In a real narrative killer for the Australian anti-firearm crowd, Kerry Anne Kennerly (a notably anti-gun celebrity no less) has admitted to using a firearm to protect herself against domestic abuse from her ex-husband.
Telling the Sunday Night program, on the same Channel 7 that was raging about gun control just over a week ago and ran the infamous Martin Bryant interview last year which raised more questions than answered about Port Arthur, Kerry Anne had this to say:
Narrator: “Pushed to the brink, Kerry-Anne grabbed his .22 rifle and took aim.”
Host: “So do you think you would’ve actually pulled that trigger?”
Kerry-Anne: “If he’d really kept coming I think I probably would’ve.”
So to sum up, Kerry-Anne protected herself with a .22 rifle and wasn’t charged. David Dunstan called, wants to know your trade secret.
So, where are Sam Lee and Lesley Podesta to tell Kerry-Anne that what she did was wrong?
Given all the talk and focus on victims of domestic violence in Australia, particularly female victims of domestic violence, there is little to no discussion of self-defence. This is not surprising in an increasingly authoritarian country, that denies women even the right to carry so much as a pepper spray to protect themselves.
If it were up to Gun Control Australia and co, it would be preferable for Kerry-Anne to be a victim, candlelit vigils and tax-free charities could then be set-up, the usual brute force virtue signalling would transpire and nothing done to address the actual problem or protect victims.
Much respect to Kerry-Anne for doing what she did and prevailing in the situation, rather than being a victim. A situation like that would be incredibly daunting for anybody, however, the right to preserve one’s life should always prevail.
So why should David Dunstan, or any other potential victim of violence or domestic violence, be any different?