Domestic violence TV show leads to Okla. shooting

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N08155011.htm

OKLAHOMA CITY, March 8 (Reuters) - An Oklahoma woman shot her husband to death during a fight after the couple watched a daytime TV talk show on how to survive domestic violence, officials said on Monday.

Teri Lynn Carver, 35 is not facing charges for gunning down her husband Cecil, 38, at their home in the northeastern Oklahoma town of Rose because evidence at the scene suggested the death was an accident, District Attorney Gene Haynes said.

Police and prosecutors said the couple was in bed on Feb. 24 smoking marijuana and watching a Montel Williams TV talk show on surviving a lover's attack. Teri told her husband that his actions resembled those of abusive husbands featured on the show, which caused Cecil to turn violent.

Cecil then struck his wife, fetched a handgun and fired a shot into the bed's headboard near Teri to show that he did not like his wife calling him a violent partner, police said, citing a statement the wife gave to investigators.

more

[CO Liberal]

1. Yet Another Family Made Safer By Guns

NOT!!!!!

[FeebMaster]

2. I don't know CO,

I think she's a bit safer now that her crazy husband, who fires shots into bed headboards to show that he isn't violent, is dead.

[CO Liberal]

3. Having That Gun There First Put HER in Danger....

...and then him.

Might things be different if there were no guns in that house? I think so.

[FeebMaster]

4. Of course,

since we all know that there's no way the husband could have been violent without the gun being there.

[CO Liberal]

5. Guns Make Violence More Deadly

Face it, Feeb - if someone wants to kill another person, the gun is the weapon of choice. Right????

[FeebMaster]

6. Well if I were going to kill someone

I'd probably use a gun. I'm not a big guy and wouldn't want to risk my own life in a physical struggle.

Are you saying that this woman would have been in less danger if there were no guns in the house?

[CO Liberal]

7. It's Quite Possible

Guns have a nasty way of putting people in danger, just by being there.

(Edited to fix typo.)

[FeebMaster]

8. If you say so. (nt)

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

9. Uh oh

Guns have a nasty way of putting people in danger, just be being there.

I must most certainly be in serious peril whenever I go home. My chances of dying at home must have increased 1000% with the guns I have at home. I'll have to take a couple to the range this weekend to teach them how to behave.

[RoeBear]

10. Those damn guns...

"just be being there"

[jimsteuben]

12. the damn guns just being there

Causing evil and mayhem. It's the voices, you know.

[CO Liberal]

13. As You Pro-Gunners Always Say, Guns Are Tools

Tools that people can use to quickly kill other people.

[jimsteuben]

16. the answer here is simple

Ban televisions!

[slackmaster]

27. Or maybe ban marijuana

Oops, already done.

[DoNotRefill]

69. and a baseball bat can't quickly kill a person?

one good whack to the head, and it's all over....and even the most violent abuser has to sleep sometime.

People are actually quite easy to kill, because we're relatively fragile. You don't need a gun to do it.

If the woman in question had bashed his skull in while he was asleep, he'd still be dead, right?

[iverglas]

76. now hold on

If the woman in question had bashed his skull in while he was asleep, he'd still be dead, right?

Somebody's, uh, confusing the standard self-defence justification with the "battered woman syndrome" self-defence justification. (And if she'd bashed his skull in while he was sleeping and *not* had that justification, she would just have been a plain old murderer.)

This woman did not kill her abuser while he was sleeping because she felt her life to be in danger and saw no other way of surviving.

She killed him accidentally when *he* tried to shoot *her* and she defended herself by trying to prevent him from shooting her, not by shooting him, remember?

Self-defence, according to the people who are supposed to determine these things, was NOT EVEN AN ISSUE HERE.

And the gun WAS CENTRAL TO **THIS** CASE. Let's not try to pretend otherwise, 'k?

.

[jimsteuben]

82. what do we know about this particular case

She killed him accidentally when *he* tried to shoot *her* and she defended herself by trying to prevent him from shooting her, not by shooting him, remember?

You don't know that that it was accidental, iverglas.

[iverglas]

93. no shit

In fact, I doubt very much that it was accidental. The point was, of course, that someone ELSE was making statements not based on the known facts of the tale. You see?

I'm afraid that my doubts as to your desire to engage in civil discourse have pretty much overcome my own desire to do so. I'm not really interested in being targeted by your efforts to market your ideology at my expense today, so you might want to save your breath if you happen to think of anything else clever that you think needs saying to me.

.

[jimsteuben]

94. a question for you

Why do you find it necessary to use such salty language?

[CO Liberal]

95. Regardless.....

...no shots would have been fired at all if there had been no guns in that home, right????

[pnb]

100. No, there wouldn't have...

...and if frogs didn't have back legs they'd bump their asses alot also...

[Scout]

21. yup, weapon of choice

Guns make it VERY EASY for assholes, criminals and "normal" people to kill. There is no way to defend from a gun, unless you wear body armor constantly.

Any other weapon (well, except crossbows, bow-and-arrow) requires that the killer put their own body at risk when the victim tries to defend. If they have a knife, a baseball bat, a tire iron, I can RUN or use another similar object to defend myself, or if I'm trained in martial arts or other physical self defense, I at least have a fighting chance ... I can't outrun a bullet, I can't deflect the shot with my hand or an object. It's a lot harder (I'd guess) for the average person to kill by getting right up there close to the victim and stabbing ... feeling the victims body convulse, the resistance (or not) of the blade going into the body ... seeing the victims eyes, getting their blood on you. Or choking them while they fight...

Guns make it so much easier to kill/maim on the spur of the moment or from a distance ... that is what is wrong with "guns just being there." It's not that the gun all by itself is dangerous, it's that the presence of the gun makes it so freakin' easy for the average asshole to become a murderer.

Get it?

[Romulus]

24. Yup, the best weapon of choice for self-defense

for "normal people," for all the reasons you listed.

The object of "gun control" is to keep the misuse-crowd away while allowing access for the "normal people."

That is, unless some legislator feels they are morally superior to "normal people," and wishes to micromanage the lives of those "normal people" - "for their own good" - because those "normal people" are too incompetent/stupid/whatever to be responsible for their own lives without some leviathan's supervision.

[MrBenchley]

25. Like this buffoon "defending" himself

by shooting the headboard....

"unless some legislator feels they are morally superior"
Who isn't morally superior to Larry Prratt, Ted Nugent and the other members of the Buford Furrow Marching Society and Social Club?

[Romulus]

29. you mean a guy who broke three laws?

By being a:
1) habitual illicit drug user (strike one)
2) who beats his wife (by her own admission)(strike two)

and possesses a firearm while being #1 and #2? (strike three- he's outta here!)

Teri then called for help and when her husband tried to wrestle the phone away from her, she reached for the gun. Teri shot her husband in the arm and the bullet entered his chest, killing him, police said.

[iverglas]

31. just curious

you mean a guy who broke three laws?
... and possesses a firearm while being #1 and #2?

It's illegal in the US for people who are in possession of illegal drugs or who beat their wives to possess firearms??

I hadn't heard that. How is this law implemented/enforced?

Are people asked on whatever application forms they might need to fill out
- do you ever smoke pot?
- do you ever beat your wife?

I don't think they're asked that up here in Canada. Are they in the US? How odd.

Is there really a law that says "pot-smokers may not possess firearms" and "wife-beaters may not possess firearms"?

Even if there were, I'm still at a loss to understand how it would be applied or enforced.

Seems to me that much of the whole damned problem is that there ARE NO such laws, the fact being, of course, that even if there were there would be NO WAY of applying or enforcing them, so they'd be dumb laws anyhow, if only for that reason, although that's not the only reason they'd be bad law.

And surely they'd be a violation of some bloody constitutional right or other, no?

And the fact is that the presence of a firearm in this household led to a death where there would not have been a death in all likelihood had there been no firearm. Just as it does in so many other households.

.

[MrBenchley]

33. In fact, iverglas

this bobo could have walked into any gun show in Oklahoma and bought a gun without any sort of background check.

[slackmaster]

34. See Section 922 in Title 18 of the United States Code

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/922.html

It's illegal to sell or otherwise transfer any firearm to someone who is an unlawful drug user, or under a restraining order pursuant to a complaint of domestic violence, in addition to several other categories of prohibited people.

Those restrictions are implemented as yes/no questions on the federal paperwork you fill out and sign under penalty of perjury when you buy a gun. They also apply to private transfers of used guns, but there is no mechanism in place to enforce them. As with all other laws individuals bear the primary responsibility for their own compliance.

State laws provide additional restrictions against drug users and others possessing guns. That varies from state to state, but in general it's illegal to possess a gun when you possess illegal drugs.

Oklahoma has the toughest marijuana laws in the nation.

[iverglas]

48. gee, if that isn't exactly what I said

It's illegal to sell or otherwise transfer any firearm to someone who is an unlawful drug user, ...

That would be one of those dumb, unenforceable-type laws, eh?

Are you an illegal drug user, sir? Why heavens to betsy, *moi*? Of course not!

... or under a restraining order pursuant to a complaint of domestic violence ...

I have assumed that the individual in question in this tale was *not* under such an order, it being reasonable to think that if he was, the report might have mentioned it.

Those restrictions are implemented as yes/no questions on the federal paperwork you fill out and sign under penalty of perjury when you buy a gun.

Oh -- even better! Whether someone is under a restraining order is determined by taking someone's word for it?? Ah yes, penalty for perjury is something I'm sure many of them tremble at the thought of.

I dunno, did someone here think that someone else was actually advocating dumb, unenforceable/unenforced laws?

.

[MrBenchley]

49. Some people want to pretend

every law that concerns guns is unenforceable...

But such folks are also the sort trying to pretend Newsmax isn't biased.

[slackmaster]

50. NICS was supposed to get around the self-reporting problem

But as has been pointed out many times here, a lot of data that should be in the NICS database is not. Of course only about 1% of people who fail NICS and not able to appeal their denial (and are therefore guilty of perjury) are prosecuted, so even if the data was complete the system would still be ineffective.

Ah yes, penalty for perjury is something I'm sure many of them tremble at the thought of.

The penalty specified in federal law is five years in prison. If the law was effectively enforced (and I think it could and should be) that would deter a lot more people from buying guns IMO.

The other problem is that NICS is not available to private individuals (non-licensed people) who wish to sell used guns. Making it available is the core of my gun-safety proposal, which you poo-pooed last time we were discussing it. I believe your exact words were "WHO THE FUCK CARES?"

[iverglas]

52. don't recall

And if you're saying my response to proposing that background checks be mandatory for private firearms sales was to ask who the fuck cares, I'd really like to see it.

If you weren't proposing that such checks be mandatory, then yeah, I might well say "who the fuck cares?"

*My* concern is not to protect firearms vendors from their own stupidity if they choose to sell firearms privately and aren't able to determine whether they're selling them to someone who oughtn't to have them, after all.

And I have a bit of a genuine question. Why do so many people decide to take the risk of lying re this NICS thingy? Is the system so incomplete or inefficient that there's a good chance that a lie won't be caught? Or is there just nothing to lose (that 1% risk of prosecution your cite)? Or a combination?

[slackmaster]

55. I still think you didn't understand it fully

My position is that the federal government has no Constitutional authority to regulate intrastate, private sales of used ordinary personal property. ALL federal gun laws are based on the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

The incentive for availing one's self of the optional background check under my system would be assumption of criminal liability for criminal activity committed in the future by the buyer. I can't speak for others but that would encourage ME to use the system. I would not sell a gun to a complete stranger otherwise.

Why do so many people decide to take the risk of lying re this NICS thingy? Is the system so incomplete or inefficient that there's a good chance that a lie won't be caught? Or is there just nothing to lose (that 1% risk of prosecution your cite)? Or a combination?

I believe it's a combination of factors. The risk of prosecution is very, very low.

One thing we never see statistics for is what percentage of NICS denials are subsequently overturned on appeal. On one gun-related discussion board I frequent people report denials regularly; these are usually caused by prohibited people with similar names in the database.

[iverglas]

57. red herrings

My position is that the federal government has no Constitutional authority to regulate intrastate, private sales of used ordinary personal property.

And does a state government have the authority to require that individuals engaged in such commerce to do it? Do states regulate the sale of used cars?

Maybe that was a bad question. I remember being in Illinois and talking to my friend's neighbour who had just discovered a problem with his new used car. I asked whether it hadn't been caught in the safety check. "Safety check?" he asked. I dunno. Up here, a used car has to be inspected and pass before being transferred and registered to the new owner.

If the state has that authority, is there something to stop the state from directing that the check be done by way of this NICS? to stop the state from downloading the NICS to its own system if necessary?

The incentive for availing one's self of the optional background check under my system would be assumption of criminal liability for criminal activity committed in the future by the buyer. I can't speak for others but that would encourage ME to use the system. I would not sell a gun to a complete stranger otherwise.

I'm sure you wouldn't. But do you, in the absence of this safeguard? Is there a difference, in terms of the public's safety?

And then again, that's just you. People who are willing to break laws, well, that's another kettle of herring, and many of them might not be too concerned about criminal liability for what their purchasers got up to.

But then, with more effective firearms control all round, *they* might be a fair bit less likely to have guns to sell in the first place.

Those guns really just do have to come from someplace in the first instance; they really don't spring from Zeus's head and fall into the hands of all those criminals.

.

[slackmaster]

61. Your subject line described your post quite accurately

And does a state government have the authority to require that individuals engaged in such commerce to do it?

Under the Tenth Amendments, The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Do states regulate the sale of used cars?

They can. I don't know about all of them, but a smog check is required when a vehicle changes hands here in California. That's just as much regulation as sales of new vehicles have.

If the state has that authority, is there something to stop the state from directing that the check be done by way of this NICS? to stop the state from downloading the NICS to its own system if necessary?

States have the right to opt out of using NICS, but they are required under the permanent provisions of the Brady Act to provide their own system of background checks if they elect not to use NICS.

I'm sure you wouldn't. But do you, in the absence of this safeguard? Is there a difference, in terms of the public's safety?

I've never sold or given away a firearm. I live in California, where private sales have to be done through an FFL holder. I can either sell a gun to an FFL person or sell it on consignment. Either way the buyer's background gets checked just as if he or she was buying a new gun from the dealer. My proposal for private use of NICS would have no effect on me as a Californian. I'm offering it for the benefit of people in states with less strict gun laws. I don't believe that California's relatively airtight (that is, realiable to the extent that people are willing to abide by the law) system could be sold to people in most of the "red" states.

My system would cost very little to implement and would not be seen as an invasion of privacy or an infringement on the RKBA by very many people. It would be an easy "sell", and as far as public safety goes it surely couldn't hurt.

Those guns really just do have to come from someplace in the first instance; they really don't spring from Zeus's head and fall into the hands of all those criminals.

Guns end up in a criminal's hands in one of two ways: A) Someone commits a crime by transferring it to an existing criminal, or B) Someone who owns a gun already decides to become a criminal. My system would make it possible for people to do the right thing and avoid scenario A. Right now, in most states, there is no way for them to do that. I propose making the tool available, easy to use, and giving people some encouragement to be more careful about gun sales.

[DoNotRefill]

70. actually, Iverglas....

if a person is under a restraining order, it's entered into the database that NICS runs through, and will show up when they try to purchase a firearm, causing the sale to be denied. They can then be prosecuted for trying to get a gun, and it's an EASY prosecution. Same deal for misdemeanor drug convictions...3 misdemeanor convictions in the past 10 years is the standard they use here.

Also, SOP around here, at least, is that when restraining orders are issued, the person seeking the order is asked if the person owns guns. If they are, the guns are collected by the deputy sheriff who serves the warrant, unless the person has otherwise disposed of it (practically, this means they've preemptively surrendered the gun to their attorney until the case is resolved). Failure to surrender the guns when served is a felony, and guess what? There's a cop right there.

[jimsteuben]

37. likely outcomes

>And the fact is that the presence of a firearm in this household led to a death where there would not have been a death in all likelihood had there been no firearm. Just as it does in so many other households.

The probable outcome would have been just another woman beaten up by her man.

Instead, the wife-beater was terminated by a fatal collision with flying lead. So scratch one violent woman-hater walking around loose. What a great loss to society...NOT.

[MrBenchley]

39. Too frigging funny, jim...

So the only option avallable to battered wife is shooting her husband? Guess that's RKBA "logic" or whatever it is.

[slackmaster]

40. Another Straw Man

So the only option avallable to battered wife is shooting her husband?

That's not even close to anything Jim wrote.

[Romulus]

41. maybe she should have called the cops

instead of sitting around bitching about her life as an abused woman, while smoking weed with her batterer.

I guaran-f'ing-tee you that if she had reported the abuse, and his ownership of a firearm, a SWAT team would have been dispatched muy pronto to round him and his pea shooter up.

[jimsteuben]

42. unless

her abuser was, say, a rich and famous sports hero.

"Mr. Ripper, Mr. Ripper - can we call you Jack? - can we get your autograph? And my captain down at the stationhouse wants one, too."

[iverglas]

56. who knows

Maybe this was the first time in her life that she had caught a glimmer of an inkling that what was being done to her was not the socially approved way of men treating women. I mean, we do have a teeny bit of insight here into the psychology of abuse, do we not?

That's the impression I kind of got from the bit quoted, anyhow.

And that's generally the reason why there are TV shows and ads about intimate partner abuse -- because a whole lot of women still don't recognize what is being done to *them* as abuse, and don't know what can be done about it.

Glad to see that sensitivity overfloweth around here today.

.

[iverglas]

54. oh looky

Somebody else exploiting the victimization of women for his own ends.

It just never stops.

The probable outcome would have been just another woman beaten up by her man.

Instead, the wife-beater was terminated by a fatal collision with flying lead. So scratch one violent woman-hater walking around loose. What a great loss to society...NOT.

Speaking as one of the victimized and hated women in question, I'll request the opportunity of being the first to disagree with you. A loss of a human life is a loss to society, in society's opinion. That being why we have laws and such.

The punishment for spousal abuse isn't death. Not where I live.

Defence against an assault reasonably anticipated to cause serious harm or death and believed to be otherwise unavoidable is a justification for homicide. But that's just begging the question; remove the firearm from the scenario, and there's no such anticipation.

And gosh, besides being so exploitive, you're sounding just a tad unreasonable and uncivilized here, Jim. Anybody else you'd like to see dead without due process?

.

[jimsteuben]

62. self-defense is always justified

In my book, it is moral to use force, including lethal force, in order to protect oneself from death or grievous bodily injury

You don't really think that was the first time he beat her, do ya?

[iverglas]

63. just that teeny tiny omission there

In my book, it is moral to use force, including lethal force, in order to protect oneself from death or grievous bodily injury

Of course, your book isn't the one I refer to.

I refer to one on the several shelves of Criminal Codes of Canada sitting behind me.

And that book says that it is justified to use force, including force intended to cause death, where one has a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily injury AND where it is reasonable to believe there is no alternative to using that force.

And coincidentally, that's what's moral in my book, too.

So what's the bleach-blonde babe got on under that trench coat?

Such tackiness from the RKBA. Who'd'a expected that?

And such tawdry and sleazy appropriation of voice, and of the things that the voice says. Soft-core porn as women's rights. Nah.

If you wanna talk about your body and your choice, fella, why don't you do it?

Meanwhile, here's one I imagine some will drool over. No accounting for tastes ...






.

[jimsteuben]

65. it happened in Oklahoma, not Canada

Down here, a victim is not required to retreat before protecting his or her life.

[iverglas]

68. "down here"?

Down here, a victim is not required to retreat before protecting his or her life.

If you're referring to Oklahoma, where I gather you aren't (i.e. Oklahoma isn't your "here"), that's one thing, and if I felt like bothering I'd find out whether your statement is correct.

If you're referring to the USofA, your statement is false. I've done the research before, but damn, I do get tired of doing everybody else's. And I'm not the one making the assertion that needs substantiating here anyhow.

State laws vary. Some state laws do require individuals to take an available reasonable alternative before using force with intent to kill an assailant.

Regardless of all that, where something happened is just another big old red herring. The statement I made, the response to which was what I next responded to, was this:

The punishment for spousal abuse isn't death. Not where I live.

Defence against an assault reasonably anticipated to cause serious harm or death and believed to be otherwise unavoidable is a justification for homicide. But that's just begging the question; remove the firearm from the scenario, and there's no such anticipation.

The statements I was responding to were these:

The probable outcome would have been just another woman beaten up by her man.

Instead, the wife-beater was terminated by a fatal collision with flying lead. So scratch one violent woman-hater walking around loose. What a great loss to society...NOT.

Not a single fucking thing to do with the law. I was responding to statements that were virulently contrary to civilized notions of human rights and the rule of law, which is a very different thing indeed, and adherence to which is just about the single most important hallmark of a civilized society. Due process is one of the most important components of the rule of law.

The sentiment that the killing of a human being is not "a great loss to society" is an uncivilized one, plain and simple.

Self-defence is NOT punishment, and the justification for killing in self-defence has NOTHING to do with the worthiness or unworthiness of the dead person.


Are you planning a surgery you might want to tell us about? Or still just exploiting someone else's problems? Or perhaps you've been a victim of sexual assault; who knows?

[jimsteuben]

84. lawful use of force in Oklahoma

if I felt like bothering I'd find out whether your statement is correct.

I checked the veracity of my statement before I posted it. (Took me about one minute with google to find it.)

§21.20.643 - Lawful Use of Force upon Another-Circumstances

When committed either by the person about to be injured, or by any other person in such person's aid or defense, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against such person, or any trespass or other unlawful interference with real or personal property in such person's lawful possession; provided the force or violence used is not more than sufficient to prevent such offense;

§21.24.733 - Justifiable Homicide by Other Persons

Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in either of the following cases:

1. When resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to commit any felony upon him, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is; or,

2. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, when there is a reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or,

3. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed; or in lawfully suppressing any riot; or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.

[iverglas]

71. Just so's you know how viciously insensitive what you're doing is ...

... I mean, just in case you didn't.

I spent part of Monday afternoon at my psychologist's office, reliving the trauma of the abduction, sexual assault and near-murder I experienced 30 years ago -- a necessary step in dealing with the aftermath of a fresh trauma I suffered late last year.

Victims of trauma are often "sensitized" to trauma, and may suffer more severe stress in response to a subsequent traumatic event (as well as experiencing severe anxiety when unexpectedly reminded of the trauma).

I've had several experiences in my life that have indeed had this cumulative effect ... and no, a firearm probably wouldn't have prevented the first, which had to do with being isolated and psychologically/emotionally abused while confined and immobilized as a long-term patient in the children's ward of a religious hospital, as a result of a playground injury. Had I had a firearm during the time of the third, the time spent with an emotionally abusive intimate partner (an addict; they're so much fun), one of us might well have been dead; I certainly had mind pictures of him "falling" down stairs, and there were incidents in which I reacted in ways that were, shall we say, out of proportion, to other stressful events in life having nothing to do with him.

Trust me, because I know: people suffering from post-traumatic stress are not people you want walking around with guns. And there are quite a lot of us, including one who has posted here about planning to acquire a firearm so as never to be victimized again. Not all of us recognize the problems we have. And I don't think that a question on the form asking whether someone has been the victim of a violent crime or was abused as a child, and has unresolved anxieties and fears as a result, is going to be quite the best way of protecting the public in this case.

So you keep on posting your tacky pictures and pretending that you care. I'm here to tell you how obvious it is that you don't care, either about me and people like me whose victimization you are exploiting and whose anxieties you don't care whether you trigger, or about the danger of the quick fix of arming people beset with anxieties and fears and determined that nobody's ever going to hurt them again.

People living with post-traumatic stress have altered perceptions of danger and, for one thing, react to interference with their emotional security as threats that need to be averted; the fight-or-flight response is heightened and brodened. People like that need to re-learn to live with the risks of life and deal with them in ways that don't endanger themselves or other people, not be equipped to walk around with both the chip on their shoulder and the firepower to blow away anyone they perceive as a threat to their security.


Here's a simple thumbnail, for anyone who needs it:
http://www.stormwind.com/magnificentseven/fightorflight.html
(Ask google for "post-traumatic stress" "fight or flight" for more.)

.

[Romulus]

43. plenty of death in non-firearm households

17 y/o girl kills grown baseball bat-wielding man (her father) with kitchen knife

14 y/o girl kills grown violent man with a knife

[CO Liberal]

53. And Many More Deaths In Homes WITH Firearms

One fact many pro-gunners refuse to admit.

[Stoker]

51. No doubt.

And the fact is that the presence of a firearm in this household led to a death where there would not have been a death in all likelihood had there been no firearm. Just as it does in so many other households.

Instead she would have just gotten the stuffing beat out of her.

Stoker

[iverglas]

58. and

Instead she would have just gotten the stuffing beat out of her.

... in all probability lived to tell the tale -- to the police, when she became able and ready to, and to see her abuser dealt with by the criminal justice system.

The right to life ... due process ... they're just such piddling annoyances.

.

[FeebMaster]

59. She did live to tell the tale. (nt)

[iverglas]

73. no shit

And your point was?

Mine was that, absent the firearm, both people would in all likelihood have lived and the criminal one could have been dealt with in the way we deal with criminals.

As I was saying, death just isn't the penalty for spousal abuse. Death can be the result of assaulting someone who then reasonably fears that s/he will suffer grievous injury or death ... but absent the firearm, that seems not to have been the case here.

Absent the firearm, no death. That being the outcome that society prefers and takes some considerable pains to achieve.

.

[jimsteuben]

74. my point, and I do have one

Refuse to be a victim. Be aware of your surroundings. Remove yourself from abusive relationsips and dangerous circumstances.

If all else fails, then realize that no one has the right to abuse you or violate you. Unfortunately, predators don't speak the language of compassion, and the police are almost never around when a predator decides to victimize someone.

If you want to be unarmed, that is your choice. It is not mine. It's not about punishment. It's about defense of one's life, home and loved ones.

[iverglas]

75. the one I see

Actually, there are several.

You are patronizing: you have the gall to address ME (blah blah, "realize that no one has the right to abuse you or violate you", blah blah) as if you had anything to say I need to hear.

You are exploiting and objectifying: you are manipulating the experiences of other people and interpreting them to suit yourself and using them in the service of your cause and in your interests.

You are expropriating voice: you are putting your words in other people's mouths; if they want to speak for themselves, that is their prerogative, but the poster children that have been concocted and that you are reproducing are not persons speaking in their own voices.

And you are so plainly doing it all in your own interests, entirely regardless of what is actually in the interests of the people you are speaking to and allegedly on behalf of, that it hardly needs pointing out.

And the fact that what you have said here has nothing to do with what I said in the post you responded to, and instead merely pursues the patronizing, exploiting and expropriation, makes the demagoguery of your "argument" blatantly obvious. You revert to mouthing pious self-serving platitudes and posting pictures designed to produce an emotional response in reply to an argument.

My point was that absent a firearm, there would have been no death in the situation under discussion.

Your response was ... well, unresponsive.

.

[jimsteuben]

77. my response

You are expropriating voice: ...

No, those are all real people who actually own firearms and practice self-defense. The photos were taken by Oleg Volk, an advocate of self-defense and RKBA. He designed www.a-human-right.com. His other site is http://www.olegvolk.net/. I bet that if you contact Oleg Volk and make polite inquiries, you might even be able to talk to the models in those photos.

My point was that absent a firearm, there would have been no death in the situation under discussion.

And you do not know this to be true! All you and I have seen about this case is the brief news article written by some reporter working under a deadline, which means we know nothing of this case, the histories of the people involved, their relationship, etc.

And you presume to make such a statement that "absent a firearm, there would have been no death"? Such incredible arrogance on your part, iverglas.

For all you and I know, this woman might have ended up killed that evening, and you and I would never have even heard of it.

You notice how I haven't spoken directly to the facts of the case before us? Because I don't know what happened, I don't have the facts, I gave not read the report of the investigators, I have not talked to the witnesses, I have not examined the evidence. Instead, I spoke in general terms about the legitimacy of self-defense.

Here is what they should (and undoubtedly will) do. They will run it past a grand jury.

Your response was ... well, unresponsive.

Is my response clear now?

[iverglas]

78. ah

The photos were taken by Oleg Volk, an advocate of self-defense and RKBA. He designed www.a-human-right.com . His other site is http://www.olegvolk.net /. I bet that if you contact Oleg Volk and make polite inquiries, you might even be able to talk to the models in those photos.

Yes, there was one model in particular I thought it might be interesting to talk to. But then I'm already pretty well-versed in the reasons why people participate in their own exploitation.

I'm thinking of this one ...



Of course, there are lots of titilating pix of girls with guns, too, for those who like that sort of thing.

You're doing an real good job of something, here, but it doesn't quite seem to be what you had in mind.

.

[jimsteuben]

79. ah hah

I didn't see anything particularly titilating, but hey, that's me, your mileage may vary, iver.

[MrBenchley]

80. We've had some specimens touting the peculiar Mr. Volk

and his fairly transparent S&M fantasies on this board before....

[jimsteuben]

81. my theory

Mr.B writes:
his fairly transparent S&M fantasies on this board before

Psychological projection is the phenomenon whereby one projects one's own thoughts, motivations, desires, feelings, and so on onto someone else (usually another person, but psychological projection onto animals and inanimate objects also occurs). The principle of projection is as well established in psychology as Thermodynamics is in Physics.

I have a theory about why so many lefty anti-gun people find Oleg's site so disturbing. The artwork smashes all their ignorant stereotypes about gun-owners. Gun control ideology relies on demonizing guns and gun-owners just as the drugg warrior ideology requires the demonization of drugs and drug users.

The message of www.a-human-right.com is that self-defense is a universal human right, and that gun-owners come in all shapes, sizes, colors, and orientations.

Are you ready for another picture of a woman with a gun? (BTW, if you find any of these pictures "titilating," then may I suggest counseling.)

[MrBenchley]

83. Gee, jim....

This isn't my projection but strraightforward S&M by your friend, the peculiar Mr. Volk.....



"The message of www.a-human-right.com is that self-defense is a universal human right"
Especially when they're getting their nipples squeezed in a wrench, eh?

As for projection...why do you suppose that somebody touting the same platform as Ted Nugent, Larry Pratt, Trent Lott, David Duke, Pat Buchanan and the Aryan Nation would generate a "gun control is racist" photo? Hmmmmm?

[slackmaster]

85. Funny, I don't see any evidence of sqeezing in that image

Or any other indication of discomfort.

I guess S&M fantasies are, in this case, exclusively in the eye of the beholder.

:evilgrin:

You might also try looking at the image in context.

http://www.olegvolk.net/olegv/leah/

[MrBenchley]

87. Too TOO funny....

[slackmaster]

88. Second time MrB has replied to one of my posts since January 1

I guess I'm not on "Ignore" after all.

[MrBenchley]

91. Easy to correct THAT mistake

Slackmaster (#32): "The presence of a few idiots in Nazi uniforms need not spoil a family outing."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=22105

"slackmaster
47. Who is this "RKBA crowd" you keep referring to?
However I will concede that now that I've read it I don't see anything at all wrong with the GOP's platform."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=20403&mesg_id=20484&page=


"slackmaster
38. It's the Big Lie strategy"

"slackmaster
58. Nice try but it's still based on a major LIE"

"slackmaster
65. If I may be so bold as to speak for the entire "RKBA crowd"
We aren't saying they are lying."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=20875&mesg_id=20875

[slackmaster]

92. This from a person who says the Catholic Church supports gay rights

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuure.

[slackmaster]

96. Seriously - Look at the image

For anyone who has never used an adjustable wrench, the jaw opening is set by turning that knurled thingie.

Based on my own vast experiences with breasts and adjustable wrenches (though not at the same time) I can tell you the wrench was set to a position of about a 7/8" opening, then pressed gently against the nipple.

There is no squeezage depicted in the photo.

[iverglas]

98. if only we knew

why anyone thought this was something that needed doing and needed having its picture taken and published ... and why anyone would think ... or say ... that the reasons were anything other than the obvious.

Huh. I just asked google-images for pix of penis wrench. Didn't find anything at all.

nipple wrench unfortunately seems to be some kind of actual tool ... although a lovely pic of a Colt something or other inexplicably showed up.

But how about breast wrench? Here we go.

&imgrefurl=http://www.napierdot.com/implants.htm&h=317&w=374&sz=19&tbnid=xwcm4WB39yYJ:&tbnh=100&tbnw=117&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbreast%2Bwrench%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26safe%3Doff

That may not work ... if not, click on it or go here:
http://images.google.ca/images?q=breast+wrench&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&filter=0

Mr. Volk's agenda is pretty plain to me, as I have no doubt it is to anyone else who browses his gallery.

.

[slackmaster]

99. It's a plain old everyday multi-level juxtaposition

Something artists have been doing for centuries.

Cold with warm.

Hard with soft.

Rough with smooth.

Living with inanimate.

Male with female.

Try Googling "titty wrench".

[iverglas]

103. it's just plain old sexual violence

Something that men have been engaging in for more than centuries, and that some men get strange enjoyment out of looking at.

There's no "male with female" in that picture, or any of the rest of your poetry.

There's objectification of a subject. Deliberate, crass and unmistakable. As we all know, even if we've got too much invested to admit it.

.

[jimsteuben]

86. the image in question

The image of the nipple does not appear anywhere on www.a-human-right.com.

As for the meaning of the wrench-and-nipple photo, maybe you should ask Oleg what it means? (I have my own opinion about what it might mean, but that's another thread.} If you find it pornographic, then by all means you should seek professional help.

I think that your claim about Nugent and the Aryan Nations may indicate confusion on your part. The Aryan Nation people worship at the alter of Adolf Hitler, who was an advocate and practitioner of reasonable gun control.

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so."
--- Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942.
, Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951)

[MrBenchley]

89. I hope you and the peculiar Mr. Volk are very happy together

"As for the meaning of the wrench-and-nipple photo, maybe you should ask Oleg what it means?"
You mean you think there's some mystery? That REALLY is hilarious.

"The Aryan Nation people worship at the alter of Adolf Hitler, who was an advocate and practitioner of reasonable gun control."
Inn fact, the Aryan Nation is peddling that horseshit "gun rights" crap...just the same as screwloose Volk. In fact, everyone who can be found wearing a swastika these days is pro-gun all the way...and they find gun shows fertile recruiting ground.

In fact, they held a kaffeeklatch with Larry Pratt, the racist piece of shit who heads up Gun Owners of America...and when that hit the news, even a thug like Pat Buchanan had to flee Larry's company.

Nice playmates the RKBA crowd's got.

[slackmaster]

90. This reminds me of the joke about the guy in a psychiatrist's office

During the Rorshach Blot test the patient keeps saying he sees womens' breasts.

The doctor remarks "You seem to be fixated on breasts."

The patient replies "Gee, doc - YOU'RE the one who's showing all the dirty pictures!"

:argh:

[MrBenchley]

32. Just the sort who has to have a gun

if only he could have got his twitchy hands on assault weapon legally, as the RKBA crowd here keeps pulling for...<snicker>

[pnb]

97. True enough

He may very well have just beat her to death instead...tis funny how people think the guns make people violent.

Heck, its even funny how the article blamed a TV show for this situation and not the husband!!

[MrBenchley]

11. And another example of the

swell sort of folks who own guns....

[Romulus]

14. You mean like this guy?

[MrBenchley]

15. Hey, romulus

If you want to pretend John Kerrry is the typical gun owner it's fine with me....he wants to ban assault weapons, close the gun show loophole, and supports gun control.

[jimsteuben]

17. of course he does!

He will keep his armed bodyguards and his shotgun. When he says "get guns off the street," he means *our* guns, not *his*!

[MrBenchley]

19. Yeah, Jim.....

He needs armed bodyguards to protect him from loonies with guns.

By the way, big laugh with that Taliban photo...the American Taliban (Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Fred Phelps, Roy Moore, etc.) are all pitching this gun rights horseshit.

[jimsteuben]

66. what's the problem?

If there's trouble, shouldn't he try to just talk his way out of it? Why can't he learn martial arts? or carry mace? or a whistle? or just run away? Why can't Chuck Schumer dial 911 like everybody else? That's the advice that the VPC and the Brady Campaign are always giving out. Call the police for protection since after all, says James Brady, "that's why we have police departments."

http://www.handguncontrol.net/
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=59

[Wickerman]

18. Damn, but he looks presidential!

[MrBenchley]

20. Sure does....

And you'll notice some people here are trying to pretend he's "anti-gun."

[RoeBear]

22. I'd ratherr see the picture of Kerry with the gun...

...then the one of Bush that you've been posting.

[MrBenchley]

23. Yeah, but it's Chimpy who is pro-gun all the way...

And incredibly, the only complaint some of the RKBA crowd here seem to have about the unelected drunk is that he isn't crazy enough to suit them.

[slackmaster]

28. That's a total crock

George W. Bush and the Republicans are no friends of gun owners. We don't trust him or his party. That's why some of us are trying to encourage the Democratic Party to provide viable alternatives who support the right to keep and bear arms.

Regarding Bush vs. Kerry on the issue, there really isn't a whole lot of difference between the two.

[Romulus]

30. Bush v. Kerry

You are right about their public statements. Both support the current cosmetic rifle ban. I haven;t heard Kerry endorsing any so-called "strengthening" of the current ban. Kerry supports closing the private sale loophole at "gun shows."

Kerry, troublingly, is championed by the ban-em-all crowd at Handgun Free America, etc. But he isn't campaigning on a handgun ban.

[MrBenchley]

36. Like I said.....

the only reservation the RKBA crowd seems to have with this unelected drunk is that he isn't crazy amd dishonest enough to suit.

Good thing they may have Roy Moore running...he's so pro-gun he plays kissyface with the militia crazies.

[RoeBear]

44. But the picture of Bush you are posting...

...seems as 'presidential' as the similar one that Lunabush was posting of Kerry.

[MrBenchley]

46. Yeah, ri-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-ght...

[Wickerman]

47. Actually, no

I find the Kerry shot much more Presidential - though not my post.

The shot of the impostor looks more like day trip for the brain-impaired. You take the coke-fiend alcohol soaked burnout to the gun club, give him a loaded weapon, then release the caged, grain feed, tame ducks to lazily circle as he gets his photo op before he heads back to the clubhouse for a toasty fire and a large tumbler of gin.

Shame that he has the deer-in-the-headlights look and that he needs a spotter, but Rove can handle all the whitewash to spin it that Bush* is the last of the great white hunters. The faithful will by it, eh?

[RoeBear]

64. Wow!

You sure can read alot into one picture.

[MrBenchley]

67. Look, it's the gun rights pResident in, er, action

He's got the NRA working right out of his office!

[slackmaster]

26. And another unfortunate bigoted remark

The good news is that kind of biased, hateful commentary is not typical of the left.

[jimsteuben]

38. and yet another example

Notice the look of glee on his face as Chuck Schumer handles this Tec-9.

[MrBenchley]

45. You still flogging that dishonest piece of crap, Jim?

Not to mention that your link is as dead as Heston's brain...

[Stoker]

35. And the gene pool gets a little cleaner...

If guns make it easier for morons like this to disappear, we should give them to everyone with an IQ less than Bush.

Stoker

[iverglas]

60. and to think

... of the lies told about Margaret Sanger ... not to mention the truth about Adolph Hitler.

Who needs them, when we've got the gun dungeon to hail the cleansing of the gene pool?

.

[Withergyld]

72. Goes to show guns and drugs don't mix

Smoking MJ, then handling firearms :shrug:

[pnb]

101. Wasn't the MJ or the gun that was the problem...

...it was the abusive ass of a husband (who I wouldn't have even referred to as a man).

[Wickerman]

102. Arrrrgh - Locking

I don't even know where to start with this $)@#(&%$(#& thread!