Question for Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America: What Gun Control Law Would Have Prevented This?

Jessica Arrendale and baby (courtesy Facebook.com)

Here’s a recent post on the Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America Facebook page: “DEAD GEORGIA MOTHER HAILED AS HERO: Last week, a Georgia mother saved her 6-month-old baby by sheltering the infant in a toilet before her boyfriend shot her in the head with a semi-automatic rifle. He then turned the gun on himself. Both Jessica Arrendale and her child’s father, Antoine Davis, were found dead. The baby, who police found 13 hours after the shooting, is safe after being treated for injuries: http://tinyurl.com/obyftfr. Davis, a war veteran, had a history of depression and domestic violence. American women are 11 times more likely to be shot to death by an intimate partner than in other developed nations. We must elect leaders who support laws that protect women from gun violence. In honor of Jessica, SHARE and SIGN our Gun Sense Voter pledge..”  OK so . . .

Here’s the question: what law would have prevented that attack? I’m thinking none. Assault weapons ban? Total ban on civilian firearms ownership? I don’t think so. I think Antoine Davis had murder in mind. With or without a gun, he would have ended his girlfriend’s life.

I’m also thinking that Ms. Arrendale would have done well to have had a gun on her person. And yes, Ms. Arrendale had a chance to defend herself before she was shot. Check this from the article linked above:

Arrendale, 37, had come home from a night out with her daughter Cobie’s father, Antoine Davis, 30, on Sept. 13 when Davis became violent, according to police. With her baby in her arms, Arrendale tried to defend herself with a baseball bat but she was overpowered by Davis, who struck her several times with the bat, according to Inniello.

Davis chased Arrendale up the stairs of her three-story, Atlanta-area townhome. Arrendale locked herself in the bathroom with her daughter but Davis – a former Marine who served in Iraq – retrieved an assault rifle outfitted with a suppressor, broke down the door, and shot Arrendale in the head. With Cobie still in her arms, Arrendale twisted her body to place the 6-month-old in the open toilet bowl and laid her body over her daughter, Arrendale’s mother said.

Don’t be fooled. Gun control advocates don’t have an answer for “gun violence.” It’s an inconvenient truth, but the best defense last ditch against any lethal threat is a gun. It’s also true that Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America are putting victims of domestic violence in harm’s way.

comments

  1. avatar Mike Crognale says:

    Sad that they use this woman’s motherly heroism to promote their treason. But then again traitors know no bounds when promoting their evil agenda.

    1. avatar Henry Bowman says:

      Its called dancing in the blood of their victimsg..To use a victim to promote a cause of policy.

      1. avatar Mike Crognale says:

        Hadn’t heard that phrase before but it makes perfect sense. Thanks.

      2. avatar Jus Bill says:

        Also see “Climbing over the still-warm bodies of the dead to get to the microphone” for multiple victim shooting interviews and press releases.

    2. avatar Joe R. says:

      I read that as Vet (having had a very bad day already) comes home to wife flushing baby. Shoots wife, then, knowing with him possibly going to jail and the poor baby likely f’d to the 3rd power by the gov’t appointee who would be assigned to the case shoots himself (leaving the baby in the best possible position).

  2. avatar Ralph says:

    Q: What gun control law could have prevented this?

    A: None. But what the Demanding Mamzers want is a complete ban on firearms for anyone other than agents of the omnipotent state.

    1. avatar Scrubula says:

      Blasphemy! They support the second amendment, they just want uncommon sense laws!

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Hey, what about … aw, I got nothing.

    2. avatar Chadwick P says:

      A law requiring all high threats for domestic violence own and carry a gun at all times.

    3. Here is an idea, not a gun law, but how about stop having kids out of wedlock? She has a 15 year old that her mother raises so she can go out and party with Antoine. What career did she have that she owned a town home in Vinings but could not have custody of her older daughter? Just curious as she does not look like the average 33 year old mother.

      Another topic that I think needs to be covered is the police response.

