Defenseless woman dies while helping children escape from barricaded bedroom.

[gorfle]

http://www.ktvu.com/news/18145632/detail.html

"SWAT officers surrounded the house and were able to get in telephone contact with Nguyen. She reported that the suspect was trying to gain entry into the bedroom where she was barricaded with her children and that she wanted to lower the children out of the bedroom window so officers could get them to safety.

At an early evening press conference to address the incident, San Mateo Police Chief Manheimer said Nguyen was struck as she was lowering her children to officers standing on a van in the driveway of the home when the suspect began firing blindly through the walls of the bedroom.

Another case where a firearm could have made a difference in saving the life of the victim.

Here, a mother with her two children, was barricaded in her bedroom with the police right outside. Instead of taking up a defensive position in the bedroom covering the door with a firearm, she was shot while exposed helping her children escape.

[Rabrrrrrr]

1. But but but... I thought police could magically stop anything so long as we have 911 operators?

Or, on the other hand, if guns were illegal than that guy wouldn't have had one, because they would have all magically disappeared.

[FLAprogressive]

4. And that my friend, is every gun grabber's argument in a nutshell. n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. What is a 'gun grabber'? nt

[HarveyBrooks]

12. A "gun grabber"...

is anybody that believes in common sense gun control. The paranoid gun nuts think it's the first step leading to confiscation.

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. Boy, was I wrong.

I thought it was members of Blackwater Security.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

39. A weak minded person who is scared of their own shadow.

[RaleighNCDUer]

40. That's curious.

I thought it was the gun nuts who are terrified of strangers who are the weak minded persons who are scared of their own shadow.

I, for one, don't need to carry a gun to not be afraid.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

41. I haven't carried a gun for years.

I thought we were just giving opinions anyway.

David

[JonQ]

68. "Gun nuts" tend to be concerned with people

committing crimes against them and the police being unable/unwilling to prevent it from happening (which I think the crime stats will bear out). I think we can all agree that crimes do happen yes? And that the police have a less than 100% success rate? Right, moving on.

Gun grabbers tend to believe that a gun, at any moment, will jump up and attack them of its own accord and so guns must be banned to protect them (the stats don't support this conclusion).

I wouldn't say the average "gun nut" is terrified and weak minded any more than someone who purchases homeowners insurance, or locks his door at night.

[ZombieHorde]

81. Gun nuts gain +5 to both the Small Arms skill and the Repair skill.

It can be taken three times, for a total of +15 to both of those skills.

My wife just bought Fallout 3 the other day, we both love it.

[JonQ]

83. I haven't played any of the fallout games

do they really have a "gun nut" application?

[ZombieHorde]

95. Yes, they do.

Every time your level increases, you gain a 'perk'. There are over 50 perks to choose from, and one is called 'Gun nut'.

Other fun perk names include Cyborg, Bloody Mess, Cannibal, and Entomologist.

[jody]

21. When attacked by a violent criminal and seconds count, police are only minutes away. n/t

[Rabrrrrrr]

28. And sometimes tens of minutes! But at least 911 will stay on the phone with you until you're killed.

[FLAprogressive]

34. But if we ban guns...no one will have them! It's just like pot! n/t

[iverglas]

49. exactly!

f guns were illegal than that guy wouldn't have had one, because they would have all magically disappeared

Just like how if murder were illegal then the woman would still be alive, because she would have had a magical forcefield around her ...

[Testament]

190. Did you miss the sarcasm, iverglas?

[iverglas]

210. have you read up on sarcasm lately?

Sarcasm requires a target, something that it is mocking, something to stick its sharp point into.

The wit here was a blunt instrument, and was being wielded against a straw target.


typo ...

[jpak]

2. The kids should have been armed too

to the teeth

:evilgrin:

[mimitabby]

3. bizarre story

sounds like there were plenty of firearms, that's how she died. No matter how many guns you supply to the public, there will be people who can't / won't use them. And the more guns we have, the more innocents will be killed by guns.

[pipoman]

36. Really?

How do you explain this?



After peaking in 1993, the number of gun crimes reported to police declined and then stabilized at levels last seen in 1988.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime.htm

Every year the number of guns in the US increases, by your logic a 15 year steady decline in gun violence couldn't happen.

[SteveM]

109. Wrong. Solid wrong. See the data to follow and stand corrected (nt)

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

5. Sure.

And maybe if I flap my arms fast enough, I can fly to the moon.

She did not have a firearm, nor did she have the training that would have allowed her to turn some common household items into an effective temporary weapon. So she did what she could do, and sometimes, that is all you get.

You speculation is rife with logical fallacy.

[gorfle]

25. Where is the fallacy?

She did not have a firearm, nor did she have the training that would have allowed her to turn some common household items into an effective temporary weapon. So she did what she could do, and sometimes, that is all you get.

And that is precisely my point. This lady was doing what she did because she had no other choice. And even with the police right outside her window, she still died.

She was in as near a perfect defensive situation as you can ask for - if she had the means to defend herself.

And maybe if I flap my arms fast enough, I can fly to the moon.

Talk about a fallacy. No matter how fast you flap your arms, there is no chance you will never fly. But with a firearm, you do have a chance to defend yourself.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

37. But she did not have one!

Just like a lot of other folks! In spite of my history with firearms, as a shooter and reloader, I don't have one and I cannot afford one, and I am just fine with that.

So, your solution is to arm every household in the US? Considering some of the households I have seen, that would be madness.

[gorfle]

53. No...

So, your solution is to arm every household in the US? Considering some of the households I have seen, that would be madness.

I have never advocated forced firearm ownership.

[qb]

6. Playing devil's advocate...

alternate scenario...

"Child kills sibling while playing with mom's handgun."

[OffWithTheirHeads]

8. Alternative scenario #2

Victim unloads 8 rounds of 45 ACP JHP through door in direction of criminal. Sound of fresh magazine being loaded into victim's 1911 causes criminal to re-think his career options.

Alternative scenario #3. Gun grabber victim has no gun so victim throws Tofu at criminal causing criminal to collapse on the floor in a debilitating fit of uncontrollable laughter.

[gorfle]

16. So the question becomes:

Do you forsake the ability to defend yourself to make up for your lack of safe firearm storage?

Do you forsake the ability of anyone to defend themselves to make up for those few accidental shootings?

[SteveM]

110. The devil stumbled over his own de-tails...

The number of children killed in accidental shootings is low and has been falling faster than any other listed category of accidents (such as burns, drowning, falls) for years, now. See National Safety Council.

The best way to prevent accidental childhood shooting deaths is proper training of children in the use of firearms (or at least the proper way to treat them), and proper storage of firearms. Such training goes a long way in explaining the steady decline of accidental shootings. Further, once a child has grown up, he/she may choose to purchase a firearm, and can rely on this basic training to safely augment self-defense strategies.

[Merlot]

7. Well, it probably takes two hands to hand a child out a window,

so maybe she could have had one of the bigger kids "cover her back" while she was helping the little ones escape.

Ya, that's it.

[gorfle]

26. No way.

Well, it probably takes two hands to hand a child out a window, so maybe she could have had one of the bigger kids "cover her back" while she was helping the little ones escape.

Ya, that's it.

The proper response, had she been armed, would be to take up a defensive position behind the bed, with her kids behind her laying on the floor, with her weapon trained on the door. Then wait for the police to enter and capture the assailant.

[AtheistCrusader]

88. How do you propose to control

children of varying ages, while simultaneously covering a threat you cannot see, through a wall YOU won't naturally fire through without identifying your target?

There are so damn many variables here, it's silly. Mom in this sad news article could have had a damn BREN MK IV, loaded ready to rock, but can't see the attacker who is about to start firing blindly through the wall. Could have sat there with superior firepower, from a prone position, covering the door 100% with overkill, and STILL she could have been killed.


I'm not saying you HAVE to evac.
No one I have seen in this thread so far has said 'good she shouldn't have had a gun'.
You are constructing a dishonest, pointless, embarrassing strawman.

She didn't flee, leaving her children behind.
She didn't freeze up, quaking on the ground in fear.
She got her kids to safety.

By any measure I can think of, she's a hero, let it rest. The police will do their jobs, if there is anything to discuss around how this dirtbag acquired his weapon, I'm sure it will come to light.

[gorfle]

97. How to control them.

children of varying ages, while simultaneously covering a threat you cannot see, through a wall YOU won't naturally fire through without identifying your target?

I would tell my children to lay on the floor behind me.

There are so damn many variables here, it's silly. Mom in this sad news article could have had a damn BREN MK IV, loaded ready to rock, but can't see the attacker who is about to start firing blindly through the wall. Could have sat there with superior firepower, from a prone position, covering the door 100% with overkill, and STILL she could have been killed.

Of course she could have. I have never asserted that having a firearm is any guarantee of safety in an armed confrontation. Nonetheless, your chances of getting shot are much greater if you are moving about the room rather than taking cover. If nothing else, your target profile is much greater. Couple this with the fact that she was probably screaming to the police "Take my children!!!" and her children were screaming the assailant probably had a pretty good idea of what was happening and this may well have led to his shooting into the room to begin with.

I'm not saying you HAVE to evac.
No one I have seen in this thread so far has said 'good she shouldn't have had a gun'.
You are constructing a dishonest, pointless, embarrassing strawman.

There have been countless people in this forum who insist that having a gun never helps and that consequently there is no justification for having firearms for self-defense.

This example is a great, tragic example of how, had she been armed, she would have had the choice and chance of waiting out her assailant by lying in wait rather than attempting to flee.

[NorCalDem]

10. This post is stupid

rife with hypotheticals and doesn't show ANYTHING to prove that we'd be any safer by arming ourselves to the teeth. Suppose the woman had an AK in the house, but the crook got to it first! Now instead of her having the time to hand her kids out the window, they ALL meet a violent end.

Are you fucking serious?!? Do you honestly believe that if every citizen of this nation carried a handgun at all times, and we all had guns and ammo in our houses, that WE'D BE SAFER?!? Are you that naive! Do you know the statistics of people that are shot and killed WITH THEIR OWN GUN?!?

Note, i'm not saying that we should take guns away, but you're ludicrously trying to say that we should arm ourselves? :gasp:

[gorfle]

13. Stupid?

rife with hypotheticals and doesn't show ANYTHING to prove that we'd be any safer by arming ourselves to the teeth. Suppose the woman had an AK in the house, but the crook got to it first! Now instead of her having the time to hand her kids out the window, they ALL meet a violent end.

Most people who keep a firearm for self defense keep it in the bedroom.

If she had a firearm, and nothing else in the story had changed, she could have done what you are supposed to do in this situation: taken up a defensive position behind the bed with your firearm trained on the door. Is it possible that she still would have been shot when the intruder shot through the walls? Yes. But in a good defensive position this possibility is minimized, and in any case, if the choice is being shot at through the wall with no defense or with some defense I'll take the latter.

Are you fucking serious?!? Do you honestly believe that if every citizen of this nation carried a handgun at all times, and we all had guns and ammo in our houses, that WE'D BE SAFER?!? Are you that naive!

I do not advocate every citizen carrying handguns at all times. Only those who wish to do so.

If we all had guns and ammo in our houses, we most definitely would be safer, and there would be a lot less home invasion. Who in their right mind would attempt it?

Do you know the statistics of people that are shot and killed WITH THEIR OWN GUN?!?

Yes.

Note, i'm not saying that we should take guns away, but you're ludicrously trying to say that we should arm ourselves? :gasp:

I'm saying that this case provides a great example of what happens when you are defenseless in the face of an armed attacker - even with the police right outside your window.

[AtheistCrusader]

89. "minimized"

How convienient for your argument.

Again, note that the person you are responding to here, has not advocated taking away your guns.

[gorfle]

96. Minimized is the whole basis of the argument.

"minimized" How convienient for your argument.

There's nothing convenient about it. The simple fact is, if you are barricaded in a room in a standard house with someone with a gun outside the door, you are far safer taking cover and minimizing your target profile than by moving around the room.

Again, note that the person you are responding to here, has not advocated taking away your guns.

I never asserted they were.

[AtheistCrusader]

107. He fired multiple times.

Did she remain standing or hit the deck? Did the first shot, last shot or some shot inbetween hit her?

Since, apparently you were there, I'm really curious.

[gorfle]

117. Nice sarcasm.

He fired multiple times.

Did she remain standing or hit the deck? Did the first shot, last shot or some shot inbetween hit her?

Since, apparently you were there, I'm really curious.

Nice sarcasm. Obviously I wasn't there. I have, however, read at least 7 articles on the event. I'm merely making deductions based on the presented data. Apparently she was handing her children out the window when she was shot, and she subsequently fell to the floor. I don't know whether it was the first or last shot that hit her, nor do I see the relevance. My sole contention was that she was exposed.

[SteveM]

112. To "minimize" threats is a worthy goal. You want a warranty? (nt)

[AtheistCrusader]

115. He is avoiding the fact

that he has precious little detail how this all went down. She may have gotten down when the shooting started, and been shot anyway.

[gorfle]

116. There is enough detail to draw some conclusions based on them.

He is avoiding the fact that he has precious little detail how this all went down. She may have gotten down when the shooting started, and been shot anyway.

I'm not avoiding anything. I'm drawing conclusions based on the presented data. Should the data change, I will happily revise my position.

Right now, the basic facts are these:

1) She was locked or barricaded in a bedroom, with the assailant outside the bedroom.
2) The assailant fired through a wall into the bedroom.
2) She was standing up handing her children out a window when she was shot, and then she fell to the floor.

I (still) contend that while no armed confrontation is without risk, an ambush position from cover is about the best position you can ask for. Were she armed, she could have attempted this. Because she was not, she could not attempt this. Consequently, her best option was to attempt to escape. Unfortunately, doing so raised her target profile. It may well be that the assailant could hear the attempt to flee and this is what prompted the blind firing.

[jody]

24. Please provide a credible cite for "shot and killed WITH THEIR OWN GUN?!? " n/t

[Howzit]

31. Ask this woman if having the option to defend oneself is better?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=162x8615

[RaleighNCDUer]

42. You used the word "option".

And that is the key word.

The Cape Giradeau woman chose the option of having a weapon in the house. Fine.

This woman chose the option on not having a weapon around her children. That was HER option.

No "gun grabber" kept her from having a weapon. She made a choice of choosing to not have a deadly weapon available.

So this entire post is unmitigated BULLSHIT.

[iverglas]

47. eggzactly

Unmitigated bullshit -- and impossible to interpret as anything other than blaming the victim.

[gorfle]

99. I do not blame the victim.

I do not blame the victim, I blame the assailant.

Nonetheless, this is an example of what can happen when you have no choice but to flee an otherwise defensible situation.

[gorfle]

98. The post is not about lack of choice.

The Cape Giradeau woman chose the option of having a weapon in the house. Fine.

This woman chose the option on not having a weapon around her children. That was HER option.

The point of my post was not to say people don't have a choice about whether or not to arm themselves.

It was to point out what happens when you have made the choice to not be armed.

[SteveM]

111. Calm down a moment and realize...

that the possession of a firearm and the knowledge to use it properly is a legitimate (and in this case would seem a likely better) option than what happened.

Who is advocating that "every citizen of this nation a handgun at all times?" Further, the question at hand is not whether the woman "should a handgun;" she was, after all, in her home and needed no concealed carry license.

BTW, do you know the "statistics of people that are shot and killed WITH THEIR OWN GUN?!?" You imply that you do. What are they?

There is nothing ludicrous about choosing the option of arming oneself. If you choose not to, that's your option. I choose otherwise.

[nykym]

11. another scenario

Here, a mother with her two children, was barricaded in her bedroom with the police right outside. Taking up a defensive position in the bedroom covering the door with a firearm, she told the children to get down and be quiet. She fired off 9 shots through the door listened for a sound - nothing, suddenly a barrage of gunfire returned through the door, the quiet returned but seconds later another barage of gunfire erupted outside the door. The door burst open as SWAT entered the room and found the mother and her children dead from gunshots. The suspect lay in a poll of blood outside the door as SWAT called in for an ambulance for thier wounded.

Good thing she had a gun.

[gorfle]

15. A poor scenario.

Here, a mother with her two children, was barricaded in her bedroom with the police right outside. Taking up a defensive position in the bedroom covering the door with a firearm, she told the children to get down and be quiet. She fired off 9 shots through the door listened for a sound - nothing, suddenly a barrage of gunfire returned through the door, the quiet returned but seconds later another barage of gunfire erupted outside the door. The door burst open as SWAT entered the room and found the mother and her children dead from gunshots. The suspect lay in a poll of blood outside the door as SWAT called in for an ambulance for thier wounded.

Good thing she had a gun.

I don't understand what situation you are describing, but as any competent firearm owner knows, you don't shoot at what you can't see or be certain of what you hit when you miss.

The proper scenario in this situation is to take up a defensive position behind the bed covering the door. If someone comes through the door, you shoot after identifying your target.

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. OK. Then why don't the police know who shot who?

The article says the police "returned fire" when the intruder began firing through the wall (at a target he could not see). But that should correctly read they opened fire, because he was shooting at her, not them, right? They think the gunman might have shot himself - but if they were shooting at him, they'd know it, wouldn't they?

So what we have is a scenario where a gunman is firing blind at either the police or the woman, and the police firing blindly toward the sound of the firing.

I suspect the woman was shot by the police.

Nobody was following your little rules. The woman was the only person there doing the right thing.

[gorfle]

22. She also had no choice.

OK. Then why don't the police know who shot who?

Because multiple people were shooting.

The article says the police "returned fire" when the intruder began firing through the wall (at a target he could not see). But that should correctly read they opened fire, because he was shooting at her, not them, right? They think the gunman might have shot himself - but if they were shooting at him, they'd know it, wouldn't they?

It sounds to me from the article that the police began shooting when they heard gunshots. They probably did not who the gunman was shooting at.

So what we have is a scenario where a gunman is firing blind at either the police or the woman, and the police firing blindly toward the sound of the firing.

Sounds correct to me.

I suspect the woman was shot by the police.

We will have to see.

Nobody was following your little rules.

Proper firearm use is not "little rules".

The woman was the only person there doing the right thing.

She was also doing the only thing she could, as she had no other choice.

If this were my house where this even took place, I would never have been so exposed. Having barricaded the door, I would have taken a defensive position behind the bed and whatever furniture I could pile on it, sitting on the floor with my shotgun aimed at the door. Now it's possible I would have gotten hit by random fire through the wall/door anyway, but the odds of getting hit from a defensive position are much lower than standing up and moving around the room.

[RaleighNCDUer]

27. Have fun with your Rambo fantasies.

You need help.

(I notice in your last scenario you IGNORE THE FUCKING CHILDREN.)

[gorfle]

29. But you did not notice.

Have fun with your Rambo fantasies.

Right. Because everyone who has ever defended themselves with a firearm was simply indulging their "Rambo fantasies".

Just like this woman:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/laworder/story/9C58494B45470714862574F3006D0CA6?OpenDocument

Damn her and her "Rambo fantasies"!

You need help.

Why is it that people who refuse to be helpless victims "need help"?

(I notice in your last scenario you IGNORE THE FUCKING CHILDREN.)'

You must have missed in this same thread where I posted earlier that she should have put the kids behind her, lying on the floor, in such a situation.

I have two children of my own. I would never ignore my children.

[AtheistCrusader]

91. Tunnel vision.

Or Scenario Based Tunnel Vision. Let's use your children as an example. You seem confident they would obey you in this situation if you "put the kids behind her, lying on the floor". Congratulations, you are now the proud parent of a 2 year old that is so terrified he or she might run right at that door, and a 6 year old Autisic. How does your scenario work now?

Maybe YOUR children can be controlled with your authority. Perhaps your children can master their own fear. Maybe the victim in your original post had children that met neither bar.

Bonus round, the SWAT guy at the window, with the AR-15 orders you to hand your kids out the window. Do you tell him to piss off, or do you follow instructions?

[gorfle]

103. Maybe, Maybe, Maybe...

Or Scenario Based Tunnel Vision. Let's use your children as an example. You seem confident they would obey you in this situation if you "put the kids behind her, lying on the floor". Congratulations, you are now the proud parent of a 2 year old that is so terrified he or she might run right at that door, and a 6 year old Autisic. How does your scenario work now?

That was not her case, nor would it be my case. I'm not trying to expand on other possible outcomes. I'm focusing on hers, and all else being equal, what her other options could have been if she had a firearm.

Bonus round, the SWAT guy at the window, with the AR-15 orders you to hand your kids out the window. Do you tell him to piss off, or do you follow instructions?

If I didn't feel safe, he'd just have to wait, or come on in himself.

[SteveM]

113. Ah, yes. The Rambo fantasy argument...

Given that you describe the children as "FUCKING," perhaps you should at least ignore them in your sensitive post.

Which brings up the question of: Who really "needs help"?

[AtheistCrusader]

90. That rule

is exactly why the example you have brought to us here, fails. She could have done everything 100% correct by the rules of survival as you and I know them. She could have still lost, and not only lost her life, but those of her children.

[gorfle]

100. No doubt.

She could have done everything 100% correct by the rules of survival as you and I know them. She could have still lost, and not only lost her life, but those of her children.

As I have said countless times, having a firearm is never a guarantee of successful defense against an assailant.

Nonetheless, I think her odds of not getting shot would have been better had she taken cover instead of moved about the room. Because she was not armed, she did not have that option.

[Pavulon]

18. LEO cant fire through doors, must identify target

I would not shoot through a door unless I have visually identified what was behind it even in a home defense scenario.

Basic firearm rules. These things come with manuals.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

38. Ahhh...firearms sanity.

:thumbsup:

[AtheistCrusader]

20. Hey, you know how it's disgusting when the Gun Control advocates dance in the blood of innocents?

It's true of Gun Rights supporters too.

[gorfle]

23. Pointing out an incident...

Pointing out an incident where being defenseless even with the police right outside your window still results in your death is not "dancing in the blood of innocents".

This kind of incident is a classic example of why the "just call the police" logic is flawed.

[AtheistCrusader]

32. No it isn't.

She could have been easily killed if she had simply hunkered down with a firearm. The guy shot through the wall. She couldn't see him. He might not have even been at the door when he fired at her. What do you have in YOUR bedroom that's bulletproof to hunker down behind?

You are making a complete, unfounded assumption about an anecdotal situation. I can offer a counter-scenario that's just as plausible as yours, and ends terribly. She doesn't call, waits for a clear shot, he fires randomly through the wall, hits her, and her children, because she didn't get them to safety.

A gun MIGHT have helped her, MAYBE. You can't pretend to say that it would have helped, or that she did the wrong thing by calling the cops and focusing on getting her kids to safety with any certainty whatever. It could have ended better, yes, but it could have ended much worse.


And yes, it is dancing in the blood of the dead to use this incident for political commentary. Just like when the Brady Bunch does it for THEIR political agenda. This is no better, and it's a great way to alienate people who might be amenable to reason and debate.

[gorfle]

33. unfounded assumptions.

She could have been easily killed if she had simply hunkered down with a firearm. The guy shot through the wall. She couldn't see him. He might not have even been at the door when he fired at her. What do you have in YOUR bedroom that's bulletproof to hunker down behind?

Sitting on the floor behind the bed would minimize my target profile and provide a measure of protection.

You are making a complete, unfounded assumption about an anecdotal situation. I can offer a counter-scenario that's just as plausible as yours, and ends terribly. She doesn't call, waits for a clear shot, he fires randomly through the wall, hits her, and her children, because she didn't get them to safety.

But she did call. I never advocated not calling. Of course you call the police when someone has broken into your home.

It is not an unfounded assumption that walking around a room that someone is shooting through is more likely to get you shot than hunkering down on the floor behind something. I'd say that is a pretty reasonable assumption. Of course, she didn't have that option.

A gun MIGHT have helped her, MAYBE. You can't pretend to say that it would have helped, or that she did the wrong thing by calling the cops and focusing on getting her kids to safety with any certainty whatever. It could have ended better, yes, but it could have ended much worse.

If she had taken cover instead of standing up handing her kids out of the window, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that she would have stood a better chance of not getting shot.

