3
3
0
I watched a tearful woman explain on CBS Sunday Morning how she avoided a mass murderer in Odessa, TX, by racing away from the intersection where she was stopped when she saw him point his "assault weapon" at her and her family. Sounds to me as though she didn't even need a weapon of her own, but did the right thing. Now she's all upset over what "might have happened". And she wants Congress to do something. What? Congress didn't give me my right to self defense and it sure as hell can't take it away. If they make the attempt, I will be forced to defend myself, my family, my community, and my nation from them
Odessa shooting survivor: Congress, do something
Posted from cbsnews.comPosted in these groups: 
Gun Control
Gun Control
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
3
3
0
2
2
0
When "we" say that weapons such as the "AR-15" are a necessary element to self-defense, "they" feel we are indirectly saying that the only way to be safe is own and know how to operate the same. When "they" say that we don't need "high capacity" magazines, and semi-automatic weapons, "we" feel they are saying that we should be restricted by "their" own limitations. More simply said, not everyone wants to accept the risks, sacrifice the time and effort, or spend the money to be prepared...and "they" may not want "us" to have the benefit of the same.
I think ego is inextricably linked to both points of view, and often gets in the way of pragmatic solutions.
It's difficult for people to admit they are not "prepared", and even harder (in some circumstances) to admit that there are some things you simply cannot be prepared for. Personally (and I'm no expert), I think being prepared is always a multi-faceted proposal. No individual weapon is going to make someone a better shooter without skill development...the same way a great shooter will still be so if armed with a "less" capable weapon. Those who choose not to arm themselves, can still be "prepared"...there's just a different set of decisions, skills, and tools to be adopted. Where we fall off the wagon (perhaps) is in feeling that in order to fulfill our own personal "self-image", we have to make decisions for others, as well as ourselves.
To me, that's what is so important about "freedom", and why no additional "laws" are going to save us.
I think ego is inextricably linked to both points of view, and often gets in the way of pragmatic solutions.
It's difficult for people to admit they are not "prepared", and even harder (in some circumstances) to admit that there are some things you simply cannot be prepared for. Personally (and I'm no expert), I think being prepared is always a multi-faceted proposal. No individual weapon is going to make someone a better shooter without skill development...the same way a great shooter will still be so if armed with a "less" capable weapon. Those who choose not to arm themselves, can still be "prepared"...there's just a different set of decisions, skills, and tools to be adopted. Where we fall off the wagon (perhaps) is in feeling that in order to fulfill our own personal "self-image", we have to make decisions for others, as well as ourselves.
To me, that's what is so important about "freedom", and why no additional "laws" are going to save us.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
People fail to understand that the government (local/state/federal) cannot protect them from the "man on the street" hell bent on hurting them and that they are responsible for their own security and safety. The government can certainly come in after the fact and arrest, charge, prosecute and punish an offender.
The notion that a weapons ban (pick your weapon(s)) will make them safe is the rough equivalent of buying the snake oil salesman line that his potions that will cure/fix this, that or the other.
The notion that a weapons ban (pick your weapon(s)) will make them safe is the rough equivalent of buying the snake oil salesman line that his potions that will cure/fix this, that or the other.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google