48 Replies to “A Trio Of Would Be Burglars”

  1. I just love happy stories. When I first read about the pink gun, I thought it was going to be a pink AR and the burglars got introduced to sustained automatic weapons fire. Oh well! Still pretty happy story. I hope they fell down a bunch on the way to cells.

  2. It goes to prove a point from the older SDA post – Burglars aka “Home invaders” conservative / “Societies unfortunate victims” liberal – usually come in twos, three’s or more these days.
    The more firepower and “intimidation factor” your family protection tools have, the better.
    Even the gayest, crack-head crawling in your window after a day at the liberal social club, will freeze in his tracks at the all knowing sound of a 12 gauge pump racking a round in its chamber. He doesn’t need to see it to know he’s now having a bad day.
    Any visual confirmation of the nearly ¾” gaping hole pointed between his eye’s along with some acoustic memory, I have no doubts that he would need a diaper at that moment.

  3. I bought my wife the “pink” version of the ” 70th anniversary commemorative red ryder” along with the actual 70th annivesary red ryder. my grandson thought they were for him xmas morning
    a fight ensued

  4. Knight 99
    [……….Burglars aka “Home invaders” conservative / “Societies unfortunate victims” liberal – usually come in twos, three’s or more these days……….]
    This is not a new trend. They are called gangs.
    It seems Police come in at least 2 categories…
    1) Political….primarily concerned with ruling/controlling the public….
    2) Pragmatic….good guys versus bad guys……
    I had a Crown Attorney opine that a rock salt load is evidence of prior intent to wound…..he also disliked dogs….and they dislike him.

  6. @Pat: I share your sentiments regarding the happy story, but my hatred of the silly ‘restricted’ status of AR rifles in Canada compels me to point out that they are NOT capable of ‘sustained automatic weapons fire’, since they are semi-automatic.

  8. Among other charges awaiting the Canadian counterparts would be “Careless use of a firearm” and “unsafe storage” for parents who allow a minor and unlicenced family member access to the gun safe or key for the trigger lock.
    Snicker not! These charges have been laid against a fully licenced and registered owner who’s wife ,(who was unlicenced)in his absence, followed a police order to open the gun safe for their inspection. Face it, Canada’s laws involving sporting arms is distinctly fascist in nature and is enforced in an abusive corrupt police state manner.

  9. Any gun is better than no gun, though my favorite thing about this clip (which has been out for a while now) is the Newsreader is so delighted at the idea of a young girl defending herself against criminals.
    As to the AR, even in the US, in the majority of states, owning a fully automatic weapon is prohibited. Most AR’s in the US are semi auto hunting or sporting rifles.
    It irks me that simply because the AR looks “evil”, it is restricted in Canada. It is indentical in function to my semi-auto hunting/sporting rifle which is non-restricted. Same with all the AK semiautos that we completely prohibited for no reason.

  10. Actually, the three would-be burglars appear to have had no idea that the Ms. Gutierrez, brave though she may be, was heading to her mother’s room to retrieve a weapon. They took off the moment they saw that someone was in the house. That is, in this case, the rifle had no deterrent effect (that said, it did give a scared little girl some sense of protection in a terrifying situation, so that’s something).

  11. This incident, according to my rather extensive research, is quite representative of armed defense situations. The presence of -any- gun, large, small, pink, whatever, is enough to have the intruders take to their heels in 90+% of home invasions. The home defender hardly ever fires the gun, the intruders hardly ever stick around long enough to even trade harsh words with the defender. They see the gun, they RUN.
    Important safety tip, “hardly ever” does not mean “never”. If the intruder doesn’t run, defenders still generally prevail. They almost never end up shooting the intruder to death on the spot, that’s a three sigma, 0.01% event.
    Everything we are told about firearms is a lie, my friends.
    As to Canada, the thing to remember here is that our authorities would much rather see this little girl dead than have her story on the CTV news.
    If you think that’s harsh, just see if you can find out how many women with restraining orders against know, proven violent men are given firearms permits.
    I’ll help you out here, the number is -zero-.
    Many of these women are killed because of that. The authorities are happy with that outcome, seeing as how they’ve been going farther and farther in that direction for the last 30 years or more. The penalties handed out to people legitimately defending their lives from armed attacks are real, they are numerous, and they are getting worse.
    Conservatives tend to think that Liberals and Lefties are basically good-hearted, caring people who are a bit dim with details. They’re -not-.

