Whether or not [Kasandra] Perkins owned a gun, the woman was obviously unprepared for the sudden attack that ended her life last Saturday. Had she been armed, it’s possible the event could have become a shootout — further endangering the two onlookers to Perkins’ murder: The couple’s infant daughter, and Belcher’s mother.She was a victim, a victim, a victim. Get it? If she'd dared to redefine herself, it would only have been worse. Grandma and baby might have died in a gun-slinging shootout. Now, get in this box that we've prepared for you, young woman: the victim box. Too bad that in your case, the victim box is a coffin. If you could only enlarge your perspective and contemplate the larger policy concepts. Over the vast expanse of people whose lives will be cradled and blanketed by the loving kindness of gun control — and all manner of other control — there will be more comfort, more caring, more lives saved.... in the mind of Think Progress, which must, of course, always think Progress! and, being dedicated to progress must know which way is forward. No distractions off the path can be tolerated. Of course, women's empowerment lies ahead on the forward path. So it can't be possible to think that an armed Kasandra Perkins is progress. That must be a wrong turn. How to see women's empowerment and gun control both together on the forward path? She's a victim. Package her that way. Package her neatly and stow her away, here, in this grave.
Having a gun in the home increases the likelihood of both murders and suicides. According to the Brady Campaign, “A gun in the home is more likely to be used in a homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense.”
Put simply, Perkins was a victim of domestic violence by a man who was able to purchase guns....
December 9, 2012
If Javon Belcher's girlfriend had owned a gun, might she have saved her own life?
The NRA thinks so, naturally, and naturally, Think Progress must say nooooo:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
118 comments:
Carried firearms bring back important phrases in the English venacular: "Please", "thank you", "may I?", "Would you mind?", etc.
The administration is reported to be setting sights on gun control. Likely they won't be able to stop you from getting one, but they'll make you go through a long gauntlet in order to do so.
Don't you have a right not to be a victim?
80, 000, 000 gun owners.
100s of millions of guns.
Yeah. Gun control will work.
The NRA thinks so, naturally, and naturally, Think Progress must say nooooo..
Only one of which has evidence to support it, but of course the empirically challenged blogress naturally chooses to go all hyperbolic on the one that does.
Remind us again of how awesome Rasumssen is. Was. Will be.
One of the odder conundrums of this oft repeated debate is the apparent insistence that we don't have gun control laws.
I don't know about the jurisdiction where this event took place, but NY State and NY City have a whole mess of gun control laws on the books. Unless you've got political pull or you're in law enforcement, you simply cannot have a handgun in NY City.
Why the continued apparent insistence that we don't have gun control laws?
We do.
So, what are we really talk about here?
Gun control...
Or...
Gun prohibition?
Countering the NRA with the Brady people is over-egging the pudding.
-XC
PS - My wife and daughter are both very good shots with a pistol. I don't know if they would be able to get to one, and if they did, be able to shoot someone. But they know how and that is a lot.
My family mythology reports that my mother, now 86, once pulled a pistol on my Grandfather, when he was beating my grandmother. By the time I was old enough to notice, my grandfather was dead. Not because of my mother ;)
Owning a gun is not enough. One must also know how to use it, and be willing to use it.
Also please note the use of term "gun control," which even the most "pro-gun" advocates unconsciously fall into the trap of using.
"Gun control" is what the NRA preaches as it always has. What the "anti-gun" progressives want is "gun removal."
Shouting Thomas said...
So, what are we really talk about here?
Gun control...
Or...
Gun prohibition?
The ultimate aim of the progressives is gun prohibition.
Oh, some family lore I forgot. My great aunt fired her 32 through the screen door at "a hobo" who was trying to get in. The police offered to hush it up but she insisted the incident be in the papers so everyone would know she slept with a gun under her pillow.
She made great meatballs, in an unrelated note.
-XC
It makes a lot more sense to imagine that Kasandra Perkins---or even Javon Belcher's mother---could've scrambled around and found the gun in time to either threaten Javon or shoot him than to go with the anti-gun position that Kasandra would be alive if Javon didn't have a gun. Most healthy, reasonably athletic 25-year-old men can beat to death or strangle a healthy reasonably athletic 22-year-old women. In this case, where the man makes his living as a human battering ram, it's particularly clear that only a gun or a car or another man could've possibly kept Kasandra Perkins on equal footing with Javon Belcher.
Anti-gun zealots don't want women to be equal to men.
Hagar said...
Owning a gun is not enough. One must also know how to use it, and be willing to use it.
Also please note the use of term "gun control," which even the most "pro-gun" advocates unconsciously fall into the trap of using.
"Gun control" is what the NRA preaches as it always has. What the "anti-gun" progressives want is "gun removal."
A logistical nightmare.
Who's going to do it.? How are they going to do it?
The administration is reported to be setting sights on gun control. Likely they won't be able to stop you from getting one, but they'll make you go through a long gauntlet in order to do so.
Which is a good part of the reason that the gun industry is doing maybe even better than the government industry in the Obama recession. Socialism ultimately leads to totalitarianism, and one of the first things done then is to seize the weapons in the hands of the populace, in order to give the state a monopoly on power.
So, of course, the Obama Administration, after their reelection by the takers over the makers, wants desperately to disarm the makers, so that it can continue to transfer more and more of the national product to the dependent classes in the form of bribes in order to maintain and increase its power. No surprises here.
What the "anti-gun" progressives want is "gun removal."
