Draconian gun laws may prevent your grandma from protecting herself

[beevul]

Draconian gun laws may prevent your grandma from protecting herself

Thursday, May 15, 2008

It’s not often you watch a video where a frail, 98-pound grandmother is slammed into the wall by a burly police officer, handcuffed and dragged from her home — all because she refused to surrender her firearm and leave her home.

This somewhat brushed-over bit of history is reappearing in discussion on talk radio and other locations as we await the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court on the District of Columbia’s wholesale ban on handgun possession. In following the arguments and questioning by the justices in that case, I’ve found there are some unsettling similarities and actions by local government in New Orleans that clearly demonstrate the overused lawyer’s phrase of “a slippery slope.”

Perhaps the first ever wholesale government seizure of firearms in the modern age took place as municipal authorities were in the process of evacuating survivors of Hurricane Katrina and forcing many from their homes. What began as a confiscation of weapons from empty residences flowed to a removal of firearms from evacuees headed toward shelters and became an order to disarm the populace in the name of public safety.

Many in New Orleans at the time were attempting to protect themselves from looters and criminals taking advantage of an overstretched police presence. Some felt the police were not doing enough to protect them and they may have had a point. In October of 2006, the city fired 51 police workers for abandoning their posts during the hurricane and its aftermath; more officers had resigned.

It is not hard to see why some of the citizens felt they needed personal protection. This leads us to our grandmother, Patricia Konie, who was being filmed by a television crew explaining her decision to try and remain in her home and holding a rather antique looking revolver by the cylinder. We then see a large police officer lunge into the frame, slam her against the wall and take her into custody.

http://www.gjsentinel.com/search/content/news/opinion/stories/2008/05/15/051608_Wagner_column.html?imw=Y

I was thinking about what is said occasionally hereabouts, that everyone is law abiding, until they aren't. I reckon that applies equally the other way.

No one is trying to take your guns away, until they are.

[angstlessk]

1. is that film on youtube?? I would love to see that film??

[Mojorabbit]

3. I found this bit of a clip with a quick search

http://xavierthoughts.blogspot.com/2005/09/patricia-konie-video.html

[angstlessk]

5. that's the ole..'destroy the village to save the village'...that woman was no danger to ANYONE..

fascists is all I can think of??

[beevul]

4. As a mater of fact, it is.

http://youtube.com/results?search_query=Patricia+Konie&search_type=

[angstlessk]

6. and there are worse atrocities on that youtube site...damn, glad I did not live in NO

what shit they took during AND after the storm!!!

[tularetom]

2. There's a racial element to these strict gun control laws

New Orelans, DC - predominantly poor and minority populations.

The authorities don't believe the freedom to keep and bear arms extends to members of minority groups. I don't think most gun control opponents are real comfortable with firearms in the hands of African Americans or hispanics. The thought of all them dark people being armed makes a lot of people nervous.

Think they'd try to pull this shit in an overwhelmingly white suburb? Guess again.

[sharesunited]

7. How quaint. What if grandma had an Uzi? Then where's your pathos?

[beevul]

8. What if....

What if the moon was made of green cheese?

Then wheres your curds and whey?

If grandma had an uzi thed be in possession of a machinegun, punishable by 10 years in club fed, sans the proper paperwork background check and 200 dollar tax stamp, of course.

[sharesunited]

9. Aw but it's grandma. Boo hoo.

[Mojorabbit]

12. All uzi's

are not automatic. And what difference did it make what kind of gun she had?

[sharesunited]

14. Just a "heartstrings" difference of perception.

Without the antique revolver, the propaganda value of the story is severely diminished.

[maxidivine]

35. "propaganda value"?

What are you talking about? An old woman decided to stay at her home during the Katrina disaster, and had a firearm in case she needed to protect herself from the looters. Then she was thrown around by a police officer while being interviewed by a camera crew.

What part of that situation strikes you as propaganda?

[sharesunited]

37. The age and relative tameness of the weapon are so... senior-iffic.

If granny was packing something truly state-of-the-deadly-art~~ firepower befitting a one-woman platoon~~ she might look more like a gun nut and we might be inclined to think society needs protection from HER.

In which case, the story would never have been posted here to evoke the desired emotion. To wit, apple pie = granny = gun.

