Wednesday, April 6, 2011

Lawful Gun Owner Gone Wild reports on the terrible crime.

A Montgomery County veterinarian charged with killing his pregnant girlfriend bought the gun used in the slaying just five days beforehand, court records say.

David Rapoport purchased a 9mm semiautomatic handgun on March 11, according to a search warrant affidavit unsealed last week.

On March 16, authorities say, Rapoport fatally shot Jennifer Snyder, 27, along a wooded roadside in rural Lehigh County.

Police found Snyder's body two days later along a tree line near Schnecksville, doused with bleach, wrapped in an Eagles fleece blanket, and sealed in duct-taped garbage bags. More than two months pregnant, she had been shot once through her back and abdomen, and twice more by a gun stuck into her mouth.
First, gun-rights extremists say they are a responsible group, even more so than the police or the public at large. When presented with the dark doings of one of their own, they claim it's so rare as to be negligible. I don't think so.

Here's the story of a beauty of a gun owner, a married guy who killed his girlfriend because he was angry that she'd gotten pregnant.  Guns are bad news for women, eh?

What's your opinion? Please leave acomment.


  1. Typical lawful gun owners usually don't buy a gun specifically to commit murder a few days later. Yoiu make it sound like he had a CCW and wen to the range religiously and was a member of a gun club.

  2. No, he doesn't; that you choose to read it that way is up to you.

    The vets an idiot anyway. It would have been much easier to give her an injection of the stuff vets use to euthanize pets or livestock. Works very fast with minimal pain. Otoh, since he's a murdering piece of shit, maybe the suffering was something he wanted from his victim.

    I wonder if the toothyanker or the victim was opposed to birth control or abortion?

  3. The gun seems incidental in this story.

    David intended to kill his girlfriend through violence. It was premeditated.

    If he hadn't been able to buy a gun, he was smart enough to find another way to do it.

    If it were illegal for members of the medical profession to buy guns, they still have a lot of dangerous drugs at their disposal to use instead. I doubt we're going to ban them from having access to drugs.

  4. Of course, anyone who makes a comment that the docotr has dangerous drugs at his disposal neglects one vital aspect:
    Forensic pathology.

    Blood tests would detect most chemical agents.

    He could just sign his name if he used euthenasia drugs.

  5. He could just sign his name if he used euthenasia drugs.

    Or, use a gun he just bought.

  6. Laci:

    I didn't think I would have to point that out to Anonymous, but perhaps I'm wrong.

    If killing people makes you bigger than killing them with a 9mm handgun makes you bigger than killing them with a needle, I guess.

    Not having killed anyone, yet, I'm gonna say that using a gun from something beyond an arms distance would probably be a lot less sloppy (and safer for the killer). The two gunshot wounds from putting the barrel in the victim's mouth makes the killer sound like a pretty sick fuck.

    The whole, "he could have killed her with something else." is moot, I think. If he could have killed her with something else why buy a gun?

  7. Weaseldog, You'll get no argument from me that someone who wants to commit murder can do it using something other than a gun. But, does that mean we should make it easy for people like that to get guns?

    What some of us think is that although it's possible to use other tools, guns are especially lethal and everything possible should be done to keep them out of the hands of the mental cases and the violent.