The gun did not save her life. She saved her life. The gun is only a tool.
Actually in this case it was the gun. If she had been standing there with a crossbow, a broad sword or a fly swatter, the immediate threat of force would not have been there. It was the presence of the gun that was the deciding factor.The gun did not save her life. She saved her life. The gun is only a tool.
In this case again, I have to disagree. It wasn't whether she shot the thug. She did not. But it was the mere presence of looking down the barrel that was the determining factor. You are right, guns dont kill people, people kill people. and this Person opted NOT to kill another "people". This was a case of deterrence, not one where the woman was forced to take a life. If you break into a home and the owner is pointing a Mossy 500 dead at your face, you're not going to look if it's even loaded. All you will be aware of is that the owner has you dead to rights and it's his or her discression to pull the trigger. So in this case, the Gun's presence prevented the crime, not whether she shot or it went off all by itself.Remember the old saying, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"?
If we use and believe that adage then the gun did NOT save the woman. The woman saved herself.
Yes, but the liberals do not want to admit those facts since it destroys their position.I do believe we already have the official statistics (and from the GAO too - from their very own employees) which state that guns are used to abort crimes and save lives from lethal threats at somewhere > 3X as many times as guns being used to COMMIT crimes. The evidence is literally under their very noses . . .
Sad but true.Yes, but the liberals do not want to admit those facts since it destroys their position.