The story is pro-gun propaganda because it seeks to associate guns with the wholesomeness of grannies.

It's ok. Nice try. I just recognize it for what it is.

[beevul]

38. Tameness?? Of a handgun???

If granny was packing something truly state-of-the-deadly-art~~ firepower befitting a one-woman platoon~~ she might look more like a gun nut and we might be inclined to think society needs protection from HER.

In which case, the story would never have been posted here to evoke the desired emotion. To wit, apple pie = granny = gun.

The story is pro-gun propaganda because it seeks to associate guns with the wholesomeness of grannies.

It's ok. Nice try. I just recognize it for what it is.

So you think an older handgun is "tame" compared to a modern handgun or rifle? ALL guns are potentially lethal, genius.

Beyond that, the story is about an elderly woman who had supplies to ride out the disaster, and a handgun for defense of self/survival goods, that was tackled by a jack booted thug under orders from another jack booted thug, who then confiscated her firearm. And its about heller too.

The rest of what you wrote isn't worthy of being called the final state of a dogs breakfast.

[sharesunited]

39. "holding a rather antique looking revolver by the cylinder"

That's the quote, obviously intended to convey the meekness of the danger posed by the weapon and its owner.

One step above something single-shot and front-loading, eh?

(Uncool bringing dog dirt into this.)

[beevul]

40. They call that being descriptive....

They call that being descriptive, at least in places where peoples prejudices don't interfere with thier reading/comprehension/understanding skills.


"One step above something single-shot and front-loading, eh?"

As revolvers are. So what? Were you trying to make a point by saying that?


In your opinion, would the story be better served by contriving someone say in thier mid-30's holding an "assault weapon" wearing an nra hat and a "soldier of fortune" tee-shirt and having them tackled by a police officer, as opposed to the real and factual confiscation of the gun which is both pictured in the video and described in accurate detail in the OP?

"holding a rather antique looking revolver by the cylinder"


Should she have unsafely handled the gun? If she had, YOU would be right here screaming that she shouldn't have a gun because she clearly isn't being safe with it. You know it, I know it, and everyone who reads this exchange will know it.


It seems to be this part you don't get. The story is real. The old lady who was tackled and her gun which was confiscated were real. It was neither mis-portrayed nor was it inaccurate.


It is what it is - a story with supporting video AS it happened - of something that really happened, and no amount of handwringing, miscatagorization or obfuscation from you will change that.

[sharesunited]

41. I accept that it really happened.

And I understand what you would have it mean.

But somebody thought NO was turning into a Lord of the Flies scene, and would be made worse with gunplay involved.

Granny can have her revolver back now.

[beevul]

42. Yeah, you accept it all quite enthusiasticly.

"Granny can have her revolver back now."

Can she really?

Think she'll be able to find her receipt?

No, not the one that the police didn't give people when stealing thier legally and privately owned firearms.

The one that the original retail buyer might have been handed at retail purchase.

Thats what they were asking for when people came back to claim thier legally owned property, which by the way, was improperly stored, and many firearms were destroyed because of it.

So what we have here, is "wer'e stealing your gun under color of law, and after this is all over, if you can find your receipt amongst all the rubble and flooding, well give you the gun we took from you - but we didn't take any care of them at all. We left them locked in a semi trailer to rust in the humidity."



How magnanimous of the people that unlawfully took them to begin with, and you to agree with it.


What other kinds of private property would you find this acceptable procedure for?


"But somebody thought NO was turning into a Lord of the Flies scene, and would be made worse with gunplay involved."


Thats great, but that "somebody" went after the law abiding, rather than the criminal element.

I ask again: What other kinds of private property would you find this acceptable procedure for?

[beevul]

44. What I would have it "mean"?

"And I understand what you would have it mean."


Tell us all what it means, versus what we "would have it mean".

[EstimatedProphet]

49. That's asinine

You're criticizing the article based on what it might have said?

If granny was packing something truly state-of-the-deadly-art~~ firepower befitting a one-woman platoon~~ she might look more like a gun nut and we might be inclined to think society needs protection from HER.

She may have murdered 100 people and buried them in her basement too. You might as well criticize the article for not mentioning that too. the fact that it didn't happen shouldn't matter, right? Because, what if it HAD?!

