Lucy McBath (courtesy nymag.com)

“McBath’s evolution as a national voice for violence and gun prevention has allowed her to expose the many loopholes in gun laws that allow people to shoot to kill and ask questions later, often without any accountability for their actions. In the past three years, she has testified before the United States Senate on the opposition of the expansion of the stand your ground laws and regularly speaks on the destruction that it causes, specifically in communities of color. As a mother, McBath admits, ‘All you can do is do your best to keep your children safe, tell them if they’re in an altercation not to stir up any animosity because nowadays people don’t use any sense of reasonable conflict-resolution — you can be gunned down instantly. It’s not about fear, but more so about preparation.'” Lucy McBath Turned Her Son’s Death Into a Powerful National Crusade for Change in Gun Laws [via nymag.com]

57 Responses to Quote of the Day: Lucy McBath Testifies for Gun Control – And Self-Control

  1. “McBath’s evolution as a national voice for violence and gun prevention…”

    Surprising honesty there, but it would be more clear if they phrased it “national voice for violence and for gun prevention”.

  2. Sorry she lost her son, but maybe someone should explain to her that stand your ground laws benefit black communities and more importantly are a state’s rights issue. She is barking up the wrong tree in front of the US Senate

    • C’mon, now, Dirk: you know *those* aren’t the black lives that matter.

      Nevermind that would-be black victims disproportionately avail themselves of lawful self-defense via SYG laws; there’s a narrative to push!

  3. In other words, keep your hands to yourself and off other people’s stuff and don’t be an asshole. Works for me.

    • How ’bout:
      Raise your kids better
      Stop being OUR problem
      Deny yourself the strange satisfaction of working at a (D)emocrat welfare plantation
      Become a citizen of the US, not a nanny state.
      Pull someone’s forearm out of your grieving puppet a_ _.
      Quit trying to fix your broken sh_t by breakung everyone elses’.
      Fix your f’d upness before you bother Offering to fix the Constitution.

    • If that was the narrative, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. The meme she is pushing assaults legitimate self defense by calling stand your ground laws a license to kill and printing additional gun laws as the answer to curb gun violence.

      Further, a fact advocate like me would be interested in exactly what her son was up to when he got killed, and if he was killed by another black man. And I’d like to know if the killer obtained the gun legally in the first place.

      • They were sitting in their truck minding their business playing music when Dunn pulled in. He told them to turn their music down which they initially did. Then they turned it up again. There was a verbal altercation and Dunn opened fire. He claimed he saw the barrel of a shotgun. When the four black men attempted to leave Dunn got out of his car and fired several rounds at them. He was initially convicted of three counts of attempted murder with the jury hung on murder. The prosecutor decided to go after him on the murder charge again and he was convicted. After the shooting Dunn and his girl friend went to a hotel to drink wine and eat pizza. The next day they went home where Dunn was arrested.

        • Unfortunately for her, her son’s incident doesn’t fit the narrative. The perpetrator was not allowed away consequence free precisely because he did not act in accordance with SYG laws. Nor do the stats bear out her claims.

          So exactly where do her contentions come from and what is the motivation I wonder?

    • How about don’t play your music so loud that it annoys other people? And if someone asks you to turn it down be polite and turn it down until you leave the area. Don’t act like a thug and try to bully someone who asks you to turn the volume on your music down. Plenty of wrong decisions by both parties led to her son’s death. I don’t know if they guy that shot her son was justified in doing so. From the verdict it appears the Jury did not think so. But a little common sense and appreciation of someone else’s space probably would have saved her son’s life. It appears that The Stand Your Ground Law had little to do with the shooting IMO. So why did the US Senate waste their time listening to her testimony? I can sympathize with her grief but her testimony seems to have very little relation to the laws.

  4. How often do people shoot each other over some type of argument? And how do stand your ground laws justify that?
    Is she just plain ignoring how often firearms are used to defend innocent people from potentially violent crime, most of the time just by brandishing the weapon?
    Also, where did the phrase “shoot to kill” come from? I’d like to meet the anti-gun amateur who can zing a guy in the leg when their adrenaline’s pumping and they’re about to be stabbed (guess what, even if they did, they’d most likely still get stabbed and die, center mass reduces that chance).