Of course, since she was defenseless, her best option was to try and flee, rather than take cover and wait for the inevitable. This cost her her life.

And yes, it is dancing in the blood of the dead to use this incident for political commentary.

Well then strike up the band and I'll dance for a while while the anti-gun folks take a break.

[AtheistCrusader]

35. Again, you cannot know that for sure.

Sitting on the floor behind the bed would minimize my target profile and provide a measure of protection.

Profile, sure, I agree there. Protection? Maybe not. Maybe the woman in that article had a flat, IKEA like matress on a short platform. Hardly any protection at all. Maybe it was a giant oak four-poster with a mahogany dresser at the foot that could stop a 9mm without breaking a sweat. I don't know. Do you?

It is not an unfounded assumption that walking around a room that someone is shooting through is more likely to get you shot than hunkering down on the floor behind something. I'd say that is a pretty reasonable assumption. Of course, she didn't have that option.

If she had taken cover instead of standing up handing her kids out of the window, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that she would have stood a better chance of not getting shot.

Maybe her children were attempting to flee, or uncontrollable. A small child may do just about any damn thing. To protect her children, getting them out of the room may have been her ONLY option to save their lives. You are second-guessing someone who can't even present her own eyewitness account of the event.

Of course, since she was defenseless, her best option was to try and flee, rather than take cover and wait for the inevitable. This cost her her life.

You cannot know with any certainty that standing her ground with a firearm would have saved her. It is absolutely impossible for you to know that. I know *I* would prefer the option, but I will not second guess her decisons. For all you know maybe there was a handgun in a shoebox in the closet she refused to use. That's the defender's choice. I think questioning it is at the very least, tactless.

Well then strike up the band and I'll dance for a while while the anti-gun folks take a break.

And that, is disgusting.

[gorfle]

101. Sure.

Sitting on the floor behind the bed would minimize my target profile and provide a measure of protection.

Profile, sure, I agree there.

Well there you go. Case closed.

Protection? Maybe not. Maybe the woman in that article had a flat, IKEA like matress on a short platform. Hardly any protection at all. Maybe it was a giant oak four-poster with a mahogany dresser at the foot that could stop a 9mm without breaking a sweat. I don't know. Do you?

I am making the reasonable assumption that her bedroom is like 99% of all other bedrooms I have seen in the United States. In any bedroom I've ever been in there would be better defensive options than standing up.

Maybe her children were attempting to flee, or uncontrollable. A small child may do just about any damn thing. To protect her children, getting them out of the room may have been her ONLY option to save their lives. You are second-guessing someone who can't even present her own eyewitness account of the event.

All of this may well be true. The whole point of my article was, however, she had no other choice.

[AtheistCrusader]

102. She also may have been given orders

By the SWAT officers at her window. Perhaps she was following instructions to the letter. Would you ignore the orders of a police officer in a situation like that?

[gorfle]

105. Yes.

Perhaps she was following instructions to the letter. Would you ignore the orders of a police officer in a situation like that?

I would violate any orders that I thought would compromise my safety. Just as people are instructed not to pull over for police officers on the road until they find a safe area if they so choose.

[iverglas]

46. you're right; it's blaming the victim

This woman could have chosen to have a firearm in her home. (I'm not actually sure that we know she didn't.)

If she was "defenceless", she was defenceless by choice, was she not?

So what's the story here, now?

I'm not seeing it, myself.


This kind of incident is a classic example of why the "just call the police" logic is flawed.

Huh. I am seeing a classic example of bashing a straw individal, though.

[gorfle]

54. Hardly surprising.

This woman could have chosen to have a firearm in her home. (I'm not actually sure that we know she didn't.)

If she was "defenceless", she was defenceless by choice, was she not?

So what's the story here, now?

The story is how poor a choice it is to choose to be defenseless.

I'm not seeing it, myself.

Hardly surprising. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

[iverglas]

55. I was right!

The story is how poor a choice it is to choose to be defenseless.

Briefly put: blaming the victim.

[gorfle]

56. I don't blame the victim.

I don't blame the victim, I blame the perpetrator.

I must say, though, that honestly, the fact that she seems to have abdicated her responsibility to defend herself and her children does lessen my sense of sympathy for her situation.

I think this is an excellent case for being armed, and the perils of choosing not to be. In this case not being armed left her with no choice but to attempt to flee rather than to attempt to take cover, and probably contributed to her death even with the police right outside her window.

[joshcryer]

191. Wait. What? "abdicated her responsiblity to defend herself and her children"?

Seriously? WTF is wrong with you? A mother protects her children above all else. She did that admirably. Maybe she didn't like guns, that doesn't mean she's fucking irresponsible! You actually think people have a choice to be armed? You must live in some alternate reality where people have a choice as to what job they can do and what food they can have and where they can live.

[iverglas]

195. joshie!

Cover your eyes. I'm with you.

I was gonna say that someone's "responsibility" to defend herself is a responsibility only to him/herself, and is between him/her and him/herself and nobody else's business -- but hmm, yes, a parent may have a responsibility to a child to protect him/herself. (That's one thing that some women consider when deciding to terminate a pregnancy that could jeopardize their ability to care for the children they already have, e.g.)

How anyone could say that doing what this woman did was "irresponsible" in that sense, however, when she carried out her primary responsibility to her children -- to protect them -- is beyond us both.

[DonP]

30. Well, thank god she didn't have a gun!

<sarcasm on> Imagine the added violence that might have created if she had a loaded gun in that bedroom. <sarcasm off>

That's what we seem to hear from some people after every shooting. In some folks minds it sounds like they actually think it's better to be an unarmed victim and quietly and passively wait for your inevitable execution that to even think of fighting back.

After the NIU shootings earlier in the year they had "security" people on campus saying that the most effective form of resistance and defense would be for students to throw their laptop computers, bookbags and notebooks at a shooter to distract him. We heard something similar after Virginia Tech.

I just don't get how anything could be worse than sitting by and hoping for the best, maybe that the madman kills somebody else and somehow overlooks you or trusting to their good will that maybe they will decide not to kill you.

How can you make a situation where someone is determined to kill as many unarmed victims as possible before the police show up with guns any worse?

[jody]

43. Surveys never ask homicide victims whether they would have liked the option of defending them self.

It seems plausible that some/many/most/all suicide victims wanted to die at the time of their death and it seems equally plausible that NO homicide victim wanted to die.

IMO it's ludicrous for gun-grabbers to argue that given an option, a homicide victim would have chosen death at the hands of a violent criminal rather than keeping and bearing arms for self-defense.

That seems to be the hypothetical upon which gun-grabbers build their case.

[iverglas]

44. what does jody know that nobody else does????

Surveys never ask homicide victims whether they would have liked the option of defending them self.

Apparently this woman was not permitted to own a firearm and keep it in her home.

Sez who?


Sounds to me like a bunch of people here are blaming the victim. If only she had been clever enough to have a firearm at the ready, she would not be dead today ...

[iverglas]

45. her fault and nobody else's

Here, a mother with her two children, was barricaded in her bedroom with the police right outside. Instead of taking up a defensive position in the bedroom covering the door with a firearm, she was shot while exposed helping her children escape.

So ... why did she not have a firearm in the bedroom? Is there some law in California the prohibited her from having a firearm in her home?

How can what you are saying possibly be interpreted as anything other than blaming her for her own death?

Manheimer noted that Gee has a prior history of weapons possession and had been arrested for illegal possesion in a different county during the press conference. She also said that preliminary forensic evidence incidated that Nguyen had been fatally struck by bullets shot from Gee's handgun through the wall of an adjoining bedroom as she handed her young children to safety through a window to waiting SWAT team members.

Contrary to earlier reports that Gee had been killed in the ensuing gun battle with responding SWAT officers, Manheimer said preliminary forensic evidence showed that Gee died of a single self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head. Police are now investigating the incident as a murder-suicide.

Nobody seems to be even slightly interested in WHERE and HOW this individual obtained a firearm.

And now he will go down as one of those suicides-by-firearm that we just don't need to worry our heads about when it comes to talking about firearms deaths.

[gorfle]

57. blame.

So ... why did she not have a firearm in the bedroom? Is there some law in California the prohibited her from having a firearm in her home?

One assumes that she did not choose to have a firearm in her bedroom.

How can what you are saying possibly be interpreted as anything other than blaming her for her own death?

I don't blame her, I blame her attacker. But my sense of sympathy for her situation is diminished by the realization that had she chosen to take personal responsibility for the safety of her family the situation had a chance of turning out differently. The fact that her choice to be defenseless left her with no choice but to flee in the face of danger rather than take cover probably contributed to her death.

Nobody seems to be even slightly interested in WHERE and HOW this individual obtained a firearm.

I would be interested in where and how he obtained his firearm.

And now he will go down as one of those suicides-by-firearm that we just don't need to worry our heads about when it comes to talking about firearms deaths.

Or it he will go down as one of those many cowards as of late who, in the face of armed resistance, once again ceases their rampage and kills themselves.

I half-jokingly think if everyone was armed maybe these people would just kill themselves before they left their homes, rather than risk someone resisting as they act out their rage on innocents.

[joshcryer]

193. I hope you don't take the OPs ignorant and hateful commentary to represent other gun owners.

It's really a ridiculous premise. Woman barricaded in house gets killed by a prior weapons offender with psychological problems and she's to blame. What the fuck!

[iverglas]

48. this really is a pretty obvious excellent example

of how once a situation arises, there is commonly nothing one can do to protect one's self against someone with a firearm.

How, exactly, does having a firearm enable one to protect one's self against someone firing bullets through a wall??

Shoot back? Well, what if that person is the one barricaded behind a big old bed, and all you have is the foam slab on the floor? And the police are not assembling outside?

The Rambo scenarios have one common denominator: they assume a particularly stupid assailant. One who will expose him/herself to your bullets, while you cleverly follow all the rules of guerrilla warfare and emerge victorious, and alive.

The fact is that anyone intent on causing injury or death (as opposed to someone using a firearm in the commission of some other offence, such as burglary or robbery, who may well want to avoid causing injury or death) simply is not going to give the intended victim a chance to play Rambo. And that person's firearm gives him/her all the advantages needed: distance, surprise, etc. Shooting someone in a parking lot from a distance of 50 feet (like the Toronto schoolteacher killed by an abusive estranged husband) is really much more likely to be the gameplan.

In the US, children are routinely shot to death as they lie sleeping in their beds and cribs, struck by bullets that penetrate their walls or windows. And no reason to believe that their own homes weren't well-stocked with firearms.

Having a firearm simply does not level the playing field when one is a target.

[Pavulon]

50. Incorrect. every scenario is different.

the person should have the option to have a weapon. If she felt necessary she could use it for suppressive fire. Not really all that helpful in a cqb scenario but is an option. Shotgun will punch through walls, as will 9mm.

99% of normal people will go to ground when shot at. That is when you leave, after dumping a magazine in their direction.

Routine is bullshit. They are routinely killed in car crashes, crushed by garage doors, and drown swimming pools.

This is a bizare situation and I have used a handgun (not fired) to stop a person from climbing in my window.

I get to keep that option. Why limit options.

You are correct, if someone really wants to kill you and know how to operate a rifle they probably can.

[iverglas]

51. let's stop right there

the person should have the option to have a weapon.

Did this woman not have that option?

Where is your point?

Other than blaming her for her death, the only possible conclusion from what you and the gang are saying here.

[Pavulon]

52. Nope you mised it.

she is not to blame any more than you are if some drunk smashes into you at a light. Not her fault. The person who killed her is the only one at at fault.

I am saying that her choice should not impact mine. I do legally own firearms, I also own dogs and a security system. Tose do much more than a firearm to PREVENT a problem. Once I am firing a weapon in my home something has gone terribly wrong.

I am not a big what if person so speculating on what might have been seems pointless.

I'm not a gang member.

[AtheistCrusader]

87. WHO ARE YOU ARGUING AGAINST?

Seriously. Who said 'her choice should impact yours'? NO ONE. ARGH.

Ok, I'll go back and read the whole damn thread again, but I bet you there isn't a single post that says anything along the lines of what you keep posting about.

