This is one of the scenarios that I point to when I argue for we the public to be allowed the right to bear arms. Gun control advocates often say that the public don't need weapons to protect themselves from evil criminals because all they have to do is call the police and they'll be there post haste. They never consider that maybe you won't be able to get to a phone or can't afford one. Anyway whilst it's difficult to show that this poor woman would have been able to defend herself with a gun, imagine any scenario where the police cannot get to you in time.News.com.au - GOLD Coast police took up to 3 1/2 hours to respond to a violent domestic dispute in which a woman was brutally bashed in front of her nine-year-old son and ended up on life support. The boy told police his mother resembled "a rag doll" after a sustained attack lasting up to 90 minutes. It was so violent that her blood was found splattered on the ceiling.
They took more than 3 hours to get to this incident, what if some 200 pound maniac is breaking down your door with the idea that rearranging your teeth and having your spleen for his dinner is the answer to all his woes. Say you can afford a phone and make the call expecting the cops to turn up and they just don't because they're busy rescuing some other poor bastard, what are you going to do, to avoid the aforementioned maniac from 'solving' his problems? If you had a gun, you could just blow his head off as soon as he makes past the door.
Given the above, that the state simply cannot protect you, can anyone seriously give me a legitimate argument for gun control?
I'm not necessarily against people being armed and able to defend themselves, but this is not a good example to promote your point of view. The post says it was a violent domestic dispute, which suggests the assailant was either the victim's husband, a family member, or someone who lived under the same roof. As I see it, if she owned a firearm, it is likely that the offender would know where it was kept, if they live under the same roof, so he may well have used it on her himself. Not only that, but if she was able to carry a gun to protect herself, she would need to be armed at all times in her own house, to protect herself from this particular assailant. I'm not trying to be argumentative or obtuse here, but this incident in itself really does not do much to promote the right to bear arms. It is more of an indictment of police priorities and response times, than part of an argument against gun control.
Having said all that, I agree with your comments about the 200 pound maniac etc. I was a cop myself for a long time, and I know they can't be everywhere.
Well said Phil and MK, your argument still stands in a multitude of other violent situations.ReplyDelete
I know Phil, it's not the best example, but i thought it led well into the other scenario. Perhaps not.ReplyDelete
Nice to see you're back by the way, didn't see you around for a while, hope you have been well.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.ReplyDelete
I should have put legitimate in bold, but then again, words have always bounced off your thick skull eh tofu. But anyway it's nice that you still leave your stupidity here, feels good to delete it.ReplyDelete
Someone is going to have their arses in a sling over this lack of response to a very brutal domestic. I would not like to be the cops who originally set out on this 'job' only to be diverted to another location. Their priority was the domestic called in on triple zero and that is where they should have gone!ReplyDelete