    • @Stu H: Good point about “Center of Mass” and I would add this. Most people that are not familiar with firearms don’t realize that shooting someone in an arm or leg to stop them is not an efficient way to stop an attack. The chance of missing is too high. A bullet that misses it’s target is ineffective, increases that chance that the aggressor will not be stopped and can also injure or kill someone else because the aggressor’s body did not stop the bullet. Also, when seconds count and someone is in fear for their life they are not going to to stop and think “maybe if I shot them in the leg that would stop them”. There is a reason that target practice focuses on center of mass.

    • The largest artery in human body is in the leg, and it could take only a few minutes to bleed out from a puncture wound.

      • Correction, Rock; the aorta is the largest artery in the human body and it is located…Center of Mass. The two femoral arteries branch off from the aorta into the inner thighs and are therefore approximately half the size (each) of the aorta, meaning less than 1 inch in diameter, a difficult target at best.

        A solid hit on any of the major arteries, assuming no or delayed medical treatment, will result in (a very messy) death from exsanguination within minutes, but except for a solid center mass hit on the aorta or heart that also severs the spine it will NOT prevent the BG from returning fire while he waits.

    • “Also, where did the phrase ‘shoot to kill’ come from?”

      I like to counter with, “So your alternative is ‘aim to maim’?”

    • Typical anti-gunners response starts with “That’s beside the point. The important thing is her message that we need to…”

  5. Um, her son’s killer was found guilty of murder and sentenced to life without parole. Stand Your Ground laws did NOT permit him to do what he did. Did he fire under the mistaken belief he was within his rights to so? I don’t know. But I do know who it is who’s misleading the public as to what the law allows, and it isn’t the NRA. It’s people like Ms. McBath and New York Magazine.

    • I did in fact, and frankly I have no idea who this person even is, much less care what it is she has to say.

      But I do care about, why is this misinformed ignorant person invited to testify before congress?

      Celebrity perhaps?

      Why does congress invite celebrities to testify… these people usually are not subject matter experts in the slightest, and mostly just slow thinking morons who are just parroting lines taught to them by their statist handlers.

      We don’t have a gun problem, we have a congress/president/SCOTUS problem.

  6. “loopholes in gun laws that allow people to shoot to kill and ask questions later, often without any accountability for their actions.”

    See what the author did, interjected a statement that had no relevant fact to the story. Seems citizen shooter was held acountable and spending the rest of his natural life in prison.

    • Congress is made up almost entirely of lawyers. Did anyone hear any single on of them jump of and say, “OBJECTION! Facts not in evidence!”

  7. Desperate mom trying to make ” something important” about her sons death, sad.
    Doesn’t take much to see that one.
    I’d rather bet on reason and level headed laws, i know…they sometimes don’t mix.
    The law seemed to work here.

  8. “….nowadays people don’t use any sense of reasonable conflict-resolution” If this were even remotely true, society would have collapsed already.

  9. “We need to see a cultural shift and change in our gun laws. Specifically in [Jordan’s] case, the gun laws and stand your ground laws allowed this happen.”

    ‘In the end, Dunn was convicted…and ultimately sentenced to life without parole.’

    Either she’s suffering from dementia or she’s lying.

  10. shake my head. Way to use your kid’s death for a political agenda claiming the system doesn’t work even though the person who did it will spend the rest of their life in jail.

    Not being a jerk in life, gun or not goes a long way.

    Now that’s just common sense.

  11. I am so sick of hearing about ‘loopholes’. Anything they don’t like is a loophole, implying an illegitimate work around. No – a ‘loophole’ is simply a way of disguising your next expansion of laws by implying everyone intended to cover it in the first place. Be honest about it. With so many ‘loopholes’ maybe you should conclude that you suck at writing laws and maybe you should stop.

    • My first thoughts were to bad you didn’t spend as much time raising your kid to be polite and not act like a rude little prick as you spend in the limelight.

