MDA’s latest blood dance shows absolute stupidity

3 Comments

If you live outside Virginia, you probably haven’t heard about a murder-suicide that took place in Culpeper last week. According to reports, the bodies of Clarence and Shauna Washington, both 35, and their three daughters — 4-year-old Olivia, 6-year-old Onya and 13-year-old Omesha — were found in their house. All dead of gunshot wounds.

Family and friends told authorities the couple had been having an ongoing domestic dispute that apparently grew more heated Saturday night. Authorities did not receive any calls for help from the home.

Culpeper Sheriff Scott Jenkins said the death investigation has been preliminarily classified as a murder-suicide.

And if you didn’t think Moms Demand Action Attention would be on this story like Oprah on a baked ham, using it to promote their latest ineffective disarmament efforts, you’d be sadly mistaken.

Some hysterical Virginia mommy named Gena Reeder penned an editorial, which ran in today’s Richmond Times Dispatch, whining that if ONLY Virginia had stricter gun control laws…

Well, we’ve heard this all before, haven’t we? So let’s examine Reeder’s claims a bit more closely.

More than half of mass shootings committed in the United States are incidents of domestic violence. Every month, 48 American women are shot and killed by current or former intimate partners. A recent report from Everytown for Gun Safety found that American women are 11 times more likely to be killed by guns than women in any other developed nation. Armed stalkers also put women at risk: Nine out of 10 attempted murders of women involved at least one incident of stalking in the year before the murder attempt, according to a study in 10 major U.S. cities.

How does one define “mass shootings?” We’ve already seen Everytown’s claim about 74 school shootings having taken place since Sandy Hook debunked so thoroughly, that even PolitiFact kicked Bloomberg’s hoplophobic hordes in the nuts. But mass shootings? Generally, unless you have a political agenda, when you think of a mass shooting, you think of random shootings in public places, not just any slaying involving multiple bodies and a gun. This would, in any sane circle, be considered an intimate partner homicide that tragically involved the couple’s children. Clarence Washington, who apparently shot his wife and his daughters, wasn’t out to murder as many people as he could before taking his own life. He wanted to end whatever demons he had in his head, and in the process took the lives of his family.

Tragic? Yes. Mass shooting? Only if you have a political agenda.

But let’s look a little further into the statistics cited by the sniveling Momtard.

“48 American women are shot and killed by current or former intimate partners.” 

I tend to take any statistic Everytown and its hoplophobic spawn feed me with a grain of salt, so I did my own bit of digging.

National data on intimate partner violence reveals a few things:

1,818 women in the US were killed by men in single victim/single offender incidents, as reported to the FBI’s 2009 Supplementary Homicide Reports.  Where the victim/offender relationship was known, 63% were killed by an intimate partner (likely an underestimate, as ex-girlfriends were not included) – 550 of them with a firearm – most often a handgun.

Out of the 1,818 women in the United States who were murdered, 63 percent, or 1145, were killed by an intimate partner, and 550 of them -48 percent – were killed with a firearm, and if we go by the numbers provided by New York’s Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence, the number of women shot by current or former intimate partners per month is closer to 46. Regardless of the gun grabbers’ usual inflation of numbers (a single violent death is a tragedy, no matter what the implement used to commit said murder) one has to wonder why the Mommies and Bloomberg are more concerned with the 48 percent of intimate partner homicides that are committed with firearms, than the 52 percent committed via other violent means!

Apparently only “gun violence” is bad. Screw the rest of you ladies victimized by abusive shitbags!

Despite these statistics, which Reeder helpfully manipulates to support her cause, Virginia’s lax laws apparently are somehow responsible for the murder suicide. But are they? According to the Virginia State Police, the following people are prohibited from purchasing or owning firearms.

