Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drunks

Monday, December 3, 2012

Fox Sports Speaks the Truth on Handguns

Posted by on Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 6:00 AM

On the tragic murder/suicide committed Saturday by Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher, Fox Sports writer Jason Whitlock says what most politicians are too cowardly to admit:

Our current gun culture simply ensures that more and more domestic disputes will end in the ultimate tragedy, and that more convenience-store confrontations over loud music coming from a car will leave more teenage boys bloodied and dead.

In the coming days, Belcher’s actions will be analyzed through the lens of concussions and head injuries. Who knows? Maybe brain damage triggered his violent overreaction to a fight with his girlfriend. What I believe is, if he didn’t possess/own a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.

That is the message I wish Chiefs players, professional athletes and all of us would focus on Sunday and moving forward. Handguns do not enhance our safety. They exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments, and bait us into embracing confrontation rather than avoiding it.

But we won’t. We’ll watch Sunday’s game and comfort ourselves with the false belief we’re incapable of the wickedness that exploded inside Jovan Belcher Saturday morning.

Guns don't make us safer. They just don't.

 

Comments (85) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
But just think, if the coach and GM who witnessed his suicide had been armed, they could have... uh, uh.
Posted by MRM on December 3, 2012 at 6:17 AM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 2
If guns didn't make you safer, they wouldn't issue guns to police officers. But, as it turns out, every one of them everywhere on Earth has one. Maybe there's a reason why.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on December 3, 2012 at 6:22 AM · Report this
3
Well, GEE, I never thought of it that way! Cops all have guns, so they must make people safer by definition! (And of course, we ALL get police academy training about gun use.) But why stop there? America is the safest country in the world because our armed forces have lots of tanks and bazookas and nuclear missiles - how much safer would we be if EVERYONE had their own ICBM? Think of the deterrent effect!
Posted by Pope Buck I on December 3, 2012 at 6:28 AM · Report this
seatackled 4
@2

Except that every one of them everywhere on earth does not.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19641…
Posted by seatackled on December 3, 2012 at 6:31 AM · Report this
seatackled 5
I wonder, how would gun advocates feel if we start by encouraging women to arm themselves at home to protect against domestic violence?
Posted by seatackled on December 3, 2012 at 6:34 AM · Report this
Theodore Gorath 6
@2: I would support anyone who wants to buy a gun having to go through an identical safety and training course that cops have to. Obviously, the person buying the gun would have to pay for them out of pocket. Roll it up into the cost of the license.

The states that require a safety certification tend to treat it more like a fee...pay the dollars, physically be in class (maybe), and you "pass."

Nonsense.
Posted by Theodore Gorath on December 3, 2012 at 6:37 AM · Report this
7
From a 1993 study. Granted, the data is 20 years old, but I have no reason to believe that there have been significant changes since the 90’s:
…people who keep guns in homes are almost 3 times more likely to be murdered.
Guns in the home were associated with a 8-fold increase in risk of homicide at the hands of a family member or intimate acquaintance, but the study found no significant increase in the risk of being murdered by a stranger or intruder.
The study concludes that “Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.” In light of this “people should be strongly discouraged from keeping guns in their homes.”
http://www.bradycampaign.org/studies/vie…

Posted by Clayton on December 3, 2012 at 6:40 AM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 8
@5, I've supported that for many years now. What's your point?

@6, I also support training. Even cops aren't especially well-trained. Really.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on December 3, 2012 at 6:40 AM · Report this
Philly 9
@2 wrong, as usual. In the Republic of Ireland, New Zealand, Iceland, and all of the UK (except or northern ireland) the police do not carry guns. That really seems to work out badly for them, eh? We hear about gun violence in Britain all time and... Oh, wait, we don't? Britain actually has a rising KNIFE violence problem.
Posted by Philly on December 3, 2012 at 6:41 AM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 10
Clayton, I don't have a problem with the age of that study, but I do have a problem with him fudging the data. Which he did. It's been universally discredited.

And police in the UK don't carry guns? Really? Do tell. Yes, they don't carry them as much as cops elsewhere do, but there's been a sharp uptick lately. It seems that even they have had to accept reality.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on December 3, 2012 at 6:46 AM · Report this
seatackled 11
@8

I wasn't clear that I wasn't referring to women who are worried about stalkers and the like; I meant what would all the male gunowners think about arming their wives and girlfriends against themselves. Do you, for example, encourage your partner to be ready to kill you in the event that you threaten her?

