Gun rights

Homeowner’s son shoots, kills three would-be burglars

We hear plenty about mass shootings in the US. But how often do we hear about stories such as this one?

Fox News, March 27, 2017:

Three would-be robbers were shot and killed Monday when an Oklahoma homeowner’s son opened fire on them with an AR-15, authorities said.

Wagoner County sheriff’s deputies were called to the home in Broken Arrow, southeast of Tulsa at around 12:30 p.m. local time. When they arrived, they found the three dead suspects and two uninjured residents.

Sheriff’s spokesman Deputy Nick Mahoney said the suspects enetered the home through a glass back door with the intent to burglarize it. It was not immediately clear why they picked that home.

Mahoney said the suspects encountered the homeowner’s 19-year-old son, who opened fire after an exchange of words. Two of the suspects died in the home’s kitchen while a third was found in the driveway.

It was not immediately clear whether the suspects were armed, but Mahoney said the preliminary investigation indicated the shootings were in self-defense. The homeowner’s son volunteered to give a statement at the sheriff’s office.

This is very, very unusual for us [in Wagoner County],” Mahoney told the Tulsa World. “It’s not something we’re used to.”

9 thoughts on “Homeowner’s son shoots, kills three would-be burglars

  1. So, today in my speech class, one of the girls gave a speech about why the American right to bear arms shouldn’t really be a right, which makes me wonder if she understands why the Founding Fathers put it in there in the first place. Anyways, the basis of her claim was that the right to bear arms was synonymous with the right to kill (which it is not) and that taking away this right would reducing killing (anyone who knows about Chicago know this to not be true), and she used your country as an example, talking about your restrictions and murder rate, but I wasn’t entirely sure that what she said was accurate as you wrote something on this. Since you’re an actual Australian, would you mind enlightening me and expanding on this?

    1. Australia does have a much lower homicide rate than the US (both through firearms and non firearms). But this has been the case historically. I honestly think that allowing guns into the wrong hands (lack of background checks) can contribute to more murders in America but if one truly looks into it, I believe the US has a higher homicide rate mostly because it generally has a more violent culture. Eg. 2Pac, Biggie Smalls, and many of the gangs who kill each other like it is nothing. (No disrespect intended, I do admire the US greatly!). And if you look at the facts, since the massively restrictive gun reforms passed our gun murder rate has not dropped particularly drastically. Meanwhile, Canada and New Zealand (Countries more similar to Aus in culture) have more relaxed gun laws, and yet do not experience mass levels of shootings. There are other countries such as Czech republic which do allow firearms for their citizens, but these have to be concealed. I think there’s a bit of a distinction here. I’m all for citizens having the right to defend themselves, but this could be realistically achieved via giving them the right to carry concealed firearms. This is different to some parts of the US, as I understand in Texas it is your second Amendment right to walk around with a fully loaded assault rifle in public. I’m sorry but in my opinion that is one recipe for disaster, and I find that concept utterly insane. And while I’m at it, although I’m not aware of the specifics of Colombia v Heller [2008], I think it is a very silly idea for government not to make sure guns have safety locks on them. This sounds ridiculous to me and sounds like such laws could kill children. However, as I explained, I am supportive as a whole of the concept of gun rights, whilst critical of particular aspects in the US: (extremely free access to assault rifles even if people mentally ill, lack of background checks etc in parts of the country). So from my Australian conservative perspective, the answer from abroad looking into the US, would be somewhere in the middle between the model employed in parts of Texas and the model of Aus. Hope that helps! Moreover, here’s an article from a pro- gun Australian politician I shared that might give you further insight. https://aussieconservative.blog/2016/05/19/australias-top-libertarian-on-gun-laws/.

    2. Thanks of the info. There is definitely a culture factor…in fact, my parents always harp on my brother idolizing the kind of people that you mention. It is clear by what you say about Australia is that the argument from the example of my classmate was in some senses faulty…to me then it seems that she overlooked the cultural factor. I do agree with your ideas that background checks and mental illness restrictions could be a more sensible solution and help alleviate the problems and that stuff like safety locks are common sense, but as a whole, like you have mentioned, gun rights are thoroughly important…in America, there is a reason that the Founding Fathers put the Second Amendment in the Constitution, so many of the leftist suggestions for gun control could really hurt law-abiding gun owners…and living near two cities that are notorious for gun violence and gun control, this is evident.

      In all, thank you for your helpful information. I’m glad to get a foreign perspective on it and expanded information on what I heard today.

  2. … hee hee … I lived in Oklahoma for three years. Many “Okies” have guns and the people of the state generally have a strong pro-Second Amendment* view. This story is proof that you don’t want to mess with “Okies”!

    * The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution allows citizens to own firearms. Its original intent was to give citizens protection against the government! That intent is why the Left in the US is so intent on destroying the Second Amendment …

    1. Yeah that’s true it was about protecting against government tyranny. Which in my opinion is a hypocritical position to hold if one is against all questions into the cia etc as one can’t object to government tyranny in some ways but not in others. However, it is also good in protecting Americans for the right to self defence as you outlined.

  3. It’s my understanding that most Australians aren’t allowed this option for home defense, is that right?

    1. While I haven’t yet covered the laws of criminal defences, I believe your right. It would have to be extraordinary circumstances for the use of lethal force to be permitted, let alone the complications brought with the ban on self loading rifles, assault weapons etc.

Leave a Reply