Another intruder shot--online poll about defensive shootings

Actually, I found the wording interesting as well:

Yes. One can't take any risks with the lives of loved ones. 92%
No. A non-lethal weapon would be sufficient. 8%

While the No answer is somewhat absurd in its implicit assumptions, the Yes answer is somewhat refreshing. Gee, what a concept ... I'm not supposed to make it a 'fair' fight with a doper who is attacking me, my family and my home? I can value my family's lives above the live of the BG? I might not even have to go hand-to-hand with him to prove my humanity?

Sometimes these goofy polls make it sound like you're a homicidal maniac if you simply defend yourself ... I thought this was a little better.

Glad that he and his family are alright. Darwin lives.

Regards from AZ


[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited July 09, 2000).]
 
Done.

------------------
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property...Horrid mischief would ensue were the law abiding deprived the use of them" --Thomas Paine, 1775

www.2ndamdlvr.homestead.com/home.html
 
93% Yeah show the bastages what we mean. Don't you like the loaded way they ask the question?

------------------
I thought I'd seen it all, until a 22WMR spun a bunny 2 1/4 times in the air!
 
Done, Still 93%

------------------
We preserve our freedoms by using four boxes: soap,ballot,jury, and cartridge.
Anonymous
 
Done 93% - You know pretty soon a person defending himself in his own home will have to have a throw down weapon he can say he wrestled away from the perp and used to shoot him just to avoid prosecution, and they still might go after him even then. With 93% positive response it is obvious they keep passing laws that do not reflect the majorities position and then pass it off as realistic with their trash propaganda.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top