  12. Professor Phantom: “This incident, according to my rather extensive research…”
    Does your “extensive research” include incidents where the home invader(s) bolted the moment s/he saw that someone was in the house, long before that person managed to retrieve their weapon?
    Because that seems to be what happened in this case. They three burglars expected an empty house, and took off once they saw Ms. Gutierrez. By the time she got her mom’s rifle, they were over the fence and halfway towards getting arrested. The 11 year old girl was the deterrent, not her mom’s rifle.
    “As to Canada, the thing to remember here is that our authorities would much rather see this little girl dead than have her story on the CTV news…Conservatives tend to think that Liberals and Lefties are basically good-hearted, caring people who are a bit dim with details. They’re -not-.”
    Yeah, the first thing I thought when I saw the news story was, “Drat, I wish those burglars had gone ahead and killed that little girl. That way, I could use her story as fodder for a rant about gun laws in Canada and people whose political views I disagree with on a blog four months later.”

  16. Davenport
    So I guess all those victims of home invasions (in Vancouver it’s three times the US rate) are because the perps didn’t get your memo stating that the presence of someone in the home (armed or not) is deterrent enough? Nothing to see here folks, move along!

  17. @ John Chittick: No, the point is that if one’s going to point to a specific incident as further evidence of how guns deter crime, then one really ought to first double-check that the gun actually deterred the crime in that specific incident.

  18. Davenport –
    You seem to regard this girl, and all who pick up a firearm in self-defense, as some kind of threat. To whom is she a threat? To whom is anyone holding a firearm in self-defense a threat?
    The intruder! The armed intruder is the offender against the public good, not the armed victim. If this girl does not have a right to her life, what rights, if any, is she entitled to, in your view. More broadly, which human lives, do have an inherent dignity, and a right to life, in your view? Why do you feel the right to life of another human being is a decision that is yours to make? Hurray for the girl!

  20. Davenport: “Yeah, the first thing I thought when I saw the news story was, “Drat, I wish those burglars had gone ahead and killed that little girl.”
    Yep that’s probably the first thing you thought. That way you could ban the rifle in the hands of those home invaders.
    You’re behaving like an idiot. You could have made some real points. If those criminals who invaded her house had decided to behave violently, at least the little girl had a chance. A slim one with a 22 single shot rifle, but better than none. And she wouldn’t be the first kid to use a firearm for self defence either.

  21. Davenport asks: “Does your “extensive research” include incidents where the home invader(s) bolted the moment s/he saw that someone was in the house, long before that person managed to retrieve their weapon?”
    Well my dear, as you know (because I’ve told you several times) my personal research involved reading the complete medical literature on gun control from 1960’s to ~2000, after that the defeat of the android Algore made further research unnecessary. Home invasions -where a gun is present- are resolved without casualties at a different rate, as in fewer casualties, than where a gun is not present in the home. That’s FBI uniform crime reports, plus John Lott, plus a few more.
    I strongly encourage you to prove me wrong. Please, have a go.
    You should also compare casualties from home invasions in Canada and the USA. You will find that in areas with high gun ownership, there are fewer invasions, and fewer casualties as well. Or you can prove I’m lying to further my eeeevile agenda. Take your best shot, as they say.
    I have a question for you though. Why are three big strapping young offenders afraid of an 11 year old girl? Because another interesting datum one runs across is burglars in some cities/states/provinces are less likely to flee if they find a person in the house than they are in others. High gun ownership areas, they run more often.
    My views are based on scholarship, armed forces training, martial arts and firearm training, and knocking around rough places for a long frickin’ time.
    I submit to you that your views have been formed by passive absorption of the propaganda that passes for news in this country. Furthermore you are either too intellectually lazy or too poor a scholar to see through it, pitiful and obvious though it may be.
    Come back and talk to me when you’ve read something more than Windy Wendy’s newsletter or the vapors coming from StatsCan’s Liberal fudge factory.

