Jersey woman stabbed to death waiting for Gun Permit

[cvfd1399 0]

Quote

no I have no stats, but I expect that it has happened

your headline post is bullshit and sensational, therefore dismissed.

[champu 1]

tkhayes

What was she REALLY doing when she was killed?....a more accurate headline might be 'stabbed to death while making sandwich' but that would not feed the hype for gun lobby....

And this attitude is off the deep end in the other direction. If the sandwich, when complete, had any chance in helping her change the outcome of the attack then maybe you'd have a reasonable comparison. Is a gun some kind of magic force field? No. But it's not completely irrelevant to the story as you are claiming, and you know that.

Not really directed at you anymore...

I can see that my previous post came across a little blame-the-victimy. My point was simply that if you would get and carry a gun to defend yourself, but you would not get and carry a taser or pepper spray or something if anything got in the way of you carrying a gun, then you might be thinking that having the gun is going to do more for you than it actually will.

[kallend 1,618]

bigbearfng

******
Meanwhile, on a typical day in the USA over 30 people will be shot dead in murders, very few of which get reported beyond the local news. Most of these will be shot by a family member or friend.

This would be one of those rather liberal definitions of "friend."

Acquintance would be the proper word, but even that suggests a positive relationship, not that it's a member of a rival gang member who you know as Crackerjack.

As funny as kallend's usual distortions are, it's troubling that at least two of you go on to blame the victim for not "doing something" to protect herself. She did, and the police and our failed concept of waiting periods failed her. Were she a FRIEND of mine, I'd lend her a weapon for the wait, along with the important element of taking her to the range.

This is why you get a gun before you actually need one. 10 days or 30/2-3 months is too long if someone else threatens you.

I was trying to figure what to say without it becoming a PA.
You nailed it for me-
I'm afraid the blame the victim crowd really pisses me off!
Rates right up there with Orange County judge Marc Kelly-now that guy's the epitome of a piece of shit!

Who is blaming the victim?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,618]

cvfd1399

And we have also discussed the fact that you can't compare Americas gun numbers to other countries. They just don't have the same history and laws when it comes to guns.

Right, the 2nd Amendment has led to an acceptance of violence as a way to solve problems in the USA that is not shared by other developed nations.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,618]

kelpdiver

***
Meanwhile, on a typical day in the USA over 30 people will be shot dead in murders, very few of which get reported beyond the local news. Most of these will be shot by a family member or friend.

This would be one of those rather liberal definitions of "friend."

Acquintance would be the proper word, but even that suggests a positive relationship, not that it's a member of a rival gang member who you know as Crackerjack.

As funny as kallend's usual distortions are, it's troubling that at least two of you go on to blame the victim for not "doing something" to protect herself. She did, and the police and our failed concept of waiting periods failed her. Were she a FRIEND of mine, I'd lend her a weapon for the wait, along with the important element of taking her to the range.

This is why you get a gun before you actually need one. 10 days or 30/2-3 months is too long if someone else threatens you.

Guns don't protect people, people protect people. Guns are just inanimate objects.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[cvfd1399 0]

You think more peole are killed in the streets now than back in the cowboy days???!

[RMK 3]

cvfd1399

You think more peole are killed in the streets now than back in the cowboy days???!

Are you drunk when posting, or is this this your usual manner of reason?

"Pain is the best instructor, but no one wants to attend his classes"

[cvfd1399 0]

i said that in reply to this

Quote

the 2nd Amendment has led to an acceptance of violence as a way to solve problems in the USA

It hasn't led to acceptance of violence as a way to solve problems, it's been the way since the days of cowboys how to solve problems. How many times has an argument been solved in a sundown duel, or a derringer used to solve a poker game cheating incident?

It's wasnt a defense of that notion to be ok, just commenting that it diddnt evolve into it recently, that shit has been around.

But thanks for asking if I was drunk, sadly no.

[RMK 3]

This concept of “violence is in our makeup” is incorrect and misguided. You refer to gunfights and duels; this came from and originated in Europe as did much of the background/makeup of the US. Whether persons wish to acknowledge or refute, the starting point of societal mores of the US/Europe are quite similar.

We have developed differently in some aspects over the prior years. At points in our development as societies, we too thought it best that the populace all be “packing” guns for their safety. However, many of us (Europeans) live in cities with over 2000 years of development; whereas you’re sitting on just 250 years plus there.

Teenagers will often present/believe their opinions to adults/parents as absolute truths, but the adults/parents disagree (and coincidentally held the same beliefs of said teenagers when they were younger, but have now matured and realise better).

To be honest Europeans often view the US as the adolescents of the world stage. To our detriment, yes we have “seen it before”, but before you comment on EU politics, I’ll be the first to note we are like an old family arguing who never seems to resolve our problems either.

"Pain is the best instructor, but no one wants to attend his classes"

[skypuppy 1]

tkhayes

no I have no stats, but I expect that it has happened. Just like it has happened that people have asked for restraining orders and that has not helped or that people have been waiting for gun permits and that has not helped and that people had moved and that has not helped.

