humanspirit wrote:
The banning of any form of rifle would not have changed the outcome concerning Amanda Collins,what did change things was the law regarding not being able to carry a gun at the campus.
Amanda Collins if able to carry her concealed pistol might have been able to defend herself,on the other hand there might have been a struggle and she could have been murdered with her own pistol.
If the law banning weapons on the campus was not inplace Amanda Collins still wouldnt be carrying a rifle on campus but a pistol.
Does this man really care what happened to Amanda or is he using the story for his own ends?
Who is he?
I would advice women to carry pepper spray or other legal weapons in this situation.
It's true that your own weapon could be used against you in a struggle. But that shouldn't be a reason for denying your right to choose to defend yourself with one imo.
The issue is about the right to defend yourself with weapons.
There's the distinct possibility that this person would have been deterred from attacking Amanda in the first place, had that ban not been imposed.
I saw no reason to doubt the speaker's concern for victims like Amanda. What do you suppose 'his own ends' might be, beyond preventing the second amendment from being stripped from the constitution.
I'd like to know who he is too.
Amanda felt very confident that if she'd been allowed to carry her pistol, that sicko would not have been able to claim a further victim at a later date. I'm not convinced pepper spray would be as likely as a bullet wound to incapacitate him sufficiently to ensure his capture & conviction, or even stop him in his tracks.