Anyway, read the link I provided @4, which refutes your claim about police all being armed or all feeling that they should be armed. In several countries, including Britain (except Northern Ireland), the Republic of Ireland, Norway, and New Zealand, cops are not routinely equipped with firearms. And if you read the linked article, you'll see that even the chief of two murdered officers this year does not believe arming cops is a good solution. And there's this:

A 2006 survey of 47,328 Police Federation members found 82% did not want officers to be routinely armed on duty, despite almost half saying their lives had been "in serious jeopardy" during the previous three years.

Posted by seatackled on December 3, 2012 at 6:57 AM · Report this
12
No, Belcher wasn't a low rent piece of trash and mental case. It was the gun. He never would have stabbed her. He just wasn't that kind of guy.
Posted by Stranger'sWorstNightmare on December 3, 2012 at 6:57 AM · Report this
13
fifty-two-eighty's obsession with arms is just another thing that makes him so different than the usual commenting base...it makes me wonder about him. I mean, take a guy who obsessively writes comments on a blog - I don't even believe that he's from here. what a weirdo.
Posted by six five on December 3, 2012 at 7:00 AM · Report this
STJA 14
@10 - Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_…) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand…). Now go ahead, nitpick that to find a reason to ignore it. That's your prerogative.
Posted by STJA on December 3, 2012 at 7:05 AM · Report this
internet_jen 15
I kind if think gun owners should have to hand slaughter live stock to get a license. There could be a celebration feast.
Posted by internet_jen on December 3, 2012 at 7:11 AM · Report this
16
@10

Universally, you keep using that word...

Several more studies back up Kellerman's basic premise that a gun in a home is far more likely to be used on an occupant or acquaintance of the gun owner than on any "Protection."

But you can keep believing otherwise.
Posted by BornAgainInBellevue on December 3, 2012 at 7:21 AM · Report this
17
While we're at it, I think it's every American's God Given right to sell automatic weapons and 400 rounds of ammo to a 20-year-old with a history of mental health problems including involuntary hospitalization without so much as a background check.

What could possibly go wrong?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-5…
Posted by BornAgainInBellevue on December 3, 2012 at 7:25 AM · Report this
18
@13 has it right. With the sole exception of 5280, all of us commenters on this blog are perfectly well-adjusted and unobsessed, with wildly fulfilling lives that leave us too busy to get hung up on pet politcal issues, or even to comment here, except every three or four months, when we stop by to share pictures of our latest expedition to Everest, or the opening of our new show.
Posted by Eric from Boulder on December 3, 2012 at 7:26 AM · Report this
TheMisanthrope 19
@11 Thank you for equating gun advocacy with rapists and spouse beaters! I never knew that connection existed before!

Fucking misandrist.
Posted by TheMisanthrope on December 3, 2012 at 7:26 AM · Report this
20
@7: http://guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.h…

" Please note, the purpose of this exercise is not to show that using a gun in the home is better than not using one. This exercise does no such thing. It is merely to show how deeply flawed Kellermann's study really is. Further, a number of tremendously important factors are left unaccounted.

For example, another way of looking at it is, more martial artists are probably murdered by non-gun methods than they kill in self-defense. Would we conclude that it is best to avoid learning a martial art for self-defense based on such a "nonsense ratio?" Regardless of how the number crunching had turned-out between gun and non-gun violent deaths in the home, we should be able to see that Kellermann's approach contributes nothing towards establishing a general or personal risk factor for a gun in the home.

What is truly sad about the nonsense-ratio is how often it is cited and uncritically accepted. "
Posted by Tawnos on December 3, 2012 at 7:28 AM · Report this
internet_jen 21
Also, I was impressed by the development of this quick questionnaire that is to be used at the scene of domestic violence incidents.

http://www.courtinnovation.org/research/…

Posted by internet_jen on December 3, 2012 at 7:30 AM · Report this
internet_jen 22
@18 - capitol hill blog posted a cats of the hill post. Think we'll get a slog cat post?
Posted by internet_jen on December 3, 2012 at 7:39 AM · Report this
23
@21: A friend of mine was falsely accused by his ex-wife of domestic abuse, where she answered "yes" to those questions in order to get his firearms taken from him and put him in jail. When her story about abuse started falling apart, she started contacting mutual friends saying she was in trouble and that he needed to call her. Dumb bastard (my friend) didn't check with his lawyer before calling to see if she needed help, and is now serving time for a no contact order that was issued on false pretenses (the abuse case was dropped).

