A study of contrasts
On Sept. 27th a man convicted of participating in a drive-by shooting was sentenced. What was his punishment? Four Weekends in Jail and 48 months of probation. Were gun control supporters incensed at this light sentence? Hardly.
Instead they were upset at the Pennsylvania Legislature because they were seeking to provide victims of domestic violence with a temporary emergency license to carry a firearm “to make sure that they are able to defend themselves.” Instead of being heralded the measure is called “Dangerous, absolutely dangerous.”
What is so dangerous about letting people maintain the freedom to defend their lives, and liberty? Was it dangerous to allow the boyfriend of the ex girlfriend of Eduardo Enrique Garcia to be armed in her apartment when Mr Garcia entered at 8:00 am? Was it dangerous for Wanna Jo Walker to be armed when her estranged husband broke into her home at 6:00am on a Sunday morning? Was Cheryl Swenson in danger because she had a .357 magnum in her possession when her abusive husband broke down the bedroom door to beat her some more? On July 2nd , 2001 this woman was lucky to have an armed relative nearby when she was attacked by her knife wielding estranged husband. Less than one month earlier this Greenville South Carolina woman was in danger because of a gun, but that gun was in the hands of her attacker. Fortunately for her, she had one as well.
Victim disarmament advocates like to claim the police are there to protect you. The reality is they are not as was upheld by the Supreme Court of The United States on June 27th 2005 in Castle Rock vs. Gonzales. Even the ever present restraining order proved to provide no more protection of the victims from harm than the paper it was printed on.
It only takes a few hours to teach or learn the rudimentary basics of self-defense with a firearm. Those few hours could save a life, even your own.