Posted by AnnieB_1898 on December 31, 2008 at 12:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

That coward of a criminal will never go to that house again. That woman saved herself. And to think the liberals want to take away the right she exercised. hmmn

Posted by opns on December 31, 2008 at 1:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Don't ever mess with a mama bear.

Now time to catch the jerks.

Posted by handyhood on December 31, 2008 at 2:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I sure wish she was a better shot.:)

Posted by live_for_purpose on December 31, 2008 at 4:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And the liberals out there want to take away our guns!

What was one reason the Japanese did not very seriously contemplate an invasion of the U.S. mainland in World War II? Because they knew there would "be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

If every burglar/robber knew there would be an armed homeowner in most every house with the will to shoot them, trust me, there would be a lot less crime in America!

Get to the target range now and then and hit the target!

Nobody here but Smith & Wesson & me.

Posted by xrl650 on December 31, 2008 at 5:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Way to go homeowner. If he was in my house I would have shot him even if he did not make a aggressive move.

Posted by it_engineer on December 31, 2008 at 6:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As far as the "challenging" goes, I wouldn't doubt it occurred. The burglar could have been high and feeling invincible. If that was the case then the fact that a woman was holding the gun, he felt he could talk her down or even take her on. Perhaps characteristic of a womanizing pig.

As njnp stated, there are always at least two sides to every story. We may never know the truth about what happened that night. Just glad mom and baby were not physically harmed.

In regards to the comment of burglars thinking twice about entering a home knowing it will be defended with firearms. This may only encourage the thief to bring along his own firearm possibly resulting in a gunfight. In which case either the homeowner or thief or even both could be shot and or killed. My two cents...

Posted by AnnaWhaat on December 31, 2008 at 6:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yesterday it didn't say she shot at him. Today is a new day! Wish she had hit him at least in the leg!!!! Sad they both got away though.

Posted by jimmacdonald on December 31, 2008 at 6:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Good for her! Our founding Fathers were right to give us the right to keep and bear arms.

Posted by Ms_California on December 31, 2008 at 6:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Very scary! I'm glad she was able to protect herself and her child. I personally dislike guns and think that too many people who have them are not trained properly and that is one reason we have so much violence. People use guns to commit violence and not for protection. Another fear of mine is guns in the hands of children. Whoa don't even get me started on that! However, I do own a gun (for protection) and god help me that I will never have to use it on anyone trying to hurt me or my babies! So far so good!

Posted by vtaco93021 on December 31, 2008 at 6:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If she was able to get to gun so quick how quick could the kid get to it????

Posted by h2oboy on December 31, 2008 at 7:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Kudos to the homeowner for taking the gun and using it. Too bad she missed. Maybe the police can offer her some weapons training, so she won't miss if this happens again.

Posted by omie on December 31, 2008 at 7:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Glad she was clever enough to arm herself first before confronting him. Shoot first ask later, should be the motto when someone invades your home. Oh yah shoot to kill, don't let them come back at you with a lawsuit.

Most responsible honest law abiding gun owners are smart enough to keep firearms away from kids.
Its the retards that leave them unlocked and in plain sight that give everyone else a bad rap.

Posted by kosmoz13 on December 31, 2008 at 7:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

noone gave credit where credit was due. The Dog saved the day! Alerting her to an intruder, go pup! I am libral and I own a gun. Blanket generalizations are always flawed.

Posted by potatoebay on December 31, 2008 at 7:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think if you polled the so called "liberals", you would find most don't want to take away our guns. Quit harping on liberals. Is is true though, the far left liberals are as scary as the far right, self rightheous, religious wackos.

Posted by socal2310 on December 31, 2008 at 7:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It is relatively easy to secure items away from small children while leaving them accessible to adults. There are also safes that can be very quickly accessed by anyone with the proper codes.

The report says the homeowners challenged the burglar, it did NOT indicate the form of the challenge. It may have been, "Stop, or I'll shoot." but more likely was something along the lines of, "What the Hell are you doing in here." If the latter, the burglar may not have realized she was armed until she pulled the trigger.

There is no duty to challenge an intruder. You give them the opportunity to fire at you if they are armed. For further reading, I recommend, "In the Gravest Extreme" by Massad Ayoob.

Posted by cslaurie on December 31, 2008 at 7:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Inside your home - shoot to kill.

Posted by luv2sail on December 31, 2008 at 7:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Gun Control: Hitting your target.
It would behoove anyone who owns a gun to at least go out and practice from time to time and be profecient in using your gun.
Should this had happened at our house, there would have been one in a 3" circle, game over.

Posted by handyhood on December 31, 2008 at 7:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

socal2310- Yeah the report said she challenged the intruder, but the challenge should have been the sound of gunshot. If someone sneeks into your home to rob you, you should be able to sneek up on them and shoot them!
Kozmoz13- that is an oxymoron, a liberal who owns a gun! :)

Posted by AngryChihuahua on December 31, 2008 at 7:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Liberals Do Not want to take away your guns! That's just a lie Republicans tell to scare middle class idiots into voting for them. People like AnnieB_1898 and Ms_California. HaHaHa!