[AtheistCrusader]

92. Yep. Nothing.

Unless there was something in one of those deleted sub threads (possible I guess, whatever the content was, it was contentious) you are arguing against no one present.

[AtheistCrusader]

86. Now demonstrate that she was prevented by law from owning a firearm.

Also, prove she didn't have one in her hand, or even in the room.

Hint: She was probably following police instructions to hand her kids out the window. And again, she was shot through the WALL, he didn't kick open the bedroom door in some slow motion grand entrance, combatants sizing each other up before the battle with dramatic music swelling in the background. He shot wildly, blindly through the wall. She could have been literally staggering under the weight of as many weapons as it is humanly possible to carry, and it may not have saved her.

This was a messed up situation, but there is one, single takeaway you can be sure of: She was a hero. She got her kids to safety.

Correction, two takeaways: This dirtbag was able to obtain a weapon somewhere, somehow, despite being legally unable to do so. How. Where? From whom?

[gorfle]

60. Firearms don't level the playing field.

this really is a pretty obvious excellent example of how once a situation arises, there is commonly nothing one can do to protect one's self against someone with a firearm.

How, exactly, does having a firearm enable one to protect one's self against someone firing bullets through a wall??

It doesn't. What protects you from someone shooting at you is taking cover. Getting low, and/or getting behind furniture. The firearm gives you the option of seeking cover rather than having to expose yourself while attempting to flee.

Shoot back? Well, what if that person is the one barricaded behind a big old bed, and all you have is the foam slab on the floor? And the police are not assembling outside?

You would not shoot back until presented with a target. The correct procedure would be to take cover behind any available furniture, or, failing this, to get low and train your weapon on the door.

The Rambo scenarios have one common denominator: they assume a particularly stupid assailant. One who will expose him/herself to your bullets, while you cleverly follow all the rules of guerrilla warfare and emerge victorious, and alive.

Self-defense scenarios have one common denominator: the ability to resist with deadly force. There are never any guarantees to success.

The fact is that anyone intent on causing injury or death (as opposed to someone using a firearm in the commission of some other offence, such as burglary or robbery, who may well want to avoid causing injury or death) simply is not going to give the intended victim a chance to play Rambo. And that person's firearm gives him/her all the advantages needed: distance, surprise, etc. Shooting someone in a parking lot from a distance of 50 feet (like the Toronto schoolteacher killed by an abusive estranged husband) is really much more likely to be the gameplan.

In the US, children are routinely shot to death as they lie sleeping in their beds and cribs, struck by bullets that penetrate their walls or windows. And no reason to believe that their own homes weren't well-stocked with firearms.

Having a firearm simply does not level the playing field when one is a target.

Having a firearm does not always level the playing field when faced with an armed adversary. Not having a firearm always places you at a disadvantage when faced with an armed adversary.

Your argument is that because there are situations where you will not be able to use a firearm to defend yourself, there are never situations where you will be able to use a firearm to defend yourself. This is obviously flawed.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Howzit]

64. "they assume a particularly stupid assailant. One who will expose him/herself to your bullets, "

Assailants prefer to attack people they have reason to assume are not armed. As such, they don't consider being shot until there is evidence to the contrary, such as loud noises. This guy came back without much stealth because he was certain his victim was defenseless: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=162&topic_id=8615&mesg_id=8615

A smart person who knows you are armed inside your house does not kick in the door to come shoot you - he waits for you in your driveway, where you are an easy target.

[iverglas]

69. you persist in assuming a particularly stupid assailant

There sure are some delusions of grandeur floating around this place.

Assailants prefer to attack people they have reason to assume are not armed.

The assailant in this case, and the assailants I am talking about, ARE NOT randomly selecting victims. They are TARGETING a victim.

It doesn't matter a pinch of poop whether that targeted individual walks around with a gun in hand and a finger superglued to the trigger, IF THE ASSAILANT AMBUSHES him/her or shoots from a distance or otherwise doesn't walk up and introduce him/herself and say would you mind standing still a minute while I shoot you.

A smart person who knows you are armed inside your house does not kick in the door to come shoot you - he waits for you in your driveway, where you are an easy target.

Fucking duh. So your point is?

The individual in this particular incident, let us not forget, was not "a smart person". He was an unstable and disorganized individual with a criminal history and a disorder resulting in a fixation on a strange woman. He appears to belong to the class of persons who are essentially suicidal and angry and select a target to direct their problems at for entirely irrational reasons. Nonetheless, the odds that such a person will injure or kill someone before any action can be taken against him/her, no matter how many firearms happen to be in the room, if s/he has a firearm, are overwhelming. All of the recent mass murderers you can think of would in all likelihood have killed more than one person before anyone succeeded in stopping him.

This "level playing field" is putrid crap. And you all know it.

[gorfle]

84. The putrid crap of the level paying field

This "level playing field" is putrid crap. And you all know it.

The simple fact is this: No matter how badly the deck is stacked against you, it's always stacked harder against you if you have no means to fight back.

A chance is always better than no chance.

It is ludicrous to adopt an anti-firearm-self-defense stance using the logic that sometimes you will never see the attack coming. Obviously, many times people have seen the attack coming and have used a firearm to defend themselves from it.

A firearm is no guarantee of protection against someone trying to kill you. But you can be pretty sure that without one, you're pretty much guaranteed to die.

[iverglas]

58. some details not mentioned

From the article:

On Tuesday, San Mateo police said they received a call from a man at about 9:40 a.m. about an armed robbery underway at a home on Hobart Avenue near South El Camino Real. The caller told police his wife and children -- aged 1 and 3 -- were in the house and had barricaded themselves in a bedroom, police Deputy Chief Mike Callagy said. The man wasn't home at the time, but had received a text message from his wife about the invader, according to officers.

If someone were trying to break into my home, I would not be texting my partner at work. I would be calling 911.

I am extremely curious why the victim in this case did not do so.

I wonder about cultural aversions to involving authorities / distrust of authorities, and dependency of women on their male partners, among other things.

This just seems to me to be an extremely strange thing to have done, and I wonder whether, if the obvious delay in contacting police had not occurred, the intervention could have occurred before the death.


http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_11081014?source%253Dmost_emailed.26978592730A3B8C7F471EACE0DA4EF2.html

Loan Kim Nguyen was a 24-year-old mother of two, a former beauty contestant from the East Bay with a banker husband and ambitions of her own.

Raymond Gee, a 22-year-old mentally unstable man, investigators said, was from a hard part of East Oakland.

Investigators Wednesday revealed for the first time that they believe that obsession was a potential motive behind the brazen, bizarre crime that left the mother slain and the man dead by his own hand as SWAT members were closing in on him.

"We have confirmed that this was not a random attack, but rather an incident of stalking," San Mateo Police Chief Susan Manheimer said at a Wednesday afternoon news conference.

One of Nguyen's neighbors saw Gee near the home days before the shooting. Police said Gee — who has a history of weapons possession and was arrested for possession of a loaded weapon — had been using the Internet to pursue Nguyen for several weeks, but they refused to elaborate.he University of the Pacific on Dec. 19.

If the police had received a report of stalking by an unstable individual with a history of weapons offences *before* this incident began ... well, it might have been averted.

[gorfle]

59. well damn!

If someone were trying to break into my home, I would not be texting my partner at work. I would be calling 911.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/27/BAAP14DBB4.DTL

"Nguyen was able to call 911, Manheimer said, but it's unclear if she made the call before or after she sent a text message to her husband telling him there was an intruder in the home and she was being robbed. "

[iverglas]

61. ya just can't read everything out there, can ya?

The ones I read didn't mention it.

I'd still like to know which came first.

There are things unsaid. If Nguyen knew who the man was, she knew she wasn't being robbed, because she knew he was stalking her. Had the neighbour who saw him around her home earlier told her?

I might have suspected internet impropriety on her part (nope, no blaming, just that risk rises with risky behaviour), but given that she was well known in her community and the sort of individual to whom stalkers are attracted (beauty queen, which could be called a risky behaviour in itself, like movie star and rich person), it seems likely he fixated on her entirely independently of any actions on her part.


If only we lived in a society in which women were not regarded as public sex objects (like, what else is a beauty queen, anyhow) ... and the men who stalk women did not have access to firearms ...

That there have been so many voices raised in this thread to denounce this woman for "failng to protect" herself and her children from a danger no woman, or anyone, should face ... and NOT A SINGLE VOICE raised against the social conditions that made this woman a target/victim ...

Well, there ain't much more you can do but puke.

[gorfle]

63. apparently

There are things unsaid. If Nguyen knew who the man was, she knew she wasn't being robbed, because she knew he was stalking her. Had the neighbour who saw him around her home earlier told her?

I might have suspected internet impropriety on her part (nope, no blaming, just that risk rises with risky behaviour), but given that she was well known in her community and the sort of individual to whom stalkers are attracted (beauty queen, which could be called a risky behaviour in itself, like movie star and rich person), it seems likely he fixated on her entirely independently of any actions on her part.

Apparently, according to news reports, she had been in communication with her attacker via the Internet earlier.

If only we lived in a society in which women were not regarded as public sex objects (like, what else is a beauty queen, anyhow) ... and the men who stalk women did not have access to firearms ...


But since we do live in a society in which women are regarded as public sex objects, and since men who stalk women do have access to firearms, we should all have the choice as to how to equip ourselves to deal with those realities.

That there have been so many voices raised in this thread to denounce this woman for "failng to protect" herself and her children from a danger no woman, or anyone, should face ... and NOT A SINGLE VOICE raised against the social conditions that made this woman a target/victim ...

Well, there ain't much more you can do but puke.

That's because there isn't much you can do as an individual to change social conditions. But you can take personal responsibility for your family's safety.

[friendly_iconoclast]

66. A misinterpretation of stalking, sexism, and a false dichotomy

I might have suspected internet impropriety on her part (nope, no blaming, just that risk rises with risky behaviour), but given that she was well known in her community and the sort of individual to whom stalkers are attracted (beauty queen, which could be called a risky behaviour in itself, like movie star and rich person), it seems likely he fixated on her entirely independently of any actions on her part.

Stalkers usually fixate on someone they already know or are acquainted with. The 'celebrity stalker'
is actually in the minority, they are just the ones we hear about. Your last statement is quite true,
however.

If only we lived in a society in which women were not regarded as public sex objects (like, what else is a beauty queen, anyhow)

How does this jibe with your previous statement? Stalkers usually go after an ex- partner, or someone
from Accounts Receivable or a neighbor who they 'feel a bond with' in their deluded minds.

and the men who stalk women did not have access to firearms ...

Sexism? Stalking is an equal opportunity pathology, and the poor SOB who got decapitated
recently on a Greyhound bus isn't any less dead because a gun wasn't used. There are no 'worse'
weapons, there are only weapons, to be used for good or evil. Take a look at Earl Morris'
The Fog of War if you think one type of weapon is inherently worse than any other.

That there have been so many voices raised in this thread to denounce this woman for "failng to protect" herself and her children from a danger no woman, or anyone, should face ...

I have to agree with you in part. I'm sure she did not think this guy would go to such an extreme.

Unfortunately we live in a Hobbesian world, T. H. White said that Homo sapiens should be
called Homo ferox. The lack of response from law enforcement sealed her doom.

and NOT A SINGLE VOICE raised against the social conditions that made this woman a target/victim ...

As you said, it seems likely he fixated on her entirely independently of any actions on her part. Sometimes evil is just *there*, and all we can do is try to alleviate the results.

[iverglas]

70. gosh, I should have been clearer

Stalkers usually fixate on someone they already know or are acquainted with. The 'celebrity stalker' is actually in the minority, they are just the ones we hear about.

To hear you, you'd almost think I didn't know that, wouldn't you?

I wonder whether, knowing I am not a completely clueless dolt, you might have assumed from the context that I was talking about stranger stalkers. And it is not at all uncommon for women regarded as public sex objects to be victimized in this way.

So we can pretty much disregard the rest of that noise ...


Stalking is an equal opportunity pathology, and the poor SOB who got decapitated recently on a Greyhound bus isn't any less dead because a gun wasn't used.

What dog's breakfast is this?? The Greyhound bus victim (who was stabbed to death; the decapitation is irrelevant to the homicide, titillating as it might be) was an entirely random target. What point you imagine you have made, I don't know.

And no, it is not an equal opportunity pathology. This isn't the movies, and Fatal Attraction was fiction.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4159/is_20050327/ai_n13483886

"One in five victims of stalking are men targeted by women"

Now maybe you can find something to tell us what the rates of injury and death on both sides are.

http://www.musc.edu/vawprevention/research/stalking.shtml

What kinds of stalking behaviors do victims experience?
Female stalking victims most commonly report being followed, spied on, or watched at home, at work or at places of recreation (2). Many also report receiving unwanted phone calls, letters, or gifts, and having restraining or protective orders violated (2). Battered women stalked by their current/former abusive partners report: being harmed, having mail stolen, being watched, receiving unwanted calls at home, being followed, and receiving unwanted visits from their current or former abusive partners (3). Battered women experience multiple, serial forms of violent and harassing stalking behaviors perpetrated against them, sometimes as often as every day (3).

http://www.straight.com/article-88461/stalkers-and-their-prey
(my emphasis)

The 2006 Measuring Violence Against Women study showed that stalkers were predominantly male, whether the victim was female or male. Only five percent of all cases involved a female pursuing a male.

Citing survey results for 2004 only, this study also indicated that three-quarters of incidents of criminal harassment reported to the police were directed at females. "In half of these incidents, women were stalked by a person with whom they had an intimate relationship," it stated. "The most common situations involved male ex-spouses (including their former common-law partners) and ex-boyfriends."

The study pointed out that for the same year, some 2,030 male partners and 207 female partners were reported for stalking to 68 police departments across the country. "The number of male spouses and boyfriends known to police for stalking has risen in recent years (this includes ex-partners)," it noted. "This may reflect a real rise in stalking behaviour or an increase in the number of incidents reported to the police. It may also reflect a change in the way police have applied the law, as similar types of behaviours can be charged under other offences, such as uttering threats. Once again, these figures do not take account of possible increases in the population."

Not much equal opportunity in those numbers.


The lack of response from law enforcement sealed her doom.

You didn't even bother to read the facts, did you?


Sometimes evil is just *there*, and all we can do is try to alleviate the results.

But in the meantime, let's make sure it's really easy for it to get a gun.

[JonQ]

67. You always seem to know exactly what the person should have done

after the fact.

Out of curiosity, if you were in her exact position how would you have made it out unscathed, with the kids, after calling the cops (presumably without using any weapon to defend yourself)?

[iverglas]

71. forgive me

but what would you have done? Text messaged your mother?

My query was whether she had called 911, and if not, why she didn't. Pretty simple, given that on the face of it, to the ordinary person, texting one's husband at work to inform him that one's house is being broken into, instead of calling 911, is really just a little odd (whether or not that is what happened here).


Out of curiosity, if you were in her exact position how would you have made it out unscathed, with the kids, after calling the cops (presumably without using any weapon to defend yourself)?

Out of curiosity, what is your evidentiary basis for that question?

Did I write in pixels visible only to you that I would have made it out unscathed?

No? Then why would anyone, in this case you, ask me how I would have done it?

How does your question relate even tangentially to anything I said?

You can't answer that, of course. It's a loaded question. You can't tell me how your question related to anything I said -- because it didn't relate to anything I said. My apologies.

[JonQ]

72. You always claim

guns are unnecessary, more likely to harm the individual and worthless in self-defense. I had assumed, falsely apparently, that you had some alternative rather than "just lay down and die" to such circumstances.

And it sounds like she did call the cops. But if she hadn't would that mean she desereved to die? Not everyone responds immediately in a crisis in the best possible way, sometimes people panic (I assume you will agree with me on that). Either way, the cops were there and unable to stop this murder. So what was your alternative, since you have decided it necessary to disarm the population and leave them no recourse. Kung-fu perhaps?

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JonQ]

74. You're right

guns would have done nothing to level the playing field. Clearly she was better off as is.

I know I would much rather confront an armed intruder wielding nothing more than moral indignation than a firearm of my own.

[iverglas]

75. "moral indignation"?

I believe you have to have morals first.

[JonQ]

76. Yep

anyone who believes in the constitution is immoral. You're on a roll today.

Tell me, you aren't one of those nasty, evil individuals who believes in free speech? Or a trial by their peers are you? All those rights we're guaranteed are simply dreadful and the sooner we're rid of them the better.

[iverglas]

77. no no no no no

anyone who believes in the constitution is immoral.

Anyone who loves fuzzy little kittens is immoral.

What, you missed where I said that?

[JonQ]

78. So you have no recourse

planned for individuals who are attacked, you don't give a damn about our constitution, and you think anyone who supports gun ownership is immoral.

I have to ask, are you just having fun with the rest of us? I find it hard to believe anyone could seriously hold the beliefs you do and still manage to function.

[iverglas]

79. but to mock you?

There being no recourse against whatever ails you, I find mocking to be the best course.


I find it hard to believe anyone could seriously hold the beliefs you do and still manage to function.

I'm sure that if anyone did hold the beliefs you falsely ascribe to me, s/he would be a rather confused bunny.

Fortunately, I don't.

I find it hard to believe that anyone can be as ... well, whatever it is that prompts your behaviour ... and stand up straight.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AtheistCrusader]

93. I'm curious where you think Iverglas has ever stated what you just attributed to her.

I'm pro-2nd Amendment to a fault, but even I think this thread is a damn abomination. An embarrassing, vicious attempt to blame the victim for not being rambo enough to fight off a crazed, vicious attacker who employed tactics, no sane person would really forsee.

'More guns' doesn't fix what happened to her. It hasn't been demonstrated she was not allowed to have a firearm. It hasn't been demonstrated that there were no firearms available to her. Hell, it hasn't even been demonstrated she didn't HAVE A GUN IN HER HAND.

Preparedness and having the right tools only goes so far when you have blind, dumb misfortune and a bucketload of irrational malice flung your way.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrCory]

80. Who Are You Claiming...

Lacks morals and why?

[iverglas]

119. I should think it is obvious

Anyone who makes grossly and demonstrably false and vile statements about another person, and who fails to retract those statements when called upon to substantiate them -- being unable to substantiate them because they are false -- is very obviously suffering from a disability in the morals department.

Would you actually disagree with that assessment?

If someone said that you suffered from a mental illness and had made offensive statements about other people that you had never made, and then failed to offer a shred of evidence to support either allegation, and persisted in making the allegation, how might you assess that person's morals?

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

122. it's not that I don't enjoy it immensely

when people like you do things like this.

It's just that I'm aware that this is not the place for people like you to do things like this. Entertaining as I might find it, myself.

I'm sure there is somewhere for people like you to do things like this, though.

[JonQ]

123. Ah

deleting my messages. You stay classy iverglas.

Well censorship is one way to win an argument I suppose. A very hollow victory though.

I'm not going to bother posting on this thread anymore since I now know everything I write could be taken down without warning for no reason.

[AtheistCrusader]

124. I could use stronger language but...

You were extremely disingenuous above. Your posts were likely deleted because they violate the rules of this forum..

Frankly I'm amazed this entire thread hasn't been deleted. Despite strenuous cries of 'not blaming the victim', again and again it is insinuated that the victim brought this upon herself by being unarmed. It's disgusting.

Edited for spelling.

[JonQ]

126. You talk about being disingenuous

then attribute "the victim brought this upon herself by being unarmed" statement to everyone else when I have yet to see anyone blaming her.

[AtheistCrusader]

130. Don't mind if I do.

"Nonetheless, this is an example of what can happen when you have no choice but to flee an otherwise defensible situation."

"It was to point out what happens when you have made the choice to not be armed."

"If she had taken cover instead of standing up handing her kids out of the window, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that she would have stood a better chance of not getting shot.

Of course, since she was defenseless, her best option was to try and flee, rather than take cover and wait for the inevitable. This cost her her life."

"The story is how poor a choice it is to choose to be defenseless."

"I must say, though, that honestly, the fact that she seems to have abdicated her responsibility to defend herself and her children does lessen my sense of sympathy for her situation.

I think this is an excellent case for being armed, and the perils of choosing not to be. In this case not being armed left her with no choice but to attempt to flee rather than to attempt to take cover, and probably contributed to her death even with the police right outside her window."

"I don't blame her, I blame her attacker. But my sense of sympathy for her situation is diminished by the realization that had she chosen to take personal responsibility for the safety of her family the situation had a chance of turning out differently. The fact that her choice to be defenseless left her with no choice but to flee in the face of danger rather than take cover probably contributed to her death."

"There is no shame in pointing out that lack of armament resulted in her having no choice but to attempt to flee and put her at greater risk of getting shot than lying low."


This is all akin to hemming and hawing about a rape victim for her plunging neckline and short skirt.

[JonQ]

133. Pointing out what someone might have done differently

is hardly the same as blaming them for being put in that situation.

For instance, saying it isn't wise for leaving your front door unlocked and open at night is not the same thing as saying whoever breaks in and robs you is free of guilt.

But I could see you feeling we're blaming her if any hypothesizing at alternate outcomes is deemed a direct attack on this woman.

[AtheistCrusader]

137. You didn't read those quotes did you?

Look at it again.

"I must say, though, that honestly, the fact that she seems to have abdicated her responsibility to defend herself and her children does lessen my sense of sympathy for her situation."

Specifically abdicated her responsibility to defend herself and her children

Just look at that. How vile.

1. Barricaded the door.
2. Contacted the police.
3. Obeyed police instructions.
4. Got her children to safety FIRST before bailing out from the window herself.

With those four facts in hand, how can you possibly think "abdicated her responsibility to defend herself and her children" is anything but BLAMING THE VICTIM?

[JonQ]

140. You seem to be obsessing over that one quote

let the person who wrote it speak for themself. Don't try to get me to ascribe your meaning to it.

I'd say that a mother, who has any reason to fear retaliation from an abusive ex would be wise to get a firearm. Or something, and that not doing so puts her and her kids at risk. However, I wouldn't blame her for being killed. Even if she did nothing right, didn't call the cops, didn't barricade herself, just sat there and died. She would still be innocent as the person doing the killing bears all the blame (inadequate preparation for an emergency is unwise, often fatal, but not a criminal act).

[AtheistCrusader]

145. Perhaps you would.

That line about abdicating responsibility comes from Gorfle, not you. The post is right here in this thread. It was a line-item response, and I quoted it in it's entirety. Yes, I have already passed personal judgment on what Gorfle meant by it, and no amount of backpedaling short of an unqualified apology and withdrawal is going to change my opinion on the matter.

I would personally prefer to take a very confrontational line of defense. I do not lessen my sense of sympathy for a victim that does not choose an aggressive, combative mode of resistance.

[gorfle]

155. Well why not?

I would personally prefer to take a very confrontational line of defense. I do not lessen my sense of sympathy for a victim that does not choose an aggressive, combative mode of resistance.

Is there any situation where you would question the actions or inactions of someone that resulted in their death?

How about Darwin Award recipients? Are you sympathetic for people who actively cause their own death? Do you never look at situations and think, "Damn, they got just what was coming to them?"

I'm not saying this lady got what was coming to her. I'm just finding your high-horse attitude a little unbelievable. I judge everyone by their actions. This lady made poor decisions regarding her welfare. You might think it is in poor taste to point this out. That's OK with me. But I'm not blaming her for being assaulted and murdered.

[gorfle]

152. Thank you, John Q.

However, I wouldn't blame her for being killed. Even if she did nothing right, didn't call the cops, didn't barricade herself, just sat there and died. She would still be innocent as the person doing the killing bears all the blame (inadequate preparation for an emergency is unwise, often fatal, but not a criminal act).

This is precisely my position. I am pointing out the lack of wisdom in her emergency action choices, I am not blaming her for dying.

[AtheistCrusader]

158. If the shot had passed one foot to the left or right

and she had not been killed, do you think I could use it as anecdotal evidence that flight is better than fight? Or if it could be demonstrated that she was indeed on the deck when she was hit?

Perhaps there is something I am missing here but I see 'lack of wisdom' as a derrogatory remark. Speaking of high horses and all that.

[gorfle]

161. Of course you could.

If the shot had passed one foot to the left or right and she had not been killed, do you think I could use it as anecdotal evidence that flight is better than fight?

Of course you could. But she was killed, and so now it is anecdotal evidence that a defensive position is better than standing out in the open.

Or if it could be demonstrated that she was indeed on the deck when she was hit?

The pictures and text of the articles I have seen indicate she was standing at the window when shot, and subsequently fell to the floor.

Perhaps there is something I am missing here but I see 'lack of wisdom' as a derrogatory remark. Speaking of high horses and all that.

Why is it derogatory to point out a flaw in a line of logic or course of action?

[AtheistCrusader]

177. Because for you, 'flaw' is subjective and fraught with confirmation bias.

For an incident like this, anecdotal evidence, especially an incident as exotic as this, with the firing blind through a wall, and all that, is useless. Worse than useless, you're not going to convince anyone at all with this sort of thing.

In fact, it will turn people off. She would have had to break a core principle of safe, law abiding gun owners/users to effectively use a weapon. She would have had to fire blindly, without identifying her target or backstop. The concept of getting behind something, getting low, and getting small has no bearing on whether she was armed or not.

A useful comparison would be a collection of incidents, statistically relevant incidents, showing the outcomes of going to ground, fleeing, lying in wait with a weapon, aggressively attacking the intruder, etc.

[gorfle]

180. Plenty of bearing

In fact, it will turn people off. She would have had to break a core principle of safe, law abiding gun owners/users to effectively use a weapon. She would have had to fire blindly, without identifying her target or backstop.

First of all, I have never advocated her returning fire blindly. As I have said - the best thing to do in this scenario is to take cover and cover the door with your weapon. As I have said - no armed confrontation is without risk. But lying in ambush is about the best you can hope for.

The concept of getting behind something, getting low, and getting small has no bearing on whether she was armed or not.

It has everything to do with whether she was armed or not. Not being armed, she didn't have the choice of hiding!. Her only choice was to flee.

A useful comparison would be a collection of incidents, statistically relevant incidents, showing the outcomes of going to ground, fleeing, lying in wait with a weapon, aggressively attacking the intruder, etc.

I agree.

[AtheistCrusader]

185. Of course she had the choice of hiding.

What, why wouldn't that be a choice? What part of hiding requires a firearm? It may not seem terribly practical, but it is an option. A not terribly unreasonable one either, since she was clearly aware the police had arrived.

Also, which wall did the assailant fire through, the wall next to the door, or from a wall to the side? What is 'behind' something, if you don't know where your attacker is? (I am assuming she didn't have creaky wooden floors, or that the assailant wasn't yelling or otherwise making his presence directly known.)

[gorfle]

186. According to the police report...

What, why wouldn't that be a choice? What part of hiding requires a firearm? It may not seem terribly practical, but it is an option. A not terribly unreasonable one either, since she was clearly aware the police had arrived.

Like I said, standing in the room and doing jumping jacks is also an option. Also not terribly practical, but it is an option.

As you said, it may not have been unreasonable to seek cover given that the police were there. Obviously she felt this was not an option. If she had been armed, perhaps she would have felt the option was more viable. I think I would have.

Also, which wall did the assailant fire through, the wall next to the door, or from a wall to the side? What is 'behind' something, if you don't know where your attacker is? (I am assuming she didn't have creaky wooden floors, or that the assailant wasn't yelling or otherwise making his presence directly known.)

According to what I have read (one of the web sites even includes a schematic of the house along with animations of where people were and what happened), the assailant fired into the room through an adjoining bathroom wall.

There would be no sure way to hide from such an assault.

[gorfle]

160. PRECISELY!

Pointing out what someone might have done differently is hardly the same as blaming them for being put in that situation.

For instance, saying it isn't wise for leaving your front door unlocked and open at night is not the same thing as saying whoever breaks in and robs you is free of guilt.

Just so, JonQ. Do I question the actions of someone who leaves their car keys in their car and then their car gets stolen? Of course I do. Does this mean I blame the victim for someone stealing their car? No. The blame lies solely with the thief. But did the actions of the car owner contribute to the theft? You betcha.

[iverglas]

172. gotta bookmark this one

he blame lies solely with the thief. But did the actions of the car owner contribute to the theft? You betcha.

for next time the subject of safe/secure storage of firearms, and the failure to practise same, arises in this forum ...

And if the stolen vehicle is used to engage in road racing or other reckless pursuits ...?

It would be hard to say the actions of the owner didn't contribute to the resulting deaths, wouldn't it just?


And this is appropriate comment when the resulting harm is to a third party. Individiuals' responsibility to the rest of the world, to prevent harm to others, is a subject of fair comment by strangers.

Individuals' "responsibility" to themselves, and how they choose to fulfil it, is just plain no one else's bloody business.


typo fixed

[gorfle]

176. You are right.

And if the stolen vehicle is used to engage in road racing or other reckless pursuits ...?

It would be hard to say the actions of the owner didn't contribute to the resulting deaths, wouldn't it just?

You are right. I have changed my mind on this issue. I feel all firearms should be locked or otherwise secured.

And this is appropriate comment when the resulting harm is to a third party. Individiuals' responsibility to the rest of the world, to prevent harm to others, is a subject of fair comment by strangers.

Individuals' "responsibility" to themselves, and how they choose to fulifl it, is just plain no one else's bloody business.

Except when others can learn by not repeating the same mistake. My helping others not repeat the same mistake of others, we prevent harm to others. For example, drug use is a personal choice and I fully endorse the right of anyone to use drugs if they like and feel it is of no one's business but their own. This will not stop me from commenting on the ills of using drugs.

[iverglas]

184. welcome

You are right. I have changed my mind on this issue. I feel all firearms should be locked or otherwise secured.

I confess that while I know there are one or two hereabouts who do take that position, I didn't do my due diligence to determine whether I already knew you were one of them.


Except when others can learn by not repeating the same mistake. My helping others not repeat the same mistake of others, we prevent harm to others. For example, drug use is a personal choice and I fully endorse the right of anyone to use drugs if they like and feel it is of no one's business but their own. This will not stop me from commenting on the ills of using drugs.

Hmm. We are not in entire disagreement. I do think that drug use is different from firearm possession (and say ... gasp ... abortion) in particular ways, though.

It would be hard to argue that drug use is anything but harmful -- if we are talking about genuinely harmful drugs, that is. One does not need to know an individual's personal circumstances in order to be pretty certian that s/he will be better off not using drugs than using them. The same really cannot be said about firearm possession or ... gasp ... abortion, for instance. Those are things on which I would really just not offer an opinion unless directly asked by the individual in question, and then only after familiarizing myself at length with their circumstances, unless the person were someone to whom I was already close enough that I thought it in his/her best interests to offer an unsolicited opinion.

It really is not possible to talk about "the ills of not/having a gun" or "the ills of not/having an abortion" the way it is possible to talk about "the ills of using drugs", or to infer a generalizable message from one person's experience in respect of the former two the way one can pretty much do about the latter.


damn those close tags ...

[AtheistCrusader]

131. And don't think for a second

that I didn't notice you left out the word 'insinuated' when quoting me.

[JonQ]

134. Insinuate is a great word to throw around

It means you can attribute all sorts of nasty things to the opposition without ever having to provide evidence for your accusations. Afterall, to claim someone is insinuating, well anything really, you don't need proof, it's all in how you choose to interpret.

Notice iverglas freaking out when I quoted her directly (I did, copy and paste and everything). Imagine if I'd decided to infer additional damning quotes on top of those. She wouldn't be happy and you'd be here defending her.

Don't tolerate actions from yourself that you would find morally reprehensible if the other side did it. That's a good motto to live by.

[AtheistCrusader]

136. What?

You made a falsifiable claim about Iverglas. You failed to prove it, therefore the Moderators have responded.

I said it has been insinuated that she bears some responsibility for her fate. How can you possibly read this any other way?

"I must say, though, that honestly, the fact that she seems to have abdicated her responsibility to defend herself and her children does lessen my sense of sympathy for her situation."

Abdicated her responsibility to have a firearm? What? She did barricade the door. She did try to get her children to safety. She did notify authorities. She took active steps to defend herself, yet the fact she did not choose to get a gun, and did not bunker down and lay in wait means she abdicated her responsibility to defend herself? What? On which planet, in which dimension does this make any sense at all?

[JonQ]

139. First off

that's not my quote. So I won't try to read the mind of the poster and infer what the "really" meant by it, I'll leave that to you. And whoever made that quote ought to be able to defend it him/herself. Rather than having some meaning ascribed to it that isn't there (like, it's all her fault, she deserved this).

Second I did not make a false claim about iverglas. She actually stated those things. I posted the quotes, but she had them removed because they hurt her feelings. I quoted her exactly, I fail to see how you can claim someone is making up lies when they post exact quotes.

In general I'd say the side that feels it must resort to censorship to "prove it's point" tends to be the side that is, well, wrong. That is the path iverglas has chosen. And it seems to be effective in that I am being censored on this thread. But that doesn't actually change any of the relevant facts.

[iverglas]

144. you have some lessons to learn

I posted the quotes, but she had them removed because they hurt her feelings.

I have told you that I did not see the "quotes", and trust me, I do not "have" things removed around here.

I was not at my computer from Friday afternoon to late Sunday evening. I did not see what you posted.

But hey. Do I expect you to retract a vile statement about me that you know to be false?

Nah.

[JonQ]

151. Odd that you made the exact

opposite claim earlier. As I recall you gave me until the end of the day (yesterday I think). What changed? You realized you didn't want to push an issue you couldn't win?

[JonQ]

164. And just FYI

I find some of your comments absolutely despicable. Such as not giving a damn about the constitution (going to deny that as well?). But, and this is important, I would not have those comments removed if it was in power to do so.

Consider that.

[iverglas]

169. maybe you really are this thick

I find some of your comments absolutely despicable. Such as not giving a damn about the constitution (going to deny that as well?).

I'm not seeing anything to deny there. I'm seeing a bald assertion devoid of any evidence to demonstrate that it is anything but another fabrication by you.

I do recall saying I didn't give a flying fig, or words to that effect, about any of your amendments.

Perhaps you actually haven't figured out why that would be yet.

What kind of a fig might you give about, oh, section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Any bit of the UK Human Rights Act you might be invested in? The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act? Section 13 of the Constitution of Jamaica? The Constitution of South Africa? (Some of these I do take a particular interest in, modeled as they are on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.)

Why in the hell would I take any interest in the amendments to your Constitution?

I am certain beyond a doubt that you have no clue what is in the Constitution of Canada, or any of the other statutes or constitutions to which I have referred.

I will refrain from labelling you "despicable" for your ignorance.

I am not ignorant of your Constitution or its amendments. I am far more conversant with it than most members of this website. I just don't have emotions about it.

So hey, shoot me.

Your assertion that I am "despicable" for not having emotions about a foreign constitution is, well, despicable.

[JonQ]

197. Here's your quote, that you again seem to have forgotten

you may consider getting that looked in to.

"I don't give a crap about amendments, second or otherwise."

And if any of your laws are equivalent to our basic amendments then I'd say they're very important. I wish freedom for everyone on earth. Maybe not an attainable goal at the moment but worth considering. The geneva convention isn't a strictly american document, but I do "give a crap" about that.

And you have yet to answer my question.

[Wickerman]

171. For the record

Iverglas nor any other poster has the ability "remove" at will posts. Only moderators and Admin are allowed to remove posts and then they are only removed when the post violates DU rules, not because someone thinks better of what they wrote.

A number of posts in this thread have been deleted because rules were violated. Sometimes, so many posts are deleted the remaining posts make no sense so we delete a subthread. Perhaps these are the post you are attributing to another poster "removing."

At any rate, it is better to focus on the content of posts, not the style or personality of the poster. Of course, all of this is noted in the rules which you surely read when you signed on.

thanks,

Wickerman
DU Moderator

[AtheistCrusader]

146. You quoted her exactly in the context of a totally different type of thread.

When you do that, you rob it of it's context. It did not fit within the context of this thread. Read the OP in that thread, and Iverglas's response again, keeping both in context. And that is as charitable about your misuse of the quotes as I will be.

