Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forum911 tells young mother, "do what you have to do to protect your baby"
I cannot imagine the absolute terror this young woman went through. What I can't imagine even more is how anyone would insist she be left defenseless --
Sarah McKinley says that a week earlier a man named Justin Martin dropped by on the day of her husband’s funeral, claiming that he was a neighbor who wanted to say hello. The 18-year-old Oklahoma City area woman did not let him into her home that day.
On New Year’s Eve Martin returned with another man, Dustin Stewart, and this time was armed with a 12-inch hunting knife. The two soon began trying to break into McKinley’s home.
As one of the men was going from door to door outside her home trying to gain entry, McKinley called 911 and grabbed her 12-gauge shotgun.
McKinley told ABC News Oklahoma City affiliate KOCO that she quickly got her 12 gauge, went into her bedroom and got a pistol, put the bottle in the baby’s mouth and called 911.
“I’ve got two guns in my hand — is it okay to shoot him if he comes in this door?” the young mother asked the 911 dispatcher. “I’m here by myself with my infant baby, can I please get a dispatcher out here immediately?”
The 911 dispatcher confirmed with McKinley that the doors to her home were locked as she asked again if it was okay to shoot the intruder if he were to come through her door.
“I can’t tell you that you can do that but you do what you have to do to protect your baby,” the dispatcher told her. McKinley was on the phone with 911 for a total of 21 minutes.
When Martin kicked in the door and came after her with the knife, the teen mom shot and killed the 24-year-old. Police are calling the shooting justified.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-woman-shoots-kills-intruder911-operators-shoot/story?id=15285605#.TwRqOVbzx9l
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
ileus
(15,396 posts)rl6214
(8,142 posts)We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)Honestly, I question the sanity of anyone who thinks it isn't.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Right tool for the right job.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)She should have just run away with her baby tucked under her arm.
Or she should have just given her attackers whatever it was they wanted. Maybe they only wanted her wallet. Or just her baby.
Or she should have used some Judo to repel both attackers.
ileus
(15,396 posts)For abandoning her gun baser toter cache.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)if the (now dead) perp expected an easy assault since he knew her husband had died?
IamK
(956 posts)the guy showed up at her house the day of the funeral asking her questions but she would not let him in..... (casing the place??)
http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-woman-shoots-kills-intruder911-operators-shoot/story?id=15285605
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)Time will tell.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)...but there is no decent end for sub-human animals that attack families.
They're damn right the shooting was justified.
McKinley should get a medal and a reward.
The dispatcher should get a raise and a promotion.
Stewart should get life, no parole.
ileus
(15,396 posts)
SteveW
(754 posts)Breaking in, robbing, not in hope of stealing something (the secondary excuse), but in hope of a deadly confrontation.
He got his wish.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)...and answered the wrong way. 
Evolution at work. Hopefully he hadn't polluted the gene pool.
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)How sad that any American feels like they need to ask permission from "the authorities" to protect their families.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I suspect since she had 911 on the line, she just wanted some "approval."
Some here would have shot them long before they broke in.
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)You never fail to fail.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)The mom did the right thing. It's nice that she wasn't lying in wait to do it though.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Remmah2
(3,291 posts)nt
DonP
(6,185 posts)She called 911 and waited for more than 18 minutes (IIRC) for police response.
She called when her ex husband first told her he was coming to kill her and they told her to call back if he showed up. She called again when he arrived and started to pound on her door and force his way into the house.
The sound of her ex husband, probably with the 2 or 3 of her restraining orders in his pocket, kicking in her doors as she repeatedly called for help and of him eventually killing her in her own bedroom were very clear on the 911 tapes they released after her death.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)... the people of the US had the right to vote for governments that did not allow public bodies like the police to treat the public with that kind of disregard ...
Of course, it would help if the people of the US stopped worshipping the tax cutting charlatans who deny those public bodies the funds they need to provide public services effectively ... and figured out some way of holding those public bodies to account when they fail to perform their duties ...
If a police service in Canada received a report of something stating he was "coming to kill" a member of the public and told her to call back if he showed up, and the result was as you describe, there would be lawsuits and public investigations and hell to pay. (In other words, there are such disincentives to a police service behaving that way that I'm quite confident it would not dare.)
What a shame you in the US don't have rights like we do.
http://www.sgmlaw.com/en/about/JaneDoev.MetropolitanTorontoMunicipalityCommissionersofPolice.cfm
("the police had violated Jane Doe's equality rights, as well as her constitutional right to security of the person"
http://www.benmor.com/court_proc.php
("Can you sue the police for failing to investigate a complaint of domestic violence?"
Only in Canada, you say? Pity.
As a famous Kennedy or two of yours once said,
Some men see things as they are and say 'Why?' I dream things that never were and say 'why not?'
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)She is in a rural Oklahoma. If it were someplace, say, ten miles outside of Maple Creek, Saskatchewan, will the cops be able to show up in less time?
iverglas
(38,549 posts)"She" was in CHICAGO.
DissedByBush
(3,342 posts)Therefore, self defense is ultimately a personal responsibility.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)If so, you seem to have forgotten to type it.
DissedByBush
(3,342 posts)In Canada crimes happen, people get killed, because the police can't be right there for everyone.
Every police office has a response time, and that isn't always fast enough.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)... is what chimera of your imagining you are talking about.
Who is this "anyone", please?
Word to the wise: you might want to read and comply with the copyright rules at this site.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)In fact, to quote you, it's one "of those really simple obvious things."
First the premise:
iverglas
52. one intends the foreseeable consequences of one's actions
If one does not advocate measures to prevent this individual and people like him from acquiring firearms, one advocates him and them having firearms.
One of those really simple obvious things.
No one had alerted the authorities? To what?
There was an investigation relating to his mental status that was ongoing at the time in connection with a custody dispute.
I'll be happy to entertain proposals that people who are involved in custody disputes should have their eligibility to acquire and possess firearms withdrawn. Anybody want to start?
Source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/11725687#post52
Now I think you will recall that the government of the District of Columbia (along with the Brady Campaign who gave them a higher gun control rating than any state in the nation and supported their laws, the law professors who supported their laws, and many anti-gun activists) were against people having any loaded gun in their homes. They wanted to ensure that guns were unloaded--or better yet, disassembled--and separated from ammunition.
DC defeated a defendant who raised the defense that while under attack a person could load a gun in spite of the law. DC had legal precedent that you could not load a gun even if you or your family was under lethal attack, being beaten, kidnapped, tortured or raped. Loading a gun in one's home was forbidden. Period.
If you have forgotten, I've posted on it before. Here's a link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=170607&mesg_id=170607
As I recall, you did not advocate any measures to prevent victims being disarmed in the face of violent criminal attack. Did I miss that post?
Your principle:
one intends the foreseeable consequences of one's actions
If one does not advocate measures to prevent this individual and people like him from acquiring firearms, one advocates him and them having firearms.
One of those really simple obvious things.
Your Principle Applied:
one intends the foreseeable consequences of one's actions
If one does not advocate measures to prevent this individual and people like her from being legally disarmed in the face of violent attack, one advocates her and them being left defenseless.
One of those really simple obvious things.
Of course, DC and those who supported its laws went far beyond not advocating measures to prevent this individual and people like her from being legally disarmed in the face of violent attack. They went so far as to actually advocate that she be disarmed, even if her baby was being harmed in front of her.
They, and their fellow gun control travelers in Canada and Europe should be especially harshly condemned by your principle. After all, they don't merely fail to advocate against the harm; they directly advocate for it!
I take it these things are only "really simple and obvious" when they support gun control, right?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)but I invite you to join my thread that asks what constitutes reasonable restrictions -- http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172822
I understand you speak only for yourself and not for the other anti-2A advocates and vice versa but I know when I was part of the pro-control bloc it was a general prohibition. I am genuinely curious -- admittedly with no small measure of cynicism -- about what current gun control advocates aspire towards when they petition for stronger controls.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)I'm still looking ... not too hard, but I'll let you know when I find it.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)There are limits to your cluelessness, however. You're not quite that stupid.
Fourier
(27 posts)
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)Despite my years of dealing with this character, separating strategy from lack of ability is an art, not a science. I still think I am correct, but there is evidence on your side as well.
Bottom line? People of intelligence and good will can disagree on this issue; I respect your POV.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)that you take the trouble to read the rules of this website before you spend much more time and take up many more pixels here?
iverglas
(38,549 posts)There's a question on the table for you that you seem not to have answered. How odd.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)All I wanted was to see your response to the post, not set you on a time limit until default judgement is declared against you.
If one does not advocate measures to prevent this individual and people like him from acquiring firearms, one advocates him and them having firearms.
First, this statement strikes me as something of a strawman. No one advocating the preservation of the explicit right to keep arms would ever seek to deny guns to a person who was manifestly dangerous. Just as you complain you have been unfairly saddled with the language of prohibitionists I have yet to see a single rights advocate petition to see criminals and the mentally unstable armed. Gun rights, after all, center on arming against criminals who are already armed and definitionally unbound by law.
Second, the statement seems to imply that those who refuse to enact laws to deprive criminals and the mentally unstable from owning guns are somehow culpable for any havoc that ensues. Again, I'm not sure such a party exists as I have never seen statements in favor of arming criminals and madmen. As now lawful penalty can be assessed I assume its simply an emotionally-based exercise that attempts to shame the fictitous group. But since it is only an emotional point it honestly carries no more weight than promises of Heaven for the good conduct of those dying of famine. It's empty. It's stomping in mud puddles hoping to spatter the on-lookers so they might be disregarded as unclean.
Third, to say, "one intends the foreseeable consequences of one's actions" is simply breath-taking. Drunk driving, domestic violence, assault, negligience etc are all very foreseeable consequences from the legal access to alcohol. If we take your reasoning at face value than we must favor of a prohibition on alcohol or else, "If one does not advocate measures to prevent this individual and people like him from acquiring {alcohol}, one advocates him and them having {alcohol}."
How can this NOT devolve into a prohibitionist argument against guns, alcohol or any other thing that can cause harm if misused?
iverglas
(38,549 posts)and I still see no reply, while you were after me for a reply to some other post.
Incongruous.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)Did you misword that? Or did you mean that "No one advocating the preservation of the explicit right to keep arms would ever seek to deny guns to a person who was manifestly dangerous" is a straw argument?
It's double straw in that case, since it is not a statement I made or implied.
Just as you complain you have been unfairly saddled with the language of prohibitionists I have yet to see a single rights advocate petition to see criminals and the mentally unstable armed.
You seem to have read what I wrote, since you quoted it. Let's look at it again:
one intends the foreseeable consequences of one's actions
If one does not advocate measures to prevent this individual and people like him from acquiring firearms, one advocates him and them having firearms.
I'll even adjust it for you:
If one opposes measures that would reduce the risk of this individual and people like him from acquiring firearms, one advocates him and them having firearms.
(I stand by the original, but I'll offer this to you as a sop.)
You can consider my 3.5-point agenda to be examples what I am referring to, that are not advocated / are opposed by many here, with foreseeable consequences such as occurred in the case at hand:
(a) mandatory licensing of persons, so that anyone who wishes to acquire / possess firearms is first screened for risk factors, to the extent possible and reasonable
- this will reduce the risk of inappropriate candidates for firearms possession acquiring firearms
(b) mandatory registration of firearms, so that the identity of anyone who acquires / possesses a firearm is known and associated with that firearm, which can then be traced to that person if it is sold or otherwise transferred, or lost or stolen
- this will reduce the risk of straw purchases and of firearms being otherwise transferred by lawful owners to ineligible persons
(c) mandatory safe/secure storage of firearms
- this will reduce the risk of firearms being accessed by children or thieves, or used for improper purposes by owners
(d) public information and education campaigns to encourage compliance with the above requirements, e.g. about the risks involved in transferring firearms to ineligible persons and in failing to secure firearms when not in use
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)"If one does not advocate measures to prevent this individual and people like him from acquiring firearms, one advocates him and them having firearms."
But no one opposes denying weapons to criminals or the mentally unstable. Of course this is coupled with a presumption of innocence and requirements of due process. Sometimes rights come together in a confluence that yields bad results. Still, those individual rights must be preserved.
I have no complaints about proposal A.
Proposal B seems reasonable enough though I've hear others complain about it. But if you can register to vote so as to associate your vote with your person, declaring your guns to be yours seems sensible. I do know in the past registration laws were used to harrass minorities and the politically disfavored but perhaps compromise can be struck if safeguards and remedies to prevent the abuse of that information by the authorities can also be found.
Proposal C seems technically impossible -- as far as "improper purposes by owners" is concerned. Unless some outside party is storing my weapon for me and can adjudicate why I wish to withdraw it from storage I don't see how that could work. That's not snark, that's honest. A home or store owner keeping a gun for protection has to have it immediately available. Quick release trigger locks would go far in deterring accidents with children and frustrating thieves but if you need a weapon for defense your need is immediate and should have as few obstructions as possible. That being said a weapon that is available to an otherwise lawful owner may be improperly or illegally used at a later time. We simply cannot guarantee all actions of all people for all time. But, then again, that's why people defend themselves with guns.
I would expand Proposal D to include general safe handling. I've noticed many PSAs on a variety of subjects no longer solely seek to gain compliance with this law or that social more but make appeals to reason and basic decency, i.e. anti-drunk driving PSAs don't just cite the law they appeal to the better human side of not wanting to be responsible for the death of a family. Education should reach from as many different angles as possible especially since different people hold different internal motives and values.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)If your gun is not accessible to you for "improper use" then it seems almost certain that this young mother's gun would not have been accessible to her for this proper(?) use.
(I added the question mark because while I am sure the shooting was proper, I might be biased. One never knows if--in iverglassian reality--the mother should have run out the back door carrying the baby like a football or shot the intruder in the heel of his leading foot or simply waited for the guys to take the stuff they obviously came for and leave in peace. It's hard to tell sometimes.)
I have been here a few years, and I don't remember ever seeing iverglas hint at advocating measures to prevent people like this woman being legally or practically disarmed in the face of violent assault. Her only concern, as here, is to ensure that the guns are stored so as to discourage or stop misuse.
Therefore, by iverglassian logic, I conclude that iverglas advocates that women like the shooter in your OP be disarmed in the face of violent, criminal attack.
Actually, this conclusion being like Rome there are many roads that lead there. This road is special, however, as it is well paved, well maintained, and it shows up on iverglas' own map.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)But I find it convenient to use her own words and "principles"; they are harder for her to dodge.
Of course the legislature, DA, and supporters of DC's law actively worked so that people would be disarmed in the face of lethal attacks. National gun control advocacy groups and legal authorities fought to maintain the status quot.
Had this woman lived in DC a few years ago, it would have been illegal for her to load her gun to face this threat. There are people, gun controllers, who fought tooth and nail to protect the powers of states and locales to make laws to ensure that people like this woman would be legally disarmed.
Your OP was spot on, though I understand why some might find that fact "impossible" to see.
Simo 1939_1940
(768 posts)would be well served to read chapter #4 in the Kleck/Kates book "Armed - New Perspectives on Gun Control".
It is entitled "Absolutist Politics in a Moderate Package: Prohibitionist Intentions of the Gun Control Movement".
The notion that there is no prohibitionist intent from the gun control movement is born of lack of genuine study of the issue. One of the many persuasive points Kleck makes is that despite the fact that every gun control organization has at one time or another endorsed prohibition, not one has publicly discarded the position. The resulting "hunkering down" from gun rights organizations has only served the interests of gun rights. So you have to ask yourself - if "moderate controls" are the only thing pro-restriction supporters want, why are they acting against self-interest? Why don't they go on public record stating that they have no interest in prohibition, so that constructive negotiation can commence?
Edited to add link:
http://www.saf.org/journal/13/absolutistpoliticsinamoderatepackage.pdf
russ1943
(618 posts)reading iverglas' posts.
Re ur # 37 Why don't they (gun control organization) go on public record stating that they have no interest in prohibition, so that constructive negotiation can commence?
PUBLIC RECORD
Mission Statement
Frequently Asked Questions
What is your goal?.........
Q. Is Brady a "gun ban" organization?
A. No. Brady believes that a safer America can be achieved without banning guns. We believe that law-abiding citizens should be able to buy and keep firearms.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/about/
Has the NRA ever disavowed any of the outrageous statements or actions of Ted Nugent who has served on the Board of Directors of the National Rifle Association since 1995, Nugent was second only to Oliver North in votes received in the 2010 NRA board elections. How about Grover Norquist?
http://www.meetthenra.org/
Can constructive negotiation now commence?
Simo 1939_1940
(768 posts)I don't imagine you bothered to read anything from the link provided, despite the fact that Kleck is a liberal Dem and has been awarded the highest honor the American Society of Criminology bestows authors.
......more could be learned by reading iverglas' posts
Why certainly, because her credentials in the field of criminology are so much stronger than those of Dr. Gary Kleck. Hilarious!
iverglas
(38,549 posts)and you know I am the Queen of Rumania. You know I am and may not question it. Because I say so.
I so miss the dear departed Xenu. I had longed (and asked so many times) for a demonstration of how that other "liberal Democrat", that gunhead writer woman whose name I forget and google won't find for me) was actually a "liberal" or even a Democrat ...
Why certainly, because her credentials in the field of criminology are so much stronger than those of Dr. Gary Kleck. Hilarious!
Hahaha. At least I have some. You published? Got any relevant degrees? Professional experience? (And no, I am not going to give you any links.)
But who is talking about criminology? Not you. That crap ain't criminology; it's politics, and dirty politics to boot.
I can't actually say my credentials as a "liberal" or a Democrat are better than Kleck's, since I'm neither one ... although actually, just about anybody's would be, I guess, since I don't guess that demagoguery and deceit like his are really part of any "liberal" or Democratic discourse ... so I could say I'm a better Christian than Stephen Harper, and a better liberal Democrat than Gary Kleck. There ya go.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)No, he is being quite scholarly. Oh that's right, we should only listen to Joyce funded economists that squeeze their studies between weight loss books. Wait, climate science denial "studies" are written by economists funded by the Kochs.
Simo 1939_1940
(768 posts)So.....for the benefit of those folks - here's Kleck describing his background prior to discussing the subject at hand:
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and that gun companies have been putting orange tips on firearms to make them look like toys. He said this while in their employ.
Simo 1939_1940
(768 posts)Note the cheap appeal to emotion/strawman he employs early in his summation: (paraphrasing) "The next time you're at a sporting event give yourself a "gut check" -- would you feel safer if everyone had a gun, or if nobody had a gun?"
The wearisome "guns for everyone" bullshit.
&feature=related
Simo 1939_1940
(768 posts)regarding Brady's motivations vis-a-vis gun bans:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11726794#post67
If you follow the conversation starting from the link downward it's pretty clear that it's easy to discern when Paul Helmke is lying. It's when his lips are moving.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)and you know full well we cannot call them out specifically.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)and you know full well we cannot call them out specifically.
Master Paine did it entirely successfully to me the other day:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=879
Haven't you heard? It's the brave new DU, where you can fool all of the jurors (or at least get enough jurors willing to pretend they've been fooled) all of the time.
You're claiming that there are posters in this forum who say:
What I can't imagine even more is how anyone would insist she be left defenseless?
Surely someone can come up with something.
Preferably the someone who made the claim and has refused to reply to my request (and gentle reminder) for substantiation.
I guess I'll just consider it retracted, and assume an apology was whispered in the OP's head.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)But, she did what she thought was best -- and it likely was in this case.
Response to Hoyt (Reply #17)
DragonBorn This message was self-deleted by its author.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)But, those guns might well have been attraction that caused break in. Obviously, there are other reasons it could have happened. Again, I don't see that mom had much choice.
Again, I believe some who have armed up and are afraid of the boogeyman would have shot a lot earlier.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Really? You believe "robbers" were breaking in to an occupied residence because they knew there were guns in there? Really?
No, she was the target obviously which makes them either rapists or kidnappers. I know this bit of reality destroys the argument heard so many times in these parts that home invaders are only after 'stuff', therefore home residents should not be allowed to use deadly force on invaders.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)That's the roll of the dice you're taking here?
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)They could have broken in and stole stuff while she wasn't there. They wanted her. Or is that too obvious for you to see?
ileus
(15,396 posts)This same thing happened to my MIL (and others) when my FIL died of cancer 6 years ago. One of his many friends that stopped by just come out and asked for his unused pain meds.
Around here you have to leave someone at your home during funeral and services or you home will be broken into.
I've had my neighbors druggie daughter try to break in once, and actually get in once trying to steal pain meds she knew we'd have after surgery.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)TPaine7
(4,286 posts)babies.
The (pro-criminal) gun control lobby is all about protecting criminal rights; armed robbers, murderers, kidnappers, recreational torturers and rapists have a right not to be threatened by rude, gun toting, redneck, misogynistic, anti-abortion gun militants.
Or something like that.
DragonBorn
(175 posts)That sounds a bit like victim blaming. That the criminals might have been there for her firearms. Do you use the same logic when it comes to sexual assaults?
"Oh if she hadn't been wearing that dress she wouldnt have been raped."
It is bad form to blame the law abiding for what criminals do.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Examine your speculations against logic and reality.
You speculate that the thugs were there to steal guns.
For that to be possible the thugs must know that guns are there. If they know what guns are there they are very likely to know exactly what guns are in the house. So they would know that she had a 12 gauge shotgun.
What thug, armed only with a knife, is going to invade an occupied home where the resident is known to have a 12 guage handy?
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)she should go to prison for life...legalized vigilante justice
PuffedMica
(1,061 posts)The first thing that comes to mind is the phrase:
When seconds count, the police will be there in minutes
era veteran
(4,069 posts)She did the right thing. No question.
What complete scum.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Any new details with links would be appreciated.
era veteran
(4,069 posts)Earlier today.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)Last edited Thu Jan 5, 2012, 05:35 PM - Edit history (1)
There was a time in the very recent past when this story would never have made the mainstream news like CNN and another television channel that I can't recall. It wouldn't even have made the front page on Yahoo.
Major news outlets took pains to ensure that guns were only seen as being used by criminals, police or soldiers.
Now, this story is all over the place. The Brady Campaign and the like are starting to lose the propaganda war. The tide is turning!!!
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)Stewart later confessed to police that he and Martin "devised a plan to burglarize the residence" because Martin knew that "a resident of the home had recently died of cancer" and he "suspected narcotics may be located inside the residence," according to an affidavit. Stewart also told police that he and Martin took the drug hydrocodone about 30 minutes before the planned break-in, according to the court records.
<snip>
McKinley told NewsOK that she tried to hold off as long as she could, waiting for police to arrive, while Martin kept pounding on the front door. At one point, she gave her son a bottle to keep him from crying too loud -- and possibly alerting the intruders to her specific location.
"I didn't want to give away my position in the house, I wanted to see him first," she said of the intruders during this video interview with NewsOK.
<snip>
She said she feels bad -- but has no regrets.
"I felt like what I did was the best decision for my son and I. Obviously when someone breaks into your house with a deadly weapon, they're not here for anything good. But I am very sorry and it's not something I ever wanted to do."
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2012/01/oklahoma-mom-intruder.html
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)...they're not here for anything good."
It's not so obvious with certain anti-2nd types around this forum.
She should have no regrets. The drug-addled burglars CHOSE their fate. They CHOSE to break into someone's home, so they CHOSE to be shot.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)The woman was 18, with a child. The deceased husband was in his 50s. They had been married two years. (In the picture on that page of her sitting on a couch with her baby, she looks like a child herself.)
They had a number of adult German shepherd dogs on the property.
The offender was acquainted with the victim.
The surviving offender, with no obvious reason to be lying, claimed to have been on the hunt for narcotics thought to be in the house. (Listen, folks: this isn't Turkana IV and there are no rape gangs roving the backroads of Oklahoma; men in North America really don't travel around in packs with knives looking for women to sexually assault and possibly kill. The motive of a drug rip-off makes sense; little else does.)
I think the woman may have been a victim long before those two men arrived on the scene.
None of this means that she was not justified in using force to defend herself against what she entirely reasonably believed was danger to herself and her child.
It's just another of those situations in which no one can be certain that if she had not had and used a firearm, she would be either injured or dead today. Again, for anyone hard of hearing: this does NOT mean she was not justified in acting as she did. It means that no one knows what the outcome would have been had she not had and used a firearm. And no one yet really knows the motive for the break-in, or whether the victim might have known what it was.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)be charged with murder.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)unless you can manage to restrain your disgusting language.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)If you don't like it then "ignore" it.
Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas
iverglas
(38,549 posts)I asked politely, you declined.
What.E.Ver.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)Agreed. So what?!!!!! In what way is the fact that no one can be certain relevant? In what way should the fact that we are not omniscient affect gun policy?
The statement may be true, but the intent is, IMNSHO, very dishonest.
It is just like my reading a faith healing cultist saying "No one knows what the outcome would have been had my child not received cancer treatment."
That is true also. A percentage of people enjoy spontaneous remission. There is no certainty. But if you want to bet someone's life on such things, BET YOURS!!!!!
Lack of certainty is a fact being pressed into the service of bullshit. It is irrelevant.
So while I cannot argue certainty, I can say the same to you that I would say to the parent; If you want to bet your life on the goodwill of armed robbers, fine. People who hold armed robbers, home invaders, murderers, kidnappers, torturers, rapists and the like in high esteem should definitely not arm themselves.
But don't advocate for laws to require the rest of us to bet our lives on your cult beliefs.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)The fact that someone used a firearm for something -- be it to avoid apparently imminent personal injury, break a car window or hammer a bleeding nail -- is not some kind of eternal, conclusive proof that the firearm was NEEDED for the particular task at hand, i.e. that the ultimate outcome would have been different if the firearm had not been present.
It is entirely possible and in some cases very probable that a person who shot another person would have suffered no harm if they had not done so, that a person who shot out a car window would have used a tire iron to the same effect, or that the nail would have got hammered with a brick.
You're seeing the point, perhaps?
The loud bellowing about how no one must restrict anyone else's access to firearms lest that person some day be murdered by marauding housebreakers, or trapped in a sinking car, or unable to hammer the nail that would keep their house from falling down around their ears, is based on speculation.
These tales of innocent babes shooting very very bad guys dead can be countered with tales of very very bad guys shooting innocent babes dead.
In virtually all these cases:
- we know that the innocent babes killed by the bad guys would be alive but for the gun in their equation
- we do not know that the innocent babes who killed the bad guys would not be alive were it not for the gun in their equation
There are multiple differences between the two prototype situations, and between any one of them and any other, obviously. There are situations in which one can be really quite sure that the innocent would have been seriously harmed by the bad guy but for the gun, and situations in which one can be really quite sure that the bad guy would have seriously harmed the innocent even without a gun.
But - and even leaving aside the many, many instances of harms other than death that very certainly would not have occurred absent a gun - the gun is very arguably, I would even say quite obviously, far more often an essential part of the equation in the latter situation than in the former. Far more innocents lose their lives than save their lives by means of the firearm in their situations.
Yes, I know that the next step in this dance is to remind me how many thousands of people save their lives (or their wallets, or whatever) without firing a shot, merely by lifting their upper body garment to show a flash of steel, whatever. Sez those who say it, sez I.
And I will then point to the tens of thousands upon tens of thousands of people whose lives are made a misery in various ways by means of firearms without any shot ever being fired at them.
But to stick to the scenario at hand: speculation.
You're seeing the point, perhaps?
The loud bellowing about how no one must restrict anyone else's access to firearms lest that person some day be murdered by marauding housebreakers, or trapped in a sinking car, or unable to hammer the nail that would keep their house from falling down around their ears, is based on speculation.
