Slog
News & ArtsSaturday, December 1, 2012
Crime Gun-Crazy Country: Murder, Suicide, and the NFL
Posted by Charles Mudede on Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 2:29 PM
The story:
According to police, [fourth-year linebacker for the Chiefs Jovan Belcher, 25,] shot and killed his girlfriend, 22, at home around 8 a.m. CT, with the woman's mother present and a witness to the murder. Belcher then drove to the team facility, where he later shot and killed himself in the parking lot of the team complex, in front of GM Scott Pioli and coach Romeo Crennel, as well as other team personnel. A KCPD spokesman said Pioli and Crennel tried to talk to Belcher, who thanked the men before taking his life. Belcher and his girlfriend had a three-month-old child.The Chiefs (1-10) are scheduled to play at Arrowhead Stadium Sunday at noon CT, against the Carolina Panthers (3-8).
2
Well, it's a good thing guns don't kill people or this could have been even worse. What a fucking coward and asshole.
3
Umm. . . .
Crazy? Yes. Gun crazy? That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
No, of course you don't. But most people would.
Crazy? Yes. Gun crazy? That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
No, of course you don't. But most people would.
5
Two people also died in Miami today when a tour bus smashed into an overpass.
I'm still waiting for Chuck to decry all those "bus-crazy" people.
I'm still waiting for Chuck to decry all those "bus-crazy" people.
6
@3 seems to be correct.
And this seems to be one of the rare occasions where a knife would have had the same effect.
And this seems to be one of the rare occasions where a knife would have had the same effect.
7
'Roids, rage, and "rods."
What can you say? Other than there are a bunch of people who own guns, and shouldn't.
So many people who die of gunshot every year are victims of a weapon that was kept in the home. This is a larger number than the number of people killed by strangers with guns.
Call me naive, but I just don't see the risk/benefit ratio working out in the favor of the average gun owner.
What can you say? Other than there are a bunch of people who own guns, and shouldn't.
So many people who die of gunshot every year are victims of a weapon that was kept in the home. This is a larger number than the number of people killed by strangers with guns.
Call me naive, but I just don't see the risk/benefit ratio working out in the favor of the average gun owner.
8
Would this have been any different with tighter gun control? There is no indication that the gun was bought illegally. I'm also sure that a football player could easily kill a woman without a gun.
I'm not arguing against tight gun control. But I think we too often ignore the real meaning of a story like this, and that is the way we deal with mental health, and the lack of access to mental health services.
I'm not arguing against tight gun control. But I think we too often ignore the real meaning of a story like this, and that is the way we deal with mental health, and the lack of access to mental health services.
9
Homicide fueled by jealous rage is the most frequent form of murder. His being a football player is only incidental for a situation that is repeated each and every day...everywhere.
10
@8 (ourkind): Perhaps. When that jackass '5280' tries to correlate gun deaths with highway deaths he is completely off base.
Yes, "gun crazy" applies, because the gun nuts will absolutely not tolerate even a discussion of how to reduce gun fatalities (Eddie Eagle programs aside).
The government at federal, state, and local levels pumps billions of dollars into making roads, highways, and vehicles safer, and it works. And the manufacturers go along with it pretty well.
So for a thought experiment, consider how utterly ballistic the gun nuts would go if we proposed spending billions of Federal, state, and local dollars on addressing and solving the underlying issues behind gun fatalities. These would be crime, easy access to guns, a poor mental health system, and, of course, easy access to guns.
Yes, "gun crazy" applies, because the gun nuts will absolutely not tolerate even a discussion of how to reduce gun fatalities (Eddie Eagle programs aside).
The government at federal, state, and local levels pumps billions of dollars into making roads, highways, and vehicles safer, and it works. And the manufacturers go along with it pretty well.
So for a thought experiment, consider how utterly ballistic the gun nuts would go if we proposed spending billions of Federal, state, and local dollars on addressing and solving the underlying issues behind gun fatalities. These would be crime, easy access to guns, a poor mental health system, and, of course, easy access to guns.
12
@8: The real story here is the domestic violence issue. And it usually seems to be the men killing their wives or girlfriends. Most of the time it is simply a murder-suicide like this shooting or the one at UW a couple years back. Sometimes it is a massacre like the two recent mass shootings in Wisconsin. In all cases the men go nuts when their relationships go sour. General mental health funding might help, but in these specific cases I think that domestic violence prevention and victim protection should be the priority. The latest Wisconsin shooting clearly illustrated just how broken the system can be.
14
When guns are as readily available as water, a lot of people get sprayed with bullets.
Well-ordered militia, gun nuts!
Well-ordered militia, gun nuts!
15
@12 I don't think it's a broken system. I think it's broken masculinity. Men who feel the need to physically assault a woman, for whatever reason, have a very poor notion of manhood. It's cowardice, selfishness and cruelty. Not at all manly.
16
@3: The gun isn't irrelevant. Yes, he could have killed his girlfriend with a knife. But would he have killed himself with a knife?
