Saturday, October 1, 2011

This doesn't fit your narrative...

A motel clerk in Richland County, South Carolina shoots and kills an alleged rapist.

The problem is that this DOES fit my narrative. The person who posted this comment failed to note that this incident took place in South Carolina, which has one of the highest rates of gun violence. In fact, One finds that South Carolina sounds like the Anglo-Scottish Border regin during the time of the reivers if the person who made this comment had actually paid attention to more than just the comment in the clip that a hotel clerk killed an alleged rapist. If you look at aggravated assaults involving a firearm, Tennessee (129.87) and South Carolina (114.73) come above District of Columbia (99.25). That is our narrative--the more guns there are and the more people take the law into their own hands, the more lawless the society becomes.

Additionally, the whole story sounds as if Richland County, SC is plagued with crime even with people carrying weapons. Isn't the pro-gun narrative More Guns--Less Crime, but does that work in reality? Instead, this post points out that the solution to crime is a whole lot more complicated than a bumper sticker solution.

So, when taken as a whole, this clip DOES fit our narrative--the more guns present, the more likely society is to be violent. Take away the guns from the following statistics and the rate of violent crime goes way down

But the person who made this comment is not interested in dialogue, he is more interested in trying to silence our message. He figures that we will see the surface message of this clip, rather than pay attention to the entire message.

But, this person isn't willing to examine what he is saying and how he presents himself, let alone what we are saying. If someone isn't aware of the message they put out and that it is counterproductive to their cause, how can he properly communicate anything?

That is why the dialogue fails.


  1. Of course, this is a strange story,and the pro-gunners don't question the implausibility of some of these details. I am wondering how this woman was being restrained by plastic ties, but could still pull the gun and shoot.

    I'm wondering why the woman didn't shoot back when the man pulled the knife -- and was the man on the opposite side of a check in counter? In other words - at a distance sufficient to make it worthwhile to pull out a gun before he got close enough to put the knife to her throat?

    I have traveled widely, in the U.S. and elsewhere. It is customary for major hotel chain establishments to have closed circuit camera surveillance to observe entry points. It is even quite customary for the doors to lock after certain hours, requiring guest keys or to be buzzed in to the reception area.

    So.........if this was such a high crime area, why isn't this hotel, part of one of these major chains doing that? Or, did they?

    There are enough details, once again, about this story to raise serious questions and red flags about the accuracy.

    I hope the motel has a surveillance recording. I hope police will check to see if there is any history or connection between this woman and the alleged rapist.

    But the better solution still would appear to be crime prevention, by better hotel security, including surveillance, lighting, locks, possibly a private security service patrolling the parking area to make sure guests and staff are safe out there - and to make sure suspicious characters don't get inside in the first place.

    I wonder if this ditz was wearing one of those stupid bra-holsters, or if she just had the gun stuck in the waist band of her clothing?

    And I wonder what the motel's insurance company is going to do about this locations insurance, if employees come towork with guns. I'd bet that the premiums charged will either go sky high, or they get cancelled - for good reason.

  2. That's a wonderful post. To me it seems like a clean DGU, but as you say it's just further evidence of the breakdown of American society. More guns is not resulting in less crime.

  3. DG wrote: I'm wondering why the woman didn't shoot back when the man pulled the knife -- and was the man on the opposite side of a check in counter? In other words - at a distance sufficient to make it worthwhile to pull out a gun before he got close enough to put the knife to her throat?
    An anonymous commenter then wrote:
    "But funny how the big bad rapist didn't manage to disarm her, and now he won't be able to rape again....."

    Does anything else confirm this woman's story? Because with him dead,we don't know if this woman's story is true. Those who desperately want to justify their paranoia are incapable of applying critical thinking to what they read or hear, once they think that the events support wanting desperately to have guns.

    With little or no crime, with crime declining WITHOUT people having guns, they begin just to look a bit silly........and desperate.

    Very, very desperate.

    IF the events occurred more or less as this woman claims --- and at this point unless and until there is some independent confirmation of that I remain skeptical -- this woman's conduct is at best odd, and at worst a really stupid response to the threat she claims this man posed.

    So, NO, anon-NUMBASS, this doesn't indicate what you claim it does, and unless there is corroborating evidence to the contrary, it isn't going to do so.

    Waiting until someone is tying you up to shoot them, but NOT shooting someone who is threatening your life with a knife, is a freaking STUPID way to prioritize events and responses to them.

    Further, trusting your employees to be executing intruders instead of using cameras and locks, and possibly a security service to protect your staff and guests on an ongoing basis is grossly negligent.

    But of course, anon-NUMBASS skips over the inconvenient but logical challenges to the narrative........because it doesn't fit what he wants to believe.

    Inconvenient reality check, for AnonNUMBASS and his silly gun-buddies.

  4. It's not a good idea to feed the attention seeking troll.

    On the other hand, you have made good points. I wonder what would happen with this case if the stand your ground law didn't exist. They probably won't investigate this case given he was a criminal--no matter how suspicious the circumstances.

    The ultimate bottom line is that this is a deterioration of civil society.

  5. Yes, the deterioration of society, in which gun availability plays a big part.

    No wonder the gun-rights guys try so hard to distinguish themselves from the criminal gun owners. The problem is, the gun itself ties them together.