Kansas City Chiefs starting linebacker Jovan Belcher shot his girlfriend to death, then drove to the team training facility and killed himself in front of the coach and general manager in a burst of violence on Saturday that stunned the NFL and its fans.What's your opinion? Mine is that he was another lawful gun owner who turned out to be dangerous and unfit. Also, I wonder if he'd had a concealed carry permit and if that's been reported to the proper authorities, you know the ones who keep producing those incredible statistics about how safe the permit holders are.
There was no immediate indication from police or others what prompted the 25-year-old Belcher to shoot Kasandra Perkins, 22 with whom he had a 3-month-old child, in the house they shared in Kansas City about 2 miles from the Chiefs' home field at Arrowhead Stadium.
Police spokesman Darin Snapp said Perkins' mother witnessed the killing and called police. Perkins had suffered multiple gunshot wounds and was pronounced dead at a hospital.
The mother told investigators that Perkins and Belcher had quarreled just before the shooting but that Belcher had never before been physically abusive with her daughter, Snapp added.
Belcher then drove his car to the team's training facility near the stadium, where he encountered head coach Romeo Crennel and general manager Scott Pioli, then shot himself in the head just as police arrived.
Please leave a comment.
By your kind of reasoning, we should ban football, given how many players do things like this.
ReplyDeleteYour attempt to demonize gun owners for the actions of a few is illogical. Statistically speaking, permit holders are one of the safest demographics.. beating out even law enforcement. If gun ownership was as dangerous as you believe, with 100 million gun owners in possession of some 300 million firearms.. wouldn't we be hearing about a lot more violence? The evidence does not support your position.
ReplyDeleteThe reports that say permit holders are so safe are based on poor reporting. In many cases of serious crime, no one is checking if the offender had a concealed carry permit.
DeleteAs far as the violence goes, isn't 35,000 dead, 200,000 hurt and $100 billion wasted enough for you? With minor changes in policy that could be cut in half overnight.
Mikeb, just because a news article doesn't include a line about how the police are checking for carry licenses doesn't mean that it isn't happening. Lots of details don't get mentioned in the news. When you have evidence that no one's checking, I'll listen. What you have at the moment is speculation.
DeleteI'd like to hear you evidence about who is checking. Is it the police, or some government agency? I find it strange that in this case you have such faith in the efficacy of their efforts.
DeleteFaith? No, but I've looked at the data from various states. You tell us that the police and prosecutors are against concealed carry, but then you doubt when they give evidence that license holders aren't committing lots of crimes. Add to that the fact that the Violence Policy Center, a gun control organization, is hunting for "Concealed Carry Killers" and can only find a tiny number.
DeleteYou're the one claiming that the facts aren't facts. What's your evidence?
Mike, under your ideas of proper gun control (may issue), these are the people who get a "yes" from local authorities. Celebrities, pro athletes, the wealthy...
ReplyDeleteThey also get a "yes" from you. Didn't you say rich celebrities deserve guns more than common folk because they are targets?
DeleteIf they pass the psyche exam. You think Jovan would have?
DeleteOne hundred million gun owners in this country, Mikeb. Is this your stimulus program--hire millions of shrinks to give all gun owners some couch time?
DeleteOk Mike, I want to clarify an important distinction with you. A couple months back you outlined a point-by-point “proper gun control” list. One of the points was “mental health back ground check”. A background check is verification that there is not a documented history of mental illness. But now you are saying it should be a proactive screening in order to find people who may have a future episode (but haven’t actually done anything wrong). This is considerable different.
DeleteIs this the stance you are now taking?
Yes, let's clarify.
Deletehttp://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/2012/09/what-do-we-mean-by-proper-gun-control.html
"1. Licensing of all gun owners which would include a penal background check, a mental health background check, an eye exam, a written and practical test and approval by the local authorities."
Included in the testing and taken into consideration in the approval process would be some basic psychological testing. It would weed out only the worst of the worst, but that would be a vast improvement over what we do now.
Only when you have to pass all those tests to express your opinion. Of course, if we come to that point, we won't be testing. We'll be in civil war.
DeleteThis thread is a little old, and I have too much to say on the topic of your screening ideas. But to be clear, you are adding a new line to your list to exclude people who have not committed a disqualifying offense. "background check" is never the right way to say that.