Posted by byteme on December 31, 2008 at 7:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

a great ending to a sad beginning. Geez I feel like I need to sleep with one eye open these days.

Posted by kind1 on December 31, 2008 at 8:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

That is what I am talking about! Good Job! Imagine if he was that atagonistic during a hot prowl and she and the toddler were home alone without protection?
You go girl!
I hope Santa brought you extra ammo for Xmas!

Posted by venturadude on December 31, 2008 at 8:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Big 5 always has great deals on shotguns. Everyone should keep one in there house just for this reason. The best part is you can't miss with a shotty.

Posted by Rocket81 on December 31, 2008 at 8:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Lucky he didnt enter my house. He wouldnt be here today.

Posted by Mommaof4 on December 31, 2008 at 8:17 a.m.

(This thread was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by lawabider on December 31, 2008 at 8:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey, LuvOxnard2 - "I had the right to remain silent, but I did not have the ability!" hahaha! I'm so glad she actually shot the fools -- yesterday was all pure speculation... And, yes, grand kudos to the dog! My dogs bark at everything and when my husband or kids try to shush them I make them let the dogs do their job!

Posted by Mommaof4 on December 31, 2008 at 8:28 a.m.

(This thread was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by unclneal on December 31, 2008 at 8:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, I agree that we have the right to bear arms and USE them whenever someone breaks into MY home, BUT the ACLU would be suing the homeowner if she had hit the burglar! Liberty over Liberalism!
Wake up America! The Libs want your guns, your rights, and want to destroy the Constitution!

Posted by it_engineer on December 31, 2008 at 8:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What's with the caps?

Posted by it_engineer on December 31, 2008 at 8:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Umm unclneal,

I believe it is W. that has shown blatant disregard for the Constitution.

Posted by brwnoso on December 31, 2008 at 8:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

hahahaha, that should teach them scums a lesson.

Posted by Mommaof4 on December 31, 2008 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry about the caps. I get heated and a little passionate about stories I feel strongly about.

Posted by Mister_S on December 31, 2008 at 8:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I consider myself a part of the "liberal" swath of the political spectrum, and I don't want to take any of your guns away. In fact, my deep respect for the second ammendment is only elcipsed by my reverence for the 1st, which encourages and allows me to express these opinions.

Posted by ReinadeRoma on December 31, 2008 at 8:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As a woman who lives in a rural area of the county, and has repeatedly had to shoot rattlesnakes to protect her dogs, I love this woman's courage and audacity! Her intruders were just two deadly vipers threatening her and her loved ones. And if she truly got off 4 rounds with only one bullet recovered, her shooting is better than a lot of cops'! Good job!

Posted by venturapagan on December 31, 2008 at 9 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Good for her! I agree that just owning a gun does NOT make you safer; being proficient with it is. I also understand the concerns of kids and guns, but frankly, if you teach them gun safety at an early age and take them target shooting, a lot of the curiosity is taken away (personal experience w/dad's guns, and I'm still here:) AND of course, keep them locked up, but accessible when needed. More women need to take gun handling/safety classes, available locally, and the state needs to do more to protect citizens from prosecution in the defense of life.
-well trained, female NRA member

Posted by venturapagan on December 31, 2008 at 9:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And it sounds like she hit her target from the article, so her aim can't be too bad! Keep in mind adrenaline plays a big factor in your ability to aim in stress situations.

Posted by it_engineer on December 31, 2008 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

venturapagan,

Your experience with "gun safety" as a kid is only one example that did not end in tragedy. There are many documented cases of children accidentally shooting themselves and others while being "supervised" on the range. Children and guns do not mix. Don't get me wrong though. I own a couple of Glocks myself and I am all for defending my home but you will never see me put a gun in my son's hands. Not until he's at least 20 or I feel is ready for such training.

Posted by DrcGrl on December 31, 2008 at 9:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mommaof4, it is obvious that you have inside info of this case as I do too. Do you think there is a reason that the info you revealed was not stated in this story? Is your husband a cop? If you are a cop, shame on you. Maybe you should keep your mouth shut and let the proper authorities reveal the add'l info when they feel it is the right time. What else are you going to reveal?

Posted by it_engineer on December 31, 2008 at 9:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

By the way, I am a "liberal".

Posted by Twslv05 on December 31, 2008 at 9:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Too bad she missed the bastards!!
I sure hope she takes more target practice so next she will not miss.

AngryChihuahua

"Liberals Do Not want to take away your guns!"

I found that very laughable and totally wrong.
Liberals are attacking the 2nd amendment as we speak!

Liberals are the ones trying to come up with ways to take guns from law abiding citizens such as places like DC and New York which are very heavily liberal.
Here in California liberals have not been as successful yet but; liberal leaders are trying to ban or restrict the purchasing of ammunition and the only ones that are preventing them are Republicans.

San Francisco has a 80% liberal city government that for years has been anti gun anti 2nd amendment.

