Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

15-YEAR OLD BOY USES AR-15 TO DEFEND HIMSELF, SISTER AGAINST HOME INVADERS

Posted by on Feb. 5, 2013 at 3:32 PM
  • 55 Replies
4 moms liked this



A 15-year old boy used his father’s AR-15 to defend himself and his 12-year old sister against two burglars at their home just north of Houston, Texas.

Their father is a Harris County Precinct 1 deputy constable, and the boy knew what he had to do to keep himself and his sister alive. Around 2:30 PM, two men tried to break in, with one going through the front door and the other in the back.

The boy grabbed the AR-15 and shot at them. The two later showed up at a Tomball hospital. The adult was hit three times and was flown to Memorial Hermann hospital, while the juvenile was taken back to the crime scene.

“We don't try to hide things from our children in law enforcement,” Lt. Jeffrey Stauber said. “That young boy was protecting his sister. He was in fear for his life and her life.”

More stories are coming out about armed citizens defending their lives and property with legally owned firearms. In the span of a week, the news has reported how a mother used a .38 revolver against an intruder, a man used his weapon to protect his 2-month old son, and a Colorado man invoked the Make My Day law in Colorado in using lethal force to defend himself against three intruders.  

Senator Dianne Feinstein and others are trying to push through major gun control laws that would include banning the AR-15, the same gun used by the teenage boy.


http://policelink.monster.com/news/articles/176384-15-year-old-boy-uses-ar-15-to-defend-himself-sister-against-home-invaders
by on Feb. 5, 2013 at 3:32 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on Feb. 5, 2013 at 3:56 PM
4 moms liked this

But AR-15s don't belong in the hands of the public - as preached by government leaders (including Presidents) and celebrities, who use armed security for themselves and their families, likely with AR-15s. Because regular citizens are not "special" like celebrities and Presidents).

SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on Feb. 5, 2013 at 3:57 PM

BUMP!

rccmom
by Gold Member on Feb. 5, 2013 at 4:30 PM

 

But he could have just as well used a non assault style weapon if assault weapons such as those are banned.

Quoting SallyMJ:

But AR-15s don't belong in the hands of the public - as preached by government leaders (including Presidents) and celebrities who use armed security for themselves and their families.


 

PinkButterfly66
by Bronze Member on Feb. 5, 2013 at 4:37 PM
1 mom liked this

Assault style weapons do not belong in the hands of anyone other than the military or police.  The child could have still used another type of gun.   The woman who had just buried her husband defended herself and her infant with a shotgun.  

SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on Feb. 5, 2013 at 4:54 PM
3 moms liked this

"Assault " weapons ARE only in the hands of the military and  police. "Assault" weapons are automatic weapons (ie, machine guns), which have been banned for years.

AR-15s are not "assault weapons", even though they are called this by some government leaders and the media. For them what an "assault" weapon is primarily one that "looks like" a machine gun. It does not fire like one - is semi-automatic like most handguns - means you have to pull the trigger each time to shoot.

I suspect if you had been in that home, 15 years old, and trained with the weapon - you would have had no hesitation to use it to defend yourself and your sister. Especially if the intruder had more than a 6-bullet gun. But then again, maybe not. Maybe you'd rather be dead along with your 12 year old sister, with her possibly raped first..

Not me.

Quoting PinkButterfly66:

Assault style weapons do not belong in the hands of anyone other than the military or police.  The child could have still used another type of gun.   The woman who had just buried her husband defended herself and her infant with a shotgun.  



SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on Feb. 5, 2013 at 4:57 PM
1 mom liked this

It's not an "assault" weapon - it only looks like a machine gun - but shoots like a handgun.

Quoting rccmom:


But he could have just as well used a non assault style weapon if assault weapons such as those are banned.

Quoting SallyMJ:

But AR-15s don't belong in the hands of the public - as preached by government leaders (including Presidents) and celebrities who use armed security for themselves and their families.





PinkButterfly66
by Bronze Member on Feb. 5, 2013 at 4:57 PM

You are arguing semantics.  If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's a duck.