She didn't look like a gun nut because she wasn't armed to the teeth. The fact remains: SHE WASN'T ARMED TO THE TEETH. That simply means that it proves the point.

[beevul]

43. Respectfully, NO.

"An old woman decided to stay at her home during the Katrina disaster, and had a firearm in case she needed to protect herself from the looters. Then she was thrown around by a police officer while being interviewed by a camera crew."


An old woman decided to stay at her home during the Katrina disaster, and had a firearm in case she needed to protect herself from the looters. Then she was slammed into a wall by a jackass thug wearing a uniform while being interviewed by a camera crew, and her legally owned property unlawfully confiscated and left to rot in the humidity - likely destroyed.


Anyone that values thier rights where firearms are concerned, would do well not to forget that.

[maxidivine]

47. We're on the same page

I just wanted to see what sharesunited could have possibly been talking about when he claimed that the story was "propaganda".

What a jackass.

[krispos42]

31. If she had an Uzi

Which fires 9mm pistol ammunition, by they way, it would have been a semiautomatic, civilian-legal version, and no different functionally from any other semi-automatic rifle or carbine.

Unless she had coughed up five figures for a legal fully-automatic one. And if you have five figures to spend on a single gun, you have the money to learn how to use it as well as a cop.

[greenvpi]

10. Grandma shouldn't have had the gun!

It's much more likely that she'll have it stolen and used against her or others versus the almost nonexistant chance that she'll use it to defend herself. When was the last time you heard of an older woman by herself use a gun? I can't remember a single time. It just doesn't happen even in the mind of a Republican.

[Mojorabbit]

11. I am glad my grandma

is not alive to hear you say that. She shot a coyote eating her chickens with her shotgun when she was 82.

[beevul]

16. So elderly people should be denied thier rights eh?

"It's much more likely that she'll have it stolen and used against her or others versus the almost nonexistant chance that she'll use it to defend herself."


Thats old, bullshit, and debunked.


"When was the last time you heard of an older woman by herself use a gun?"

Google is your friend:

80-Year Old Woman Guns Down Lion To Protect Dog

Isabelle Duerme - AHN News Writer
Fairburn, S.D. (AHN) - In an attempt to protect her dog, an 80-year old woman shot and killed a mountain lion that was in her French Creek home.

Martha Smith tried to shoot the lion but missed the first time, forcing her to rush back to her house and dial 911.

Smith then went back outside with a .22-calibre rifle.

Aiming at the beast's chest, she pulled the trigger and killed the lion.

"I could see the tail switching and he was snarling and spittin'" said Smith, whose border collie had confronted the lion. "For Heaven's sakes, I thought, I'd have to shoot it."

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7009662159

Lucky that cat didn't take the gun and use it against her... :eyes:


Victim: 'It was either him or me'

Frisco: Man charged with robbery recovering from gunshot wound


06:31 AM CST on Thursday, March 1, 2007
By TIARA M. ELLIS / The Dallas Morning News
[e-mail]

Shirley Reed wasn't sure whether the gun was real even after the stranger fired a warning shot. But the 60-year-old woman wasn't going to give up the keys to her car.

He lunged at her, and as they wrestled on the ground, she felt the gun poking her hip.

"It was either him or me," Ms. Reed told police after the Tuesday night scrap outside her Frisco apartment building. So she grabbed the gun, turned the barrel toward her assailant's stomach and pulled the trigger.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/030107dnccocarjack.2e212af.html

60 year old woman shoots robber with his own gun.



Suspected burglar may have been living in couple's attic

Friday, October 26, 2007 | 6:08 PM Katisha Cosley(10/26/07 - KTRK/HOUSTON) (KTRK) --

An elderly homeowner in northeast Houston is shaken up after shooting a suspected burglar. It turns out the man had actually been living in her attic and she never knew.

Police say the suspect had been living in the attic at the home near Hardy and Lorraine, getting in and out of the house through a side window.

Police say the man saw the husband leave Friday afternoon, so he thought the house was empty. He went inside, but little did he know the man's 84-year-old wife was there. She heard the commotion and was waiting with her pistol in hand.

Police say she fired several rounds, hitting the suspect once in the neck area.

"She was in fear of her life," said Sgt. Richard Nieto with the Houston Police Department. "A stranger was inside her home. She used the force necessary to protect her personal safety."

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=5726604


You were saying?

Edited to add:


Woman holds burglar at gunpoint
By David Catanese, KY3 News

DADEVILLE, Mo. -- A burglar in southern Cedar County found himself in a standoff this week -- not with police but with a 57-year-old woman armed with a pistol and training for a conceal-and-carry permit. She held the burglar at bay until police could arrive to arrest him at the rural home where whe found him in the closet.


http://www.ky3.com/news/local/17448339.html

[greenvpi]

19. One (probably fake) example doesn't change the facts

Fact. She is 43 times more likely to be killed with that gun than the one in a million chance that she uses it in self-defence. That has been proven time and time again.

Even if she did shoot an intruder, how is escalating the violence and committing murder a good thing?

[beevul]

20. Probably fake?

Hahahahaha. You claim the "43 times more likely" mantra that has been debunked here for years, and then go on to use the word fake.

"Even if she did shoot an intruder, how is escalating the violence and committing murder a good thing?"


See the definitions of "murder" and "justifiable homicide", then learn the difference between them.


Do you under any circumstance believe deadly force should be used to defend ones self?

[iverglas]

22. well, something probably is

Jeez, you people are a barrel of monkeys.

[maxidivine]

53. What's fake iverglas?

I know I won't get a straight answer, but I'm trying.

[virginia mountainman]

25. Okay.....you say fact...I say BULLSHIT...

Post referances.....PROVE what you say...

[beevul]

28. The whole "43 times more likely to" canard...

The whole "43 times more likely to" canard is 43 times more likely to be buried by someones cat in its litterbox than a turd...



And its about a million times more worthy.

[benEzra]

34. Only if you pretend that driving an attacker away without killing him isn't successful self-defense

Fact. She is 43 times more likely to be killed with that gun than the one in a million chance that she uses it in self-defence. That has been proven time and time again.

Only if you pretend that scaring an intruder away, or shooting an attacker but not killing him, isn't successful self-defense. And if you pretend that shooting an attacker who isn't a complete stranger (stalker, abusive ex come to kill you, the violent individual who lives in your apartment complex) is always "shooting a friend or family member."

You are unknowingly citing Arthur Kellermann and Don Reay, "Protection or peril? An analysis of firearms related deaths in the home," New Engl J Med 1986 (314:1557-60). Kellerman has rehashed the study in several iterations since, without significantly changing his methodology, but even he seems to have repudiated the much-misquoted "43 times" claim. And they never made ANY claims of the homeowner's gun being used against him/her, media mis-citations to the contrary.

Even if she did shoot an intruder, how is escalating the violence and committing murder a good thing?

If someone else intentionally and illegally puts you in imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, and you shoot them, that is neither "escalating the violence" nor "committing murder." It is DE-escalating the violence by stopping the attack--and if the person shot does die, it is not murder, it is justifiable homicide.

[virginia mountainman]

24. Yea, My grandmother kept a .38 till the day she died..

And she could shoot it damned well!

My wife is a better shot than I am, with her .45 automatic pistol...

And this Woman, had no problems dealing with an intruder a week or so ago..

http://www.click2houston.com/news/15867233/detail.html

Are you saying a Woman, is not as good as a man? when it comes to defensive weaponry??? WOW what a sexist comment, and here, on a progressive forum...

I think the mods should look into your comments...

[iverglas]

29. you're a card

You think the mods should look into allegedly sexist comments in the Guns forum.

I'm going to be laughing myself to sleep tonight.

[Beregond2]

13. Oh brother.

Want to put this one incident up against the thousands of innocent lives that are taken every year in this country thanks to the prolifertion of handguns?

This is just more NRA-type emotional manipulation, to get people to ignore the facts.

[beevul]

30. How many innocent lives are taken every year?

How many?

[iverglas]

15. slow news day?

I've been reading with interest about the public response to the disaster in China. No tradition of private charity, no tradition of the well-off caring about/for the disadvantaged ... and hundreds of rich people in the cities are spending thousands of dollars and loading up their SUVs and driving to the disaster zone with food, water, clothing -- and bulldozers and cranes -- and digging in, literally. There's a sports stadium with 20,000 people in it (sound familiar?) -- and thousands of volunteers tending to them.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080516.wchina17/BNStory/International/home

MIANYANG, CHINA — With their expensive Mercedes-Benz sports vehicles, the wealthy members of the Chongqing car club are normally accustomed to tooling around town in their luxury cars and taking weekend leisure trips.

But this week they piled into their SUVs, filled up their vehicles with boxes of medicine and food, and drove 500 kilometres to the scene of the Sichuan earthquake. Nearly 100 club members raced to the disaster zone, in convoys of 20 cars or more, to bring relief supplies to homeless survivors.

“We didn't even think about it,” one of the club members said. “We definitely have a duty to help our brothers and sisters.”

... In the quake-damaged city of Mianyang alone, more than 9,000 volunteers, including hundreds from far-off provinces, have formed the Red Ribbon movement to help the quake victims. Thousands of volunteers are donating clothes or providing medical help at a sports stadium where 20,000 homeless survivors have been given shelter. The roads are so clogged with private aid convoys that the police have ordered many off the road to make room for ambulances and emergency vehicles.

And I think back to Katrina, when I sat in my living room (a nearly 2000 mile drive away, in case anyone wonders) thinking WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE IN THAT COUNTRY? Why were there not convoys of people from neighbouring states pouring into the New Orleans area with relief supplies and ferrying victims away from the disaster zone?

And hey -- if the military / national guard / police had tried to stop them, WHY WOULDN'T THEY HAVE PULLED OUT THOSE FIREARMS THEY'RE SO PROUD OF and used them for what they're supposedly for: to protect the public from tyrannical government?

Hell -- I thought MY government should have defied your government and flown in our military's DART team, for starters, to start purifying and distributing water for survivors.

Where were all of you when that woman and all the thousands of others were being abandoned by your government? Not driving convoys of supplies and equipment and volunteers to help her, that's for sure. Or ensuring that she got to safety *and* her home was protected. I remain gobsmacked by the public response to the Katrina disaster in the US. The idea of such a thing happening 200 or 500 miles from me, and me not heading there in the minivan and bringing back a family to house ... I'd die of shame if I didn't do it. Of course, I'd die of shame if my government were being so idle that I had to do it, too.


All the things that anyone could think of to whine and recriminate about when it comes to the Katrina disaster and how authorities in the US responded to and handled it, and this is the best some people can do.

[beevul]

18. This is the guns forum, not the "katrina" forum.

If you want to talk about katrina, disasters, water purification, or any other aspect of katrina BESIDES the gun confiscation which is partially the topic of this thread, feel free to post your own in the proper forum instead of trying to hi-jack this one.

[iverglas]

21. the name on your post is "beevul", not "moderator"

Perhaps you hadn't noticed.

When I need YOUR opinion about what is "proper", I'll be sure to let you know. It hasn't happened to date.

[beevul]

23. Forums and threads are organised and discussed by topic for a reason.

Apparently you think it needs to be a Mod pointing out the obvious to you.

[iverglas]

26. and the reason doesn't happen to be

so that people like you can exclude sounds you don't want to hear.

[beevul]

27. Really? Did someone say it did happen to be?

For someone whom occasionally likes to harp on others about "good faith" where discussions are concerned, you don't seem too "concerned" about it where you hi-jacking a thread and going off topic is concerned.

You need some new tricks.

[beevul]

36. You could just behave in a civilized manner...

You could just behave in a civilized manner and read and heed the administrators' instructions at the top of this forum:


Discussion of gun-related public policy issues or the use of firearms for self-defense belong in the Guns Forum.

Personal-interest discussion about guns and weaponry should be posted in the Outdoor Life Group. By "personal interest" I mean, any discussion that is unrelated to public policy, such as: Posting pictures of guns or discussing the leisure activities of hunting or shooting.

Currently, the outdoor life group hosts discussions related to a number of outdoor activities, including hunting, fishing, skiing, hiking, climbing, and camping. Members are reminded to be respectful of individuals that engage in any of these activities.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x167281#167288

Gee, if personal-interest discussion about guns and weaponry belonged in outdoor life, I wonder where discussion about the Katrina outside the context of firearms confiscation belonged, and more importantly where it doesn't belong, discussion of gun-related public policy issues or the use of firearms for self-defense belonging in the Guns forum and all...


