I don't know how this gun victim gets on with her life. Read on....

[zanne]

http://woundedinamerica.org/

glenda Homemaker
Shot: March 30 1998
Huntington Park California

If I ever left him he would kill our daughter
Glenda: "My husband and I had been married four years and we had a one-year-old daughter. I had recently filed for divorce so we were separated. He had constantly threatened me that if I ever left him he would kill our daughter. One time he went to the closet and took out the gun and he held it to the baby's head. He said, 'Just go because I'm going to kill her, tell her good night.' I was on my knees begging him to kill me instead. I reported it to the police. He said there were no bullets in the chamber. His attorney, his counselor knew. My attorney said, 'Judges love to hear from fathers who want to be part of their children's lives. The only thing you can do to prevent your husband's visitation is to flee with your daughter, but then you'd be wanted for kidnapping.' The visitation was arranged through the attorneys. He had her Mondays and Sundays for six hours. He had no history of violence, drug or alcohol abuse. On Monday, February 2nd, 1998, he took her to the Angeles National Forest and put a shot gun to the side of her head and shot her and then turned the gun on himself.

This brother said it wasn't fair that I was still alive
"He had called this one brother and told him that he could pick them up. This brother was having a hard time. Three weeks after my daughter's services I returned to work. I received a phone call. This brother said it wasn't fair that I was still alive and that he just couldn't go on. He said, 'It just has to be an eye for an eye.' Immediately I called 911. A week later he was arrested. He was in jail three to four days. The judge told him, 'Who do you think you are telling her you're going to kill her? I'll see you two weeks from now in Superior Court.' That same day as we were exiting the courthouse, waiting for the traffic light to change, he was already in his vehicle. He saw us crossing the street. He started to go against traffic, to get as close to us as possible. He stopped the car, got out, popped the trunk, took out a black holster holding a 9mm handgun. My girlfriend was yelling, 'Glenda, run!' As I was running I thought, now who's going to decorate my daughter's grave? Then I thought, I don't want to live, this is good, let me turn around, let him shoot me, then I'll get to die and he'll take the blame. I turned around and faced him. I looked down and I could see the red laser light from the gun all over my body. He fired the weapon. After the fifth shot, my body collapsed. I turned over to look, he put the gun inside his mouth and pulled the trigger. He fell on his back and immediately a huge puddle of blood formed around his head.

He killed an innocent bystander who was watching T.V.
"Before the ambulance came I had an out of body experience. I saw a wooden door. I heard a tap, and my heart melted, because my daughter always did that when we were at home. I knew it was her. Then I reached over to the door knob trying to pull the door open, and I couldn't, and then I heard a softly low voice that said, `Ma?' Loud sirens followed immediately and I knew I hadn't died. I was very disappointed. He killed himself thinking he killed me, he didn't kill me, but he killed an innocent bystander who was watching T.V. inside the house where we were standing. My right lung was punctured and collapsed. I had two wounds in my neck. I have asthma from the lung injury, I suffer from chronic pain in my right arm from a destroyed ulna. I've had many surgeries. When the doctors see me they always tell me how lucky I am to be alive."

¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤

[unpossibles]

1. that is a hard read

thank you for the link.

[jmg257]

2. Yep - sure sucks being a helpless victim. Wish she would have done more for her safety...911 right?

[Cheap_Trick]

3. if only she'd had a gun too

:sarcasm:

[krispos42]

4. A sad story indeed

Domestic violence sucks. It's reasons like this that our divorce rate is so high. Doubtless the fundies would tell them to take Jesus into their hearts and that will make it all better.

[zanne]

5. jmg257; How about the innocent victim watching TV in his house?

Don't be such as asshat. Read before you post. Having a gun doesn't always protect you, and kneejerk reactions like yours only prove to others that you're over the top.

[jmg257]

7. Who says having a gun will always protect you? No one I know.

YOUR point is ALWAYS how evil all guns are, how THEY are to blame for every death. How some inanimate object is the cause of all death and misery. I read the post, it was NOT a kneejerk reaction to this tragedy, it was a consistent reaction to someone who is SOO anti-gun that their entire purpose up here is to do whatever she can to infringe on the natural rights of her fellow citizens.

Sorry - I take ALL my rights, and the rights and safety of my kids, VERY seriously. No matter how many times you exploit tragic stories to try to make your point, no matter how many times you refer to typically inaccurate stats, no matter how many times you parse the constitution to try to get your way, the FACTS will remain:

1) Guns ARE NOT the problem, nor are all gun owners, or even most gun owners; in fact, there is actually VERY LITTLE justification for trying to impose your views on eveyone else, no matter whose "stats" you rely on

2) 99.85% of us will NEVER use a gun to committ a crime - NEVER.

3) MOST gun violence offenders are repeat offenders, have serious criminal histories, and/or have some relation to illegal drugs, but

4)approx. 1 MILLION violent crimes annually involve no firearm at all. "Gun violence" is not the only way of becoming a victim, of getting murdered. No matter how many tragedies you try to exploit, the FACT remains there is a very real need for the people, those who choose to do so, to be armed. It is YOUR safety - take responsibility for it! Since you choose not too, that's fine too - MANY will always choose otherwise.

5) the police and the state are NOT here to protect every individual from harm - it is termed the "general welfare" for a reason. The state can only do so much, they CANNOT be counted on in most personal cases until it is too late.

6)there is NO reason to trust the same govt that brought us Gitmo, Abu Grab, FISA, the Warner & Patriot Act, along with a long line of other abuses, with all the guns in this nation. That very notion is unconstitutional, very dangerous, and just plain stupid. There is NO reason to let those in power arbitrarily decide who should have ANY of their rights violated and who shouldn't - the whole constitution was framed to guard against that very notion. {DO you UNDERSTAND why?}

Police are a step up, but they serve us, not the other way around. There is NO reason they should wield all the power either. They are NOT so special or deserving.

7) Bans do NOT work. Whether it is on alcohol, drugs or ANY other object, they will not keep that object out of the hands of those who want them bad enough to break the law. Bans usually increase the use of the object, always increase the criminal element involved with that object, and always increase the violence associated with that object. Any ban will ONLY DISarm the lawful citizen, not those who by their very defintion of "criminal" intend to do harm to others; it actually removes a REAL risk one faces when choosing to commit crimes against others (see #3).

8) Crime rates go up, crime rates go down, even though gun ownership and the # of guns is CONSTANTLY increasing. There is NO correlation between the number of guns & the number of crimes. Though positive things like CCW shall-issue pro-gun laws tend to reduce crime rates, it is a FACT that various social issues have much more of an impact on crime rates then guns. DEAL WITH THOSE SOCIAL ISSUES! And no matter if crime rates go up or if crime rates go down, it is a very REAL & PROVEN fact that MY being armed keeps crime rates against ME down.

9)the right to keep and bear arms exists, the right to bear arms for self-defense exists. It pre-existed the constitution, and it only counts on the constitution for it's security. It's explicitly secured for the militia/people in the Militia clauses, and for THE PEOPLE individually in the 2nd amendment, in the 5th and 9th, and in the way limited power for the govt is enumerated in the main document. It has also been set in the federal law - the Law of the Land, AGAIN, as recently as 2005. The liberty and the right IS real, and IS necessary, it is private, it is individual and it is unalienable...it is of such a ntaure it CANNOT be deprived to our posterity.

10) Like all rights, especially those absolute ones secure in the BoR, the right OF THE PEOPLE to arms can only be suspended via Due Process, not some "feel good"/do-nothing unreasonable legislation. (see #2, #5, #7) Read the 5th amendment - it is QUITE clear about depriving the people of life & liberty & property.


Nothing over the top about me OR my reactions. Knock off the tyrannical bullshit, leave ALL our rights alone, and find some other hi-horse to ride.

[idovoodoo]

13. Well said.

:-)

[GoneOffShore]

43. Goodbye Asshat 2

[idovoodoo]

54. There is a strong probability that you have confused me with someone who

gives a fuck what you think.

[jmg257]

61. You're just mad 'cause I was #1! :)

[slackmaster]

58. OOH! Can I get on your Ignore list too?

[jmg257]

60. It's like an honor..or something! :)

[GoneOffShore]

42. Goodbye Asshat 1

[Raskolnik]

44. You make a convincing argument.

[jmg257]

53. Bye! ??? I guess..?? Thanks for stopping by and sharing...

You might try turning up the keyboard though - helps with the whole "words" thing - forums are more of a visual medium.

[Raskolnik]

6. Don't you think the larger issue might be the abusive sociopaths

with whom this poor woman had the misfortune to become associated?

Seriously, Zanne, you can be a ghoul sometimes.

*edit typo*

[zanne]

8. Yes Sociopaths with guns.

This woman's husband didn't have a record. He didn't drink or take drugs and supposedly didn't have any mental health problems. Unfortunately, what makes some people criminals is when they shoot someone. As far as being a ghoul, well, I'll do what I have to do to point out the insanity of our gun culture and loose gun regulations.

[Raskolnik]

9. What gun regulations would have prevented this?

Please tell me what government regulation you believe would have prevented this tragedy from occurring.

[zanne]

11. His wife had reported him to be a threat...

That should have been enough to suspend his gun license.

[Raskolnik]

12. Well, I don't agree that "reporting" someone to be a threat should, by itself, be enough

to "suspend his gun license." If, however, there is enough credible evidence for a judge to issue a restraining order, or if the man had made threats against his wife, I don't necessarily disagree that firearms might be confiscated pending a hearing, and/or a red flag applied that would appear on a background check.

BUT, I don't think such a procedure would amount to much, because there just isn't any way of knowing if and/or how many firearms someone owns (short of 100% licensing, which is completely unworkable).

[zanne]

14. 100% licensing wouldn't be unworkable if the laws were upheld...

Without loopholes,and guns were manufactured so that only the person who originally bought the gun would be able to pull the trigger. True, it wouldn't work right away because there would still be guns around, but there would be more drugs around if there weren't any drug laws. In time, society would be the better for it.

[Raskolnik]

16. Guns are not perishable items. They are made of metal and wood, and last for a long damn time.

100% licensing wouldn't work right away, it wouldn't work in five years, and it wouldn't work in twenty-five years. I know a lot of regular, working class people who own a lot of guns, and I can say without hesitation that most of them would never even consider turning their guns in to be registered for a government database. They would simply leave them in the gun cabinet and carry on not bothering anyone.

And, wishing "guns were manufactured so that only the person who originally bought the gun would be able to pull the trigger" does not address a couple of issues. First, the technology doesn't exist in any practical form, and second, even if the technology did exist in any practical form, it would take all of one week for it to be hacked and essentially useless.

[zanne]

26. I saw a special on "fingerprint" acessible triggers a few years ago...

The technology DOES exist, but the gun manufacturers and the NRA were adamantly opposed to it, so it never happened. Let's hear it for the gun lobby, huh?

[Raskolnik]

29. No, it really doesn't. This isn't Judge Dredd, and that kind of technology

is wildly expensive and completely impractical for any number of reasons. And, as I said, even if you could somehow get the technology implemented, it wouldn't last more than a week.

[zanne]

32. And the gun manufacturers wouldn't sell as many guns.

Which is the ONLY reason they're against it.

[Raskolnik]

39. Did you even read my post? The technology doesn't exist in anything resembling

a workable form, I doubt it *could* exist in anything resembling a workable form in the short-to-medium term, and even if it did exist, it would be hacked almost immediately and rendered useless. How do you address those issues?

[zanne]

45. It's existed since Columbine.

I know you hate the idea of a gun that can only be used by one person, but really--that was such a kneejerk reaction. I could post "rocks are hard" and you'd tell me, in detail, why I was wrong.

[Raskolnik]

46. You know this because you "saw a special on it"?

Go ahead and explain to me (1) why you think biometric technology is ready, or will soon be ready, to be implemented in all manufactured firearms (pistols, shotguns, and rifles), (2) how you propose to keep that technology from being hacked almost immediately, given that hundreds of millions of dollars spent by software and media companies couldn't accomplish something roughly similar, and (3) how this does anything to address the tens of millions of firearms already manufactured that will remain serviceable for roughly the next hundred years (conservatively).

I am all ears.

[zanne]

49. I don't have a "Gun Owners of America" site to go to for stats..

But I know I saw what I saw. So shoot me.

[Raskolnik]

51. I'm not asking for "stats," but I do I expect you to be able to back up your your assertions.

If you can't address the points I raised, you should have the intellectual honesty to retract your unsupported assertions.

[Raskolnik]

19. And I'm not sure the comparison to drugs does your argument any good

given that I am currently a ten-minute cab ride away from buying any number of illegal drugs on the street, despite our draconian drug laws.

[zanne]

25. Well, you may know where to get them...

But most people don't, and wouldn't. I don't think your reasoning applies.

[Raskolnik]

34. Tens of millions of people can figure out how to get illegal drugs, and if you go down

to the local courthouse, you'll probably see it doesn't take a Mensa membership to become involved in the business.

[SteveM]

35. You are mistaken about the effect of drug prohibition as well...

When you say "...there would be more drugs around if there weren't any drug laws" you go up against these facts: drugs are more prevalent now than 20 years ago, they are more potent (Heroin and cocaine), cost less than half what they once did, and come in more varieties. Yet, the number of people using such has remained static. It seems people can decide on the dangers of drugs without a hugely expensive, destructive and ineffective War on Drugs to persuade them.

Do you really support drug prohibition?

[jmg257]

55. Certainly worked well for Prohibition didn't it? Alcohol use increased.

Highest crime rates & violent crime rates in the history of the nation (besides when the "ban on drugs" started that is). Birth of organized crime as we know it. Increase in criminal activity involved in producing, distributing and using alcoholic beverages.

And the right to that object isn't even explicitly secured by the Constitution.

Yep - bans are VERY effective - just depends on your goals...

[slackmaster]

10. I have to disagree - He committed plenty of crimes before shooting anyone

He had constantly threatened me that if I ever left him he would kill our daughter....

...I reported it to the police. He said there were no bullets in the chamber. His attorney, his counselor knew....

And the criminal justice system FAILED to do anything about it. HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN JAIL!

[appal_jack]

33. AGREED

Downthread, I get into a bit of a DU-rules and RKBA-policy discussion with Zanne. But here, I will agree with you, Slack. This man committed a crime the moment he threatened his wife and daughter. Even the accusation of such a crime is ample reason for a restraining order and other criminal justice system interventions. More draconian gun laws would not have prevented this tragedy, but a vigorous enforcement of existing laws regarding domestic violence, communicating threats, etc. might very well have prevented this senseless violence however.


-app

[slackmaster]

50. Restraining orders are extremely easy to get in California

All you have to do is tell a family court judge or commissioner that your spouse, SO, ex, roommate, etc. threatened you.

ETA under FEDERAL law, anyone who is subject to a domestic violence-related RO cannot possess firearms. You have to surrender them to police or have someone else hold them for you. (Of course there are deficiencies in how that is enforced, but that's another subject.)

[appal_jack]

57. not so easy here in NC :-(

A few years ago, a neighbor communicated a series of threats to me. Repeated calls to the sheriff and visits to the county courthouse led me to conclude that I would encounter more trouble and stonewalling than assistance. The most helpful conversation I had with any official while the process was unfolding was a deputy saying 'Look, you live 45 minutes outside of town - better iron-up for your own protection' (I'm paraphrasing here, but his words were mighty close to that).

I've always believed in the RKBA, but if I hadn't, that experience and 'help' from the sheriff's office would have caused me to reexamine my views.

Fortunately, I de-escalated with the neighbor by calling him on his shit (provoking yet another threat), then stating I was not afraid of him. We have stayed out of each others hair ever since, and things have been peaceful.

I have heard far worse stories from the folks who volunteer at the local domestic violence shelter. However, the Federal Law you cite is a good one, and I hope it gets enforced in every county in the nation, to reduce these kinds of tragedies.

-app

[CTyankee]

23. I'm with you but every time we post our family's gun tragedies, it only makes these folks angrier

and more defensive. They have not personally had this tragedy strike down someone in their family like me or the victim in your story. My story is similar to yours; the killer was a family member, had a gun legally for "protection" and no criminal record. He did have a drinking problem, but hid it well until he went shooting in a drunken rage. He too turned the gun on himself after killing my neice and wounding her mother and grandmother.

All of this horror and the progunners just want to justify their "rights." They have no idea what happens to a family who has experienced gun terror. The effects are devastating, just devastating.

Keep on "witnessing" the truth, zanne. I am with you.

[SteveM]

36. You have no corner on "tragedy," partner. Some of us don't parade it.

[CTyankee]

62. I don't knowwhat you are driving at but here, partner (oh, and I'm a 3rd generation Texan originally

I will tell my story no matter what you say. My story is my story. It happened to my family. Don't even TRY to tell me not to do that. I hope that is understood!

