Posted on 08/13/2006 4:39:07 AM PDT by n230099
Bang
Great tagline, JillValentine.
A lot of gun grabbers sincerely believe that because they themselves don't have the self control to be trusted with a weapon no one else does either. They're wrong, of course, but they labor on in ignorance.
Such appears to be the case here.
If the mother had run them down with her car, would Jenny be pushing for a ban on automobiles?
But like David's killer, thousands of law-abiding citizens annually become criminals when they pick up a firearm and shoot other people.
And smoking marijuana will turn you into a homicidal fiend. Next.
Man, you need to get out to the range.
I do, too.
< }B^)
I just emailed her a polite message, asker her for her source of those numbers.
I'm not going to hold my breath. I also CC'd a copy of the message to another email account of mine, just in case she decided to try to get my email account banned.
Mark
One of the statistics she cites in her original article:
"Guns in the home are used seven times more often for murder than for self-defense."
I've used a gun twice in self-defense. Both times, the bad guys decided against pursuing things. Both times, I didn't kill someone - I merely made it clear I would rather go down fighting, and the other folks left. Quickly.
Neither instance is documented anywhere - so how meaningful is her statistic?
That's why one of them is a 12-gauge. Ya don't need to be a very good shot with one of those. :^)
"I cannot say whether the woman who shot my brother was vicious or insane"
I can. Try, "Both!"
From the description in the original article, it was pre-meditated murder.
She chose a handgun. A shotgun would have worked, or a car.
I'm sorry for her loss, but I've used the presence of a gun twice to keep myself in one piece. And no, I didn't fire a shot. The fact that I could was enough to end what would otherwise have turned into 8 on 1 fights against bigger men than myself.
So - should I have died so her brother could have been killed by a car instead of a gun?
Like one of the Million Mom March founders who later shot someone?
Who dares impugn the honor of the dreaded Underwear Battalion!?"
Fie!
And that never figures into the self-defense calculations of the gun-grabbers - by design. They like to claim that a gun can only deter by killing someone. However, nothing changes the mind of those wishing harm like the sound of a gun racking a round into firing position, or the sound of a hammer being cocked back on a revolver.
I always illustrate my point by asking gun control nuts and liberals "Who do you know that can come in right and take everything your family has and there's not a damn thing you can do about it?"
You may get a mumbled reply about "the Mafia" or some such. I always respond that the Mafia doesn't bother you if you don't get involved with them, but you CAN'T avoid involvement with the government, and their resources to destroy your life are essentially infinite. I've never gotten a response from anybody after that.
Note the complete lack of comprehension that women might have a desire, need, or right to defend themselves with weapons.
Instead, the writer skips over logic like a water bug and lets her emotion overcome her intellect. In particular, she seems to have a thing about perceived male dominance in her life.
Misandry: a hatred of men.
What is she arguing for? Repealing the Second Amendment? Confiscating all men's underwear? Repealing the First Amendment (or perhaps just regulating the Internet to death, and converting the USA to Red China)? And by extension of her "argument," would she be in favor of neutering *all* men just because a very few of them might be rapists?
I am sorry for her personal family tragedy. Yet she chooses to take advantage of that by coming out in public and making a political statement in favor of gun confiscation, feminism (?), regulation of freedom of speech, and communistic principles-- Harry Truman, DWM, said it best: if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
Jenny, Jenny, read this: your professional victimologist bleating resonates with hypocrisy and self-pity. I doubt this is what David would want, his name and life descerated by your personal politics and animosity towards good people (of both sexes) that you are leveraging his story to attempt to control.
I love the "logic" of the anti-handgun people. A certain crazed person wants to shoot someone for some alleged offense, but if a handgun is not available, the crazed person will not think of using a rifle or a shotgun. What great "logic" (snort).
You are correct. From personal experience I have deduced that many women, like my wife, hate guns and would like to see them totally eliminated. The sad fact is that far more women have been murdered because they DIDN'T have a gun available to defend themselves. The plain truth is the average woman is no match for the average man in terms of physical strength. A handgun is the big equalizer. Even allowing for tragic cases like the murder of her brother, I'm willing to bet that the use of handguns to save peoples lives from attackers is far greater than the loss of life from the misuse of handguns. Statistics prove it. Never mentioned is the number of women who would still be alive if they had been armed at the time someone attacked them.
Be sure to let her know you are a Freeper. She has a low opinion of us.
Cheers!
Another liberal twit with absolutely no knowledge of the history of the Constitution.
These are exactly the kinds of firearms protected by the 2nd Amendment.
L
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.