The Georgian Journal recently reported the unthinkable. Parents were walking on a sidewalk with their two children in Tbilisi, Georgia. Mom had their 3-year-old son by the hand, their daughter was walking with dad a few paces behind them.
An ordinary-looking 51-year-old woman appeared as if she were casually walking by the family when, suddenly, knife in hand, she turned and attacked the little boy, stabbing him in the face.
According to coverage at dailymail.co.uk, the woman then lunged with the blade toward their other child. Dad pulled their daughter away, and the woman began to flee. Dad handed the little girl off to mom and went after the woman. But he backed off when she threatened him with the knife.
The woman fled, but police eventually located and arrested her. Reportedly, she faces up to 10 years in prison, if convicted. The parents said they’d never seen this woman before. Police have revealed no motive for the assault, which appears to have been random. A nearby hospital treated the boy for his injuries, a cut to his nose and cheek, which were not life-threatening.
I couldn’t help but think about the anti-gun folks who hold fast to the notion “nobody needs a gun.” That family sure could have used a gun. Now, I can already hear the anti-Second Amendment choir worried that an obviously mentally ill woman shouldn’t die over such an incident. That’s not the point. The point is she shouldn’t be left to harm other potential victims.
What if she had continued to attack their daughter, cutting her and possibly stabbing her father who was trying to protect her? What if the armed woman had come across other parents who were walking with their children? Are you willing to risk her possibly stabbing, maybe killing, other kids? Or are you willing to chance that “she probably won’t”? That’s not good enough if it’s your child in danger, is it? It’s not about the suspect’s mental health; it’s about the suspect’s actions.
At the time of the attack, mitigating circumstances do not matter to cops or the victims of violence. The violent actions are the only things that matter and is the thing that must be stopped. People who presume to know how other people should protect themselves have an unmitigated gall.
Since I live near Seattle, it provides apt examples. In that city alone, there have been several similar attacks including one man who tried to throw a random woman over the rail of a freeway overpass. Another man stabbed three people outside the Nordstrom’s in downtown Seattle. And this is not new. Back in the late ‘90s, a transient stabbed and killed a retired Seattle firefighter as he and his family were walking back to their car from a Mariner’s game.
My point is, while the odds are this will not happen to most people, odds matter little when it’s you at the wrong end of a knife or gun. Remember, you are responsible for your and your family’s safety. You must prepare yourself to protect you and innocent bystanders from attack. And government must recognize your right to arm yourself with the most practical self-defense weapon: A gun.
To reiterate a point I’ve been making in response to the anti-gun factions, you have no real right to self-defense, if you have no right to the most practical means to that defense: a gun. And if firearms were not the most practical and efficient means to self-defense, governments wouldn’t arm cops and soldiers with them.