DeleteYou say exams would weed out only the worst of the worst. Do you think Jovan was one of the worst of the worst? I think he could have put on a smile for 10 min and talked to a psychologist without mentioning how much he wants to kill his girlfriend, don't you?
Delete"Mike, under your ideas of proper gun control (may issue), these are the people who get a "yes" from local authorities. Celebrities, pro athletes, the wealthy"
ReplyDeleteYou gotta cite to back up that particular bullshit assertion?
"By your kind of reasoning, we should ban football, given how many players do things like this."
Boy, that is one spectacularly stupid false equivalency you've got there, podnah.
We might consider banning pro-sports activities when athletes start killing each other while engaging in an athletic competition.
In your collection of silly hats you must have a nice pointy one that you can wear while you're sitting in the corner, facing the wall. If not, they're easy for someone to make, even you.
A citation, Democommie wants? Read the comments from Mikeb.
Deletehttp://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2012/11/ny-billionare-disarmed-after-incident.html#comment-form
Your apology will be entertained and entertaining.
You certainly love the idea of false equivalency, but considering how often Mikeb calls for restrictions on gun ownership, despite the small number of gun owners who do wrong, it's relevant to bring up other examples of wrongdoing on the part of groups that he likes.
Regarding a dunce cap, though, if you do a bit of reading about the origin of that, you'll find that it derives from followers of John Duns Scotus, a philosopher of the middle ages. Protestants created the term as an abuse of his disciples, but that came some centuries after the fact when he couldn't respond.
You, by contrast, can respond to reasoned arguments, but you choose not to.
Democommie: You gotta cite to back up that particular bullshit assertion?
DeleteYou bet your ass I have a quote to back it up.
MikeB (11/23/2012 9:15am): I disagree with the "we're all equal" claim. When it comes to qualifying for the "may issue" license, we're not all equal. The wealthy and famous often have a legitimate reason for being armed which does not apply to ordinary people. They are targets of stalking and extortion, of kidnapping even. Their celebrity makes them more likely to need a gun or bodyguards. That's the main difference.
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2012/11/ny-billionare-disarmed-after-incident.html
Not so “bullshit” now, is it, Democommie?
Thanks, Greg. I see you beat me to it with the same quote. Home come those on the side of rights seem to be the only ones paying attention?
Delete"Your apology will be entertained and entertaining."
DeleteI don't think you will get one. Most of these guys can't admit when they are shown to be wrong or caught in a lie. In fact, I doubt DC will comment in this thread again. He seems to abandon the threads when he is challenged on his hypocrisy.
Yup, one beautiful theory destroyed by an inconvenient fact. It happens time and time again here, and Dog Gone, Laci, and Democommie tuck tail and run on each occasion.
DeleteHow petty do you guys want to be? You're taking a major victory about whether or not I said something in the past. The real issue is murder-suicide and the role that gun availability plays in it.
DeleteNo Mike. We are not taking a major victory in what you said. We are showing what a tool DC it. He is the one who made it a major issue:
Delete"You gotta cite to back up that particular bullshit assertion?"
He does this with frequently with a lot of minor points and tries to use vulgarity as an exclamation point.
It is not surprising that when called to the carpet our little Demi is nowhere to be found.
DeleteMikeb, it's not a major victory. But the point is that Democommie comes around here cursing and insulting people he disagrees with. The best I can say about him is that he's full of hot air.
DeleteYep. He has already commented on other posts today - but he won't come back here and admit he was wrong after cursing up a storm about the issue. Coward.
DeleteAlso note, Mr. Democommie, that I asked Mike to back up his assertion that the wealthy are more often the victims of violent crime and I am still waiting. Do you want to call him on that BS with me? I am more likely to believe that if we correlate violent crime rates to median household income in a given area that we’ll find the exact opposite of Mike’s assertion.
ReplyDeleteTS, you know those gated hoods are hotbeds of violence. How many times can you drive past the same group of McMansions without wanting to kill someone?
DeleteYou guys are right, the average inner city single mom is in serious danger of being kidnapped for ransom, or for a Hinkley-type stalker to zero in on her.
DeleteAre you serious? You pick two rare crimes and go with that? But are you really claiming that a poor person is at significantly less risk of being the victim of violent crime than a rich person? Even if the facts don't matter to you, think about this: What kind of leftist are you?
DeleteSo kidnapping for ransom is the only threat worth defending oneself from? What about random killings, muggings, beatings, turf wars, payback hits, rape..., all a heck of alot more common than kidnappings.
DeleteWhy isn't your stance for the millionaire to just pay the ransom anyway? Isn’t that better than shooting someone in your mind? Give them what they want, right? No dollar amount is worth a human life, right?
Persons of high social (fame and fortune) standing typically contribute more to society than the common person, and it is therefore prudent that society protect valuable individuals from physical harm by allowing them privileged access to lethal weapons.
DeleteCertain members of society are more difficult to replace than others, and therefore must be secured against loss to rare, but nonetheless potential violence.
Really, E.N.? Brittany Spears deserves a handgun because she's famous for being famous, but the average good citizen does not? Not hardly. We could lose her, all of her kind, the whole lot of football players, and Michael Bloomberg, and the country would keep going just fine. But next time your plumbing backs up, you'll find yourself wishing for a commoner to make it work.
DeleteWhat I want is the same rights for all. i don't mind a famous person having and carrying a gun, so long as ordinary people have the same opportunity.
By the way, didn't your Soviet textbooks tell you that aristocracies are counterrevolutionary?
Your average poor person or one from the middle class does not drive the kind of car that is attractive to car-jackers or wear the kind of wrist-watch that is attractive to armed robbers. When it comes to approving a gun permit request for cause, the rich guy could claim cause where the others could not. At the same time, the poor or middle class guy is not in danger any more than anybody else. If he is, due to some special circumstances, then he could cite them as cause.
DeleteI just feel so sorry about the rich guy's Rolex, but haven't you told us that no piece of property is worth taking a life? Haven't you told us not to resist--to give the thug whatever he wants? Your hypocrisy reeks.
DeleteCan you back up that one, Greg? I don't recall taking the position that submission is best.
DeleteMikeb, seriously, you don't remember? You've said many times in the past that no piece of property is worth a human life. You advocate for trying to run away. But you'd allow rich people to have other choices.
DeleteMike, do you have ANY source to back up your claim that rich people are robbed more often? This seems like one of your "feels right" opinions with no basis in reality.
DeleteRemember, rich people don't tend to hang out in bad neighborhoods with high crime rates. Yes, thieves seek out targets, but you can't seriously believe that Malibu has a higher violent crime rate than Watts.
Greg, I'd tell the rich people to run away too, rather than taking a life over a TV set. That's the same thing I say to you, by the way.
DeleteNow that's not the same as saying let criminals have anything they want. You twisted it.
TS, now you've twisted my position to be Malibu is worse than Watts. You are a master at the game.
DeleteIndividuals should need to qualify their need for a gun, in my opinion. Rich celebrities would have that. Some middle class and poor people would too. I'm talking about "may issue," which is an individual thing not the sweeping generalizations that you're making it.
And I say that owning a gun and carrying a gun is a fundamental right for all citizens, to be taken away only under specific and limited conditions and after due process that favors the citizen.
DeleteYou so rarely support a good citizen using a firearm that we know what you really believe. A may-issue system along your lines would issue only to friends of the authorities--namely, campaign donors.
Again, why are you a shill for the one percent?
"The wealthy and famous often have a legitimate reason for being armed which does not apply to ordinary people. They are targets of stalking and extortion, of kidnapping even. Their celebrity makes them more likely to need a gun or bodyguards. That's the main difference."
ReplyDeleteOh, dear me, Mikeb actually did say that? Oh, my goodness--Oh, I'm so wrong, I think I'll kill myself--not.
As it happens I don't agree with mikeb302000 that the wealthy deserve a permit in contrast to someone who isn't wealthy. I think that they should have bodyguards if they are the subject of stalkers or kidnappers and the like. I think he's wrong. Here's a newsflash--those of us who don't think that yahooz wit teh gunz are heroes? we disagree on lots of stuff. We don't march in lockstep on ONE issue like you idiots do on the subject of the Sacred 2nd.
So, hey, Greggie, did you really enjoy that? Was it more fun than playing dressup with your silly hat and crossdraw rig? I'm glad if I could put a little bounce in your step, provide a little joy in your otherwise barren life. I mean, if I had to go to work every day and leave my gunz in my car, knowing that I wouldn't be able to be a hero if some guy ran into MY classroom and shot somebody with a compound bow...well, shit, I'd just feel, I don't know, incomplete?
TS and the rest of you poseurs; Why do you guyz spend so much time here? Is it because you're afraid? I think that must be it, because I know that you're never going to convince anyone that's opposed to the continuing carnage by moronz wit teh gunz that more of them = a safer society.
Democommie, for the record I never said a thing about your stance on the subject, or assumed it would be the same as Mike’s. You asked for a citation- I gave it to you. Hopefully in the future you’ll be less crass and arrogant when asking me to back up my statements. I pay attention. I don’t come here to throw insults.
DeleteDC - you asked for a citing of the assertion that Mikeb believed celebrities and other famous people should be allowed to carry guns and that is what was provided. Why ask for information if you don't really want it? Why try to make this about what you believe when you were not mentioned at all in the claim that you demanded to see proof for?
Delete
ReplyDeleteShit. I forgot to ask if the NRA had already sent out a petition for you guyz to sign; one that demands that NBC fire Bob Costas for having the temerity to speak his mind on NATIONAL TELEVISION about his views on gunz. Oh, wtf, am I talking about, Weenie LaPutrid would never say anything like:
"(People) didn’t tune in to listen to Bob Costas in a way make excuses for a murderer, whining about his social agenda of gun bans in the middle of a football game, and that’s why he’s getting the reaction that he’s getting."
Except he did.
See, here's the thing; if Bob Costas had said,
"If only that woman who let herself get killed because she was too stupid to have a gun had busted a cap in that bozo's ass she'd still be alive. Or if Romeo Crenell wouldahad hiz gunz wit him, he wouldn't have to wait for that crazy bastard to kill himself--he coulda shot him as soon as he saw that he had a gun!"
I doubt that Weenie or Teddyteabagz or the rest of gunzloonznation would have been moved to attack him for taking time out of an important NFL broadcast to bleat about gunz.
I particularly enjoyed Weenie's saying that Costas comment:
"make excuses for a murderer". Obviously Ol' Weenie's an ace deconstructionist of Mr. Costas comment, here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uOi7If0zW9s
I just don't remember hearing, at any time during that 1:32 "RANT*" of his at halftime of the Dallas/Philadelphia game, that the murderer had an "excuse" for killing anyone. I just watched it, again, to see if there was some subliminal stuff that I might have missed--I have special tinfoil subliminal hippieliebral speech detectors--in his 92 seconds of "ranting*". Nope, sorry, no, nothing there.
So, looks like Ol' Weenie might have been MAKING SHIT UP. Well, wtf, when you rely on the likes of John Lott for your "statistics" shit like that is bound to happen.
All of this is just in service of giving you fellers a little perspective.
I say something that turns out to be WRONG and you boyz are all over that shit (I only thank GOD that I didn't say something like, "The gunman was armed with some kind of "assault rifle" and he had lots of extra clips fulla bullets"--boy, I'd NEVER live that down!) So, anyway, I was wrong and since I'm almost as widely read as Greggie's masters thesis it's gonna affect the balance of powers. I can see why there's such a furor over it.
Otoh, a guy like Weenie, who is an experienced public speaker, a responsible executive and a guy who knows the power of words just happens to tell a little bit of fib to his several million readers--yeah, there's some equivalency for ya. I wait, with low anticipation for the gunzloonz greek chorus to castigate Ol' Weenie for his loose use of language.
* As Lloyd Benson might say if he were still alive, "Folks, I've known some ranter in my time, and that was no rant".
** He actually used his own words for just over 52 seconds of the piece, reading/reciting from memory a portion of Jason Whitlock's comments from Whitlock's "FOX Sports" column, written the day after the murder/suicide for the remaining 40 or so seconds of the piece.
Democommie, LaPierre expressed an opinion regarding Costas's comments. I happen to agree with what I've seen of that opinion. I'm not a fan of American football, so I can't say whether Costas was inappropriate in speaking like that during halftime, but he was wrong about the situation and wrong about the solution.
ReplyDeleteAs for my thesis, if you'd like to read it, I'd be happy to send it to you. You'll have to brush up on your Hebrew to follow much of the argument, though.