Free Markets, Free People

This is what the 2nd Amendment preserves

So you don’t think people should have guns. You think they’re dangerous. You think they should be banned. Well, here is what they are for. This happened about 10 miles from my home.

A Georgia mother hid her two 9-year-old twins and shot an intruder, Paul Ali Slater, several times during a home invasion on Friday, according to multiple media reports.

The Loganville mother said she didn’t initially answer when someone knocked on her door around 1 p.m. Friday. When the visitor began repeatedly ringing the doorbell, she called her husband at work.

When the suspect went into the closet where the family was hiding ,the woman fired six bullets at the suspect, five of which hit alleged suspect Paul Ali Slater in the face and neck area.

“He opens the closet door and finds himself staring down the barrel of a .38 revolver,” Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman.

She was in obvious fear of her life and her safety and that of her children. She had a means of self-defense. She had an “equalizer”. And, apparently, she used it well, well enough that she was able to escape unharmed with her children to a neighbor’s house.

And remember this was all before police were able to respond. She had called her husband as the home invasion was taking place and he called 911.

Her husband has it right:

The victim’s husband said he’s proud of his wife.

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

By the way, she is not a “victim”. However she would have been had she not been armed.

This is the way it is supposed to work.


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

33 Responses to This is what the 2nd Amendment preserves

  • As I said elsewhere…

    You don’t reliably stop someone…the real point of shooting them…with a single round from anything.
    I can cite you to accounts of people who were shot all to hell in vital organs, who went on to kill a police officer or other person.
    When some idiot says that “nobody needs a 30 (or 15) round magazine”, you can tell them with absolute authority they…
    1. don’t have any idea what they are talking about, and
    2. it is none of their FLUCKING business.

  • Naw. she was supposed to toss the kids out of the window, jump out herself, and run.   Wouldn’t want to harm the ‘alleged suspect’, ya know.?  Possible harm to the homeowner and dependents?..meh…
    Let me know when they publish the article about the “alleged suspect’s” kin who are suing the woman and claiming she didn’t have to shoot him up so bad.

    • As InstaPundit pointed out…
      the guy was not there to snatch the TV and get away.  Not when he made it a point to track down the mom and kids in their hiding place.

      • Yeah, funny how the media avoids that thread of the story.  I think we can be pretty sure ‘the suspect’ wasn’t trying to find them so they could invite him in properly and make him a cup of tea.

        • Yeah. I was gonna post essentially the same thing.

          My limited experience with “home invasions” is with people with mental problems who are not actually dangerous. This guy may have had mental problems, but his behaviour suggests very bad intent.

          Off topic, on my flight today I finished Seeds of Discontent The Deep Roots of the American Revolution 1650-1750 by J. Revell Carr. Very interesting stuff, particularly the part about Americans taking the French fort at Louisbourg.

  • There is no reason, other than the glaringly obvious, why a story of this nature could not have been told of an elementary school in Connecticut.   With a gun carrying principle, teacher, or custodian and an armed, but dead, dickhead.

  • No. She’s wrong. She was supposed to hide and pray and wait for the cops to rescue her in 20 minutes. That’s what civilized blue-staters do

  • …and the Boston Globe has one less reader…

  • When the suspect went into the closet where the family was hiding ,the woman fired six bullets at the suspect, five of which hit alleged suspect Paul Ali Slater in the face and neck area.
    Like Ragspierre says, this also indicates why Standard Capacity Magazines (called “high-capacity” by people who want us disarmed) are useful.

    She fired six shots, and got a very good five hits. But she was also out of ammo, and very lucky that Mr. Invader was alone.
    If I need a defensive arm, I want one with all the ammunition it can easily hold – and ideally another magazine around.

    • There you go…
      You shoot them until they stop.  As many times as it takes.  Just two in the eyes is usually good…  But not everyone is as cold as I am.  And center mass is a lot SURER thing.

      • I assume everyone is armored these days.   So I aim low….or high.   One way or another a hit is going to ruin more than their day.
        People forget, the assumption armor makes is there is a dust off close by and someone to call it in, and that just ain’t always so.

    • She may have only had 5 if the hammer was sitting on an empty chamber for safety.

    • five of which hit alleged suspect Paul Ali Slater
      alleged … suspect ?
      This is either the perp or the woman is one incredibly bad shot.

      • We’re going with the media meme that a guy, shot by you, in your house, after threatening you with a chainsaw, is an ‘alleged suspect’.
        Crimminy, you’d think the guy would at LEAST be a suspect, but no, full monty for this, he’s an alleged suspect.

    • Well, there are home invasions with four or five perps. Five shots per is 20 – 25 rounds. A 30 round AR mag will typically be downloaded a few, so that it is easier to seat, so loaded with say, 28 rounds that gives 25+3.

      Most of the time perps leave ASAP when shots are fired at them, and hence few shots are usually needed. But many shots may be needed in other cases.

  • I don’t think many people are suggesting a total ban and confiscation of guns.  What they are suggesting are certain limitations that could possibly forestall the types of mass murders that are becoming more frequent.  As for the amount of gun violence the occurs because of criminal activity will not radically change until our social system does so.

    • Well, as usual…
      you post a tour d’main of FALSE crap.
      1. mass murders are NOT “becoming more frequent”
      2. a LOT of people are suggesting a total ban and confiscation of guns
      3. “certain limitations” would NOT POSSIBLY have any impact on “forestalling” what a depraved killer would do
      4. there is no such thing as “gun violence” (guns, see, are inanimate objects); there is only people violence

      • Yeah, Tad telling you confiscation is not the intent is pretty much like Obama telling you…well….pretty much anything.   “We’ll put the bill on line for everyone to review”, or “You can keep your health insurance” or “your taxes won’t go up” or “I’ll close Guantanamo” or “I support gay marriage”.
        Many people, well, perhaps not, just the important folks who make the laws for us little people.

    • Violent crime in this country has fallen 50% since the 90s.    Murder is a violent crime.   You figure out what that all means.

    • What they are suggesting are certain limitations that could possibly forestall the types of mass murders…

      Browse CNN, Washington Post, Fox News, Drudge, etc. and read the recent articles discussing proposed legislation, for example a national firearms database.  Find one of those items which would, if passed, stop any of these mass murderers from being able to carry out their massacres.
      Gun control is not about guns.  It’s about control.  These laws won’t increase safety or forestall madmen from doing terrible things.  But they are a means for the government to take away power from civilians who aren’t a danger to others.
      Go back through the news for the past couple years and search for articles about various departments of the federal government buying up enormous amounts of ammunition.  At the time, people were asking why these bureaucracies, which had nothing to do with law enforcement, were doing so.  Now, consider the reaction to news about pending gun control being floated by the administration and Democrats in Congress.  Hundreds of thousands of people are flocking to gun dealers to clear the shelves.  Prices are skyrocketing and supplies are running out.  Do you think it was an accident that so much ammunition was put into the hands of the government before this “crisis”?
      Just as with Putin, Obama and Democrats were waiting until after his reelection when they would have “more flexibility”.

    • I know a certain limitation that would forestall mass murders; forbid assemblies of more than three people. No mass, no mass murder. Simple.
      Of course this may conflict with the freedom of assembly mentioned in another  one of those pesky amendment thingees, but violating amendments doesn’t seem to be a problem anymore.

    • I don’t think …

      You don’t think at all, taddy.  There’s your problem.

  • I don’t think many people are suggesting a total ban and confiscation of guns.  What they are suggesting are certain limitations…

    Democrats are exploiting the cowardice and stupidity of Republicans.  They know that they can loudly call for a large list of harsh laws, plant the seeds, then the “moderates” come in and suggest a “compromise”.  Do this over and over, each time the Republicans give up half and almost never gain ground the other way.  Eventually, the Democrats will get everything they want.

    They are in this for the long haul.  The only way to counter this tactic, since the wimpy RINOs and the NRA are of no help, is for people to loudly announce their intent to not comply, at all.

  •   There are only two scenarios in my mind. First, this guy has done this before and gotten away with it, emboldening him to try it again. Or two, he is the unlucky SOB who got his face shot off on the first try at this. Either way, our young mother more than likely saved someone else down the road from a possibly worse outcome. God bless that young mother for having the stones to take care of business when it needed taking care of.
      I don’t actually know what I will do if I have to confront someone in my home. I know what I think I will do. I know positively what I will not do. I will not address the perp. I will not tell him to “freeze” or whatever. His first, and last indication that he made a grave error by entering my house will be the muzzle flash of my .45. He can argue the unfairness of life at the gates of hell for all I care. If I have to get pissed about something I will get pissed that he gave me no alternative. That said, there shoud be no questions asked from the police, and if there are, God willing, there will be only my side of the story to tell the tale.

    • There is a simple rule I recommend…
      IF you use a gun, EXPECT to have to defend your use in a legal forum.  SOMETIMES that forum will begin and end with the LEOs.
      Just as a historical note, Wyatt Erp stood trial for the gunfight at the OK Coral, and for later use of his firearms.