Just for the sake of discussion -

[kyburg]

And I'm a total snark.

And this is totally out of context. And...stuff.

Who needs a gun?

(Yeah, yeah. Where did the guy get the gun, and how many people did he kill who HAD guns of their own?)

Penalty for this guy?

Someplace small, hot and welded shut.

Comments

(frozen)

[progress.livejournal.com]

i don't see where any part of this has to do with the gun. could have just as easily been a spear or a big rock. the guy's a psychopath. I'd reevaluate the statement about the gun.

(frozen)

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

A spear or a big rock does not kill multiple victims in a matter of seconds, at distance.

And when added to a volitile situation, makes it instantly deadly.

[ersatzinsomnia.livejournal.com]

It strikes me that his original rape victim might've been able to put a gun to good use...

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

Sure. Right. Whatever.

Go talk to the RAINN folks.

[ersatzinsomnia.livejournal.com]

o_0

Would you care to clarify what you meant by that?

The site referenced...

[ionotter.livejournal.com]

...indicates that 70% of female and 74% of male rape victims already *know* their attackers, so a gun would be of no use. You're not about to shoot your date, boyfriend or spouse. :/

I think that's what Donna was talking about.

Re: The site referenced...

[ersatzinsomnia.livejournal.com]

Uh... Nichols was accused of bursting into his ex-girlfriend's home, binding her with duct tape and sexually assaulting her over three days. You think she wouldn't have shot him, if she'd gotten the chance?

Re: The site referenced...

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

She had lots of chances. To do a lot of things. Me, I'd likely have bit him, given the chance.

None of us were there - and the idea that the victim is somehow responsible is a reprehensible idea that really needs to be squelched, and fast.

Re: The site referenced...

[ersatzinsomnia.livejournal.com]

Wow.

Just wow.

The fact you think I was implying "fault" in any way shows a phenominal willingness to read the worst into people in order to feed a political point.

I meant what I said.

And all that I said.

And nothing more.

The fact that I think owning a firearm can be seen as a reasonable precaution for self defense, instead of a "nuclear solution to a volitile situation" which "instantly" turns the owner into some kind of out-of-control killer, liable to kill someone over an argument, is an opinion. One I freely express. That, and, as you seem so ready to say, five bucks gets you a much better meal at Kroger than at Starbucks.

That you were willing enough to graft your entirely unrelated stance upon the surviving victim with the flip "who needs a gun" comment points to core inconsistancies in your treatment of the topic.

"Who needs a gun" accuses the killer's other victims of being insufficently clever/pacifistic to avoid their own deaths. Perhaps if the guard at the courthouse had been less rough on him, he wouldn't have beaten her and shot her in the mouth. Perhaps if the judge had been kinder to him during the first trial, he wouldn't have stalked into the courtroom, held them all hostage, and shot him, the court reporter, and the deputy. Perhaps if the federal agent had been more ready to give over his truck, the killer wouldn't have shot him and taken his badge, gun, and truck. For that matter, why didn't the first rape victim just talk her way out of the situation, if posessing a gun was so unecessary?

If, in any way, you claim that I was blaming the rape victim for her situation, then you are blaming these six victims for their own deaths, rapes, and hospitalizations.

If we were intended to take your comment glibly, you should consider granting the same latitude to my eighteen words. All my comment meant was that it was unfortunate that she didn't posess a firearm when it would have helped her, despite your conviction at a gun's lack of utility. It was similarly unfortunate that she was home when Nichols burst in. Neither are her "fault" any more than the surviving victim's five-year-old daughter was a result of planning ahead for if someone ever held her hostage in her home.

I'll probably regret posting this, for the misdirected firestorm that will inevitably result, but I will not have those words put in my mouth without a fight.

Re: The site referenced...

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

Political, my ass.

A gun isn't the only kind of self-defense.

A gun isn't always the best means of defense.

A gun is a weapon. Singular.

There's plenty of hindsight going on at that courthouse - primary, it seems, was the lack of intelligence in leaving someone that much more physically powerful in the custody of a much smaller person (with a gun). The gun didn't balance out the equation, matter of fact, it tipped it over to the benefit of the prisoner as it was easily taken and used against the officer. And then everyone else in his path.

Should there be no guns? No. Should there be a gun easily taken by someone larger and stronger? No, as well. But did someone assume that gun was going to make the difference? Somebody did. This is the kind of thing I was talking about - that false sense of security. Like that gun was going to make a vicious criminal respect the authority of someone smaller, weaker and easily overpowered. Is this a good example of it? How would I know? I'm not there -

The criminal saw the opportunity and took it, however.

I'm repeating myself. It is my honest opinion that having a gun in my hands makes it more than 50% likely it will be taken from me and used against me. Therefore, I'm going to have to rely on something besides a gun! Like oh, I don't know - being aware of what's around me? Not asking for more than I can manage alone?

I drove airport shuttle at LAX at every hour of the night. No, I was never mugged - but I wasn't stupid, either.

There are always going to be the home invasions, the car jackings, the random acts of violence by stranger to stranger, but any cop can tell you - most violent acts are between parties that know each other.

I don't know about you, but if I felt I needed to carry a weapon while I was with friends, I'd have other problems to deal with before something from the outside threatened me.

Blaming a rape victim for their situation? Weren't you blaming them for not blasting their attacker when "they had the chance?" Frankly, you can kill with a shoe with a spike heel at that range, if you get the chance. At that range, you can do enough damage with a set of car keys to get away - if you get the chance.

Whatever she did, if she survived, she did the right thing. That's my stance. Neither of us were there, and frankly, making any kind of judgement call was out of line.

Nobody said boo about how that criminal "should" have been treated to have prevented this slaughter. Kinder, my ass. Someone should have given him the benefit of intelligent thought and desperation. Hindsight.

Guns work extrordinarily well - for their intended purpose. IMHO opinion, for a lot of people, they immediately jump to the finality a gun's purpose offers - glibly, eagerly and aggressively. The "best" way - the most final way - and again, this is my opinion - an unnecessary way. You can solve an argument with a gun - no problem. He'll never say anything to anyone again - problem solved!

There is also a great difference in someone picking up a gun and shooting a congregation - and a criminal taking a gun from an officer in a courtroom and using it. Your hope in the former is prevention; your hope in the latter is vigilance.

"To the man who only has a hammer - every problem looks like a nail." I say take the gun out of the equation if you have the choice. It makes sense in a lot of cases.

You put those words right in there yourself buddy - with no help from me. Spit 'em out and move on.

Re: The site referenced...

[ersatzinsomnia.livejournal.com]

Wow.... who are you talking to?

A gun isn't the only kind of self-defense.
A gun isn't always the best means of defense.
A gun is a weapon. Singular.

Never in dispute.

...the lack of intelligence in leaving someone that much more physically powerful in the custody of a much smaller person (with a gun)...

Oh, so it WAS the officer's fault that she died. Her fault for being confident in her ability to handle the prisoner, for whatever reason. Not what you're saying? Then why are you making weird-ass assumptions about what I was saying?

The gun didn't balance out the equation, matter of fact, it tipped it over to the benefit of the prisoner as it was easily taken and used against the officer. And then everyone else in his path.

Irrelevant to my eighteen-word point. Except for the "easily" comment. You weren't there. You don't know. You should avoid making assumptions. Likely he just got really lucky.

Like that gun was going to make a vicious criminal respect the authority of someone smaller, weaker and easily overpowered. Is this a good example of it? How would I know? I'm not there -

Then why are you making the statement that the police officer lost her firearm due to her smaller stature or overconfidence? How do you know she had smaller stature? You make assumptions and conclusions while simultaneously stating that you don't really know anything, and thus shouldn't draw conclusions. You're contradicting the parameters you just set.

I'm repeating myself. It is my honest opinion that having a gun in my hands makes it more than 50% likely it will be taken from me and used against me. Therefore, I'm going to have to rely on something besides a gun! Like oh, I don't know - being aware of what's around me? Not asking for more than I can manage alone?

What does this have to do with anything? This isn't about YOUR situation. Whatever you may think, we're not talking about you. The officer on the scene is a highly trained individual who has extensive experience with a handgun. It is much less than 50% likely that the gun will be taken from her, so how does your situation have anything to do with her getting shot? For HER a firearm is a necessary tool. Either that, or you think it's her fault for getting shot since she carried around a gun. But I wouldn't draw that conclusion.

but any cop can tell you - most violent acts are between parties that know each other.

I don't know about you, but if I felt I needed to carry a weapon while I was with friends, I'd have other problems to deal with before something from the outside threatened me.

The rape victim was not "with friends." She was home alone when this guy forced his way into her house. And he brought a gun with him, so don't tell me that her owning a firearm would just be arming him.

Re: The site referenced...

[ersatzinsomnia.livejournal.com]

Blaming a rape victim for their situation? Weren't you blaming them for not blasting their attacker when "they had the chance?" Frankly, you can kill with a shoe with a spike heel at that range, if you get the chance. At that range, you can do enough damage with a set of car keys to get away - if you get the chance.

I SAID NONE OF THAT. (And I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from putting into quotes words which I did not state.) If I'd meant that, I'd have said it. What I said was: "...it was unfortunate that she didn't posess a firearm when it would have helped her, despite your conviction at a gun's lack of utility. It was similarly unfortunate that she was home when Nichols burst in. Neither are her 'fault' any more than the surviving victim's five-year-old daughter was a result of planning ahead for if someone ever held her hostage in her home." I do not mince words or shy from meaning there. When I say it was unfortunate it is not with a snide sideways-glance. It is not with an assignation of blame. It is with an honest regret that fortune did not favor her (the definition of "unfortunate"). I state what I mean, and here even stated what I didn't mean, and you continue to attribute to me statements I've disavowed.

Whatever she did, if she survived, she did the right thing. That's my stance. Neither of us were there, and frankly, making any kind of judgement call was out of line.

Nobody said boo about how that criminal "should" have been treated to have prevented this slaughter. Kinder, my ass. Someone should have given him the benefit of intelligent thought and desperation. Hindsight.

Then what's your excuse? If I was making a judgement about the rape victim (which I was NOT) then you're implicitly making the same judgement calls about the other victims. You're saying that the officer shouldn't have been carrying a firearm if she was going to be left with Nichols. "Someone should have given him..." is a judgement call you're making. I can implicitly extend it to you blaming the officer for getting shot, and for all the other people who got killed. But I WOULDN'T make that extension, except as an example of conclusions NOT to draw. A courtesy you remain steadfast in being unable to grant me.

As far as "should have given him..." IMHO, someone should have had this known violent offender, who'd been caught with a shiv earlier, in handcuffs. But the state, trying to avoid casting an impression on the jury, sacrifices the safety of the courtroom and the officers instead.

You put those words right in there yourself buddy - with no help from me. Spit 'em out and move on.

Those words were never in my mouth. I stated eighteen words in response to your self-admittedly glib comment. Your desire to make me into some kind of charicature of a political (social, whatever) stance apparently made you read all kinds of crazy things into it.

And speaking of spitting, how's all that self-righteousness taste?

(frozen) Re: The site referenced...

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

Said, no. Implied? Be more careful next time, neh?

The officer shouldn't have been left alone. Period.

And you were the one who said I put words in your mouth. I did nothing of the kind - and if they're bitter, you'd know.

Me? I'm pretty certain I've thought this one through - and I'm not the one looking to place blame or find fault. I'll stand by my original position that adding a gun to a volatile situation isn't wise. That adding a gun doesn't equalize physical disparities.

Coulda shoulda woulda. Words matter.

And that's enough words wasted on this dead horse.

[sputnik.livejournal.com]

I'm amazed that there is any chance she won't get the $60,000 reward money.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

You're kidding....

(frozen)

[sputnik.livejournal.com]

It's practically the last words of the article.

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry. There IS no better rape deterrent than a pair of pretty blue eyes.... glaring daggers across the sights of a snub .38.

Had she had a weapon and proper training, she would've had her weapon to hand approaching the apartment, and she would've had the ability and the right to cause him to leave the scene on a gurney if not in a bag. (I firmly believe that rape or the attempt thereof is a capital crime, punishable on the spot by the would-be victim.)

She talked her way out of it, sure. She got lucky.... and what's more, Justice was NOT served. Now we're going to have to pay untold thousands of dollars to try this bastard AGAIN... when she could've expended less than a buck on two rounds of ammo and ended everyone's misery.

(frozen)

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

In your dreams. Unfortunately, that's the reality.

Frankly, and they do ask this in all gun training I've had contact with, I'm VERY certain anyone I'd point a gun at would have more than a 50% change of taking it away from me and using it on me.

No, I'll keep my MagLite. And my brain working at peak efficiency - I now have a good example to use.

One. Good. Example. Mind.

The Gun....

[n6vfp.livejournal.com]

He got the gun when he overpowered the law enforcement officer escorting him to court. He then killed the judge, the prosecuter, and one other oficer as he fled the courthouse. He didn't have o purchase a gun, he just took it. It was a bad case of poor procedure and security in the court. They are now talking life, not the death penalty. He'll now say he has found his salvation and his hostage will probably testify on his behalf. Watch for a temporary insanity plea as the excuse for the slayings.

Re: The Gun....

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

Watch nobody listen or give a damn.

In my honest opinion, I don't believe anyone has the right to commit murder and say it was in my name. Period.

Past that, prison isn't a warehouse. Get something useful out of the inmates, even if it's chain-gangs going through landfills for the recyclables. (Did you catch being_homeless relating how prison was easier to manage than a homeless shelter?)

(frozen) Re: The Gun....

[n6vfp.livejournal.com]

Most prisons make money for states, as prison industries are very active. That call center you called into was probably manned by convicts. They also manufacture goods in Oregon, including making their own uniforms. hat license plate on your car came from one of the California enterprises. In Orange County and LA County the lass violent inmates work to raise the food they eat. No, most prisons do not allow the inmates to just sit in a cell unless they are so violent as to not be 'useful' in other endeavors.

The story of this man's salvation was the story of the hostage, but maybe some of the Stockholm Syndrome may be part of this. No, murder, especially on the scale committed here should automatically qualify this man for the death penalty, a view probably shared by law enforcement and the courts there.

(frozen)

[caitlin.livejournal.com]

*sigh*

I'm sad for the four who were killed.

And my only thought on the guy who did it: And he thought he was in trouble BEFORE?!

DEath is too good for him. Lock him up for good in a small room with bread and water for food.

And that's it.

C.