If this happened in New York city which is very liberal, this lady would have to prove herself innocent and have special permits to have a weapon to defend herself.

These issues are being fought in the Supreme Court and aways come up 5 to 4 with the four most liberal justices against upholding second amendment rights and the rights of citizens to defend themselves from intruders like this lady had to.

If a liberal claims to be for the 2nd amendment he or she is surely only claiming so for political gain much like a Republican who is seeking support from the ACLU.

Posted by venturapagan on December 31, 2008 at 9:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ah, well, my dad didn't leave it unlocked around the house, if that's what you're thinking; in a safe, like responsible gun owners should. I'm just saying it never occurred to us kids to go looking for it out of curiousity, 'cuz it wasn't a big deal. But thanks for assuming..... Like stated above, irresponsible ppl who don't secure they're weapons are putting children at risk, and giving a bad name to the rest of us law-abiders. Heaven forbid ppl have to use common sense...

Posted by Mommaof4 on December 31, 2008 at 9:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

DrcGrl:

What if I am the victim?? What difference does it make?

I feel that people needed to be set straight and not condemn the woman for protecting herself and her child. They have no clue about the real story and it is offensive to read remarks about her child's safety being an issue with guns being accessible to the homeowner. And maybe you should shut your mouth, being a privileged source, and revealing information.

As to your inclination of what else I am going to reveal, I don't understand what you mean by that...

Posted by venturapagan on December 31, 2008 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

All criminals get fair warning at my house; NRA life member stickers at all windows. If you break in anyway, then "here's your sign..." (Bill Engvall)

Posted by DrcGrl on December 31, 2008 at 9:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mommaof4, these people were giving their "opinion" based on the info given, which they have the right to do. I just don't think you have the right or authority to devulge the info you gave. It is released through proper channels, which we all know a newspaper blog is not one of them. That is what difference it makes and you and I both know you aren't the victim.

Posted by handyhood on December 31, 2008 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Handyhoods golden rule number 1. If you pull a gun, use the gun! Never pull it out without firing it! Safty first.

Posted by Mommaof4 on December 31, 2008 at 9:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

DrcGrl:

And I was giving my "opinion" on the info I SAW. And we don't BOTH know if I am the victim or not, so before you go and state things, make sure they are facts. No info that was stated by my prior comment was improper and it is unfortunate that you feel I don't have authority to reveal my opinion. And explain to me "proper channels", please? Press releases where large amounts of information that would be helpful to the public to help find the f*ckers are omitted? All this paper reports are half stories.

Posted by cassandra2 on December 31, 2008 at 10:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As the last of the red hot liberals, let me respond to some of the above B.S..

This pro gun/anti-gun frame is a false dichotomy, a red meat issue to keep the brain dead away from real ones--like the degree that K St. lobbyists run our national agenda.

It should be impossible for kids, crooks and crazies to acquire guns. And it would not be hard to do if the the NRA extremists did not block even the most common sense restrictions on delays, record keeping, background checks, etc..

Everybody else should be able to have a gun not just at home but concealed on their person while away.. I have been such a person. It was long ago and the statute of limitations has long run out on my crimes so I feel free to admit it.

I carried on several college campuses. I can tell you from experience, I became very, very alert and careful knowing I might do real harm to someone. It didn't make me reckless. It made me circumspect and cautious about my surroundings. And my fellow students of both sexes asked me to accompany them to their vehicle because they felt safer.

But before purchase, one should have to pass a course in gun safety and safe stowage, particularly with kids around. Maybe the NRA would take over the certification process. Do some good for a change. Maybe the police could.

Particularly women should own, know and care about their equalizer. So good for this lady who sent her burglar off with a salute.

Posted by Twslv05 on December 31, 2008 at 10:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

it_engineer
I understand that there are instances of young children under 14 who get to a firearm and have tragic results.
These cases though are very very rare.
Most cases that involve child accidents it is the parents or family members who possess these firearms that are very irresponsible and should not have children in my opinion.
Many times it is the children of criminals such as gang members that have these weapons in their possession.

Fact, cases involving accidental deaths by firearm of children under the age 12 ranks very low.Well behind car accidents,drowning,falls or fire.

"venturapagan" is correct about gun safety and raising children who are gun literate and know gun safety which in my opinion should be taught in public schools.
Those who feel otherwise and do not want their children exposed to guns as you I respect that too.
Kids will be curious that is a fact,we as parents are the ones to insure their safety and to me giving them gun safety training is a good start.

Posted by horsespinner on December 31, 2008 at 10:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The right to bear arms, shall not be infringed

Posted by DrcGrl on December 31, 2008 at 10:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I didn't reveal anything. The info you stated was not in this paper or released anywhere else. There are reasons that some info is not released to the public right away that you and ILUVOXNARD2 obviously don't understand. "Your opinion" you say is of info that was not revealed and most likely there is a reason it wasn't. Just stick to posting opinions on info given. Or are you prepared to reveal your sources? I am sure you are not as the repercussions might make you think twice next time.

