Shooter 'Defending Home' is Now Defensive

A 42-year-old Elgin woman was shot in the leg by her husband Saturday morning after he apparently mistook her for a burglar, police said. Torrance G. Clark, 39, of the 200 block of Elm Street, was charged Monday with felony reckless discharge of a firearm stemming from the incident that left his wife with a bullet wound dangerously close to her femoral artery.

Police were called to the couple’s home early Saturday on a report of a woman shot in her upper leg with a 9 mm handgun, police said. A 5-year-old girl in the home told police she heard a loud boom and then the victim crying out, “Are you insane?”

The victim told police she became upset with her husband about 3 a.m. because he was awake playing a video game. She left the home, reports state, and returned about two hours later. When she got into bed, her husband seemed startled and discharged the gun, according to a police report. She was taken to Sherman Hospital, where she remained on Monday, police said.

Well, I’m glad at least he was not a better shot.

She left the house at 03:00am. To return two hours later and just climbed into bed?

She needed shooting.:thumbsup:

I bet he was playing Grand Theft Auto. :smiley:

I wouldn’t be surprised!

Elaborate on that.

If guns were banned/limited, people wouldn’t need them to protect themselves.

How do you figure? You think if you ban all guns, ALL violent crime would stop? No one would ever try to stab you to death, beat you with a tire iron, etc.?

Why do people carry guns (besides hunters)?

To protect themselves from other people with guns.

You think if you ban all guns, ALL violent crime would stop? No one would ever try to stab you to death, beat you with a tire iron, etc.?

Killing by those methods would be harder to accomplish than with a gun which could kill someone from a distance.

Hmm. I am not sure that is quite the case.

It is true that violent crime is less in countries with more gun control than it is in the United States. However, with only that one point of comparison, it is hard to tell if other factors could also be responsible.

Certainly, criminals do not care much about gun laws and often get weapons through illegal means anyway. So, logically, banning guns would not so much take the gun away from the criminals as it would take it away from law-abiding people.

This. :thumbsup:

I don’t hear of many drive-by stabbings.

I think better of my chances, running from a tire iron than from a loaded gun.

Other things being equal, someone running amok with a knife is not going to hurt or kill as many people as someone running amok with a rifle.

I think you’ve got something there. Maybe we should outlaw street drugs. That should solve the problem right?

Lets see… Bows and arrows,spears, javelins, hammers, slingshots, These all kill from a distance. Maybe you figure that only people who are real angry at you would trouble themselves enough to kill you?

As we all know, people have been killing each other since the beginning of time. It’s a well established human behavior. Sometimes it’s helpful, sometimes less so. As a catholic, I have a pretty good idea when killing is appropriate, and when it’s not.

The point of the second amendment has less to do with defending your home from a crook. Than defending it from a tyrant. We all know this.

The U.S. is unique in alot of ways. So, comparisons with other countrys can be difficult. But one set of data that I read. Concluded that when you control for racial differences. U.S. violent crime was actually lower than most european countrys. This is just one problem you would have when you try to compare “apples to oranges”.

To continue along this vein of thought. Why then is it, that the cities with the most stringent hand gun laws also have the highest violent crime rates? More guns=less crime? It seems to be the case.

Get all the guns away from those that use them in criminal actions and then you can pry mine out of my hands. Till the bad guys can never get a gun then come back and discuss the issue.

My personal opinion and the opinions of my family and friends.

So you would rather we not have the ability to protect our selves and our families and just stand by and be killed. Find a way to get the illegal guns from those with criminal intent and then come back and talk.

The POPE has ARMED guards to protect him.

My family and I have no police protection in our community. We are our own protection.

So if a 6 foot 2 inch tall man walked toward me, threatening me with a knife, I shouldn’t need a gun? Since he only has a knife, and I only need a gun to protect myself from a person with a gun. I am a 5’4" woman.

Maybe I could call the police. That would work, right? Oh, I forgot, the guy is here NOW, with a knife. The police are about a mile away. I wonder how much damage the guy could do before the police got here. Maybe he has rape on his mind. They outlawed rape. But people still do it. I guess I just end up raped, stabbed and finally dead. But at least I didn’t shoot him.

But with me, I would pull out my handy dandy gun. A gun can be a great equalizer. Now we are closer to equal footing. The guy can run away or take a chance with me and my weapon. :thumbsup:

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

:smiley: I was going to just ask JPUSC why he/she thinks that banning/limiting weapons would make them disappear from the hands of criminals, but your question pretty much addresses that. :thumbsup:

It is silly to think that banning guns is going to mean that one will only be facing a tire iron or knife. :stuck_out_tongue:

I agree with you. You stand a better chance with it, than without.

This quite possibly could be the funniest thing I have ever heard

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit