18 Year-Old Mom Kills Armed Intruder - The Left Prefers That She Had Become a Victim

http://newsok.com/teen-mother-kills-intruder-in-blanchard/article/3637495

Link to article is above.
An 18 -year old widow and mother of a three-month old baby, who lives in a rural area of Oklahoma, shot and killed an armed intruder with a 12 Gauge shotgun on New Year’s Eve. Unlike many home invasions/robberies, the criminal had knocked loudly for some time and thus provided the victim with time to barricade her door with a couch. These enabled her to, after firstly securing a shotgun and a handgun, call 911 and report the crime. Some may brace at this and state that she should have called 911 first - bad, bad move unless another adult is able to call while the other prepares to defend. Even in an urban or densely populated suburban area, the cops will (unless one just happens to be on your street at the time) take more than five minutes to get a patrol car to the scene of the crime. In rural areas the wait can easily be more than a half an hour.

Anyway, the saddest part of this good news of bad guy gets killed/young mom and baby are OK was that, probably as a result of so much pressure, lies and finger-pointing about firearms ownership from the Left, the mom felt the need to ask the dispatcher if it was OK to shoot the criminal. The dispatcher, being unable to legally tell her to shoot, indicated that the victim needed to do what she had to do to protect herself and the baby. The mom thankfully knew that their safety was paramount, so she ended the threat with a home version of a "whiff of grapeshot".*

Since the bad guy was armed and he was killed during the crime, the accomplice will be charged with first degree murder. For those who are not familiar with the concept of the charge as it applies here or the general legal understanding of defending one’s home, I offer following:

If a person commits a crime, such as burglary while being armed, most states will consider that a crime of the first degree. If anyone, good guy or bad guy, dies during the commission of the crime, that will also result in a first degree murder charge in most states charge for all actors involved (Not including victims if it is determined that they acted within the law)

Deadly Force is not prohibited is to defend oneself in his home. In fact, most states do not have a legal requirement that a resident make an attempt to retreat within the house prior to using deadly force. Also, deadly force can be used to prevent the burglary of a dwelling. This means that deadly force can be applied to stop a person from illegally entering a residence in which people are living and staying.

The Left typically howls at such an event like this. Within days of this news, anti-gun commentators will be given mic time on the networks. There they will throw out the tired, worn out, and completely dishonest mantras that are made to make people think that they are not safer having a firearms in their house and indeed that they are less so. The infamous 43:1 study will no doubt be brought up in support of their desire to get everyone US and other Western nations as defenseless, sheep-like, and in need of totalitarian state control as possible.

The 43:1 study, also called the Kellerman study, which was published in 1986 in the New England Journal of Medicine, was an atrocious example of false use and application of statistics. It was based on cherry-picked statistics in the Seattle area. It suffered from a complete lack of scientific responsibility. It was an attempt to get people to think that they, or someone else who was innocent, are 43 times more likely to be injured or killed by their own firearms than to wind up using it on an intruder. When later pressed about the manner in which he came up with his ratio, he then switched gears and threw out the 2.7:1 ratio - an equally false yet less outrageous number. To provide one example of how poorly the study was done, the only events that were counted as times when a person used a gun in defense of a home was when the bad guy got shot. This was the most pathetic portion of the finding since the vast majority of people who own firearms have, rightly so, no desire to kill people and show/produce/declare their weapon in order to cause the bad guy to leave in the overwhelming amount of circumstances. This fact alone completely threw off the entire average, even if the rest of the statistics had been honestly complied, which they were not. The awful and dishonest techniques used by Kellerman can be seen in part on the link below:

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-tainted-public-health-model-of-gun-control/

It is safe to say that even rabidly anti-gun people have often refused to use the findings of the Kellerman study in their own arguments due to the fact that the whole thing suffers from a lack of intellectual honesty and integrity.

The Left is all-too-aware that individual ownership of arms one of the hallmarks and universal characteristics of Western societies. Unlike the types of societies admired by Leftists, such as medieval China, where the individual was to do as he was told (Even a code of ethics like Confucianism rams this home) and was required to leave the defense of their family, property, and village to the local warlord or emperor, the individual in the West has always been an owner of arms.

Where Eastern societies prohibited one from taking part in defense and thus left his safety to the whim or ability of the ruling despot, Western societies required the individual to own arms. Where the Eastern potentates could pretty much do as they pleased with the people who lived in their domains, their counterparts in the West had to tread cautiously.

For a person who desires to find out more about the crucial place of arms ownership in the Western world and its consequences on the societies that evolved from it, the easiest and quickest way would be to research the Roman, Greek, and early Germanic societies.

The Greeks required the individual, especially if he owned any property, to equip himself at this own expense with a minimum of arms and armor and to take an active part in the defense of his city-state. This was quite an expense as both the materials and work/craftsmanship that went in to making these items were costly. For anyone who has not seen what a Greek Hoplite wore, it consisted of a helmet, shield, armor for the torso and legs, a sword and spear. This was a right and an obligation that was not optional. Later they allowed for more lightly-armored Peltasts. The individual was also required to train exhaustively, to learn how to fight in a hoplite formation and also needed to drill/practice on a regular basis with those of his community. In times of threats to the city-state, the Hoplite, like the others noted below, did not have the option of remaining home with his family.