Those questions are great in the event of actual domestic violence, but give too much power to a bitter and possibly crazy spouse.
Posted by Tawnos on December 3, 2012 at 7:41 AM · Report this
TVDinner 24
@18: I have pictures of me handfeeding grateful orphans with puppy dog eyes to share. I did that the day after riding my bicycle up Mt. Everest and the day before peacefully swimming with great white sharks while on my period.
Posted by TVDinner http:// on December 3, 2012 at 7:52 AM · Report this
25
Didn't we just go over this ad nauseum uh, eight posts ago?

Yawn...
Posted by CPN on December 3, 2012 at 7:57 AM · Report this
Lissa 26
Oh look. Another passionate discussion about guns. Something so ingrained in our culture that they will never go away. Yes let's fight about that and call each other names rather than try to address the underlying problems that might have caused this incident. We can all puff up our chests and harrumph harrumph, Goldy will get page hits and his ego boosted, and at the end of the day nothing will change.
Posted by Lissa on December 3, 2012 at 7:58 AM · Report this
internet_jen 27
@23 - stories like that make my being an introvert, in real life, seem more of a blessing than a curse. I would never date a person I didn't know as their real regular self. Not just how they act when they are meeting people and putting their best foot forward. I don't know how I have friends, I don't like all that 'getting to know ya' stuff. Which makes finding potential mates hard. Thankfully, there was a perfectly good guy right under my nose who was off limits for a long time due to my friend's crush on him. Second boyfriend in 28 years.
Posted by internet_jen on December 3, 2012 at 8:00 AM · Report this
28
What precisely is the fucking point of this post?

Fine, I grant you guns don't make people safer. That's the beginning, not the end, of an argument for gun control.
Posted by Madasshatter on December 3, 2012 at 8:05 AM · Report this
29
@17: He didn't have an "automatic weapon," and he went through the background check. The if the background check failed to pick up his involuntary hospitalization, it sounds like a problem with the state reporting incidents like that to the federal database against which he was checked. If I recall correctly, only six or so states reliably report mental health issues to that database. It's a mess - they absolutely need to start enforcing current laws and regulations.
Posted by doceb on December 3, 2012 at 8:05 AM · Report this
Matt from Denver 30
I can't agree with this columnist until we know the facts. If Jovan Belcher was an abusive, controlling asshole, then at most we'd only be able to guess that he could still be alive today. Kassandra Perkins would definitely be dead, because when abusers lose all control and murder, they're unstoppable. And if he wasn't able to shoot himself, there are plenty of other ways to kill oneself.

If this was simply a terrible argument and he grabbed the gun in the heat of the moment, well, then he has a point. But I haven't seen any reports, and in general I don't trust the early reports in the media. People all across the country still believe the Columbine killers were bullied outcasts because of news outlets seeking that scoop.
Posted by Matt from Denver on December 3, 2012 at 8:06 AM · Report this
BLUE 31
Fresh data: an opinion piece by a Fox Sports writer. Finally the matter is settled.
Posted by BLUE on December 3, 2012 at 8:06 AM · Report this
32
Tawnos, here is where you're wrong: Gun shots are much easier to fire, take a lot less effort, and are overwhelmingly more fatal than martial arts moves. That's the way guns are designed, their purpose. In a pinch, you can grab one and kill someone in a second, or a couple minutes, without knowing much technique or even breaking a sweat. Self defense is not meant to be easily lethal. It requires incredibly more effort, thought, and training. Also, you can't commit suicide through karate. (It sounds ridiculous, but that's the equilevancy you're drawing.) You never hear of people getting killed outside of nightclubs through drunken karate fights, or people walking into public places and killing through martial arts. Guns allow to do all that. They give you that option.
Posted by floater on December 3, 2012 at 8:12 AM · Report this
33
Ignorant thugs who get paid millions of dollars to play a game that glorifies violence and subordination of women don't make us safer. They just don't.
Posted by john cocktosin v on December 3, 2012 at 8:35 AM · Report this
34
If he didn't possess/own a gun, he would have just found some other way of offing himself and Kasandra. Don't kid yourself.
Posted by suddenlyorcas on December 3, 2012 at 8:40 AM · Report this
35
@29

Hmmm, "Investigators say he legally purchased two assault rifles and 400 rounds of ammunition." Some assault rifles are indeed burst fire, but very few. Most are fully automatic or can be outfitted for both. Can I assume you pulled the 'he passed a background check' out of your ass too? There are, as yet, no reports of if he bought the guns from a dealer (background check, maybe) or from a private party (No Check.) As Missouri and Federal law says only those currently adjudicated mentally incompetent can be barred from legal purchase I stand by my original assessment.

A mentally ill person with a history of involuntary hospitalization was able to legally purchase automatic weapons and a large amount of ammunition.
Posted by BornAgainInBellevue on December 3, 2012 at 8:46 AM · Report this
36
@34

I call bullshit. There's a huge difference in having and using a gun and beating someone to death with a blunt object or strangulation. And one certainly can't drive to one's place of employment, tie a noose or bash your own brains in in front of witnesses without being stopped.
Posted by BornAgainInBellevue on December 3, 2012 at 8:48 AM · Report this
venomlash 37
@32: That is the problem I have with firearms in general. They make killing too easy. Personally, I don't think they should be used for anything other than warfare; it's immoral to hunt with a gun in my book. I'm not going to try and impose that on others, though.
Posted by venomlash on December 3, 2012 at 8:50 AM · Report this
ScrawnyKayaker 38
Well, I'm looking at a slow day at work. Who wants to meet at DJ's Loan and Sport in Bothell at 12:30 to fondle guns?

Posted by ScrawnyKayaker on December 3, 2012 at 8:52 AM · Report this
Matt from Denver 39
@ 17/35, that case is completely unrelated to this one. While assault rifles and automatic weapons are also guns like handguns, they are completely different things as far as the discussion of gun control is concerned.
Posted by Matt from Denver on December 3, 2012 at 8:53 AM · Report this
Matt from Denver 40
@ 36, read my comment @ 30. If Belcher was a controlling abuser, then @ 34 is 100% on the mark. Belcher could have still made a spectacle with his suicide if he had jumped from the top of Arrowhead Stadium.
Posted by Matt from Denver on December 3, 2012 at 8:55 AM · Report this
ScrawnyKayaker 41
@35 Any rifle you can buy without a special NFA permit will be a SEMI-automatic rifle. No full auto, no burst fire. Virtually all military-style rifles are available in a semi-auto-only version for civilian sale.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national…
Posted by ScrawnyKayaker on December 3, 2012 at 8:58 AM · Report this
42
"Guns don't make us safer. They just don't."

Oh GAWD, who gives a shit any more?! An asshole killed an innocent woman and himself. Tragic, yes, but for the love of all that's holy, Goldy, if you're not going to get up in arms over the guy who murdered TWO people in Wyoming before killing himself, why the FUCK are you that upset over this one?

Answer: Because you're a phobic bullshitter. Because you have the same irrational fear of guns that the troll has over one guy sticking his dick in another guy's asshole. You don't give 2 shits for this dead woman, any more than you do for dead people in WY. You have no interest in a rational discussion of gun safety. Instead, you troll for hits. And the saddest part is, we keep giving them to you.

Stop pretending this is about gun safety for you, Goldy, because it just plain isn't. People dead from drugs or car accidents or getting stabbed or shot are all the same to you, just like they are to everyone else. You're just scared of guns in a way that shoots waaaaaaaaaay over rational and right into Crazyland.

I could almost respect your opinion on it if you could only admit it. But you won't. Unless you have some legitimate reason you'd like to explain as to why you're still ranting about gun control when you had nothing to say about the 3 people getting stabbed to death in a college town\on campus?
Posted by NateMan on December 3, 2012 at 8:59 AM · Report this
43
@35: There's a six to eight month wait on the federal paperwork to legally buy an automatic rifle (even from a private party), it has to have been manufactured prior to the mid-80s, and going rates are well over $10,000. If some source claimed it was an "assault rifle," (by definition full-auto), then they are wrong. In fact, ithe firearm in question has been identified by authorities as a Smith and Wesson M&P15, which is not an automatic weapon. Furthermore, authorities have confirmed that he purchased the firearms from dealers, not private parties, and thus would have passed a federal background check.