12/9/12 9:02 AM
Ah, the "they're coming to take your guns" meme has resurfaced again, I was wondering how long after the election it would take to reappear..
That Expat(ish)'s wife and daughter know how to use a gun should at least help keep them from harming themselves with one.
I took my kids to an NRA club when they were little, so they at least know which end of the gun is the dangerous one, and some gun etiquette to keep from accidentally harming others.
If she'd had a gun, the chance that this incident would've taken place is reduced, for many reasons. We need not only look at those few minutes in time to see how the presence of her gun would've changed things. It would've changed the entire dynamic, not least of which she may have had the confidence or foresight, or whatever, to have successfully removed herself and her baby long before that day ever arrived.
In the comments section over there, it's said that it's been reported that there were 8-9 guns in the house and that they had gone shooting, together. If this is indeed true, I'm not seeing your point.
Ah, the "they're coming to take your guns" meme has resurfaced again, I was wondering how long after the election it would take to reappear..
Inga, are you aware at all that this is a completely empty statement?
The fact that you are exasperated with your opponents for saying something is not indicative of anything.
Political arguments are never new because the human issues political arguments address really never change.
The ultimate aim of the progressives is gun prohibition.
Hyperbole challenge!
The ultimate goal of retrogrades is gun violence and domestic crime.
FTFY.
In school we're taught there are 3 basic needs for human survival: food, clothing and shelter.
But there is a fourth, protection.
If you allow yourself to be maneuvered into a situation where you have no choice but to depend on the government for any or all of these things then....they gotcha.
Political arguments are never new because the human issues political arguments address really never change.
Especially amongst people who thrive off of having and perpetuating those "issues".
Some people are just addicted to drama.
The ultimate goal of retrogrades is gun violence and domestic crime.
You just disqualified yourself from being taking seriously again, Ritmo.
Not that I was taking you seriously.
Kit, so if what you have heard reported is true, she would've needed to be carrying on a gun on her person at all times in her own home while caring for her child. Gun packin' mama indeed.
The issue here is really race, which is why everybody's ignoring it. (Just watch! Ritmo will quickly fall apart in a tantrum of spitting and cursing.)
Gun violence is almost entirely committed by blacks and hispanics.
If you're white, your chances of being affected by gun violence are just about zero.
I've read quite a bit about this incident.
Belcher had a long history of displaying an explosive temper and incidents with the law.
Also, apparently, drug and alcohol abuse.
His girlfriend undoubtedly knew about this.
Having an illegitimate child with this kind of man is a very bad idea. Double that when you factor in the big money Belcher was making, and that fact that both hadn't stopped partying and staying out all night even though they had a kid.
A man wants to know that he is the father of his own child. It's one of our most primal needs. When you fuck that up, you're playing with fire.
The ultimate aim of the progressives is gun prohibition.
Not really. Disarming the populace is necessary for the totalitarian, and the natural result of socialism is just that, totalitarianism. But I would suggest that most progressives are more the willing dupes of the socialists and totalitarians, than anything. They are told to support gun confiscation and limitations, so they do. But, there are plenty of liberals in Congress, starting at the Senate Majority Leader, who know not to touch this issue.
After WWII, Norway was floating in guns, but crimes involving firearms were very rare. Most homicides or severe bodily harm crimes were committed using the nearest hard object, such as an aquavit bottle or a piece of firewood.
This isn't really that complicated.
A woman with a gun and some training is the approximate equal (offense and defensively) of a man with a gun and some training.
The gun moots the woman's physical weakness from the equation. Yes, Think Progress is quite right that a woman increasing her capability for self defense comes with the potential for the woman's new power to cause damage. She could more easily commit suicide, they note. An irresponsible use of the gun could lead to an accident.
But my view is that the murderer was likely more prone to suicide than a woman with the resolution to arm herself. The murderer was more likely to be careless with a gun or leave it in a place where a kid could get to it.
I think that view is pretty solid.
The good guys who get guns in order to protect themselves from grim situations, particularly women who are in need of an equalizer, are generally more responsible and thoughtful, generally practice to a good skill level (actually evolving from inferior to superior!) and care about avoiding accidents.
The solution is access to arms and training facilities and good education on how to be safe and accurate with a handgun. Every woman should strongly consider learning how to shoot. I wish they would teach this in high school.
The issue here is really race, which is why everybody's ignoring it. (Just watch! Ritmo will quickly fall apart in a tantrum of spitting and cursing.)
Gun violence is almost entirely committed by blacks and hispanics.
Easy to problem to solve then, according to our resident racist! Just become a racist. Codifying said racism into law (now in the name of maintaining public order) will be the easiest next step. And was, for the majority of our country's history.
It was pretty fun watching Seven Machos pound your racist head into the ground. But don't count on me joining in - I prefer leaving the drama to the resident Republiqueens.
Actually, the issue is class/social standing - but you are too sympathetic to the Republican slaveholder/wanna-be class to seriously care about addressing the problems of economic deprivation. Unless it benefits you as a white male.
Just because you have a side that seems endearing to the hostess on others, don't think that you're not an unrepentant bigot. You wish to see nearly everything through the prism of race and gender.
The question is, why you think this is interesting, novel or useful. It's boring. And a drama-addicted sort such as yourself should strive for something more creative.
And a drama-addicted sort such as yourself should strive for something more creative.
