"If you have daughters, you should (have a gun),” Chiefs defensive lineman Shaun Smith said Monday. “You have to protect yourself. You work so hard to get to where you at, I'll be damned if I’ll just let someone take it from me.”If you acquire wealth, you become a theft target!
Linebacker Brandon Siler, who had Thanksgiving dinner with Belcher, also had no problems with guns.Speaking of self-defense and looking at the picture at the link, showing the huge size difference between Belcher and the woman he killed, even if your concern is domestic violence, why would you blame guns? There are any number of ways he could have killed her. A gun would have been the one way she could have defended herself.
“Well, a majority of people own one, especially in the places where they're legal. Most of the time they're for self defense or sport,” he said.
And, by the way, I'm not swallowing the story that Belcher traveled from the murder scene — his home — to the football facility for the purpose of thanking his employers for giving him "a chance" in life. That's management's story, and it works as PR. It essentially requests that we sympathize with the murderer. I invite you into a thought experiment: Why else might Belcher have relocated?
With a theory of my own, I asked Meade that question yesterday, and he said something that hadn't occurred to me. Belcher shot his Kasandra Perkins in front of his mother. He had an audience. And he sought out an audience — head coach Romeo Crennel and general manager Scott Pioli — for the suicide. He chose spectators for his self-killing. Having horrified his mother, he went for new spectator-victims, individuals most likely to suffer to see him die. If he thanked them, he was saying you've invested your work and your trust in me and now watch me destroy that.
My theory was different. After the murder, Belcher thought: What do I do now? How can I get out of this? He went to management in the hope that they could bail him out somehow. He was in a terrible jam. Come on, enfold me, protect me. You've got all those ingenious defensive plays on the field, do something for me now. Protect your investment in me. You've done so much for me already. You've given me a chance in life, and a chance is what I really need now. You pulled me up out of nothing. If anyone can help me now it's you.
पोस्ट्स
१६५ टिप्पण्या:
I'm going with Meade on this. He knew he was going to end it before he left the house. Otherwise he would have left the gun there.
Sometime between bullet one and bullet nine he realized that it was only going to end one way.
It's entertainment, is my thought, wondering why it's got media legs.
That's management's story, and it works as PR.
Isn't it a bit early to accuse someone who's witnessed a suicide of lying?
He wanted this to affect the coaches personally, but didn't want to shoot them.
Your two theories are interesting. I see you've attempted to penetrate the thinking of a dangerously disturbed individual.
I don't really care because my own streak of sociopathy prevents me *examines nails* but if I I did care I'd have to go with the theory that offers the most dangerous psychic disturbance. The second theory walks in the man's moccasins well enough but as a frightened individual wrought over what he has done in search of succor and not as a dangerously disturbed individual with a gun and a history of psychotic incidences and an eye to evil. The radio interview of the father of one of his earlier school victims who moved his son and family from L.I. is cogent.
Why assume a single motivation?
Football players are conditioned from youth to look to the coach to tell them what to do. Yes, the guy was accustomed to doing everything in front of an audience.
Nobody's had much to say about the reported genesis of the fight between the guy and his girlfriend.
They were not married, but they had a child. She reportedly went out alone to the movies and returned home at 1 a.m.
So, you have the typical fucked up cohabitation arrangement so common to blacks (and, increasingly, everybody else). No commitment.
Woodstock went through a domestic violence hysteria like every other place some years ago. As well it should. The fucking around and cohabitation common to Woodstock is practically an invitation to violence.
I wouldn't frame the availability of guns as the provocation. More likely, it was the lack of commitment between the couple, and the failure to get married prior to having a kid.
For all everyone's talking about the stupidity involved in football players, they seem to have a better understanding of what happened and how we should be acting than the Ivy League and master's degree carrying media elites: "The team also held a moment of silence for domestic violence victims before kickoff."
“Well, a majority of people own one..."
Wrong!
My take. The guy had a fight with his girlfriend over whether she was out fucking somebody else.
Cohabitation and illegitimate children will do that to you.
The gun was not the cause.
"Well, a majority of people own one" sounds like an awkward phrase. I want to know the question that prompted that answer.
Jake Diamond said...
“Well, a majority of people own one..."
Wrong!
Linebacker Brandon Siler, who had Thanksgiving dinner with Belcher, also had no problems with guns.
“Well, a majority of people own one, especially in the places where they're legal. Most of the time they're for self defense or sport,” he said.
By all means, Jake, elaborate.
Pro athletes don't need guns only because they are "theft targets."
The are also targets for every jackass who wants to prove that he's a macho SOB.
Drunken bastards in bars (and just about everywhere else) will try to start fights to prove that they are tough guys.
This could have been avoided if they'd taught sarcasm in public schools.
Meade's theory is what I immediately thought as well.
However, there is much to suggest Ann's interpretation; which I had not previously considered.
According to today's KC Star, Belcher did not shoot Perkins in front of his mother. She was present but elsewhere in the house. So much for the first "audience." Second, it appears that Belcher and Perkins were having problems for some time, and the Chiefs were aware of that. In fact, the Chiefs had provided counseling for the couple and "were bending over backward" according to the Star.
So having stuck themselves into a domestic situation, I can easily see Belcher running to the Chiefs with a what are you going to do for me now attitude.