Sources:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articl…

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/3346…
(warning: auto-play video with audio)
Posted by doceb on December 3, 2012 at 9:06 AM · Report this
44
@32: Did you see the quotes? I was quoting somebody else, so why are you addressing me? The main point was that the Kellerman study is methodologically flawed, not that a martial arts study is somehow better.

However, if you're going to claim I "never" hear about such things, you'd be wrong.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/m…
http://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/news/hac…
I hear about people being beaten to death less than someone shooting or stabbing someone else, true, but not "never". And certainly they make killing easier. It's why an old woman/man with a gun is equal to a young fighter/thug in potential force. This is a debate where neither side tends to budge, but I quoted the guncite page as a counterbalance to the brady page, not as my own argument. My argument would likely be more along the lines that a high prevalence of abuse does not itself limit a right. We shouldn't curtail the right to free speech because x to 1 times it's used to criticize or put down another. We shouldn't eradicate search and seizure protections because y to 1 times it serves to allow a criminal to go free/not get caught. Of course, then I go down that line and Goldy or someone else will come in here talking about how I'm being defeatist and saying that we'll just have to accept z number of murders a year. At the same time, we'll get news stories about how the murder rate has plummeted while the gun ownership rate has risen over the past 20-30 years. It's a nonstop cycle of left-wing/right-wing circle jerking.

@35: they weren't automatic weapons. You can argue people shouldn't have access to weapons, but try to do so truthfully and accurately, eh?
More...
Posted by Tawnos on December 3, 2012 at 9:09 AM · Report this
Westlake, son! 45
When Sunday Night Football was coming back from the halftime show (where they danced around what happened), they threw to Bob Costas and he basically read that article on air. It was pretty cool.
Posted by Westlake, son! on December 3, 2012 at 9:15 AM · Report this
46
And the question on ATF form 4 (the form one must fill out before purchasing from an FFL, as all of the firearms used in the Aurora shooting were, according to authorities) is:
"Have you [...] been adjudicated mentally defective or been committed to a mental institution?"

If this box is checked, at very least a hold will be placed on the sale, and in all likelihood it will be denied.

I suspect (but have no evidence one way or the other) that he checked "no," and the background check didn't pick up his history, due to the state's mental health facilities not updating the NICS database.
Posted by doceb on December 3, 2012 at 9:16 AM · Report this
47
Absolutely frightening how fired up gun proponents get at the mere mention of anti-gun statistics. Its like they want to... I don't know.... Shoot someone.
Posted by tabski on December 3, 2012 at 9:16 AM · Report this
48
Oh I see. Anyone who is sick of the guns that are used, repeatedly, against students/staff at schools, in domestic violence, idiots who leave them ready to go in cars with children, etc. is AFRAID of guns.

I'm not actually afraid of guns - I'm afraid of idiots with guns. Idiots who are immature, irrational and stupid and have a ready way to act that out with a gun.

I have always said that I'm fine with people own guns with two caveats.

They MUST take a licensing test just like getting a license to drive. (And get it updated just like a drivers license.)

Two, they MUST be held accountable for anything that happens with their gun (unless it was stolen from their possession). Want a gun? You are accountable for what happens with it especially with anyone under 18.

How hard is all that? It's asking you to be a responsible person with a deadly weapon.

If that cop who got off with leaving his gun in the car with his children (and one of them killing the other) had had another person's child in the car who was killed, he would be going to jail now. Responsible means you are responsible for ANYTHING that happens.

Whether it's a heavy fine, jail time, public service - they all need to be held responsible and time and again, are not.

There also needs to be a wait period for a thorough background check before anyone gets a gun.
Posted by westello on December 3, 2012 at 9:23 AM · Report this
49
@47: I don't see anyone in this thread particularly fired up. I see proponents acting like proponents, but what you're doing is trying to discredit an opposing opinions in the cheapest way possible - "oh, you're so emotional."
Posted by doceb on December 3, 2012 at 9:27 AM · Report this
50
If Jovan had a second gun he could have defended himself.
Posted by douchelord on December 3, 2012 at 9:28 AM · Report this
51
Okay, 50 wins the comment thread.
Posted by doceb on December 3, 2012 at 9:29 AM · Report this
52
@48: No, GOLDY is afraid of guns, as he has proven repeatedly. As his hypocrisy and sad fascination with gun deaths (while completely ignoring other violent deaths) continues to prove.

I have no objection to requiring people to take a safety course before allowing them to own guns. I live in MA; that's already the law. I also have no problem with myself or anyone else being held responsible for what they or others do with the guns they own. With the caveat that we do the same thing with cars, knives, and every other dangerous they own too. And no, suspended sentences for drunk driving don't fucking count. I also have no problem with background checks before allowing someone to buy a gun. I have no problem with there being a national database of registered gun owners and the guns they own, and a national database of criminals and what they've been convicted of, so long as that search is immediate. I'm not willing to accept a waiting period before buying a gun; if I can, finances permitting, go buy or rent a car and not have to wait 5 days before crashing it into a schoolyard, there's no legitimate reason to force me to wait to pick up the new gun I want to take target shooting. Your comfort and perceived safety are not justifiable reasons.
Posted by NateMan on December 3, 2012 at 9:33 AM · Report this
53
@36: If somebody wants somebody else dead badly enough, they will find a way. Call bullshit all you want, but at least get your head out of the sand.
Posted by suddenlyorcas on December 3, 2012 at 9:34 AM · Report this
54
@41

You've linked to a different case. The more recent incident is in Missouri and there are, as yet, no details except investigators confirming that the suspect bought, "two assault rifles" legally.

The federal ban on such weapons that required federal paperwork expired on 2004.
Posted by BornAgainInBellevue on December 3, 2012 at 9:38 AM · Report this
55
In other news, hundreds of thousands of gun owners neglected to take their own lives or the lives of loved ones yesterday, citing responsibility and strong mental health as reasons they avoided murder suicide. But fuck that, let's treat the whole country as a bunch of children, if one person can't use a gun properly, none of us can!
Posted by Brandon J. on December 3, 2012 at 9:40 AM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 56
@54, wrong. Please try to pay attention.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on December 3, 2012 at 9:44 AM · Report this
ScrawnyKayaker 57
I was not joking @38, BTW. Register at The Liberal Gun Club Forum and PM me, user Buck13, if you want to go.
Posted by ScrawnyKayaker on December 3, 2012 at 9:50 AM · Report this
ROAG 58
Guns of Capitol Hill! Guns of Capitol Hill! Let's see photos people.
Posted by ROAG on December 3, 2012 at 9:56 AM · Report this
59
@56

I'll just be doing a little work while you google Blaec Lammers and try to catch up.
Posted by BornAgainInBellevue on December 3, 2012 at 10:00 AM · Report this
ScrawnyKayaker 60
@58 "I must admit, you have an astonishingly good idea there, Doctor."
Posted by ScrawnyKayaker on December 3, 2012 at 10:07 AM · Report this
61
"The federal ban on such weapons that required federal paperwork expired on 2004."

Absolutely incorrect. Firearms covered under the National Firearms Act (automatic weapons, short-barreled weapons, and silencers/silenced weapons, among others) still require a federal tax stamp, which requires paperwork with a six to eight month wait.
Posted by doceb on December 3, 2012 at 10:15 AM · Report this
62
I seem to remember reading a Fox Sports article written back in the 10th century about a gladiator who killed his wife with a spear. He stated that he "wished the gun had been invented already because although much louder, it would have been less messy".
Posted by hmmmmmmm on December 3, 2012 at 10:17 AM · Report this
63
@26
"We can all puff up our chests and harrumph harrumph, Goldy will get page hits and his ego boosted, and at the end of the day nothing will change."

Exactly.
And Goldy still does not know the definition of "suicide".
I'm still waiting for someone to post what SPECIFIC legal changes would have to be made to prevent this SPECIFIC instance from happening.

Instead, all we get is Goldy replying to some comment that some guy made in the past.
That is all we ever get.
That behavior is also the reason why the gun control people keep losing these debates.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on December 3, 2012 at 10:59 AM · Report this
64
@42 Gotta bring this pro gun nut argument to Cabelas next time I'm there. If you are for gun regulation, you are a homophobe!
Posted by cracked on December 3, 2012 at 11:37 AM · Report this
65
Gun nuts love killings like this. Fear of dangerous elements lurking behind every corner is one of the primary motivators of their lives. They need the killings to justify their world view to themselves. That is why point to killings in an argument FOR gun regulation has the opposite effect with these folks. The crazier the shooter and the easier he was able to get his guns, the more the gun nuts want guns to be easily available.

Unfortunately, that paranoia can turn a fairly ordinary person into some one who ends up shooting some teenagers in a 7-11 parking lot because their music is too loud.
Posted by cracked on December 3, 2012 at 11:47 AM · Report this
66
I think the best for home defense is a short barrel shotgun and some rock salt rounds. Scares the living shit out of an intruder without doing any damage unless the guy's close enough to get burned by the salt. If that doesn't work, then use buckshot and create some modern art.
Posted by Mister G on December 3, 2012 at 12:10 PM · Report this
67
@65: crazy people are crazy.

Of course, "gun nut" is a highly subjective term, I think. Reasonable people who enjoy hunting or target shooting are often lumped together with the "Obama is going to TAKE OUR GUNS," doomsday prepper crowd.
Posted by doceb on December 3, 2012 at 12:16 PM · Report this
68
@66: use of a firearm (even with rock salt loads) is considered deadly force. Not only are short-barreled shotguns illegal in WA, but things like rock salt loads open legal liabilities along these lines:
In order to defend yourself with deadly force such as a shotgun blast (even with a rock salt load), you need to have a credible risk to your well-being. If you use a half-measure such as rock salt, your actions show that deadly force was not necessary, but you used it anyway. Similarly, firing warning shots is also a bad idea in a self-defense situation.
Posted by doceb on December 3, 2012 at 12:24 PM · Report this
69
@65
"Gun nuts love killings like this."

If you're going to try to troll then you have to do a bit better than that.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on December 3, 2012 at 12:31 PM · Report this
70
#68, depends on how short the barrel. I'm talking about an 18-inch barrel, as opposed to the more typical 28-inch. An 18-inch barrel is legal. As for the rest, I'd say that trying first to scare the intruder off, and then blasting him with the real thing is a good strategy. But who knows, maybe the shysters would say not.
Posted by Mister G on December 3, 2012 at 12:48 PM · Report this
pg13 71
I'm afraid of guns. I wish fewer people had them.

My fear would not be ameliorated by more people having them. Nor would I be less fearful if I had them.

I'm also afraid of bears. I try not to go where the bears are (and I do the same thing with guns.)
Posted by pg13 on December 3, 2012 at 2:51 PM · Report this
72
Guns make no difference in domestic violence. That is not to blame for Kasandra's murder.
Posted by kersy on December 4, 2012 at 12:30 PM · Report this
Soupytwist 73
Why is being afraid of guns a bad thing? Isn't that the point of guns (or any weapon)? I am deathly afraid of guns because they are deadly and I don't want to die or kill anyone.

@72 - Guns absolutely do make a difference in DV cases - the presence of guns in the household increases the likelihood of being murdered by your partner by more than 5x. http://www.futureswithoutviolence.org/us…
Posted by Soupytwist http://twitter.com/katherinesmith on December 4, 2012 at 1:48 PM · Report this
Cascadian Bacon 74
@58
Check my avatar, though I recently upgraded the rifle to BCM midlenght gas system with a light weight barrel profile. Handles SOOO much better than the M4, and easier to carry in the woods.

The irony about this case is maybe the girl would have been able protect herself from the rampaging steroid infused professional gladiator who murdered her.

@73
Being afraid of guns is a reasonable fear, they are fucking dangerous and need to be treated with utmost respect and safety considerations. Just like any power tool

@70
IIRC 18.25 inches in the legal minimum, 18 is federal prison time.
Posted by Cascadian Bacon on December 4, 2012 at 3:42 PM · Report this
75
No, the federal minimum shotgun barrel length is 18 inches. Barrels shorter than that aren't illegal under federal law, but must be registered with the ATF. State laws vary, but an 18-inch shotgun is legal in WA State. They are commonly advertised here.

For more info.:

http://archives.gunsandammo.com/content/…
Posted by Mister G on December 4, 2012 at 6:00 PM · Report this
Cascadian Bacon 76
@75
I stand corrected. Unfortunately SBS's and SBR's are illegal in WA State despite having the federal tax stamp. Though you can go the route of the Serbu Super Shorty due to it's classification as an AOW. Though a 4lb pistol grip 12ga makes me want to say "Ouch."

Though I am going to disagree on the rock salt thing, sounds like a great way to be sued, a firearm is deadly force regardless of loading. I use to think the same thing and used #6 shot for the first round in the tube. These days the shotgun never leaves the safe and the AR does HD duty due to greater maneuverability, ease of operation under stress, ammunition capacity and it 55gn loads have less barrier penetration than 00 buck or 9mm making it less likely to send a stray round into a neighbors house.
Posted by Cascadian Bacon on December 4, 2012 at 7:21 PM · Report this
77
#76, the use of rock salt rounds in shotguns has a long, illustrious history in America. It has been a favored method for repelling intruders (animal and human) for, well, pretty much forever. The effect is quite dramatic. The salt burns bright, causing a plume of fire a few feet long to come out of the barrel. If the intruder is close enough, they get not only a hell of a scare but nicely singed.

WA State law is quite firmly on the side of a homeowner in the event of invasion. I haven't had to use a gun to protect myself, thank God, but if I ever do, the first round will be rock salt and the second round will be buckshot. I'll take my chances in court.
Posted by Mister G on December 4, 2012 at 11:45 PM · Report this
78
p.s.: The biggest problem with rock salt is what it does to the barrel. I would recommend using a rock salt round in your $20,000 duck hunting gun.
Posted by Mister G on December 4, 2012 at 11:47 PM · Report this
79
Oops, I wouldn't recommend it.
Posted by Mister G on December 4, 2012 at 11:48 PM · Report this
80
Let's say there were no guns. ... He would have killed his wife with a knife, (or stabbed her in the eye with a pencil). I'll make a deal with all of you anti-second amendment people; When ALL of the criminals turn in THEIR guns, I'll gladly turn in mine, OK? Until then, I don't want to hear, the limp-wristed drivel.
Posted by Dan @ CC.C on December 5, 2012 at 8:16 AM · Report this
81
guns make killing and suicide easier. nations with good gun limits and controls, have fewer deaths and killings and suicides and accidents via guns; also they don't have huge parts of big cities where you are afraid to go because of constant gun violence; and they do not have schools where every kid knows 2 or 3 peers dead by gun fire by age 18.

these nations are france, germany, sweden, england, japa, canada, etc. etc. etc.

it's just like trains: they work. national health insurance or regulations close enough to it: this works. sewers: they work. providing mass education to boost your economy: it works.

gun controls: they work. because having EZ access to guns isn't making us safer. You don't find tourists from paris coming here walking all over the south bronx at night saying omg it's soooo safe here, we can walk around! but you will find tourists from the south bronx who go to paris and say omg it's so safe here, they don't have all these guns all over!

thus, the reason we have all these deaths (the effective cause, not the moral one) is all the gun totin' gun lovin' gun ownin' GUN NUTS who block gun control. They're the people who are blocking the legislative and policy changes, and the cultural changes, that would be needd to lower our rates of death by gunfire.
Posted by blame gun owners on December 5, 2012 at 10:51 AM · Report this
82
#81, did it ever occur to you that maybe some people are better off dead?
Posted by Mister G on December 5, 2012 at 11:51 AM · Report this
Cascadian Bacon 83
@81
Funny because France, Japan, Sweden all have higher suicide rates than the US with Canada following closely behind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cou…

As for kids dying by gun in big cities sounds like a gang problem rather than a gun problem. I went to high school where they still had trucks with rifle racks, no one ever got shot, though more than a few died in auto accidents, and one had a tree fall on him.

Also Paris and other big European cities are hardly "safe" when you step outside the tourist track. Funny that you mention The Bronx, NYC has some of the strictest gun control int he nation, which tends to make sure that only the criminals are armed.

I have a feeling you have never been there as you describe the sewer system as "working" Paris and other big European cities with old systems smell like septic tanks in the summer months.
Posted by Cascadian Bacon on December 5, 2012 at 5:18 PM · Report this
Christampa 84
@82 That thought had occurred to me after seeing your unrelenting idiocy
Posted by Christampa on December 5, 2012 at 9:36 PM · Report this
i'm pro-science and i vote 85
"There's no connection between having a gun and shooting someone with it, and not having a gun and not shooting someone" -Bill Hicks & his sarcasm
Posted by i'm pro-science and i vote http://www.prettyopenended.com on December 6, 2012 at 10:13 AM · Report this

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy