr. Chapman wrote that it could discourage young people from picking up the habit. In a controversial move, the smartcard would allow the government to limit how many cigarettes a smoker could buy. Professor Chapman suggests 50 per day averaged over two weeks to accommodate heavy smokers. The anti-smoking activist told the Daily Mail that the sale of tobacco is currently subject to trivial controls compared to other dangerous products that threaten both public and personal safety.”

Why is this even being debated? Are our lives so lacking in government intervention that smokers must be observed at all times? Do we want the government deciding how much we can purchase of a personal product?

Chapman’s line of reasoning seems sound at first glance, but upon further review, it’s absurd. He claims that this license will discourage the youth from smoking. That seems sound, because having to provide ID to buy alcohol has really discouraged youth fromdrinking.

Secondly, he suggests that the number of cigarettes purchased by an individual could be limited by the government. Chapman suggests “50 per day, averaged over two weeks to accommodate heavy smokers.” If that’s the case, why regulate at all? People are still going to smoke, but now this regulation would just give the government more power over the individual than they already possess. In addition to that, the youth will find a way to get cigarettes; they always do.

Smoking is bad for your health; everybody knows that. But so is over-eating, sugary foods, high-fructose corn syrup, alcohol, and not exercising, among many other things. Regulations like these are a misguided attempt at forcing consumers to be healthy; to do what the government wants them to do. Regulations like these are helping to create a nanny-state.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to be told by the government how much bacon I can eat per week. That is where we are headed if debates like these turn into action. We live in a society of personal freedoms. I like to call it a society of “survival of the fittest.” People can choose to eat themselves to death, or smoke until their lungs turn black, if that is what they want to do. The last thing we need is a parental government trying to baby the country.

I’ve seen too much to give the government the benefit of the doubt. This isn’t really about consumer health, it’s all about control; all of it. And when a government exercises too much control over a people, it never turns out well. As Neil Gaiman has said: “Human beings do not like being pushed about by gods. They may seem to, on the surface, but somewhere on the inside, underneath it all, they sense it, and they resent it.”





%d bloggers like this: