Insights from Brian Wilson, Owner
There are two insights to be had from these two incidents: One, notice that the Loganville woman had a revolver with five shots - and that she emptied the revolver. Its a good thing that she was a good shot - not easy under that high of stress levels - believe me. Why? Because if Slater had been armed with a pistol - or a baseball bat, and found himself still functional after she emptied her pistol of its limit of just five shots - that woman might well had not survived, seeing as she would have had to reload. (revolvers are notoriously slow to reload compared to semi-automatics). If the woman had owned a semi-automatic pistol with a high capacity magazine, she would almost certainly have survived such a scenario - she could continue to shoot until Slater was no longer capable of presenting a threat. As it was - she was lucky he was not armed.
Note also that she apparently had a plan. She knew where to go and hide. She was armed, apparently trained and just as important, was psychologically prepared to defend herself with deadly force. She survived because she had the right to keep and bear arms and was physically and psychologically prepared to do so. Yet our politicians - YOUR politicians - want to deny us the tools needed to successfully defend our lives against criminals such as the ability to have high capacity magazines and own semi-automatic weapons.
Note that in the Fairburn woman's case, she immediately called 911.......and the police did not get there in time to prevent her from being shot. This is NOT an isolated incident – this scenario outcome occurs the majority of the time. The police CAN NOT get there in time in the vast majority of incidents despite their best efforts. (Notice that in BOTH incidents, the police did not get there in time). The necessary delay gives the advantage to the attacker. It is the reason for the high casualty count in Columbine. It is the reason for the same in Aurora. It is the reason for the same in Sandy Hook.
Only when an armed and trained individual AT THE SCENE immediately responds to take the attacker down are the casualties minimized. THE POLICE CANNOT GET THERE IN TIME in a majority of these incidents. Subsequently YOU are responsible for your safety. And when the attacker is armed - and you aren't, the only thing you can do is cower in the corner and await your fate. Yet our politicians - YOUR politicians - want us to believe that the government, in the form of police officers, will provide you will protection and keep you safe, if we only thrown more money at the problem and take away the private citizen's most effective tool - personally owned firearms. In mass shootings and incidents like these two that occur everday, we see the proof that despite the best efforts of our fine and brave policemen and women, they simply in the majority of cases can't get there in time to save you despite their best efforts.
Successful defense requires that you have the ability to effectively stop the threat. Being armed with a firearms goes a long way toward this goal. Being armed and having obtained self defense skills with a pistol so that your actions are intuitive and withstand the high stress levels of dealing with an armed attacker is even better. But at a minimum, do what Tom Givens, nationally known firearms instructor and police veteran advises: Have a gun - use it.
One more thing. Take a long hard look at the politicians and the political party you support in light of these incidents. Then decide if they still deserve your support.
Brian Wilson
Owner January 2013 |