That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.The obviously far more fundamental question, though, is, "Does knowing one's assailant (intimately or not) impose a moral prohibition on the intended victim defending herself by the most effective means?" If her husband, or boyfriend, or ex, wants to kill her, and is sufficiently more powerful than she to succeed in doing so unless she uses a gun, is she morally obligated to die?
Unfortunately, VPC, CSGV and friends are unlikely to muster the courage to answer those questions. Then again, that reticence is itself an answer of sorts, and one that does not speak well of them. [More]
Stumble it!
2 comments:
When a woman shoots her ex-husband or ex-boyfriend (or even a stalker) while he is attacking her, it gets counted in the statistics as "domestic violence" instead of self-defense. That way, the CSGV and VPC downplay the justified self-defense cases and artificially inflate the "bad" shootings. That's why you hear statistics about how you are "43 times more likely to shoot a family member than a burglar," or whatever.
That had never occurred to me, Anon, but I have very little doubt you're precisely correct. Thanks for the insight.
Post a Comment