maxresdefault

“Imagine how much better victims would sleep at night knowing all the guns had been removed.” – Genesis Women’s Shelter CEO Jan Langbein in Dallas County To Start Confiscating Guns From Domestic Abusers [at huffingtonpost.com]

Recommended For You

47 Responses to Quote of the Day: You May Say I’m a Dreamer Edition

  1. Why not provide free self-defense classes?

    Nothing is as empowering as ability and self-confidence. And the bad guys (including domestic violence abusers) can sense this too.

    • I’m guessing the liberal self defense course includes such topics as theatrical self-soiling, heart attacks, and vomiting for distance. Actually stoping an attack with force is anathema to them.

      • At a minimum, the self-defense classes re-directs the debate in a constructive direction vs. a counter-productive attack on guns per se. “If y’all are so interested in protecting women victims of DV why aren’t you spending your efforts on helping these women get out of their abusers’ homes and how to defend themselves to the best of their abilities?” How do the Anti’s respond to this?

        If they claim we are “blaming the victim” they look silly. Violence by others – human or animal – is an ugly fact of life. If a woman sleeps under the same roof with a known violent abuser then removing just one class of weapon from the abuser’s momentary possession won’t help. If she can escape, that helps a lot. If she is better prepared to respond to an unexpected encounter that helps too.

        If a woman gets some form of self-defense training it will get her mind working on a new thought-pattern. Granted, judo or pepper-spray have their respective limitations. So does a Colt .45. We happen to be of the view that any gun is apt to be more effective than the next best alternative.

        In any case, our task at this juncture is to get the Anti’s off-message; i.e., off the message that somehow removing – momentarily – a gun from the equation solves the problem. If it doesn’t solve the problem nor makes any material reduction in the problem then it’s not a viable solution to the stated problem.

        • Man, that was a wall of words.

          Clearly you took my comment way too seriously. It was based off of the progressives statements from not to long ago to soil yourself to make you less desirable as a rape victim. Certainly the more tools one has in a self defense cache, the better they are provided they are continuously exercised since any skill will degrade over time.

          I knew a /sarc should have been added.

        • I presumed that you were writing sarcastically. And, I appreciated the sarcasm. It inspired me to think along such lines to see if there is something to be made of such foolish remarks by Antis.

          When the Anti’s start digging themselves into a hole we ought to be ready to provoke them into defending their foolishness. If you are so concerned about X1 why don’t you do something effective about X2, X3, X4 and X5 as well as X1? Something that will directly reduce X1 . . . X5. Nothing that might be done about X1 will preclude the problems arising from X2 . . . X5.

          Such a response is simple to grasp and will leave the Anti’s speechless.

  2. “According to WFAA, under the new system Dallas judges will start by asking offenders whether they have guns. If they do, they’ll be ordered to surrender the weapons either to the gun range or to a third party who can legally own a gun.”

    It is illegal to compel a criminal to reveal his gun ownership, as per the 5th amendment. So, of course next;

    “Judges will also take steps to double-check whether offenders have concealed carry permits or other records proving that they may own a firearm.”

    Which is the real point; to push for point of sale registration by law abiding citizens. The authorities estimate 700 guns per year will be confiscated, but since there are no where near that many DV related homicides in the DFW area it is safe to assume that this will be ineffective and expensive, with the only possible outcome being a call to register all guns just as soon as a criminal (who, remember, doesn’t have to reveal a thing) “slips through the cracks.”

  3. Fine.

    Is the Genesis Women’s Shelter and Dallas County then going to start accepting responsibility for the victims beaten, stabbed, run over, burned, etc?

    What’s the old saying? You can take the gun from the abuser, but you can’t take the abuse out of the abuser? Or something like that?

    The short sightedness of this kind of fantasy land thinking is astonishing. The GUN IS THE NOT THE PROBLEM. Guns don’t CAUSE abuse. They are rarely even a TOOL in abuse situations.

    These people should go to a crime scene where a knife was used…recall one case where a woman was stabbed something like thirty times. There was blood in every room in the two-story house. She was raped repeatedly, beaten and stabbed by her ‘boyfriend.’

    No gun was used or present.

    So, go grab the guns, idiots. And, you will CHANGE NOTHING that you think you are changing.

    • “The short sightedness of this kind of fantasy land thinking is astonishing.”

      Thank you! I always think I’m the only who has this reaction upon hearing some fanciful “solution” like that, typically at some cocktail party or similar. I get slammed for being negative, while they pat themselves on the back for “trying something.”

      • Similarly, people get upset with me when I state the unfortunate truth that if the average man couldn’t dominate or even kill the average woman with his bare hands, rape and deadly battery would not be be a thing throughout human history.

        This fact is very much a no-no to openly voice in today’s society.

        The fact is that in a man vs. woman altercation, the inclusion of guns is better for the woman than the man. But at the end of the day, just about any weapon is better than harsh words.

  4. Yes! Just imagine how much better domestic violence victims will feel after 250lb Bubba beats them senseless, since they have no force equalizer with which to defend themselves.

    And nevermind that a world without guns is utterly impossible.

  5. “Imagine how much better [domestic abuse] victims would sleep at night knowing all the guns had been removed.”

    Right. Because a domestic abuser who lives in the home with the victim could never discreetly poison the victim’s food or smash the victim’s head with a large rock or hammer while the victim was sleeping … or do any number of other things that are exceedingly easy when you are routinely in contact distance with a sleeping victim.

    But why guess? Let’s ask the Alabama women who recently used a shotgun to stop her violent estranged husband who was advancing on her with a handgun and a machete. Note that, because she blasted and stopped her attacker, she is actually alive for us to ask the question. That would not be the case if she had not had a shotgun as Jan Langbein desires.

  6. ya, they’d sleep like the dead.

    You know, “the dead”, the same sole group, according to Plato, that has seen the end to ‘War’.

  7. Sorry, lady. I can’t imagine that. Because I can’t possibly imagine what goes through the mind of someone who continues to sleep in the home of an abuser instead of getting the hell out.

    Maybe some of them will sleep better, until they’re strangled, bludgeoned, sliced up or otherwise eliminated. But since the women you’re trying to help seem to be incapable of rational thought, it’s really hard to say.

    • Part of it is that most DV victims are violent people themselves, who are addicted to abuse. Many DV victims grew up in violent homes and are attracted to violent partners. Women who are DV victims often abuse their children, restarting the cycle for the next generation. It is not uncommon for a victim to leave one abuser and shack up with another abuser, it is a sad cycle of violence with no easy answers to solve it. However, Libs like easy answers and if they remove guns the whole cycle will magically stop. Both the Dems and the Reps like to pretend this cycle of DV that spreads form one generation to the next doesn’t exist.

      • I have an obvious and simple (albeit rhetorical) solution for such DV families.

        Congress must (it simply MUST, for the children) adopt a law allowing any family court judge to order the couple to quarter a National Guardsman in their home. The Guardsman would be entitled to the master bedroom; the couple can sleep on the floor. The couple must feed their resident Guardsman at their own expense and he is entitled to the first helpings of breakfast and dinner. Most DV instances will occur outside business hours when everyone is apt to be at their respective jobs. The Guardsman will usually be in the home when both members of the couple are present.

        Oh; what’s that you say? There is a 3’rd Amendment? What’s that? Never mind; it doesn’t matter. “No soldier . . . without the consent of the owner . . . ” is clearly obsolete. The founding fathers never contemplated DV. If the couple rents then they are not the “owner(s)”. A Guardsman is not a soldier. It’s for the children!


  8. Imagine no possessions
    I wonder if you can
    No need for greed or hunger
    A brotherhood of man
    Imagine all the people
    Sharing all the world…

    …yeah…riiiight

    Just try to share to the world a Lennon/McCartney((TM)) song on the web to the brotherhood of man and you’ll find out that the Lennon estate indeed has a long list of possessions that it is very interested in keeping its greedy hands on.

    Right there’s your classic steaming pile of hippie/leftist hypocrisy.

    • I’m guessing that they are talking about people convicted of family violence criminal offenses here. I’m not going to go to HuffPo to read the article, tho.

      • Yer, you and I both. Not giving them one single page hit if I can help it. I’ve already shown the light to more than a few family members & friends, as well.

      • Actually, it doesn’t have to be criminal. It can just be a restraining order which is treated like a felony on the 4473.

        • No, what is being talked about in Dallas County is a follow-up to criminal convictions and imposition of a Family Violence Protective Order, which is a specific process, typically handled by a public prosecutor, and is different from a “restraining order”.

        • Let me clarify something. I wasn’t specifically talking about Dallas County. Dallas isn’t the only place that domestic violence and related issues are making movement in this area. Family law is another area. Furthermore, restraining orders and any other thing that may not even add up to a misdemeanor is treated as a felony on the Form 4473. It could even end up in the NCIC and result in being listed on the NICS.

      • Again, in order to get a DV criminal conviction, you have to prove a criminal offense. I’m gathering from a Dallas News article from last year that criminal convictions and Family Violence Protective Orders (which are not the same as “restraining orders” and are only issued after a bench trial with due-process protections) are involved here, not your usual ex-parte “restraining order”. The Dallas judges are going considerably beyond what usually happens in such cases, which is that the judge just warns the convicted defendant that the conviction makes him a prohibited person, or in the case of a FVPO, that he is a prohibited person for the duration of the order ( a year, IIRC). Be interesting to see if someone challenges the Dallas judges’ authority to do so.

  9. Here’s a better idea: Ban domestic abuse!

    Oh wait there is and isn’t heeded at all times. So why would no guns prevent domestic abuse? Especially when other implements (scissors, knives, hammer, rock, hands,…) can be used?

  10. I think I’d rather be shot than strangled, stabbed, or bludgeoned – and I try do onto to others as I would have them do unto me.

    • You definitely got a hearty guffaw from me with the last sentence. Thanks, I needed one.

      on topic: There’s certainly nothing to add that already hasn’t been well said. Especially concerning conviction v. accusation. I’m quite sure no one, ever, has been falsely accused for the personal gain of the accusing party, right?

      Well, I may possibly have one or two other useful recommendations for our little Moonbeam; either a reality check, or a frontal lobotomy. What? It’s not as though she uses the cognitive portion of her brain. Aside from for dissonance, that is…

  11. “Imagine how much better victims would sleep at night knowing all the guns had been removed.”….and all sticks…and all stones….knifes…glass…metal ore….oh hell lets just get rid of earth ….

  12. “Imagine how much better victims would sleep at night knowing all the guns, knives, blunt objects, ropes, poison, automobiles, rocks, fists/hands, feet/legs and other objects that can be used as a deadly weapon had been removed.”

    Makes you wonder what other things they will need to “remove” before bad guys suddenly becomes benevolent. If they had only banned rocks after the first sin, Cain wouldn’t have gotten in trouble so many years ago.

  13. Dimwits they are. Abusers will abuse, irrespective of any added legislation. Laws are only followed by the LAW ABIDING. But feel good laws…..feel good…….til the uselessness of said laws smacks one back to reality.

  14. And thanks to a whole slew of political correctness worshiping, leftist judges, some of the things that legally constitute “domestic abuse” today are juvenile. I believe refusing to give your spouse money is seen as a valid case, even if she already maxed out three credit cards on handbags and shoes.
    And of course, much like those Turkish conscripts who prostrated themselves on bended hand and knee for the “god king” Xerxes to use as steps to the throne, the white knights will defend any woman the second she cries “abuse!” even if she’s filing bogus charges to get money, attention, or revenge for some imagined injustice; the circumstances of which would make victims of real abuse want to have a chat with her in the same way a Marine Corps DI has a chat with recruits. I hope cooler heads prevail in DFW, but I won’t hold my breath.

  15. *sigh* it infuriates me to no end to see how much of a police state Texas has become.

    Between the DPS now becoming the Texas Stasi, and the Judges who give down tyrannical rulings for even the smallest of “offenses” and probably violate the constitution more often than not, I fear that Texas will become a worse hell hole for gun owners than California as the democrats take over.

  16. The order states that the firearms may be turned over to a third party who can legally posess them. So give them to the victims. And, BTW, the order is directed at those convicted of domestic violence for what that’s worth if anything.

  17. This is clearly an attack on the 2A with no practical affect on victims.

    If the Criminal Justice System wanted to do something about domestic violence it could order the defendant to ware a GPS-equipped ankle bracelet and then monitor the plaintiff (via cell phone) and defendant and their respective distance from one another. If EACH of them didn’t make a point of stealing clear of one-another’s stomping ground they could be dragged before the judge and held to a contempt-of-court charge.

    Such a provision would have some effect in deterring some defendants from approaching the plaintiff’s area of activity and, equally important, deterring plaintiffs from going anywhere near the defendant’s area of activity. Such a measure would be independent of any particular per se weapon or strong-arm assault.

    If a plaintiff continues to cohabitant with a defendant there is nothing prophylactic that the Criminal Justice System could possibly do to intervene. This is a social-work or psychological problem. To apply the wrong approach is to doom the victim to predictable consequences.

    If a defendant is determined to kill or injure the plaintiff there is nothing whatsoever that society can do to prevent the inevitable. It is the exclusive initiative of the plaintiff to find shelter where she will either not be discovered or – upon discovery – will have the means of self-preservation or defense by others.

  18. I went a read this CEO’s bio and it certainly looks like she is well connected in the liberal political machine. However, I would think that only two possibilities exist for a person to make such a statement. One, they know better but are playing the “role” to advance gun control or they are really so stupid as to not know better.
    In either case, it bothers me that such a person can be in a position of power. I assure you that this organization will not get any more donations from me.

  19. “Imagine how much better victims would sleep at night knowing all the guns had been removed.”

    That is such a twisted statement. If I had been a victim, having my self defense gun taken away would be especially monstrous. Imagine how well you would sleep being victimized a second time! I know I would not sleep too well.

  20. Tell that to the woman from my area whose ex boyfriend zip-tied her and her two children to a chair, then beat her to death with a hammer and lit the house on fire. The fact that he didn’t have a gun didn’t seem to do a whole lot to stop him. On the other hand a firearm in her possession might have, at the very least she would’ve had a fighting chance. Unfortunately we’re not allowed to own firearms for self defense in the people’s republic of Canada.

  21. Because a fully grown man needs a gun to generate sufficient force to gravely injure or kill an average woman, right?

    Right?

  22. They should try and sleep the way I do at night. I’m not a victim, just armed and very well I might add….I sleep just fine….oh yea, and the 10 # Yorkie alarm system that I always bring up….she’s just so cute….I can’t help myself…

  23. Liberals do not care about domestic crime victims and never have. A gun is freedom from victim hood. Liberals prefer unarmed slaves.

Leave a Reply

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