Las Vegas Sun

July 29, 2014

Currently: 96° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Intruder killed in Summerlin identified as Las Vegas teen

Image

Christopher DeVargas

Police investigate the scene of a shooting where a Summerlin resident shot and killed an intruder in his backyard, Tuesday, March 20, 2012.

Intruder Shot in Summerlin

Police investigate the scene of a shooting where a Summerlin resident shot and killed an intruder in his backyard, Tuesday, March 20, 2012. Launch slideshow »

The backyard intruder fatally shot by a Summerlin homeowner Tuesday morning has been identified as a Las Vegas teen, according to the Clark County Coroner's Office.

Demarcus Carter, 19, died from multiple gunshot wounds, the coroner said. His death was ruled a homicide.

The situation unfolded shortly before 9:30 a.m. when a homeowner in the 2100 block of Spurs Court, near Hualapai Way and Sahara Avenue, reported the shooting, Metro Police said.

The homeowner told detective he fired shots at the male, who he believed was trying to break into his home through the backyard, police said.

Police did not release whether Carter was armed or had ever made entry into the home. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

Detectives were interviewing the homeowner to determine the circumstances and perceived threat, police said. The homeowner, who has not been identified, was not injured.

Homicide detectives are investigating and will forward their report to the District Attorney's Office to decide whether to pursue charges against the homeowner, police said. The homeowner has not been arrested.

Police said use of force is considered reasonable — both for citizens and officers — when a person feels an action must be taken to protect his life or others' from serious injury or death.

The incident shocked neighbors, who described the area as a generally quiet and seemingly safe environment. Police said there had not been any noticeable crime increases in the area.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 46 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. Amazing arrest record, Brian. Thanks. Looks like he was headed for the Big House, regardless...

  2. Brian D posted this link, but it does not show on the main page unless you look at "all" comments. Just re-posting here so it shows up on the main page.

    http://www.whosarrested.com/nevada/clark...

    Seems the intruder has quite an arrest record.

    It will be interesting to learn the details of how this guy was shot.

  3. Test_Guy,

    That is interesting reading to put it mildly, but there is no way to confirm it is the same individual. The age seems right, if the age on the arrest record is from the last arrest at about this time last year, and the pattern certainly fits. But there is nothing in the story to make a positive ID from.

    Even without that information, the comment about the R-J saying the homeowner shot Carter as he was apparently trying to break in through a window makes me more comfortable with what happened.

    I hope the Sun can follow up with more detail and a confirmation that the arrest record online is for the same individual.

  4. boftx,

    Yup, I agree that we can't be sure it's the same guy and I thought about making the same comment you did. But, at this time of the day, my brain is set on "Deep Fat Fry" so I forgot to mention it. Good catch and thanks for the feedback.

    I didn't read the RJ version yet. But will do so shortly. Thanks for the redirect.

  5. I can't help but notice the difference in performance here. An everyday citizen (presumably) who might be retired (Summerlin, at home in the day, yeah, I'm stereotyping) scores multiple hits on a target while five officers let off 29 shots with zero hits.

  6. The intent in this event was to kill, not to defend. Multiple gunshot wounds defines the true intent. There was no hesitation to see if one bullet in the leg would have caused him to stop or lay down. It's the 'stop or I'll reload' philosophy while waving the Flag.

    When I first started watching TV, the westerns were all in black and white. I remember two interesting themes from those California films:

    1. The Good Guy sneaking up behind the bad guy at the window, or behind a rock and hitting him over the head with a gun. The bad guy falls to the ground, gets tied up and lives to confess.
    2. In a confrontation, the Good Guy aims to shoot the gun out of the bad guy's hand, or wounds him in the arm and knocks the gun loose.
    3. Bad Guys most wore black or very dark hats so it was easy to tell who was going to get hit in the head.

    Maybe the real West wasn't like this, but for many other reasons, Westerners had Honor, superior character, morals and as a result, were always better at aiming then the bad guys. Honesty always allowed one to aim better then the flakes.

    We all wanted to be Cowboys because they were the source of moral virtues which demonstrated that human life was important even when it broke the law.

    Hollywood movies in those days brought out the best in people. We watched The Cisco Kid, Red Ryder, Zorro, Roy Rogers and Dale Evans and Gene Autry Westerns.

    They were all able to wound the arm or shoot the gun out of the bad guy's hand with minor damage. The exception was Zorro - he accomplished the same action by using a whip. Zorro was cool. This was the America that was fun and the bad guys always got caught before the final commercial.

