A chilling reminder why we need to preserve our Second Amendment rights

Perhaps because they often tend to live in tightly packed urban environments, when it comes to the gun debate, liberals always forget that the cops cannot be relied upon to be there at the moment a crime is happening.  In a city it’s entirely possible that there are lots of police patrolling a small geographic area who can then respond immediately to a 911 call.  In areas that see cops stretched thin by geography (a sprawling county) or crisis (Katrina), citizens are on their own.  This video of a woman in an isolated area facing off a rabid intruder is a perfect reminder of the fact that arms protect citizens:

It’s obvious by the end of the video that the woman is absolutely shattered by the experience, but I came away impressed by her clear-thinking courage.  I also appreciated the 911 dispatcher’s compassion and good advice.

Hat tip:  Hot Air

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Lulu11

    Wow. This brought tears to my eyes.As a former anti-gun person, what was she to do? Nothing and be sexually assaulted or murdered? This should be viewed by anti-gun folks.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    These kind of people use violence as a form of self-regulating pressure relief valve. They are so filled with hate and rage at the world in general (and themselves), that they are looking for someone to take it out on to keep from exploding. Basically this person is a full pot on the stove that the slightest increase in temperature will cause him to boil over. It is these acts of punishing and degrading violence that make such a person feel a) powerful b) self-righteous c) relieved of self-loathing d) relieved of that intense internal pressure of anger, hatred and frustration that the world doesn’t ‘behave the way they want it to’ they are eternally trapped in. By making others crawl, by hurting others, by exerting force over others, they not only reinforce their world view but they ‘self-medicate’ so their dysfunctional psychology can keep on functioning another few days without having to change(6).

    You will really see this kind of behavior among spousal abusers and child beaters. These are individuals who are so full of hate and bile about all the people they cannot attack, that they come home and vent their spleen on helpless victims. Face it, there is very little legitimate damage a child could do to an adult’s self-esteem to warrant a full scale predatorial attack that child abusers regularly unleash on innocent children.

    Here’s an interesting point, however, all but the most insane know that violence is wrong. And this is the key to getting this kind of predatorial violence to pass you by. Notice we didn’t say ‘stop’ predatorial violence, we said make it ‘pass you by.’ Understanding that HE knows it is wrong, explains why he is looking for an excuse — no matter how small or trivial that excuse is. That excuse is his GO switch. And once triggered he WILL attack.

    This is why when you are attempting to deescalate this type you must be extremely well versed in boundaries, the difference between assertive and aggressive, calm and you must NOT try to posture. You CANNOT let your adrenal state, anger or fear override your dealings with these people. IF you do, YOU WILL BE ATTACKED!

    And when we say attacked, we are NOT talking about a fight. Such a person has no interest in fighting you. His intention is victimization. Some punish, some torture, some rape, some just kill outright. What they all have in common is that they want to unleash an unreasonable amount of violence on you with the ferocity and destruction of a dam bursting.

    The one consistent factor in these kinds of attacks however, is the victim’s fear of violence. You cannot deescalate this kind of predatorial violence (tantrum type of violence) if you are afraid of violence. We’re not talking about He-Man huffing and puffing or threatening to kick someone’s butt … we’re talking about the willingness to kill or die right there — maybe both(8).

  • CollegeCon

    Bolding everything makes it difficult to figure out what you’re trying to emphasize Y.  Not to mention being rather annoying to read.
    The county sheriff where I live says almost the exact same thing.  Some people in the county probably have to wait 40 minutes or more for a cop to get there.  The women did the right thing, and I sympathize with her trauma.  Here’s to hoping that she can put this behind her.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    <B>This should be viewed by anti-gun folks.</b>
    It should be, but it won’t do much since they reject all evidence. They also wish to ban handguns, thinking shotguns are adequate. But when people use shotguns to kill in defense, they’ll be on the band wagon against shotguns soon enough. Anti-gun folks want a magical solution to the magical talisman of the gun. And don’t believe them when they say that they will stop at just outlawing the handgun.

    The call lasted around 30 minutes. Read the link for the full audio.
    Once again, the police arrive too late, and are only there to clean up the bodies. In this instance, the ending was that the criminal was in a body bag and not his victim.
    It is of great benefit to the police for the people at the scene to resolve the issue. THis way the police doesn’t have to go into strange neighborhoods and houses and have to encounter the danger of unknown numbers of assailants, getting keyed up and perhaps shooting the wrong person or not shooting the right person enough.

    To the home owner, it helps to resolve problems yourself because psychologically it is much less stressful than waiting and trying to communicate hour’s worth of info in a few minutes. Also much less dangerous. It’ll also reduce the pressure on the police, thus reducing the need for the police to use force on your premises.
    To do the same thing the shotgun did to the assailant would have required a strong intent to injure and kill. The woman would not have had that intent. SHe would have pulled her blows. The gun, being a convenient tool, saves her the labor of physically applying the force necessary to kill. All she had to have was enough intent to aim and pull the trigger. The societal inhibitions against killing, only applied afterwards when she saw the consequences. Before, one could easily divide pulling the trigger from killing, thus there was less inhibition as it was an abstract thing. Like Naval gunners loading up shells and blowing up ships compared to someone who kills with bare hands. The psychological stress increases the closer you get to someone’s moment of death. And it is especially notable when you have to keep up your intent knowing the guy isn’t dead yet, but will be if you keep up your efforts. The gun removes that from the equation since it exerts itself in the direction you directed it to, regardless of whether someone does or does not wish to kill. The bullet or shell will do what it does by the laws of physics. Once you pull that trigger, no more is required of you.
    This is different from beating somebody to death, like say, with a two by four in Chicago. You had to actually, you know, want it bad enough. You had to run up and swing hard enough. Any hesitation would reduce the force and thus reduce the chance for fatality. A gun or a shotgun isn’t nearly as discriminating. In fact, it isn’t discriminating at all in terms of force. All it is affected by is targeting. If it misses, it misses. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t. There’s no way to pull a blow with a bullet in flight. Whether you want to kill him a lot or not at all, that isn’t going t ofactor in. What will factor in is targeting. You could target at the legs for less fatality chances. Reduce the range. Aim at the head if you wish for a fatality guarantee, etc.

    On another notable factor, this is why outlawing guns won’t hurt criminals. Criminals often do have the intent to kill, and manifest this intent more often than normal law abiding individuals. Thus they don’t need he gun to kill because they have enough intent that they will get it done using any method available. Not so with a person that obeys the law. If you obey the law, chances are you don’t have an intent to kill anyone. You have a fear of harm to yourself, but that is it. THat doesn’t automatically translate to an intent to attack using full violence. That’s what training is for.
    Guns equalize the issue between enemies of humanity and humanity. We don’t need to become serial killers, to kill serially. We don’t need to adopt their psychology, so to speak, to do what they do in actual reality. Guns equalize this between classes of society just as it equalizes things between the genders of humanity. Since you don’t need the intent to follow through, you don’t need the muscular strength for it as it gives you no advantage. You’re not using your muscular power to kill, just your hand to eye coordination.
    Overall, it’s a good innovation of humanity.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    <B>Bolding everything makes it difficult to figure out what you’re trying to emphasize Y.  Not to mention being rather annoying to read.</b>
    I only bold what I’m quoting, and that is a quote from the essential defense website from a previous thread concerning violence.
    The topic of the bolded text is not on target for this thread because it wasn’t written with this specific incident in mind, only as a general reference and analysis of a specific type of behavior or person.
    I removed the html link since I wish to avoid the spam filter here.
    As context for what I quoted, the subject of de-escalation is only important if you aren’t already being attacked. Useful for law officers, of course, since most of their duties are carried out in the social, not asocial environment. But the asocial environment, should it come, is a primary focus of TFT’s … well focus and training.  The instructors don’t get as much into what to do to avoid social confrontations, just how to recognize that they are social. The defense website does go fully into the field, of course.
    I’ll highlight what’s important later on. Suffice it to say that in social confrontations, people aren’t there to kill or reasonably expect to die, but since it can still happen because people are incompetent or just unlucky, it is best to avoid such things unless you really have something useful to gain. In asocial confrontations, you must kill or be killed. It is as simple as that. There’s no complexity here. If you don’t wish to kill, then you will be killed. If you don’t wish to use violence, it will be used on you.

    Guilt is a social fixation. An inhibition used on humans to prevent them from hurting others, and thus upsetting the tribe/society. It’s not always beneficial, so it is useful to train in how to drop that and adopt the predator’s thinking and escalation speed. That is, if you wish to win an asocial confrontation. If you don’t, you don’t.

  • Doug

    Even in the suburbs they can’t be there instantly.  I used to live three blocks from the police station, with police cars driving past all the time on their way to and from the station, and called 911 in regards to an armed robbery taking place in my front yard (they robbed my pizza delivery guy), and they got there in two minutes and caught the guys running down the street a block away.  Very impressive.
    But still, two minutes is a long time, and that’s from *after* I found out what was going on, got the phone, called 911, told them what was happening, etc.   A LOT can happen in two minutes.  If you’re out in the boonies, forget it, there’s just no way they’re going to get there in time to save you if somebody’s trying to break down the door.  Heck, you may not have the time to even make the call if they’re determined enough and your door isn’t that well secured.

  • http://bookwormroom.com Bookworm

    So true, Doug.  I live one minute from one fire station with paramedics, and five minutes from another fire station with paramedics.  A few years ago, I got such severe food poisoning, we had to call 911.  Unfortunately for me, there’d been a pile-up on the freeway (unfortunately for the people in the pile-up, too), and it took 45 minutes before the ambulance arrived.  I don’t have much memory of those 45 minutes, but they weren’t good.

