It worked. The man took off running. [More]
So the defending gun owner wasn't out to be a vigilante and kill someone? Who knew?
The same bloodthirsty moral defects who disparage DGUs because gun owners don't shoot more perps would rather Heagerty had been unarmed -- and shot to death by his attacker so they could add another "gun death" their citizen disarmament "justification" statistics.
2 comments:
It's a pity he didn't shoot him.
The social contract is in abeyance. The State either cannot or will not enforce safety and order. If he had delivered the carjacker neatly hogtied to the local police, it is uncertain which one of them would have been in a jail cell that night.
When the carjacker strikes again, and maybe kills people, will Heagerty have blood on his hands? The State not only won't do its job but also actively hinders and punishes those who would defend themselves. We call it Clown World.
And the thing about Clown World is, you can vote your way in, but you can't vote your way back out.
He will not have blood on his hands for future violence by the carjacker because the choice not to shoot was also a rational act of self-defense-- against a criminal and civil legal system that would have made him the target for destruction.
Post a Comment