  22. My wife and I just finished taking a concealed weapon class (for handguns). Interestingly, what they teach is what the little girl did: put as much distance between yourself and the perpetrator, arm yourself and warn the intruders to leave. The drill is (try to call 911 and leave the phone on to record your efforts to warn them ). Lock yourself in a safe room. Call 911 and repeat the following: Go away, I have called the police and they are on their way. I have a gun and will shoot you. You are supposed to stay in the locked room until the police arrive. PS – turns out my wife is a much better shot with the hand gun. Good for the little girl and I’m glad it worked out well for her.

  23. Davenport, notice in the video that as the three perps were breaking in the little girl turned up the sound on the television, evidently it wasn’t because somneone was home that they decided to run.

  24. Phantom @11:26 – “If you think that’s harsh, just see if you can find out how many women with restraining orders against know, proven violent men are given firearms permits.
    I’ll help you out here, the number is -zero-.”
    I don’t get it. Is there some sort of demented rule about that?
    Here’s what’s at the absolute core of the anti-gun agenda: Psychological emasculation (of men and women). Disarmed people who’ve been told that they’re not grown-up and responsible enough to own weapons aren’t really citizens. I’m not exaggerating. (And nobody kid themself that the gun registry is about anything other than disarming the populace.) As Kathy points out in her post, in Canada, and probably in several States, let alone in the pathetic U.K., the kid’s mom would have been charged.

  25. Mamba, in Ontario the girl’s parents would absolutely be charged. The charge might not withstand discovery proceedings, but they -would- be charged. That is because the purpose of gun storage regulations is to prevent the use of firearms for self defense. No less than Alan Rock, former Justice Minister for Chretien, stated that self defense with a firearm was forbidden, and he used the word “forbidden”. You break the rules, they smack your head with a bat.
    Yes, there IS a demented rule about carry permits in Canada. The rule is, nobody can get one. Ever.
    Unless… they are an upper management officer in a major police force, an MP with friends in Cabinet, a Cabinet official, or a well connected businessman/snivel servant with, you guessed it, friends in Cabinet. You look at who gets issued those permits, and that’s the rule.
    People who may actually -need- a gun because of a known and proven deadly threat, no way. Death threats from known terrorists, stalkers, insane boy friends, organized crime, doesn’t matter. Better to let them be murdered than give them a permit and the proper training to go with it, at -their- expense. I kid you not.
    See, the deal is that Davenport’s crowd differ from us in a very basic way. They think government should determine every facet of social behavior, and oversee it to make sure everybody does it properly.
    Davenport thinks a law banning guns will mean that nobody will get shot, because it will get the guns out of the hands of stupid low class rednecks . She doesn’t think there are some people who -should- get shot, and she absolutely rejects the idea of having a common citizen make that call, ever. If a few peons die, so be it.
    That’s pretty much the root of it right there. So far as Davenport or any real Liberal is concerned, if anyone needs shooting then a government employee will make that decision, backed up by the highest government official available. To that end, she will grasp any straw of junk science or outright prevarication that forwards her desires. It is better that 14 women die than that a teacher at L’Ecole Polytechnic should have a .22 derringer in his jacket pocket.
    Me, I like letting the poor SOB who’s butt is on the line make the decision. Its called -freedom-. Davenport doesn’t believe in it. She believes in people doing what they are told, when they are told.