[Raskolnik]

37. I have nothing but sympathy for you and your family, but your personal tragedies do not set

the limits of everyone else's Constitutional rights. I'm quite certain that you could find more than a few family member of 9/11 victims that would make a similar argument for warrentless wiretapping and the use of torture to combat terrorism. Some of those people would make a case that anyone arguing for preserving the 4th Amendment "rights" (to paraphrase) "has no idea what happens to a family who has experienced terrorism. The effects are devastating, just devastating."

[CTyankee]

63. You have no idea of the suffering in my family so please don't even try to offer any

of your "sympathy." You have no such thing. Your faux sympathy is not welcome to me.

You cannot know this kind of tragedy. You have not experienced this in your own family. Please put me on your ignore list NOW because I don't care if you like what I say or not. I will keep on telling my story. Obviously, you fear that I am being effective because you bother to answer...

[Raskolnik]

65. Um, okay--that doesn't really address my point, but best of luck regardless.

Take care.

[jmg257]

59. I respect your opinion CT, and Zanne's too. But your horrors ARE

different then many of ours. Each of us makes decisions based on what THEY think is best, what situations & horrors THEY may/will have to face or have faced. Would the horror of my wife or kids being murdered or raped if I was rendered helpless to intervene be any less then what we have read about here? WE get to - HAVE to - weigh the options and the risks and the responsibilities - and make OUR own choices. Those decisions are just as important to us as your's is and Zanne's is to you. Making a choice - HAVING a choice - THAT is what liberty - a right - is all about. I have done the research, checked the stats, confirmed the history and the intent, had the training, taught the classes, held the jobs, taken the oaths, lived through the experiences - and I have no need to rely on the NRA or anyone else to make up my mind that what I choose is right - for me and my family.

I do not know about others, but I know I am humbled by tragedies we have seen - school shootings and such. Yet every time such an event occurs, gun owners (yes, and our rights) are IMMEDIATELY under attack and blamed for what happened. ANY feeling of being humbled goes right out the window when faced with such vile, unreasonable & unrelenting accusations. When one is considered to be no better then the worse child murdering scumbag, many will take it personal. We get angry too, and any chance at real communication goes out the window too, and we are left with a war of stats and word parsing and exploitation. There is no room, or patience, for understanding - and then nothing gets done to make things better.

And yes - I get defensive when I perceive our safety and our liberty is at stake - same as you. I do what I can, what I think is best to make sure I won't face the horror of needlessly losing a loved one, and yes, I will always try to protect the right I KNOW secures that ability. I know it is essential, I know it is justified, and I also know that not everyone agrees with it.

[CTyankee]

64. So why are your liberties under attack when I tell my family's story?

Why, if you are so certain of your "rights", does my story so threaten you? Why not just leave my thread alone and not respond at all?

I wonder...

[jmg257]

66. They are not. Your story is sad & touching, as we discussed. I have no problem with you

sharing it at all. My liberties are not under attack by your story - I never said they were. I did say our liberties are under attack immediately when a tragic shooting occurs like VT - I meant by numerous anti-gun people on this board and also out..."in the world" who throw out vicious attacks, silly or ignorant comparisons, unreasonable "justifications" for infringements, and groundless accusations. This tends to put us pro-gunners on the defensive just as quickly and does no good for anyone in SOLVING the problem.

I thought I was clear that your story has guided(?) you to make YOUR choice about guns, OUR stories and experiences allow/guide us to make OUR choice. Nothing more.

I hoped I was also clear that THE RIGHT involved allows us all to make that choice, as WE deem necessary. THAT is why it is so important that it remain secure.

1)What thread do you mean? 2)If you don't want responses, why post at all? But let me know if you would rather I not respond in any case - no big deal! How does the "ignore" thing work?

[CTyankee]

69. My story, tho hard for me to tell, makes its point without me doing anything else.

It is just my story. It really happened to real people and a real family. It had incredibly sad and difficult repercussions in the lives of several people and reaching other family members.

You sound distressed that I even dare to tell the story. In doing so, I do not recommend a new law or take sides with the controversy over the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. It is what it is. Let people reading it draw their own conclusions.