[JonQ]

153. She made a blanket statement

with no qualifiers. Seems pretty cut and dried to me.

[iverglas]

165. I MADE NO BLANKET STATEMENT AND YOU ARE STATING A FALSEHOOD

YOUR opening header:

A possible reason why "gun nuts" are freaking out over Obama Presidency:

YOU made the reference to GUN NUTS.

I RESPONDED TO YOUR REFERENCE to GUN NUTS.

I said: you mean it is because they are racist misogynist right-wing assholes?

You can claim to believe that the "they" in that sentence meant something other than GUN NUTS until the fucking cows come home, and I WILL NOT BELIEVE YOU.

You can also claim that the "they" in that sentence actually did mean something other than GUN NUTS until you are blue in the fucking face, and YOU WILL BE MAKING A FALSE STATEMENT, because I am the one who wrote that sentence, and I KNOW WHAT I MEANT.

*I* do not use the expression GUN NUTS. YOU are the one who chose to use it.

*I* do not characterize all firearm owners as GUN NUTS. So MY STATEMENT was NOT about ALL FIREARM OWNERS. And YOUR STATEMENT that it was is A FALSE STATEMENT. And you know it was.

You CANNOT CLAIM that I was referring to all firearms owners in that statement, because YOU HAVE NO FACTS OR REASONING ON WHICH TO BASE THAT CLAIM.


html fixed

[JonQ]

166. This came up below

and I'd appreciate your answer. Do you believe private ownership of guns should be allowed? Yes or no will suffice.

I know you don't give a damn about our amendments, but are there any rights you would grant us?

[iverglas]

168. you got a gold star?

Never mind, there's always google.

You are a joke.

All of this noise later, and you ask me a moronic question like that and actually expect an answer.

And again, just for the record:

are there any rights you would grant us?

The Goddess of Truth and Beauty is not in the business of handing out rights. Whatever made you think I was?

[JonQ]

198. It's not a moronic question

if you came on here railing against the 1st as you do against the 2nd I'd question your support for free speech. If said the 13th amendment was evil and moronic I'd question your views on slavery.

Instead you hate the 2nd, guaranteeing our rights to own guns. So I ask your opinion on gun ownership. That you find this such a difficult question to answer directly says alot about you.

[iverglas]

203. if the dog hadn't stopped to pee

if you came on here railing against the 1st as you do against the 2nd I'd question your support for free speech.

Anytime you can quote any of that "railing against the 2nd" amendment, you feel free.

Of course, anytime you want to pull idiocy out of your bum and smear it around this forum, you feel free to do that too.

Freeeeedom! of speech, you know.


If said the 13th amendment was evil and moronic I'd question your views on slavery.

And if I had said the 2nd amendment was evil and moronic, you could question my views on ... something, I guess.

Your question:

Do you believe private ownership of guns should be allowed?

was moronic -- this being what I actually said -- because you have spent the last several days pretending to believe that I say/think things I have never said/thought, and apparently have not bothered to lift a finger to find out what I do say/think, which is readily accessible to anyone with google or a gold star.

And because YOU HAVE NO BASIS WHATSOEVER for even asking the question -- YOU HAVE NO BASIS WHATSOEVER for harbouring the slightest suspicion that I do not believe that private ownership of guns should be allowed.


Instead you hate the 2nd, guaranteeing our rights to own guns.

Do you rent your crystal ball out for parties?

If so, you should be prepared for people to be demanding refunds.

[JonQ]

206. I really don't see why you can't answer a simple Yes/No question

unless you have something to hide.

Yes or no, private gun ownership is acceptable in your opinion?

I'll go ahead and answer for myself to get this thing rolling; yes, I believe private gun ownership is acceptable.

Your turn.

[Name removed]

207. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JonQ]

208. Insults are a poor substitute for reasoned debate. nt

[Name removed]

178. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

188. perhaps you are pretending not to know the answer

Yes, I advocate laws requiring the safe/secure storage of firearms, and mandatory licensing of firearm owners, and mandatory registration of firearm ownership ... because ... because ... because I believe private ownership of guns should not be allowed.

Yes. I knew if I listened to you two long enough I would figure it out.

And I am convinced beyond a doubt that what I have just said makes perfect sense to you both.

Or at least that you will

- pretend in a few days not to know the answer to the question, again
- pretend that you believed that what I just said was something other than sarcastic
- excerpt I believe private ownership of guns should not be allowed from the sentence in which it appeared and pretend it means what the words outside that context mean

or some other equally, er, dim or disingenuous thing.

[JonQ]

199. I never expected an answer

not really. I just wanted to see what response I got. Gun grabbers usually are unwilling to come out and state their intentions, much like racists, or intelligent design folks. They propose seemingly minor changes, that are intended to build on one another leading ultimately to a radical change in policy. They love the slippery slope.

[gorfle]

182. Oh the indignation!

*I* do not use the expression GUN NUTS.

No, but you insinuate it at every turn, Iverglas. From "redneck slang" speak to your condescending tone, you make your sentiments about gun owners quite clear. Whether you have used the exact word "gun nuts" or not doesn't matter.

*I* do not characterize all firearm owners as GUN NUTS. So MY STATEMENT was NOT about ALL FIREARM OWNERS. And YOUR STATEMENT that it was is A FALSE STATEMENT. And you know it was.

You can't say the things you say year after year and not expect people to call you on it, Iverglas. We know your song backwards and forwards. The old, "But I didn't say that!" doesn't fly anymore.

[iverglas]

187. the things I say year after year

Since you're such an expert, I guess you're familiar with them.

I have had an intimate relationshp with an avid hunter. (Yes, the one whose 13-year-old son killed himself a few years earlier with one of the family hunting weapons.)

I firmly support the aboriginal rights (specifically protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Constitution of Canada) in respect of traditional practices, including hunting, including the use of firearms.

I have absolutely no desire to see any interference in the legitimate activities of hunters, farmers and rural dwellers who use firearms in the course of earning a living, feeding their families, protecting crops and livestock and protecting themselves from animals.

I have absolutely no desire to see any interferemce in the legitimate activities of outfitters, who largely operate in regions where the local economy depends on tourism that involves hunting. (I do draw the line at polar bears.)

I have absolutely no desire to see any interference in the legitimate activities of sports shooters, which may only be carried on at present in Canada at approved facilities; what I do oppose is permitting such licensed individuals to possess restricted firearms (which include handguns under Canadian law) outside those facilities, because of the demonstrated negligence and/or intentional criminal activity by too many of them. (Obviously, I am sure, people in rural areas shoot at tin cans the same way they do south of the border, and that's not something any law is going to reach.)

I support the essence of Canadian firearms law at present, which is:
- all firearms must be registered
- anyone wishing to acquire and possess a firearm must meet licensing requirements
- all firearms msut be stored safely and securely when not in use


I assume all this was what you had in mind, since it is what I have been saying "year after year".

Just google iverglas registration licence storage or some such thing if you want to see the trail of breadcrumbs.

Oh look. I was saying it all a mere 2 years and 4 months ago ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=127392&mesg_id=127412

[JonQ]

200. You seem to think

the 2nd amendment is about hunting. Could you cite evidence about that? Nice little sleight of hand there, I wonder how many people caught on.

[iverglas]

201. you seem to think

I give a crap about your second amendment. I thought you had that part down pat by now.

You seem to think that discussions about firearms are confined within the four walls of your second amendment.

You would be wrong on both points.

And on your actual assertion: that I "seem to think" that the second amendment is about hunting.

I don't seem to think any such thing. I wasn't talking about your second amendment. So why would it seem to you that I seemed to think anything at all about it? Why would you call on me to present evidence of something I didn't say, imply or even think in the darkness of my bedroom?

You can find out what I think the second amendment is about by googling, I expect.

[JonQ]

202. In the US

yes, the 2nd amendment does tend to come up alot when we're talking about gun ownership. Imagine that. And we were discussing our amendments when you brought up your beliefs on hunting. So really you need to start reading your owns posts.

[iverglas]

204. read them yourself

Really. Try following a train of thought occasionally.

My post 187, that included referenes to hunting, was in response to post 182, that misrepresented the things I "say year after year", which was in response to my post 165 reiterating my demonstration that you misrepresented my response to your post header "A possible reason why "gun nuts" are freaking out over Obama Presidency". Nothing about your amendments. Nothing at all.


yes, the 2nd amendment does tend to come up alot when we're talking about gun ownership. Imagine that.

Indeed it does. Nonetheless, it has precisely fuck all to do with anything I said about what I have said year after year about firearms laws / policies.


So really you need to start reading your owns posts.

No, really, you should try it sometime. It's amazing what you might learn when you actually read what someone writes instead of making shit up and reading shit elsewhere on the internet and superimposing the prefabricated shit from your own head on what's right there on the monitor in front of you.

[JonQ]

205. So gun purchases

in the US, and laws dealing with gun ownership, in the US, which is what this all came back to, has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. Not one little bit huh?

Unless you thought I was referring to Canadians buying guns in response to Obamas election, which was evidently not the case and I really doubt you thought that.

[AtheistCrusader]

141. Also, you compound your earlier transgression

by maintaining that you copied and pasted those lines in some sort of relevant context. I read that thread you copied them from. I am not impressed.

Iverglas needs no defense from me. I can think of several occaions we have strenuously disagreed, even on a topic like this one, the basic nature of fight or flight. Just seems common decency to speak up when I see something like your out of context quote-smearing from an unrelated topic.

[JonQ]

143. I did copy her exactly

those comments were of course deleted because iverglas couldn't stand it. You have yet to convince me that quoting someone exactly is some terrible offense against them.

[AtheistCrusader]

150. Yes, you copied and pasted exactly.

However, you framed the context of her statement. That was wrong. The context was established by the other thread, specifically the post she was responding to. The context, as you framed it, did not match the original thread, so a verbatim copy of what she said was meaningless.

I would be willing to get into specifics, but the post no longer exists, unfortunately, in this case. (I did not report your post either, I would prefer to refute it, than to censor it)

[JonQ]

154. I find it very difficult

to argue any position if my statements keep disappearing at random. It's rather annoying and I'd appreciate it (cough iverglas cough) if that would stop. Obviously you (whoever is doing it) have the ability to continue. But that doesn't make it right.

[iverglas]

167. If you have a problem with the moderation of this forum

You would do well to take it up with the moderators away from this forum.

Obviously you (whoever is doing it) have the ability to continue.

Indeed. The moderators have the ability to continue moderating. It's a shame if you don't like the rules, or don't like the moderation, but that's your own problem.

I may be iverglas, Goddess of Truth and Beauty, but I am not Wonder Woman. You should stop ascribing superhuman powers to me. It makes you look silly.

You really would do well to review the rules of this place.

[JonQ]

194. Deleting comments is

hardly superhuman. Very human, and rather petty in fact.

[gorfle]

157. And again.

Frankly I'm amazed this entire thread hasn't been deleted. Despite strenuous cries of 'not blaming the victim', again and again it is insinuated that the victim brought this upon herself by being unarmed. It's disgusting.

Being armed or not armed did not "bring on" her assault. It definitely contributed to her lack of options when cornered in her bedroom, and it is my belief that fleeing contributed to her death.

She fled because she had no other choice. In so doing, she raised her target profile and may well have drawn the attention of her assailant, prompting him to fire blindly at her through the wall.

[AtheistCrusader]

159. Simply not true.

She had other choices. She could have hunkered down on the floor behind furniture without a weapon just as well as with a weapon. So there's at least two options.

And again, despite the assumption by the news articles that she was standing at the window at the time she was shot, only the coroner and police reports will reveal that with any certainty whatsoever.

[gorfle]

162. Hardly a choice.

She had other choices. She could have hunkered down on the floor behind furniture without a weapon just as well as with a weapon. So there's at least two options.

Of course there are always other options. She could have stood up and done jumping jacks. That too is an option.

To me, it is not much of a choice to hide in a locked room waiting for the inevitable. Now in this case, since the police were there, maybe she could have waited it out, and maybe the police would have gotten to the assailant before he got to her. But this always the argument of the call-911-only crowd. Hope the police get there in time. Again, this is not much of an option to me.

And again, despite the assumption by the news articles that she was standing at the window at the time she was shot, only the coroner and police reports will reveal that with any certainty whatsoever.

