Actually, no. She shot and killed her
ex-boyfriend, with whom she had several children, when he climbed in
a back window and “came at her.” She had a restraining order out
against him, since there had been several instances of spousal abuse
between them in the past. Obviously, it was “just a piece of
paper,” to him. But her gun wasn't. She shot and killed him so he
could not hurt her any more. This is the fallacy of restraining
orders. They do NOTHING to stop people who really want to hurt
somebody from doing it. They DO affect the life of those they are
against, and they are given out like candy bars. People under them
cannot buy guns, nor can they do other things. Just having had one
against you in the past goes on your “permanent record” and serves
as a hindrance to you for the rest of your life, whether based on
truth, or not. (Tulsa World)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment