Facing terror and a horror within (Gun Grabber Alert)

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel ^ | Aug. 18, 2002 | RENEE GLEMBIN

[BraveMan]

This article gives an interesting insight into the mind of a gun grabber. This person assumes that, because her own reaction was flawed, noone should be given the capacity to defend themselves . . .

[TomServo]

I would have crossed the line of reason.

After reading this article all I can say is, "That ship has done sailed."

[Argus]

Classic liberalism. The woman assumes she has no right to defend herself from the threat of violence, and is therefore prepared to deny that right to everybody else. What would she have done if Creepo had pulled out, not his finger, but a knife? The phrase "better to be judged by twelve than carried by six" has no meaning to her.

[Euro-American Scum]

What am I suggesting? That we resort to a wild west type of society, where vigilante gun slingers roam the streets taking the law into their own armed hands?

It might be a good last resort considering the criminal justice system is only interested in the rights of the crimial, not the victim. How else did Samantha Runion's killer skate out the court room front door, I wonder?

This writer would be well-advised to ask Erin Runion about this if she somehow doesn't get it.

[redbaiter]

This is just the kind of do-gooder who put all the crazy people out on the street in the first place. Thirty years later they have learned... Nothing!

[DWSUWF]

"...I would have crossed the line of reason..."

The 'line' this pig has crossed is the line that separates free expression from advocating the overthrow of the Bill of Rights.

She's a domestic enemy of the Constitution of the United States, plain and simple.

I pray that my children's children will be blessed to grow up in an America where walking filth like this dull-witted slattern are -at a minimum- arrested, tried and exiled.

[arthurus]

Howw did this guy survive childhood? He should at least have been trerminally prozacked or straitjacketed, depending on how old he is, by the time he was 12 years old.

[Billthedrill]

However, if a gun had been in my hand during that moment of fear, anger and confusion, I would have used it to do something illogical and irrevocable.

On the contrary, it would have been quite logical. And then she wouldn't be afraid of him any more. And then we wouldn't be having this conversation, would we?

This is truly pathetic. This individual was confronted with a situation that should have caused her to question her prejudices against self-defense and instead we get this screed justifying her stubborness in adhering to a policy that caused her to be defenseless and afraid, despite the danger to her, despite the danger to her daughter, despite the fact that the guy in her little story is still walking the street. These people would truly rather die or see their children be killed than admit that there's a place for self-defense, not just for themselves, but for everyone else.

[arthurus]

gal, she, she

[Kermit]

"If I'd had a gun, I thought, I would have aimed it square at his back, and I would have killed him."

This is a typical anti-gunner reaction. They leap from their unrealistic utopian view of guns to the other extreme of killing perps, when your life isn't in danger anymore.

I read an anecdote of a pro-gun liberal, who was a civil rights supporter in the South back in the 60's, when that really was a dangerous choice. He carried a gun and believed in self-defense. He was driving one of these utopian liberals, who was proud of opposing guns and opposing self-defense. Six months later, our guy still believed in self-defense, the utopian now believed in assassination and terrorism.

[AdamSelene235]

My first thought as I saw this creep, this sicko, put a look of horror such as I had never seen on my beautiful daughter's face - and a hook of terror in her heart where there had previously been none - was that I wished I'd had a gun. If I'd had a gun, I thought, I would have aimed it square at his back, and I would have killed him.

Homicide in the public interest. Case dismissed.

[tet68]

That is probably true, but What this dumb ass doesn't want to look at is the "responsibility" of carry. And it is an
awesome one indeed. She or he, I couldn't tell which (and maybe that says something about them too)thinks that responsibility and lawfullness is just thrown out the window
at the slightest whim or threat.
In ten years of CC I have had to put my hand on my piece once, ONCE and that when a street bum threatened me with the
".357 in my backpack" yet I didn't have to even draw because
he did NOT show it to me,again the responsibility is to the LAW. Something these folks just can't seem to get a handle on.

[Mulder]

bang

[3k9pm]

As bad as refusing to defend yourself is, it is nothing compared to failure to defend your children.

100 years ago, a woman could walk, unmolested, through the roughest neighborhood in this country.

Why??

Because it was clearly understood that accosting women or children was a non-starter. Every able-bodied man had a pistol on his person or a hunting rifle at hand to discourage poor behavior. Hence the phrase, "An armed society is a polite society."

A close examination of the "wild west" era will show that gun violence against common citizen was extremely rare. Law enforcement officers and criminals were the targets of the majority of gun violence. There were occasions where citizens were caught in a crossfire, but they were the exception. And certainly rarer than todays drive-by victims.

One shot, one kill.

[spodefly]

Renee has projected her lack of judgement and self control on all of us that own guns.

To make it simple for Renee: Renee, there is one rule for carrying a firearm that any gun owner knows -- You never even swing the muzzle of a firearm past another human being unless you know with certainty that said human is about to immediately inflict bodily harm on you or a loved one.

If you had been carrying a firearm in this circumstance, your only option to act was as the person approached, presented direct contact with you, and became a threat. In that moment alone would you have had the slightest justification for targetting him.

To admit that you would lose self control sufficiently to shoot someone in the back is a good indication that you should not be carrying a gun. It, however, reflects nothing on the rest of us.

[TigersEye]

Then, as quickly as he had come, he was gone, turning away from us and heading down the street. He turned back to wave and grin a crazed grin at us, which did nothing to ease our tension and fear.

Here's the first sign of many in this article that the authors mind is severely unbalanced. The facts that he only had a finger and was walking away would signal a normal brain that there was no reason to be afraid and no reason for tension.

But urged on by our exasperation, disappointment and shock, the officer did put a call out to the area squads. He gave them a description of the man (now long gone) and told them that he had a gun.

He had done his part. We had done ours. Hopefully, this sad man will get stopped and, hopefully, he'll either be detained or given mental health treatment.

Amazing! After venting their hysteria on the police they finally come 'round to some thought of compassion for the mentally ill guy. But only after pressuring the officer to lie and put out a report that the guy was armed which just might be enough to get him shot full of holes.

Will the real sicko please stand up?!

[mvpel]

Raging Against Self Defense: A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality

By Dr. Sarah Thompson

[joesnuffy]

Finger? meet Mr Leatherman tool.....

[spunkets]

" insight into the mind of a gun grabber."

This woman is just as bright as Phillip Andrews(~20y/o). He was confronted by a home invader, Lori Dan, a woman packing a pistol and wearing only a clear plastic bag. She invaded his ma's kitchen after shooting up a local grade shool. At some point shortly after she got there he ended up with her gun. He then gave it back to her thinking it would calm her down. After she got the gun back she shot him. She then went upstairs and shot herself.

His ma praised his act of giving the gun back as resonable, so did the IL council against handgun violence. They made this creative thinker president of their org.

[El Gato]

What am I suggesting? That we resort to a wild west type of society, where vigilante gun slingers roam the streets taking the law into their own armed hands?

Yet another example of the typicial statist liberal twisting and redefinition of words. Self Defense, or defense of others, is not vigilantism. Vigilantisim is hunting down presumned criminals and then becoming judge, jury and executioner. If you shoot in defense of self, others, or property, you are exercing the right of self defense. If you hunt the criminals down, and don't attempt to arrest them, but rather just execute them, you are a vigilante. By making self defense out to be vigilantism, they attempt to delegitimize self defense, and along with it the ownership of the means of self defense.