.png)
We came across this story from Ammoland. They go into detail on a piece by ABC 13 Houston:
Deputies said the 29-year-old woman called saying the man was at the home picking up his belongings when he got aggressive with her. She said he started head butting and choking her.
She managed to get away from the 29-year-old man and grabbed a handgun that was inside the home. That's when she shot and killed him, according to deputies.
Deputies also said there were two small children in the house, but they were in a different room from where the shooting occurred. The children were reported to be OK.
As we all know, domestic violence situations can escalate quickly and turn deadly for the victim. The minute the boyfriend started choking her, her life was in immediate danger. She was lucky she had a gun and defended herself. So, if it were up to Everytown For Gun Safety, how should this situation have played out? Well, they have an ad on how it SHOULD have gone down (according to them). Take a watch:
As you see in Everytown’s ad, the woman was unarmed, the DV attacker was armed, and a cop on the phone and a restraining order didn’t save her. Everytown’s supporters (and their “research”) also believe women are “too stupid” or ”too incompetent“ to own firearms. We did an article on that from a tweet a gun grabber sent out last year, take a look:
Well, in the instance in Houston, the woman having access to a firearm in a situation where she was being beaten and choked saved her life. Here’s the responses to above tweet (Kelly Pidgeon and Mom-at-Arms founder Jill McDaniel chimed in):
So, which will shall it be? Allow women to be armed so they could protect themselves (gun grabbers think women are too incompetent)? Or allow them to be killed so groups like Everytown can use the murder as a means to play politics and advance legislation? We say #ArmTheWomen
Note: he is going to be counted as a “victim of gun violence”. That’s how the antis are going to exploit the situation.
Comments