[Matariki]

52. Perhaps the bigger problem was a legal system that didn't take the threat to her seriously?

Even without a gun, her psycho husband was a serious threat. As was his brother.

[appal_jack]

15. This does not belong in GD

Zanne, I have to agree with jmg and others above that the manner in which you post news of tragic events purely to make political hay for the gun-grabber cause is ghoulish and vulture-like in the extreme. It really should have no place at all here at DU, as both our nation's Constitution and our Party's platform express explicit support for citizens' rights to keep and bear arms. A case of vehicular homicide is no reason to discuss banning or further restricting cars; it is instead a tragedy that warrants compassion for the victim(s): no more and no less. Tragic crimes that involve guns (or knives or fists or...) deserve the same level of discussion.

That said and realist that I try to be, I acknowledge that there is quite a diversity of opinions about the RKBA both here at DU and among Democrats at large. However, discussions about these opinions (and any events that may support them) belong in the Gungeon, and not here in GD. You don't see many posts about the successful defensive use of firearms to deter crimes here in GD, and I posit that this is due to the restraint and composure of the RKBA-crowd, and not any shortage of such events that could be used (more appropriately than the event you have posted above I might add) to support our belief. By exercising a similar quantity of restraint and composure, you would go a long way toward earning my respect, though on this issue you will never obtain my agreement.

-app

[zanne]

17. Why is it that when one of the gun guys' threads is sent to the gun forum....

You suddenly start calling it the "gungeon"? I've noticed this curiosity on DU. Also, what is "ghoulish and vulture-like" to you is not half as offensive as what I've seen in the gun forum. For example, the recent post entitled "How to win a gun fight". I don't think you're on the moral high road on this issue, and nothing can stop me from voicing my opinion on how unsafe society is with the gun culture we have. Sorry.

[Raskolnik]

18. So as long as you're marginally less offensive than the worst aspect of what you oppose

you think you're in the clear?

nothing can stop me from voicing my opinion on how unsafe society is with the gun culture we have. Sorry.

I assume, then, that you'll refrain from telling other people that their gun-related topics have no place in GD?

[zanne]

24. They are supposed to be in the Gun Forum...

But as you can see, I'm the original poster for this one. I've posted before that they should go to the gun forum, but it doesn't seem to make a difference, so I may as well post them here.

[appal_jack]

20. DU rules, Zanne

"Discussion of gun-related public policy issues or the use of firearms for self-defense belong in the Guns Forum."

While the rule does not specifically cover firearm-related tragedies and crimes, you are clearly trying to twist this tragedy into a "gun-related public policy issue." So get thee to the Gungeon, or better yet, to some Brady-ite website instead.

I had not read that self-defense article before reading your response, but this discussion led me there, and I found it to be quite educational. I very much hope to never be in any gunfights, but if an attacker brings a gunfight to me, I hope to have the presence of mind to act by those principles.

The bottom line is that you can't have it both ways. If we pro-RKBA'ers are expected to abide by the rather byzantine DU gun rules (discuss gun policies in the "Guns" forum, but only discuss actual guns in the "Outdoor Life" group), then I think it fair that we expect the same of you and the other gun-grab ideologues.

-app

[zanne]

22. I agree that gun issues belong in the Gun Forum...

I posted that very same thing this morning. Unfortunately, these threads are rarely moved, so I have to go along.

[CTyankee]

27. Well, you're here aren't you? And so are other progunners...nt

[zanne]

28. self delete because of caffeine withdrawal.

[zanne]

31. So next time I go to the gun forum and read "I bought a new gun today"...

I should direct the poster to the "Outdoor Life" group? That would be just about every day!

[appal_jack]

41. happened today

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x160347

A shame, really, as I would very much like to see this type of discussion move forward in the Guns forum, and I don't often go over to Outdoor Life. But teh rulez iz teh rulez I guess...:shrug:

-app

[michreject]

30. That's all it is

An OPINION of a gun grabber.

[Paladin]

67. So, How Come There Are So Many Gun Threads In GD?

There have been gun threads up here in the Real World DU Forums for a long time. And your fellow gun militants come roaring out of the Gungeon to participate in each and every one of them, with nary a complaint about the thread's location. And why shouldn't they? At least up here, both sides of the gun debate are discussed; the Gungeon has atrophied into nothing more than a bunch of gun obsessives swapping right-wing talking points and vigorously agreeing with one another. Watching paint dry is more stimulating.

Not that I disagree with your suggestion, actually---if you can get all the gun threads corralled down in the Gungeon, be my guest---the more you guys are obscured and marginalized, the better most of us will feel. I don't think most of your gun-loving fellow travellers will agree with you.

Also, bonus points for the funniest phrase I've seen in months around here: "...the restraint and composure of the RKBA-crowd..." Oh yeah, you betcha. Better get down to your corner gun store, they're giving away Kimber .45's for brilliant thinking like that, honest. Gentle hint: the boring, one-sided nature of the Gungeon---why do you suppose that is? Could it be that virtually all gun-control advocates have been driven away by behavior other than "the restraint and composure of the RKBA crowd"?

[Feron]

21. Sad ,but that has more to do with misogyny than guns.

Unfortunately the antiquated notion that women and children are a man's 'property' is still very much alive.

It's a shame that there aren't better resources to get people away from an abusive SO. I have no problem stripping abusers of their gun rights.

[appal_jack]

38. Yes.

Feron,

I agree completely. The moment a man communicates a threat to his wife and child (or anyone else in the premeditated manner described above), he loses his status as a citizen exercising his right to keep and bear arms and becomes a criminal in need of some intervention and oversight.

The infuriating thing about many of the gun discussions that occur here at DU is that I am rather sure that Zanne and I and a lot of other DU'ers all are on the same page about the need to fight misogyny, to reduce the causes of violence, and to eradicate the notion that women and children are the property of men. Yet varying interpretations of the 2nd Amendment get us all hot and bothered.

Do I have an immediate solution? Short of everyone coming to their senses and supporting a robust interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, no (insert attempt-at-dry-humor-emoticon here). But at least your post reminds us that we share more in common here at DU than we have differences.

-app

[SteveM]

40. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there measures already in place?

One of the best ways to eliminate the "notion that women and children are a man's 'property'" is for women (and gays and other oppressed people) to take a serious approach to self-defense. Perhaps you have already done this, but women (by the millions) have taken up self-defense (including the proper use of a firearm) to protect themselves.

"The premise that women are helpless victims, unable to defend themselves, was entirely ignored by twelve million women who did something highly unvictimlike throughout the 1980s: they bought handguns... Quietly, carefully, with thorough training and in unprecedented numbers, while they looked after their families and tended their marriages, they were also teaching themselves to blow away potential assailants. By 1992, women had become the fastest-growing segment of the firearms-buying public. One woman in nine was legally packing." -- Naomi Wolf, FIRE WITH FIRE, 1992, Random House.

[zanne]

47. Great. Thanksgiving dinner shoot-outs. nt

[laylah]

48. How very, very

tragic! I went to the site and read as many testimonials as I could handle at one sitting :cry:.

I work with kids who are involved with gangs. I plan on introducing this site to them. Maybe if they read what damage their violence causes, it may make some of them rethink their activities. One can only hope.

[Wcross]

56. So the gun did it, huh?

You place no blame on her ex-husband or ex-brother in law? I find that a very interesting theory, sort of like blaming the atomic bomb for being dropped rather than President Truman for ordering the attack. Got to run, I am not sure if the gun safe is locked & I don't want to get bushwhacked on my way to the kitchen by an escaped gun.

[benEzra]

68. The police/prosecutor blew it...

Glenda: "My husband and I had been married four years and we had a one-year-old daughter. I had recently filed for divorce so we were separated. He had constantly threatened me that if I ever left him he would kill our daughter. One time he went to the closet and took out the gun and he held it to the baby's head. He said, 'Just go because I'm going to kill her, tell her good night.' I was on my knees begging him to kill me instead. I reported it to the police. He said there were no bullets in the chamber.

At that point, he had committed a felony and could have been legally barred from so much as touching a gun or a single round of ammunition for the rest of his life. "The gun wasn't loaded" is NOT a defense against a charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon; pointing an unloaded gun at someone is legally the same as pointing a loaded, cocked gun at them. Whether or not it was loaded is absolutely irrelevant.

Did she seek a restraining order at any time? That would have legally barred him from possessing any guns while it was in effect as well.

The majority of children and spouses murdered by abusers are killed with weapons other than firearms. Are you going to cite any of those stories too, or do those deaths not matter because they don't support your agenda?