One of the favorite myths of "gun control" extremists is that firearms – and specifically handguns – have no use other than killing people. Obviously, this is not true – an object’s use is entirely dependent upon the intent of the user (and intent is non-transferable ), not the narrow-minded edict of ignorant fools – but not matter how many times the inconsistency is pointed out, those who blame the object rather than the wielder refuse to listen to logic.
I wonder how they are coping with this news report:
Former police officer Chris Willden didn’t hesitate when he realized children were trapped in an upside down car in an icy Utah river. He pulled his handgun, pushed it up against the submerged windows and shot out the glass.
Highway Patrol Lt. Steve Winward said that after shooting out a window, Willden cut a seatbelt to free one child.
He said the rescuers then helped turn the Honda Accord upright in the Logan River, and lifted it enough to free all three trapped children.
Through a combination of bad conditions and the driver losing control, a car ended up upside down in a freezing-cold river in Utah. At that point, the doors were basically impossible to open due to pressure differentials (Mr. Willden attempted and failed), and since the car was shiny-side-down, attempting to break the glass through "normal" means from the outside (a rock, a carbide-tipped breaker, etc.) was going to be likewise pretty damned impossible. So what if those other eight bystanders had not arrived in time, or at all? Only two of the vehicle’s occupants had escaped injury and found air pockets to breathe – one of the children in the car was still strapped into his car seat, upside down, in the water, with another "floating lifelessly" in the passenger compartment. How much longer do you think they could have lasted?
In the world the anti-rights cultists want to force on us, Chris likely would not have been able to force his way into the vehicle, and probably would have been right about seeing some dead kids that day.
Is this instance, in and of itself, a compelling reason to permit law-abiding citizens to legally bear arms? Of course not; the only reason you need to do that is contained within the question itself (specifically, that the citizens are law-abiding). Is this a defensive gun use? No, not really, given that there was not a predatory threat currently being leveled at the occupants of the vehicle. This incident does, however, wonderfully highlight the life-saving capabilities of tools, such as, specifically, firearms, in the hands of those who are willing to use them and imaginative enough to think outside of arbitrary boxes (such as those imposed by "gun control").
Which is not all that hard, really.
As a famous librarian once said, "Carry your gun – it’s a lighter burden than regret," and, thankfully, Mr. Willden will never have to regret not being able to save those three children he pulled out of the river over the weekend.
(Courtesy of Better Half.)