      “Not knowing that the residents were already dead, the shooting touched off a 13-hour standoff from Smyrna police, who repeatedly attempted to contact either Davis or Arrendale from outside of the home. After a failed attempt by a robot to enter the home, SWAT teams converged and discovered the bodies of Cobie’s parents, and the young girl inside of the toilet.”

      So the police will serve a no knock warrant for having a dud shot shell in DC but get reports of shots fired to a home where a woman and a 6 month old baby reside and they stay outside waiting for 13 hours while the victims bleed to death.

  3. avatar Misnomer says:

    So let me get this straight.
    1. Unarmed man overpowers woman with baseball bat
    2. MDA assumes if this man could not have later picked up a gun, he could not have overpowered and harmed her. (see #1)

    This incident proves the opposite of what they are trying to convey.

    1. avatar juliesa says:

      Absolutely true, but the MDAs don’t care. If the man had bashed in the woman’s head with that bat, the MDAs wouldn’t give this woman two seconds of sympathy, because it wouldn’t be a “gun death”.

      1. avatar A samurai says:

        This.

        I mean, wait a minute. What are you talking about? Don’t you know anything? No one dies that are not killed by guns! If there were no guns there would never be another death in America again! Only guns kill people. /sarc

      2. avatar Another Robert says:

        This, 1000 times. With those fanatics, it just doesn’t “count” if you aren’t shot.

      3. How do we know that she first used the bat to defend herself? It should have been a gun but maybe she was not allowed to own one. She did not have custody of her 15 year old. Interesting.
        The only thing the gun changed in this case was make it easier for him to kill himself. He would have beaten her to death anyway.

  4. avatar N8thecowboy says:

    Mothers can do amazing things. This one at least, not those demanding action.

  5. avatar Peter says:

    “outfitted with a suppressor”… I wonder if that irrelevant revelation will gain any traction with the grabbers?

    1. avatar Mike Silver says:

      In July, Georgia repealed its prohibition against hunting with suppressors.

      1. avatar Scrubula says:

        The only hunting he will be doing is for a new ‘buddy’ in jail…

        1. avatar Shane at Chandler says:

          I don’t they they store corpses in jail but I’ve never been to Georgia.

        2. avatar Robert Inguaggiato says:

          I don’t know of any jail that the dead get sent to. Can you tell me what jail they are going to send him to ? I’m going to sell tickets to go visit that jail it is almost Halloween.

  6. avatar surlycmd says:

    He shot her with a suppressed rifle? The perpetrator passed the most intrusive of background checks and still used his freewill to commit murder. The Civilian Disarmament Complex will never understand legislation is not a solution to prevent murder or crime in general.

    1. avatar Mike Crognale says:

      This^

    2. avatar TheBear says:

      But… but… you can regulate morality, right?

    3. avatar SENTMKG says:

      I will wait and see if that is actually true that he had a sound suppressor or they “confused” his fancy muzzle break or compensator as being a suppressor.

      Easily 50/50 they got it wrong and listed a fancy muzzle device as a suppressor because when the hell has the “journalists” done their job right the first time and got the correct facts over the “headline winning” facts……known as damned lies that are sometimes corrected later on….or not.

  7. avatar MamaLiberty says:

    There is probably no reason why this lady could not have been armed and prepared to defend herself. Georgia is not NYC or Washington DC. She had a choice, both in her relationships and in her provisions for defending herself and her child.

    Yes, this is a terrible situation, and the killer is a monster, but this lady did not take even the minimal and perfectly legal steps she needed to take to keep this from happening. I’m sorry for her, yes, but this doesn’t need to have anything to do with the Batshit crazy “moms” at all. Anyone who buys their bullshit has to take personal responsibility for the consequences too.

    1. The grandmother had custody of the mother’s 15 year old daughter. Maybe some past incident made it illegal for her to own a firearm. I am assuming the gun used to commit the murder was his.

  8. avatar Taylor TX says:

    I have to agree with Misnomer above, antis will COMPLETELY skip over the fact he had essentially won the initial encounter already without a firearm. So after that, physically breaking down a door , no gun needed(taking it as it was written),whatever the chosen murder weapon is has pretty much zero relevance (unless you have an agenda…)

    Im curious as to the size of the shitstorm on NFA items this creates…

  9. avatar Noishkel says:

    A law like Kennesaw GA’s mandatory gun ownership law would have helped.

    1. avatar Jeff says:

      > A law like Kennesaw GA’s mandatory gun ownership law would have helped.<

      Unless I'm mistaken, the law required keeping A firearm and ammo in the household. There obviously was one since he shot her with it. Non-factor.

      Now, should she have grabbed the rifle or her handgun (if she had one), absolutely!

  10. avatar Cam says:

    Using a suppressed rifle? That requires some thought to grab that first IMO.

  11. avatar Richard in ky says:

    Well… this is my shocked face.
    A man named ” Antoine” kills some people in Georgia.
    Next thing you know we will find out that he had a gaggle of kids with a woman he wasn’t married to.
    Oh… wait….

    Filth.

  12. avatar cwp says:

    I think the question to ask is, “Could you please define what you consider an acceptable level of ‘gun violence’?”

    If they’d like to suggest a metric, that’s fine! We can compare their desired level of violence with those of other countries around the world to see whether it’s realistic, and we can see what the firearms laws in those various countries look like, and we can see what the level of violence is in other countries with similar firearms laws. It’s a question that can be investigated.

    Or they can say, “Any gun violence is unacceptable,” in which case the inevitable follow up is, “Then you would support a total ban on firearms ownership by non-governmental entities?”

    Or they can wave their hands and scream about murdered children. Any of the three outcomes has benefits, at least from my perspective.

  13. avatar Excedrine says:

    People keep asking me, sarcastically, “how I really feel”. Well, given that there isn’t a single pair of eyes here that is ready to read nor pair of ears ready to hear that kind of vulgar language, I will once again be as polite as I can.

    Once again, the blood-dancers in the gun control lobby — which would be all of them, naturally — wave the bloody shirt to push their historically sexist, racist, anti-Semitic, anti-rights, and anti-Humanist agenda.

    An agenda that proffers absolutely zero viable, workable solutions and instead weakens the rights of women everywhere as well as dis-empowering them generally.

    Gun control advocates of all flavors, degrees, political stripes, colors, creeds, faiths, origins, orientations, and walks of life are by extension — and by defaultall thieves, racists, misogynists, and even accessories to murder.

    End of story.

    1. avatar Amok! says:

      +1

      They honor, espouse and hold virtuous in the highest regards the Victim Mindset.

      1. avatar Excedrine says:

        And all of those feckless lemmings that take those droll bromides as gospel are only offered up as martyrs on their Altar of Stupidity.

        They’re all used up once they’ve served their ultimate purpose: being a sacrificial lamb to be used as a prop. Once the media furor has passed, they’re dropped from the consciousness (or lack thereof) of the gun control lobby, and their names and faces are forever forgotten to them — lost to the annals of mediocrity.

        Unless the victim is, specifically, a middle-class (or higher) Caucasian woman who lives in a Lilly-white sub-urban neighborhood who is attacked, specifically, by a Caucasian man with a gun, they couldn’t possibly care less if they tried.

  14. avatar former water walker says:

    +1 MamaLiberty. Not much to add…except all those wives & girlfriends staying with brutal football players have a CHOICE. Small children don’t when beaten bloody by their thug daddy. Yeah I know he’s a “Christian”…with 7 kids out wedlock. The mind boggles.

  15. avatar Tom jones says:

    Why doesn’t the va take care of veterans?

  16. avatar neiowa says:

    Here’s some common sense girls. Don’t shack up with, and have babies with, guys you’re not married to. Particularly if he already has multiple offspring with multiple other dingbats.

  17. avatar tk says:

    “assault rifle outfitted with a suppressor”
    -Probably just a semi-automatic rifle with a “flash” suppressor.

    How many times before have we seen that when one gets involved with someone like this, the outcome is often predictable?

    “At some point, Ionniello said, Davis, a former Marine who served in Iraq, became belligerently drunk and abusive. It had happened many times, Ionniello said, but her daughter did not seem able to turn Davis away no matter how often he abused her.”

    ““He shot her and they (police) don’t know how she was able to twist her body and fall literally in the opposite direction,” Ionniello said. Instead of falling onto the floor, Ionniello said her daughter fell over the toilet, dropping little Cobie into the water-filled bowl.”
    -Much of the supposed events are speculation from the mother of the victim.

    Read the original, local story with pictures, here: http://www.wsbradio.com/news/news/local/mother-saves-baby-last-breath/nhP7M/

    1. avatar Bob says:

      There is no evidence that her final actions actually saved the baby. Once she was dead, she was incapable of protecting the baby anymore, and if her killer wanted to harm or take the baby, he would have. It is obvious to me that her killer was not after the baby, and had no intentions to ever harm it. In fact, it looks like he didn’t give a damn about the baby. Throwing the baby into the toilet actually endangered it.

      1. He did attack the baby with the baseball bat.

  18. avatar Wilford Brimley's Mustache says:

    “American women are 11 times more likely to be shot to death by an intimate partner than in other developed nations”

    How many of those are foreigners living in America?

  19. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    I suppose fundamental truths are worth repeating from time to time. Even if it were possible to eliminate all firearms in the United States, it is a trivial matter for a domestic abuser to seriously wound or kill the object of their obsession without a firearm. Especially when the abuser has regular access to the victim.

    All it takes is one blow to the victim’s head with the attacker’s fist, a rock, pipe, hammer, club, etc. to stun the victim and enable a cascade of follow-up blows to finish off the victim. Of course there are almost limitless options with edge weapons. And I haven’t even touched on more “exotic” options such as poison, arson, or driving over someone with a car.

    The fact of the matter is that humans are quite fragile and easy to kill when it comes right down to it. In a domestic violence situation, a determined aggressor will always succeed. The best answer for potential victims of domestic violence is to leave the relationship as early as possible. The longer the relationship, the more drastic the action the victim has to take before the aggressor acts.

  20. avatar Steve says:

    Wow she was hot. Why would he kill a hottie like that. Sucks that the baby will grow up without parents, and will most likely be traumatized for life

    1. avatar 0351 says:

      The baby would have already been traumatised by an abusive father who couldn’t handle his s**the. It’s a shame that the mother had to die in order to free her child from that life. Hopefully the new caretakers are better…

    2. avatar Bob says:

      Two words – Infant Amnesia. People can not remember things that happened before they were about 2 years old.

      The baby will not remember anything about this incident. If it is never told that the incident happened, then there will be no trauma.

      1. avatar 2hotel9 says:

        That is one problem. In most cases like this the child will be immersed in this incident by family and asked about it/taunted about it by other kids. This will most likely not end well for the infant, and the 15 year old is probably already damaged from her mother’s previous actions/inactions/psychosis/whatever. I have seen situations like this play out before and rarely do the children manage to get away from it.

    3. A little too hot if you ask me. This story reminds me of the porn star beating story. This woman has another daughter that was living with the grandmother. Interesting.

  21. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    Educate your daughters – abusive behavior by spouse or boyfriend means it is time to exit the bad guy’s life. No option, no excuse, no I joined AA – none of that has any value because a man who will hurt a woman to make himself feel more powerful is a dirty coward and will do it again and again. The fact that he killed himself just emphasises how big a coward he was.

  22. avatar Alpo says:

    Sorry, but I’m calling B.S. on the whole “hero mom hides kid in toilet”.

    That claim comes from her mother, who understandably wants to read the best, most heroic end for her daughter, even if it’s made-up. To wit:

    :::“He shot her and they (police) don’t know how she was able to twist her body and fall literally in the opposite direction,” Ionniello said. Instead of falling onto the floor, Ionniello said her daughter fell over the toilet, dropping little Colbie into the water-filled bowl.
    “She had pure will,” Ionniello said. “She wanted that baby to live.”
    “She was the hero,” Ionniello said, “because her last breath was saving the child.”:::

    Yeah , I don’t think so. She just fell. The kid’s lucky she didn’t drown in that toilet.

    Also, the victim wasn’t all about her kids. If she was, she wouldn’t have been with this dude. Again, her mother:

    :::At some point, Ionniello said, Davis, a former Marine who served in Iraq, became belligerently drunk and abusive. It had happened many times, Ionniello said, but her daughter did not seem able to turn Davis away no matter how often he abused her.::::

    And lastly, doesn’t seem that she was the mother of the year. Rather, her mother was already raising her oldest daughter.

    :::Colbie is still being treated at Children’s Health Care of Atlanta at Scottish Rite Hospital. Ionniello hopes to bring her home soon, where she already cares for Jessica’s 15-year old daughter.:::

    1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      Also, the victim wasn’t all about her kids. If she was, she wouldn’t have been with this dude. Probably where the train jumped the rail.

  23. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    Davis, a war veteran, had a history of depression and domestic violence.

    So, someone already prohibited by law from possessing a firearm was in possession of a firearm? How could that have happened? There were laws – commonsense laws, one might say, even.

    The real issues:

    1) The victim should have been armed
    2) A repeat domestic violence abuser is a ticking time bomb, and we need to do more to get women out of such relationships before the bomb goes off

  24. avatar rlc2 says:

    Sadly, it appears there was a pattern of poor judgement by the Mom, who is 33 years old, grandma is already taking care of her 15 yr old daughter, Mom is not married to the guy with domestic abuse history, despite multiple incidents, yet she continues to see him, despite being ths “sole provider” for her new five month old infant with the abuser,
    and she is “heroic”?

    Sounds like an accident waiting to happen…sorry to be so cold, but MDA will never tell the truth, and only spin madly for buzz, including dancing in this tragedy’s blood…

  25. avatar Aaron says:

    I’m thinking Arrendale would have done better to not have a “baby daddy” with a history of depression and domestic violence.

    if ya play stupid games ya win stupid prizes.

  26. avatar Del in NC says:

    Should have studied pop history. OJ and Nicole.

  27. avatar TwinReverb says:

    What law would prevent this? None.

    What law could help prevent this? Requiring background checks for all gun sales and transfers might help a little. How did this guy get the rifle? If he had some sort of judgment against him in court, no gun store should’ve been able to sell to him if they were doing their job, which makes me wonder if he got a gun through a third party.

    There is no law that could’ve prevented this. But I am in favor of universal background checks. Background checks need to be anonymous enough, but realistic. The only thing the background check should require is name and driver’s license or social security number: it should not include the potential buyer’s race, income, the gun they want, etc, nothing of that nature. And it shouldn’t take forever. And I am against firearm registration.

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      There is no law that could’ve prevented this. But I am in favor of universal background checks.

      Current laws already make it illegal for him to possess a gun. What would universal background checks accomplish that the current system didn’t?

    2. avatar CarlosT says:

      Fine, we do all that and it magically works perfectly. Awesome. We’ve now exchanged a shooting death for a beating death. What a win.

      There are two main ways to prevent this kind of thing from happening. First is for the abused to get out of abusive situations as soon as possible. That’s much easier said than done, because the psychology of the situation is usually severely twisted. Second is for the abused to learn to defend themselves. Neither of these is 100% guaranteed, but nothing in life is. It’s certainly better than depending on the idea that some words on paper are going to protect you.

      1. avatar Bob says:

        There is NOTHING we can do to prevent this. CarlosT talks about the abused taking the initiative to protect herself. Generally, they don’t do that.

        It is part of their ‘abused’ psychology to remain with the abuser, even though there are several serious warning signs. And a chronically abused person will never get a gun to protect themselves, because it just isn’t in their psychology to do that. Even if they do buy a gun, it will probably be used against them, because they could never bring themselves to actually shoot their abuser. Self-defense (protecting yourself by shooting your attacker) requires more self esteem than these women have. Both people (the abuser and the abused) have serious psychological problems in chronic domestic violence situations.

        The only solution is exterior intervention. Friends or relatives need to force the abuser to stop, and/or force the abused to leave the bad situation.

        This isn’t true in Every domestic abuse case, but in the really vicious and continuous abuse situations, it is true.

  28. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    We must elect leaders who support laws that protect women from gun violence. Then they need to be specific on what laws will prevent this scenario.

    1. I want to make a law that says:
      “Any new law must specifically state a purpose and a time frame to accomplish said goals. If at the expiration of given time frame the law has failed to meet enumerated expectations, that law shall become null and void immediately and no similar law will ever be allowed to be reentered into legislation.”

  29. avatar Kyle says:

    They will say a law that makes it where war veterans that have been suffering from PTSD or what not should not have guns.

  30. avatar surlycmd says:

    Interesting range of comments on this thread. A fair amount of she should have… whatever. Freewill matters and you cannot save someone from themselves. She made her choices. Hindsight shows she made some poor choices.
    MDA will continue to demand tighter gun control which would not have changed the outcome. No where will we see celebrities, the National Organization for Women, MDA, the NFL or any religious group run a massive Nation wide campaign against Domestic Violence. The media and talking heads will run their mouths and say nothing.

    No heavy rotation of television commercials with famous people providing empowerment including firearm classes, helplines and local shelter information. Just people talking at the problem. You cannot save anyone from themselves. Just provide a massive amount of real awareness and information to help them to choose to save themselves.

    Just my humble opinion.

  31. These people are kid killers with their anti gun laws and zones. They make it possible for the nut jobs to kill. There is just no getting around it. They just do not care that their laws end up killing people! She must be getting paid by something or someone. What other source of self pride is there?

  32. avatar Mina says:

    The same women that make up the great majority of the population of MDA supporters who are outlining the “solutions” for the epidemic of violence against women conveniently ignore their role in creating the violence in the first place.

    This mom wanted a child, she had the child then proceeded to steal the child from her father by filing for sole custody & presumably following up by denying visitation (all openly available back story.)

    This is all A OK w/ the Feminists: Women should be empowered to make their own choices, pursue their dreams and fulfillment and chuck away whatever they don’t feel is working for them at the moment.

    What they neglected to plan for were the men who would refuse to be chucked away quietly. Enter villanization of men, enter gun control.

    1. I suspected something. Always look for motive. “He was depressed” is not enough. Something had to set him off. I tried a back story search but the “hero” story was so prominent that I had to give up.

  33. avatar Alan says:

    Haha in Canada we have a lot more stright hand gun laws

    So guess what.??
    The No1 Wife killer is the kitchen Knife xD

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      That’s OK, there’s a plan to deal with kitchen knives next! Problem’s gotta be solved no matter how much must be banned to do it.

      (/sarc, though I hope I didn’t need to say so.)

  34. avatar Jay says:

    Total ‘gun ban’ will not change the violent nature of the perpetrators, but it certainly reduces the chance of an instant kill. I’m assuming the rifile used in this case was legally entitled weapon.
    There will always be illegally obtained guns used in the attacks but if you compare the statistics with other countries, the stats show in favor of a gun control.

    In America, of those 14,022 homicides in 2011, 11,101 were committed with firearms. In England and Wales, where guns are far harder to come by, criminals didn’t simply go out and equip themselves with other tools and commit just as many murders; there were 32,714 offences involving a knife or other sharp instrument (whether used or just threatened), but they led to only 214 homicides, a rate of 1 homicide per 150 incidents.

    Meanwhile, in America, there were 478,400 incidents of firearm-related violence (whether used or just threatened) and 11,101 homicides, for a rate of 1 homicide per 43 incidents. That nearly four-times-higher rate of fatality when the criminal uses a gun rather than a knife closely matches the overall difference in homicide rates between America and England.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      I’m not sure where you are getting your data because you did not provide a source, but your quoted numbers are wrong according the FBI.

      2011 Data:

      http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

      None of your other numbers line with with previously quoted sources. For example, 400,000 firearm uses (fired or not) is way, way under the true value accepted by over 95% of those that study this stuff, and since your firearm homicide number is grossly inflated for that year, your computed rate is [i]completely incorrect[i].

    2. avatar Mister Fleas says:

      “In America, of those 14,022 homicides in 2011, 11,101 were committed with firearms. In England and Wales, where guns are far harder to come by, criminals didn’t simply go out and equip themselves with other tools and commit just as many murders; there were 32,714 offences involving a knife or other sharp instrument (whether used or just threatened), but they led to only 214 homicides, a rate of 1 homicide per 150 incidents.”

      The U.K. cooks the books on their homicide rate. I cannot find the articles, I posted them on this website before, but among the other tricks the U.K. uses to assure their citizens that the U.K. homicide rate is not so high is that the U.K. government only counts a homicide as an official homicide if there is a criminal conviction of the perp in their courts. In America, if there is a suspicious death, the death is then counted a homicide.

      So actually the United Kingdom’s murder rate is much higher than what the official stats say.

      1. avatar Jay says:

        A common point raised in the debate is the assumption the UK reports homicides only after court findings, and thus does not include unsolved murders, while the US reports homicides before court findings. This assumption is incorrect. Statistical data recorded in the UK in the form of PRC (police recorded crime) includes homicides as reported by the police and also takes into account unsolved homicides. (HFOIV, page 16, paragraph 5 and 6.)

  35. avatar 2hotel9 says:

    Their answer would be total confiscation of all guns, of course. That is their publicly stated goal, no matter how many times on social media they say it is not.

    And these are the same idiots who will now screech&wail that he was just a poor, misunderstood youth who was turning his life around while on his way to Sunday school after buying skittles and tea. They will have candle light vigils and fund raisers to pay for his defense.

  36. avatar Robert Farago says:

    All racist remarks will be removed, their posters banned. Please do NOT respond to these comments. Send an email link to thetruthaboutguns@gmail.com

    1. avatar Yellow Devil says:

      Ok.

  37. avatar Jay says:

    The whole “guns kill people” vs. “people kill people” debate is just a case of a really bad framing of a debate, probably at least partly courtesy of NRA spin doctors. It should be clear to everyone that people kill people with guns, and if you take away the guns, people will still kill people, but because it will be that much more difficult, they will kill less people.

    1. avatar 2hotel9 says:

      Really? In the wave of genocide in the ’90s in Africa the primary weapons used were axes, machetes, shovels and strangulation. Pol Pot and his minions used plastic bags to kill a couple million people. Stalin and Mao used starvation to kill millions of people. The tool is not the point, ever. The fact that people with heads full of f**ked up wiring kill other people is.

        1. avatar 2hotel9 says:

          Why can’t you legitimately refute the facts? Oh, yea, cuz you can’t. You’re done, buhbye.

    2. How many guns were used to kill 3,000 people on 09-11-2001?
      The only way to have fewer innocent people killed is to arm more innocent people.

        1. Answer my question. Don’t send me a link to a Liberal website. If your point is that guns are an efficient tool for homicide, justified or not, then I will file that under NO SHIT!

          Let me tell you and your Liberal buddies how this gun control debate ends.
          You say give me your guns.
          I say come and take them.
          You come to take them.
          I kill you or you kill me.
          Game on!

    3. How does that work in Mexico?

  38. The Lautenberg Amendment does not go far enough.

    People convicted of domestic violence should be prohibited from marrying, or cohabitating, or dating. And thwe penalty for violating these prohibitions should be death by execution.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email