“I knew he was trying to kill me when he was smashing my head into the concrete.” It seems Vanessa Mascolin was able to tell the difference between a “shoot” and “don’t shoot” scenario without too much trouble. “She said that [Robby] Gilmore was trying to collect rent money from her, but she had already made arrangements with the landlord,” kesq.com reports. “On Saturday night the argument escalated, when he was chasing her around the pool area, then he hit Mascolino in the head and punched her in the face and broke her hand. ‘I was kicking to try and get him of from me, he kept pulling and punching my head then I shot him in self-defence,’ said Mascolino.” I mention all this not because Mascolin forgot to STFU after a DGU but because . . .
I want to remind our Armed Intelligentsia that you don’t need to be a tactically trained mall ninja to save your life with a gun. OK, sure, this story sounds about as straight-forward (and credible) as the plot of Lost. The police, prosecutor and jury (if needs be) will sort all that out. But the general point remains: sometimes point and shoot is all you need.
Vanessa Mascolino says she shot and killed her aggressor . . .
“I was trying to save my life, and I shot him, two or three times…” said Mascolino. She told News Channel 3 that the man got physical with her Thursday night and on Friday she filed a restraining order.
Gun rights advocates should resist all attempts by control advocates to set a minimum level of competence for buying and carrying a gun.
Training? Tests? Quals? I’ve not seen one scrap of scientific evidence proving that any of that decreases negligent discharges or collateral damage. But I can’t think of one rape victim who wouldn’t have been better off with a gun.