The gun gives quick access to suicide which would certainly be part of the decision making process for anyone contemplating a murder-suicide. Without the gun, the quick escape path is gone. In this light, it is not surprising that 90% of murder-suicides are completed with firearms even though men could often overpower their girlfriends and wives and kill them with other means. I think the goal of a murder-suicide is to kill the other person and then not have to live with the consequences. Thus, gun control, which makes suicide more difficult, would help to reduce the rate of murder-suicides.
The gun gives quick access to suicide which would certainly be part of the decision making process for anyone contemplating a murder-suicide. Without the gun, the quick escape path is gone. In this light, it is not surprising that 90% of murder-suicides are completed with firearms even though men could often overpower their girlfriends and wives and kill them with other means. I think the goal of a murder-suicide is to kill the other person and then not have to live with the consequences. Thus, gun control, which makes suicide more difficult, would help to reduce the rate of murder-suicides.
20
@16, your link is bogus. Linking to a site that cites no sources for the misinformation they spew doesn't count.
As a matter of fact, the CDC has no data on the "method" of suicides. Yes, I checked not so incidentally, I also called the National Suicide Prevention Hotline to see if they had better statistics. What they told me is that the majority of suicides in this country occur among women, who are the least inclined to use a gun as the method.
Maybe you should do a little more homework before you puke your ininformed, downright wrong garbage out here. Even if it is Slog, where everyone would happily believe what you're saying without any proof whatsoever.
As a matter of fact, the CDC has no data on the "method" of suicides. Yes, I checked not so incidentally, I also called the National Suicide Prevention Hotline to see if they had better statistics. What they told me is that the majority of suicides in this country occur among women, who are the least inclined to use a gun as the method.
Maybe you should do a little more homework before you puke your ininformed, downright wrong garbage out here. Even if it is Slog, where everyone would happily believe what you're saying without any proof whatsoever.
21
#5 Overpasses nor buses are designed to kill people. Hand guns are for that purpose; to kill people. And whaddya know, people are using them for the intended purpose. Is anyone surprised.
22
@20: You're wrong actually. The CDC has statistics about violent deaths, including stats about the method.
I just messed around with it. It is there.
http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/nvdrs.…
Also, 16 linked to an article that correctly cited sources to support its assertions.
I just messed around with it. It is there.
http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/nvdrs.…
Also, 16 linked to an article that correctly cited sources to support its assertions.
23
Your link provides no data or statistics to back up any of your assertions. Nor does @16's link.
I may be old (well, OK, I definitely am), but I haven't forgotten how to prove a case. Yet.
@16's assertion is, on its face, somewhat incredible. I'm open to being proven wrong (well, mostly), but you're going to have to come up with some pretty hard stats to do it.
I may be old (well, OK, I definitely am), but I haven't forgotten how to prove a case. Yet.
@16's assertion is, on its face, somewhat incredible. I'm open to being proven wrong (well, mostly), but you're going to have to come up with some pretty hard stats to do it.
24
@20: No, most suicides are by men. Most suicide attempts are by women. The discrepancy is primarily due to the method of suicide and the lethality of that method. Men use firearms far more often than women. Thus, even though women attempt suicide more often than men, men commit suicide more often.
The fact that you think women kill themselves more often than men indicates to me that you have never studied suicide even in a cursory fashion. The suicide rate of men is almost 4 times that of women in the US!
Here's my references. I suggest you read them.
http://www.suicidology.org/c/document_li…
http://www.suicidology.org/c/document_li…
The fact that you think women kill themselves more often than men indicates to me that you have never studied suicide even in a cursory fashion. The suicide rate of men is almost 4 times that of women in the US!
Here's my references. I suggest you read them.
http://www.suicidology.org/c/document_li…
http://www.suicidology.org/c/document_li…
25
You are obviously not looking at it, because using the parameters I was able to see that the data shows 363 murder-suicides, and of those, 301 involve a firearm. A little mathy-math shows that 82% of the murder suicides in the database involve a firearm.
This is the public data. There is additional data made available to people who request access and meet certain qualifications, which I am guessing the authors of the VPC paper did, since it contains data more recent than 2009.
This is the public data. There is additional data made available to people who request access and meet certain qualifications, which I am guessing the authors of the VPC paper did, since it contains data more recent than 2009.
27
First, Derek Belcher submits the secession treaties. Then Jovan Belcher does this. What crazy shit will a Belcher be up to next?
28
@25: No mathy-math needed. On page 8 of the report it gives percentages and page 3 breaks it down by the type of weapon:
"Murder-suicide incidents involving a firearm"
2002: 94.5%
2006: 92.0%
2008: 88.5%
2011: 89.5%
@23: If you have a substantive critique of the VPC report, I'd like to hear it. Tell me how they messed up the statistics or used the wrong data. Explain why they are biased. And show me some academic criticism attacking their methods.
You said
"Murder-suicide incidents involving a firearm"
2002: 94.5%
2006: 92.0%
2008: 88.5%
2011: 89.5%
@23: If you have a substantive critique of the VPC report, I'd like to hear it. Tell me how they messed up the statistics or used the wrong data. Explain why they are biased. And show me some academic criticism attacking their methods.
You said
I may be old (well, OK, I definitely am), but I haven't forgotten how to prove a case.Are you too old to offer a valid critique?
29
@23: Here is an article that lists more studies on murder-suicide.
The overwhelming weapon of choice of the perpetrator of a murder-suicide was a firearm. In the newspaper surveillance study, Malphurs and Cohen8 found that 85.8 percent of the perpetrators used firearms, whereas Hanzlick and Koponen10 reported 92 percent. Hannah et al.9 determined that 94 percent used firearms. ....It goes on with many other studies. You could do an average if you want, but it will come out to about 90%.
30
@28, I was pointing to the data that was the source of the VPC paper, since @23 was asserting that the paper didn't have any sources for its claims.
31
"Homicide fueled by jealous rage is the most frequent form of murder."
What's your data on this? I keep up and I have never hear this is the #1 cause of murder.
This is an immature, controlling idiot who has now left his child an orphan.
What's your data on this? I keep up and I have never hear this is the #1 cause of murder.
This is an immature, controlling idiot who has now left his child an orphan.
32
I'm no expert on anything, but it seems clear that mental health is the big factor here.
That said, guns (unlike cars) are designed and meant to kill, easily and efficiently, with little effort. Other means, such as knives, require a lot more time and effort. Just the thought of that alone is a significant deterrent. You're not going to try a murder-suicide with a knife. You may accomplish the murder (with some difficulty), but you'll have a really hard time with the suicide (at least without extraordinary willpower). The data presented in the comments support this idea.
Also, a gun is much more lethal than a knife.
So it comes down to opportunity, the whole concept of putting fences the length of the Aurora Bridge. Many people have dark thoughts from time to time, but readily available guns allow you the opportunity to act out rashly on those emotions.
Hence, gun availability is a crucial factor in gun-related tragedies and I would hypothesize that strict gun control would reduce murder-suicide rates (through any means) sharply. You can test this hypothesis through comparative studies with other nations, but I'm not gonna start digging through that now.
That said, guns (unlike cars) are designed and meant to kill, easily and efficiently, with little effort. Other means, such as knives, require a lot more time and effort. Just the thought of that alone is a significant deterrent. You're not going to try a murder-suicide with a knife. You may accomplish the murder (with some difficulty), but you'll have a really hard time with the suicide (at least without extraordinary willpower). The data presented in the comments support this idea.
Also, a gun is much more lethal than a knife.
So it comes down to opportunity, the whole concept of putting fences the length of the Aurora Bridge. Many people have dark thoughts from time to time, but readily available guns allow you the opportunity to act out rashly on those emotions.
Hence, gun availability is a crucial factor in gun-related tragedies and I would hypothesize that strict gun control would reduce murder-suicide rates (through any means) sharply. You can test this hypothesis through comparative studies with other nations, but I'm not gonna start digging through that now.
33
@21 beat me to it. There is room for debate on guns and gun control, but arguments like "cars kill people, too" are ridiculous and should be abandoned. (Hand)guns have one and only one purpose - to inflict harm. Go on and debate the 2nd amendment, armed militias, self-defense, etc, but please drop the stupid argument that any technology that involves fatal accidents is the same as a gun. You're not helping your cause.
34
While murder-suicide may be more common with a firearm, and, if it is unlikely that he would have killed himself with a knife. Would murder (killing his girlfriend) with a knife and then hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars spent on lawsuits, trials and incarceration be better? Personally, I think the world would probably be a better place if every murderer immediately committed suicide!
And yes, considering his apparent mental state, I'm pretty sure that ease of suicide was not a factor in his decision to kill his girlfriend.
And yes, considering his apparent mental state, I'm pretty sure that ease of suicide was not a factor in his decision to kill his girlfriend.
35
Multiple concussions can lead to Chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). Individuals with CTE may show symptoms of dementia, such as memory loss, aggression, confusion and depression, which may appear within months of the trauma or many decades later. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_tra…
36
Of course it wasn't a factor in deciding to kill his girlfriend. He had other reasons to do so. But murder/suicide prevents the murderer from having to go through what he KNOWS will be a long embarassing process ending with at best lifelong incarceration but more probably the death penalty. He just decided to cut to the chase.
37
@32
"You're not going to try a murder-suicide with a knife. You may accomplish the murder (with some difficulty), but you'll have a really hard time with the suicide (at least without extraordinary willpower)."
Seppuku
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seppuku
"You're not going to try a murder-suicide with a knife. You may accomplish the murder (with some difficulty), but you'll have a really hard time with the suicide (at least without extraordinary willpower)."
Seppuku
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seppuku
38
Killing someone with a knife takes real effort, outside of expertise or a fluke accident. Guns are made to kill people and make it real easy. Anybody with real expertise in weapons use knows this.
You gun nuts that say the result would be the same are full of bs.
The gun nuts will accept any number of gun deaths to avoid regulation and have the right use big clips. Sheesh. Pathetic. Even if you think your interpretation of the constitution is sacred and should not be changed, you should at least feel a little bad about all the sacrifice made by others for your freedom to have a closet full of manliness, instead of defending gun murder as having nothing to do with gun availability.
You gun nuts that say the result would be the same are full of bs.
The gun nuts will accept any number of gun deaths to avoid regulation and have the right use big clips. Sheesh. Pathetic. Even if you think your interpretation of the constitution is sacred and should not be changed, you should at least feel a little bad about all the sacrifice made by others for your freedom to have a closet full of manliness, instead of defending gun murder as having nothing to do with gun availability.
39
Where's the 'Crossbows & Bows should be outlawed!' outrage from the killings in... Wyoming, was it, just the other day? Gets a little link and otherwise ignored. Funny how that shit happens. It's almost like you don't give a shit about violent death unless it meets your agenda. The salivation and involuntary erections around here every time someone gets shot are quite disturbing.
40
@38: Since when do we blame complete strangers for what others do? How is my gun ownership, for example, directly responsible for some dipshit shooting his girlfriend and himself? I've said it before and I'll say it again: even taking the 2nd Amendment out of it, a free country does not and should not legislate property and behavior for law abiding people based on what the criminally-minded will do. We don't outlaw drinking; we outlaw drunk driving. We shouldn't outlaw pot use; we should outlaw operating under the influence. We prohibit poaching, not hunting or fishing. And so we don't outlaw guns; we criminalize assault and murder. Unless you're for the prohibition or every item and every substance that can lead to abuse and harm, the illegalization of guns is nothing but hypocrisy.
41
What a surprise given all the quality individuals that are sought out for the NFL. No, Tonderai, wisest of Rhodesian mountain people, Belcher would never have thought to do this with a knife.
42
Forget the "90% of murder-suicides are by gun" stat @16, look at the raw numbers...
Delirian's link suggests that roughly 626 instances of murder-suicide occurred in 2011. So, since it was a murder-suicide, a little over half that number would be killed (since they could have murdered multiple people before killing themselves).
So, about 1300 people killed in a year.
Yeah, that's sad, but is that a huge number? Is that a number large enough that guns should be banned nationwide, in an attempt to stop the 1300 people killed by murder-suicide?
How many people kill themselves and others in drunk driving crashes? Is it greater than 1300 people? Then should we ban alcohol nationwide?
Delirian's link suggests that roughly 626 instances of murder-suicide occurred in 2011. So, since it was a murder-suicide, a little over half that number would be killed (since they could have murdered multiple people before killing themselves).
So, about 1300 people killed in a year.
Yeah, that's sad, but is that a huge number? Is that a number large enough that guns should be banned nationwide, in an attempt to stop the 1300 people killed by murder-suicide?
How many people kill themselves and others in drunk driving crashes? Is it greater than 1300 people? Then should we ban alcohol nationwide?
43
@40 I think restrictions on the ownership of some of the more lethal types of firearms would probably reduce the murder rate. If James Holmes had walked into that theater in Colorado with a single barreled brake-open shotgun instead of an AR-15, he probably wouldn't have been able to kill as many people.
44
@40: Sure it would. But we don't only let people drive Model T's and drink only light beer, even though both those things would save lives too.
45
@42 Smoking kills more people than pretty much anything else you can think of. In 2008 tobacco used caused 443,00 deaths (including 49,000 attributed to the effects of secondhand smoke) nation wide. In that same year 30,000 people died from gunshot wounds and 37,000 died in car accidents. In terms of saving lives few things would make more sense than expanding the war on drugs to include tobacco.
46
@44 Yeah, the 55 mph speed limit was a proven life saver, but we got rid of that because we didn't like it.
49
As a left-wing liberal, I'm always a bit disturbed by my side's visceral hatred and fear of firearms, wistfully longing for the utopian fantasy of a gun-free world.
For me, 'gun control' is not the answer. A complete and total ban on firearms couldn't have prevented yesterday's tragedy.
Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.
For me, 'gun control' is not the answer. A complete and total ban on firearms couldn't have prevented yesterday's tragedy.
Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.
50
nateman and other gun nuts -- you are wrong.
we outlaw you owning mustard gas. we outlaw you owning nuclear arms. which are clearly arms. and clearly useful to deter a nazi style government oppressing us, right? yet you do not have a right to own them. hmmmmm.
we outlaw driving on the left side of the road. we outlaw not sending your kids to school. we outlaw divorce without judge supervision of divisionof assets. we outlaw fraud, we outlaw fucking pension funds that are not maintained with certain ratios. stop with your fucking stupid innate liberty argument -- it's a loser. you aren' teven free to not be hooked up to the sewer system.
it's people like you who are responsible for this woman's death. because you and your drivel about guns has created a society with about 200 million guns all the fuck over, leading to gun deaths all over, and EVERY nation that tightly limits or controls guns or has fewer like enlgand france japan canada ALL of them HAVE MUCH LOWER RATES OF GUN DEATHS so it fucking works, you nuts. in general. and the impact is also this: only in america are there huge swaths of many cities plagued by violence to the extent you cna't let your kids outside to play. NOT in germany, NOT in canda, NOT in japan, and NOT in france. NOT in anywhere that has tightly limited or restricted guns or put in other forms of gun control. At the same time, the nations that are plagued by violence and I would include mexico brazil fucking afghanistan and somalia? they either dont'have the laws or don't enforce any laws. you want to see our future, go look at fucking juarez, it's you fucking idiots that are taking us there, we can't even have a normal discussionwithout you prompting some gullible fool to say "oh this case? it's a mental illness situation here" as if it's not the fucking COMBINATION of mental illness, drugs, jealousy, human nature human mistake or innate racism when claiming some black kid in a car had a shotgun PLUS EZ ACCESS TO GUNS RIGHT AT YOUR HAND that makes for al these gun death. stop being such stupid mother fucking fools.