Ta. :spank:

[iverglas]

45. gee, I wonder I wonder

Gee, if personal-interest discussion about guns and weaponry belonged in outdoor life, I wonder where discussion about the Katrina outside the context of firearms confiscation belonged, and more importantly where it doesn't belong, discussion of gun-related public policy issues or the use of firearms for self-defense belonging in the Guns forum and all...

How about it belongs right where it was, as demonstration of the utter cynicism and hypocrisy of the "gun rights" gaggle?

[beevul]

52. Because water purification and aid are topics for the guns forum...NOT. N/T.

[Mojorabbit]

32. A lot of people

did try to get into NOLA but were stopped by the feds. I was in Ms helping my sister deal with her destroyed home and while we slept in a tent in her side yard with the smell of rotting meat from hundreds of strewn freezers strewn through the yards and streets and rubble all around we were armed. There were people who cruised the area looking for something to pick through in the dead of night.

[EstimatedProphet]

50. Good for the Chinese

That's great, really.

As a matter of fact, we did have citizen response to Katrina. I've met people who were part of it. It may have been late, or too small, but it was there. What I don't get is why this undoes anything about what the article is about. Why are you bemoaning everyone's response to Katrina in an article about how a woman had her gun confiscated?

[east texas lib]

17. I reckon you'd be correct...

Public safety, my ass! When police response times increase due to a disaster of that magnitude,
disarming people and leaving them defenseless is the worst thing the authorities could do. Of
course the politicos had Gov't provided transportation and security(Nat'l Guard troops and
helicopters) so no problem there. Nothing like a national emergency to show you where you
actually rate on the food chain.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## DON'T DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our second quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Whatever you do, do not click the link below!

[iverglas]

46. you read the Grand Junction, Tennessee press regularly, do you?

Or did you just happen to stumble on this somewhere else?

I'm seeing it in the rolling headlines at www.nra.org ... along with MCCAIN SAYS OBAMA AND CLINTON THREATEN GUN RIGHTS / TENN GOP TAKES AIM AT MICHELLE OBAMA / RNC POSTS NEW WEB VIDEO "OBAMA AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT" ...


The author you have adopted:
http://waronwrong.blogspot.com/2008/02/update-controversial-curb-on-gun-owners.html

By the way, Wagner is just a smug, snide, humorless (but far too fond of what he thinks of as wit) fool, who serves as a watered-down replacement for those people who are sad that they can’t get G. Gordon Liddy on the radio anymore…

Of course, google does find 9,800 results for the headline by today ... still, none where I'd expect to be looking. How 'bout that moregunslessliberals.com, eh?

Are you people never surprised to see who's on the other side of the bed in the morning??

[beevul]

51. What are you blathering on about now?

I'd comment, but in order to do so, I'd have to have read your post, and as everyone knows yrying to parse a pile of poop is a fool's game, so I didn't.

[iverglas]

48. speaking of older women and firearms

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-woman-killed-webmar25,0,923519.story

March 24, 2008

Woman, 70, killed in home
Bullet from street entered front window

... Just after 6 a.m. Monday, (Maggie) Browder heard the doorbell of her West Pullman home ring and peeked through the white vertical blinds in her living room window to see who was there. Her daughter, Barbara, heard her mother's footsteps and then heard two shots.

"I (saw) her on the floor," said her daughter, sobbing outside the family's home in the 12200 block of South Morgan Street.

... Police believe the shooting may have been gang-related but don't believe Browder was the intended target. There have been ongoing gang conflicts in the neighborhood, said Monique Bond, a police department spokeswoman.

... Police initially said it appeared that a stray bullet fired from outside passed through Browder's living room window and struck the woman at around 6:20 a.m. But by Monday evening, authorities said they believe the shooter rang the doorbell to lure someone to the front door.

Yes, those gang-related shootings. Not something decent law-abidin' folk have to worry about.

Ms. Browder should've had a gun. She'd be alive now, right?

What we do know is that if the person who shot her hadn't had a gun, she'd be alive now. At least, she seems to have survived when an "object" was thrown through the window a couple of months ago.

And we have no reason to believe that the woman in New Orleans would ever have needed to use a firearm to defend herself, or would have successfully done so had the occasion arisen ... or would have been killed by a bullet through a window regardless of how many firearms she had in her hands, or shot a neighbour kid coming to check on her ...