The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. - Ayn Rand
The public doesn't care how much blood is spilled, as long as it doesn't have to face that blood, to acknowledge it as having been spilled, to do the spilling. The public doesn't have the guts for justice, the public doesn't want blood on ITS hands.
Acknowledging gun rights is acknowledging that we are responsible for ourselves - that we each must decide for ourselves, should the time come, whether to spill the blood of those who would spill ours.
It is almost okay to some of them, for the most part, with letting a faceless, nameless executioner handle that - but some would even deny that.
Or, to put it in terms of Ayn Rand - they don't want to deal with the problems. They don't want to acknowledge the material necessities of handling the problem. They want to wish the problem away - as if hope and love and feelings were more powerful than reality and reason (though I repeat myself there). Murderers aren't murderers, they're unloved, needing another chance, which we owe them with further blood.
We should give them our money, our blood, our bodies, our lives - because we have no right, in their eyes, to any of these things.
Every legislator, judge, and soccer mom who delivers people into the hands of these creatures, on the basis of a respect for a humanity they do not possess - they deserve everything this girl received, they deserve everything that creature deserves for having delivered it - for having offered her up as a sacrifice to their guilt.
I also read about this and was outraged. My first thought naturally was "What if this woman lived someplace where, without having to prove herself to be of good character, she could legally own, possess, and use a firearm if she chose to do so?"
I think I could kill a sadistic psycho like that in cold blood, even.
If she had a gun, now there could be a dead scumbag and a girl safe and sound. But in the eyes of the bleeding-heart gun grabbers, there isn't much difference between the possible outcome and what actually happened.
Why is this guy still breathing? Are they squeamish or something?
He gets a fair trial. And I don't think the death penalty is being sought in this case.
When they arrested him, it was for a burglary. I don't think they suspected him of the rape at that time.
Given the situation, this is a bad case for us to use.
But it's also a perfect example of why we have to use it.
Given the circumstances, even had she had a gun, she'd likely not been able to get to it - she allowed him to get too close. (In New York, Bernie Goetz (who I'm slandering unfairly to make a point) aside, you can't avoid that.)
But he didn't have a weapon. Just evil intent and the will to use it.
Even had she had a weapon and not been able to get to it/defend herself, the story demonstrates what kind of people we worry about.
Those people exist. Not huge numbers. But enough. Without the veneer of civiliation, even more would exist.
But they do. And you and I know it.
Liberals think that Conservatives are the evil ones. And spout all sorts of rhetoric about hate, and victimization.
This is hate, this is victimization. Quite different from the Frosts not getting free health care, isn't it?
The reason this story demonstrates so clearly is that the Liberals who wish to control our behavior - who are fine (statistically) with this woman being defaced and being a rape victim (hey, now we care about her!). They are totally unwilling to let loose of the meme that you are defined by your victimhood. They are more worried about the reason Williams himself was a "victim" and forced into his brutality than his savage predation, nay, predations! They are worried that you or I, or our sisters or our mothers or our daughters, might refuse to be a victim, repulse violent intent with violence defense, and reject the victim mantle.
For that is the entire basis of that line of political thought. "Does your victimhood exceed mine?"