A couple of points.VoiceofReason wrote:We need to point out the lies of the anti-gunners every chance we get and don’t be afraid to call a lie a lie. If the article has a comments section, we need to post there, if not try to post something about it somewhere else.Charles L. Cotton wrote:I was 16 when Whitman climbed the tower and started his rampage. As you can imagine, it was all over the TV and radio news. Austin police and the DPS credited citizens returning fire as having reduced the number of casualties. Without them, Whitman would have had more time to kill.
The anti-gunners don't feel the least bit constrained by the truth.
Chas.
If we can do this often enough their lies will cease to work for them and start working against them. Wouldn’t it be great if people stopped believing everything negative printed about guns, even if one particular article had some truth to it?
1. This article is from those supporting campus carry, pointing out the anomalies in this witness's claims.
2. The claim that the shooters on the ground impeded and slowed rescue is preposterous on its face. The witness was wounded while Whitman was free to roam around unimpeded. Once the shooters started returning fire,he had to be more guarded, keep his head down. Shooting up at the tower didn't endanger rescuers.
3. She is a victim, not an expert. Other than that, she has no particular insight into the situation, any more than one of the shooters, except being a victim clothes one in a protective shield, absolved of all sin, and imbued with wisdom and truth in liberal orthodoxy.