  27. Davenport, the idiot.
    The reader in the closing said that they knew one of the poor youths, and that they were believed to have come for the guns.
    Guns in house, guys know it. The wait until the male leaves the house( now why would they wait for a male in a house full of guns to leave the house? Come on, think.
    The see the girl run to room for…….what?
    They flee because …….? The three males are afraid of the girl?

  29. Davenport understands that the three banditos were scared that the little girl would go all Macaulay Culkin in Home Alone on their @sses.

  30. Paul: “The reader in the closing said that they knew one of the poor youths, and that they were believed to have come for the guns…They flee because …….? The three males are afraid of the girl?”
    Um, yeah, actually. If you’re planning to break into and steal something from the house of someone you know, then obviously you want the house to be empty at the time. Otherwise, you have witnesses who can ID you by name.
    I’m betting that these guys saw SOMEONE through the door/window, realized the gig was up, and took off. If you like, you can bet that these four geniuses saw what they positively ID’d as a young girl, determined amongst themselves that she was heading to the bedroom specifically to arm herself with a rifle, rationally calculated that the odds of winning a gunfight against her were against their favour, and then took off.
    Oh, and the fact that they were there to steal guns doesn’t exactly help your argument that guns deter home invasions. Think about it. Everyone should own guns in order to defend themselves against people trying to steal their guns?

  31. Davenport:
    “Oh, and the fact that they were there to steal guns doesn’t exactly help your argument that guns deter home invasions.”
    Thieves are thieves, liars are liars, guns in that home didn’t make those kids thieves, they just are. If all the guns on the planet were erased those thugs would still be thieves.

  34. Never forget “Davenport” is an idiot troll who will argue opposite anything posted on SDA. Never using facts or common sense argument just the sake of argument.
    The sickening thing about many lefties like Davenport is that they do indeed own a gun for personal protection. They simply lobby so that you don’t have one. It’s nearly as bad as the “conservative” skeet/ duck hunter who owns a $5,000.00 shotgun for sporting purposes but will lobby against semi automatic firearms because it’s not their personal tastes.
    Phantom is right; the Davenports would very much have liked to see the little girl harmed to further their arrogant unsupported views.
    In turn I suppose, people like myself wish that the Davenports one day have a break-in with some violent felons they felt belonged on the streets and get the opportunity to face them unarmed. To me it is a poetic justice for those that allowed the criminals the opportunities, and then rendered themselves defenseless to protect themselves from themselves.
    Davenport, if you should ever encounter such a situation and survive, please post your experiences on SDA we would like to hear about them. No doubt you will be posting from a conservative, non-troll viewpoint and the “I told you so’s” will make for an entertaining hour for most.

  35. sasquatch >
    “I had a Crown Attorney opine that a rock salt load is evidence of prior intent to wound…”
    Good point. That’s why I always load 00 buck. I have no intention of needlessly wounding a home invader.

  36. Anyone homeowner charged in such a situation, should keep a list of names of those involved in pursuing the same charges.
    Comes in handy when friends decide later on for payback. Time to start fighting back.
    No, I’m not kidding.

  37. Did anyone pick up on the final line in the news story? That the thieves were breaking in BECAUSE of the guns they knew to be there and wanted to steal? I’m just sayin’

  38. Just sayin’ what, 3m – that violent criminals usually don’t go to the the trouble of aquiring guns legally and according to all the the rules and regulations? Well Atlantic Ocean, how could such a thing be?
    Just sayin’ that if people like the Gutierrez family hadn’t had guns in the house, then the “thieves” wouldn’t have been able to think of anything they’d want to steal from anybody? ‘Cause in that case I have to wonder what they wanted those guns for.
    Actaully, much has been made (by Daveport) of the fact that the criminals fled when they saw that someone – anyone – was at home. Could be because they knew there were guns in the house, and therefore that whoever was in was likely armed (as indeed she was)? Just throwing that out there.

  39. Well Black Mamba, what I’m sayin’ is that maybe the thieves wouldn’t have broken into the place in the first place if it weren’t for the guns they knew were there and wanted to steal. Because that is what they were after. According to the news report (presumably based on statements by either the victims or the perps).

  41. Posted by: 3m>
    The way you write your comment, you seem to be implying that thieves’ would never break into a house unless it has guns.
    Obviously that is ludicrous, knowing that “thieves” will break into anywhere (preferably easiest the better) to steal whatever they think is valuable.
    Since so many commenters’ want to throw speculations out there, here is mine – What if they were trying to break in and rape the little girl, saw the gun, and fled?
    Anti gun people are truly the dumbest and unaware people in society. Where do criminals in countries that have strict gun bans get their guns? Use Mexico as an example. In Mexico it is the average citizen that is disarmed and subject to corruption by the government, kidnappings rape, and murder by the entire criminal enterprise that the country has become, from police & drug traffickers alike.
    If you honestly believe in taking basic firearms away from the general law abiding citizens of a free country, you need some psychiatric help.
    For as long as there is government (forever) and as long as there is military & police (forever) – criminals will have guns. Period.
    The only protection you will guarantee a society is the protection of the criminal. The crime you help perpetrate is when you remove the only means of society’s citizens of basic defense from street criminals, and or corrupt governments and their criminal allies.
    If you personally choose not to participate in your family’s personal protection and would rather rely on a 911 call, GOOD no one is stopping you. But when it comes to my families defense, F*ck off and mind your own business.

  42. It’s amusing how people get all wound up when someone expresses any sort of mildly variant thought….or even expounds it as a POSSIBILITY. And start telling them to F-Off. Nice.

  43. 3m said: “…maybe the thieves wouldn’t have broken into the place in the first place if it weren’t for the guns they knew were there and wanted to steal.”
    Yeah, because they would -never- steal the TV, right? Or maybe steal the TV and have some special fun with the 11 year old. Because that never happens, right?

  44. 3m >
    “And start telling them to F-Off. Nice”
    Don’t be so defensive. The first part of my comment was addressed to you. The second part was rhetorical. Meaning it was addressed to the small segment of the general public who wishes to tell me how I can defend my family, yet gives the criminal more protections.

  45. Knight 99: “For as long as there is government (forever) and as long as there is military & police (forever) – criminals will have guns. Period.”
    That actually raises a good point, Knight 99: where do criminals get their guns?
    Figure that one out, and you’re on your way to figuring out a big part of why gun violence is so prevalent in the US, and less so in Canada.

  46. I’m still reading this thread Davenport, so I’ll bite; please tell me: Where do crimianals get their guns, and why is it so significant, Canada vs. U.S. etc.?
    Please bear in mind that I don’t think this part of you 8:29 comment – …”these four geniuses saw what they positively ID’d as a young girl, determined amongst themselves that she was heading to the bedroom specifically to arm herself with a rifle, rationally calculated that the odds of winning a gunfight against her were against their favour, and then took off.”
    – jives very will with this part of you 8:29 comment: “Oh, and the fact that they were there to steal guns doesn’t exactly help your argument that guns deter home invasions. Think about it. Everyone should own guns in order to defend themselves against people trying to steal their guns?”

  47. Oh, forgive me (Kate). The first bit was sarcastic, wasn’t it, Davenport? And yet the point still holds; if the thieves were searching for guns, and only guns, then they knew that anyone who was at home was probably armed.
    On that topic… do you really maintain that gun owning is bad because if criminals know you have guns they might try to steal them? Is this a brave new anti-gun argument?

  48. Davenport >
    “Figure that one out,…..”
    I don’t need to figure anything out Davenport, I made the point.
    And since we both concur on that point, why again is it that the liberal left wants to disarm the law abiding, taxpaying citizens of either country?

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation