Arbery had every legal right to defend himself, and if he had taken control of the shotgun, he could have then legally killed both men.
Here's your deeper hole Ace, Now climb in! Same way you could tell they were "hillbilly cops" If he was defending himself, fine. You don't know that. I saw him run at the guy with the gun.....not run in the opposite direction. I'm saying it appeared to me from what I saw. The jury will know better. If he attacked the man with the gun and there was a struggle....different story than what you insist is fact. I believe you just don't like people with guns. That is your issue. You probably like "enforcement " with guns, and like government, you depend on them to do your bidding.
His posting record shows he's fine with guns that are his, but has a problem with anyone else owning one, more so if they own it for self defense, in which case they get smeared with a unflattering label and called childish names.
So, you show your narrative the way you want the world to see it....just like the press showed this "N'er do well" in his prom tux. Here is the other narrative you don't want to see. Mugshots taken of the n'er do well after committing a burglary....(or was that from carrying a loaded weapon to a high school football game, I forget which) also the fact he was a two time loser on probation who trespassed and was identified by the ex cop. You and I are not judge and jury but these facts will eventually be displayed. I am willing to wait until then.....you seem not to.
In your eyes because his rights as a minority supercede the others. What a crock! If he initiates an attack on someone that has not broken a law and they are exercising their rights to carry a gun he is the perpetrator period. It is foolish to do so and he lost. Wait and see what the jury says. I have heard it stated, an arrest would have made him a three time loser headed for jail, and the ex cop knew and could identify him. .... so he attacked instead of running away. Wait until the facts come in!
You haven't met my 4'10" Sister in law then. Generalizations as such prove false in the majority. The correct statement would be, people who are not familiar with firearms and haven't had the proper training would likely have the firearm taken from them before they are able to fire.
Maybe, maybe not. But at least having the gun gives them a fighting chance against a bigger stronger man. No gun gives them pretty much no chance at all.
The question remains, will it be the individual citizens choice, or will government dictate otherwise. The 2nd amendment makes it pretty clear.
Both my girls are well trained with guns and both weigh in in the neighborhood of 100lbs. They are also well trained in unarmed self defense. And, both have the personality, not to just survive, but to prevail.
Per you, a person who cannot get what I have posted correctly and then comes back and falsely claims it means something that it doesn't. You ought to apply for a job at CNN as a fact checker, I am quite sure you would be quickly hired.
You have continued to mischaracterize, yes. You ought to apply at OANN for fake news checker. When a righty has his words played back to him, all can see how silly they are to sensible people.
Jake....your slow, but you ARE worth waiting on. Your narrative needs a little refining....... The man on foot (not the killers) armed with a gun, tried to make a citizens arrest. The now deceased man ,charged him, grappled with him, and we aren't sure of much more.
The key word in my posting was "most"; obviously there is the exception to the rule. I know of very few women who own firearms and those that do own them have them due to inheriting them from their late husbands.
Perhaps however a woman trained in the use of knives or marital arts could be more dangerous then a woman armed with a gun. Another advantage is that no license is needed and you can carry them just about everywhere.