The Marquis Of Queensbury Has Left The Building

Grandfather of teens who killed after breaking into a man’s house, threatening his life and health, complains that the homeowner had an “unfair advantage” in the three-on-one fight because he had an AR15:

They got into a confrontation with the man who owned the home. Moments later the homeowner’s son emerged with an AR-15 and killed all three criminals.

Now the grandfather of one of the criminals is saying it wasn’t fair that the homeowner had an AR-15.

He says that it gave the homeowner an unfair advantage.

Oh, no. One middle-class schlub has an advantage over three thugs who came equipped to deal him a three-on-one beatdown. How horrible.

That is, of course, the point behind “assault weapons”; to not run out of bullets before your enemy runs out of attacks.

(Disclaimer for the record: I would never shoot a human, even in self-defense, and I’d never own a gun, because they terrify me).

Posted

August 28, 2017

Victim Disarmament

Mitch Berg

Tags:

Self-defense

Comments

7 responses to “The Marquis Of Queensbury Has Left The Building”

Alt-Good Swiftee

August 28, 2017

He should be grateful he got to have an open casket wake. I have friends that opt for this solution to home invaders….very messy, so I’m told.

http://www.brownells.com/ammunition/shotgun-ammo/winchester-pdx1-defender-shotgun-ammunition-prod43474.aspx?avad=avant&aid=7645&cm_mmc=affiliate-_-Itwine-_-Avantlink-_-app&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_source=Avantlink&utm_content=NA&utm_campaign=Itwine
nerdbert

August 28, 2017

Uh, Leroy, are you prepared to face three armed teens without an AR-15? Just what do you want to defend yourself from three masked, hooded creeps coming after you? What do you, Leroy, think was appropriate defense?

I understand the grandpa is upset, but he’s upset at the wrong person. Those kids got what they had to know was a possible outcome of their behavior, and that they were apparently willing to risk for monetary gain. Sorry, but the ones who valued life cheaply were the robbers, not the homeowner.
golfdoc50

August 29, 2017

As an aside, look at the recent homicide in Hopkins. The victim had been threatened by, and had obtained a restraining order against, the assailant. The killer used an axe to break down the door, disable his victim and ultimately kill him. What if….the victim had owned a firearm?
Night Writer

August 29, 2017

The killer used an axe to break down the door, disable his victim and ultimately kill him. What if….the victim had owned a firearm?

By the time an attacker took my door out with an axe to say, “Heeeeere’s Johnny!”, I’d be there to say, “Here’s Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson!”
bikebubba

August 29, 2017

Yes, burglars ought to know that if they break into a home, that the fight may be unfairly against them. The grandfather is entitled to his grief, but he needs to remember at the same time that his grandson’s prospective victims did indeed have reasonable fear of death or grievous bodily harm, no possibility of retreat, no lesser force would do, and of course the shooting stopped when the threat ended.

If you want unarmed victims who aren’t allowed to fight back, move to England if they’ll let you. Put “burglar” as occupation on the immigration forms and see how it goes for you.
justplainangry

August 29, 2017

According to orc math, the tally of gun crime victims just went up by three.
Night Writer

August 29, 2017

When I first moved to the Twin Cities I had a philosophical discussion with one of my roommates about using deadly force against an intruder. “Is your stereo really worth someone’s life,” he asked.

“I think that’s a good question the other guy should ask himself before he breaks into my house,” was my reply.