Real Life Heroes - Grandson Saveds Disabled Grandparents

I love stories of people who defend themselves and other innocents from attacks, and I'm going to start featuring them here. I'll change out the OP as I come across new stories of normal people using their power to protect themselves and their community.

Grandson Saves Himself and Disabled Grandparents

An intruder burst into the Shuster's home in the wee hours of the morning with unknown intentions. 17-year-old Neal Shuster was staying with his grandparents house, both of whom are physically disabled and were unable to confront the invader, so it fell to the young man to defend the home. When the intruder failed to leave and became aggressive, he was felled with a single 9mm bullet. The family is safe and the intruder is expected to survive.

Full story is underneath Spoiler Warning.

Older Stories

Brother Saves Brother from Armed Attackers

Unorthodox Security System Proves Effective

And people want our guns taken away smh

Recently I've been considering gun control laws and how they are portrayed in the media. I'am Irish and over here almost nobody, including the police, carries guns. So while on one hand it's not my problem from what I've seen there is an unfair bias in the media where guns are portrayed as the enemy, or even worse, people who own guns are the enemy.

When you ignore all the stereotypes about the redneck gun-totting maniac who open his bear with a bullet you can defiantly see why guns are a necessity for people to protect themselves from attacks. Because really, without a gun, anyone could hurt you if they wanted to.

Yeah, lucky that family was armed. I did wonder why the older brother though it was a good idea to stand in the yard with an AK-47 after he'd already chased the attackers off. I'd bunker inside until the police arrived myself.

I think that's one of the big things that gun control advocates don't consider. They seem terrified that regular citizens could have a weapon that could kill people so quickly, but they don't seem to realize that that a determined person could already kill a bunch of innocents quickly. Go into a preschool with a katana, and I guarantee you can take out a dozen people. Go to a street with a busy sidewalk and mow down people in your car. Go to a buffet and add poison to the food. We are already vulnerable. Banning guns is just a feel good measure.

Guns allow people to pud down violent attacks quickly. We know gun control doesn't keep guns out of the hands of the violent, but it does leave the law abiding citizens vulnerable. The average police response is about ten minutes, and people are dead by that time. Even if you could get rid of all guns in society, you would only empower adult males and make the young, the elderly and the female defenseless.

All this is just speaking of everyday violence and doesn't consider the deterrent arms have for any power hungry leaders of foreign or domestic. The U.S. has been around for nearly two hundred and fifty years now, and we've had no coups and no successful invasions. Most nations cannot say that.

And people say guns are bad and need to be banned. Doing that would only rid good people the chance to defend themselves. You think the gangbangers shooting each other every night get their guns legally? Lol just Lol.

I commend the Sanchez family and Joe McCoy for defending themselves. Without those guns, their lives could've been ruined.

Though I love the McCoy story, I do think what he's doing is a bit reckless. I have no problem with a thief getting blasted, but what if an Earthquake happens and jiggles the trigger or a rat falls from the ceiling tiles on to the line or the scatter shot hits a thief and some innocent bystanders? Maybe he has it loaded with salt shot or something else non-lethal. It's a funny story, and I'm glad he's standing up for his store, but I hope he's thought this through.

@batwatch: I don't think McCoy's gun is loaded just their for the scare

@batwatch: Yep I agree. Hopefully he's been smart about it.

@godzilla44:

It might be. The article doesn't specify one way or another. I wouldn't be surprised if the law gets involved now that it's garnered a lot of attention.

@alphaq:

"On the topic of mass slaughter, the most striking example of the danger of guns is whenever some kid shoots up a school. We then hear how this is proof that guns are toxic, but there's a disconnect in some people's reactions. Such tragedies are why people need to practice proper gun safety, not outright banning them. I'd make it required that if you have a gun a house with children that you keep them in a secure gun safe. That'd give the gun control advocates a lot less ammunition, aha."

It definitely seems to me that allowing good people to defend themselves is a better strategy than trying to limit possession of guns. After all, we know how well the War on Drugs worked.

As far as requiring people to keep guns in a safe, there are several problems with that. Skipping over the obvious issue of the Constitution, a gun safe would greatly slow down people's ability to respond to attack. The older Sanchez brother already had someone who was in his house with a gun and another person holding his younger brother hostage when he grabbed his gun; it's not hard to imagine how an extra 3-30 seconds might have cost them their lives. There's also the issue of the slippery slope. Gun control advocates are constantly chipping away at gun ownership one piece at a time and are never satisfied. Also, the risk of accidental discharge is moot. On average, there are less than three hundred kids killed by accidental firearm discharge a year, but there are over 600 accidental kid drownings, yet you don't hear people calling for removing swimming pools from homes with children even though they are much, much riskier.

"This is a very good point. The sad truth is that any able bodied man could rob, rape and kill any normal woman who lives alone in under ten minutes if they wished. I walk past families where nobody is anyway physically imposing and think how easy it would be for anyone anyway athletic to kill them all, in their own damn homes. How can people let that be the case? It's pure madness."