Posted by Mommaof4 on December 31, 2008 at 10:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I do not need to prepare for anything, as there is no need to reveal my sources or "devulge" in continuing to respond to impertinent comments.

Posted by DrcGrl on December 31, 2008 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The info you gave plus more was omitted from this story as it most likely would have hampered the authorities investigation if revealed.

If you want to be the leak that is your choice, but just remember if the authorities find out it was your mouth, they can find out who you are through your login info.

Hmmmmm......look at that....your first posts have been removed.

Have a nice day!

Posted by NowHearThis on December 31, 2008 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Woo-hoo! Finally a story in the press that shows someone using a firearm in a positive manner. Folks, there are thousands of similar stories across this country every year, except the press fails to report on these instances. Thanks STAR.

I don't wish harm on anyone, but if this burglar was injured just enough for him/her?? to seek medical care, that would be justice.

Posted by DrcGrl on December 31, 2008 at 11:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

ILUVOXNARD2, nobody needed to know who she was the wife of. I think the Public Info Officer would've given that info out if it wasn't important in some way to the investigation.

Think about it....you'll get it!! Or maybe not.

Posted by Ironhorse on December 31, 2008 at 11:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What I find remarkable is the fact that this story appeared in the Star. While it is not uncommon for firearms to be used in the defense of person and property, it is unusual in the extreme to find it reported upon because a story such as this one validates the possession and use of firearms by private citizens. This is NOT what the anti-gun politicos want.
On the issue of "children with guns"; As with any other aspect of raising children, it is the responsibility of the parent to train the child in gun safety! Whether the parent does this on their own or enrolls the child in a formal gun safety class, this training needs to be done early. As was stated in an earlier post, if you remove the curiosity factor, the level of danger is much reduced.

Posted by nojustice_justus on December 31, 2008 at 11:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Big 5 always has great deals on shotguns. Everyone should keep one in there house just for this reason. The best part is you can't miss with a shotty."---venturadude

I agree!! Just ask Dick Cheney.

Posted by BeaHappi on December 31, 2008 at 11:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Good for her! How scary to have criminals break into your house. I'm glad that she was able to defend herself and her child.

As for the LOSERS who are lucky she didn't kill them, I hope that they are caught soon.

Posted by West_to_East on December 31, 2008 at 11:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

should of aimed for his head

Posted by nojustice_justus on December 31, 2008 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yesterday's story--no shots fired. Burglar escapes dragnet.

Today's story--shots fired. Allegedly not all rounds accounted for. Burglar escapes dragnet.

Tomorrow's story--Burglar found dead?

Posted by dym2u26 on December 31, 2008 at 11:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I am glad the mom & child were not hurt. I hope they do catch the scumbags that were involved.

Everyone have a safe & Happy New Year!!
Remember, if you must drink, than don't drive.

Posted by eclipsewatcher on December 31, 2008 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm one of those dreaded “liberals” too. I really don't want to take away peoples' right to keep and bear arms. But here's the deal. For every law-abiding, responsible gun owner, there are a hundred other criminals/psychos/wackos who also have guns. Why? Because there's just way too many guns out there. Way too many. And, I said this before, they're falling into the hands of the wrong people, oftentimes children. Brandon McInerny is a perfect example. Before using his father's gun to blow away Larry King, he was just kid. Not a criminal, just a kid. His father had a history of violence and sounded very unstable. Why on earth was this guy ever issued a gun permit? Unless he had the gun illegally, which is possible. Either way, he needed a gun like he needed a hole in the head. And now look where his kid is.

If you own and are proficient with a gun and can keep a cool head in a stressful situation, more power to you. But I dare say that the average citizen, who is likely to panic in a threatening situation, is either going to harm themselves or an innocent person with that gun. Just my two cents.

Happy New Year everyone!

Posted by nojustice_justus on December 31, 2008 at 12:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

eclipsewatcher---He was issued a gun permit?

Or do you merely intend to convey he was able to purchase a firearm?
Those are two very different scenarios.

Just wanted to clarify...

Posted by DrcGrl on December 31, 2008 at 12:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe not, but what about the victims right to privacy. If the thugs read this, they and everyone else now know who she is.

You just don't get it...CLUELESS!! IGUWY

"It's not top secret info". Not anymore.

Posted by DrcGrl on December 31, 2008 at 12:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You think I suggested removal??

Posted by lawabider on December 31, 2008 at 12:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Both my parents are cops -- would that have ANY bearing on how I treat someone invading my home? Would that "hamper the investigation" in any way? Would that prevent law enforcement from pursuing the suspects? Would the burglars not be prosecuted? I'm not getting what dark girl is saying, either! LUV, can you enlighten me?

Posted by vtaco93021 on December 31, 2008 at 12:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Concerning dad being able to purchase Gun, No way due to his past criminal history and drug usage I dont believe he could buy one but there is nothing to say he actually turned in his guns in the first place. For info dad lives at home with dad due to irresponsible actions, lets just call it DYSFUNCTIONAL. this info was 4mo ago things might have changed by now.

Posted by DrcGrl on December 31, 2008 at 1:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

1. I did no such thing.
2. Mommaof4 had no business "devulging" info about the case through this forum. If the authorities wanted the press to know, they would've have "devulged" that information to them.

Lawabider, ask your parents....if you received sensitive information regarding a case that was not given to the press for a reason, would it be right for you to "devulge" that information to the public????

ILUVOXNARD2, call 805-654-2386 and ask the same question.

Maybe, just maybe it will make sense to you then.

I have defended my "original position" with each and every one of my posts. No grabbing of straws here.

Maybe, just maybe it will make sense to you then.

Posted by eclipsewatcher on December 31, 2008 at 1:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

nojustice_justus: I meant that he was able to purchase a firearm. If these are two different scenarios like you say, then please educate me.

Posted by outadabusiness on December 31, 2008 at 1:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by it_engineer on December 31, 2008 at 6:29 a.m.

"In regards to the comment of burglars thinking twice about entering a home knowing it will be defended with firearms. This may only encourage the thief to bring along his own firearm possibly resulting in a gunfight. In which case either the homeowner or thief or even both could be shot and or killed. My two cents..."

As a retired cop (25 yrs.), I will politely disagree with your opinion stated above. I do not believe it will encourage that type of behavior, and believe the average burglar will NOT go into a home they believe to be occupied AND armed, unless they are already armed and prepared for such resistance. And if they are armed and ready for such a fight, I would certainly feel better being armed myself.

Posted by lawabider on December 31, 2008 at 1:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My parents don't believe that a party (not related to the case) has ANY restrictions on their speech... Pretty certain THAT'S the law!

Posted by venturapagan on December 31, 2008 at 1:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The only people effected by more and more gun laws are the law abiding citizens who are trying to obey them. Criminals by them unregistered on the street. A criminal would have to be a special kind of stupid to go to a gun shop and have them run the usual background check, etc. Britain's gun regulations are some of the strictest, and their gun crimes are skyrocketing; the citizen's can't even carry a pocket knife to defend themselves. All the laws in the world don't diminish the number of guns available or the number of criminals or crimes.

Posted by Twslv05 on December 31, 2008 at 1:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

cassandra2
Even though I usually disagree with you I love reading your posts!
On this issue I really don't think you quite understand what the NRA's stance is on guns and crime.
What makes you think the NRA wants criminals to acquire a firearm or is against background check?
You have a very narrow view on this issue as I see it because, you yourself admittedly broke the law by carrying a concealed weapon on a campus and had you been caught that in itself would have disqualified you from passing a background check because it is a felony to do so in many public areas.
I totally agree with your view that every law abiding citizen should be able to possess a concealed firearm at home and on person with CCW permits must not be denied without due process however I do have concern when you say "particularly women" and refer to a firearm as an "equalizer" which shows your one sidedness once again on gender.

If more law abiding citizens were armed I believe there would be far less violent crime.

What the concerns of the NRA has been in the past is what is the criteria to deny someone a firearm based on his/her background?

The left believes it should include practically anyone who had broken practically any law law.
Places like New York and DC it is impossible to acquire a CCW permit.

Maybe if you those of you would select candidates or adopted a pro 2nd amendment platform this issue would be a mute one.But the facts are there that that is not the case or maybe you are not as liberal as you think you are.

Posted by venturapagan on December 31, 2008 at 1:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And since you also can't (unfortunately) outlaw "stupid ppl", more laws won't stop irresponsible adults from being lax on gun security. Case in point; look how well Prohibition worked at stopping ppl from drinking alcohol....I agree that not everything the NRA wants is necessarily a good idea, but at least gun owners have SOMEONE on their side.

Posted by venturapagan on December 31, 2008 at 1:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just a thought; so someone refuses to own a weapon, never teaches their kid anything about gun safety. They go to their friends house, find their friend's parents gun.... Parent the way you want, but consider that.

Posted by DrcGrl on December 31, 2008 at 1:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lawabider, a little different when the info you are given was given to you by and only known by the authorities. For example, your parents give you info on a case they may be working on (not knowing what exactly your parents do/did as cops) is it still your right of speech to publicly state that info in this forum? The info that Mommaof4 gave obviously came from an authority figure of some kind. No matter what case I hear info on, I NEVER would "devulge" information on it publicly, especially if the case was open.

ILUVOXNARD2, apples and oranges. They have yet to make an arrest in this case.

Posted by nojustice_justus on December 31, 2008 at 2:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@ eclipsewatcher---In order to purchase a firearm (legally) in CA you must:

-be 21 years of age to purchase a handgun/18 for rifle or shotgun

-pass a NCIS background check. That takes 10 days.

-possess a Handgun Safety certificate. (via a test you can take at any FFL establishment, or anybody holding a FFL)

-the buyer must present "clear evidence of identity and age" which is defined as a valid, non-expired California Driver's License or Identification Card issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles. A military identification accompanied by permanent duty station orders indicating a posting in California is also acceptable.

To apply for a permit, or a CCW, then they are issued only by a county sheriff to residents of the county, or by the head of a city police department to residents of that city.

Posted by DrcGrl on December 31, 2008 at 2:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Don't you get it!!??? Okay, lets say she is their neighbor. Then she is privy to information that the general public is not. Therefore, she has no business posting such information for the public to see before it is released officially from the authorities.

Each and every one of my posts I have stated the same facts just in different words hoping you might understand what is said. At the same time, you have taken bits and pieces of what I have said and turned them around and picked them apart, instead of seeing the point being made.

From her post, we know she is the wife of an authority figure from out of the area and she has a young child. As this occurred late in the evening we also know that this husband works late leaving the wife and young child home alone. Would you want your neighbor to tell the public this if you were the wife when these thugs have not been caught yet? They could come back, follow her to the store...you name it, it could happen. These punks obviously have no regard for the law and knowing she is associated with it, could give them more of a reason in their f uped heads to harm her or the child.

Do you get it now??????

Posted by Good_Granny on December 31, 2008 at 2:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ok, I have to say that having/and keeping secrets is not safe for us. We need to know what we are up against. The police can't and won't be everywhere at the same time. If we don't know what a criminal's mo is how can we protect ourselves and children. In my case grandchildren as well. Do we have to stay home because we might get mugged? I do. It's not safe outside.

And you two girls, please tell us what you know. Or would you like to come over with your guns and protect my family?

I also have a glock. I hope I never have to use it. But, God help the criminal that comes into my home. I will shoot first and ask questions later.

Please, no more secrets!

Posted by alittlebirdie on December 31, 2008 at 2:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I've been inspired to finally purchase a gun. How else are you going to protect yourself in Ventura County?

Posted by nojustice_justus on December 31, 2008 at 3 p.m. (Suggest removal)

alittlebirdie--what are you looking for? I can steer you in the correct direction...

Posted by Mommaof4 on December 31, 2008 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Talk about devulging information!

Posted by venturapagan on December 31, 2008 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

yeah, and there's going to be a women's gun training class coming up very soon, I think from the VSD. I'm going to brush up....Besides, my Sig Sauer misses me....

Posted by DrcGrl on December 31, 2008 at 3:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You should've never started it. Just trying to make you think outside the box before you think of posting like that again. Some things are best unsaid. I didn't post any info you didn't already. Only I left out the specific info, intentionally.

I just hope you see the point I was trying to make with my several post. That's all. Sorry if you, ILUVOXNARD2, lawabider or anyone else for that matter got offended. That was not my intention. Me saying "shut your mouth" was a little harsh and I am sure is what struck your nerve and I apologize.

Posted by jamaro099 on December 31, 2008 at 3:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Glad the victims were not hurt. I don't know how I would feel having killed a person regardless of the circumstance but if it was between me or a family member and the bad guys I'll have no problem squeezing off a few rounds.

Anyway, I thought the main point of contention between NRA and anti-gun folks was the issue of owning military type weapons like automatic and large caliber weapons? Never paid too much attention to the issue. I lean left but only because I believe it best protects the Constitution. We all have a right to own guns responsibly.

Posted by cassandra2 on December 31, 2008 at 3:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I can't read all this bleep so I am responding only to what is directed to me and if I reiterate someone else's point without a nod to them, forgive me.

Are you crazy? Of course, I have gender bias!!!! 5000 years of patriarchical oppression will do that. I also spent one summer collecting all news articles of inter/intra gender violence and guess what? Overwhelmingly the majority of victims of vioence were males by other males. Female victims of male violence were second most numerous. Female violence to males were tiny fraction of the pile and most could reasonably be considered pre-emptive self-defense. Female to female violence was not to be found in my pile at all although I'm sure it's more common than it was back then.

You know, I'm just not afraid of being jumped in a parking lot by another woman. Maybe I should be, but it's not in the logic of the situation. Is it? Who would YOU fear.

So if you want the freedom of mobility a citizen is entitled to, who are you going to want protection from?

And there's no point in claiming females should have male protectors because the stats show over and over it's one's nearest and dearest from whom we have most to fear, not the stranger.

So I have a right through history and the logic of physical bimorphism to say that females particularly need an equalizer. This isn't a bias I betray but common sense.

There are ways of culling out psychologically dangerous people. Therapists are already obliged to violate client's privilege when certain kinds of threats or crimes are involved. And any time one's mental derangement takes one into the criminal justice system there is a criminal record. A cursory background check will not do this.

Beyond that nobody needs an automatic (not a semi-automatic) weapon for "self-defense" or whole arsenals like the teen in Oak View whose mom complained when the cops took away his 40 odd weapons. The nerve of them.

I would like only cops and the military to be armed but that's not reasonable. One suicidal kid I interviewed for hospitalization told me no, he had no gun yet but he could "buy one on the Avenue in an hour, 30 minutes in Colonia if he was Mexican."

As for committing a crime--well I wasn't caught, was ?. I also smoked pot and probably parked illegally once or twice.

Posted by cassandra2 on December 31, 2008 at 3:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

One more thing--I picked up a piece of wisdom on the subject from Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont. At the time the state had almost no homicides at all and a long tradition of rifle handling going back to the Revolutionary War. Dean pointed out that a state like Vermont needed very different gun control rules than D.C. or for that matter South Central L.A. then the murder capital of the country.

I do not want to hear any sophistic reasoning on the 2nd Amendment about this, that poor Amendment distorted so far beyond its original intention by tortured judicial logic.

Posted by jamaro099 on December 31, 2008 at 3:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Are you crazy? Of course, I have gender bias!!!! 5000 years of patriarchical oppression will do that.."

You're 5000 years old? Did you know Jesus?

Just teasing..A couple of gender studies classes in college opened my eyes to what you're describing so I agree 100% with you.

Posted by JWFOXNEWS on December 31, 2008 at 4:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Breaking news-cassandra2 is the self appointed expert on the 2nd amendment.
No more sophistic reasoning will be accepted on the 2nd amendment.
All weapons check regulations will have to pass muster with the egotistical self-righteous cassandra2.
Stand by for more breaking news.

Posted by cassandra2 on December 31, 2008 at 4:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oops, I meant bisexual dimorphism, not the weird term my keyboard put out there.

Yes, I did know Jesus. Split a few. Man, that guy could make a keg of wine go further than anyone I knew. Nice dude. Sort of embarassed by his followers but hey, not his fault, he didn't start the religion, didn't happen on his watch, you know?

Posted by mmshot on December 31, 2008 at 5:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

eclipsewatcher, you answered your own question: "For every law-abiding, responsible gun owner, there are a hundred other criminals/psychos/wackos who also have guns. Why? Because there's just way too many guns out there." So, by their very nature these guns are illegal and all of the laws and impossible law enforcement abilities will never keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

"Not a criminal, just a kid." Yeah, he's a kid, but Brandon McInerny committed a criminal act. "Either way, he needed a gun like he needed a hole in the head." How crass. It was Larry King that got the hole in his head.

Kudos to the victim and I am glad everyone was okay in the end. cassandra says "it should be impossible" for the crazy crooks and criminals to obtain weapons. How? Our borders are porous and law enforcement is already over-stressed. This is not about liberal and conservative. Our Constitution grants the right to keep and bear arms in order to defend our interests.

Anyway, Happy New Year, everybody.

Posted by ironwoman on December 31, 2008 at 5:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

England has a high crime rate; some state that it is a result of their gun banning laws. It appears that after banning guns in England, the crime rate rose significantly.

For those who believe in banning guns, I hope you never are victimized by criminals and aren't able to defend yourself.

Posted by Twslv05 on December 31, 2008 at 5:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

cassandra2
Ok, then should we profile males by race if you want to talk of statistical logic as to what race should you fear most then?

In cases like this that might be true however
there are certain facts you are ignoring such as females have a much higher rate of increase in violent crimes than males and is growing.
Also other crimes such as gang affiliation.

Do you want to compare crime stats for Blacks,Whites and Hispanics to gauge who you might consider dangerous?

Should racial or gender profiling or using a wide brush based on whether you live in DC or Omaha?

You seem to believe females are somehow less violent than males but according to domestic violence stats female to male violence is
growing.
Self defense is not a gender issue and you are very ignorant on the whole idea that its a male problem is laughable.

Just remember that behind every gang banger male there is a gang banger female.

Posted by JWFOXNEWS on December 31, 2008 at 5:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Breaking news- last check on the topic is women pops round at hoodlums.
Nothing about religion. Is this the whacko thinking of the ultra left wing nut cake politically correct cassandra2?
Lastest polls taken, reflect ,cassandra2 is a certified nut cake.
Stand by for more breaking news

Posted by Snafu on December 31, 2008 at 6:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If intruders make it past my dogs they'll meet my Glock. They WON'T make it past her.

"'Tis better to be judged by twelve than carried by six."

Posted by mmshot on December 31, 2008 at 6:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"There are ways of culling out psychologically dangerous people." Tell us, cassandra, why don't we do that then?

Posted by whatch on December 31, 2008 at 8:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A heroine in Ventura, way to go. Although she was triumphant the fact remains she experienced a violent act. The thought of this happening is sicking. A malicious invasion by a cowardly scumbag in my sanctuary. Yeah go ahead and fire away. My sympathy goes out to this family. I am sadden by the fact it was also necessary to be armed. For as long as I can remember I have been in opposition to firearm time to rethink my point of view.

Posted by Gideon_70 on December 31, 2008 at 10:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hello. When I was growing up, I lived in a county where I can only remember a few murders... less then three or so, my entire childhood. I knew one kid that was hurt with a handgun, and I knew him well enough to know that he was being stupid. Now this was a fairly large town, and we had guns everywhere.

I remember that there were a few guys that would keep a rifle and shotgun in their cars at school. They were in window racks, and were pretty nice. But we never heard of anyone getting hurt with them.