  12. Little Lucy has evolved into a professional victim, a paid liar. She advocates for changes in our laws that will guarantee an increase in violence and murder.

    • And would not have prevented her son’s death.

      I recall a quote from a very early episode of “COPS”: “If they passed a law making it illegal to be stupid we would be busy enforcing it through our entire shift.”

  13. “If they’re in an altercation not to stir up any animosity because nowadays people don’t use any sense of reasonable conflict-resolution — you can be gunned down instantly. It’s not about fear, but more so about preparation.”

    This bit is actually good advice, but it’s amazing to me how people can “get” the truth and yet still draw the completely wrong conclusion from it.

  14. It would be nice if people actually read stand your ground laws and understood what they mean, not what they think they mean. In an ambush, violence of action and taking the fight to your attacker if your first action, not retreat. Retreat almost assures you are going to die or be injured. Fighting back gives you a better chance to disrupt your attacker and prevent your own death or injury.

    This also applies to a defensive gun use. As you are not the aggressor, most DGUs will be a type of ambush. It is an attack when you are not expecting it. Fleeing the area opens you up to being killed or injured at a higher rate than taking the fight to your attacker. SYG laws recognize this and prevent dirt bag prosecutors from screwing over good people for preserving their own life or the lives of their loved ones.

  15. McBath’s evolution as a national voice for violence and gun prevention has allowed her to expose the many loopholes in gun laws that allow people to shoot to kill and ask questions later, often without any accountability for their actions

    I thought this was going to be about cops in America

  16. What constantly eludes me when I hear things like this is why it’s so challenging to read a simple few sentences. The ACTUAL laws are very clearly written and I have yet to see in any state’s statute contain anything resembling the “ease” in which you’re allowed murder. Seeing supposed “legal experts” spout on national television that SYG laws state that you may simply shoot someone who makes your uncomfortable, or is a different color than you truly hurts my brain.

  17. “..All you can do is do your best to keep your children safe, tell them if they’re in an altercation not to stir up any animosity…”

    That’s a feature. Armed societies are supposed to be polite ones. The only ones benefiting from making “stirring up animosity” less risky, are those who wish to inject themselves into the affairs of others. Like governments, lawyers, regulators and “activists.” Mind your own business, raise your kids to mind theirs. If you meet someone you don’t know, give them a wide berth, but be ready to respond forcefully if they still insist on meddling.

    As far as noise goes, until someone grown up sets a solid, no exceptions, Db limit above which shooting the source is OK, it will remain one of the meddlers’ favorite excuses for having opinions about what others should and should not do. Nothing but a swamp of the lowest of the low babbling about who “needs” (but theeengz are diiiiferent with meee/weeee), to make noise and who “is obnoxious….”

  18. Gee I thought it was a given not to act like a thug/punk/criminal in public. I’ve taught my sons(who won awards for good behavior in school) not to act like jerks-and they are both considered black. And yeah I thought that was really odd they would award students for basically NOT acting up. Such is the world we live in. Act stupid-get shot…Happy Thanksgiving!

  19. I don’t see anything wrong with teaching my kids to be very respectful to every person he meets and have a plan to kill them all if need be. Just don’t be an asshole. Don’t piss off people by any means if possible. How is that not common sense anymore?

    • Seems to me this is the major value in concealed carry laws. When you don’t know who may be armed it would behoove you to be respectful to everyone – the basis of the “armed society-polite society” concept.

      And may I add, for those who have not read Heinlein’s “Beyond This Horizon”, the polite society envisioned was perfectly okay with you calling out someone who has been rude or offensive to a traditional duel to settle grievances.

  20. St. Thomas Law Review: ‘Standing Your Ground’ is an Inalienable Right – The Truth About Guns #RKBA
    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/11/dean-weingarten/st-thomas-law-review-standing-your-ground-is-an-inalienable-right/
    PDF http://stthomaslawreview.org/articles/v27/1/prince.pdf
    In 1776, Thomas Jefferson stated what American political and legal thinkers took to be “self-evident”: “that all men . . . are endowed . . . with certain unalienable Rights.” Among those rights were the right to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” English and American common law historically allowed an individual to use reciprocal force to fend off an imminent attack. It was not until the Victorian Era and then, most forcefully, the Progressive Era, that the right to Self-Defense was limited by the so-called Duty to Retreat . . .

    Due to the position many political groups have taken, as well as inaccurate news reporting by the media, there is a mistaken belief that Stand Your Ground laws allow a shooter to become “judge, jury, and executioner.”

    The Article will seek to explain that, contrary to the contention that there is a “fundamental duty to avoid conflict,” the right to defend oneself—self-preservation—is a Natural Right, not granted to the individual by the state.19 In that vein, the state cannot abrogate the right of an individual to defend himself, which the Duty to Retreat requires. Since the legal interpretation dovetails from the Natural Rights analysis, Section III will then explain when and why the Duty to Retreat entered American jurisprudence.The Duty, rather than being a “fundamental principle of the law,” was actually a misreading or misunderstanding of the common law, all too readily expounded upon by the Progressives in the early Twentieth Century.

    In our conclusion, we ask whether a state Stand Your Ground statute is even required to extinguish the Duty to Retreat, given the inalienable right of the individual to defend himself.Correspondingly, the question must be asked as to whether a state is even authorized to abrogate the right to self-defense and require an individual to retreat. For if the right to self-preservation is a fundamental, deeply rooted, and inalienable right, the state’s ability to infringe upon it is “off the table.”

  21. she has testified before the United States Senate on the opposition of the expansion of the stand your ground laws and regularly speaks on the destruction that it causes, specifically in communities of color.
    Because law abiding Americans are shooting back at the thugs?

  22. No tool, machine or gun ever had a behavioral diagnosis.

    She admits the problem is conflict resolution. She is lying and knows upstanding citizens are not murdering kids, criminals are. She also knows those criminals aren’t acquiring guns by legal methods. She knows the laws are already clear and in place. She’s a hater having emotional distress misguiding rationale.

    Rather than use her efforts to address behavioral issues she attacks the resulting actions of misguided behavior.

  23. “… and regularly speaks on the destruction that it causes, specifically in communities of color”

    Again, still, another one whose idea of how to move into a post-racial world is to focus harder on race. We can’t have equality unless we focus more on race.

  24. Okay, but consider the end of her quotation:
    “…you can be gunned down instantly. It’s not about fear, but more so about preparation”.

    That’s basically the exact same thing we’re always saying. We don’t carry because we’re afraid, but because we’re prepared. Take her out of context and she sounds like she’s on our side. I wonder how many gun-grabbers realize they’re using the same arguments we are, and they’re just coming to the wrong conclusions.

    • Anti-gunners don’t realize anything. At all. Nothing. That’s why they can say the exact same words and still have no idea of their meaning. They’re so dumb they’re not even dumb anymore. A vacuum complete where there should be thinking.

  25. Watched most of the HBO documentary this morning. Mostly trial footage mixed with sympathetic scenes of the grieving parents. First, the police blew the investigation. The victims fled, circled around behind the plaza, stopped for a minute and came back. The police didn’t find any weapons in their car, but they didn’t search the dumpsters or bushes behind the store until 4 days after the shooting. So the issue of whether or not Jordan Davis had a gun or not came down to Dunn’s word vs. the word of Davis’ friends, which should have left plenty of reasonable doubt. But then Dunn’s girlfriend testified that he never mentioned that Davis had a gun to her. That’s what sunk him, along with the fact that they fled the scene. The media tried to make it about Stand Your Ground, but that was completely irrelevant. If Dunn was telling the truth, but he had a duty to retreat, there was still nowhere to retreat to.

    The morals of the story are;
    Jordan Davis was a loudmouthed hot head and it got him killed.
    Michael Dunn did nothing to avoid confrontation, fled the scene and failed to get his story straight with the only sympathetic witness and that got him life in prison without parole.

    Whether you’re carrying a weapon or not, avoid confrontation, and if you shoot someone stay put and call 911. And don’t give the 911 operator any more information than necessary.

Leave a Reply

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