Would it be less tragic if her ex-customer stabbed her to death?
RuffRidr has it sort of right.
The judge is more responsible for her death than the gun. As someone who had to get a TRO against someone else, I can't fathom why the judge would deny her one.
All that said, a TRO or PRO is nothing more than a piece of paper. It will do nothing to prevent the attacker from committing his crime. What she really could have used was a temporary or emergency concealed carry license.
Tragic as this situation was, the reality is a gun could have saved her life, if she had the resources and the gumption to use one.
Of course it wouldn't be less tragic if he'd killed her in another way, but this is a perfect example of why we focus on the gun. If he'd used another means than 9 bullets, she would have had a better chance of survival. Guns are more likely to be lethal than other means.
RuffRidr asked, "I have to ask if you think the outcome would be any different if there was no gun involved?"
Yes I do. With no gun, he might have stabbed her non-lethally or beat her up like often happens. After one of those incidents even this stupid judge would get it and the girl would still be alive.
We focus on the gun for a good reason, not because we fear inanimate objects or because we assign to them anthropomorphic characteristics, but because they are the most efficient killing tool. In the hands of bad guys, they wreak havoc.
Yes I do. With no gun, he might have stabbed her non-lethally or beat her up like often happens.
Mike, she was shot nine times with at least one of those shots being to the face. It has been described as a vicious and brutal attack. While I do think that there are times that the presence of a gun can escalate the violence, I do not think that this was one of them. It is obvious that this man was filled with rage, and I think had he had a knife or baseball bat that this attack would have been every bit as brutal.
"If he'd used another means than 9 bullets, she would have had a better chance of survival."
And if he'd used a unicorn and beat her with wishes and rainbows, she'd be plenty fine. But he didn't, because he wasnted to kill her. And if she'd had her own gun, she could have shot him dead when he tried to kill her.
"Guns are more likely to be lethal than other means."
Which is why criminals seek them out and use them, even though there are laws against them doing so. Which, in turn, is why gun control always fails to reduce crime. (Of course, gun control isn't ever about reducing crime. It's about increasing control over everyone's lives. If it was truly about reducing crime, you'd focus on the root cause of crime---criminals!)
You're busy chasing the tool, instead of the actor--the means instead of the criminal that carries out the crime.
What happens if we focus on stopping the criminal, rather than stopping EVERYONE from owning a gun? What happens if we insist our prosecutors not "deal" and allow plea bargains? What happens when we insist that judges punish the convicted criminals with real sentences instead of slaps on the wrist?
"...he might have stabbed her non-lethally..."
Come on!! Have you ever ever been the victim of a knife attack? It's not pretty, and to be truthful, it's very often fatal. Knives can do a tremendous amount of damage. And once more, you are focusing on an object, not the criminal.
"...or beat her up like often happens."
That kind of beating only normally takes place between married, dating or cohabiting couples, not stalkers and their prey. Typically, stalkers who initiate some sort of violence toward their prey end up killing their victims, per the FBI. In other words, this dude wasn't going to stab her non-lethally, or beat her up to show her who's boss. If he took it as far as attacking her, he was going to go all the way. Hence, the nine rounds when two might do the job just fine. It was methodical, and overkill, because he was sending her a message.
He wanted her, and was going to carry out whatever sick mission played out in his mind, or he was going to kill her instead.
The reality is, guns didn't cause her death, a criminal did. A gun was used to kill her. A gun could have just as easily been used to save her. It's unfortunate she didn't have one.
I'd say judges are bad news for women.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I have to ask if you think the outcome would be any different if there was no gun involved?
Would it be less tragic if her ex-customer stabbed her to death?
ReplyDeleteRuffRidr has it sort of right.
The judge is more responsible for her death than the gun. As someone who had to get a TRO against someone else, I can't fathom why the judge would deny her one.
All that said, a TRO or PRO is nothing more than a piece of paper. It will do nothing to prevent the attacker from committing his crime. What she really could have used was a temporary or emergency concealed carry license.
Tragic as this situation was, the reality is a gun could have saved her life, if she had the resources and the gumption to use one.
Shrimp, Welcome.
ReplyDeleteOf course it wouldn't be less tragic if he'd killed her in another way, but this is a perfect example of why we focus on the gun. If he'd used another means than 9 bullets, she would have had a better chance of survival. Guns are more likely to be lethal than other means.
RuffRidr asked, "I have to ask if you think the outcome would be any different if there was no gun involved?"
ReplyDeleteYes I do. With no gun, he might have stabbed her non-lethally or beat her up like often happens. After one of those incidents even this stupid judge would get it and the girl would still be alive.
We focus on the gun for a good reason, not because we fear inanimate objects or because we assign to them anthropomorphic characteristics, but because they are the most efficient killing tool. In the hands of bad guys, they wreak havoc.
Yes I do. With no gun, he might have stabbed her non-lethally or beat her up like often happens.
ReplyDeleteMike, she was shot nine times with at least one of those shots being to the face. It has been described as a vicious and brutal attack. While I do think that there are times that the presence of a gun can escalate the violence, I do not think that this was one of them. It is obvious that this man was filled with rage, and I think had he had a knife or baseball bat that this attack would have been every bit as brutal.
"If he'd used another means than 9 bullets, she would have had a better chance of survival."
ReplyDeleteAnd if he'd used a unicorn and beat her with wishes and rainbows, she'd be plenty fine. But he didn't, because he wasnted to kill her. And if she'd had her own gun, she could have shot him dead when he tried to kill her.
"Guns are more likely to be lethal than other means."
Which is why criminals seek them out and use them, even though there are laws against them doing so. Which, in turn, is why gun control always fails to reduce crime. (Of course, gun control isn't ever about reducing crime. It's about increasing control over everyone's lives. If it was truly about reducing crime, you'd focus on the root cause of crime---criminals!)
You're busy chasing the tool, instead of the actor--the means instead of the criminal that carries out the crime.
What happens if we focus on stopping the criminal, rather than stopping EVERYONE from owning a gun? What happens if we insist our prosecutors not "deal" and allow plea bargains? What happens when we insist that judges punish the convicted criminals with real sentences instead of slaps on the wrist?
"...he might have stabbed her non-lethally..."
Come on!! Have you ever ever been the victim of a knife attack? It's not pretty, and to be truthful, it's very often fatal. Knives can do a tremendous amount of damage. And once more, you are focusing on an object, not the criminal.
"...or beat her up like often happens."
That kind of beating only normally takes place between married, dating or cohabiting couples, not stalkers and their prey. Typically, stalkers who initiate some sort of violence toward their prey end up killing their victims, per the FBI. In other words, this dude wasn't going to stab her non-lethally, or beat her up to show her who's boss. If he took it as far as attacking her, he was going to go all the way. Hence, the nine rounds when two might do the job just fine. It was methodical, and overkill, because he was sending her a message.
He wanted her, and was going to carry out whatever sick mission played out in his mind, or he was going to kill her instead.
The reality is, guns didn't cause her death, a criminal did. A gun was used to kill her. A gun could have just as easily been used to save her. It's unfortunate she didn't have one.