The 'can't take my guns' advocates are using an example of the legitimate and surely supported use of guns for personal and family protection to make their point against gun control. The problem is that gun control doesn't mean taking away all guns as they seem to envision. [Mom shoots intruder: A point for gun rights advocates? ( video)].
It is hard, if not impossible, to justify the exclusion of firearms as used in this example. An intruder entered into the house and apparently pursued the mother and her children into a crawl space where they had taken refuge. The mother shot him, emptying the gun, wounding him, but not killing him. And apparently too the husband had trained his wife to fire the weapon.
But the facts of the case are little strange. The intruder at first rang the doorbell in an attempt to determine if anyone was at home. Unexplained is the fact that she didn't answer the door (even without opening it). She ignore it, but he then retrieved something to open the door and it is then when she sought refuge within the house. But she didn't call the police - she called the husband who then called the police.
I am not challenging her right to use the firearm. Anyone who illegally enters the home (residence) of another takes the risk that he or she will be shot. And rightfully so. The illegality of the entry is not at issue. I am merely curious why she didn't call the police then call her husband. Merely an interest.
But the real point is that is rather senseless to use this case as a 'poster boy' to defend against the taking of guns when, almost without exception, no one is demanding that all guns must be confiscated. Few, if any, would challenge this mother's right to use the firearm. It only results in further polarizing a debate that ought to be had. This mother did not need an automatic war weapon capable of firing 30 rounds in as many seconds.