Story: "How gun control helped a stalker kill my husband"

[tiggers97]

"In April 2009, my husband was shot six times in front of me in the middle of a busy restaurant by a man who was stalking me. I have a permit to carry a handgun but because of the law at that time in my home state of Tennessee, I had to leave the gun that I normally carried for self defense, locked in my car that night. "


Full story here:

Read More

 

[GrpCapMandrake]

Damn!

I wish I had something more substantive to say, but that is the best I got.

 

[FZRider]

But, but, but...it was posted as a gun free zone!! I can't believe a CRIMINAL with a gun he was NOT allowed to possess ignored that sign. What a unnecessary tragedy that proves once again that the only thing GFZ do is disarm the honest and law abiding and empower the BG.

 

[Chee-to]

Don't leave your gun in the car......Best to be judged by 12 than carried by 6..........

 

[fd15k]

Don't leave your gun in the car......Best to be judged by 12 than carried by 6..........

This is called "risk vs reward" balancing test. Majority of people are at a very high risk of being judged by 12, but at a very
low risk of being carried by 6. Choose wisely.

 

[Caveman Jim]

I would not leave my EDC in the car, how do they know you are armed??? Well, ok, when the shooting starts...

 

[Chee-to]

This is called "risk vs reward" balancing test. Majority of people are at a very high risk of being judged by 12, but at a very
low risk of being carried by 6. Choose wisely.

Ya well, tell it to this lady's husband.....

 

[fd15k]

Ya well, tell it to this lady's husband.....

Funny, it's the same kind of argument anti's use in regards to victims of violence with use of firearms. Either way, statistically speaking this is one to a million chance.
Kind of like "if only all passengers of a crashed airliner had parachutes, they could have lived", while flying is statistically as safe as never before.

Now a different story is that she wasn't forced into that establishment, was she ? If it was a government office of some sorts, and the carry was prohibited
while the security wasn't enforced, it would hold much greater weight.

 

[Chee-to]

Funny, it's the same kind of argument anti's use in regards to victims of violence with use of firearms. Either way, statistically speaking this is one to a million chance.
Kind of like "if only all passengers of a crashed airliner had parachutes, they could have lived", while flying is statistically as safe as never before.

Now a different story is that she wasn't forced into that establishment, was she ? If it was a government office of some sorts, and the carry was prohibited
while the security wasn't enforced, it would hold much greater weight.

So it's her fault, and all the murders committed in gun free zones are the fault of the people who felt safe, because " they weren't forced to be there ?" Look, you CC where you want and I'll do the same, I and my family prefer not to be the "one in a million." Seems to me you're using the same kind of argument the anti's use, statistically speaking what's the chance you'll ever need a gun to protect yourself or others ?

 

[Certaindeaf]

I'm sure all anti-gunners consider this a win.. we all should die horrible deaths.. one way or another.

 

[fd15k]

So it's her fault, and all the murders committed in gun free zones are the fault of the people who felt safe, because " they weren't forced to be there ?" Look, you CC where you want and I'll do the same, I and my family prefer not to be the "one in a million." Seems to me you're using the same kind of argument the anti's use, statistically speaking what's the chance you'll ever need a gun to protect yourself or others ?

I think it is at least partially her fault. She had a target painted on her back, and she chose a lifestyle that made her more vulnerable.
As for the gun free zones, anti's have the same argument - "people just want to feel safe". In their case "safe from morons with guns",
as they don't care as much about the criminals, and both sides know those signs don't stop criminals.

What is the goal here ? The goal, I believe, is to advance gun rights. Does appeal to emotions and anecdotal
evidence aid in that goal ? I don't think it does, simply because the other side has the same kind of argument.
Our argument should be better.

 

[44mag2ndamend]

A sign, does not stop or alleviate evil. Man has been trying to legislate human behavior since the dawn of time, unsuccessfully. What compels me to believe that words written on a sign is going to stop some lunatic from destroying me.

NOTHING, unfortunately it has forced me to live somewhat differently. I rely on human behavior instinct to put me into a pro-active non confrontation defensive mindset first.

This is a hard lesson learned, hopefully more will learn from this. I do feel for this person who had to experience this.

 

[Koda]

Funny, it's the same kind of argument anti's use in regards to victims of violence with use of firearms. Either way, statistically speaking this is one to a million chance.
Kind of like "if only all passengers of a crashed airliner had parachutes, they could have lived", while flying is statistically as safe as never before.

Now a different story is that she wasn't forced into that establishment, was she ? If it was a government office of some sorts, and the carry was prohibited
while the security wasn't enforced, it would hold much greater weight.

this is a pretty weak argument. Nobody is forcing me to shop for groceries at the store to feed my family. Nobody is forcing me to hold a job in a gun free zone. Nobody is forcing me to socialize with my friends in public places.

we dont live on an island

 

[fd15k]

this is a pretty weak argument. Nobody is forcing me to shop for groceries at the store to feed my family. Nobody is forcing me to hold a job in a gun free zone. Nobody is forcing me to socialize with my friends in public places.

we dont live on an island

I'm not one of the people advocating for gun owners to leave California either. You've got to see the point through,
not just scratch its surface.

 

[clearconscience]

I say this with much regret, but even if she had her firearm if the guy approached from behind or several other senarios where even if you had a firearm the husband would be dead regardless.

But you still always carry!!! Always! So you leave the gun in the car?!
So if a gangbanger breaks in your car and shoots someone your on the hook.
I've asked that question to a couple leos if I'm carrying should i leave it inthe car if i'm going into a bar or gunfree zone? ( i used to meet friends for dinner at a bar and i never drink)
They usually say they would suggest not leaving the gun for a criminal to get a hold of.
Off the record of course.

But the biggest part of this is situational awareness and knowing and keeping your weaknesses and dangers in the front of your mind.

 

[Koda]

I think it is at least partially her fault. She had a target painted on her back, and she chose a lifestyle that made her more vulnerable.

so the victim is to blame, how did she chose a more vulnerable lifestyle?

Our argument should be better.

and what do you propose?

I'm not one of the people advocating for gun owners to leave California either. You've got to see the point through,
not just scratch its surface.

Can you clarify?

 

[fd15k]

so the victim is to blame, how did she chose a more vulnerable lifestyle?

Making a bad judgement call always puts some blame on the person making it. If I get drunk,
and then wander around town at night, would it be any surprise to anybody when I get attacked
and robbed ?

and what do you propose?

I always propose the same thing. Come up with the arguments that can't be easily defeated. Know
your opponents, test your arguments with theirs.

Can you clarify?

You can't win hearts and minds of a lot of people, can't get popular support. But you can use some
solid reasoning that can stand regardless of what they believe in. Personally, I always go back to the
constitutional law.

 

[semperfi68to70]

This is called "risk vs reward" balancing test. Majority of people are at a very high risk of being judged by 12, but at a very
low risk of being carried by 6. Choose wisely.

Present company excepted of course.

 

[Riot]

Even I will admit that she made a foolish error.

She noticed a guy that was sending her inappropriate messages had also "stalked" her to this place, right? How much you guys want to bet she posted a Facebook Status Update of their little outing, then VOILA, someone following her on Facebook follows her for real. Then what does she do, does she leave? Nah...lets get the BAR MANAGEMENT to take care of this uncomfortable, social media drama cluster-f*ck.

How about instead of complaining about anti-gun laws, you do something about them? If she didn't like leaving her gun in the car, then why did she even go to the bar in the first place?

Look guys, I'm not about to blame the victim for getting shot and I feel really bad for her having to watch her husband getting murdered in front of her. But blaming the state laws? Yeah- no, not buying it.

 

[Koda]

Making a bad judgement call always puts some blame on the person making it. If I get drunk,
and then wander around town at night, would it be any surprise to anybody when I get attacked
and robbed ?

This makes no sense at all. How did the lady make a bad judgement call? She was working her job as a mobile Karaoke business she wasn't drunk and wandering around town at night.

I always propose the same thing. Come up with the arguments that can't be easily defeated. Know
your opponents, test your arguments with theirs.

how can this story be easily defeated? If the goal of this story is to advance our cause then this story is a pretty clear example of how gun control laws do nothing to deter crime. There isn't enough information in the fox article to judge her story, but she did write a book about it and is a major advocate for the 2A.... Maybe we should read her book before judging if her story can be easily defeated?

You can't win hearts and minds of a lot of people, can't get popular support. But you can use some
solid reasoning that can stand regardless of what they believe in. Personally, I always go back to the
constitutional law.

(emphasis mine) I agree. All of the reasoning's supporting the 2A are solid and stand the test of time, so does the constitution. The problem is I've never met a gun control advocate that had any logical reasoning whatsoever, most of them are too illogical to understand and are in denial of their own constitutional rights. They "think" they want a world without guns, what they really want is a world without violence.... Hypothetically if their own utopic world was ever torn apart by crime or tyranny only half of them would understand what the 2A means. Its difficult to reason with someone who blames the gun for the crime, impossible with someone who wants to disarm the citizenry. IMO The only way to further our cause is to convince the fence sitters and rebuild a positive gun culture image. The rest of the antis support full on confiscation and are beyond reasoning.