"Here you go, pro-Gun people. I'll help you make your case. I think. "

If only all thieves were this stupid.  One of them is holding the purse with the gun, and instead of just emptying it while it's in his hands in order to look for the money himself, he gives it back to the victim.

This scenario is so remarkable, and it requires the thieves to be so thoroughly stupid and inept that if it was in a work of fiction it would be an indication that it was a made up scenario to cover a "bad shooting" or it would indicate that the fiction itself was bad.

I'm not saying the scenario isn't real, sometimes boneheaded things happen in real life that we'd never believe in fiction.

I'm just saying it's incredible.

It's just so bizarre.

First, they follow her into the house and threaten her with a screwdriver to give them her money. So far any police officer would say "give them what they want and let them leave" and firing a gun at them without warning would be excessive.

But then they threaten to rape her. Which justifies deadly force in self defense.

Then, rather than empty the purse (in their possession) themselves (so they can be sure to get everything of value) they let her have it back, she gets her gun, fires it without warning and hits one of them in the torso.

So far, so good. The smart thing for them to do is stop right there and either surrender or leave. If they do, she has no cause to use the gun again.

But they attack her and try to beat the gun from her (which justifes her shooting again). But the gun itself does not deter them.

Then the boyfriend comes in and starts wrestling with the thieves. Now, if that was the fight and they hadn't tried to beat her for the gun, she wouldn't be in a position to shoot. Yet, she shoots. 

Then the last remaining thief gets her boyfriend in a headlock (threatening his life) so she picks him off with the gun.

Every step of the way these guys either provide her access to the gun or give her justification for using or continuing to use the gun.

It's amazing. A professional lawyer couldn't have constructed a more watertight case for self defense in a case where none of the thieves had guns.

Well, they would've had a gun if they'd looked in the purse, but they didn't.

Yet, in the hypothetical cases being argued this would be presented as these two guys coming in to rob the place, then being simply shot immediately. Or chased off with the gun.

As martial arts evolved to cater for the more realistic scenarios, it's now become more of a practical artform - more about wrapping up your opponent, taking them to the ground, like in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. Deadly force is not the major selling point anymore (again, at least for those us who are sane).

So in much the same way, the problem with a gun is that the last resort - namely killing or maiming someone - is also usually the first and only response possible.

Al's replies, in my opinion, have been just. Especially so since he can speak from a position of authority, being a responsible gun owner.

************************************************************ **********

Such an ass kisser!  I too am a responsible gun owner but I am frowned upon and scolded and outright sworn at because I feel I have a right to defend myself with my firearms if the situation arises!

Al, you're such a fucking hypocrite it makes me sick!  You are definitely anti-gun and yet you own guns.  If you really despise us "so-called" gun-nuts then do yourself a favor, become a good example and live by your beliefs and get rid of your guns because in the wrong hands, they are just as dangerous and could become a part of the stupid fucking scenarios that you and you friends are so well at creating (accidentally shooting a neighbor).

If you have so much passion and outrage about these issues, get rid of your guns!  Lead by example!

No, but it was hell on the poor donkey!