More...
we outlaw you owning mustard gas. we outlaw you owning nuclear arms. which are clearly arms. and clearly useful to deter a nazi style government oppressing us, right? yet you do not have a right to own them. hmmmmm.
we outlaw driving on the left side of the road. we outlaw not sending your kids to school. we outlaw divorce without judge supervision of divisionof assets. we outlaw fraud, we outlaw fucking pension funds that are not maintained with certain ratios. stop with your fucking stupid innate liberty argument -- it's a loser. you aren' teven free to not be hooked up to the sewer system.
it's people like you who are responsible for this woman's death. because you and your drivel about guns has created a society with about 200 million guns all the fuck over, leading to gun deaths all over, and EVERY nation that tightly limits or controls guns or has fewer like enlgand france japan canada ALL of them HAVE MUCH LOWER RATES OF GUN DEATHS so it fucking works, you nuts. in general. and the impact is also this: only in america are there huge swaths of many cities plagued by violence to the extent you cna't let your kids outside to play. NOT in germany, NOT in canda, NOT in japan, and NOT in france. NOT in anywhere that has tightly limited or restricted guns or put in other forms of gun control. At the same time, the nations that are plagued by violence and I would include mexico brazil fucking afghanistan and somalia? they either dont'have the laws or don't enforce any laws. you want to see our future, go look at fucking juarez, it's you fucking idiots that are taking us there, we can't even have a normal discussionwithout you prompting some gullible fool to say "oh this case? it's a mental illness situation here" as if it's not the fucking COMBINATION of mental illness, drugs, jealousy, human nature human mistake or innate racism when claiming some black kid in a car had a shotgun PLUS EZ ACCESS TO GUNS RIGHT AT YOUR HAND that makes for al these gun death. stop being such stupid mother fucking fools.
51
@38
"Killing someone with a knife takes real effort, outside of expertise or a fluke accident."
Only if they are evenly matched in physical strength and agility.
This instance was a football player killing is wife. Hardly the same in physical strength.
Like I posted earlier, this seems to be one of the rare occasions where a knife would have had the same effect.
And that is why the gun control crowd keeps losing.
You take a specific example and you generalize it until the generalization (and your claims) contradicts the specific example.
"Killing someone with a knife takes real effort, outside of expertise or a fluke accident."
Only if they are evenly matched in physical strength and agility.
This instance was a football player killing is wife. Hardly the same in physical strength.
Like I posted earlier, this seems to be one of the rare occasions where a knife would have had the same effect.
And that is why the gun control crowd keeps losing.
You take a specific example and you generalize it until the generalization (and your claims) contradicts the specific example.
52
@50,
Yeah, but your emotional outburst isn't helping your cause either.
What gun laws would you suggest? A total ban + an extra helping of anger and cursing? Yeah, that'll convince rational people...
Both sides have extremists, and it seems those are the only people who get their shit printed or aired. Emotional rants about how awesome guns are or how terrible guns are are useless and will never convince anyone of anything.
I, for one, would be happy to listen to and debate reasonable gun control; unfortunately, no reasonable people can be heard over the shrieking from the extremists on either side.
So nothing will change.
Yeah, but your emotional outburst isn't helping your cause either.
What gun laws would you suggest? A total ban + an extra helping of anger and cursing? Yeah, that'll convince rational people...
Both sides have extremists, and it seems those are the only people who get their shit printed or aired. Emotional rants about how awesome guns are or how terrible guns are are useless and will never convince anyone of anything.
I, for one, would be happy to listen to and debate reasonable gun control; unfortunately, no reasonable people can be heard over the shrieking from the extremists on either side.
So nothing will change.
53
@51 and @52 You have been winning the fight against reasonable gun laws for 3 years and yet you still whine like victims. 25 round clips? guaranteed by the constitution. concealed weapons permits across state lines? guaranteed by constitution. ban assault weapons? guaranteed by constitution. background checks for all sales? guaranteed by constitution. Mandatory trigger locks? guaranteed by constitution. gun sales without a waiting period? guaranteed by constitution.
I'm not even an activist and I can go on and on here about reasonable restrictions you have worked so hard to block, while you sit there stroking your 30 round clips while deciding which weapon to bring in the car with you in case some black youths scare you by playing music too loud in the parking spot next to you.
You already won your policy war, but it is NEVER enough for you, so the ease of shooting and getting away with it gets easier and easier. The gun nut laws are beyond anything ever envisioned by even the majority of NRA supporters in 1970s and getting crazier all the time. Shouldn't the wife's mom have been packing? Wouldn't that have made it better? Sheesh. And you think you are the victim...
I'm not even an activist and I can go on and on here about reasonable restrictions you have worked so hard to block, while you sit there stroking your 30 round clips while deciding which weapon to bring in the car with you in case some black youths scare you by playing music too loud in the parking spot next to you.
You already won your policy war, but it is NEVER enough for you, so the ease of shooting and getting away with it gets easier and easier. The gun nut laws are beyond anything ever envisioned by even the majority of NRA supporters in 1970s and getting crazier all the time. Shouldn't the wife's mom have been packing? Wouldn't that have made it better? Sheesh. And you think you are the victim...
54
@51 and @52 You have been winning the fight against reasonable gun laws for 30 years and yet you still whine like victims. 25 round clips? guaranteed by the constitution. concealed weapons permits by mail across state lines? guaranteed by constitution. ban assault weapons? freedom from, guaranteed by constitution. background checks for all sales? freedom from, guaranteed by constitution. Mandatory trigger locks? freedom from, guaranteed by constitution. gun sales without a waiting period? guaranteed by constitution.
I'm not even an activist and I can go on and on here about reasonable restrictions you have worked so hard to block, while you sit there stroking your 30 round clips while deciding which weapon to bring in the car with you in case some black youths scare you by playing music too loud in the parking spot next to you.
You already won your policy war, but it is NEVER enough for you, so the ease of shooting and getting away with it gets easier and easier. The gun nut laws are beyond anything ever envisioned by even the majority of NRA supporters in 1970s and getting crazier all the time. Shouldn't the wife's mom have been packing? Wouldn't that have made it better? Sheesh. And you think you are the victim...
I'm not even an activist and I can go on and on here about reasonable restrictions you have worked so hard to block, while you sit there stroking your 30 round clips while deciding which weapon to bring in the car with you in case some black youths scare you by playing music too loud in the parking spot next to you.
You already won your policy war, but it is NEVER enough for you, so the ease of shooting and getting away with it gets easier and easier. The gun nut laws are beyond anything ever envisioned by even the majority of NRA supporters in 1970s and getting crazier all the time. Shouldn't the wife's mom have been packing? Wouldn't that have made it better? Sheesh. And you think you are the victim...
55
@50: Aww, shnookums, did you have to type that one handed? I know how hot & bothered you get when someone gets shot. Really tweaks your nipples, doesn't it, to be able to spew all your mindless drivel? Thanks for the laugh. I forgot how much fun the monkey flinging word-poo at the glass was.
@52: Never has changed, never will change. But the monkeys will keep on flingin'. I too would happily consider rational gun regulations; immediate background checks, national database, etc. On the other hand, if it vexes mooks like #50 for gun laws to remain lax, I'm all for it. I am, after all, occasionally small-minded.
@52: Never has changed, never will change. But the monkeys will keep on flingin'. I too would happily consider rational gun regulations; immediate background checks, national database, etc. On the other hand, if it vexes mooks like #50 for gun laws to remain lax, I'm all for it. I am, after all, occasionally small-minded.
56
@49 - "wistfully longing for the utopian fantasy of a gun-free world."
By and large, the world of many in industrialized nations is almost gun free if they choose it to be so. In general, guns are absent from neighborhood streets, we have control on the media we watch and, in theory, the wars we get involved in. If there are guns in your life, it's likely because you or a family member wanted these guns to be there.
By and large, the world of many in industrialized nations is almost gun free if they choose it to be so. In general, guns are absent from neighborhood streets, we have control on the media we watch and, in theory, the wars we get involved in. If there are guns in your life, it's likely because you or a family member wanted these guns to be there.
57
@53
"You have been winning the fight against reasonable gun laws for 30 years and yet you still whine like victims."
Who's whining?
I'm telling you that you keep losing.
I'm telling you why you keep losing.
"I'm not even an activist ... reasonable restrictions ... stroking ... 30 round clips ... black youths scare you ..."
And, again, that is why you keep losing.
You cannot focus on the issues.
"And you think you are the victim..."
No.
The victim in this case is his wife.
Focus on the issues.
What, SPECIFIC, law would have prevented this?
You can't answer that without trying to ban all handguns.
Since that will not happen, you do not have a rational response to this.
Yet you will rant on about it.
That is why you keep losing these debates.
"You have been winning the fight against reasonable gun laws for 30 years and yet you still whine like victims."
Who's whining?
I'm telling you that you keep losing.
I'm telling you why you keep losing.
"I'm not even an activist ... reasonable restrictions ... stroking ... 30 round clips ... black youths scare you ..."
And, again, that is why you keep losing.
You cannot focus on the issues.
"And you think you are the victim..."
No.
The victim in this case is his wife.
Focus on the issues.
What, SPECIFIC, law would have prevented this?
You can't answer that without trying to ban all handguns.
Since that will not happen, you do not have a rational response to this.
Yet you will rant on about it.
That is why you keep losing these debates.
58
@52 and 55:
oh boo hoo, I put emotion into it. I repeat: it's immoral, stupid assholes like you, who are responsible for deaths like these. because it's you who stop us from having sensible gun laws. call it monkey drivel, because you can't argue with the facts that japan, germany ireland england wales all those nations with strong gun limits and controls DO IN FACT HAVE FAR FEWER GUN DEATHS and do NOT have the crime plagued neighborhoods we have here.
see, but you feel threatened if someone calls you out, so you call names like monkey drivel. how stupid and fucking childish. you moron, nateman.
btw even the reforms you propose can't be implemented because of all the gun nuts in this nation. including you.
