Reply from the blog author:Bob S.January 23, 2013 at 11:37 AM
More lies, distortions and things left unsaid.
Well she emptied the six-shot revolver hitting the guy with five rounds in the torso and face, missing with one. Well, the guy was not only able to get up, he actually got in his SUV and drove off, crashing just a short distance away.
5 out of 6 shots is better than most law enforcement officers can manage at the same distance.
Yet you claim she needs additional training. Just what level of training does a person need in order to exercise their rights?
By the way, could you provide evidence that you have sufficient (I get to decide following your example) training in the exercise of your first amendment rights?
If she couldn’t bring him down with five shots hitting him in the face and torso, allowing him to escape, she may never have brought him down.
The purpose of firearms for self defense is to stop the threat. She - and her .38 - did that admirably. Can you deny he stopped the crime in progress and possibly a worse crime was stopped?
I can’t drive my car without a license that I can get only if I have had sufficient training to properly operate the vehicle.
Now comes the lying part. What you say is simply not true. You can drive your car on private property without any training, any license, insurance or anything else and there is nothing in the law saying otherwise.
It is beyond me how they can allow an individual to own a gun without the necessary training to use it.
Maybe because you want to put obstacles and road blocks in the path of people exercising their rights. Can you show any evidence that ordinary people perform unacceptably without training in the use of firearms?
Can you provide any citation in the Constitution that authorizes the government to mandate that training?
The Hermans have two guns in their home but it isn’t clear whether that is a benefit or an obstacle to their safety.
I'm sorry but you to be a little slow to make that statement or deliberately lying.
A firearm kept in their home stopped a crime and the only person hurt was the criminal. How is that not a benefit to their safety?
But let’s be honest, wouldn’t it be a safer America if everyone who owns a gun was forced to learn how to use it? Remember, there are 300 million firearms on the streets of the United States. How many owners are trained on how to use them? My guess is a very sparse number.
Your very words are proof that training is not needed. Firearm related deaths and injuries have been decreasing year after year while the number of firearms owned has been increasing.
So if people were as unsafe as you claim; how do you explain that?
And people wonder why the pro-gun people don't want to have a conversation about guns? It's because the anti-gun people can't have a conversation about guns.Jack E. DunningJanuary 25, 2013 at 10:31 AM
This is so absurd and stupid it doesn't deserve an answer. But precisely what you would expect from a gun nut.
Jack E. Dunning
Nasty Jack Blog
http://nastyjackbuzz.blogspot.com/2013/ ... d.html?m=1
