The NRA sent out this Tweet about a woman who defended herself against an attacker that grabbed her child.
#ArmedCitizen: A #Detroit mother and daughter were leaving for church when a man grabbed one of them and forced his way into their home. The mom retrieved her gun and successfully defended herself and daughter against the violent man. https://t.co/Jk3ZNcRXis
— NRA (@NRA) December 4, 2018
That lead to this exchange initiated by a gun grabber who is #StillWithHer.
Many things could have gone wrong with the shoot so it’s better for the woman to defend herself with a frying pan.
This is what happens when TV and movies are filled with female action heroes that beat up armed men without breaking a heal or a sweat. Some people get the idea that the average woman can take on the average man in a fight and be victorious.
God created all men and Sam Colt, not Lodge Cast Iron, that made them equal. Double that for women.
Also, again, training. I’m not against training. I am against the idea that training is magic. The Left seems to believe that government approved instructors have some sort of fairy dust that makes people better.
I’d love to train with Clint Smith. If I could afford it, that would be my dream mancation. Still, I don’t need to go to his course to practice the fundamentals myself.
When challenged on the stupidity of her frying pan assertion, Ms. Prince went with the Leftist standby of insult and blame Russian Bots.
That’s a winning argument if I ever heard one.
She just doesn’t stop. You shouldn’t be allowed to have guns because this defensive shooting went well, but might not have because something could have gone wrong in her imagination.
Wow, a Leftist shaming someone for not joining the military, that’s new. Usually it’s the other way around (insulting people who joint the military). So I guess the only training Ms. Prince likes is military training and if you don’t have it you shouldn’t have guns.
Also, what “gun safety test” applies to this situation?
Lastly, she boils this whole thing down to luck, so you shouldn’t have a gun.
There is no rationality with these people.
A bad shoot means you shouldn’t have a gun. A good shoot means you shouldn’t have a gun because something bad might have happened. A no shoot because the CCW was obeying the gun free zone and that means you shouldn’t’ have guns because CCWs are worthless anyway.
They can make any situation fit their opinion because it’s not about facts, it’s about their feelings.
This is what happens when you start with a predefined and unchangeable conclusion.
Sssssooooooo absolutely nothing could have gone wrong if she grabbed a frying pan right?
I dont and wont engage these flaming idiots, they will never see our way until like mr Clint said, they get the shit knocked out of them. Fuk em. I live my way.
Ooo they learned a new word, training. Someone should explain to her that all training consists of is an average of 8 hours someone showing you how to practice correctly. Its individual practice that makes a shooter.
Then you get situations like Chicago where they mandated training to be able to register then banned any form of training within city limits. Just like they did w/ registration years before. Thankfully overturned in Ezell v Chicago
While I support training, anything anti-gun advocates support will be used as bans/restrictions in the long run. They have proved it over and over.
I doubt Ms. (Ze, Zir, or?) Prince owns a frying pan. If she does, I doubt that she knows the tactical advantages of Lodge Cast Iron instead of cheap Walmart aluminum. I won’t question her choice of weapons if she were in that situation, after all it’s her choice It also depends on availability and access. But her concerns about imaginary scenarios does not mean the shooter made a bad choice, or that the rest of us should give up our preferred choice of self defense tools.
What if, what if what if anything happens, an earthquake, a plane crash, russians, there is always this long list of what could have happened, but never does drives me nuts
I used to get paid good money to play the “what if game” doing safety analysis and assessment of nuclear facilities. The emphasis was never, we can’t respond to this event that way because something bad may happen, but rather what bad thing may happen and what can we do to mitigate the damage. There are some scenarios that nothing can be done and you are f**ked. A meteor drops on your head for example. Others, with training, skill, tools, and determination can be managed or even prevented.
Also note that risk is not the same as consequences. Just because something catastrophic can happen doesn’t mean it will happen. Risk is objectively the product of consequences times probability. Is it possible you could be killed by a lightning strike, of course. Are the odds fairly low, yes. Can you reduce the odds even further by taking precautions and learning what to do and not do in a lightning storm, absolutely. So you go about your business as normal. Can you cut your finger cutting up veggies for dinner, certainly. Is it likely, definitely. Will you die, almost certainly not (assuming you’re an otherwise healthy individual), so you keep a first aid kit handy and don’t bother removing sharp pointy things from your house.
What if…she hit her baby with the frying pan? I think frying pans should be banned because what if.
Does this woman apply the same logic to everything else that she does every day of the week?
Something could go wrong with driving, so she better stay home.
Since she knows what a frying pan is, I am guessing she has electricity or gas in her house, and something could go wrong with those utilities, so she better get them both turned off. (Unless she is an electrician, or has been trained by the local utility to operated electricity correctly.)
I wonder if she uses any detergents to clean up her home. How well has she read the MSDS and how well trained is she in responding to a poisoning?
Do not get me started on kitchen knives…
This is, once again, another example of projection. This woman is apparently so terrified of guns that she assumes that shooting straight is an impossibility. Everyone, except the police, will shake uncontrollably if they had a gun in their hands, because she is sure that would happen to her.
Perhaps Ms. Prince should acquaint herself with the marksmanship yardstick of “Minute of Antifa”. That’s my near term accuracy goal, wherein should one of those animals got within 7 meters, and then initiate hostilities, I can keep all my shots in their brisket.
In the example up In which Ms. Prince is opining, well, that is why coroners look for gunshot stippling around the entrance wound.
Cool. My replies to her vapid thoughts got put up here. I’m a bonafide internet celebrity now!
FYI, she blocked me after that last reply. Joke’s on her being that I’m prior service…