The Romans also required those who possessed property to equip themselves at their own expense and to train and appear with their equipment in times of crisis. Unlike the Greeks, they created early on several classes where the amount of equipment one as required to purchase was based on the amount of property they owned with the exact specifications enumerated. Those with the most property had to be the most heavily equipped, those with less assessed property would have to purchase less.

The Germanic society was the most egalitarian as far as armed individuals go. All free men could be called up at anytime. There of course were differences as to what arms certain individuals could afford to posses, but the system, which went by the label of Fyrd among the Saxons, existed throughout Germanic societies by different names and technically continued as an obligation throughout the middle ages. Interestingly, the emergence of professional troops of the nobility and the resultant lack of reliance on the Fyrd-type bodies has a direct correlation with the subjugation and suppression of the common people. The concept was employed in the defense preparations of Elizabethan England when threatened by the Spanish Armada. The decline of the nobility and relative absence of one in daughter nations such as the US brought the practice back into common use. Colonial men were required to periodically report for drill and inspections of their equipment. These militias formed the basis of the first contingents to oppose what they believed to be British tyranny.

All of these and others types not mentioned here are an integral part of Western societies. These responsibilities have continued in various forms and frequency of use into the present day. In the Heller decision, the US Supreme Court had for evidence incredible amounts of citations of those who actually made the constitution or were contemporaries of those who did. All state clearly that the Militia (Modern Fyrd) consist of all able-bodied men (I would include women if they have been familiarized with weapons). The National Guard bodies of individual states, while constituting a sort of professional core of militia, is also a part of the US Army Reserve structure and has not taken the place of the militia.

To apply the protest against such an idea to early human societies, we could use the example of cave people. In a free society, like those who banded together and lived in natural shelters like caves, what would have happened to an individual who wanted the protection of the cave and the clan but did not want to take part in the clan's defense? Well, it is guaranteed that he would be cast out to fend for himself. His lack of willingness to expose himself to the danger common to all who stood in defense of the clan or his aversion to any violence for any purpose would result in his expulsion from that society. In the caves, one would forfeit his chance to survive if he refused to take part in defense. In Greek, Roman, Germanic and other Western societies, one who refused to take part would forfeit his right to have any say in how the society is run. He could not vote, speak at assemblies, or sit in or attend a Germanic council. (Saxon – Witan) In short, he had no right to have his opinion counted if he would not fight.

Today the Left wants several things:

1. To make themselves as defenseless as possible and to need state control of every aspect of their lives.

2. To make everyone else as defenseless and as needful as they.

3. To create a society where those who are intellectually [sic] against any violence can not only be free from any obligation to take part in defense (while fully enjoying its benefits) but also, contrary to the basic setup of free societies, get to have their opinion forced on those who do defend. (As in the recent homosexual agenda 'Obamian' move to force the military to have no restrictions whatsoever against overt homosexuality).
(The claims that gays have always been there has no weight as so have others who engage in prohibited activities. The idea as stated in an earlier post is that the military simply has the obligation to decide what types of behavior may be detrimental to military operations or discipline on any scale.   Note too that the military -even in the 80s had a significant open secret of a problem with sexual activity in squadbay (open floor type) female barracks - long before Don't Ask Don't tell kicked off)

4. To create a lawless environment that necessitates ever-broadening powers of both state and federal government.

5. To end once and for all any right, responsibility, or obligation of citizens to take protective action consistent with what the individual in Western cultures has done since its inception. (This of course is also aimed at one of the last responsibilities left for Western male, who has seen himself more and more marginalized from his place in the secure and orderly society that was created by his predecessors. This of course is not meant to exclude women from taking an active part in defense; indeed, feminists seem to pursue with zeal the goal of making all women completely defenseless and dependant on the police)

6. To cause the populace of the US to be unable to maintain its sovereignty in the face of the establishment of either a one-world government or regional pan-national governing bodies such as the EU or a hypothetical North American union.


Some will argue that the right to defend oneself is archaic and an unnecessary vestige of an earlier time. They will add that the establishment of professional police bodies, the active-duty military and National Guard Reserve, the lack of need to hunt for daily food, and the absence of threats from neighboring communities has negated the necessity for individuals to own arms.

Nothing could be further from the truth for any of these cases. Numerous court decisions have ruled that police cannot be held responsible for failing to protect an individual from violent criminal activity. The military is designed to deal with threats directly against the nation or states. Arms cannot be considered as only for hunting as this activity is only for a very limited application and is not the main purpose which is ensuring that a person can take protective measures. Lastly, the rise of exceptionally violent activity and the possibility things getting worse in the future makes the responsibility of one to own and become proficient with a firearm more important than it has been in a long time.

In short, no one event or chain of events has occurred that has removed the right and obligation of the individual to protect himself, his family, and his community.

The young Mom in the article performed a brave act that is keeping with the highest tradition of the Western concept of self-defense and preparedness. She is to be praised for her actions.

Note that the article gave the Mom's age as 18 and that of her recently-deceased husband as 58. That will be the topic of my next post. I did not feel that it should be treated here.

*A brief reference to Napoleon Bonaparte, who used that phrase in describing how he suppressed riots of the Sections in the tumultuous years of the early French republic. He used artillery. Grapeshot is made of bags filled with multiple projectiles. A shotgun is the closest thing to such an effective weapon that an individual may posses.

"God created man, Sam Colt made them equal."