  1. You are under indictment for a felony offense.
  2. The subject of an active misdemeanor or felony arrest warrant from any state.
  3. You have been convicted, as an adult, in any court of a felony offense?
  4. You are 28 years old or younger, have ever been adjudicated delinquent as a juvenile 14 years of age or older at the time of offense of a delinquent act, which would be a felony if committed by an adult.
  5. You were adjudicated as a juvenile 14 years of age or older at the time of the offense of murder in violation of § 18.2-31 or 18.2-32, kidnapping in violation of § 18.2-47, robbery by the threat or presentation of firearms in violation of § 18.2-58, or rape in violation of § 18.2-61? (If adjudicated as a delinquent for these offenses, you must answer yes. You are ineligible regardless of your current age and prohibited for life unless allowed by restoration of rights by the Governor of Virginia and order of the circuit court in the jurisdiction in which you reside.)
  6. You have been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime punishable by more than 2 years even if the maximum punishment was not received.
  7. There is an outstanding protective or restraining order against you from any court that involves your spouse, a former spouse, an individual with whom you share a child in common, or someone you cohabited with as an intimate partner. (emphasis mine)
  8. There is an outstanding protective or restraining order against you from any court that involves stalking, sexual battery, alleged abuse or acts of violence against a family or household member?
  9. You are an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any controlled substance? The Federal Gun Control Act defines an addicted person, or unlawful user, as a person who has a conviction for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year or persons found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided that the test was administered within the past year.
  10. You have been acquitted by reason of insanity?
  11. You have been adjudicated legally incompetent or mentally incapacitated, or adjudicated an incapacitated person?
  12. You have been involuntarily admitted to a facility or involuntarily ordered to outpatient mental health treatment?
  13. You have been the subject of a temporary detention order and subsequently agreed to voluntarily admission for mental health treatment?
  14. You have been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable discharge?
  15. You are an alien illegally in the United States?
  16. You are a nonimmigrant alien? A nonimmigrant alien is prohibited from receiving a firearm unless he or she falls within an exception to the nonimmigrant alien prohibition (e.g., hunting license/permit; waiver).
  17. You are a person who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced your citizenship?
  18. You have been convicted for the misdemeanor crime of domestic violence? This includes all misdemeanors that involve the use, threat of, or attempted use of physical force (e.g., simple assault, assault and battery) if the offense is committed by one of the following parties: a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent or guardian of the victim. (emphasis mine)
  19. You are person who, within a 36 month period, within the last 5 years, has been convicted under Virginia law of 2 misdemeanor offenses for Possession of Controlled Substance, Possession of Marijuana, and/or any offense involving synthetic marijuana? (Handgun Purchases Only)

Apparently that’s not enough for Reeder, who snivels about being a Virginia mommy, who is just not “certain about our future in a state that does so little to protect women and children from perpetrators of domestic violence.”

Lady (and I use that term very loosely), you’re either a paranoid loon, a liar or some nefarious combination of both!

There is nothing lax about Virginia’s firearm laws! All manner of violent scum is covered, but you and your Mommy friends won’t rest until everyone is disarmed or inconvenienced to such a point when exercising their rights, that the cost/benefit analysis reveals it’s no longer worth bothering.

But Reeder goes on, and the absolute total bullshit that spills over from her poisonous keyboard is appalling and easy to fact check.

Just a week ago in Emporia, Va., Lamont George shot and killed his ex-girlfriend, Michelle Roper, while her teenage son watched. According to reports, a restraining order had been issued in the past, yet George had no problem obtaining the gun he used to kill Roper.

This is the type of incident that the February legislation could have prevented. This is exactly why Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America will be fighting this fall to get the legislature to protect all Virginia families.

 The U.S. Marshals apprehended Lamont George a few days ago, and guess what! No February law (in February, Virginia’s General Assembly rejected legislation that would have prevented anyone convicted of stalking, sexual battery or physical assault of a family member from having a gun for a period of five years.) would have prevented this tragedy. Know why? Here’s why:

The man faces charges of murder; the attempted murder of Wakki Roper; breaking and entering of a residence with the intent to commit a felony; possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a violent felony; larceny of a motor vehicle; two counts of using a firearm while committing or attempting to commit murder.

Lamont George was already a felon in possession of a firearm. By law, he was not allowed to have one! He already violated the law by merely possessing said gun. In addition to that, he was also already prohibited by law from owning a pistol, because according to reporting, he was under a restraining order.

So how would an additional law have stopped him from obtaining said gun and shooting his girlfriend, Gena?

It would not have. And had you done a shred of research, you would have known that. But maybe you did know that, eh? Maybe you just decided to spout lies in your froth-flecked zeal to push your gun control agenda, you lying, hysterical sow!

Let’s now take a look at the Culpeper murder-suicide, which Reeder uses to emphasize her claim that Virginia’s gun laws are weak, and that the February proposal would have prevented this crime.

Clarence Washington had a clean record. He was not a convicted criminal in any way, shape or form. He was not subject to a restraining order, and police had never been called to the home, even after the last fight, which was loud enough for the neighbors to hear. There was nothing legally preventing Washington from owning one or several firearms. No amount of maneuvering, twitching or spinning by Gena Reeder or her MomTard team of statist snotwads would have prevented Washington’s legal purchase.

Perhaps if guns were banned altogether… But that’s exactly what these shrews want! They don’t want “common sense” laws. We already have them and more.

And considering that the vast majority of criminals don’t purchase their firearms via any kind of legal manner anyway, and I suspect Reeder and the Shrews Demanding Attention know that, their ultimate goal seems pretty clear.

And one final thing, because this woman is so completely ridiculous and ignorant that she claims that a woman who gets a restraining order against a former intimate partner is clearly making every effort to “get away from him”  – a restraining order is a piece of paper. A goon intent on doing a woman harm is already willing to violate several laws, like, say… ASSAULT and MURDER, will not be deterred by yet another legal document. But does Reeder want to give women a real chance at defending themselves? Of course not!

When a woman buys her own gun for protection against a possible domestic violence attack, her chances of dying by a gun go up drastically. Women involved in domestic disputes are almost 10 times more likely to have a gun used against them than to use a gun in self-defense.

Words cannot properly describe how despicable I find these self-righteous ignorami, who spread egregious lies and misinformation about armed self defense (remember, Reeder’s prevaricating hero Shannon Watts claims that defensive gun uses do not exist)! Virginia’s women don’t need disinformation, deception and deceit thrown at them by the likes of this screeching harpy. Fact of the matter is Tammy Duvall, Ltuanya BallardJessica Cothon, this unnamed ladyJoni Prater, Elsie Thomas,  Shawna Brush, and scores of others whose lives were saved by armed self defense after attacks by violent exes would tell Reeder to screw herself.

I know I would.

This is why we’re raising a bunch of victims

8 Comments

I often have written about school zero tolerance sense policies and obscenely biased, wimpy, cowardly and downright idiotic policies that are churning out panty-soiling ignorami into our society. These are victims who are unable to stand up for themselves, who are too weak and ineffective to defend themselves, too lazy to take personal responsibility for their own safety, and dependent upon others – anyone but themselves – to keep them safe.

Want to see how schools spawn such gutless, torpid, pathetic excuses for actual human beings? They start with this.

dumbassery

This is the advice a school in Nebraska gives to children faced with bullying.

Do not stand up for yourself.

Do not treat bullies like enemies.

Be a good sport, and don’t tell on the person who is abusing you.

Just sit there and take it like a good pathetic victim!

This repulsive set of rules may be the most egregious example of the seeds of cowardice and ineptitude. This is where it all starts – in schools that breed spinelessness and impotence.

Luckily, after being inundated with a plethora of parental outrage, the school apologized and sniveled and finally sent home a flyer that at the very least doesn’t encourage kids to lay down and take it like good little victims.

When the Redhead was just a little guy – all of maybe 2-3 years old – he attended a private daycare near where we used to live. A small kid I’ll call Projectile (you will understand why in a minute) picked the Redhead as a chew toy. To this day I’m not sure what in the world the mother of that kid was doing to him. He bit, scratched and hit. He ate gravel. He refused to stop, no matter how much the staff of the daycare center tried to control him.

Poor little Redhead came home every day with welts all over his body – arms, legs, neck, torso – no part of his little body was immune to Projectile’s teeth! The staff didn’t know what to do other than to lock up Projectile the entire day, but that wasn’t exactly an optimal solution. So the Redhead and I sat down and had a little talk. And by talk, I mean I taught him how to hit – how to hit hard. If you think toddlers can’t learn this effectively, you’re sadly mistaken. We practiced for several hours, and I told him that if Projectile bit him again, he was to defend himself the way I taught him.

Well, wouldn’t you know it, I got a call the very next day. Apparently, Projectile decided that the Redhead tasted better than his lunch, so he sunk his teeth into his leg yet again.

That’s where it ended. The Redhead, I was told, struck out. He struck Projectile with such a forceful punch, that Projectile apparently flew back about three feet (hence earning his nickname), and sat there dazed for a minute.

The daycare director told me that while they do not condone violence, and they had no authorization to use corporal punishment on a child in their care, they could only watch the Redhead’s strike (and applaud internally, I was told).

End result: Projectile never bit the Redhead again. Ever.

He was still an odd child. He was sort of a savage kid, who still insisted on eating gravel and destroying books and toys. But at least he didn’t use the Redhead or any other kid as a chew toy.

Sometimes, you just have to stand up for yourself. In the end, you are your last line of defense, and no one in authority should encourage the idea that your natural state is that of a victim.

That just ain’t true.

Packin’ Baristas

7 Comments

This is my latest for JPFO.

This is a coffee shop I’m glad to promote, and will make it a point to visit when I’m on the west coast!

via Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

Confusing case of self defense, but still self defense?

8 Comments

Leave it to the Land of the Hanging Chad™ to produce this rather confusing mess.

A Florida man shot and killed a suspected female intruder early Wednesday morning, raising questions about whether the fatal shooting was self-defense or homicide.

Joseph McGuire, 64, of Archer, Florida, fatally shot 26-year-old Latreese Monroe on Wednesday around 2 a.m. after Monroe had kicked in the man’s front door, according to an Alachua County Sheriff’s Office report.

Sounds cut and dry, right?

Female broke his door in and entered his house by force.

Female also had a lengthy criminal record that included time in prison on nine separate occasions for “aggravated assault, battery, fraud, resisting an officer, suspended license and probation violations…”

What else is there to say? She kicked in his door. She broke into his house. She had a long criminal record.

Hell, I would have shot her dumb ass for that!

Except that it’s never that easy, is it?

According to the article, “Public records show that McGuire has been arrested on charges of aggravated battery.” Maybe it’s the writer’s inability to articulate properly, but I can’t figure out if the journalist meant that McGuire is currently under arrest, as the sentence implies, or whether he has an arrest record. The article earlier states McGuire was at first taken into custody, but later released, and no charges had been filed yet.

Wonder if the author of the piece, S.H. Blannelberry, is a publik skool graduate…

But regardless… McGuire also apparently knew the home invader. Numerous witnesses say she had been to his home on a number of occasions, and that they knew one another well.

Did the fact that Monroe and McGuire knew one another and the fact that she had been to his home entitle her to enter said abode by force? Did McGuire still have a reasonable expectation that whoever entered his house, would do so by invitation only? Was he a criminal in possession of a firearm?

Maybe, and maybe not. It’s unclear, but since police released him without charging him, I would think that even though there was an arrest in his past, he was not charged and not found guilty.

Another thing is clear. This was McGuire’s home, and regardless of whether or not he knew the home invader, it is quite obvious by the fact that she kicked his door in in order to gain entrance to his place, that he didn’t want her there. And since she used force to enter, he had every right to ventilate her.

So, I think this is still self defense, despite the writer’s poor ability to communicate the actual story.

Thoughts?

Don’t Bring a Knife to a Gun Fight

15 Comments

And don’t mess with Texas.

Surveillance video shows the shooter, described as a 23-year-old woman, retrieving a rifle from the trunk of her car and pointing it toward the ground near a man armed with an umbrella and a pocket knife.

Then it shows the man swinging at the woman as she steps back and fires the weapon.

[...]

According to police, the shooter claimed the man had made unwanted sexual advances and refused to leave her alone. She also told police she feared for her life.

According to witnesses, the victim was acting strangely.

I’m sure hoplophobic leftards would prefer that this woman merely urinated on herself in hopes that the crazy man wouldn’t rape her, but I prefer the quick “put them out of society’s misery” route.

Scoreboard:

Good guys: 1

Armed potential rapists: 0

Those Silly, Completely Inappropriate for Self Defense “Assault” Rifles

5 Comments

Apparently, Joe Biden and his shotgun were not available to scare the bandits away, so this veteran and store owner used his evil, killing machine assault rifle to defend his property.

Without ever firing a shot.

Without a round going through a wall and killing a child.

[Shawn] Schank walked inside the back room, grabbed his AR 15 rifle and pointed it at the suspects.

[...]

The man asked Schank not to shoot him. The two men ran out the door and Schank dialed 911.

Schank said he usually carries a pistol but that morning he only had his rifle which he mainly uses for shooting and hunting.

I know Uncle Joe would have preferred Schank simply grabbed a shotgun and fired willy-nilly into the air, but unfortunately all he had was the killer AR-15. I guess he’s lucky that murder machine didn’t jump out of his hands, shoot the suspects, run out the door, kill some children and rape some nuns.

Because Who Really Needs a Military Style “Assault” Weapon?

9 Comments

This guy apparently did, and it probably saved his life.

Jasper Brisbon, 32, wandered up to a couple late Friday at the Lynnewood Apartments as the pair spoke outside their unit. Brisbon, they told police, appeared to be on drugs. He stared at the pair for several minutes before the couple decided to go into their apartment, police said.

But as they entered their home Brisbon jumped between them, forcing his way in.

The male of the couple ran to get a semi-automatic AR-15 rifle and insisted Brisbon leave. Brisbon refused. Instead, as the man yelled “Stop! Stop Stop!” Brisbon moved menacingly toward the man, police said.

The man fired a shot striking Brisbon in the torso and immediately called 911, police said.

You don’t need that evil thing. Not at all. It’s totally inappropriate for self defense. You should fire your shotgun through the door like Uncle Joe suggests.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: