Open Carry ‘advocate’ guns down woman who complained of sexual harassment.
This is a straight pickup from Dkos. I’m reposting it here to atone for my last gun nut post that implied that open carry activists are merely nuts. They are, for the most part, dangerous nuts who should not be allowed in the same room with guns, let alone own them.
Did I say advocate? I meant nutjob.
An Iowa mall cop — with a Facebook account loaded with open-carry and right-wing memes and photos of multiple weapons — is under arrest for shooting and killing a fellow mall worker because she filed sexual harassment complaints against him. – – –
KCJJ reports that a cousin of Farrington’s said that Kozak had been harassing the victim for at least six weeks and that she had complained to his superiors about unwanted advances he had made toward her.
So he shoots her 3 times in the back.She was 20 years old.
It’s hard to get away from the glaring appearance that the more rabid and foamy-mouthed a person is about their goddamned Second Amendment rights, the more prudent it is to keep an eye on them or monitor your boundaries/relationships with them.
Gun nut indeed.
He didn’t even have the courage to shoot himself, too.
If only he had an extensive back ground check. Like to become a security guard or something. Oh wait….
@SA “If only he had an extensive back ground check.”
Do you REALLY think that Iowa mall does that before hiring a lowly paid security guard???
Here’s how the interview probably went:
“So.. You’re Bobby’s cousin?”
“Yea right.. Nice to meet you.”
“And you know how to handle a gun?”
“Oh yea!!”
“OK. You can start tomorrow.”
I don’t think there is a way to keep guns from mentally deficient, emotionally unstable a-holes, when mentally deficient, emotionally unstable a-holes are the gun industry’s target demographic.
“It’s hard to get away from the glaring appearance that the more rabid and foamy-mouthed a person is about their goddamned Second Amendment rights, the more prudent it is to keep an eye on them or monitor your boundaries/relationships with them.”
Indeed. Most people have no reason to worry about their guns being confiscated, except for those who scare their partners (or stalking victims) into getting PFA orders. The scarier they are, Jason, the more justified their paranoia.
Yes. Let’s also not forget Berlin, NJ resident Carole Brown who was stabbed (yes, stabbed) to death by an ex-boyfriend last week. She had a restraining order against him, had installed cameras and applied for a permit to buy a gun. The application was made on April 21 and was not processed. She was left defenseless and paid the ultimate price. So much for lax gun control laws. When seconds count, cops are minutes away.
@LE,
In Iowa, like most other states, you have to receive training/licensing to become a security guard, armed or unarmed. Which includes a background check and fingerprinting.
I see your point. Because someone was stabbed, we shouldn’t do anything about shootings. Got it, thanks for the insights.
>because someone was stabbed, we shouldn’t do anything about shootings. Got it, thanks for the insights.
Way to not address the issue, Jason.
Shit like this is why dumbass ‘Mericans vote Republican.
What’s the issue then, champ? You really think if there were no guns we’d have 18,000 stabbing murders each year?
@Robber: Do you really think that every woman killed by an ex has no gun? Do you really think that a woman who probably had no experience with guns was going to be able to use it in the heat of the moment?
Guns are talismans for a certain kind of idiot. Are you that kind?
“Shit like this is why dumbass ‘Mericans vote Republican.”
Why? Because they’re getting back at liberals for making them sound like fools?
Yeah. I think I understand the gun nut position at this point. Any person wanting any gun at any time should have access to it. Lunatics and rage-aholics alike need access to body armor piercing rounds, and high capacity magazines, and full auto.
Otherwise someone who needs a gun one day might not have one. Otherwise…tyranny.
You keep torturing yourselves on this one. Just concede defeat. We won the marriage equality bit and the abortion bit (for the most part) and we’re closing in on the marijuana bit. On guns the mouth breathers won… I accept it. You’re just whipping yourself up into a frenzy over something that will never change.
A maniac walked in an elementary school and slaughtered kindergarteners. We took no action.
I mean read Robber Baron’s comment. If it weren’t for the piles on bodies in theatres and schools and streets across the country it might be funny.
I know. I try to begin these things with some acknowledgement that this question has been settled.
I completely feel you, mate. It’s just so discouraging. In other news this week an off-duty cop in New Jersey shot his ex-wife in front of their daughter.
It has nothing to do with training or background checks. There are too many guns available and people are quick to use them, especially cops.
Why weren’t the wife and daughter armed? Ultimately, It is their fault. (saying it here to spare the gun nuts the trouble)
@DG: I long ago reached the conclusion that the one and only gun law that would do some good is a nationwide registry, so we knew who supposedly owned every gun. There’s a reason the gun nuts don’t want this, and their supposed fear of confiscation is only a cover for the real reason — they think it’s every American’s right to go out in a murder-suicide in which they show all those people who thought themselves so superior.
It’s not a bad idea. I guess I just don’t understand exactly what a registry, even a fairly comprehensive one, would do to ameliorate to real problem. In practice how would it help manage the mess we’re in?
There are hundreds of millions of incredibly efficient handheld killing machines on the street and many are in the hands of drooling Neanderthals who think strapping up and wearing an AR-15 to a Waffle House is a political statement.
Guns aren’t toys. Guns aren’t a way to show everyone how hard you are for liberty. It’s like a pudgy, balding middle-aged man in a new Corvette. It’s not sending the signal he thinks it’s sending.
” In practice how would it help manage the mess we’re in?”
Because all guns (with a few exceptions) are legal until they’re sold. It’s not a gun that’s illegal, it’s the owner. We do a piss-poor job of maintaining records of the chain of custody of weapons that “become” illegal.
It will take years, because of all the guns already on the streets, but once such a registry is started the “illegal guns” will become a smaller percentage of those in circulation. So it won’t do much at first, but it would stop the ongoing practice of people — and I don’t mean felons’ girlfriends — straw-buying weapons.
In their minds, registration = confiscation (or its potential). There is no logical construct for that equation because it is borne of the emotion fear. Reason is always subordinated in the presence of fear. Consequently no conversation or dialogue can be conducted with those who are afraid. I wish we were able to overcome their fear, but until then there no logic, reason, or common sense arguments carry any weight whatsoever with them because they are so afraid.
@Dave: Agreed. These people need Depends even more than they need guns.
Any modicrum of progress toward controlling the Wild West situation we have now would help. But, as you say, any measure is characterized as one steps toward confiscation and two from tyranny… so we’re sunk.
Just as an aside, the fact that motor vehicle regulations are exponentially more stringent than gun regulations is like the sickest joke.
Especially now that gunshots are responsible for more deaths than traffic accidents in 10 states.
Not exactly sure how registration would solve a problem like an off-duty cop shooting his ex-wife.
It wouldn’t, but then most off duty cops don’t shoot their wives. Such measures are not intended to prevent all firearm deaths as I am sure you know.
And most law abiding citizens that own guns don’t haul off and shoot a co-worker for refusing sexual advances, either.
Yep, but we are after the non law abiding ones and they seem to be able to easily obtain firearms and can seem to figure out how that happens. And by the way, cosidering the family and friends feature of gun deaths, it would seem that a good number of law abiding citizens do tend to haul off and shoot many of those they are closest to.
Yeah. The Nazis required registration of all guns. Ask the Jews how that worked out for them.
Yes. In 1928. 5 years before the Nazis came to power.
Regardless, I invoke Godwins Law. You lose.
So in 1933, the Nazi’s scrubbed the records? I don’t think so. As a matter of fact they seized the records and used them to specifically target gun owners as they were considered to be threats to the State.
I already invoked Godwin’s Law. You lost the argument. There is no point to further discussion.
Because 1933 Any person wanting any gun at any time should have access to it.
Otherwise someone who needs a gun one day might not have one. Otherwise…tyranny.
We get it. You won this one. It is a settled issue. Gun mayhem, otherwise tyranny.
True. Sorry.
I see. Godwins Law. Another way to say…nananana while flapping your hands at your ears. Grow up and engage the conversation.
Nazi Germany was not the only country to use registration to confiscate guns. Australia, New Zealand, UK, Canada in recent decades just to name a few.
Regarding your “family & friends” data & the proper way to interpret it.
The numbers that I am able to locate consistently run in the mid 70 to low 80% range.
What these numbers mean is that a high percentage of homicides are NOT random acts of violence.
If the numbers were low, the reverse would be true thus making life outside your home extremely dangerous. If the numbers approached 100%, it would mean that you could safely walk the streets in Wilmington with only a very minimal risk of being shot. We all know that this isn’t the case.
What the raw numbers don’t tell you is that “friends” include rival gang members, competing drug dealers etc. & that “family” often means your cousin who recently got out of jail after serving 10 years for aggravated rape.
Of course Progressives will continually try to warp the data in order to make guns appear to be the cause of all mankind’s problems. For example, inferring that if you own a gun, there is a 90% chance of someone in your house being shot.
I agree. Statistics can be misused so any person wanting any gun at any time should have access to it. Otherwise…tyranny.
That checks out.
Way to move the discussion forward there, Jason.
There is no moving forward. All gun nut arguments can be reduced to
Any gun for any person at any time with no restrictions otherwise tyranny.
I think we can all agree on that much.
Only in your mind, Jason.
Hardly. I’ve been doing this for years and have never heard a defense of our system of easy access to guns that didnt come down to- we have to allow anyone to get any gun, otherwise tyranny.
If you have a different take, I’d be eager to hear it.
@r16 “The numbers that I am able to locate consistently run in the mid 70 to low 80% range.”
You just aren’t counting very well. Don’t forget that nearly every gun accident falls in the category of “family and friends”. Count properly and you’ll hit 90%
@r16 “For example, inferring that if you own a gun, there is a 90% chance of someone in your house being shot.”
No the proper take home message is that if you’re buying a gun to protect yourself, the chances that someone in the home will die is about 10x more than your chance of killing the bad guy.
…and even is you had a gun, there’s a close to even chance that the bad guy would kill you first anyway…
All in all: Those odds really suck… placing most gun owners in the category of “terminally stupid”.
Here’s more fun news…
One crazy white guy shoots 8 blacks in church.
He preyed while they prayed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/shooter-opens-fire-at-charleston-sc-church/2015/06/17/14d950dc-1566-11e5-9518-f9e0a8959f32_story.html
In a church. What a coward.
I don’t blame Second Amendment nuts for worrying about gun confiscation. They failed to stand up and defend the Fourth Amendment when exceptions to it were proposed, so they have every reason to fear the same might happen to the second.
They think their guns will protect them. You cannot dispel a truth that exists only in their minds.
The killings in South Carolina will go down as one of the worst hate crimes in American history. People praying in a church.
Maybe the politicians on the right who try to ‘out-hate’ each other to garner votes will have some moments of reflection.
Naah.
It’s not JUST the guns, it’s the unrelenting spewing of hatred from people who are purportedly leaders that make these situations much more likely. Fuse, meet match.
So 9 more people are dead because everyone in America is armed to the teeth & all the other Western democracies that severely restrict gun possession are Nazi style regimes.
This gets worse every day.
Freedom isn’t free.
No legal gun restriction will ever prevent a crazed, sick maniac from committing such acts. If they can’t legally buy a gun they will steal one. If there are no guns to steal they will MAKE ONE. If they can’t go to Home Dept to get the materials to make one, they will build a bomb out of a pressure cooker & fireworks.
The only solution is to address the cause. (hatred & insanity)
Until a real solution is found, the best that we can do is to be prepared to defend ourselves against such people That is why many of us choose to legally carry a gun.
As for Liberal Elite’s comments, they are simply a lie and more warped statistics.
By the way, if you have a pool in your back yard, your kids are 50 times more likely to drown in a backyard pool. This approach can be used to make absolutely anything look like a bad risk.
No legal gun restriction will ever prevent a crazed, sick maniac from committing such acts… therefor, anyone wanting any gun should have immediate access to it, because otherwise, tyranny.
See? it is always the same underlying argument. Always. Spoken or implied. We can’t do anything to limit access to guns, so any attempt to do anything is a step towards tyranny.
Except that it’s worked in Australia, the UK, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Canada… basically ever other Western Democracy. So to continue to say that strict rules won’t work and we haven’t “found a solution” is false.
You take all the guns away and almost all of this stops. We know because Australia just did it less than 20 years ago. It isn’t a guess or a theory or wishful thinking. To continue to make that argument is dumb. The problem has been solved elsewhere.
Let’s stop pretending that we’re discussing something conceptually and that the consequences are unknown. We aren’t. If we wanted to solve the problem we could do it today… It isn’t a mystery.
Of course. The argument is pure nonsense on its face.
“No legal gun restriction will ever prevent a crazed, sick maniac from committing such acts. If they can’t legally buy a gun they will steal one. If there are no guns to steal they will MAKE ONE. If they can’t go to Home Dept to get the materials to make one, they will build a bomb out of a pressure cooker & fireworks.”
Sorry, but the evidence shows they won’t. At least they don’t in other countries.
“Until a real solution is found, the best that we can do is to be prepared to defend ourselves against such people That is why many of us choose to legally carry a gun.”
Exactly wrong. Owning a gun means you are more likely, not less likely, to suffer a gunshot wound. “Why” you choose to legally carry a gun is your fear, which statistics show is unreasonable.
“By the way, if you have a pool in your back yard, your kids are 50 times more likely to drown in a backyard pool. This approach can be used to make absolutely anything look like a bad risk.”
Except they don’t market pools by telling customers that it will protect their kids from drowning.
“Except they don’t market pools by telling customers that it will protect their kids from drowning.”
Fucking A!