"@50,
Yeah, but your emotional outburst isn't helping your cause either." tough shit. morons like you, are responsible.
"
What gun laws would you suggest? A total ban + an extra helping of anger and cursing? Yeah, that'll convince rational people..." oh please forgive me sir, for disrespcting you. you who constantly say lies like gun control doesn't work, when in fact it does, I refer AGAIN to japan canada england wales ireland germany etc etc etc. tell me the last time a major sports figure over there shot his woman and himself. name ONE TIME. can't. cuz they just don't got the gun violence we got here, obviously. as to what laws? don't need a total ban, nice red herring there, I repeatedly mention real world examples, take the cue clueless gun nuts, england does not totally ban guns, about 4% own guns, this includes mainly (a) hunters but for (b) handguns ahem, you need like local police permission and it's hard to get. so some of you gun nuts with real need, could still have guns. most -- you don't need them. so in a word, registration and tighter limits and near bans. specific enuf for you now?
"Both sides have extremists" no fail wrong, MY SIDE pointing to about nations iwth a population of a bout 500 million where gun controls clearly work is the mainstream; american gun nuts are the only extreme.
"and it seems those are the only people who get their shit printed or aired. Emotional rants about how awesome guns are or how terrible guns are are useless and will never convince anyone of anything." actually in fact my side, the side of rationality and morality and reason, is largely silent, silenced by the gun nuts side; and we continually silence ourselves from saying what I say; so I say it now, it's morons and immoral imb eciles like you, who are responsible, as you continually cloud the facts by denying (a) gun controal works and (b) claiming we can't get it here legally. Both of which are big, fat stinking lies. legally, have you asked yourselves why it's legal for us to ban you from owning tanks and nukes? you personally. you, nate, do you claim a right to own a personal nuclear device? didn't think so. well it's an arm isn't it, so in fact you admit you don't have a right to bear any arms you want to, big duh. keep repeating never has changed never will, your strange psychological devotion to guns is what's creating the situations in which women like this one get fucking killed. YOU are responsible, all of you.
I, for one, would be happy to listen to and debate reasonable gun control; unfortunately, no reasonable people can be heard over the shrieking from the extremists on either side.
So nothing will change.
.
More...
oh boo hoo, I put emotion into it. I repeat: it's immoral, stupid assholes like you, who are responsible for deaths like these. because it's you who stop us from having sensible gun laws. call it monkey drivel, because you can't argue with the facts that japan, germany ireland england wales all those nations with strong gun limits and controls DO IN FACT HAVE FAR FEWER GUN DEATHS and do NOT have the crime plagued neighborhoods we have here.
see, but you feel threatened if someone calls you out, so you call names like monkey drivel. how stupid and fucking childish. you moron, nateman.
btw even the reforms you propose can't be implemented because of all the gun nuts in this nation. including you.
"@50,
Yeah, but your emotional outburst isn't helping your cause either." tough shit. morons like you, are responsible.
"
What gun laws would you suggest? A total ban + an extra helping of anger and cursing? Yeah, that'll convince rational people..." oh please forgive me sir, for disrespcting you. you who constantly say lies like gun control doesn't work, when in fact it does, I refer AGAIN to japan canada england wales ireland germany etc etc etc. tell me the last time a major sports figure over there shot his woman and himself. name ONE TIME. can't. cuz they just don't got the gun violence we got here, obviously. as to what laws? don't need a total ban, nice red herring there, I repeatedly mention real world examples, take the cue clueless gun nuts, england does not totally ban guns, about 4% own guns, this includes mainly (a) hunters but for (b) handguns ahem, you need like local police permission and it's hard to get. so some of you gun nuts with real need, could still have guns. most -- you don't need them. so in a word, registration and tighter limits and near bans. specific enuf for you now?
"Both sides have extremists" no fail wrong, MY SIDE pointing to about nations iwth a population of a bout 500 million where gun controls clearly work is the mainstream; american gun nuts are the only extreme.
"and it seems those are the only people who get their shit printed or aired. Emotional rants about how awesome guns are or how terrible guns are are useless and will never convince anyone of anything." actually in fact my side, the side of rationality and morality and reason, is largely silent, silenced by the gun nuts side; and we continually silence ourselves from saying what I say; so I say it now, it's morons and immoral imb eciles like you, who are responsible, as you continually cloud the facts by denying (a) gun controal works and (b) claiming we can't get it here legally. Both of which are big, fat stinking lies. legally, have you asked yourselves why it's legal for us to ban you from owning tanks and nukes? you personally. you, nate, do you claim a right to own a personal nuclear device? didn't think so. well it's an arm isn't it, so in fact you admit you don't have a right to bear any arms you want to, big duh. keep repeating never has changed never will, your strange psychological devotion to guns is what's creating the situations in which women like this one get fucking killed. YOU are responsible, all of you.
I, for one, would be happy to listen to and debate reasonable gun control; unfortunately, no reasonable people can be heard over the shrieking from the extremists on either side.
So nothing will change.
.