That is so funny, Ritmo. Let's examine your use of language...
resident racist
Republican slaveholder/wanna-be class
unrepentant bigot
Who's the drama queen?
Ritmo, just as I predicted, you've descended into a storm of name calling, abuse and sputtering.
Thank you for proving my point. Again. Too easy.
I gave up on the "We must control guns" clowns when some bigshot with NOW announced that for a woman to use a gun to stop a rapist made her as morally wrong as the rapist; that such just 'continued the cycle of violence', etc. In other words, "Better you be a victim than successfully defend yourself in a way we disapprove of."
Jeff Cooper referred to what these people want not as 'gun control', but as personal disarmament laws; he was right. They can't stand the idea of someone not a minion of government being armed, it makes them uppity peasants who argue with their betters.
There's a good response to Costas & Co. here: http://tinyurl.com/c5yzvtt
which includes
Do you know what kept me safe? Not some piece of paper. Not a judge tut tutting at him and shaking his/her finger and telling him to leave me alone. Not the police, who, after all, would only be able to respond once he had caused me harm. No, what kept me safe was my Glock. What kept me safe was my Glock and the fact that he knew I had both the ability and the will to empty a clip into his chest if he made good on his statements that if I did not come back, I would not see the next week.
I'm going to church, Ritmo.
Feel free to continue your tantrum in my absence.
I know that you will.
It must have been interesting taking a young Shouting Thomas to see Westerns as a kid and hearing him ask why all the supposedly violent blacks and Hispanics were missing from the gunfight scenes.
Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton were definitely black. Or Hispanic.
They definitely weren't white.
Neither was Al Capone.
It must have been interesting taking a young Shouting Thomas to see Westerns as a kid and hearing him ask why all the supposedly violent blacks and Hispanics were missing from the gunfight scenes.
You are just dumb, Ritmo.
Dumber than a rock.
Continue the tantrum. We can always count on you for that.
I guess this is why the conspiratorially-minded once accused Bill Clinton of murder - must have had something to do with him being the first black president.
Any crimes you wish to accuse Obama of, ST?
Shouting Thomas preemptivly states that someone, anyone who he feels will challenge him is either drunk or hysterical, when ironically ST comes across as both, from almost his first moment on any given subject, but especially racial or gender issues, amazing.
He does this to try to disarm his opponent, but it usually backfires (ha) on him.
You are just dumb, Ritmo.
Why? I'm not the one claiming that violence is a racial phenomenon.
Defend your views, Sir! Take pride in your race-based assertions!
They are really the vanguard of deep thought. Especially nowadays.
Bruce Hayden said...
The ultimate aim of the progressives is gun prohibition.
Not really. Disarming the populace is necessary for the totalitarian, and the natural result of socialism is just that, totalitarianism. But I would suggest that most progressives are more the willing dupes of the socialists and totalitarians, than anything. They are told to support gun confiscation and limitations, so they do. But, there are plenty of liberals in Congress, starting at the Senate Majority Leader, who know not to touch this issue
I think in the near term they-the controllers- want to make owning a firearm a marginalizing issue. Much like calling someone a racist.
Unfortunately it isn't going to work. because of those 80 million I mentioned earlier. Plus the fact that Smith and Wesson sales have increased by 48%.
I have firearms I've inherited of which there are no public record. Two fine shotguns. Plus the fact, if I were so motivated, I have the skills to make one.
The issue here is really race, which is why everybody's ignoring it.
Gun violence is almost entirely committed by blacks and hispanics.
And, of course, once you open that can of worms, it is a short step to the destruction of the underclass, and esp. Black, families caused, to a great extent by progressive policies, starting with LBJ's War on Poverty.
The basic problem there is that marriage and fatherhood is the thing that has traditionally, over the millenia, civilized males. Absent that, they tend to run in juvenile packs that terrorize their communities. And, not surprisingly, the places where illegitimacy is highest also tend to be the places where the violence is the greatest.
A lot has been made of Nixon's Southern Strategy, but little of LBJ's Black Strategy of a couple of years earlier, where the Dem party, after 160 years of opposing civil rights laws, finally supported them. But, the other part of his strategy was to buy the Black community, through his War on Poverty, which had the perverse, but entirely predictable, consequence of breaking up the Black family culture. And, now, a couple of generations later, we see the natural consequences of that, with the resulting rampant crime and violence. For some of those on the left, this might be a bug, but for avowed socialists, it is probably more a feature, since the violence has made the underclasses even more dependent upon the state for survival.
Tonight's assignment for Montana Urban Schmendrik, should he choose to accept it, is to walk the width of Manhattan, without evil gun protection, at 135th Street. Good luck, lover of humanity.
If I'm not mistaken, Rusty just insinuated that France, Germany and Sweden are actually "totalitarian" states.
Tonight's assignment for Montana Urban Schmendrik, should he choose to accept it, is to walk the width of Manhattan, without evil gun protection, at 135th Street. Good luck, lover of humanity.
Does 127th count? Is it not close enough, jerk-off? Or you afraid of dining at Sylvia's? I've done both that and stayed (gun-free) a few nights (and days) a few blocks from there.
Apparently your bigotry is not evident, offensive or ignorant to you either. But it's still wrong.
It follows the usual template. A hurricane or a murder has progressive jews or leftists in the media immediately grabbing it to serve the global warming or ant-gun "narrative".
In defense, the goobers make stupid counterclaims that Jesus gave the earth infinite resources and infinite capacity to absorb any pollutant and we need to all have huge families and grow the world to prosperity. And each woman in any house should go about with a holstered gun with "real man-stopping power" always at the ready to use in a split second against her husband. (It is obvious to us gun zealots that a gun is useless unless it is always kept on her person when her husband is around, safety off, round chambered!) Of course, then the rightwing logic extends to the husband - who must also go about the house with a gun always ready to stop a crazy wife before she uses "inappropriate lethal force".
Then the leftists and progressive Jews come back with stupidity of their own - like only those Ameticans hired as hero government workers in uniform can be trusted with any sort of firearm - and the greatest crisis is people still haven't changed out 100% to planet-saving CFLs.
And over on the right, they get mired into masturbatory gun porn amidst their own ranks - one side saying the only gun for Mrs. Belcher was a .45 in a quick draw Bianchi holster, the other that opines for a more managable .9mm, but with at least a 15 shot magazine, ideally a 30 round extender..in case her husband assails her with 4-5 friends. With both camps railed voiciferously against the people that want her to sport a 12 gauge around everywhere - ready to stop any husband attack that could happen at any second. (A 12 gauge is useless against a husband that could have you subdued and in the process of being beaten to death in a second, unless she is carrying it....and how would she do all the chores, read the Bible, and handle the kids if she carries a shotgun 24/7?)
Has Meade turned our proprietress into Pistol Packin' Annie?
Is a shift on same sex marriage possible?
Shouting Thomas said...
So, what are we really talk about here?
Gun control...
Or...
Gun prohibition?
Consider about whom we are talking.
(Godwin Alert) and Uncle Joe didn't want the proles armed, either.
ricschmuck, maybe you just have a talent for pissing off angry minorities. They don't really seem to bother me all that much.
Do you live in Manhattan or an outer borough? Just curious? Around the park? (That big one in the middle of the island).
Either way, your snobbery seems to be showing.
In Britain, the police are now confiscating knives from the citizens.
Just ordinary knives, such as Buck or Barlow knives, never mind Bowie or switchblades, which will get you arrested.
A hurricane or a murder has progressive jews or leftists in the media immediately grabbing it to serve the global warming or ant-gun "narrative".
Which would explain the ethnicity of Bob Costas somehow, you toothless dingleberry.
One indication that the primary purpose of gun "control" legislation is monopoly of power in the hands of the government is that a large number of the guns being used in the underclasses to commit all that violence are illegal already. Chicago, murder capital of the country right now, has some of the most draconian gun laws in the country - which is why, post-Hellar, it seems to be the most common defendant in 2nd Amdt. litigation these days. And, ditto for all those other big cities with major violence problems - they tend to also have pretty stiff gun control laws. And, yes, most of those males who finally get out of prison are forbidden from owning guns as convicted felons.
So, we have a lot of gun violence in certain parts of this country committed greatly, if not primarily, using illegal guns, and the proposed solution? Make legal gun ownership by the law abiding sector of the populace illegal.
Gun prohibition worked well for freed slaves after Reconstruction, - thank you DEMOCRAT party, the Jews & Germans after Hitler's rise, & Cubans after Castro's.
Be still my heart, they got new cookers a few years ago, too bad there's not a lot of fuel in Cuba to cook things.
Montana Urban Schmendrick, the assignment was to walk, at night, the width of Manhattan, at 135th Street without gun protection. It was not to "stay" in some apartment in Harlem. The fact that you misrepresented the assignment was no surprise. That's what left-turds do. Again, not would you do it? Do it! Please. Then we can have the conversation about my bigotry from your hospital bed, or maybe in a morgue, but then it won't be a conversation. Do it! You shit!
--Ah, the "they're coming to take your guns" meme has resurfaced again, I was wondering how long after the election it would take to reappear...-
Didn't save the link, Inga, but read the administration is yakking about it AGAIN a couple weeks ago. Maybe less knitting, more surfing?
Ah, the troll food on the table brought them out.
Seeing Red, oh too too bad you don't have a link, perhaps you could find it? Since it's your assertion.
You do it, Ric-Schmuck. Or did it already land you in a hospital bed?
I don't live in New York. There are dangerous places everywhere. I'm sure there are some hick-type "backwoodsy" places that woulnd't "feel" too safe -- you know, like in the trailer park that Cedarfart lives in. But I'll leave the broad "racial" brush to you and the rest of your gang. Blacks are all of one type and so are whites, is what you would have everyone here believe; it's the point you're making. Yes, we get that you're a bigot too. No, we don't care why or how.
Begone!
You are like a form of intellectual pestilence. Listening to you makes me wonder if there is a Lysol for the soul. You could use a bath in it, spiritually speaking.
Shouting Thomas said...
The issue here is really race, which is why everybody's ignoring it. (Just watch! Ritmo will quickly fall apart in a tantrum of spitting and cursing.)
Gun violence is almost entirely committed by blacks and hispanics.
=================
Incorrect.
"The Color of Crime" breaks down use of guns in wrongful violence or commission of a crime (rape, armed robbery, etc) as 52% black, 23% Hispanic, 20% white, 5% "other" (Asians, native Americans, etc.).
Be careful with sweeping claims like - "mostly all crime is black or hispanic, whites are as pure as the driven snow".
In terms of harm to society, you can make an argument that what criminal whites and Jews, for the most part, in the financial system did - white collar crimes and corruption throughout government - was far more damaging to the American citizenry and our future than murders.
Especially given a murder rate much less than in Reagan's day, and much less than the homicides and maimings from auto accidents.
And in the non-criminal arena - yes, those minorities are hurting our future gobbling up entitlement spending.
But the richest 1% went on a strategy to destroy manufacturing jobs in America and reap the profits from the lower labor cost overseas of the relocated factories and suppression of any real worker wage growth in America since 1981.
"Only one of which has evidence to support it, but of course the empirically challenged blogress naturally chooses to go all hyperbolic on the one that does."
Do you know what "evidence" is and how to use it?
What are you comparing to what? I'll bet you're comparing the wrong things.
I certainly wouldn't compare X to Y where X is the number of suicides, murders, and accidents by gun and Y is the number of gun killings done in self defense.
If you don't see several problems with that comparison, that "evidence" you have there in your hands isn't something you can be trusted with. You could really hurt a lot of people with that.
The bad guy always has the drop on the good guy, at least at the start of the confrontation. Kasandra Perkin lives if she shoots Javon Belcher first. But then she's the bad guy.
Obviously, though, with guns a fact of life this country, women need to be trained in how to be avoid becoming a victim in a situation.
Murder/suicide prevention training is needed most for women married to or involved with men who own guns. The NRA could organize an auxiliary for this purpose.
For wives and girlfriends of college and pro sports figures, perhaps the team should be required to provide the training.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
A hurricane or a murder has progressive jews or leftists in the media immediately grabbing it to serve the global warming or ant-gun "narrative".
Which would explain the ethnicity of Bob Costas somehow, you toothless dingleberry.
------------------------
What part of "liberal" don't you understand that has you pondering what ethnicity Costas has to be in order to be liberal - you old lefty twat??
The course could be called, "How to pack heat, in case your husband loses his cool".
Murder/suicide prevention training is needed most for women married to or involved with men who own guns.
I wouldn't go nearly so far as 'most'. Maybe a teensy percentage have that problem.
"Most" have no problems at all. But then I live in a state full of hunters and we think differently about guns.
Refer to the actual numbers and sources behind these, and then a basis for argumentation might exist. As it stands, I'm not trusting the proponents of broad legislation of the sort that gave us a 2nd-degree murder trial for George Zimmerman on why "self defense"-styled killing such a confounding variable.
This gets us into numbers, something which I can equally understand and debate. I never trusted the millions entrusted to Karl Rove's electioneering predictions, either, so be aware that I come into the arena with a deck stacked in favor of realistic empirical analyses.
Whether Perkins could have defended herself with a gun is impossible to know for sure because both participants to their argument are dead. One possible clue may come from what Belcher's mother heard from another room, as reported by Deadspin:
He and Perkins argued loudly—over what precisely may never be known, but Belcher's mother Cheryl Shepherd, who was staying with the couple, said she heard Belcher yell, "You can't talk to me like that!" She then heard gunshots.
She did not hear Perkins scream "Don't shoot me!" or anything to that effect, nor did she hear sounds of a struggle. All this could mean that the two were having a non-physical argument when Belcher suddenly changed everything by drawing his gun and starting to fire. If that's the case, it may mean that having a gun wouldn't have done Perkins much good, though in any event it appears that she actually did have access to guns.
I don't know if this has any relationship to the question of whether having a gun would have done Perkins any good, but something that hasn't gotten much attention is the fact that Belcher shot Perkins nine times. It was obvious that he wanted her dead, and fast.
Peter
What part of "liberal" don't you understand that has you pondering what ethnicity Costas has to be in order to be liberal -
What part of "progressive" do you think is somehow modified by Jewish ethnicity, seeing as how you found that important enough to point out?
Nice on the "old lefty twat" invective. ;-) I'm curious as to whether you threw that one out there in the name of inaccuracy, incisiveness, or just your plain old eccentric dim-wittery and interest in avoiding the more boring and usual bigotry.
The meme of "onlookers/in front of" has taken on a life of its own. People seem to have a real investment in keeping this alive. Its not enough that Belcher's mother is supposed to be (but was not) present, but now Think Progress wants the infant daughter there as well. That's becoming a really crowded master bathroom.
Re: Kit@9:13.
Yep, it appears that Belcher did own multiple guns. As to whether there were 8-9 as you read, where they were located, and how they were stored/secured, I have no idea.
Funny how this post came up right after the one on "Anti-Fragile" ..... interesting juxtaposition!!!!
Good to see the resident clown Ritmo and reubenesque female(ish) equivalent Inga have come to spew their shitnuggets of "wisdom."
I think that both of you would be much more comfortable with the concept of firearms if you had more experience around them.
First, jump through whatever hoops the government requires of you to aquire a gun. A rifle would work, but a handgun would be more convenient.
Second, after loading the instrument, insert in your mouth (easy for you Inga, just pretend that it is whatever phallic shaped edible that gives your your girlish (if that girl was overweight) figure.
Third, pull trigger.
Easy peazy!
Not to get too far afield in the gun control debate, but as to what the girlfriend should have done:
If she had sense enough to feel threatened by Javon Belcher, then a better maneuver than aquiring a pistol would have been to leave him! And maybe get a pistol too--in case he visits in an unanounced fashion.
Another flame war heats up.
This isn't worth my time.
At least in an online discussion no one will get shot.
As always we need to remember that the genius class at Think Progress thinks the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a work of brilliance. One essential human right is not contained in that document: the right to self-defense. It truly is a mindset devoted to enslaving mankind.
dbp said...
Not to get too far afield in the gun control debate, but as to what the girlfriend should have done:
If she had sense enough to feel threatened by Javon Belcher, then a better maneuver than aquiring a pistol would have been to leave him! And maybe get a pistol too--in case he visits in an unanounced fashion
The fact is we don't know anything about the event other than Belcher was an extremely volatile and spoiled young man, and he shot her nine times. e don't know where she was what position she was in, even if she was facing him when he shot her.
Everything else is woulda, coulda, shoulda.
Shanna, I was out fixing fence on the first day of deer season, so I come from the same sort of place that you do, with perhaps a different perspective.
When I wrote "most" I did not mean most women, just the women who would benefit most from murder/suicide prevention training.
You wouldn't take this training just to protect yourself from your husband or boyfriend. As this case illustrates, you might have a son, or a brother-in-law, nephew, cousin, or other male relation or quasi-relation for which the training could come in handy.
These debates are always interesting for the assumptions that seem to immediately come to people's minds.
For instance...
If you read my statements above, you might notice that I haven't stated an opinion on whether further gun control laws should be enacted. Really, I didn't.
In fact, I don't have a fixed opinion ready for you on that subject.
What I did was to point out that the problems of guns and violence are difficult and probably not so easily solved. I have a general opinion that human problems are difficult to solve, and not so likely to disappear just because somebody passes a law.
In fact, that's the only opinion I have on the subject.
As to race, I've read repeatedly that 95% of gun violence in NYC is perpetrated by blacks and hispanics, and that the victims of gun violence in NYC are overwhelmingly black and hispanic.
I think that this is probably unarguably true. This, to me, leads to some obvious questions.
I've spent nearly 50 years treating the victims of gunshot wounds and stab wounds. Ritmo wouldn't like it if I mentioned the racial breakdown so I won't say.
Even in the mostly white suburban area of Orange County CA, where I founded and ran the local trauma center, the distribution of gunshot victims and perps (I was often called on the testify in trials), would not please Ritmo.
So I won't mention it.
Progress is an ambiguous concept. It must be qualified to have meaning.
This, to me, leads to some obvious questions.
A question that isn't posed as, "Why have whites been so violent throughout history except for now?", but rather, "Blacks and Hispanics must be seen as an anomaly, even though only when compared to the relative and incredibly recent gains of whites. Why and how can I generalize that racially instead of historically?"
You are asking the wrong question but if that's what makes you happy, I can see why. It won't lead to any correct answers. And hence, your question becomes an eternal quest for things that don't exist - like the fountain of youth. Or the Seven Cities of Gold. It is an immortalized wonderment and fascination with an unknown borne of making the known, falsely unknowable.
A question that isn't posed as, "Why have whites been so violent throughout history except for now?", but rather, "Blacks and Hispanics must be seen as an anomaly, even though only when compared to the relative and incredibly recent gains of whites. Why and how can I generalize that racially instead of historically?"
I was talking about the questions I have, Ritmo, not the voices in your head.
You're a paranoid, Ritmo. Evidently, you think a lot of really awful things because you constantly project those things on other people.
You're not capable of having a conversation with another person. Because you're always talking with the voices in your head.
This is what makes you so dumb.
Victimhood is to the liberal mind what profit is to the businessman - life itself and the reason to exist.
Since you can't be bothered, Inga, why should I?
Hmmm, wasn't it Penguin who also claimed to be incurious?
But I can tell you I think Insty had a link a couple of weeks ago with something like gun owners rise, crime falls, lefties baffled comment.
An armed society is a polite society.
You could also peruse some old Detroit or Michigan papers when they liberalzed gun control a few years ago.
Seeing Red, it was you who asserted that the Obama administration wants to take away your guns, now prove it. I didn't say it , YOU did.
liberalized.
No, Shouting Toothache. You are the paranoid one, who thinks that blacks and Hispanics are coming to take your job away. The rotting distress you emitted in those overblown smoke signals you constantly threw out just a few short years ago could be smelled from miles away. They were as ugly then as they would be now.
If you don't feel that way any longer (or just don't admit to it), I suppose that's a moral and civil progress of sorts. But to project the paranoia and lack of civility in those witless rants you so often ran with onto others, is very irresponsible.
Ummm, no, Obama originally said it running for pres the 1st time around.
It was also on the news, sporting & hunting only.
If you are interested, you might find something under "under the radar," from 2011.
You are the paranoid one, who thinks that blacks and Hispanics are coming to take your job away.
There are no blacks and hispanics in the field in which I work. Never have observed a single one in my field.
Strictly whites and Asians.
See what I mean? Those voices in your head are talking with you again.
A huge percentage of NFL players own guns. It would seem to me that, as a classs of people, there are very few persons on earth less in need of a gun for their personal protection than NFL players. Conversely, I would say that, as a class of people, there are very people on earth more in need of a gun for personal protetion than the wives and girlfriends of NFL players. Gun instruction and ownership should be mandatory for such women....All this talk of gun control and race just obfuscates the real issue: NFL training practices and games. There can be no doubt that repititive head tauma causes early dementia and altered behavior. Perhaps the solution could be as simple as eliminating full contact in practice drills, but obviously something must be done. Any reasonable man would accept a lifetime of gimpy knees for a few seasons of football glory, but brain damage is far too high a price to pay (except for backfield players, of course).....There must be some way of modifying football rules or practices to minimize such damage. That's the real issue.
If some of you want to read something really interesting, Belmont Club blogged about "Cease Fire."
After all these years it turns out that some public health officials agree. Crime is a disease. They are sponsoring a Chicago NGO called Ceasefire. “CeaseFire uses a public health model to stop shootings and killings. We combine Science and Street Outreach to track where violence is heating up and then cool the situation down.”
Good analysis, Professor. I agree with Hagar's post at 9:02. A gun wouldn't have helped Perkins if she didn't know how to use it and/or would not use it. According to published reports Belcher had as many as eight guns in his house, so perhaps she could, at least in theory, have gotten to one and was not able to reach it or didn't think he'd pull the trigger on the gun he was holding.
Two memes from the left wing lunatic fringe are intersecting in this sad episode. The first is that it's a wild west out there and anyone can get a gun anytime and anywhere. That's pretty easy to refute, looking at the extremely restrictive laws on the books in New York City, Chicago, and the District of Columbia. Now look at the number of fatal and non-fatal shootings in those three locales. Those shootings in New York, Chicago, and DC are nearly entirely with guns illegally owned by the perpetrators.
But the second, and more insidious meme is the idea that one shouldn't shoot back because responding to a shooter with gunfire only makes things more dangerous. In this case they raise the specter of endangering Jovan Belcher's mother and the couple's daughter. Now we know what happened to all the people who used to tell young women not to resist their rapist -- they're now telling vulnerable people not to shoot back. I wonder how many young women could have fought off their attackers but were raped and murdered because they had been counseled not to fight back. We'll never know, because they're dead.
Daniel Moynihan wasn't available to comment on Cease Fire, either.
It doesn't help that ThinkProgress's--and, in fact, most liberals'--knowledge of guns is informed entirely by Yosemite Sam re-runs.
But should we be using such a bizarre, anomalous situation to inform public policy? I doubt it mattered if she had a gun. If he was hellbent on killing her and then himself, she was toast. A gun wouldn't have deterred him, and then you're just relying on her being the faster and more accurate shooter.
The more common situation is something like a home invasion or rapist on a bike path, where the mere presence of a gun, and not its discharge, is a deterrent.
But even if their defense value was zero--which it isn't--they still shouldn't be banned because they're fun to shoot. Haven't you seen how happy Yosemite Sam is when he's firing off rounds indiscriminately into the air? That's how I do it when I go hunting or to the shooting range. Everyone does it like that. Right ThinkProgress?
It would seem to me that, as a classs of people, there are very few persons on earth less in need of a gun for their personal protection than NFL players.
Ask Sean Taylor, who formerly played safety for the Washington Redskins. Oh, that's right. You can't because Taylor's dead. He tried to defend himself from a home intruder. Taylor didn't have a gun. The intruder did.
There are no blacks and hispanics in the field in which I work. Never have observed a single one in my field.
And that makes the insane tantrums you threw over affirmative action sound all the more paranoid.
You are trying to act reasonable now, but don't think that those scenes you threw didn't get attention. They did. Just as your latest trial balloon of a dog whistle did.
You are trying to act reasonable now, but don't think that those scenes you threw didn't get attention. They did. Just as your latest trial balloon of a dog whistle did.
Now, you're making yourself into a collective, Ritmo.
Another of your strange and stupid tactics.
Ritmo, you come here to call names and throw a fit. That's all you ever do. You not just stupid. You're a vile fuck. It's always the same names, too, no matter who you disagree with at the moment.
You're stupid, vile and vicious. I prayed for you at Mass today, because, obviously, you're in a lot of pain if you have this overwhelming need to screech insults and bile.
Peace be to you.
I'm not in pain and I'm not into just calling names. I just wish to call a fact a fact.
You may have prayed for many things today, perhaps even yourself, but I do remember what was said then. I disagreed with it then as I do now. But forgetting about it or coming to terms with it doesn't mean it was right.
Peace to you, too. And truth.
Also, the language in that 12:43 post doesn't sound very peaceful, or far from vile.
As you've probably seen, another football player killed someone yesterday, here while driving under the influence.
Bob Costas will appear at halftime today to argue for banning alcohol & cars.
BTW, walking down 135th St has nothing to do with gun control. Even with a gun I might be in a dangerous position as the only geezer white guy on the street.
For the record, I have, not so long ago taken the #4 Bus down from The Cloisters &, after standin' on the corner, switched to the #5 Express Bus at 135th & B'way to ride down Riverside Dr to 72nd. Highly recommended.
I felt safe; there are a lot of dead white :-) geezers on the busses! But I don't wear a Rolex or a Hickey-Freeman sport coat. I blend.
But gun control as advocated by Progressives is otherworldly. Police response time is simply not good re violent break-ins. And to the point here, a small woman (pace, feminists) without a weapon is no match for a Pro Football hunk.
Sidebar: I was born on 131st St, & as a child was taken down from Inwood to Knickerbocker Hosp via subway to 135th & then by bus across town.
By the late '40s our docs were all with St Joes in Yonkers, actually a shorter distance mileage-wise. We could console ourselves: it was the mileage, not the racism!
"She was a victim, a victim, a victim. Get it? If she'd dared to redefine herself, it would only have been worse."
Heh. I read the first part and I thought that it's probably true that she'd not have been prepared to defend herself *anyway* but that it was likely that she'd have thought about herself differently if she'd gotten a gun when she wasn't in danger and learned to use it.
And then I see Althouse beat me to it. ;-)
"Murder/suicide prevention training is needed most for women married to or involved with men who own guns. The NRA could organize an auxiliary for this purpose."
That is truly a bizarre statement. Profoundly anti-male and weirdly assuming that a woman can do something to prevent suicide.
A lady one street over from me was surprised by a couple of burglars one afternoon. She nailed one, DOA, and I believe the police later caught the other.
Having a gun in the home increases the likelihood of both murders and suicides.
Of course. Cops know this very well; that's why they never take their guns home.
B.S.
Plus the cop cars parked outside at night all full of good stuff.
Surfed said:
"Carried firearms bring back important phrases in the English venacular: "Please", "thank you", "may I?", "Would you mind?", etc."
Not sure what planet you live on, but here on earth plenty of people have good manners without packing heat. In fact, I'd say it's probably the guy with the gun who forgets to say "please."
If you don't show good manners unless you think the guy in line at Kroger might be armed, then you're the problem.
Guns are an example of force equalizers. Other than through malfunction, they are not causal entities. That is restricted to an impartial natural order and a selective conscious order.
"Not sure what planet you live on, but here on earth plenty of people have good manners without packing heat. In fact, I'd say it's probably the guy with the gun who forgets to say "please.""
That's weird to think. Though the way some progressives imagine life with guns, I think that it's might actually be a good idea to keep them away from progressives. They seem really angry and ready to blow their tops at any moment.
Anyhow... instead of guns use martial artists as an example. In general terms, if being dangerous means you're MORE likely to be a social jerk because you can get away with it, a black belt would be a walking a**hole. This is seldom true.
Go into a shooting range once. People who shoot are polite. The social "rules" are strict and you don't want to be known as the jerk who doesn't follow them.
Yes, guns made their home safer.
"Carried firearms bring back important phrases in the English venacular: "Please", "thank you", "may I?", "Would you mind?", etc. "
Oh yes, such phrases as get out of my way, fuck you, you and who else. Those too.
So lets consider this...
Rationally.
Some of us like to say "an armed society is a polite society." It seems right to us on a number of levels. Essentially the argument is that people who are secure and powerful are nicer to their fellow human beings because a confrontation is potentially more dangerous when people are armed. "Is this insult worth getting upset over?" has a different calculus. So does "Should I break in and rob this house?"
Others like to imagine that someone who has power and strength will necessarily abuse it, and that the way to promote a polite society is to make us weak and dependent on polite behavior as our means of protection. I will not be rude because I don't want to make the people around me mad because I am at their mercy? This works for the weak, but there are always those who are stronger and what will limit their behavior?
If you are in a relationship, and fear for your life, you get out of that relationship. Or you convince yourself you are not in a dangerous place, even if you are wrong.
In either case, you are not going to be thinking I need a gun.
Professor Althouse, do you pay little attention to your followers that you unaware this comment section not only features plenty of "women are victims and weal" points, but features commenters engaged in Anti-semitism and racists? As well as the dumbest comment from a white European (other people are violent and white people aren't). Is this what you are teaching?
Barbie says: "Free speech is HARD."
Shouting,
"Why the continued apparent insistence that we don't have gun control laws?"
They're hoping the uninformed don't notice, and they know that they vote.
In my experience, people who parrot this line who aren't committed demagogues of the gun-control movement are usually quite surprised to learn how restrictive the laws already are.
"...scrambled around and found the gun in time..."
See, more Manufactured Ignorance™ from the gun-control side.
Althouse vs Ritmo:
It's even worse than that. The good evidence is actually on the NRA's side (see Kleck and others, vs the now-completely-discredited Kellerman "study".)
I am as pro-gun as the (summer) day is long, but I strongly suspect that Perkins had a victim mentality which would not have been changed by her ownership of a firearm. I mean it couldn't have hurt - if Belcher had got it away from her, he'd have had 9 guns instead of 8 - but if she truly didn't want to be a victim she wouldn't have been in that relationship.
Madison Man
If you are in a relationship, and fear for your life, you get out of that relationship. Or you convince yourself you are not in a dangerous place, even if you are wrong.
In either case, you are not going to be thinking I need a gun.
Maybe, but how about this:
"If you are in a relationship, and fear for your life, you try to get out of that realtionship, but the guy won't let you. So you get a restraining order from a court.
But if you check police response times in cases where the guy keeps coming back, ever more menacing, maybe you want to consider getting a gun?"
Just sayin'.
*************
timb
Prof A can defend herself, but she lets all kinds of comments on the site.
Whether or not that is a good way to run a blog, I suggest to you that it is not logical for you to argue from that that she is teachin' what they are preachin'
Anyway, now that you've noticed that some commenters have nothing worthwhile to say, do you have any thoughts on her points?
BTW, is it anti-feminism, anti wymyn to note that women are weaker than Football Players or are more likely to be the victims in domestic-violence cases?
Paraphrasing an anti-oral Majority bumper sticker from yore --
Think Progress does neither.
Holdfast.
OK let's assume the situation where the dead woman was (get out your thesarus for "crazy") & let herself become a victim long before the shooting(not a unique thing, no?). Why not let such victim try to prevent further attacks by having a gun, without her having to die to achieve such result?
*************
Kirk
I agree. My wife & I know two single women who have a gun who claim that they won't have to "scramble" around to get to it if someone is breaking down their door or window.
Of course the libs don't want black women armed. They might get uppity.
Post a Comment