Here we go again!
Another article that has, on the surface, stuff all to do with Climate Fraud. However if you trace the lineage of Climate Fraud back to its beginnings you find the same ideologists who are behind gun control for law abiding citizens but open slather for the poor misunderstood criminals!
RISKY SHOOTING IN SELF DEFENCE
“This was the bed-wetting headline of the lead editorial in the August 14, 2005 edition of ‘The Commercial Appeal’ in Memphis in the good ole US of A.
Jacob Evans was robbed at gunpoint by a duo of armed thugs two weeks before he undertook his “risky” behaviour. It seems that ‘The Commercial Appeal’ finds nothing risky for a victim to be held at gunpoint by armed robbers.
Evans went and bought a .357 from a friend the day after the first robbery. Happily, he was not a day late AND a life short.
The same punks abducted Evans at gunpoint (they must have by then decided he was their personal piggy bank). They forced themselves into his car and made him drive them to his bank where they ordered him to draw out $10,000. Since Evans did not have a withdrawal slip, one of the duo went to get one.
That was the moment that Evans chose to pull out his .357 and shoot the other bad guy who was still in the car. Evans did not just shoot him once, he emptied the gun into Leverett Dickson, hitting him with all six rounds. Good for Evans. He made sure that his kidnapper could no longer hurt him.
‘The Commercial Appeal’ was in a dither that the armed robber might have returned fire before he died. Or, that the accomplice might have returned and shot Evans. Or that the ensuing gunfight might have endangered an innocent bystander.
The anti-self defence crowd does not get it. For the second time in less than a month, Evans was victimized by the same pair. The kidnappers were in the process of looting his bank account. Does the Commercial Appeal really think that Evans was going to be told to drop the kidnappers at their house and be wished a good day?
Whatever were Evans’ risks in the actions he took, they were almost certainly less than the risk he faced of being deposited in the landfill later that day.
Oh, and the now-in-custody accomplice? Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, bad guys — even when they are armed — flee when the victim starts shooting, because at that point the tables have been turned and the element of surprise is working in behalf of the victim. Which is what bad guy number two actually did.
As if reading from some gun control talking points playbook, the editorial (in ‘The Commercial Appeal’) raised the problem that a gun might get stolen and be “accidentally discharged by children.” Better that Evans be dead than run the remote risk of some kid stealing his gun. And let’s say it plainly — when the kid steals the gun, he(the kid) is a criminal!Thanks to Ron Owen in Gympie for this little gem.
It just goes to prove that the police can't stop an intruder, stalker, or mugger from hurting you. They can pursue him only after he has hurt or killed you. Protecting yourself from harm is your responsibility, and you are far less likely to be hurt in a neighbourhood of gun-owners than in one of disarmed citizens - even if you don't own a gun!
However, in the era of the "Social Experiment" now going on, you are not permitted self defense. If you think the Social Experiment is a Labor only invention, let me remind you who really disarmed Australia. Little Johhny Howard, who wore a bullet proof vest to a meeting of gun owners opposed to his views!
This made all firearm owners appear to be assasians. However, worse still, it made Howard appear a brave man!