Also reported was that he shot himself immediately after hearing police sirens. Sounds less like remorse and more like the realization that the Chiefs wouldn't hide him under the desk.
So, you have the typical fucked up cohabitation arrangement so common to blacks
Leave it to a wingnut to say something stupid about race.
So he was 3x times the size of his girlfriend. He could have beat her to death without much trouble. Used a baseball bat, used a lamp, used a tire iron, used just about any instrument in the house! He could have ran her over with his fancy car!
But cause he used a gun, why if no gun, no killing, right?
Strange I've been around guns since 15, shot millions of rounds (I compete in IDPA and NRA matches) yet I've never seen a shooting or killing or any such thing with guns!
Yes they happen, and happen alot in run down places, happen alot in states with 'gun control', happen alot with people with issues, but 99 percent of the people don't have those issues!
The problem was the killer, not gun owners.
Leave it to a wingnut to say something stupid about race.
Leave it to the usual preening, sanctimonious asshole to insist that the obvious be ignored.
Now we know that Jake is brain dead and all his further utterances can be ignored.
Sorry to keep harping on this meme, but it isn't going away as an issue or a question:
Can society as it is currently structured, regardless of all the faux compassion and talk of tolerance and inclusion and diversity - can society as presently structured ever fill the emotional holes created in a human being by a crappy family structure and missing parents?
Isn't it becomming clear that the answer is 'no'?
Isn't it clear that the social costs of cost of dealing with the emotional scars created in dysfunctional and families and by missing parents, will eventually sink the welfare state?
If you acquire wealth, you become a theft target!
You are always a theft target.
To repeat the obvious...
Cohabitation and illegitimacy are what you should be talking about here.
The guy, probably with some justification, figured his girlfriend was out fucking somebody else.
After all, she didn't take care of business in relationship to him and his child. He probably assumed, again with justification, that she would be just as careless and irresponsible in the future as she had been in the past.
You've got two possible solutions I can see here. One is traditional morality. The other is feminism, which is to attempt to change human nature. We've chosen feminism (and welfare).
...even if your concern is domestic violence, why would you blame guns?
Because blaming guns gets back at Republicans, conservatives, and right wingers? Just a hunch. A serious hunch though. Ready to move it to modus tollens testing.
And, just to make a nuisance out of myself, I'll put myself in the guy's place.
He's making big money, and his girlfriend is happy to take the benefits. Since she popped a kid, she's got a lien on all his future earnings.
And, the poor bastard has none of the rights that accrue to a husband and a father. His girlfriend can walk away at will, take the kid and half his income, and he has no say in that.
And, in his eyes, she's out there playing like she's single.
The murder-suicide, presented as a single construct, was caused by him. Own it.
The murder-suicide, presented as a single construct, was caused by him. Own it.
Speaking of self-defense and looking at the picture at the link, showing the huge size difference between Belcher and the woman he killed, even if your concern is domestic violence, why would you blame guns?
Because no one in the media has the guts to blame Hip Hop culture any more.
Jake Diamond said...
Wrong!
Adamant Jake takes the "typical Brit" course of logic--the Piers Morgan "I don't understand guns" mentality.
Seriously, I think it's because these people believe the gendarme can protect them and nothing in their DNA ever went through the pioneer experience.
Another issue with murder-suicide is that implies a murder-suicide pact, where the murder victim is a willing victim, who allows him- or herself to be shot with the understanding the one who pulled the trigger will promptly kill him- or herself.
If I had not been aware of the story and simply saw it referred to as a murder-suicide, I would have assumed that the football player killed his girlfriend with her willing consent.
TO say that the gun played a role and facilitated both the murder and suicide does not, at all, relieve the perp of his responsibility for his actions.
Really, it makes not sense to asset as much.
When violence, especially due to anger, is occurring, a gun in the hands of violent makes death more likely.
This is just plain common sense. But we have the NRA version of politically correct speech and guns must never be criticized.
It's insane. We've had all these gun-aided killing sprees this week, facilitated with high capacity clips and semi-automatic weapons. In all cases the perp bears responsibility and the guns facilitated the killing.
That's what guns do.
"If you acquire wealth, you become a theft target!"
But enough about the coming Obama tax hikes.
"That's what guns do."
-- Guns have also prevented mass killings, saved women from being raped and been used by law enforcement to stop bad guys. Don't be so simplistic.
Either he didn't want to shoot himself in front of his own mother or he drove to the team facility because that was all he knew what to do in life and formulated the suicide idea on the drive realizing his life was essentially over after the killing.
Yes, it is likely that "a majority of people own one," given that the number of legal guns in this country is about one per capita, and there are an enormous number of illegal guns floating around.
Estimates of the number of adult, legal, gun owners in the US as of ten years ago ranged from 40%-50%. Today, with the explosion of gun ownership, it is very likely over 50%. If one eliminates the uncivilized areas of the US such as NYC, California, and Chicago, the percentage of legal ownership climbs dramatically, while the number of illegal gun owners drops, also dramatically.
As far as why Belcher went to his team facilities, consider how often a Black inductee into the Hall of Fame thanked his mother as opposed to this parents. Very few of them have had the influence of a father in their lives. Their teams become a family substitute, and their coaches, father figures. It seems logical that in a moment of emotional extremis, one would run to this family and father.
And if this is racist, then Dr. Bill Cosby is a racist.
You've got two possible solutions I can see here. One is traditional morality.
The left is going to have to abandon their straw man argument that calls for traditional morality are reactionary and based on outdated Victorian prudism.
The fact is that certain moral norms(whether revealed or created) go back thousands of years.
Let's even take a moderate approach and, for the sake of argument, admit that there is no revealed law.
That leaves the question of whether prior society's norms of morality were the result of social Darwinism - the survival of the fittest way to structure and organize society?
I mean, our recent calls for a different structure - for different norms (single parents, gay marriage, etc.) in the natural cycle durations of generations and societies, cannot be called anything but grand theoretical experiments, the very early results of which, btw, are not very promising.
In these matters, like so many others in our new society, we are presently surfing on the wave of affluence, which covers many problems, and which, if ever lost, will reveal who has built on a solid social structure, and who hasn't.
Who here thinks they'll be able to stand in the winds that will blow then?
Surprising nobody mentioned this.
Could Belcher have suffered brain damage as the result of repeated concussions?
Shouting Thomas you are letting your chip on your shoulder against women show again. His gf didn't come late, he came home late at six am from being with another girl. Funny how your ever present skepticism evaporates when one of your hobby horses is seemingly confirmed.
Drugs and alcohol. Nothing more than that. He didn't have a clear thought in his head.
Preview, AllenS, preview.
With a theory of my own, I asked Meade that question yesterday, and he said something that hadn't occurred to me. Belcher shot his Kasandra Perkins in front of his mother. He had an audience. And he sought out an audience — head coach Romeo Crennel and general manager Scott Pioli — for the suicide. He chose spectators for his self-killing.
Yes well known psychiatrists Meade and Althouse have vast insight into the psyches of people they have only read about on the web.
Shouting Thomas you are letting your chip on your shoulder against women show again.
Another fucking White Knight!
Jesus, men are stupid fucks. Feminists know how to manipulate weak, stupid men, don't they?
Nope I just hate the fact that losers like you are what people increasingly think conservatives are. Your facts were wrong loser. Sorry you couldn't trust your wife but don't project so much. Not that I would blame her you are all bark and no alpha.
When did we shift to blaming concussions for the anger problems in the NFL, away from steriods?
Is it because there's a bigger payday at the end of the concussion rainbow?
A lot of people who have had horrible lives end up in professional sports and don't know how to handle life, even though they have wealth and fame.
Derek, you are stupid and vile beyond belief.
Do you suck shit out of your girls ass?
How far will you go to demean yourself?
Haha more like sputtering Thomas.
Ah, the morning internet kerfluffle with another White Knight rushing to save the Damsels in Distress!
Time to go do something productive.
There are a thousand limp dick fucks like Derek in this world kissing ass in the hopes of ... ?
That's the part we don't know, right?
I think Meade's theory is more credible. Althouse's theory doesn't explain why he shot his girlfriend in front of his mother. I'm still afraid of picking my nose in front of my mother. Jovan was seriously fucked up to have done that.
As someone who watches way too much sports entertainment on TV, and having been part of sports teams all my life, I believe he went to his coach/team for support because he could not stay in that house with his mother. He went to the people he loved and the people that loved him knowing he was in deep trouble. I don't think he went there saying "get me out of this." More like, I screwed up bad and need to be with those that will be on my side. After talking with his coach and realizing where he was headed, it was easier to pull the plug himself and he likely knew that from the minute he fired the first shot. I am sure there was more to the conversation than, "thanks for what you have done for me", but that is likely the only part these folks wanted to share. Some PR involved, obviously. But I am not as cynical as Althouse.
‘Quayle’ said, “The left is going to have to abandon their straw man argument that calls for traditional morality are reactionary and based on outdated Victorian prudism.”
The assumption on the Left seems to be that we are (or can be) “clever and classless and free” (to quote the popular song). That we are so enlightened now that we can handle (or just eliminate) unpleasantness like sexual jealousy (or at least handle it in approved ways).
Perhaps stuff like that used to drive people to desperate acts, but, we are (or can be) so much more enlightened than they could have imagined.
And the question remains: is this even possible? Or is this (like the “New Soviet Man”) a project based on premises regarding human nature (e.g., Lysenkoism) that are just … wrong?
Chickelit, please read my 8:00 comment. He didn't shoot Perkins in front of his mother. He shot her in their master bathroom. His mother was elsewhere in the house and heard the shots.
"That's what guns do."
Remind me...what caliber gun did OJ use to kill Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman? If only we had stricter "common sense" gun control laws, they would still be alive. Oh wait...
His coach was likely the closest thing he had to a father. So he went to see him and talk to him. Kids need fathers, too.
CWJ writes: His mother was elsewhere in the house and heard the shots.
So he thought she was deaf?
I still suspect testosterone. I'd like to see an autopsy report showing his levels.
Maybe athletic scholarship isn't an oxymoron, after all.
But Belcher comes across as an overgrown child, too immature to be allowed access to sex, guns, and other people's lives.
Jake Diamond said...
So, you have the typical fucked up cohabitation arrangement so common to blacks
Leave it to a wingnut to say something stupid about race.
Yeah, we usually leave it to Lefties like Diamond.
Shouting Thomas said...
So, you have the typical fucked up cohabitation arrangement so common to blacks (and, increasingly, everybody else). No commitment.
Cohabitation and illegitimacy are what you should be talking about here.
Precisely. If I have an argument with Shout, it would be he mentioned blacks specifically, although, as he later pointed out repeatedly, this has always been something that transcends race.
PS Credit where it's due - Alpha's right on here.
Shouting Thomas said...
"My take. The guy had a fight with his girlfriend over whether she was out fucking somebody else.
Cohabitation and illegitimate children will do that to you.
The gun was not the cause."
Reports are he was out with another woman the night before.
His live-in-girlfriend had given birth to their daughter three months previously, so I'm guessing (informed by experience) he wasn't getting nearly as much sex as he wanted.
I have no "theory," because I have no reason to doubt the stories from the Chiefs' General Manager and Head Coach.
The story broke very quickly after the shootings, and their comments were part of the story.
I doubt they had any time to corroborate a story that was at odds in any way from the truth they saw.
As to why Belcher went to the team facility, who can imagine why he did anything he did?
Finally, regarding the gun issue, it was simply a tool. Killers don't need guns to kill.
Althouse is the classic female complicator. She presents it as being intellectual but it's no different than any woman who just complicates stuff that's really quite simple. She's full o' shit on this as she usually is when she goes all Oliver Stone on stuff. AllenS nailed it..a smart, blue collar man.
Isn't it possible to blame guns without banning them?
And it isn't possible to defend the right to own guns without defending the wisdom of doing so?
The distinction between supporting someone's behavior and supporting their right to engage in that behavior is commonplace with the right to free speech. Very few people defend the KKK's message, but they defend their right to march. Nobody thinks that the ACLU is racist for defending the KKK. And nobody thinks that anyone is anti-free speech because they criticize the KKK. Why isn't there room for this distinction w/r/t the Second Amendment?
Bob Costas was obviously correct. It's obvious that Belcher and his girlfriend would be alive today if they didn't own a gun. It's very unfortunate there was a gun in that particular house. That's true regardless of your views on the Second Amendment.
Whatever, Chickelit.
I don't blame you for not knowing the facts. They are only starting to come out now. Just accept the new information and move on.
Redefining "in front of" to "within earshot" just makes you look defensive.
Apparently when this thug, Belcher, was in high school he so terrorized a young white boy that the boy's family was eventually forced to move away:
Schnitt Show Caller Claims Family Brutalized By Jovan Belcher
Leave it to the usual preening, sanctimonious asshole to insist that the obvious be ignored.
Sanctimonious? Hardly. Obviously Shouting Dumbass doesn't know what sanctimonious means.
My suggestion is that Shouting Dumbass restrict himself to simple words that he actually understands like dog, cat, pee and poop.
Adamant Jake takes the "typical Brit" course of logic
Sorry Dumbcluck, I only resorted to facts. If you look at the facts you will see that a minority of Americans are gun owners.
Apologies if you prefer that facts never enter your bubble.
It's obvious that Belcher and his girlfriend would be alive today if they didn't own a gun.
It is absolutely not obvious. Why even say that in an otherwise reasonable comment?
"Linebacker Brandon Siler, who had Thanksgiving dinner with Belcher, also had no problems with guns.
“Well, a majority of people own one, especially in the places where they're legal. Most of the time they're for self defense or sport,” he said."
From Mr. Siler's viewpoint the majority of people own a gun. The majority of the people he associates with own guns. You have to take into account the circumstances of the person you're talking about. Mr. Belcher lived in a culture (pro football players) that sees no problem with having a gun. There are other places in the United States where the majority of people own guns.
Owning guns is a fundamental right guaranteed in the Constitution. The guns are not the problem and the players know this as well as most people.
My theory is pretty close to the news account.
I don't think he killed in front of people because he wanted an audience. It makes more sense, especially in light of his being a killer, that he lacked empathy. He killed in front of others because it never occured to him that he would cause mental anguish.
I think this falls under the heading of: Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to ignorance.
"It is absolutely not obvious. Why even say that in an otherwise reasonable comment?"
Well, in my view it's much closer to "obvious" than "absolutely not obvious." But I'm willing to downgrade it to "very likely."
Bob Costas was obviously correct. It's obvious that Belcher and his girlfriend would be alive today if they didn't own a gun.
Except it isn't "obvious" at all that he wouldn't have stabbed or choked her.
What an idiotic thing to say.
Jake Diamond said...
Sorry Dumbcluck, I only resorted to facts. If you look at the facts you will see that a minority of Americans are gun owners.
What facts?
Where do you get these "facts" from idiot?
Note the continued assertion, no reference. Assertion for this silly dipshit will always do.
He wanted an audience and accolades. He wanted people to feel sorry for him. Mission accomplished, asshole. Except that the people who feel sorry for you are all idiots who have already forgotten your name.
You stay dead, crazy football murderer guy.
Shouting Thomas becomes increasingly frustrated as it's pointed out to him by several commenters, that he is an abusive, misogynistic, racist, asshole. Just a typical thread with Shitting Tommy on it, lol.
Althouse theory makes a lot of sense... the official version has not been forthcoming.
We will get closer to the truth, when the people who know what happened, are no longer compelled to protect the franchise.
Stab her, choke her slit her throat, beat with his hands, bash her head in with a baseball bat or golf club, start the house on fire as she slept, push her down the stairs, poison her, drive the car into a telephone pole.
Those are all recent domestic violence murders that I can think of.
I don't know why any of those are unlikely.
@CWJ: Indeed, facts still are emerging. Did he really kiss her goodbye in front of his mother? None of these new facts mitigate Belcher's atrocity.
"Except it isn't "obvious" at all that he wouldn't have stabbed or choked her."
Statistically, it's unlikely. And even less likely that he would have stabbed or choked himself.
Weren't Igna and Cedarford just defending the curtailment of American's 1st Amendement rights for the sake of public safety? In Cedarford's inimitable style it was "stop defending the 'Sacred Parchment.'"
In Igna's not-worthy-of-imitating style it was even likened to '"loose lips sink ships."
Here in KC the press will do what they have in the past, wait from two to six months before they deconstruct a sports "hero".
We really don't know much, everyone is spinning, the franchise, friends and both families.
My take at this point is simple, he snapped, murdered what he loved, went to confession, executed himself as self hating penance. None of that excuses him.
Because no one in the media has the guts to blame Hip Hop culture any more.
White stand-up comics are doing it more and more, at least. It's only taken them twenty years to work up the guts. And for the audiences to laugh at it, frankly.
"GUNS KILLED OSAMA BIN LADEN!"
...said no one, ever. The SEALS generally get the nod on that one. Why is it that the gun killed Belcher's girlfriend?
In fact professional ball players have often been the targets of home invasions. I remember Eddie Curry being held hostage with his family. Stephan Marbury getting robbed at gunpoint in front of a club. Paul Pierce getting stabbed like 150 times. And Kroy Briemann getting raped by Kim Zolciak.
So I can understand why they would want to have a gat.
I also think AllenS has it right. Alcohol and anger is a bad combination. It happens everyday. All the time. Just because this mook is a football player doesn't make it any different.
People use whatever is at hand. This dude used a gat. Mrs Tiger Woods grabbed a nine iron. Hillary threw a flower pot.
My dear lady if you are ever angry at your man I would think you would try to brain him with a labrador retriever.
Isn't suicide often a case of "and then they'll be sorry?" It is a revenge on those living, isn't it?
Jake Diamond said...
Adamant Jake takes the "typical Brit" course of logic
Sorry Dumbcluck, I only resorted to facts. If you look at the facts you will see that a minority of Americans are gun owners.
Apologies if you prefer that facts never enter your bubble.
CNN 47%
Gun Facts 62%
88.4 out of every 100 Americans owns a gun. The highest gun ownership of any nation in the world.
That would mean that half the population of the U.S. owns more than one firearm
Anything else, Jake?
Oh, and I disagree about his murder-suicide. I think that when the two are paired it becomes it's own noun... a single word "It was a murder-suicide". That describes one thing, not two things. One chained event, sort of. Like saying fratricide describes both a murder and the victim, or defenestration describes a murder and the means. We don't have a word for the "thing" that is killing family members and then one's self other than murder-suicide.
Well, Costas is now saying he not only doesn't back down but any criticism of his comments has "no weight" with him.
Demonstrating that typical leftist open mindedness.
Whitlock has gone on to say the NRA is the equivalent to the KKK.
Neither of them are serious people.
Oh and this:
After the murder, Belcher thought: What do I do now? How can I get out of this? He went to management in the hope that they could bail him out somehow. He was in a terrible jam. Come on, enfold me, protect me. You've got all those ingenious defensive plays on the field, do something for me now. Protect your investment in me. You've done so much for me already. You've given me a chance in life, and a chance is what I really need now
Is the exact opposite of what is being reported in today's KC Star.
He went to the stadium to thank them and say goodbye.
"Whitlock has gone on to say the NRA is the equivalent to the KKK."
Just as I predicted yesterday the next step for the left-wing racist after misdiagnosing the root problem (black people can't deal with guns) is to localize the source of the problem on the political right (white conservatives are 'giving' guns to black people because racism) thus covering his own racist tracks.
"Costas is now saying he not only doesn't back down but any criticism of his comments has "no weight" with him."
Costas is a lightweight Ken doll whose respect for black people, and people in general, stops when they stop being useful backdrops for melodramatic self-serving socially progressive tv commentary.
Given that he reportedly was out drinking and spending the night at the home of another woman, I'd go with the more selfish motive.
Whitlock is a joke. Since when did the NRA start promoting Thug Life? Is the NRA the organization that popularized holding the 9 sideways? Look at "black culture" if you want to find the origins of rampant gun violence in the US. There's no reason to disarm the rest of society because a subculture of urban gangs. Instead of jumping on Bill Cosby when he tells "black culture" to start emphasizing two parent families and education and individual responsibility, start taking responsibility. 72% of blacks are born to single parents these days. Where was Jovan Belcher's father?
There's no reason to disarm the rest of society because a subculture of urban gangs.
A majority doesn't need a reason--they just need fear--and a majority. And they are getting plenty of help from the top.
ambienisevil writes: In any case, my guess is drugs for this little tragedy - most likely legal prescription or steroids.
I agree, but this will never see the light of day even if it's true.
I heard yesterday that Althouse backed away from criticizing Whitlock. Is that true?
Clyde said...
Given that he reportedly was out drinking and spending the night at the home of another woman, I'd go with the more selfish motive.
My guess is that he was at her house because of DUI laws and he didn't want to leave his Bentley in a neighborhood like he grew up in. Besides his "spouse" wasn't at home nursing the newborn, she was out till last call. They were just a modern "enlightened" couple.
I see that Jay and his temper tantrums are back.
Hey Jay, did you ever resolve your confusion about pregnancy tests? Do you understand now that pregnancy tests don't cause pregnancy?
Here's what Rusty pulled out of his ass today:
"88.4 out of every 100 Americans owns a gun. The highest gun ownership of any nation in the world."
Alright, I suppose everyone (except Rusty) knows that that sounds absolutely preposterous. And it is preposterous. Fortunately I don't mind embarrassing Rusty with facts.
Here's a good source for data, and here's a quick summary:
- From 1985 to 2010, the percentage of Americans who reported personally owning a gun dropped more than 32 percent.
- During this period, personal gun ownership hit its peak in 1985, when 30.7 percent of Americans reported personally owning a gun. By 2010, this number had dropped nearly 10 percentage points to a low during this period of 20.8 percent.
- In 2010, slightly more than one out of five Americans reported personally owning a gun.
I shouldn't have to add this, but since there are so many idiots commenting in this thread (e.g., Shouting Dumbass, Rusty, Jay), I need to remind everyone that 21% is not a majority. I know that Jay in particular will want to argue this point, but nevertheless 21% is far short of a majority.
Here's a good source for data, and here's a quick summary:
From a left wing group, no less.
You really can't stop beclowning yourself here.
Ever.
Here's a good source for data, and here's a quick summary:
Actually that is a left wing propaganda group.
Of course if you were actually interested in data you would note that:
PRINCETON, NJ -- Forty-seven percent of American adults currently report that they have a gun in their home or elsewhere on their property.
Further, you would also note that:
According to the FBI, the day after Thanksgiving saw record gun sales, with 154,873 checks conducted, a 20 percent increase from last year. And all those calls caused two brief outages for the bureau’s National Instant Check System (NICS), the background check required for most gun sales in the U.S.
But hey, "facts" don't mean what you think it means, dumbass.
In 2010, slightly more than one out of five Americans reported personally owning a gun.
Yet mysteriously in 2011, 47% of Americans reported having a gun.
What do you think that says about your silly little left wing group, moron?
Further, you seem to think self reporting captured by your silly little left wing group is a "fact" that you can argue.
You realize that makes you a fucking idiot, right?
Jake Diamond said...
Alright, I suppose everyone (except Rusty) knows that that sounds absolutely preposterous. And it is preposterous.
What is preposterous is you pretending the Violence Policy Center is some sort of credible source.
The other thing that is preposterous is you pretending 21% of Americans own over 220 million firearms.
Of course you're an abject idiot.
So there is that.
From 1985 to 2010, the percentage of Americans who reported personally owning a gun dropped more than 32 percent
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
oops
More than 4.2 million firearms background checks were performed from November 2008 through this January [2009], according to the FBI, an increase of more than 31 percent above the 3.2 million checks from the same period a year earlier.
Note: I could bog this server down with stories of record gun sales from 2009-2011. Again note: The FBI said that its call centers were flooded with 154,873 calls from firearms dealers seeking background checks -- about a 20 percent increase from 129,166 on Black Friday 2011.
You will believe anything, anything as long as it confirms your silly, igonorant biases. You fucking imbecile.
Jay - Thank you for proving your idiocy, again!
First, no matter how much you argue the point, you will never convince anyone who understands elementary school math that 47% is a majority. So even the data from your source (which you conveniently misinterpreted) supports my claim. Thanks!
Second, the Gallup Poll you cite doesn't claim to be representative of ALL Americans. Read the details at the end of your source, doofus.
Third, only a dunce (like you) would claim that the National Opinion Research Center is "a left wing propaganda group." Of course that's not the dumbest thing you've ever said, but it's still moronic and wrong.
Glad to have you back, Jay! You're in dumbass form as usual.
Adamant Jake reminds I shouldn't have to add this, but since there are so many idiots commenting in this thread (e.g., Shouting Dumbass, Rusty, Jay), I need to remind everyone that 21% is not a majority.
A cursory glance around my neighborhood (with insider knowledge) tells me that more than half of the homes surrounding me are armed. I do feel safer but YMMV.
Even if Jake's 21% number were completely true, so what? If a precious minority of even 2% of the population seeks something as constitutionally guaranteed--and it is upheld (let alone repealed)--it counts.
Holy shit! Jay's having a meltdown on his first day back at Althouse. It looks like he'll be needing another short "vacation" for further treatment very soon.
Adamant Jake, what's your plan for disarming Americans? Executive Order? Simple majority vote?
If a precious minority of even 2% of the population seeks something as constitutionally guaranteed--and it is upheld (let alone repealed)--it counts.
But it doesn't count as a majority, DumbCluck!
Jake/Ritmo: You're hardly one to talk about taking vacations.
Second, the Gallup Poll you cite doesn't claim to be representative of ALL Americans.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
But the Violence Policy Center is, dumbass!
Really, it is!
what's your plan for disarming Americans?
Where'd you get that from, DumbCluck?
I've never said I want to disarm Americans. Although I have to admit, I think it's a REALLY bad idea for Jay to own a gun.
Third, only a dunce (like you) would claim that the National Opinion Research Center is "a left wing propaganda group."
Notice you can't even read plain English.
But you know what "facts" are.
Really, you do!
the Gallup Poll you cite doesn't claim to be representative of ALL Americans.
How do you know what you're saying is not credible?
When you make idiotic assertions like that
But the Violence Policy Center is, dumbass!
The Violence Policy Center didn't gather the data. They just reported it. Do you understand the difference?
If not, see if you can find an adult to explain it to you.
First, no matter how much you argue the point, you will never convince anyone who understands elementary school math that 47% is a majority
I never said it was a "Majority" you fucking idiot.
Further, I'm not the one pretending 21% of Americans own over 220 million firearms.
The Violence Policy Center didn't gather the data
How do you know that what you're saying isn't credible?
When your responses are that pathetic.
But I'm sure the data is representative of all Americans!
Really, it is!
Remember folks, self reporting on polls we do not like is not representative of ALL Americans!
However, self reporting that confirms our biases?
TOTALLY representative of ALL Americans!
PS: 21% of Americans own over 220 million firearms too!
Jake/Ritmo: You're hardly one to talk about taking vacations.
Well DumbCluck, I prefer to get my doses of abject stupidity from Althouse in short spurts. I'm already bored with humorless edutcher's theory about how Romney won a landslide victory but had it stolen by the Democrats. At least you have some entertainment value.
Yours truly,
Jake/Ritmo/Shiloh/Inga/Alpha/leslyn/garage
Oh and remember, in an era of firearm sales almost doubling each year (from 06-2011) firearms ownership is at like a 30 year low!
Totally!
The Violence Policy Center is a gun control advocccy organization.
Answers;
umber of guns and gun owners in USA.
Most estimates range between 39% and 50% of US households having at least one gun(that's about 43-55 million households). The estimates for the number of privately owned guns range from 190 million to 300 million. Removed those that skew the stats for their own purposes the best estimates are about 45% or 52 million of American households owning 260 million guns).
there are about 80 million gun owners in America with a combining total of 258 million guns
The 47% CNN Gallop poll was all the respondents polled that answered the questions. The result could be more or less.
Remember folks, self reporting on polls we do not like is not representative of ALL Americans!
Jay -
Before you explode with rage, and because you clearly can't read, the poll only sampled Americans 18 and older. I'll let you do the math.
Ok, I know you can't do math, but I'll let you pretend you can.
Jake, we are the Borg:)
By the way, I know Jay is incredibly dumb and won't understand this, but for anyone else following along, the Gallup poll number (47%) corresponds to the percentage of HOUSEHOLDS with a gun, not the percentage of Americans who own a gun.
If those households reporting gun ownership average a little over 2 household members, the Gallup estimate would agree very well with the NORC estimate.
In summary, Jay is wrong as usual.
Inga -
The Borg is hungry. What are we having for dinner?
80,000,000 gun owners in the united states.
United States Department of Health
2010
That is an estimate there may be more or less.
Ok, I know you can't do math, but I'll let you pretend you can
Oh. The irony.
Bourbon Chicken. Kuchen for dessert.
Oh and remember, in an era of firearm sales almost doubling each year (from 06-2011) firearms ownership is at like a 30 year low!
Jay -
I know you are insanely stupid (insanely being the operative word), but if people who already own firearms buy more firearms, that doesn't increase the percentage of Americans owning firearms.
For example, consider this from a CNN report:
"A decreasing number of American gun owners own two-thirds of the nation's guns and as many as one-third of the guns on the planet -- even though they account for less than 1% of the world's population, according to a CNN analysis of gun ownership data.
The data, collected by the Injury Prevention Journal, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the General Social Survey and population figures from the U.S. Census Bureau, found that the number of U.S. households with guns has declined, but current gun owners are gathering more guns."
Please try not to explode!
Inga -
Did you make enough for all of us?
But of course!
Since Rusty's already forgotten his incredibly stupid earlier contribution, let me remind him...
Here's what Rusty pulled out of his ass today:
"88.4 out of every 100 Americans owns a gun. The highest gun ownership of any nation in the world."
The rumor is that Jay has to eat all of his food with a spoon. :(
Rigghhhht. I don't know a person, conservative or liberal , especially those with young children that owns a gun.
Hunting rifles are kept locked up and only brought out for hunting. And only about half of the people I know own hunting rifles and hunt, this in Wisconsin, Waukesha county, deep red.
Poor poor Jay, I see he lapsed into his HAHAHAHA tick again.
Reuters
U.S. most armed country with 90 guns per 100 people.
Pay attention, Jake.