It is indeed, and yet so many places ban weapons and often with the supposed agenda of helping the vulnerable. I live in a city with a national park in it's center, and guns are banned in national parks by federal law, so with my concealed carry permit, I can literally turn a corner and then be breaking the law. I can even drive one way on a street and be legal and drive the other way on the street and be a criminal since only one half of the road is a national park.

"Not really a response to the above, but I should clarify that I disagree with some and an undecided about many of the issues in the gun control debate. Concealed carry is one I can see the positives to on both sides, for example. But what I believe wholeheartedly is that people should have enough access to firearms to be able to protect themselves."

There is a lot of stuff to consider about the issue. In my view, the pro-gun control crowd bases their entire argument on the idea that people are untrustworthy with power. After all if people were responsible, then the vast majority of people would never use their weapons to hurt people and the very few who do would be put down almost instantly. The position of gun control, like all big government policies, argues that the common man is too stupid to take care of himself and must be guided and controlled by the state. I reject this.

@silkyballfro94:

I hope so. It's probably not the best instance of defense, but it's such an odd story, I wanted to share it.

@batwatch: OK, I'll bite. How is requiring storage of firearms in a safe a violation of the Constitution?

I was going to bite on the first post, until I saw that people are at least acknowledging tying a shotgun to a door isn't that bright an idea.

But seriously, its things like that article that scares most of the rest of the world about the US' gun culture.

Also Australia hasn't had any coups or invasions in 200yrs either...

I learned about this in my legal class. Its considered murder, so I wouldn't recommend doing it.

What if a kid accidentally opens the door?

Its murder, even if a criminal breaks in and gets shot, so its still murder if a kid opens the door.

@superadam: Maybe if it was unloaded I wouldn't have a problem with this one.

Then its just leaving a free gun around for whoever does the next break in...

Good luck entering into the School with a katana, they will probably stop you before you can get to the children, a sword like that isn't easy to hide.

@black_arrow: I think the point is that security in any place has gaps (most pre-schools don't have armed guards). If someone is determined enough to do something they will find a way to do it. The only thing that security does is 'set the price' that you have to pay to overcome it.

For most people that price may be too high, so they don't attempt the restricted action.

It's a common enough counter-point to gun control: "If I really wanted to kill someone then I'd hit them with a rock."

However, most laws are there mostly to keep honest people honest. Criminals will always find a way to break a law, that's why they're criminals. The purpose of most gun control arguments/ laws/ ideas are lessening the availability of weapons to people who may consider using them illegally.

I.e. I am down on my luck and decide to rob a 7-11, because this is illegal I've had to decide whether I'm willing to go to jail if I'm caught. To make it less likely I'll get caught, a gun would be handy- so I'll use the one I keep in the toilet, problem solved.

The control counter is- I decide to use a weapon, but don't have easy access to one, so either I give up, or I then go in search of one. Both options are possibly the extra step in the criminals thought process that may make them decide "too much trouble, I'll just stay home."

Yes, both arguments are massive over-simplifications. They are just for illustration purposes, I'm not fussed either way (pro/ anti-gun)

Not getting how Joe McCoy is a hero in his story. Sure losing money sucks but that's not a good reason to put buckshot in the first person to open his door at an odd hour. He might as well set up a few land mines while he's at it.

I thought this was brilliant, as a security measure:

@cave_duck:

"OK, I'll bite. How is requiring storage of firearms in a safe a violation of the Constitution?"

The 2nd Amendment doesn't just say you can own guns; it says that right cannot even be infringed. (limited in a small way) Saying you can only own a gun if you do it in a certain government approved way is a limit.

"I was going to bite on the first post, until I saw that people are at least acknowledging tying a shotgun to a door isn't that bright an idea."

Yeah, I initially thought it was hilarious and effective, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized it was rather stupid and dangerous. It's still funny, but it's hardly heroic. I changed OP again to an actual hero.

"But seriously, its things like that article that scares most of the rest of the world about the US' gun culture."

Then you have very little to fear since I've never seen a story like it in my life.

"Also Australia hasn't had any coups or invasions in 200yrs either..."

They also only started major gun control legislation in the 1980's, so they've only made it thirty years though I hope they have many future years of peace.

Yeah, I feel like I've heard death traps are illegal somewhere too though I find it bizarre that this is illegal while having bloodthirsty dogs guarding property is legal.

Personally, I don't see any injustice if someone who was trying to cause someone else misery for their own personal gain gets killed in the process, but that's just me.

I assume the door is locked at night and the gun would just go off if someone forced the doors. Regardless, it's not really a good idea even though it's an interesting story.

Yeah, he's basically created an incentive to break in, really. I've also been wondering how the store is structured. Couldn't someone just break the glass? Maybe it's plexiglass or he has bars the glass.

@black_arrow:

"Good luck entering into the School with a katana, they will probably stop you before you can get to the children, a sword like that isn't easy to hide."

Likely an adult would notice, but unless the security officer happens to be stationed at the entry point, it wouldn't matter. You think an adult man could stop a guy with a sword? Unlikely. Would he even try? Also, most kindergarten staff are women which gives them an even bigger disadvantage. If you wanted to be more stealthy, a knife would work just fine.

Saying he's a hero was probably stupid of me, but I really don't have a problem with someone who makes his living as a predator feeding off the misery of others getting killed in the process. If McCoy had some way to ensure nobody else would be hurt from this booby trap, I would support him, but if that gun is loaded, then it's a risk to innocents, so I shouldn't have put him in this tread even though I find the story hilarious.

@ms-lola said:

I thought this was brilliant, as a security measure:

That's awesome!

@batwatch

It definitely seems to me that allowing good people to defend themselves is a better strategy than trying to limit possession of guns. After all, we know how well the War on Drugs worked.

Agreed.

As far as requiring people to keep guns in a safe, there are several problems with that. Skipping over the obvious issue of the Constitution, a gun safe would greatly slow down people's ability to respond to attack. The older Sanchez brother already had someone who was in his house with a gun and another person holding his younger brother hostage when he grabbed his gun; it's not hard to imagine how an extra 3-30 seconds might have cost them their lives. There's also the issue of the slippery slope. Gun control advocates are constantly chipping away at gun ownership one piece at a time and are never satisfied. Also, the risk of accidental discharge is moot. On average, there are less than three hundred kids killed by accidental firearm discharge a year, but there are over 600 accidental kid drownings, yet you don't hear people calling for removing swimming pools from homes with children even though they are much, much riskier.

Fair points. Still the point remains that banning guns is a premature motion, since no other would have to be exhausted first. Teaching kids better gun safety, for example.

There is a lot of stuff to consider about the issue. In my view, the pro-gun control crowd bases their entire argument on the idea that people are untrustworthy with power. After all if people were responsible, then the vast majority of people would never use their weapons to hurt people and the very few who do would be put down almost instantly. The position of gun control, like all big government policies, argues that the common man is too stupid to take care of himself and must be guided and controlled by the state. I reject this.

Agreed.

You can be held responsible for having a guard dog on your property and not warning people beforehand. But the key difference is dogs are animals, and animals can't be held responsible for their actions, and you can't hold an owner responsible for an animal's actions (Because they are separate beings) unless he somehow contributed to it or was negligent. Also, a dog is much less dangerous than a gun.

Ok, trying to not turn this into a wall of cut 'n paste quotes I'll just comment on the previous points raised.

Safes vs Constitution- Thanks for the reply I didn't know that's what it meant. Although I do find it more scary than before. "Infringed upon" is just a bad choice of words in todays world of 'everyone's a lawyer'. I see it as a safe is just sensible storage, where someone else potentially views it as "yay! I can have a minigun!". But none of us are in a position to change it, so each their own.

Pools cause drowning but we still have them- In Australia we have compulsory regulated fencing, and inspections of said fence. Which kind of ties into...

Govt argues the common man is too stupid to look after himself- As much as it pains me to say it, I'm starting to think he is. Look at the world today, I jump off a cliff into the sea & land on rocks paralyzing myself. I can then sue the govt. or local council for not putting up safety fences and warning signs. That's here in the world's biggest island, coast everywhere. Growing up someone got drunk, climbed a fence, fell & paralysed themselves. The council had to pay out and the fences were heightened. No-one is responsible for themselves anymore, its always someone else's fault. In an environment like that, people have no choice but to assume the worst about people's abilities or literally pay the price.

Guard dogs- aren't the same as death traps, and can be trained to discriminate before mauling something.

No gun control = no coups- I still can't see the other side of this as much as I try. I disagreed with the change in gun laws when it happened (I was an avid shooter). But in hindsight I can see the sense in it. I've seen the results when people who aren't fully stable in a moment of extremes had ready access to guns. If the compulsory safe storage was there then maybe my friend would still be alive. Not removing guns entirely, just making it slightly tougher to get to it. Anyway back on track- I'm still very sure the reason we didn't have any coups or invasions prior to gun control wasn't due to civilian weapons. During WW2 the Japanese gave it a try despite the fact we all had guns. If you need a gun to protect yourself from your leaders, you need better leaders.

Well, those are my thoughts- sorry for the wall of text.

@batwatch:Just read the new OP, its a good story. I'm glad the kid saved the day without having to turn into a killer as well (just that it would be hard to deal with at 17).

Although it doesn't say who's gun it was? If it was the Grandpa's then why didn't/ couldn't he use it?

Bah, now I'm one of those people second-guessing people... :(

@ms-lola: also I loved your security device post!

Very nice story.

@cave_duck: @batwatch: I couldn't resist sharing. (:P)