Obviously. My statements all proceed from the information as currently known. I will happily rescind my statements if new data contravenes them.

[iverglas]

170. can you name some of the faces in that crowd?

But this always the argument of the call-911-only crowd. Hope the police get there in time.

Can you quote their words? Someone present in this forum, please.

Absent that, you know what we have here.

[gorfle]

174. Rather...

Rather than go digging for examples, I've created a poll just for you.

I don't know why I bother though. You are one of those faces in the crowd.

Now I'm sure this will be met with a fusillade of "I didn't say that!"

But we all know you believe it.

[iverglas]

175. wowsers, you people are on a roll

But this always the argument of the call-911-only crowd. Hope the police get there in time.
You are one of those faces in the crowd.
Now I'm sure this will be met with a fusillade of "I didn't say that!"
But we all know you believe it.

This "we" of which you speak seems to be a collection of quite impossibly stupid and/or dishonest buffoons!

Just wanted to make it clear that I ain't one of your "we".

[gorfle]

179. Here you go.

Mere minutes after my poll, we have 3 people who believe firearms should never be used for self-defense and you should instead rely on the police for protection.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x192453

[iverglas]

189. solidly outnumbered

by votes for "dumb poll" or variations on that theme.

That's my vote, btw. I'm not in the habit of replying to questions consisting of false dichotomies, just for starters.

[gorfle]

209. Is it about numbers now?

You said:

can you name some of the faces in that crowd?

Can you quote their words? Someone present in this forum, please.

The implication here is that there is no one in the

can you name some of the faces in that crowd? "call-911-only crowd".

As the poll shows, there are at least 6 people who believe that here. The poll was intentionally simplistic. I was baiting out the people you insinuate don't exist. It worked.

[iverglas]

211. whoa, congratulations

You tricked a handful of people who aren't trained in logic and attempted to be sincere in response to an insincere overture.

[gorfle]

212. Thank you.

You tricked a handful of people who aren't trained in logic and attempted to be sincere in response to an insincere overture.

Tricked or no, their sincerity indicates that there are, in fact, people on this forum who are in the "call-911-only crowd", just as I claimed, and you disputed, with a giant picture of a straw man. So I counter with this picture for you. Bon Appetite.

[AtheistCrusader]

181. We keep going round in circles.

"she raised her target profile and may well have drawn the attention of her assailant, prompting him to fire blindly at her through the wall."

'what do you mean Officer, she was wearing a short skirt and a low-cut blouse, she was ASKING to be raped'


I can find zero, none, not a scrap of fault with her actions. Nada. A firearm and a defensive postion may not have saved her.

I strongly advocate using firearms, or less specifically, lethal force in self defense when your life is threatened in any way, but this is not how you go about convincing people that it is acceptable, or likely to work. This is how you offend, piss off, and turn off what might have been a receptive audience. From a purely debate standpoint, arguing from anecdote is not acceptable for either side.

[gorfle]

183. I agree.

I can find zero, none, not a scrap of fault with her actions. Nada. A firearm and a defensive postion may not have saved her.

I don't claim a guarantee that it would. Only that she had no other choice, and a defensive position would lower her likelihood of being shot.

I strongly advocate using firearms, or less specifically, lethal force in self defense when your life is threatened in any way, but this is not how you go about convincing people that it is acceptable, or likely to work. This is how you offend, piss off, and turn off what might have been a receptive audience. From a purely debate standpoint, arguing from anecdote is not acceptable for either side.

You're right.

[iverglas]

120. fyi, "Dr"Cory

Here is the beginning of the false allegations.

You always claim
guns are unnecessary, more likely to harm the individual and worthless in self-defense.

There are three allegations there -- that I have "always claimed" three separate things.

In fact, as I said in reply, I have NEVER claimed ANY ONE of thoses things.

No evidence to the contrary, i.e. to substantiate the allegations or even one of them, has been offered. All that was done was to compound the offence by making further, uglier, false allegations.

Any clearer yet?

[JonQ]

127. You know that

you'll have any comment I post deleted. So why bother asking? You know what you said, that is enough.

[iverglas]

128. is your name DrCory?

Well, it's not like I'd be surprised ...

[JonQ]

129. You were replying to my comment

and quoting me. (go ahead and check, I'll wait).

Gee, I wonder how I could have thought that was directed at me . . .

[DrCory]

213. Why the Parenthesis?

Could this be considered a form of unfounded allegation? You know, of the type you so vehemently oppose?


"In fact, as I said in reply, I have NEVER claimed ANY ONE of thoses things."

Hmmmm, well...you did write this during one of our lovely exchanges:



"You can tell me your firearm is for self-defence, and I'll say big whup, sez you, and exactly what mechanism is it that prevents this firearm you have for self-defence from being used by you to kill your wife and kids, or being used by your kid to kill you, or being used by your kid to kill 16 schoolmates, or being used by you in trade to a dealer for a nice quantity of cocaine?

I think you know the answer."

You cited four examples in which myself, my family, or other folk not engaged in criminal activity could be harmed by a firearm kept in continuous possession for the purpose of self defense. Four to one, it does seem as though "more likely" is appropriately applied here.

[JonQ]

65. But if she'd had a gun

the attacker would have taken it away and used it against her.

Her only safe bet was to remain unarmed, thus preventing an unnecessary escalation of the situation.

[AtheistCrusader]

85. What figment of your imagination are you responding to anyway?

He fired BLINDLY THROUGH THE WALL. What would you have had her do? Fire blindly through the wall first?

If she had been standing 2 feet to the right or left, she might have been unscathed. She was killed in the process of saving her children, killed by the malice of some sack of shit, and random probability. Just what in the hell would you have had her do? She may have even been armed for all you know. He couldn't see her, she couldn't see him. She may not have even known where he was, and that he was armed until he fired.

What in the hell do you want from the dead? She saved her kids. She's a HERO. She could have jumped out that window and run, but she saved her kids, in the face of a threat that you would pretty much need bulletproof interior walls, and or x-ray vision to defend against.

You guys ought to be fucking ashamed.

[gorfle]

104. Random?

He fired BLINDLY THROUGH THE WALL. What would you have had her do? Fire blindly through the wall first?

No, I would have had her take up a defensive position.

If she had been standing 2 feet to the right or left, she might have been unscathed. She was killed in the process of saving her children, killed by the malice of some sack of shit, and random probability. Just what in the hell would you have had her do? She may have even been armed for all you know. He couldn't see her, she couldn't see him. She may not have even known where he was, and that he was armed until he fired.

Apparently he physically assaulted her, according to police. This alone would have been justification, once barricaded in a room, to take up a defensive position assuming a renewed assault, armed or not.

And while her getting hit was possibly due to random probability, she presented a larger target profile than she would have if she had taken up a defensive position.

What in the hell do you want from the dead?

I don't expect anything from dead people.

She saved her kids. She's a HERO.

No one disputes this.

You guys ought to be fucking ashamed.

There is no shame in pointing out that lack of armament resulted in her having no choice but to attempt to flee and put her at greater risk of getting shot than lying low.

[AtheistCrusader]

106. Again with the omniscient 20/20 hindsight.

"And while her getting hit was possibly due to random probability, she presented a larger target profile than she would have if she had taken up a defensive position."

You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that she was standing at the moment she was shot, do you? You are assuming that she did not hit the deck, and probably that the first shot hit her. I think from the article it's reasonable to assume he fired multiple times, but we lack a lot of detail here. If he emptied his magazine through the wall (or revolver, I do not know), she may have had time to get down, get small. Not only time, but she may have done it, and it may not have helped.

She could have laid low unarmed from the get-go as well, so she had at least two options, whether she was armed or not. Being armed would not have changed her survival odds in this case.


You are blaming the victim, full stop. You have filled in details and constraints in your scenario that you can not possibly know.

[gorfle]

108. Simply a reasonable deduction.

You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that she was standing at the moment she was shot, do you?

Of course I do. The news reported she was shot as she was handing children out a window. Given the photographs of bystanders, it was a normal window where you would have to be standing up to pass anything out it.

She could have laid low unarmed from the get-go as well, so she had at least two options, whether she was armed or not. Being armed would not have changed her survival odds in this case.

Who would lay low unarmed and wait for the inevitable? No, she was fleeing because she knew she had to get her family the hell out of there - there was no up-side to staying - low or otherwise. She took the only choice available to her.


You are blaming the victim, full stop.

I blame the assailant, full stop.

This situation is a prime example of what happens when you limit your options by choosing to be defenseless.

You have filled in details and constraints in your scenario that you can not possibly know.

But can reasonably assume.

[AtheistCrusader]

125. Cognitive Dissonance.

"I blame the assailant, full stop."

"This situation is a prime example of what happens when you limit your options by choosing to be defenseless."

I am... astounded.

[gorfle]

148. I'm not.

"I blame the assailant, full stop."

"This situation is a prime example of what happens when you limit your options by choosing to be defenseless."

I am... astounded.

Why? The person clearly at fault here is the person who committed murder.

Nonetheless, the victim made choices which limited her options during the attack.

Do I assign some level of accountability to the victim for making her choice? Yes. This does not mean I blame her for being stalked, assaulted, and murdered.

[JonQ]

114. I think

he would have been less likely to pick a fight with an armed person, wouldn't you?

And the people who should be ashamed are those who would have denied this woman, and thousands of others, any sort of defense against abusive spouses/boyfriends/whatever. Women tend to be physically weaker than men (not all, but most) and not all are karate experts, so universal disarmament is the greatest thing a man wishing to abuse/murder his wife could possibly hope for.

Fucking shameful that some people support this outcome.

[iverglas]

118. you are a piece of work

Not one that I would pay money for.

[AtheistCrusader]

132. Are you really attributing

rationale to an individual that would commit this sort of crime?

[JonQ]

135. Do you think he was acting

completely at random?

[AtheistCrusader]

138. Hm.

His actions, yes, his target, no, he was fixated on this woman for some reason, according to the articles. The idea that he may have been fixated on her because he perceived her as defenseless is pure speculation. Again, it has not been proven that she was defenseless, that there are no lawfully owned firearms in that household.

[JonQ]

142. Perhaps

and I don't think anyone has ever claimed that owning a firearm offers perfect protection against all mishaps. Just that it offers a better chance than being unarmed. Many on this site would have seen her (a moot point now) and all other women in a similar situation be disarmed by the law. That is an issue. Leave the person the option to defend themselves. They don't have to buy a gun, they won't always come out on top, but they'll have a chance.

And as I asked above (and no one answered), how does being disarmed *improve* your chances in such a situation?

I don't think most people were talking about this specific situation. As I said, the point is moot, she's dead and nothing will change that. They were using it as an example for future cases that bear a resemblence to this one. And you must concede that occasionally being armed will save a persons life.

[AtheistCrusader]

147. Yes.

Occasionally, being armed will save someone's life.
Occasionally, fleeing will save someone's life.
Occasionally, barring the door, and waiting for a police response will save someone's life.

And the inverse of each is true. This anecdotal example proves very, very little.

[JonQ]

149. And yet

the anecdotal evidence of a firearm accidently discharging and killing someone, or being taken from a person and used against them is "proof" that all guns must be banned.

[AtheistCrusader]

156. I have never stated that.

I would say the majority of Gungeon posters would not say that. There do exist some people on DU that may ascribe to that, but it's hard to gauge the troll to serious poster ratio. I am not of the impression that Iverglas is in that category either. That would require a very specific, positive statement that I don't believe she has ever made.

[JonQ]

163. I would like to know her opinion on the subject as well

and to that end I have asked her. She refused to answer. Not the same as an affirmative, but concerning.

[iverglas]

173. and one for you

[joshcryer]

192. Story should be "Yet another known weapons offender set free to kill."

This guy had priors, of course.

The headline you chose, and the framing of your post is dispicible, and makes honest gun users who only want to enjoy them look really fucking bad.

Being pro-gun doesn't mean we're pro-everyone-get-guns. Well, at least not *me*. Maybe not a few really disconcerting people in this thread.

[iverglas]

196. well, the thread did accomplish one thing

Just look at you and me and AtheistCrusader luvvin it up.