A new one from the anti SD crowd :(

[WAGCEVP]

A new one form the anti SD crowd

I got a note from a person who says we can't use the GSL over 2
million x's a yr statement any more because " it has been proven that
some of those are cases where the attacker wasn't armed".

Yeah I know, where has it been proven and what the heck does it
matter whether your attacker is armed with a gun, knife , or
(unarmed????) with just his bare hands/ fists?


personally to me a rapist with nothing in his hands is STILL armed!


:banghead:

 

[Standing Wolf]

Only leftist extremists or complete nitwits would fall for illogic of that sort—or do I repeat myself?

 

[Justin]

Seems to my mind that it's a valid self-defense occurence so long as one condition is met:
An aggressor's actions are stopped because the intended victim had the presence of mind to be armed.

It doesn't matter who the aggressor is, how big they are, or what weapons they are or are not carrying. There's no point in playing silly games where it doesn't count if the circumstances aren't just exactly how a critic wants them to be.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

Yeah -- Two unarmed, 200 pound rapists scared away by a little woman with a big gun just isn't fair.

The lies and "spin" these anti-freedom types spew are incredible.:banghead:

 

[George Hill]

Being Armed is never a requirement for the justification of the use of force... its a fear of serious bodily harm or death.
I don't know about you, but rape in my opinion is serious bodily harm. Especially when you consider the life altering STDs floating around.

Just the this note back:


"Moron."

 

[Geech]

The really silly thing is that "unarmed" people kill more people each year than so-called assault weapons do.