More Domestic Violence With a Gun

The Kitsap Sun reports on another incident which supports the theory, "Guns are bad news for women." The action took place in Poulsbo in Washington State.

A Poulsbo man was arrested after his fiancé said that he pointed a loaded semi-automatic pistol at her the previous week.

The woman called police just after midnight Sunday, alleging that her 25-year-old fiancé pinned her against a wall, according to Kitsap County sheriff’s reports. He had left the house. She alleged that on Sept. 9, he had pointed a loaded pistol at her and said he was “going to murder someone tonight.”

The 9mm pistol had since been taken to a friend’s house, reports said.

I ask you, isn't it true that most gun owners are men? And isn't it true that most domestic violence happens man to woman and not vice versa? And isn't it true that there is a lot of domestic violence? Is it not just common sense then, that guns are bad news for women? There have been reports and surveys, you can follow the above link, but simple common sense should settle it.

In this story, in which thank goodness no one was killed, we have the typical scene, one which is repeated daily. Unlike stories of defensive gun uses, you don't have to go to blogs specially dedicated to that subject to find stories about domestic abuse with guns. They are everywhere.

Many of the perpetrators are formerly lawful gun owners. In some places they continue to possess their precious firearms after committing such offenses, so lax are the laws.

What's your opinion? Is it right for a domestic offender to lose his right to own guns? How exactly should that law be carried out? Do deputies come to the home to search for weapons? Does the criminal turn them in to the police voluntarily? Do you think these laws are poorly designed and fail to accomplish what they purport to?

Please leave a comment.

More on Glenn Beck

The New York Times published an op-ed piece by Frank Rich entitled, "Even Glenn Beck is Right Twice a Day." Mr. Rich makes some interesting observations.

With all due respect to Jimmy Carter, the racist component of Obama-hatred has been undeniable since the summer of 2008, when Sarah Palin rallied all-white mobs to the defense of the “real America.”

He goes on to point out that Congressman Joe Wilson's crying out "You lie," which sparked the debate on race, was shocking not so much in its presumed racism but in the fact that it breached a previously secure barrier.

It was the first time that the violent rage surging in town-hall meetings all summer blasted into the same room as the president. Wilson’s televised shout was tantamount to yelling“Fire!” in a crowded theater. When he later explained that his behavior was “spontaneous” rather than premeditated, that was even more disturbing. It’s not good for the country that a lawmaker can’t control his anger at Barack Obama. It gives permission to crazy people.

Isn't it a fascinating concept that what we do and what we say may influence others? I would say that unspoken in that acknowledgment is the fact that we bear a certain responsibility for the results. This is especially true if we enjoy the public spotlight. That's is where Glenn Beck comes in.

Beck has notoriously defamed Obama as a “racist,” but the race card is just one in his deck. His ideology, if it can be called that, mixes idolatrous Ayn Rand libertarianism with bumper-sticker slogans about “freedom,” self-help homilies and lunatic conspiracy theories. (He fanned Internet rumors that FEMA was establishing concentration camps before tardily beating a retreat.) It’s the same crazy-quilt cosmology that could be found in last weekend’s Washington protest, where the marchers variously called Obama a fascist, a communist and a socialist, likening him to Hitler, Stalin, Castro and Pol Pot. They may not know that some of these libels are mutually exclusive. But what they do know is that they need a scapegoat for what ails them, and there is no one handier than a liberal, all-powerful president (who just happens to be black).

Beck likes to say he predicted 9/11 and that another Timothy McVeigh is on the way. Among his audience of millions, one presumes many hang on every word. But the point Frank Rich makes in conclusion is something to ponder.

For all our nation’s unfinished business on race, racism is not Obama’s biggest challenge during our unfinished Great Recession. He — and our political system — are being seriously tested by a rage that is no less real for being shouted by a demagogue from Fox and a backbencher from South Carolina.

What's your opinion? Is that rage which is sometimes fuelled by Glenn Beck and others, the real problem?

Please feel free to leave a comment.

Another Florida Family Slaughtered

CNN reports on the terrible incident in which a woman and her five children were found dead in their Naples FL home. The husband is being sought.

The bodies of Guerline Damas, 32; Michzach, 9; Marven, 6; Maven, 5; Megan, 3; and Morgan, 11 months, were discovered Saturday, Rambosk said.

Authorities have been unable to locate Mesac Damas, who possibly left the country Friday morning and may be in Haiti, Capt. Chris Roberts of the Collier County sheriff's department said Sunday at a news conference.

The Damas family had had its share of domestic problems. There had been a "handful" of domestic disturbance calls to police since 2000 involving the Damas couple, with the latest resulting in the arrest of Mesac Damas in January. He pleaded no contest to the misdemeanor battery against Guerline Damas in June.

The police wouldn't release the cause of death information, which I'm told is standard operating procedure. I'm curious to learn what it was. Unlike the Heinze family murders, this one could have been done by a single person using any number of weapons, since the kids were all too young to defend themselves.

Regardless of the means with which he dispatched his family, if indeed he did do it, this case brings up a bigger question. What is wrong in America that we have so many of these cases? Is the male dominance and right to abuse his family so deeply ingrained in the American psyche that we can't overcome it? Did women's liberation and the feminist movement not correct this situation? Who are these guys who think they can slaughter their families if they like?

This is where I agree with the many commenters who keep pointing out that it's not only about the gun availability. Of course, they say it has nothing to do with the gun, but what I'm willing to accept is that gun availability is not the only factor. It's the frequent occurrences of "men are bad news for women" and "men are bad news for their own families" that are the problem. When those things are added to the gun availability we have, the situation is dramatic.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

What do you think?

Revolution

"We all wanna change the world"

"But if you want money for people with minds that hate,
All I can tell you is brother ya have to wait"

John Lott on the Swiss Gun Debate

John Lott published a post on the Swiss gun debate which includes a wonderful video which can be viewed here courtesy of the World Radio Switzerland site.

The main protagonist of the video is a Swiss man who explains the law in his country under which young men are required to do military service and keep their rifles at home after being discharged. He describes a moving experience he'd had while visiting one of the Jewish holocaust sites, after which he became more convinced than ever of the need for an armed citizenry in order to prevent tyrannical government actions against them. He sounded amazingly like many American gun owners, same rationale, same world view.

I wondered if in spite of the estimated 500,000 men who keep their military rifles at home, if the passionate ones, the ones who participate in the shooting event shown in the video, for example, are actually a small percentage. I think that's probably the case, just like it is in the U.S., a small but very vocal minority.

The opposing view was presented by a man active in an organization called Group for Switzerland Without an Army. He said they have studies that show the connection between the readily available firearms in Swiss homes and the acts of abuse of those firearms, referring to the 300 or so deaths per year, many by suicide. He goes on to say gun availability is not the only factor, but it is a significant one.

It is fascinating that they have the exact same discussion over there that we have here.

What I didn't understand is Professor Lott's comment, "Someone should really do some serious research on the questions raised here." Is that to say the Swiss studies are not serious? Is that to say the fact that Swiss guns in homes do far more harm that good is not as important as being prepared for fighting against the government if that becomes necessary?

What's your opinion? Is it realistic to think that armed citizens could prevent government abuse if the government really wanted to abuse? I really don't think so. I call this type of thinking, grandiose victimism. It's a fantasy in which one imagines oneself bravely fighting against overwhelming odds, perhaps winning like the fabled American colonists did against the British oppressors, but more likely losing, but going down in a wonderful blaze of glory. What's your opinion?

Please leave a comment.

Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels Wants Gun-Free Parks

The Seattle Times reports on the latest efforts of Mayor Greg Nickels to make Seattle safer.

Mayor Greg Nickels has proposed a ban on guns in city-park facilities, specifically to protect children, and the move has already drawn fire from gun-rights advocates and questions about its legality.

The prospective ban, announced Friday, would cover playgrounds, community centers, sports fields, swimming pools and water-play areas.

The new proposal is not as far-reaching as Nickels' failed effort last year to ban guns from all city facilities after a shooting at Northwest Folklife Festival at Seattle Center. Nickels said signs would be posted notifying the public about the gun ban.

"These are the places where our children and families gather, and it is common sense that community centers, playgrounds and swimming pools are safer without guns," he said.

This is where the gun-rights people always say if you prevent the law-abiding from having guns then only the criminals will have them and the situation will be worse. I must admit I find that a compelling argument, one to which I often have difficulty responding. What do you think Mayor Nickels thinks about that? Do you think he, and the other Mayors who belong to Bloomberg's group, are irrationally afraid of guns and want them out of their sight. Often that's the accusation, that gun control people fear guns and think they're "icky," and all that. I don't find those comments credible at all.

I think the explanation of why reasonable and intelligent people would want guns banned from certain places, or from every place outside the home for that matter, is that we don't trust the gun owners. We realize there's a significant gray area of so-called lawful gun owners who are dangerous and irresponsible people and who cannot be trusted with guns in spite of the fact they haven't yet been caught breaking the law. Why responsible gun enthusiasts would take offense at that is a mystery to me.

What's your opinion? What do you think motivates people like Mayor Nickels?

Please leave a comment.

Este Gobierno de Criminales

CNN reports on the shooting which took place in the Mexico City subway. The video was a disappointment, but the story is interesting.

Mexican authorities deployed more than 1,000 additional police officers to reinforce security at the capital's 175 subway stations on Saturday, a day after a shooting inside a station left two people dead and eight injured at the height of evening rush hour.

The shooting at the Balderas station in central Mexico City happened after police stopped Luis Felipe Hernandez Castillo, 38, from writing graffiti on the wall of one of the subway platforms.

Five of the injured suffered gunshot wounds, and three others were hurt by the stampeding crowds, officials said.

Hernandez Castillo was writing "Este gobierno de criminales," or "this government of criminals," Mexico City district attorney Miguel Angel Mancera said. As police tried to stop him, Hernandez Castillo drew a .38 special handgun and began firing.

I partly agree with the commenters who say, who cares what happens in Mexico. But several things came to mind when reading this story.

I wondered if the police who "tried to stop him" from writing the graffiti were objecting to the fact that he was writing or to the content of what he was writing. What do you think? Is the accusation that the government is a bunch of criminals something the police might take personally?

The fact that he had a gun on him is also of interest. I'm sure it probably came from a gun dealer in Phoenix or Houston - that's really a joke, although it could be the case. Certainly there's nothing in the story to indicate it. But, the fact that he had a gun is interesting because of the conflicting arguments I hear from the pro-gun crowd. Sometimes they say the strict gun control laws in Mexico don't work and this case would be proof. Other times they say the strict gun control laws in Mexico accomplish disarming the people and preventing them from defending themselves. Mr. Hernandez Castillo certainly disproves that one.

It turns out that Felipe Hernandez Castillo has obvious mental problems.

Hernandez Castillo also told investigators that he believed a great famine would come, and he travelled to Mexico City to relay a message.
Hernandez Castillo said he opened fire because he saw the police as a threat to his task of writing on the wall.

The other thing that comes to mind is the all-too-frequent disaster that happens when people have guns, when gun availability is like it is. In spite of the laws, like in the U.S., if someone wants to carry a gun in Mexico, I guess they can. The results this time, two dead and eight wounded.

What's your opinion? Why do the Mexican gun laws not work? Is there a different reason there than here in the United States? What's your opinion?

Please feel free to leave a comment.