Griffen wrote:Since this lady lost her husband in a shooting incident, I'm surprised she's not more of an advocate for carrying defensively. I don't understand why she wants to create more gun-free zones to allow an incident like that to happen to other innocent victims. I just don't understand the logic behind her motivation. I have to believe theres another alternate agenda item behind her thinking.
Because people like Sarah Brady aren't against guns so much as they are against people defending themselves. Guns are the only practical means of self-defense and that is what they want to make illegal, like it is in places such as the UK. Don't make the mistake of believing that if the anti-gun crowd gets its way and prevents you from legally owning a gun, and you manage to defend yourself in some other way, be it a kitchen knife or a baseball bat, that they won't be clamoring for you to be prosecuted. The media will call you the "kitchen vigilante" and howl for your prosecution.
I still remember the case of the "subway vigilante" --a guy set upon in a subway car by five young thugs with sharpened screw drivers as weapons. Hey, they were just "kids." They just had "screw drivers." They just wanted money. The liberals and their media allies were full of excuses for the thugs. They felt sorry for the thugs, not their victims. There is a lot of truth to the notion that liberals believe a woman raped and murdered is morally superior to the woman who defends herself by shooting the attempted rapist.