60
@58: Dear, sweet muffin, I'm curious who, out of all the voices in your head, which one argued for the right to keep all weapons in their home? Because I haven't heard anyone ask for that. You've made our argument for me; most gun owners have been completely reasonable about what we want to own. We've accepted regulations on explosives, toxins, etc. Sounds to me like we've made more than enough concessions. Especially if our gun ownership continues to piss you off. That's more than enough reason for us to continue on as we have for me. Be careful, though. You keep rage-masturbating like this you're gonna chafe.
61
@59: The gun troll amuses me. S/he/it should get together and have crazy rage sex with the homophobe troll. Those would be some UGLY babies.
62
"Gun control" keeps losing for some very simple reasonns. 1) 50% of every household in this country has at least one gun in it; 2) 65% of all Americans agree with the NRA's position on guns; and maybe most importantly, 3) whiny, overly-emotional drama queens will never influence anybody's thinking about anything.
63
@62
'Gun control' also keeps losing because the Democrats remember what happened in 1994 with the Clinton 'assault weapons' ban. It was an ineffective, feel-good measure that cost them many seats in congress and might have cost them the majority.
For many gun owners, it's important enough to make them highly motivated, single-issue voters, whereas with leftys it's just not that important. That makes for some very bad election calculus... and last time I checked, the Democrats aren't entirely oblivious to math.
'Gun control' also keeps losing because the Democrats remember what happened in 1994 with the Clinton 'assault weapons' ban. It was an ineffective, feel-good measure that cost them many seats in congress and might have cost them the majority.
For many gun owners, it's important enough to make them highly motivated, single-issue voters, whereas with leftys it's just not that important. That makes for some very bad election calculus... and last time I checked, the Democrats aren't entirely oblivious to math.
64
@62: This poor woman was murdered and you keep patting yourself on the back on how gun control will never happen because the people who care about it are "whiny, overly-emotional drama queens". I see that you have lots of great things to contribute to society.
65
Thank you for proving my point.
Honestly, do you have any idea how many people die in this country through one form of stupidity or another? No, you don't. Maybe you should, though, before you do the drama queen schtick.
Honestly, do you have any idea how many people die in this country through one form of stupidity or another? No, you don't. Maybe you should, though, before you do the drama queen schtick.
66
The gun nuts don't even want to allow doctors to discuss gun safety with their patients, even depressed or mentally ill patients.
It is never enough for you. Never enough guns. And every person killed or injured you turn into a justification to yourselves about how dangerous the world is for a defenseless stud like you.
It is never enough for you. Never enough guns. And every person killed or injured you turn into a justification to yourselves about how dangerous the world is for a defenseless stud like you.
68
@66: That's funny. It seems more like to me your side tries to turn every victim of gun violence into justification to get rid of something you just plain don't like. It's not that you don't like criminals. It's that You don't like guns, and you don't like the people who own them. So rather than directing your anger at the microscopic number of gun owners who commit a crime, you direct it at all of them.
Of course, as Urgutha has pointed out multiple times, it makes you unable to hold a rational conversation, which means gun owners can safely ignore you. There are plenty of nuts out there, to be sure. And plenty of criminals. But when you equate all of us to that, merely because we enjoy owning something you're afraid of, you come across as no more rational than every homophobe who thinks all gay men are pedophiles. And then you lose.
Of course, as Urgutha has pointed out multiple times, it makes you unable to hold a rational conversation, which means gun owners can safely ignore you. There are plenty of nuts out there, to be sure. And plenty of criminals. But when you equate all of us to that, merely because we enjoy owning something you're afraid of, you come across as no more rational than every homophobe who thinks all gay men are pedophiles. And then you lose.
69
I have to agree with fairly.unbalanced. Guns are not going away in this country. Ranting about it is pointless. Well no, I take that back. It serves as a distraction. People of good will who feel helpless in the face of this kind of tragedy can blow off steam at the effigy of GUN NUTS11!!eleventyone! until they feel better. Hopefully we can also work on the causes rather than just the tools.
70
So reasonable restrictions on gun use/ownership are tantamount to a complete ban? I know many gun owners who would disagree. If laws were made only for reasonable people, we wouldn't need to outlaw rape or vandalism because reasonable people do not engage in those activities (whereas in very limited circumstances murder in self-defense or stealing food for one's survival/one's children might be reasonable). Are there any restrictions to which you would agree (I'll name some you can shoot-- ha!-- down: limited clip size; limitations on quantity purchased or ordered; mental health screenings prior to purchase; safety/proficiency requirements in order to be licensed)? Have gun owners determined that we, as nation, are in favor of Florida-style murders? If that's the case, must those of us who do not wish to carry a gun just accept that we may be shot at? Why can't we agree to allow people to own what they own but require ownership to be safe and responsible, like almost every other product marketed for sale in this country?
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
All You Motherfuckers Complaining That aPodments Are Too Small at 200 Square Feet by Dominic Holden
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
There Are No Atheists In Foxholes by Dan Savage
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
Why They Break Windows by Unpaid Intern
-
America's Epidemic of Toddler-on-Toddler Gun Violence Continues by Goldy
-
Saint Genet Re-Creates "Shoot" by Brendan Kiley
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (70) RSS