    I now eat all my meat practically burned, and won’t touch sushi for love or money.  I like my food cooked, dammit.

  • CollegeCon

    My little sister got E-Coli over the summer a few years ago, and it was a bit traumatizing for everyone.  Needless to say food safety has become even more important now, which was difficult considering that the family was already in the dairy business!
    Unfortunately, there really isn’t much that can be done about a long fire/ambulance run.  Certainly having enough fire extinguishers and basic medication helps, but not in way a gun protects against home invasion.

  • JKB

    Two minutes is like 12 lifetimes in a gun fight.  I haven’t seen any comment on the timing but I’d speculate the shooting of the four officers in Washington probably lasted less than 2 minutes and that is with one of them getting his hands on the shooter.
    People in the developed world are to locked into the emergency services mindset and forget that you can get out of range either by distance or workload.  I used to run research vessels.  I’d stop someone from doing something dangerous or try to stop the recent heart attack from sailing, it was always the same.  “You can just call the Coast Guard.”  Slowly, I’d get them to realize that we were 10 days from helo range.  Or as the pilot of a small helo one ship carried when I stupidly asked him why they limited their range to 10 miles from the 10 kt ship said, “An hour is a long time to bleed.”

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    <B>”You can just call the Coast Guard.”</b>
    You can also call your Mama and Papa too. Which is what children do when they get into trouble. That automatically means people have abdicated personal responsibility and autonomy in return for ‘safety’, whatever that means in today’s world given modern threats.
    <B>I now eat all my meat practically burned</b>
    This wasn’t cause of some organic food or preparation thing was it?

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    Contrary to popular opinion here in the US, no, people Do Not Want liberty. Vis a vis Iraq, Americans always kept complaining that Iraqis didn’t want freedom, didn’t want to fight for it.
    How’s that coming from a generally Leftist ideological position that says you need to suck up to the government for bennies because you need the government for safety? Too many prosperous hypocrites these days living it up as parasites on the public body. Leeches and viruses.
    Human beings operate within their own perceived self-interests. Reward them for displacing responsibility to the Strong Man or rescue services and people will take greater risks than they would have, had all they been able to draw upon were their own resources. Violence works the same way. People use it all the time to reward themselves based upon their perceived self-interests.

    And the Left are very adept at emotional violence and character assassination and doing injury to reputation as well as societal standing. When Obama’s feelings are hurt or he is made to feel insecure, you bet he’s going to go after you. But Obama decries physical violence of the US, on the other hand. And you know why, it’s cause he’s afraid of physical violence. He isn’t good at it. He’s good at backstabbing people via proxy, not even directly, but by proxy. He’s good at destroying people by getting documents leaked. He’s good at making friends with terrorists, but not the fervor to actually do any terrorism like Ayers did and still does at Chicago.

  • Doug

    I don’t know the timeline of the Washington incident but at Fort Hood I believe the whole thing was about 10 minutes.
    And again, the two minute response time I saw was an absolute best case.  When Fremont PD stopped responding to alarm company calls part of their argument was that they had an average response time of 21 minutes and the private companies claimed better times.  Apparently they were treating them as relatively low priority calls unless there was also a 911 followup since even if it was really a break-in it was just property at stake.  Um, yeah, unless you didn’t have time to get to the phone…

  • 11B40

    Once again, the gunfighter’s mantra:  Control yourself; control your weapon; control your target.
    Or, slightly updated:  God created all humans and Samuel Colt made them equal.

  • vanderleun

    Amazing, but everyone has to listen to the 33 minute full tape. 
    It’ at

  • Deana

    I am so late to this discussion but I just finished listening to the entire 30 minutes of this tape.
    I was ok for the first 8 minutes or so and then, like Lulu, I felt tears welling up in my eyes as I listened to this extraordinary woman.  All I could think was, “What if we did not have this right??  What then?”  About 10 minutes elapsed after she shot the man to when the cops could finally get there (and no doubt, they were coming at top speed).
    A lot of damage can be done in 10 minutes.
    Wow.  Just wow.  One of the most powerful things I’ve seen or heard yet.

  • Pingback: the B2 Journal | Another Second Amendment Lesson()

  • suek

    Haven’t listened to the tape yet.
    I keep coming back to the fact that the woman was holding a _shotgun_ and the lights were on.  The attacker was outside a glass door – he could _see_ that she was holding a shotgun.  In spite of that, he broke the glass door instead of leaving.  That says volumes and volumes about the intensity of his intentions.
    The other thing is that I was unable to find out any background info on the attacker, in spite of the fact that the photo from 2005 that newsok has on it’s website appears to show him in prison orange.  Not sure of that, but if so…why no info on his record?  Entirely possible to me that he shouldn’t have been on the loose.