It is true that in particular anecdotes, it is hard to know--to a mathematical certainty--that a life was saved. I remember a case of a man who left a note with his intent at home, took some guns to an office and started trying to carry out the executions he had laid out in his murder-suicide note, but was stopped by a "gun militant."
It is, as I think I noted, within possibility that had he not been stopped by an armed person, he would have simply changed his mind. Perhaps he would have suffered a stroke. Maybe he would have had a heart attack. Or a life-changing religious vision. We can't be sure.
However, if you want to bet a life on such chances--if that is required by your belief system--feel free. Just make sure that the life is your. It's that simple.
My problem is the idea that lack of certainty means that we have to trot out Joyce Foundation statistics (and the like) and use them to debate the pros and cons of violating the Second Amendment.
The United States of America has incorporated into its supreme legal document that there is an individual right to keep and bear arms--and as Justice Ginsberg explained, bear arms means to carry them on or about the person in case of confrontation. That action cannot be overturned by Joyce Foundation purchased statistics.
Now some people believe that the chance of ordinary, law-abiding people needing guns for defensive purposes is so small that they should not carry guns or have them readily accessible at home. These people have an absolute right to bet their lives on your un-sourced and un-cited statistics. I advocate that their rights be accorded the highest respect.
They have no right, however, to require other people to bet their lives on these statistics.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)Now, how does it mesh with the belief system that goes:
Better the odd child should be killed by a stray bullet than that I should be restrained in any way in the exercise of my rights as I interpret them.
I cite examples:
(And I do this on the understanding that linking to posts by people who may not be present in a thread, as Master Paine did to me earlier this week, is permissible in this brave new DU; in this case, of course, I do it not to attack any individual, but to offer samples of popular thought):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=5410
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=5952
I read that belief system as:
However, if you want to bet a life on such chances--if that is required by your belief system--feel free. Just make sure that the life is someone else's. It's that simple.
And I read your failure ever to challenge it as ... well, as agreement with it, to stick with an objective assessment of the facts.
They have no right, however, to require other people to bet their lives on these statistics.
But you and your friends (and note that I am not talking about the public carrying of firearms here, I am talking about the entire agenda in respect of firearms regulation) have some right to require that other people bet their lives on your ... well, I won't dignify them by calling them beliefs: demands; whims; claims ...
I have that right, I believe.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)Better the odd child should be killed by a stray bullet than that I should be restrained in any way in the exercise of my rights as I interpret them.
Hmmm...
I guess it meshes like these beliefs do:
or even...
...which doesn't even involve a right.
Of course, all people with an adult understanding of rights (and even conveniences) realize that there are payoffs in terms of lives. I daresay that there is no freedom, and few if any conveniences, that do not cost lives.
According to your own logic, the mother and child in this this OP would be acceptable collateral damage. In fact by your logic you intend that the mother and child should have been at the mercy of the two thugs--or should I say "gentlemen" lest you spring to their defense?--who attacked her. (I show my work in post 28.)
The funny thing is that you agree with the basic principle yourself. You think it better that the odd child die rather than that you be subject to violations of your rights as you see them. It couldn't be any other way. In fact, I daresay that you would rather the odd child die than you be constrained to drive no faster than 15 mph (24 km/h), though driving over 15 mph is not a Canadian or fundamental human right. And we're talking LOTS of odd children.
So your horror at the idea that some must die so that people can have the means to protect themselves and their families is unique. It doesn't apply to any other comparable area of life. It doesn't even apply to speed limits, never mind to life saving technologies.
Without your premise--the RKBA is illegitimate, uncivilized and weird--your argument falls apart and it becomes impossible to prove your conclusion--the RKBA is illegitimate, uncivilized and weird.
Why don't you quote me? Quote me, in a thread that you hadn't participated in, linking to a post of yours. Or withdraw your false allegation, as you love to admonish others.
However, if you want to bet a life on such chances--if that is required by your belief system--feel free. Just make sure that the life is someone else's. It's that simple.
I bet you do. The Gun Control Reality Distortion Field has shown you no mercy.
Challenge it? Challenge it!!!
That's funny, iverglas. There's nothing to challenge. It's so simple-minded as to be self-refuting. But you read it as agreement if you must. Whatever the Field requires, I guess...
Depending on where and how you live, you bet your life on the performance of others thousands of times a day. You depend on the teams that designed equipment you use, the engineer who designed the bridge you drive across, the people who operate your public transit, the people driving the cars around you, the people who operate heavy equipment, the people who treat your water... and on and on. If any of them screw up, you could die or face serious bodily injury.
Some of them are highly educated and trained. Some are not. Some work for the government. Some don't. Some are licensed--like the testosterone-laden teenager who just became a legal driver. Some are not. A great many of them, including the teenager, operate equipment much more difficult to safely manage than a gun.
If you don't like betting your life and well being on these people, your only option is to get a cabin in the woods and live like the Unabomber. You certainly don't get to make them all stop doing the things that they are doing simply because they have the potential to endanger you.
Your contempt for America and her legal traditions notwithstanding, our right to keep and bear arms is way above your power to "dignify." There is a right to self-defense, in spite of your disagreement with the unanimous Supreme Court of the United States of America. And the right to the end is useless without the right to the means.
The sovereign nation of the United States of America has codified in the supreme law of the land the fact that its people have a right to keep and bear arms. We have not consulted Canada or Europe, nor will we.
*http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/811017.pdf
iverglas
(38,549 posts)Really?
Please quote me and identify the logic I have applied to come to that conclusion.
Good luck! I'll look for your reply in a couple of weeks; that should be long enough for you to realize your error and apologize for that false statement.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)The answer is referenced in the post you answered.
But I should have expected that. Ignore the fact that your own charge has no evidence, ignore the proof of my charges already provided, and adamantly demand an apology.
I guess that's the best you can do.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I'll save you the effort; it won't.
Maybe MAYBE if you jab at it with the point, that might work. Maybe.
I do appreciate that you are giving the victim the benefit of the doubt, and some will wander right past that uncomprehending.
I accept that the 60-100,000 lawful DGU's per year, per the DOJ, does not mean all 60-100,000 required a firearm to have a favorable outcome to the victim. I personally feel it still warrants broad access to firearms for defensive purposes. I understand if you disagree.
LAGC
(5,330 posts)In virtually all these cases:
- we know that the innocent babes killed by the bad guys would be alive but for the gun in their equation
- we do not know that the innocent babes who killed the bad guys would not be alive were it not for the gun in their equation
Uh, no we don't.
What you fail to repeatedly recognize is that guns are merely a tool.
In the vast majority of cases where a gun is used in a criminal manner, any number of other tools would still accomplish the same task.
Someone who has set it upon themselves to do harm will find a way, regardless of what tool they happen to have available.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)How would you go about killing (or injuring) a bystander from a significant distance with, oh, a knife? or a baseball bat? or your fist?
How would you go about killing (or injuring) a child in its bed, from outside the building, with some other "tool"?
How would you go about killing (or injuring) anyone from a significant distance with a rock, even?
How likely is it that you would set out to commit a robbery or a drug rip-off armed with a blunt object? You might indeed; but you are far more likely to do that if you have a firearm; just admit it, okay?
How likely is it that you would kill your spouse or partner with the plan of killing yourself directly afterward, if the tools at your disposal were a bottle of sleeping pills, a pillow, a brick and a high bridge?
How likely is it that you would go to your place of employment or your school or a public place with the intention of killing as many people as possible if you had only a baseball bat in your arsenal?
How about you or someone go take a look at a sample of the thousands of firearm homicides that take place in the US annually and offer up some significant number where you can at least credibly assert that the homicide would have been committed absent a firearm?
How about you do the same for some robberies? -- and be sure to include homicides in the course of robbery (which skew the robbery stats for the US to an extent that does not apply in comparable societies with much less widespread access to firearms, since the event is classified by its highest offence, thus removing it from robbery numbers).
Could you also identify the homicide-suicides where a firearm was the "tool" and assess the likelihood of them occurring where there was no firearm? (An international comparison of the incidence of homicide-suicide might be very interesting in this particular case -- the drug war isn't a factor that can be drug up as somehow proving USAmerican exceptionalism, wholly inadequate though that explanation is even where it might be relevant in any event, for instance.)
It's easy to speak the words you and so many like to speak, and so many speak them so often that I am convinced that coming up with the money to give them weight should be no trouble.
LAGC
(5,330 posts)Most gun homicides are committed with HANDGUNS, which are in and of themselves SHORT-DISTANCE weapons. Despite the media sensationalism around folks like the "Beltway snipers", such long-gun/long-distance incidents are exceedingly rare.
Very simple: pour gasoline and apply match. This is the preferred way of killing entire houses full of occupants in countries where guns aren't as easily available.
Again, that's YOUR straw-man. Most homicides are committed at very close range, regardless of weapon.
Why is it then that countries like the U.K. have no shortage of successful robberies committed with no firearms at all?
People in Japan (with suicide rates far higher than ours) find ways to do it all the time. Common methods of suicide are jumping in front of trains, leaping off high places, hanging, or overdosing on medication. No doubt these same people would still find a way.
As I posted in this forum several months ago, a disturbing trend of attacks happening in China lately are by machete-weilding perpetrators killing many people -- even defenseless kids -- before finally being stopped. While you may have a point that these perps are often caught alive before they can kill themselves, I kind of prefer they do everyone else the favor and save us the trouble of having to try them and pay to house their sorry asses in prison for the rest of their miserable lives. In a way, I kind of have more respect for assholes that end their own lives after they get through with their killing sprees, saves everyone else the trouble.
What you fail to realize is that we don't have a gun problem as much as we have a CRIME problem. Yes, our violent crime rate (despite falling for the last two decades) is still very high compared to other parts of the developed world. But there are several factors that feed into that which have nothing to do with guns. Inner-city gangs, the "War on Drugs", wealth inequality in general -- all play a much bigger role than the mere availability of guns.
Most robberies that end in murder may indeed involve a firearm, but most robberies DON'T end in murder. So you're talking about a very rare event.
Why do you put the onus on me to dig up all relevant statistics? You're the one claiming guns CAUSE people to do violence. If you want to change people's minds in this forum, why don't you do all the grunt-work and report back to us with solid numbers?
I'll grant you that most murder-suicides here in the U.S. do indeed involve firearms, but murders happen all the time in other countries where firearms aren't available. Sure, the perp may wait and/or travel some distance after the murder before committing suicide himself, but the end result is just the same. Dead is dead.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)We'll just address your obsessive nastiness separately.
People who hold armed robbers, home invaders, murderers, kidnappers, torturers, rapists and the like in high esteem should definitely not arm themselves.
But don't advocate for laws to require the rest of us to bet our lives on your cult beliefs.
Why are you talking about people who hold criminals in high esteem? No one else was, and no one else has given any indication that they hold criminals in high esteem. Nothing in this discussion had anything to do with any criminals being held in any esteem by anyone. (Oh, well, without going back and checking, I can be pretty sure that someone did spew some sewage along the lines of One down, let's get the rest of da thugs tomorrow, but that's just what one learns to step carefully over in this place.)
Your immediate next sentence is addressed to me, and makes some rather bizarre reference to my "cult beliefs". Since you don't define that term in any other way, and given how it follows immediately on your reference to people who hold criminals in high esteem, I have no option to but interpret this as meaning that my "cult beliefs" involve holding criminals in high esteem.
This is truly vile and ugly verbiage. You choose (once again, and I might say as usual) to attack anyone who disagrees with you by making these quite atrocious and utterly false claims.
Why do you make this choice?
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)of defenders. This case is a rare and refreshing exception; you appear to have unequivocally supported the propriety of the mother's actions.
Your perpetual minimization of the threats posed by home invaders and armed robbers and your one-sided speculation in their favor led me to believe that you hold them in high esteem.
I clearly haven't "attack{ed} anyone who disagrees with me", however. My statement was specific to you. There are people who support gun control and oppose rights but who don't always side with felons in these encounters.
Perpetually and reflexively defending violent criminals and being hypercritical of defenders is vile and ugly. That, if you were wondering, is why I portray it as vile and ugly.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=275101
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=459674
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=462071
iverglas
(38,549 posts)... as long as we're flinging around links to nothing in particular.
But back to our muttons.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=128303
Please identify and quote the words of mine in that thread that substantiate the claim that I "hold criminals in high esteem".
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=275101
Please identify and quote the words of mine in that thread that substantiate the claim that I "hold criminals in high esteem".
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=459674
Please identify and quote the words of mine in that thread that substantiate the claim that I "hold criminals in high esteem".
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=462071
Please identify and quote the words of mine in that thread that substantiate the claim that I "hold criminals in high esteem".
I assume, given the vast resources obviously at your collective fingertips, the collective powers of recall you obviously have, and the sharp analytical skills I must assume you are exercising but failing to demonstrate, that this will be a simple job.
Obviously, I assume that you are claiming that there are words of mine in those threads that can be interpreted by a reasonable person as substantiating the claim that I "hold criminals in high esteem", or you would not have gone to all that effort.
That would be why I can't imagine why you didn't do this in the first place, rather than send your audience off on a mission to hunt out what you are evidently saying is there.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Your comments about two wheelchair using crime victims and a guy who had been shot:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=462071#463225
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=275101#275279
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=275101#275363
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=275101#275246
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=128303#128612
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=128303#128605
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=128303#128610
iverglas
(38,549 posts)and cut the bullshit, if you wouldn't mind.
Or remove your personal attacks, which is what unsubstantiated allegations of evilhood are.
Links are not substantiation.
Quote and provide the analysis that supports your claims.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)You know, since you're a highly edjumacated multilingual wordsmith who has (repeatedly and unsuccessfully) challenged me on my word use and all.
When you get the time.
PS: if there is no such thing as "evilhood" then your charge above is an "unsubstantiated allegation{}" and should be removed, or so it would seem.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)Just click on by if you are not capable of amusement. Evidence would certainly suggest that to be the case.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)"And frankly, all the available evidence indicates that Robert Eells is a goon, and that's my opinion based on the available evidence. I do not consider someone with such an obvious agenda to be a credible source when it comes to an incident like the one in question. He's an obviously immature, self-absorbed gun militant. This doesn't mean he's lying; absolutely; I simply prefer better evidence before coming to any conclusions about that."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=275101#275279
"You can keep calling knocking someone over while pushing a door in a "violent attack", and a basis for fearing an actual life-threatening attack, if you want. I'm sure someone's listening."
"Indeed! And it kind of suggests that in carrying out their intent -- which we know was obviously to steal stuff -- it would have been perfectly unnecessary for them to cause any harm at all to the occupant.
So at the end of it all, he would have been maybe a little bruised from the fall, and they would have been gone with some of his stuff. If you want my theory.
His apprehensions and beliefs and actions in the situation may have been reasonable, but that doesn't make what he apprehended and believed REAL, or what he did NECESSARY.
There is just no reason for US to believe that if he had not had a firearm he would now be dead or seriously injured."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=275101#275363
"Similarly, what was the individual in the wheelchair defending himself against? He had been knocked over BY SOMEONE TRYING TO FORCE A DOOR OPEN, **NOT** by someone trying to do him an injury.
Self-defence requires an assault to be defended against. (Threats are an assault.)
I'm not talking about bullshit legislation in backwater states of the US. I'm talking about self-defence the real thing. You know: defence of self.
We'll spell it your way, for handy reference. (Or should that be referenSe??)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/defense
"resistance against attack; protection"
If you ain't being attacked, you ain't defending.
So you know, the more I think about it, yeah, the more I question this individual's actions.
He was knocked over by someone pushing past him.
He shot and killed that person as he was falling down (by his own account).
What assault was he defending himself against?
Or was he committing pre-emptive homicide?"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=275101#275246
"I'm just not quite seeing being knocked over by someone as they break down a door, assuming that one does not have enemies one expects to come breaking down one's door in order to commit murder or kidnap one's children, as grounds for such a belief.
I'm still waiting for an answer to my original question.
How many people in wheelchairs are killed by burglars in a year in the US?
You'll forgive me if I make the assumption that the number is pretty close to zero.
It isn't all a game of odds, as I know quite well from personal experience and my very reasonable apprehensions in the situation. (I did use force, I was justified in using force, and I would have been justified, and found to be justified, in using a lot more force after that, under my local laws, as long as I didn't intentionally cause a death, because I could have shown that my apprehension of death was entirely reasonable -- even though the odds were hugely against that outcome.)
But really. Who here really believes (without completely disregarding what we know) that the individual who was killed was really going to kill the occupant of the home? who here really believes that the occupant of the home really had grounds for a reasonable apprehension of that outcome, and for a reasonable belief that there was no alternative but to kill the person who had broken down his door?"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=128303#128612
"Having actually experienced the event, I find the idea that the woman in this tale was actually being choked -- was actually being denied respiration and was about to lose consciousness in a matter of seconds -- and yet managed to lay hands on her firearm and aim and fire it to be ludicrous. She was being assaulted, and indeed she may have been seriously assaulted and even killed had events proceeded differently -- but there is no reason whatsoever to believe that had she ceased resisting she would have suffered any harm."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=128303#128605
"The intended robbery victim in this instance DID make a choice, did she not? I'm just curious how all you, er, "gun nuts" (hey, "gun-control nuts"?) get around that one.
She gets to make her choice, she gets to live with the foreseeable consequences. Nobody's blaming her for them, where they affect only her. That would really just be dumb. But she can most definitely be blamed if the foreseeable consequences of her actions affect someone else -- and in this scenario, many sane and decent people would indeed blame her for the injury to the would-be robber.
In your world, she also gets to fire a gun in a public place and be excused from all criminal liability if she injures or kills someone. I thank my stars that ain't my world."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=128303#128610
"... NOT to use it to ward off muggers on the streets. That is, she was NOT licensed to "carry" the firearm, she was licensed to TRANSPORT it to and from shooting ranges.
Strikes me as kinda like me being licensed to drive a vehicle on the public roadway and deciding to use it to run down the flagperson at a detour ...
He grabbed the retired bus driver around the neck, causing her MTA medallion to pop from her necklace and fall to the ground, she said. She pulled out her gun and shot him in the elbow, sending him running like a wounded duck. "It was a gut reaction," she said yesterday. "I was afraid. I didn't know what he was going to do. I shot him and then I called 911.
The necklace apparently came off on the first attempt. Although, I dunno; how does grabbing someone around the neck cause her necklace to come apart? Seems he wasn't aiming to steal the necklace, anyhow, its sentimental value to a retired bus driver notwithstanding.
She shot him in the elbow. Either she's a crack shot indeed, or she was aiming for something else ... or she wasn't aiming at all ... or a moving target in a stressful situation just proved too much for her, and everybody else in the vicinity is damned lucky the bullet lodged in the elbow in question and didn't just miss and hit somebody else a little farther away.
"Actually I feel sick about the whole thing," she said. "Picking on a handicapped woman is about as low as you can go. I feel sorry for him, but it was a choice he made."
Well, that's just the damnedest thing. He chose for her to shoot him, even though it was she who ILLEGALLY used a firearm. Sounds like saying that she chose for him to rob her, even though it was he who illegally tried to take her stuff, if y'ask moi."
iverglas
(38,549 posts)That's pretty funny.
You have linked to a post of mine about Tony Martin, who neither used a wheelchair nor had been shot.
What he is, is the deranged bigot who shot an unarmed fleeing teenaged burglar in the back, and was ultimately convicted for his actions and served time. The poster boy of the far right wing in the UK.
Whatever were you thinking????
... it did not.
First, because it did not exist.
Second, because you believe no such thing in any event for any reason.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)Here's your rebuke:
iverglas
65. I would be eternally grateful if you would refrain from speaking to me
unless you can manage to restrain your disgusting language.
And here's the offending post:
oneshooter
63. Heard on the news tonight that the second Goblin will
be charged with murder.
Oneshooter called an armed robber, a home invader, a person who threatened a mother and child a "Goblin." You consider it disgusting to call such people "Goblins"--so much so that you would prefer not to speak to someone who uses such language to insult the honor of armed robbers, home invaders, and attackers of mothers and children.
(And let's not pretend there was some racist ideology at work in oneshooter's use of "Goblin". The mother was white, as was the person whose honor you valiantly defended.)
Your respect and honor of thugs, while touching, is in stark contrast to your disrespect of people who merely hold the wrong political views. (Anyone who doubts this can search on iverglas right wing piece of shit to see her calling people "shit" for their views on politics.)
Holding right wing political views justifies iverglas calling people "shit." But invading homes, being an armed robber and attacking mothers and children doesn't justify oneshooter calling people "Goblin."
You do honor criminals and hold them in high esteem, iverglas.
Own it.
ileus
(15,396 posts)iverglas
(38,549 posts)-- no, I would not.
As you know, I prefer not to speak to someone who uses such language to refer to human beings.
Once again, you choose to make false statements about someone who disagrees with you.
Why do you make that choice?
(And let's not pretend there was some racist ideology at work in oneshooter's use of "Goblin". The mother was white, as was the person whose honor you valiantly defended.)
You go ahead and not-pretend anything you like.
I won't pretend that the motivation in question was not to dehumanize a human being.
Okay with you?
Oh, sorry. I don't care.
You do honor criminals and hold them in high esteem, iverglas.
Own it.
And you are a maker of false statements that you know to be false.
And I couldn't care less whether you deny it.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I have never heard "goblin" used in a racist context. That said, the bad guys are white too.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)My goodness. What, exactly, are "views on politics"?
I imagine they would be something like:
Politics is an honourable profession
or
Politics is a dirty game.
I don't recall ever expressing any opinion of anyone for their views on politics.
Now, if someone cares to google iverglas breitkreutz right wing piece of shit, for example, you will find an example of me calling someone a right wing piece of shit because of his views on women (e.g. his sustained efforts to enact legislation to violate women's fundamental rights, demonstrating his contempt for women and desire to have women treated as subhuman).
Oh hey, maybe I did call him a right wing piece of shit for his views on politics -- given that he made up and propagated the big lie about the cost of the Canadian firearms registry over a decade, and thereby irremediably fouled the Canadian political discourse, with the aim of overturning a public policy that the vast majority of Canadians supported, in order to further the agenda of the right-wing pieces of shit who comprise his political constituency ... you may have a point there: his view of politics is obviously that it is a dirty game, since he played it by lying and cheating. So hey, maybe that statement of yours isn't entirely false after all!
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)Compare and contrast:
If a politician attacks the firearms registry, he--and his constituents--merits your comdemnation as "shit."
If a home invading armed robber attacks mother and child, he merits your vigorous defense of his honor.
Attacking a firearms registry is far worse, in your book than attacking a mother and child by way of armed home invasion. Firearms registry attackers (and their constituents) are "shit"; armed robbers deserve to (and do) have their honor vigorously defended.
You honor and respect criminal thugs, armed robbers, home invaders and threateners of mothers and children. You defend their honor and insist that their humanity be respected.
I rest my case.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)Try taking a break. You seem to have become unable to distinguish truth from falsehood.
Home invading armed robber attacks mother and child => merits iverglas' vigorous defense
He who cannot make his case without making false statements has no case to rest.
You dehumanize a man who politically attacks the gun registry (with lies, according to you) and dehumanize him by calling him--and his political constitiuency--"shit".
According to me? According to his own admission, according to people who have made a study of his behaviour and how it undermined and polluted Canadian political discourse for a decade (and still does), according to the media who reported his lie, according to the non-right-wing members of Parliament who have spoken about his lie, and, if you are honest, according to you, who I must assume has read about all that at this site at least one of the several times I have presented it in the last year or two.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=190x33552
(Not that you read the Canada forum, but it's a handy reference. I have no doubt you have read all my posts on the subject in this forum, and could produce links to them at the click of a mouse.)
A person in a position of influence and a position of trust -- a member of Parliament -- who lies to the public, on this scale, in order to achieve a legislative end, is a piece of shit.
If you don't agree, well, I will have to infer, and state, that you are defending the honour of extreme right-wing politicians who tell outright lies to the public in order to advance their agenda. In addition to questioning your ability to distinguish truth from falsehood.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)The charge against you, iverglas, was that you hold criminals in high esteem. The proof of the charge is the way you call for the respect of their human dignity and staunchly defend their honor against their enemies.
Now I didn't bother to find exhaustive evidence of you defense of the honor of criminals. It's there, as anyone who has read your posts in this forum for awhile can attest.
Fortunately, your esteem for criminals being genuine and sincere, you couldn't help but defend a felon's honor IN THIS VERY THREAD. You flew to the defense of a thug in post 65, and explained your reasoning in post 83:
As you know, I prefer not to speak to someone who uses such language {"Goblin"} to refer to human beings.
"Goblin" is a terrible insult to the dignity of an armed robber who invades a home threatening a mother and her infant. "Such language" should not be used "to refer to human beings."
But opposing the gun registry and "pollut{ing} Canadian political discourse"--that's an outrage. Anyone who does that--and "the right-wing pieces of shit who comprise his political constituency" (post 84)--is apparently not a human being.
(And the charge of lying, even if true--this will shock you, but I don't know your arguments against the registry criticism, I may have known them at one time, but being unimportant they faded from memory--is hardly unique in politics. At least any politics I know. Are politicians known for their honesty in Canada? Do you guys have unicorns, too?)
Or maybe I am not understanding your intent. Tell me, iverglas, is "shit" a term of affection, unlike "goblin" which is an affront to the dignity of home invading armed robbers who threaten mothers and babies?
Only under the Gun Control Reality Distortion Field is "pollut{ing} Canadian political discourse" worse than armed home invasion against a mother and her baby. Only under the Field is it reasonable to defend the honor of felons against the indignity of being called "Goblins" while calling one's political opponents "shit."
You hold armed home invaders who threaten mothers and babies in high esteem, at least in higher esteem than your political opponents. You couldn't help but out yourself in this very thread.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)I hold you in no esteem whatsoever, not a shred of it.
However, I will oppose any efforts made to have you extra-judicially executed, and scold anyone who approves of such efforts or such an event.
Does this mean you have finished posting falsehoods about me?
For all time?
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)Your "logic", like most anti-gun militant "logic" is an abject failure.
There was no judicial process before this mother "executed" the esteemed, gentlemanly home invader. And yet you seem to agree with her course of action.
Besides, "execution" has nothing to do with my point. My point, to break it down to iverglas sized intellectual bites:
1) Calling armed, home invading persons who threaten a mother and her baby "goblins" is an affront to their human dignity and will be firmly and unequivocally condemned by iverglas.
2) Calling an opponent of the Canadian gun registry and his constituents "shit" is not an affront to their human dignity and will be practiced and unequivocally defended by iverglas.
3) Clearly, iverglas holds violent felons in high esteem, at least in higher esteem than a gun registry opponent and his constituents.
Notice how there's nothing there about extra-judicial executions (or any other kind of execution)? Notice how there's not even anything in there about the use of potentially lethal force in legitimate self-defense? Notice how your misdirection didn't work?
******************
*shudder* And now to the vulgarity.
I am not Stalin, Hitler, Mao or even George Bush. I don't deserve such abuse.
Why would you call me "sweetheart"?!!!!
Please don't call me sweetheart, or use any other endearing terms.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)1) Calling armed, home invading persons who threaten a mother and her baby "goblins" is an affront to
2) Calling
3) Clearly,
LAGC
(5,330 posts)Oh wait...
ileus
(15,396 posts)Hope she gave the asshat both barrels.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)But he got the message before his dose of shot was delivered.