We also allowed open carry. To hide a gun on your body was considered to be a criminal act. No one wanted to be around someone that was so stupid! How did you know where you stood? No, I much prefer that my weapons are out inthe open, where people can know what and where I stand. Would I pull a weapon in anger? Are you KIDDING?

So, we had a crime rate that was practically nil. Oh, the usual stuff like traffic and DUI's and things, that happens everywhere. But what insanity would cause a burgler to break into a house KNOWING that there was a 75% chance that they would leave with rock salt and bacon grease in thier hides.

Then I move to a "gun free zone!"

WHAT A CROCK!

The people I know, by my standards at home, are cowards. They will not confront a drug dealer, tella hooker to get out of the neighborhood, and if someone starts to yell help, they hide in fear that the person assaulting the kid MIGHT be armed. Pathetic! Sheep! Useless?

I looked at the statistics. My state, Kentucky, has no open carry restrictions. You can carry in the car. You can carry in the courthouse, you can even carry in the police station. No one cares.

Then I look at Washington DC. A little city and a tiny portion of the population of my state. They ban all guns. They make the people feel "safe."

There were more murders in Washington DC, then the state of Kentucky!

So tell me Brady people, when the blood is dripping from the hands of the people... whose hands is it on? Who has disarmed the victims? How has created a shooting gallery where the targets don't shoot back?

How many people have you killed this year Gun Banners?

Posted by socal2310 on January 1, 2009 at 1:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

For those of you who think the gun laws currently in existence accomplish anything and that more gun laws will solve anything, may I please direct your attention to the following:

Firearms: cheap, easy to get and on a street near you
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug...

This in addition to the fact that they are seriously considering banning any and all kitchen knives with pointed ends.

As I noted in response to another news story, revolvers and semi-auto pistols can be manufactured by a half way decent machinist. Not as shiny, durable and accurate as what you find at the gun store, but perfectly effective for murder and mayhem.

A rudimentary single-shot gun could be assembled by almost anyone of you without any specialized equipment.

Ryan

Posted by katndog on January 1, 2009 at 6:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My son wants me to get a gun and I think I may add that to my "must have items" for 09!

Posted by Oxnard2009 on January 1, 2009 at 8:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

But then the criminal might come back with his gang buddies and terrorize the home in retaliation... they could just drive by and lead will rain down.

Posted by gramagracie on January 2, 2009 at 5:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I say kudos to the the dog who warned her about the intruder in her house. I am glad that she saw the threat and eliminated it. No one is going to come back to this house...she can arm her self and this time she will be ready...Front Side, Front Side, Front Side. That's how my husband taught me to shoot. Trust me, if any intruder came into my home he/she would leave in a body bag. I would be so fearful for my life that I would have no choice but to protect myself and my family. In Arizona, anyone can get a conceal weapon permit, with proper class and background check. You can even carry your weapon in a holster on your hip in plain view. I personally believe in the element of surprise....better they don't know...God bless the victim and her family.

Posted by EZachLee_Wright on January 2, 2009 at 4:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

California is the land of NUTS. You have 17 separate state gun control laws. You ban assault weapons despite the fact they are used in less than 2% of gun crimes. You ban .50cal rifles despite the fact they are used in zero percent of crimes. You severely restrict who may have a concealed weapons permit despite the fact that shall issue states have seen a reduction in serious crime after implementing shall issue concealed carry. LA has a new law banning the sale of .50cal ammo despite the fact the rifles are banned AND this round has a zero percent crime factor. Your legislature and governor are IDIOTS. E. Zach Lee-Wright

Posted by imanhonestrealtor on January 2, 2009 at 6:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

the homeowner sounds pretty lucky to me. she is extremely lucky that she didn't hit the guy, as she would have been arrested for attempted murder! you cannot use deadly force, firing a gun at someone, who is unarmed and poses no threat to your life!
she is also lucky she didn't shoot her kid, or her dog, or her neighbor.
be careful, lady, because the next person to break into your house unannounced will be the Democrat-controlled Senate, and they will kill you if you don't surrender that gun that "saved your life!"

Posted by imanhonestrealtor on January 2, 2009 at 6:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

gramagracie: "I would be so fearful for my life that I would have no choice but to protect myself and my family."
Hysterical behavior is not a valid defense for murder or attempted murder. I think that since you're so "fearful," that you wouldn't be able to shoot the intruder, the same way the woman in this article couldn't.
When faced with a life or death decision, one doesn't fire warning shots. If she didn't miss on purpose, I feel sorry for her neighbors, and I look forward to the next Star article reporting the break-in to her home to steal her gun.

Posted by Oxnard2009 on January 2, 2009 at 6:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

imanhonestrealtor wrong. You can shoot the person even if they are unarmed. They are trespassing... Waiit... I think you're being sarcastic. I see what you did there.

Posted by live_for_purpose on January 3, 2009 at 6:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Gideon_70: GREAT POST!!! People kill people. Guns don't kill people.

Look at the type of people who live in Washington, D.C. and you will know why the murder rate there in that one city is higher than in all of Kentucky.