She'd be the criminal and the guy breaking into her home would have been the victim. Actually, if she had lived in England, she probably wouldn't have even had a gun. Luckily, she didn't live in England and the worst outcome never came to be.
The police weren't able to reach her in time, so she had to use a firearm to defend herself from a violent intruder. Those who think gun owners are trigger-happy and just waiting to shoot someone over the smallest sleight should listen to this 911 call.
Far from an angry man with a gun, this woman exercised great restraint towards her intruder. The only angry man in this situation was the one without the gun. Unsurprisingly, this angry man had a criminal record.
So it's not angry men with guns who are a problem. It's angry people period, those with guns and without guns who are the threat to society. The inability to recognize this fact is the failing of the pro gun-control pseudo-intellectual types.
4 comments:
Gee, you really simplify the issue.
Gun control is only an aspect of crime control.
BTW, are you willing to fork over the money to pay for housing these people in prison?
Or would you prefer to address the roots of the issue.
BTW, you don't know dick about British law, which could be somewhat rectified by reading the Wikipedia article on self-defence.
I have quite a few posts on the legalities Self-defence.
Also, British people are CITIZENS, not subjects.
Subject is an archaic term.
"Gun control is only an aspect of crime control."
Gun control is gun control pure and simple. Crime control is the control of criminals, not guns. Aspects of crime control include mandatory sentencing, longer sentences, 3 strike policies, prosecuting juvenile criminals as adults, etc.
"BTW, are you willing to fork over the money to pay for housing these people in prison?"
I sure am. I'd rather fork over money for more prisons and correctional officers than for idiotic schemes like gun registration and licensing.
"BTW, you don't know dick about British law, which could be somewhat rectified by reading the Wikipedia article on self-defence."
If the victim was a British semi-citizen, she'd be sitting be sitting in a jail cell right now.
BTW, are you willing to fork over the money to pay for housing these people in prison?
To house VIOLENT OFFENDERS? Hell yes. They belong is prison, removed from the rest of society. Gun or not they can't do harm if they're locked up.
Laci - You are subjects. If this were someone in Britain she'd be dead right now because the government forbid her an effective means of self-defense.
BTW - Wikipedia is not a source of relevant information. Perhaps if you knew how to properly research an issue in order to bolster your position you'd know that. Of course it's hard for you because the facts prove your position wrong.
Also - A personal attack like "you don't know dick" is not a substantive rebuttal of a point. I suggest you learn to have a debate/discussion like a rational adult, though experience tells me you're likely incapable of doing so.
I have quite a few posts on the legalities Self-defence.
I wouldn't call your ramblings at your blog factual. not even close.
Post a Comment