Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumIf Jovan Belcher's girlfriend fired back in self-defense, would the public support her?
The typical right wing argument against Bob Costas's recent comments about the gun culture and Jovan Belcher is that Belcher's girlfriend would have survived if she used a gun in self-defense. Well, maybe. And then I remember Marissa Alexander, the woman in Florida who got 20 years in prison for shooting a warning shot towards the ceiling to scare off her husband during a fight. Alexander's "stand your ground" defense failed.
Well, let's say in theory that Belcher's girlfriend Kasandra Perkins was able to get her own gun and fire back at Belcher. I wonder if the mainstream media narrative would hold up Perkins as a hero who used her 2nd Amendment rights or dismiss her as a psycho who ruined a promising sports career for Belcher and/or left their kid without a father.
Because Belcher and Perkins are black, expect even worse commentary coming from the right wing morally bankrupt media, with the radio blatherers like Rush saying "it's street culture, turning guns on each other and tearing apart families over trivial things." Very slightly to an extent, if the couple were white and Perkins fired back in self defense, even Fox News et al. would be more likely holding up Perkins as a 2nd Amendment hero. But my theory is that conservatives wouldn't accept either situation, as their reactions would be:
- "The victim should've had a gun."
- "By shooting him, she took away a promising career and valuable income source, and the child has to grow up fatherless thanks to that EVIL, EVIL, B_TCH of a mother! Women like Perkins who have babies with ghetto trash like Belcher and end up shooting dads dead over petty arguments are why America has lost family values!"
Sigh.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Unarmed people encourage this sort of lawless behavior and senseless tragedy. If we required everyone to be armed all the time, the murder rate would quickly drop to zero. Obviously three months is too young, but surely by first grade, in addition to learning to read, our children should be learning to shoot, and along with their backpacks filled with books they should be carrying a gun for protection. Another word for unarmed people is "targets". Don't be a target. Don't let your loved ones be targets. Arm your toddler today.
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)required colonists to be armed. Granted, we live in very different times. But at one time it was considered civic duty to be armed and prepared to defend oneself and property, as well as neighbors and community properties.
Excerpts from this pdf: Colonial Firearm Regulation
... None of the Colonial laws in any way limited the possession of firearms by the white non-Catholic population; quite the opposite. Most colonies did, however, pass laws restricting possession of firearms by blacks and Indians. In a few cases, in a few colonies, whites suspected of disloyalty (including Catholics) were also disarmed. As the statutes demonstrate, colonial governments did not hold that firearms in private hands, "were to remain the property of the government."
Indeed, the evidence is largely in the other directionthat colonial governments were often reluctant to seize weapons for public use. When driven by necessity to do so, they compensated owners of those guns.
Colonial regulations that limited the use of firearms were usually for reasons of public safety. These regulations were similar in nature, though generally less restrictive in details, than similar laws today.
Now, as for "laws restricting possession of firearms by blacks and Indians", lets just say that 250 years on we like to think we are better informed. Personally I am not so sure, but collectively we like to make believe that we are a more "enlightened" society.
Massachusetts adopted a measure March 22, 1630/1 that required all adult men to be armed. Although this measure is not explicit that the arms were firearms, it is apparent that guns were not in short supply in Massachusetts, because within 15 years, the Colonial government had made the requirement for guns explicit, and had even become quite demanding as to what type of guns were acceptable for militia duty. An order of October 1, 1645 directed that in the future, the only arms that would be allowed "serviceable, in our trained bands are ether full musket boare, or basterd musket at the least, & that none should be under three foote 9 inches ."
Even those exempt from militia duty were not exempt from the requirement to have a gun in their home. A June 18, 1645 order required "all inhabitants" including those exempt from militia duty, "to have armes in their howses fitt for service, with pouder, bullets, match, as other souldiers .upon the usuall training dayes, in the exercise of armes, as small guns, halfe pikes, bowes & arrows .."
The duty to be armed meant that even children were required to learn to use a gun.
Notable non-mention of women and semi-automatic handguns with 30 round magazines. Also, I love the spelling conventions in the language of the day.
Less sarcastically, where do we as a society step up and care for and protect each other? From trying to cheer up someone who seems to be having a bad day, or intervening in someones life who appears to be in emotion turmoil, or pulling someone out from in front of a subway train, or arming ones self to be prepared to defend body and property - what is appropriate? Legally - all of the preceding are appropriate in context.
Clearly there are moral, ethical and legal questions. My view - is that we must find our own answers to the moral and ethical pieces. The legal issues, our body of laws, while derived from our collective selves as a system of government, provide the only real guidance outside of moral and ethical guidelines. And there are so many gaps, so many grey areas and interpretive loopholes, such a dearth of accessibility in the law, that ultimately we end up making day to day and minute to minute decisions based on our own moral and ethical experiences.
Good god - I have to get going to work......
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)We are not in the midst of a centuries long invasion/migration and genocide against the local population, that mission has been accomplished, so the reason why white non-catholic males were required to be armed has vanished.
Instead we are in the midst of a self induced tsunami of gun violence, the solution to which is now "more guns everywhere".
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)You should look more closely at the perpetrators of violence and propose plans on how to stop them.
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)That's the only reason you can put forth for owning weapons?
Your imagination fails you.
spin
(17,493 posts)geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)It always comes from gun control advocates as a sarcastic straw man argument.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)If I thought that carrying one would make me safer, I would.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Violent crime is a reality, and old people are frequently targeted by thugs.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)You just don't like them.
AlexSatan
(535 posts)rl6214
(8,142 posts)Only the anti-gun zealots say shit like this.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Marissa Alexander's case was radically diferent. Warning shots are usually wrong. It is meant to warn the criminal but the bullet goes to whom it may concern. That is reckless endangerment, in this case of anybody on the other side of the ceiling, upstairs if there is anybody there. A gun is not supposted to be drawn or fired except in "the gravest extreme". By firing a warning shot you are demonstrating that you are not yet in the gravest extreme as you have time to evaluate if the warning shot does what you intend it to, then if not to shoot for real. She should have shot him instead if she was in that level of danger. But since self-defense is an affirmative defense (That means that you have to prove self-defense after you admit to shooting.) you have to be ready to prove it.
SYG had nothing to do with it. SYG comes into play only AFTER you have proven self-defense and it absolves you from the duty to retreat, nothing more. It isn't a "get out of jail free" card as many attempt to paint it.
petronius
(26,603 posts)have been a far superior outcome. But I think you raise an interesting point about how the narrative around so many incidents is shaped and directed by outside agendas and prejudices: Ms. Perkins' murder has become a gun-narrative, largely to the exclusion of Ms. Perkins herself. Is that right or fair? Perhaps a domestic violence narrative, or mental health, or even a sports narrative, would be more appropriate.
But I think you're correct that if she had survived and Mr. Belcher died the discussion would be very different - it probably wouldn't be a gun talk at all. And your guess about how the Faux/Rush world would spin it is a pretty good one; I'm surprised we haven't heard some echo of that even now...
alp227
(32,052 posts)Because of guns, either way Perkins the victim would be blamed: either for failing to defend herself or if she did, for destroying Belcher's livelihood, or leaving her child without a father. I think the conservatives calling for Bob Costas' head KNOW that they would have bashed Perkins if she stood her ground. Because of the prejudices, Perkins would be remembered more for killing a football player than defending herself/child. Because her child's father and pro athlete was the target, not some robber or mugger, people would react differently to her self defense.
petronius
(26,603 posts)would be. Sadly, we can only speculate how people in the pundit world and blogosphere would react if the outcome had been different.
I do think that a lot of the reaction to Costas (and Whitlock) was rather knee-jerky: neither the quote nor the column really called for gun control or more gun regulation, and in fact was not all that different from what gun owners themselves say. I.e., guns aren't toys, they shouldn't be the immediate go-to for conflict resolution, responsible and safe ownership is a must, etc.
I really don't think Ms. Perkins' murder should have spun into a major gun-rights/control issue at all - it's a symptom of narrative-framing and a polarized discourse that that happened to the extent it did...
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)People like Rush and his clones would have a field day feeding meat to the racists and misogynists.
spin
(17,493 posts)She might well have been portrayed as a psycho by the media but she would not be six feet under. Surviving and being alive does have certain advantages.
alp227
(32,052 posts)If she stood her ground during the fight and caused the death or incapacitation of Belcher, her reputation as someone who destroyed a promising career would give her trouble getting a job...essentially a scarlet letter on her forehead.
spin
(17,493 posts)GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)It would be another documented DGU, which would trump racial considerations. Remember that both SAF and NRA supported McDonald, who is black.