From America’s 1^st Freedom:  https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2017/8/3/would-gun-banners-rather-nicole-carney-had-been-murdered/

by Darren LaSorte
Thursday, August 3, 2017

Every time I learn of another abused, desperately scared woman who uses a firearm effectively to defend her life and her children’s lives, I cannot help but wonder how the so-called “gun safety advocates” would have wanted things to turn out. Of course, they almost never admit it publicly, but most of them want a world without guns. For these at-risk women, it means a world without protection.

It’s not about gun safety for these anti-gun advocates. That is the NRA’s domain. Gun-ban advocates refuse to accept or acknowledge the simple and unavoidable fact that if their dangerous dream were ever realized, it would leave the weak helpless to the desires of the strong. The rules of the Stone Age would dominate once again.

Significantly, this would leave the vast majority of women defenseless against male attackers. Once a fight becomes physical, a stronger male will nearly always dominate the weaker female. Yes, there are always the exceptions, like Ronda Rousey, who would break 99 percent of all males, including me, upon contact. But she is, indeed, an exception. And this why the nature of a firearm as a defensive tool is so important. It allows physical distance to be maintained. Guns are, without question, the most efficient of defensive tools.

One of the common refrains from the gun-ban crowd is that guns should be confiscated and melted into sculptures in the public square because they are used in half of all domestic violence murders. What they seem to miss is that this necessarily means that half of these murders involve hands, feet, knives, ropes, hammers and other improvised contact weapons. Do they really believe that the other half of these rage-motivated murders wouldn’t happen if the guns were melted? I hope they aren’t that naïve. The truth is, operable firearms give at-risk women a fighting chance.

This past week, the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office reported, “Individuals do have the right to protect themselves, and that is what Nicole Carney did.” The office announced that they would not prosecute Nicole for shooting and killing her estranged and abusive husband, Michael Carney, this past February. Thankfully, she chose to ignore the shrill voices that come from groups like Moms Demand Action and Violence Policy Center, and availed herself of what she knew was her one and only fighting chance.

Nicole and Michael had been married for seven years. She had finally decided to separate herself and her two children from the violence. He had thought she was living with her mother but, on the day of his demise, he had learned through an inadvertent disclosure from his internet service company that she had bought a new house and was living in a different town.

He became enraged that she was now clearly moving on with her life, and texted and called to demand that she meet with him. She refused. He told her that he would see her regardless of her wishes. She armed herself with her adult son’s rifle. He was not there with her, but she called to tell him that it was the only means of protection she had available.

Continue reading at:  https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2017/8/3/would-gun-banners-rather-nicole-carney-had-been-murdered/