I pointed that out in my first two posts to this thread, but maybe he’ll listen to you. I don’t really know what he feels more passionate about: guns, or his idea of the meaning of the word irony.
And if she died in a car crash or a heart attack, the gun wouldn’t have protected her then either. Irony? The only way that bucks expectations is if the unstated premise here is that she thought carrying a gun made her immune from harm.
Irony in this case would be if she had the gun for protection, but ultimately it ended up being what harmed her, and that if she didn’t have the gun, she’d have been unharmed. I think this is the causal link that people are unconciously making here.
My point is that her husband could own guns independent of whether or not she carried one, and his murder of her was an event independent of her gun ownership. Her carrying and ownership was irrelevant.
Therefore we don’t have the causal relationship where the actions she took to protect herself ended up resulting in her death. People are unconciously making the assumption that this is the case, which is why most of my requests have been of the “tell me step by step how this is irony” variety, in the hopes that people see that while it may seem like it on the surface as they jump to conclusions, it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
I don’t know about the guns part, but he is correct about the irony.
Accidentally shooting herself at a soccer game would have been ironic.
Gun owner getting murdered by spouse is not ironic. It isn’t as though she thought owning a gun made her invincible.
You might as well say every murder by a spouse is ironic, because the victim specifically chose to marry their killer, presumably because they were the one person they trusted.
But the gun ownership is irrelevant to the murder.
Actually doesn’t bother me a bit. I own 2 handguns and grew up with them. Although you are being a bit intellectually dishonest by calling a combat handgun “a little hunk of metal and plastic”. It apparently frightened people at the soccer game. The county sheriff thought it was such a stupid move he revoked her CC permit so I guess you’re in the minority.
Well you’re plenty stupid, I’ll give you that. Thick, brother, very thick!
[sup]And FTR, I like gun owners.[/sup]
If you grew up with them, then surely you’re traumatized, right?
As opposed to a non-combat handgun? I guess she could’ve had one of those .454 casuls with a scope on top or a single shot giant olympic competition pistol.
My point is that a gun is just an object. Now, having a gun put in your face and your life threatened can be traumatizing - but just seeing one safely secured on someone’s hip who is not threatning you is not. In that case you’re overreacting to a piece of plastic and metal.
And it was overturned and she got it back, so clearly his actions were not felt to be appropriate by a judge.
Did she actually do something illegal? As far as I can tell, she didn’t. She ruffled some feathers and possibly acted inappropriately, but she did not threaten anyone, brandish, or violate any firearms codes so far as I can tell. Taking away her CC permit for legal open carrying doesn’t make sense at all.
You have broken my spirit, internet man.
Yet you think the sight of a handgun securely holstered on someone’s hip is inherently traumatizing, to both adults and children?
Not to be pedantic about it, but the suburban, middle class social milieu of the United States - replete with bulimic hard-faced blonde-with-roots-showing soccer moms dumping their kids off at a $36,000/annum private daycare, homophobic brain-dead zombie dads who ironically worship, yes worship young men in tights playing football on 72-inch TV’s they cashed in what was left of their 401k to buy, self-diagnosed teens hopped up on the drug du jour when what they really need is a military boot camp, $50,000 SUVs with fucking heated cup holders, exactly 1.7 Labrador Retrievers (and make sure they have the bandanna around their necks!), and Pleasant Valley Sunday homes associations where you get a $100 fine for having grass 0.5" too long - is a fantasy world. A maze of Byzantinely-twining yet incredibly inane and pathetic social constructs like something created by a collaboration between Mervyn Peake and H.P. Lovecraft.
My daughter’s soccer coach is a doctor, but he doesn’t strap a bunch of scalpels and loaded syringes to his body for games, even though he is a thousand times more likely to need them than he would a gun.
You’re a moron.
And this is a relevant response to the part of my post you quoted how exactly?
Really? You think I’m far below average intelligence? That I’m incapable of rationally examining points and making a case? Not that we disagree, but that I’m actually well dumber than average? And think for a moment how smart the average person is. They totally eclipse me?
Usually it’s easy and productive to discard someone’s contribution to a discussion if they use “you’re a moron” to mean “I disagree with your conclusions”. It’s far too common these days.
Alright, now you’ve gone too far.
Sure, Bessie was a bit on the large side, but ever so nicely proportioned.
I’ll only address the important parts of your response…
Woman.
My mother’s second husband, in a drunken rage, held a handgun to her head and pulled the trigger. It wasn’t loaded, but I was seven and it traumatized me. In subsequent experiences, whenever I’m in the presence of a handgun, I feel sick and leave the area. It’s just my problem; no one else needs to fix it. Everyone can feel free to carry guns; it’s their right and I’ll just excuse myself and find something else to do.
That said, the woman made a big deal about her right to carry guns wherever she pleased, even at kids’ soccer games, and it is ironic that someone obsessed with the personal protection afforded by guns would be killed by a gun.
Nobody was killed “by” a gun. She was killed with a gun. A gun can’t kill anyone without someone behind the trigger.
All you people laughing at this woman wouldn’t be laughing if she had killed a rhinoceros that escaped from a zoo and was charging at the children at a soccer game. So there.
I’m sorry you went through that. I really am. But what you said was just so.
I’m very sorry you said this. The word “obsessed” has no business being here.
Can we just one time have this discussion without loaded language, hyperbole, and outright dishonesty from either side? Just once? I don’t think it’s too much to ask, is it?
So basically it goes like this:
Woman: Guns pose no threat in the hands of knowledgeable, law-abiding people. Indeed, in the rare case that the need arises, it would be nice if the good guys have guns to protect themselves. Guns are extremely dangerous in the hands of criminals, and we are all vulnerable to that, but disarming good people who obey the law does not help.
You: Haha! A murderer just killed you using a gun! Giggle.
I have never heard a better condemnatory description of the kind of suburbs I grew up in than this. Thank you, Una. Thank you so very much.
It’s kind of a tautology to say she was killed by a murder. Was he a murderer *before *he shot her? Maybe he thought like her “Guns pose no threat in the hands of knowledgeable, law-abiding people. Indeed, in the rare case that the need arises, it would be nice if the good guys have guns to protect themselves” and considered himself a good guy.
Seems that she didn’t exercise her right to defend herself with firearms at the right time. Very sad.
Right, the moral of the story is that only gun-toting moms who support gun rights get shot by their husbands. The rest of us can sleep smugly and safely in our beds.
Fucking anti-gun nuts on this board are batshit insane.
Then moral of the story is the more guns per capita, the more gun deaths per capita.
The irony of the story is that she thought she was promoting personal safety by way of guns, when in fact she was an example of there being too many guns in the USA.
The tragedy of the story is that there are children left without parents.