The Gun Fight in Washington. Your opinons?

Does it matter? It's from "gun violence."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-woman-shoots-kills-intruder911-operators-shoot/story?id=15285605#.UbviUue-okw

A young Oklahoma mother shot and killed an intruder to protect her 3-month-old baby on New Year's Eve, less than a week after the baby's father died of cancer.

Sarah McKinley says that a week earlier a man named Justin Martin dropped by on the day of her husband's funeral, claiming that he was a neighbor who wanted to say hello. The 18-year-old Oklahoma City area woman did not let him into her home that day.

On New Year's Eve Martin returned with another man, Dustin Stewart, and this time was armed with a 12-inch hunting knife. The two soon began trying to break into McKinley's home.

As one of the men was going from door to door outside her home trying to gain entry, McKinley called 911 and grabbed her 12-gauge shotgun.

McKinley told ABC News Oklahoma City affiliate KOCO that she quickly got her 12 gauge, went into her bedroom and got a pistol, put the bottle in the baby's mouth and called 911.

Teen Mom Shoots, Kills Intruder Watch Video

Woman Kills Intruder Breaking Into Her Home Watch Video

Teen Mom Kills Home Intruder Watch Video
"I've got two guns in my hand -- is it okay to shoot him if he comes in this door?" the young mother asked the 911 dispatcher. "I'm here by myself with my infant baby, can I please get a dispatcher out here immediately?"

The 911 dispatcher confirmed with McKinley that the doors to her home were locked as she asked again if it was okay to shoot the intruder if he were to come through her door.

"I can't tell you that you can do that but you do what you have to do to protect your baby," the dispatcher told her. McKinley was on the phone with 911 for a total of 21 minutes.

When Martin kicked in the door and came after her with the knife, the teen mom shot and killed the 24-year-old. Police are calling the shooting justified.

"You're allowed to shoot an unauthorized person that is in your home. The law provides you the remedy, and sanctions the use of deadly force," Det. Dan Huff of the Blanchard police said.

Stewart soon turned himself in to police.

McKinley said that she was at home alone with her newborn that night because her husband just died of cancer on Christmas Day.

"I wouldn't have done it, but it was my son," McKinley told ABC News Oklahoma City affiliate KOCO. "It's not an easy decision to make, but it was either going to be him or my son. And it wasn't going to be my son. There's nothing more dangerous than a woman with a child."

More From ABC News

Your imagination is only exceeded by your ignorance.

Now tell us again why you need guns.

Did you confuse America for Europe?

"Need" is for serfs. Free Americans get to have guns just because they choose to have guns.

It doesn't matter whether anyone thinks they need guns or not, or even whether they do need them or not.

If a free American chooses to have guns, that is their right as a free American, and that is the end of the matter.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

The CRIMINALS r the politicians
who have raped the Bill of Rights.





David

parados wrote:

Why didn't you stop the rape with your gun David?
Are you admitting guns don't stop crimes?

Some crimes can be stopped with the use of guns.
Not all crimes can be stopped by use of guns.
U knew that.

I see... So guns don't stop political crimes. OK...

Now tell us again why you need guns.

If a free American chooses to have guns, that is their right as a free American, and that is the end of the matter.

You're forgetting that Oralboy is quite stupid and contradicts himself all the time.

On this thread he calls us serfs because
we don't want the free for all of unrestricted gun control.

On the thread about the murder of Lee Rigby,

he talks about how the UK is a democracy and makes it's own decisions.
He can't see the contradiction, although it's glaringly obvious to everyone else.

If a free American chooses to have guns, that is their right as a free American, and that is the end of the matter.

So what are background checks for?

Which the NRA support.

You're confusing free with approved of by folks like us.

spendius wrote:

You're confusing free with approved of by folks like us.

What u approve of is devoid of consequence
in America.

So what are background checks for? Which the NRA support.

Your imagination is only exceeded by your ignorance.

You're forgetting that Oralboy is quite stupid and contradicts himself all the time.

spendius wrote:

You're confusing free with approved of by folks like us.

What u approve of is devoid of consequence
in America.

I suppose I ought to have said-- You're confusing "free" with "approved of by folks like us"
The "folks like us" meaning the folks who supervise the background checks.

As more schools consider arming their employees, some districts are encountering a daunting economic hurdle: insurance carriers threatening to raise their premiums or revoke coverage entirely.

During legislative sessions this year, seven states enacted laws permitting teachers or administrators to carry guns in schools. Three of the measures — in Kansas, South Dakota and Tennessee — took effect last week.

But already, EMC Insurance Companies, the liability insurance provider for about 90 percent of Kansas school districts, has sent a letter to its agents saying that schools permitting employees to carry concealed handguns would be declined coverage.

“We are making this underwriting decision simply to protect the financial security of our company,” the letter said.

In northeast Indiana, Douglas A. Harp, the sheriff of Noble County, offered to deputize teachers to carry handguns in their classrooms less than a week after 26 children and educators were killed in a school shooting in Newtown, Conn. A community member donated $27,000 in firearms to the effort. School officials from three districts seemed ready to sign off. But the plan fell apart after an insurer refused to provide workers’ compensation to schools with gun-carrying staff members.

The Oregon School Boards Association, which manages liability coverage for all but a handful of the state’s school districts, recently announced a new pricing structure that would make districts pay an extra $2,500 annual premium for every staff member carrying a weapon on the job.

Scott Whitman, an administrator at the Jackson County school district in southern Oregon, where a committee is looking at arming school staff members next year, said costs would be a factor in the decision. With 10 buildings, the expense of arming and training more than one staff member at each school would easily exceed $50,000 a year.

“Pretty much every last bit of our money is budgeted,” he said, adding, “To me, that could be quite an impediment to putting this forward.”

Increasing the number of firearms in classrooms across the country has been the cornerstone of the National Rifle Association’s response to the Newtown massacre and the legislative fights over proposed gun laws that followed it. In April, the gun-rights group released a report that called for armed police officers, security guards or staff members in every American school.

More than 30 state legislatures introduced bills that permit staff members to carry guns in public or private schools this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Supporters say training teachers to carry guns would better protect students and, if anything, should put insurance companies more at ease. But worries remain about who could be sued if a gun-related accident occurred on school property, giving way to business realities for some insurance providers, which include both commercial carriers and nonprofit cooperatives.

“Some are saying this is so high risk we’re not going to touch it,” said Kenneth S. Trump, the president of National School Safety and Security Services, which discourages districts from implementing concealed carry policies. “Others may say this is so high risk that you’re going to pay through the nose.”

U are a supervisor of background checks, Spendius ?