That is not to say that out of every 100 US citizens 90 of them own a gun. What it says is that there are enough guns in the united states to arm 90 out of 100 hundred people.
So if there are indeed 80-90 million gun owners in the US, then out of the population that owns guns they own aprox. 3.4 guns per gun owner.
This is only for the gun owners that purchase a firearm that there are records for. It would be difficult to estimate how many gun owners and firearms that there are no records for. The buying and selling between individuals requires no documentation.
So just about every adult male in the US owns at least one gun and probably more than one gun, statistically speaking.
A minority of the overall us population , but a sizable one when you eliminate the underage and those who are not legally allowed to own a firearm.
I find both proposed theories rather far-fetched. Sounds more like he just lost control of his rage and went to a location that was more out of habit. The sirens and coaches brought him to a realization of what he had done and he saw no other way out.
the portion of the us population that are under 18 years of age and are not legally allowed to own a firearm is aprox. 24%.
" Inga said...
Rigghhhht. I don't know a person, conservative or liberal , especially those with young children that owns a gun.
Hunting rifles are kept locked up and only brought out for hunting. And only about half of the people I know own hunting rifles and hunt, this in Wisconsin, Waukesha county, deep red."
Inga, if you don't know anybody who owns a gun, how do you know how they lock them up and how often they hunt?
Because dbp, they told me so.
"Inga, if you don't know anybody who owns a gun, how do you know how they lock them up and how often they hunt?"
At a guess?
"This is my rifle, this is my gun. This is for hunting, this is for fun."
Guns are not hunting rifles.
Anyway, you don't need a hunting rifle to kill a chicken that's been drinking bourbon.
Bourbon and brandy both make me wretch.
Scotch or clear spirits for me!
"Whiskey," not "scotch."
Or "whisky" if you really know your "scotch."
I drowned that chicken in the bourbon first, before cooking. It died with a smile on its beak.:)
"Gun" is a general name for any firearm.
The most common hunting firearm is the shotgun.
Don't call your rifle a gun in the military, right Synova?
Leslyn, funny!
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ......
HaHa indeed. I am a former Marine and have heard that one.
But still: Here is how Merriam-Webster defines "gun"
1a : a piece of ordnance usually with high muzzle velocity and comparatively flat trajectory b : a portable firearm (as a rifle or handgun) c : a device that throws a projectile
2a : a discharge of a gun especially as a salute or signal b : a signal marking a beginning or ending
3a : hunter b : gunman
4: something suggesting a gun in shape or function
"Guns are not hunting rifles."
Actually they are. But I sort of figured that was the explanation about why you could say that you didn't know anyone who had a gun but those who did locked them up.
The Army thing goes "this is my weapon this is my gun"... of course the Navy are the ones with guns. The Army has artillery. And "rifle" is just the interior construction of the barrel that spins the bullet (and I don't know if anyone actually has *bullets* anymore). Thus a shot-gun isn't rifled and is thus not a rifle and very well may be what most of your acquaintances have if Wisconsin is anything like Minnesota and limits rifle use to rare thinly populated areas and most deer hunters use shot-guns with slugs. If those you know hunt any sort of fowl, it's certain that they use shot-guns. And those are, actually, properly "guns" since, like I said, they are never "rifles" and we don't tend to say "long arms" to much any more.
What you mean is... you don't know anyone with a side arm or pistol.
I'm not trying to be a poo.
In general the military tends to use highly technical terms for the tools of the trade (and the Air Force never uses a single syllable word when a three-syllable word will do.) So usually a person would be specific and say M-16 or M-2 or something.
The prohibition on the word "gun" is relatively universal because, as I said, the Navy has guns and gunners. Guns are those enormous things sticking out of ships that are used to shoot other ships.
But mostly the cultural reinforcement (this is my weapon, this is my gun, etc.) is a way of conditioning recruits to attend to detail instead of be sloppy, as a matter of conditioned habit.
My daughter( the Corpsman) had to qualify at the shooting range with the Marines before she went to Afghanistan and was given a gun and a rifle, before she left. She qualified as a sharpshooter, don't know if that good or just normal.
Maybe someone could tell me if what a tank has is also a "gun".
Or whatever they call them, one was gun sized , one was big, like a rifle.
Yes, Inga, that's a very good job. Bravo to her. :)
"Sharpshooter" is the middle of three grades, above "marksman" but below "expert." Considering that Inga's daughter is technically a noncombatant, that's pretty respectable.
Since she qualified with marines she probably was asked to qualify with the 9mm handgun and the M16 assault rifle.
In theory corpsmen should not be handling weapons, but in fact we've been dealing with enemies who think that bright red cross makes a nice point of aim since the start of World War II.
Maybe someone could tell me if what a tank has is also a "gun".
Why yes it is.
Guns & Ammo is all about genus: the minutia are species: link
"Guns" are also what men (and increasing numbers of women) strive for as sidearms in the gym.
I think that the problem with the statistics is some count total guns, and people often have several. So there could be a gun for every man woman and child to carry, but they aren't actually distributed evenly.
I think that the problem with the statistics is ...
There isn't a problem with the statistics. The problem is with the boobs like Jay and Rusty who can't read and correctly interpret the statistics.
I'm all in for confiscating American's firearms. Sooner the better, let the revolution begin.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा