Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Wayne La Pierre Really Embarrassed Himself on this One

The New Civil Rights Movement
National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre claims that Jovan Belcher‘s girlfriend, Kasandra Perkins, would be alive today if she only had had her own gun. 

LaPierre is dead wrong: there were eight guns in the Belcher-Perkins house. So much for NRA bull. 

 “The one thing missing in that equation is that woman owning a gun so she could have saved her life from that murderer,” LaPierre told USA TODAY Sports, talking about Kasandra Perkins and Jovan Belcher. 

“According to Kansas City police, Belcher owned multiple guns, and they were in the house,” USA TODAY reports. 

“In addition, Sports Illustrated has reported that Perkins went to shooting ranges with Belcher.” 

Jack Dickey at Deadspin writes, “Jovan Belcher and Kasandra Perkins kept ‘about eight guns’ in their house and liked to go shooting together, according to a new report from Sports Illustrated.”

So, Wayne LaPierre and the NRA are full of it.
There are many examples of this, perhaps the best is Meleanie Hain. The obvious lesson from this is that battered women need to remove themselves from the threat. Having a gun is rarely good enough.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.


  1. Yeah, looks like he was wrong about the specifics - she did have guns and seemed to shoot regularly. But he was not wrong that access to them at the critical moment could have made a difference.

    Read this story and tell me what the major difference were:

    1. FL, You're getting like Greg now, refusing to graciously admit things. La Pierre was dead wrong because in his pompous way, he presumed she did not have a gun. Just like the Meleanie Hain story, in abusive relationships the gun usually doesn't help. But the point was that old Wayne, presuming she didn't have one, said it would.

      Why do you have to defend him? You're such a sharp guy, and respectful, that the Propaganda Professor likes you. He said so today on Facebook on one of my threads. I can't believe you like Wayne La Pierre.

    2. Mike, you again have taken my comment out of context. I said he got it wrong with the facts. He should not have made those assumptions. But it is important to realize that there have been other domestic violence incidents, like the one I linked too, where the abused is alive today only because she was able to access and use a gun. That is a fact - whether you like it or not.

      I have mixed feelings about Mr. La Pierre. I recognize that without the NRA, we would have practically zero rights with regards to guns and the 2nd amendment. But I am not always happy about the tactics employed by the NRA. And as I have made abundantly clear on this forum - I really despise inflammatory language and exaggeration.

      So, in this case, I defended the concept that access and willingness to use a gun in that situation could have made a difference. Why did I do that? Because it could have - plain and simple.

  2. What I get from this is that if you are confronted in your own home, a gun locked away ain't gonna do you no good.

    orlin sellers

  3. Boy, you fellers just never fucking stop drinking Weenie's Kool-Aid, do ya? She could have had a gun in her hand and still died because she wasn't as fucking crazy as her boyfriend. You gunzclownz would defend a mass murderer having his gunz given back to him if he got out of prison on a technicality. You're fucking idiotz.

    I'm amazed that with your obvious lack of cognitive skills you can even type.

    1. Typing is a skill that amazes you, yes. One of many, obviously.

    2. Are you able to have a civil discussion?

    3. I would settle for just a discussion - it wouldn't have to be civil. He could spit and swear as much as he wants - just be coherent enough and stay on topic enough to actually make a point for once.

    4. So DC:

      Because I point to a similar incident where the significant other of a profession sports player is alive today because she was able to use a gun

      this somehow equals:

      "You gunzclownz would defend a mass murderer having his gunz given back to him if he got out of prison on a technicality."


      And you are questioning my cognitive skills?

  4. DC, go play out in the street.

    orlin sellers

  5. "Because I point to a similar incident where the significant other of a profession sports player is alive today because she was able to use a gun"

    You mean this one?:


    Well, goodness, yet it does look like she had had about enuff of his beatin on her and finally lowered the boom.

    Then again, the story is a little bit strange. She was at a motel and he shows up and:

    "Abdul-Mateen used a handgun to hit Jeffries repeatedly, until he was exhausted Smith said. “At that point, Jeffries managed to turn the gun on Abdul-Mateen and pull the trigger.”

    Sure that makes sense, ex-pro boxer has to use a gun to beat on his woman? instead of the two somewhat lethal weapons at the end of his arms? Oh, but wait that would mean he NEEDED a gun to kill her. Hmmm.

    Oh, yeah, the cops are buyin' the story, up to know. Apparently some other folks are not. This link:


    and this one:


    ask a few questions that the police may or may not have asked.

    I'm not a professional boxer (or any sort of fighter, for a lot of years) but if I pistol whipped somebody until I was too tired to hit them anymore, my guess is that they would be dead or, at the very least, unconcious.

    The story sounds like bullshit, but since the only other party to the altercation is dead, we'll prolly never know what really happened.

    Oh, I'm sorry, that was a longwinded way of my saying that the two situations are quite different, your attempt at attempting to make that false equivalency notwithstanding.

    As for this:

    "this somehow equals:

    "You gunzclownz would defend a mass murderer having his gunz given back to him if he got out of prison on a technicality."

    My comment had nothing to do with the particulars of your comment about the lady shooting her boxer hubby. It did have to do with the intractable indignorance of you gunzloonz on the subject of who should have teh gunz (that would be, "everbody") and when should they have them (that would be, "always") and who should not (that would be, "nobody that's not confined to a mental institution or prohibited by law."). And the previous sentence is not conjecture, it's based on the self-reports of idiotz like Greggie, Orloon and the rest of gunzloonz nation that come here.

    "And you are questioning my cognitive skills?"

    Not at all, I'm not assuming that you possess any, where the subject of gunz is concerned.

    1. I'm ready to let an ex-felon vote if you're ready to let him have a gun. As far as I'm concerned, once the sentence and probation and so forth are finished, all rights ought to be restored. That's what freedom means. We've demonstrated many times in this country that second-class citizenship isn't much of anything.

    2. DC, I will have to give you props and my appreciation for finally responding to and making reasonably coherent points. I had to read through the chaff and attacks a bit - but there actually was a bit of meat in there.

      That is an interesting take on the boxer story and certainly a plausible version of the events. It will be interesting to see how that one plays out with the police and/or in the court system.