    If the people from the NRA want to save America, they should put down their Bibles, Uzis, assault rifles, 30 round Glocks and start watching the old black and white westerns from Hollywood's 50's westerns to learn the higher definition of ethics and morals. What they follow now sucks all the way to the sewage plant, along with the Holy books that give them power.

  7. Someone is breaking into your house...the last thing on your mind is "I'll shoot one warning shot" or "I'll shoot once, then check to see if he surrenders"....BS, you shoot to kill. I've always been taught, don't pull the trigger unless you're prepared to kill a man. You don't want that person to fire back. Plus, most citizens are not sharp shooters or snipers. How are they supposed to assess whether or not they had a direct, non-lethal hit after one shot? It's crazy.

    I applaud this guy for protecting his home. We lucked out by eliminating a repeat criminal from the streets/society. He probably saved many innocent lives that way.

  8. So...the homeowner murders someone to protect his 'stuff' when he could have just called Metro and left the scene. Does this homeowner not have insurance? What goods could possibly be worth anyone's life no matter what kind of life that is? Stuff does not equal the importance of life.

  9. Chunky says:

    Well placed shots to the thoracic cavity are intended to stop someone from inflicting harm. A shot to the leg is very difficult and still leaves the individual with two free hands to use a weapon if they have one. In situations like this milliseconds stand between you as the victim and the bad guy as the victim. There's no time to take a leg shot and pray it works.

    If the shots to the center mass of the body fail to stop your opponent, you may have to attempt a head shot.

    Chunky sees ginormous 350++ pound 6'5" sized guys around all the time and realizes that these individuals, if determined or under the influence of drugs would be very hard to bring down with small caliber concealment weapons.

    Who knows what the exact circumstances were but if multiple stints in prison didn't fix this guy, those bullets certainly did.

    The Chunkyland Estate is close enough to have heard these shots on a good day and he's glad Ms. Chunky and family were not home when this guy showed up to break in.

    Chunky is also glad the resident had the courage and skills the take this guy down in whatever manner he deemed necessary!

    That's what Chunky thinks!

  10. There were two lives involved here - the law abiding homeowner peacefully occupying his home - and a criminal!

    The good guy is alive - the bad guy is dead!

    GOOD News!

    As far as shooting, one's level of training kicks in - for most folks, given the adrenaline and fear, they will fire multiple shots, if not empty their weapon! Well trained and well practiced folks may attempt to use a double-tap technique firing two rounds in rapid sucession, then two more if necessary - you have to do what you have to do protect yourself and survive - PERIOD!

  11. Tolerance of criminals encourages more crime. The life of a criminal has no value as there is no shortage of them.

  12. "...but then people get nervous when the are under attack."

    Then more training is needed to keep one's cool when pulling out their weapon. Yes, people get nervous. Soldiers get nervous, police get nervous but their training helps them keep their cool. If everyone starts freaking out, then you will have problems. Innocent people will be shot.

  13. After reading this burgler's arrest record..Two questions..1.why was this person allowed to be walking the streets and not in prison? 2.Where was this creeps last address so that the people who were victimized can possibly get some of their possesions back? The shooter did the world a great favor..

  14. I wish more people would defend their homes like this. If they did, we'd have less criminals on the street!

  15. "I wish more people would defend their homes like this. If they did, we'd have less criminals on the street!"

    For once, Anthony Sinatra said something I agree with.

    Keep in mind this is not this kid's first burglary (He was previously arrested 3x for similar crimes).

    It's always sad to hear about a teenager dying... but from what it sounds like, he made a repeated choice to break the law, enter people's homes/businesses, steal their property, and put himself in harms way. The only difference this time was that he didn't just get a slap on the wrist from the state.

  16. A civilians defensive gun in their hand is meant to kill and everything else is bunk. More second guessing about how many shots were fired or how we should be disarming someone.

    More silliness about running away or just letting him go so he can go down the road and hurt someone else. Oh, let him get away and (unstated result) he'll rob, kill, or rape someone else. Oh well, ho hum, that's just the cost of the ongoing implementation of an unreachable utopia.

    How can any reasonable person read the kids arrest record and then blandly say the police will handle it? The Police DID handle it multiple times and the poor kid (I mean that too) was nurtured by a cruel system of catch and release, to his death.

    Lawyers profit and kids gradually become career criminals due to our lawyer/criminal friendly legal system. The catch and release legal system only keeps honest people honest. It was designed by lawyers for steady profit and its main result is to GIVE lawyers on both sides steady profits. Another arrest of a multiple felon is always an opportunity for multiple lawyers to make money.

  17. For those calling for criminal action, I hope you find yourself in this situation.. You can politly ask the INTRUDER what his intentions are hope for the best.

    "Excuse me sir, do you intend bodily harm?"

    Bam, your tied up and your wife is getting violated..Some of us are not willing to take that risk with an INTRUDER.

  18. One more thing.. When your in that situation you don't want to waste precious seconds thinking about and trying to aim for a leg.. Give me a break.. You point the weapon and aim for the biggest target, the chest..

    If you think your going to be calm and calculated when someone is trying to break into your home, you are sadly mistaken.. I have been in this situation so I can speak from experience... Your adrenalin kicks in and rational thought goes out the window as you unintentionally jump into survival mode.

  19. Do I shoot to wound and to protect, so when he is paroled next month, he can come back and sue my ass off... or do I shoot to make sure this is the last crime he commits?? Hmm........

  20. What we have here is gun advocacy, bigotry and ignorance.

    Instead of taking that vigilante wild wild west mentality - just default to the obvious self-defense argument: You believe this shooter was acting within his right because there was a legitimate fear of serious bodily injury or threat to his life (or that of others).

    I'm not saying that defense is valid here, but that would be the obvious position to take if you feel the shooting was justified.

    Here, we have a guy who lives in a neighborhood that apparently has little crime (according to neighbor statements - this could be wrong I know). There is no indication the deceased teen had a weapon. No indication the deceased person made verbal threats to the home owner. We know the teen was NOT inside the house.

    What we do have is simple: A teenager in the back yard of a place where he should not have been. Was this kid trying to enter the home? Did he approach the home owner? What was he doing at the property? What made the homeowner believe the teenager posed a threat?

    Here is what you can't do - you can't simply shoot someone who is on your property without the existence of reasonable fear of threat of life or serious bodily injury.

    For those of you trying to default to this "I'll shoot first and ask questions later." It is ironic you defend such an act on the basis of you being the "good guy" and the victim being the "bad guy." Well, guess what? If you used deadly force in a circumstance where it is not justified - guess who is the bad guy? Guess who is the good guy?

    And stop with the nonsense about your being able to protect yourself and your family. Most reasonable people will deduce that if someone is INSIDE your house - using deadly force is reasonable under the circumstances.

  21. Did anyone notice this in the article:

    <<His death was ruled a homicide>>

    Metro does have to complete their investigation but if this ruling already has been announced, there is more to this. As someone said, in the RJ it was mentioned that the homeowner shot the kid thru a window. Was the kid trying to OPEN the window? Or the patio door? Was he actually TRYING to break in or did the homeowner believe that this kid WAS going to break in?

    It is also obvious this was a racially motivated shooting.

    If this kid was shot in the back because he was scared off after the first shot and was running away, criminal record or not, you're screwed if you shoot an unarmed person in the back. Metro themselves have been guilty of this. And those cops lost their jobs. I remember a story from about 2003; we were new to Vegas and Metro had a suspect, a handcuffed suspect, try to run away and they shot the kid in the back and killed him. Bad choice on Metro's part and they KNEW it. My old ex, with his 30+ years as a cop, couldn't believe that Metro shot the kid. He wasn't going too far with handcuffs on AND you do not shoot someone in the back....regardless.

    I'd like to know where the police found the body - by the house or by the brick wall? Of course, we will never know the full story. Maybe some of these hotshot investigative reporters the Sun has can dig for more details. Coolihan maybe?

  22. If the guy was inside his house - and from his window shot the kid simply because the kid was in the backyard - this is downright murder and should be prosecuted as such.

    With more facts coming out - it appears this guy simply saw the kid in his back yard and felt he was entitled to kill.

    You are not entitled to kill people for trespassing. You simply cannot justify the killing without the necessary threat of serious injury to yourself or threat to your life.

    The kid could have been in the backyard retrieving a ball. Yes, people are accusing this kid of having a criminal record. But the owner did not know this at the time. And there are no facts that the kid was armed or making threats to the homeowner other than trespassing.

    This matter needs to be looked into - you can't have people going around claiming they are justified in killing people with a minimal standard.

  23. "It is also obvious this was a racially motivated shooting."

    Det__Munch -- If your going to make a claim like that it would be helpful to back it up with some evidence.. Your unsubstantiated race card game does nothing to advance the problems with race we have in this country. It perpetuates them!!

    Might as well say he was killed because he is gay.. We don't know if the owner of the house is black, white, asian, gay, metro or married to a black midget who lives in Thailand railing orphaned native americans.

  24. Evil_Slayer - The law, or in your word limit, is clear.. If you fear sever bodily harm or death to you or your immediate family, you have the right to use deadly force in defense.

    We don't know if the perp was attempting to break in or not so you can't say "he wasn't....", but given his criminal history that includes previous robberies, it seems like a logical assumption he was there for no good.

    No, you do not have to give a warning shot if you are fearing your life.. Now, if the perp was running away, then it becomes criminal. This is unless he is in your home still and possibly running to try and find a weapon to use against you. Then, back shot is legal.

  25. Evil: This one will not do it again.
    The issue is, was he protecting his property from an intruder or not, or did he invite this person to come in and rob him.
    It no longer matters weather he feared for his life, if this person was not invited to come in and attempt to rob him, he has the right to protect his property by whatever means he has available.

  26. From VegasLee: Nevada is one of the states that adopted a Castle Doctrine. This homeowner should be alright. he had No duty to retreat, regardless of where attack takes place.

    Copy of the law.
    http://www.leg.state.nv.us/74th/Bills/AB...

  27. The way I see it is that the homeowner defended his home, and prevented this intruder from victimizing somebody else. There have been so many home-invasions in Las Vegas, Henderson, and now Summerlin, that have happened over the past year that did not end well. Let's not forget, this kid entered this person's property UNINVITED. Don't they call that 'trespassing'?

  28. Unfortunately, you can't just shoot somebody that enters your backyard, even if it's a scumbag and career criminal. If the dead person is indeed the same as in the linked arrest record, with a history of burglary and home invasion, there is no doubt what he was doing there.
    Unless the shooter can show he feared for his life, he'll be in trouble. That's unfortunate in this case, but the law here in NV.
    As far as the crazy lib comments about wild west and shooting to wound: You can only shoot when your life is in danger. If my life is in danger, I don't try to shoot the gun out of his hand. It's two to the chest and one to the head, and then we can reassess the threat.

  29. One less wart on the backside of society.
    I for one will NOT be crying over tis dead punk. I think we need to thank the homeowner who saved possibly my wife and daughter, and we need to charge this dead punk's family (if you can call it that) for the horrible job they did in raising him. Unless he was in the family business.
    I know, I know, he was Mom's apple pie, the fourth of July, he was a loser and I for one am glad he is taking a dirt nap.

  30. Evil -

    1 - No, if we were walking down the street I wouldn't be on your property.

    2 - If you can convince the police I presented a danger, and you were scared for your life, yes... That would be hard to do if I KNOCKED on your front door though... You see, it's a little different from climbing a high wall and entry a secured backyard.. Comprehend?

    3 - Same as two.. This is a secured backyard.. So he would have had to have given pest control a key.. If that happened, it would be criminal.. But. It wasn't the pest control, it was a career criminal.

    3 -

  31. So Evil, what's you source for the statement "No one was climbing in this guy's house through a window."?

    Where have the police or anyone else specifically stated that the deceased was NOT in the process of breaking into the home when he was shot?

  32. Oh yeah, and for DetMunch who said "Did anyone notice this in the article:<<His death was ruled a homicide>>Metro does have to complete their investigation but if this ruling already has been announced, there is more to this."

    You seriously need to look up the legal definition of "homicide" and the difference between "homicide" and "murder".

    That ruling does not mean "that there is more to this"...it simply and plainly means that the deceased died as the result of the actions of another person. Anytime one person takes another's life...no matter what the circumstances, the law defines it as "homicide". Self defense if a legal justification for "homicide".

  33. Evil, please provide a specific quote.

    Because the one I read in the LVRJ article says "He was shot while attempting to enter a home in the 2100 block of Spurs Court"

    http://www.lvrj.com/news/man-slain-in-su...

  34. As an aside to the ruling of "homicide" even a legal execution states the manner of death as "homicide."

  35. Actually Evil, at NO time has any version of the RJ story stated that "he was NOT in the process of breaking in", the closest any version ever came to that was "...stated that they could not say whether he was attempting to break in at the time..." so nice attempt to twist the reported facts to fit your case.

    As the the other two similarly absurd claims of yours:

    1. "warning shot" - Where would you like this "warning shot" to be aimed such that it does not endanger any innocent parties?

    and more importantly....

    2. "immediate threat" - An intruder braking into an occupied residence is most certainly an "immediate threat". If you doubt it, please do a little research and look up statistics on "home invasion robberies". Almost all home invasion robberies where the resident is at home at the time of the break-in result in death or injury to the resident.

    If you have any doubt, lets set up a test. You play the resident and I'll play the criminal. You have no way to see if I'm armed or not, so at my choice I can conceal a dye stick (knife simulation) or a paintball pistol (gun simulation) and I'll start opening a sliding window or door that you're on the other side of.

    Exactly how many seconds do you think it'll take for me to get marker dye onto you (simulating death or injury)? Statistically (and I'm sure this is how it would play out in this test) the answer is "less than 5 seconds"

    An intruder breaking into an occupied residence is ALWAYS an imminent threat of bodily harm to the resident.

    Warning shots belong in the absurd category as the poster who wanted people to watch more old westerns and shoot the guns out of the bad guys hands. Ridiculous and dangerous. Whoops, you just accidentally hit your neighbor's 4 year old with the stray bullet from your "warning shot"...so much better than shooting the criminal, right?

  36. Evil,

    1. just try and hit the grass through the window without hitting the burglar in the window.

    2. Go ahead and do that in our "test". I guarantee that you'll have a paintball splotch in the center of you chest (indicating death) about the time you got up to the word "gun" in your silly little speech.

    But hey, it's cool that you don't understand what is and isn't an "imminent threat of bodily harm". It makes it much more likely that you'll remove yourself from the gene pool at some point if you're ever confronted by a violent criminal.

  37. Keep in mind that here in Nevada a resident at home is presumed to be in imminent danger when a home invasion takes place. In other words, if the DA decides to press charges (unlikely in my opinion) the state will have to prove that the resident could reasonably believe he would be safe if Carter had entered his home.

    Based on what I'm reading in the R-J story (Jackie, *please* get details so I don't have to go to that rag) the resident did the right thing. When you add in Carter's history it is difficult not to think that the resident most likely saved the life of someone had Carter continued on his path.

    And again, the resident deserves credit for firing accurately while under pressure that presumably he is not used to. That is part of being a responsible gun owner.

    To Evil, there is no such thing as a "warning shot." A gun is a tool that is used to kill with, period. It is not some kind of magic wand that you wave around hoping that people will turn into sheep. If you must use a gun, you use it to kill. Never pull a gun unless you are ready to use it properly if need be.

  38. Brandishing the weapon may have been enough or it would have at least showed him what he could steal at a later date.

    He was not a kid lets clear that up also, He was a man, A young man but a man none the less.

    Two years ago on my way to the market I saw smoke coming from an apartment deck on the upper floor of a two story complex. I stopped my car and also saw an elderly woman at the sliding glass doors of the lower unit. So I ran from the road to her location and she panicked and I then saw a man come to her side inside the unit and he looked at me as I was sprinting toward them and he returned with a large Knife and he was shaking it at me then I realized I had scared the woman and she had misunderstood my intentions and conveyed that to her companion and you get the jest of that. But in the end when the smoked started billowing into their unit they then knew I was not trying to harm them. Had he had a gun and started shooting with his belief I intended him harm I would have been a dead Samaritan.

  39. About as many as he did.

  40. Jennifer - no one is disputing that this person was trespassing. You do understand that killing a person merely for trespassing is illegal and you could be charged with murder?

    I don't understand your logic - it is ok to kill law breakers because they break the law - but if you kill a law breaker by breaking the law then ....using your logic the killer who killed the law breaker must also suffer the same fate.

    Your trespassing argument makes no sense.

    Anyhow, Evil_Slayer has a valid point. The bottom line - this kid appears to have been trespassing. There is nothing else given that leads a reasonable person to believe that this shooter had a reasonable basis to use deadly force.

    For those arguing the "stand your ground" defense - that applies if you are presented with a threat to your life or serious bodily injury (or third person). It doesn't mean you can use deadly force because you see a crime being committed.

    Here, there are no facts that show such a threat existed. All you have is trespassing.

    Prosecutors need prosecute these cases.

  41. unlv702, you are incredibly naive if you truly believe that "There is nothing else given that leads a reasonable person to believe that this shooter had a reasonable basis to use deadly force."

    Please look up the US Department of Justice study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics on "Victimization During Household Burglary".

    You will find that there is a 26% chance of injury or death to the resident during a home burglary of a occupied home.

    A 26% chance of injury or death most certainly indicates "an imminent threat of bodily harm" to the resident.

    So if he was attempting to break into an occupied home then he presented a threat to the resident that can be answered with lethal force. The only way to argue otherwise would be to claim, in contradiction to the evidence and police statements, that he was NOT trying to break into the home.

  42. Job well done! One less puke around to assault citizens of Las Vegas. Some of these sheeple spouting off about what should have happened would have been beaten, raped , robbed or killed trying to reason with a dirt bag like this while wetting their panties. My guess is the idiots that condone this are either crooks themselves or unable to own a firearm which after reading some of their stupid remarks is probably a good thing for the rest of us.

  43. Heretic -

    I keep my shotgun loaded in a similar fashion.. I don't want to kill unless I must.. I keep birdshot as the first round followed by 00 buck.. The birdshot will leave a nasty wound and if I still feel danger the buck will put a stop to it.

    Thats a personal preference, the law does not require I be so kind.

  44. The law in Nevada presumes an occupant is in imminent danger if a home invasion takes place because simply put an occupant would have little or no chance to determine if an invader was armed or not until it is too late. If you enter someone's home illegally, you are taking a hell of a chance.

    BTW, for those who favor revolvers and hand load, a hollow-base wad cutter seated backwards on top of a half load of Red Dot makes a very effective home defense round.

  45. Good guys 1, Scumbags 0...way to go! We need more results like this. Not only would we take out career criminals, but we'd save money and lives. Our prisons are overflowing...we should give this guy a key to Summerlin for his heroic actions. Summerlin is now a safer neighborhood because of him!

  46. In sports, it is said that the best defense, is a good offense. That is not "rocket science" to someone in danger of losing their life, limb, family, or property; all of which occurs when a HOME INVADER -- involved in criminal trespass with criminal intent -- threatens to take what belongs to someone else, and do them harm in the process.

    And it may be that the homeowner's gun had NEVER BEEN USED PRIOR TO THAT DAY - when it suddenly became the only DEFENSIVE means available to stop the invader.

    THUS, as supported by current law -- the homeowner has A REASONABLE RIGHT to ASSUME that a break-in or other confrontation is a LIFE-THREATENING situation. And that the invasion is putting his or her life and family in mortal danger. That criminal act of illegal home invasion justifies the use of deadly force (i.e., a gun) to prevent harm to themselves - - WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT A POLICE OFFICER WOULD DO.

    In addition, the "Castle Law" (legislation passed in almost every State) concerns giving the LEGAL ability to protect one's self and one's property, as people become (increasingly) VUNERABLE to criminal tresspass and assault.

    To who oppose the use of guns - - and present outright or veiled "alternatives" to the use of guns in life-threatening situations - - such as: banning guns, taking gun safety courses, advocating for criminal rights, or chastising gun owners for using them when they have need for protection - I say, I hope you are never in a position of having to protect yourself, your wife, your children, or defend your property IF YOU DON'T HAVE A GUN.

    Your kitchen KNIFE will be useless against an invader with a GUN. Who or what will come to your aid, and PROTECT your family, at such a time?

    Obviously, we do not want any "wild west" exhibitions to occur across America where people, arbitrarily, shoot other people (whether in an act of crime, or not) - but I believe tht GUN Ownership - and use for self-defense - is a c
    Constitutional RIGHT, and for good reason.

    Would AMERICA EVEN EXIST TODAY, if the American Colonialists - Patriots - "We the people..." - did not ALREADY possess the GUNS they needed (and used) to fight the oppression of England's invading Army? Obviously, the answer is NO.

    So while unfortunate incidences will occur - statistically, or in practice - for THIS NATION, the ownership of guns, and the use of them to defend one's self - is paramount, and necessary, if we are to maintain any semblence of the people's right to bear arms -- including remain secure - without fear - in our very lives.

    A FINAL THOUGHT - if the invader has LEFT THE HOME, I DO NOT believe that people should be chasing criminals DOWN THE STREET with a gun in hand - UNLESS, it is in "hot pursuit" of a someone THEY HAVE SEEN commit a CAPITAL OFFENSE (e.g., murder, rape, etc.) The witness to a non-capital crime should otherwise call 911, and let them handle it.