Quoting SallyMJ:

"Assault " weapons ARE only in the hands of the military and  police. "Assault" weapons are automatic weapons (ie, machine guns), which have been banned for years.

AR-15s are not "assault weapons", even though they are called this by some government leaders and the media. For them what an "assault" weapon is primarily one that "looks like" a machine gun. It does not fire like one - is semi-automatic like most handguns - means you have to pull the trigger each time to shoot.

I suspect if you had been in that home, 15 years old, and trained with the weapon - you would have had no hesitation to use it to defend yourself and your sister. Especially if the intruder had more than a 6-bullet gun. But then again, maybe not. Maybe you'd rather be dead along with your 12 year old sister, with her possibly raped first..

Not me.

Quoting PinkButterfly66:

Assault style weapons do not belong in the hands of anyone other than the military or police.  The child could have still used another type of gun.   The woman who had just buried her husband defended herself and her infant with a shotgun.  




SpnFulOfSugar
by Member on Feb. 5, 2013 at 4:59 PM
2 moms liked this
Except in this case it only looks like a duck...


Quoting PinkButterfly66:

You are arguing semantics.  If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's a duck.

Quoting SallyMJ:

"Assault " weapons ARE only in the hands of the military and  police. "Assault" weapons are automatic weapons (ie, machine guns), which have been banned for years.

AR-15s are not "assault weapons", even though they are called this by some government leaders and the media. For them what an "assault" weapon is primarily one that "looks like" a machine gun. It does not fire like one - is semi-automatic like most handguns - means you have to pull the trigger each time to shoot.

I suspect if you had been in that home, 15 years old, and trained with the weapon - you would have had no hesitation to use it to defend yourself and your sister. Especially if the intruder had more than a 6-bullet gun. But then again, maybe not. Maybe you'd rather be dead along with your 12 year old sister, with her possibly raped first..

Not me.


Quoting PinkButterfly66:

Assault style weapons do not belong in the hands of anyone other than the military or police.  The child could have still used another type of gun.   The woman who had just buried her husband defended herself and her infant with a shotgun.  






Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on Feb. 5, 2013 at 5:05 PM

Not semantics at all - but logic.

To use your analogy:

If it LOOKS like a duck, but doesn't walk or quack like a duck - it isn't a duck.

If an AR-15 LOOKS like a machine gun, but doesn't shoot like a machine gun, it isn't a machine gun.

Assault weapons are automatic weapons, ie, machine guns.

AR-15s are not automatic weapons; therefore, are not "assault" weapons.

Quoting PinkButterfly66:

You are arguing semantics.  If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's a duck.

Quoting SallyMJ:

"Assault " weapons ARE only in the hands of the military and  police. "Assault" weapons are automatic weapons (ie, machine guns), which have been banned for years.

AR-15s are not "assault weapons", even though they are called this by some government leaders and the media. For them what an "assault" weapon is primarily one that "looks like" a machine gun. It does not fire like one - is semi-automatic like most handguns - means you have to pull the trigger each time to shoot.

I suspect if you had been in that home, 15 years old, and trained with the weapon - you would have had no hesitation to use it to defend yourself and your sister. Especially if the intruder had more than a 6-bullet gun. But then again, maybe not. Maybe you'd rather be dead along with your 12 year old sister, with her possibly raped first..

Not me.

Quoting PinkButterfly66:

Assault style weapons do not belong in the hands of anyone other than the military or police.  The child could have still used another type of gun.   The woman who had just buried her husband defended herself and her infant with a shotgun.  






rccmom
by Gold Member on Feb. 5, 2013 at 5:07 PM

 

I don't care. I am on the fence about banning assault style weapons anyway because of the difficulty in definition. The point is, it did not have to be an AR 15. If that particular gun was banned, he would simply have used another gun.  

Quoting SallyMJ:

It's not an "assault" weapon - it only looks like a machine gun - but shoots like a handgun.

Quoting rccmom:

 

But he could have just as well used a non assault style weapon if assault weapons such as those are banned.

Quoting SallyMJ:

But AR-15s don't belong in the hands of the public - as preached by government leaders (including Presidents) and celebrities who use armed security for themselves and their families.

 

 

 

 


 

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN