Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content

  • CRYPTO REWARDS!

    Full endorsement on this opportunity - but it's limited, so get in while you can!

12 year old Oklahoma Girl shoots intruder!

TexasGranny

By TexasGranny,
in Off Topic posts

 Share

Recommended Posts

RodandStaff Rookie

RodandStaff

Posted
Posted

That girl has the true pioneer spirit.... when somethings gotta get done... you often have to do it yourself. Did she have a choice? Of course she did. She had already called 911... but they couldn't get there in time. So she had one of two choices... become a victim, or defend herself. Thankfully this brave young girl chose to defend herself!!! Atta girl!!!th_smiley_two_thumbs_up.gif

Thanks for the post T.G.!!!wink.gif

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Snotrocket Newbie

Snotrocket

Posted
Posted

The Great Equalizer.....why I carry a gun...

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force.

Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some. When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force.

You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender. There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat—it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly. Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury.

This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter.

It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable. When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone.

The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.

It removes force from the equation... And that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

@Divemaster.......Tornadoes? Really? Lol! ;)

  • Upvote 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cajunrescuemedic Newbie

cajunrescuemedic

Posted
Posted

The Great Equalizer.....why I carry a gun...

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force.

Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some. When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force.

You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender. There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat—it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly. Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury.

This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter.

It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable. When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone.

The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.

It removes force from the equation... And that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

@Divemaster.......Tornadoes? Really? Lol! ;)

I agree Jules, that is why I have a concealed carry permit. Almost a necessity these days.......

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JREDinars Newbie

JREDinars

Posted
Posted

Yup we don't play down here.

Awesome story, thanks for sharing.

We sure don't! Saw that story on local news last night. She was hiding in a closet. And when he went to turn the handle, she blasted him through the door. Good for her. ;) From where it showed she lived, the police never would have made it in time anyway. Often, you usually call the police AFTER the crime has been committed (if you're still alive). That's why I carry a gun. At 5'8" and 125lbs, it is certainly my equalizer. Pretty soon we will have Open Carry here in Oklahoma. Not concealed anymore. That will be interesting...

Anyway, that little girl was brave. Her parents taught her well.

@Divemaster After living in Norman, OK forever, I understand the fear of tornadoes. We had a big one come through here, near OU's Football Stadium this year, and 2 years ago our sailboat got sucked up along with the Marina and a bunch of other boats. Now we have earthquakes on top of the highest temps, fastest winds, largest hail, blizzards, tornados, etc. We gotta be survivors to live here!

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RodandStaff Rookie

RodandStaff

Posted
Posted

The Great Equalizer.....why I carry a gun...

Snotrocket... that has gotta be one of the best articulate reasoning's I have ever heard in favor of carrying a gun... Awesome!!! tip_hat.gifIf you don't mind... I may borrow that for the gun thread I started!!! wink.gif

@Divemaster.......Tornadoes? Really? Lol! ;)

They don't call it part of "Tornado Alley" for nothing!!! unsure.gif

tornadoalley.jpg

I knew a farm gal who was raised in Illinois... one time as the kids where loading the school buses after school had let out a Tornado came up behind the school.... jumped the school building and landed right in the parking lot where the kids were loading up the buses. Needless to say she lost a lot of friends that day. To this day if she sees a dark threatening cloud bank she completely panics. I can't even imagine going through that. sad.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Snotrocket Newbie

Snotrocket

Posted
Posted

Snotrocket... that has gotta be one of the best articulate reasoning's I have ever heard in favor of carrying a gun... Awesome!!! If you don't mind... I may borrow that for the gun thread I started!!!

Rod - please take it - I didn't write it but I've seen it many times and agree with every word. I wish I knew who did - it's brilliant!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Muleslayer Newbie

Muleslayer

Posted
Posted

Warms my heart to see there is hope for our future.

Was stationed near Lawton, OK. a few months in the 70's, would have stayed if it wasn't for all those tornadoes.

Lot's of good solid self-reliant Americans there.

After a few years it is a lot like dodging cabbies in NYC. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sportfisher Newbie

sportfisher

Posted
Posted

The Great Equalizer.....why I carry a gun...

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force.

Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some. When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force.

You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender. There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat—it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly. Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury.

This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter.

It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable. When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone.

The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.

It removes force from the equation... And that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

@Divemaster.......Tornadoes? Really? Lol! ;)

very well said.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Francie26 Newbie

Francie26

Posted
Posted

she done good

my kids will wait to see the whites of the eyes though :D

I understand your thinking. But he probably outranked her in size, and waiting until he opened that door would have given him a quick second to grab the gun from her. I don't see any reason for her to give him that extra edge since he wasn't supposed to be there anyway.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RodandStaff Rookie

RodandStaff

Posted
Posted

I understand your thinking. But he probably outranked her in size, and waiting until he opened that door would have given him a quick second to grab the gun from her. I don't see any reason for her to give him that extra edge since he wasn't supposed to be there anyway.

I agree Francie... once she saw the door knob move she knew he was there. Waiting to "see" the crook could have given him time to take her gun, or possible soften her resolve to shoot him... best for someone in her position to take care of business in the best way she could... and she did imo!!! th_smiley_two_thumbs_up.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


  • Testing the Rocker Badge!

    Take This Quiz

  • Live Exchange Rate

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.

  I accept