And the headline as posted is still sensational bullshit. looks like it came from Fox News....would lead the reader to believe that she was standing in line to get the gun permit when she was killed.

What was she REALLY doing when she was killed?....a more accurate headline might be 'stabbed to death while making sandwich' but that would not feed the hype for gun lobby....

Dallas cops got shot up by people last night. Lots of cops armed to the teeth with guns. the fact that all those cops had guns did absolutely nothing to stop or deter the attack apparently.

I expect that many domestic situations have lots of violence, lots of weapons on both sides and unless you are properly trained in the art of self defense, had the gun at the ready, and knew exactly when to utilize it, having a gun probably makes little difference in the outcome of the situation.

my understanding is that all those cops armed to the teeth ended the threat without any 'good guys' getting hurt, so while it didn't prevent the attack, like I said, it 'ended it' successfully...

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[winsor 185]

One comment made some decades ago, by someone who was both a pilot and skydiver, was that parachutes for pilots are largely an illusion.

"By the time you start thinking like a skydiver rather than a pilot, look at the altimeter. You may as well stick with the plane."

Similarly, the use of firearms for self defense is hardly a panacea. In this case the perp knew the victim well enough to get close before she could do anything about it, and having a thunderstick of some type was unlikely to change the outcome. Assuming she was even able to clear leather before getting stabbed repeatedly, the best she could have likely achieved is to get a round into her assailant before dying.

Given that she was a Subject of the People's Republic of New Jersey, there is a fair chance that what she knew for certain about firearms came from Hollywood (hey, they get paid a lot of money - they MUST know what they're talking about...).

From a practical standpoint, she would have been in better shape if she invested in A) a good set of running shoes and B) some serious close-range martial arts training (though coming up to speed with techniques for dealing with edged weapons is not in the beginners course). Getting out of stabbing range would have been a hell of a good start, and a shovel kick to the knee may have distracted him if he was too close already.

If she had, in fact, been able to halt the attack with lethal force, her New Jersey legal problems would have just begun. The powers that be may have concluded that it was a righteous shoot, but that is not particularly likely. Odds are that, even if she was severely wounded in the attack, she would have felony charges filed against her as a matter of course.

The right to bear is, in a sense, a side issue here. Surviving the attentions of a homicidal maniac all too often requires much more than a neophyte having a firearm available.

If she had been at home and the assailant stormed the place, an 18" 870 with OO Buck and a million candlepower of illumination would probably have worked in a real messy kind of way, but I gather she was waylaid without much time to react.

Any way you cut it, this situation sucks coming and going.


BSBD,

Winsor

[kallend 1,618]

winsor

One comment made some decades ago, by someone who was both a pilot and skydiver, was that parachutes for pilots are largely an illusion.

"By the time you start thinking like a skydiver rather than a pilot, look at the altimeter. You may as well stick with the plane."

Similarly, the use of firearms for self defense is hardly a panacea. In this case the perp knew the victim well enough to get close before she could do anything about it, and having a thunderstick of some type was unlikely to change the outcome. Assuming she was even able to clear leather before getting stabbed repeatedly, the best she could have likely achieved is to get a round into her assailant before dying.

Given that she was a Subject of the People's Republic of New Jersey, there is a fair chance that what she knew for certain about firearms came from Hollywood (hey, they get paid a lot of money - they MUST know what they're talking about...).

From a practical standpoint, she would have been in better shape if she invested in A) a good set of running shoes and B) some serious close-range martial arts training (though coming up to speed with techniques for dealing with edged weapons is not in the beginners course). Getting out of stabbing range would have been a hell of a good start, and a shovel kick to the knee may have distracted him if he was too close already.

If she had, in fact, been able to halt the attack with lethal force, her New Jersey legal problems would have just begun. The powers that be may have concluded that it was a righteous shoot, but that is not particularly likely. Odds are that, even if she was severely wounded in the attack, she would have felony charges filed against her as a matter of course.

The right to bear is, in a sense, a side issue here. Surviving the attentions of a homicidal maniac all too often requires much more than a neophyte having a firearm available.

If she had been at home and the assailant stormed the place, an 18" 870 with OO Buck and a million candlepower of illumination would probably have worked in a real messy kind of way, but I gather she was waylaid without much time to react.

Any way you cut it, this situation sucks coming and going.


BSBD,

Winsor

But what if the assailant were armed with a banana or a bunch of loganberries? What then?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[headoverheels 291]

cvfd1399

You think more peole are killed in the streets now than back in the cowboy days???!

About 20 times as many in 2014 as the total of all years together for "cowboy days."

[cvfd1399 0]

Per capita? I wonder.

[jgoose71 0]

winsor

One comment made some decades ago, by someone who was both a pilot and skydiver, was that parachutes for pilots are largely an illusion.

"By the time you start thinking like a skydiver rather than a pilot, look at the altimeter. You may as well stick with the plane."

Similarly, the use of firearms for self defense is hardly a panacea. In this case the perp knew the victim well enough to get close before she could do anything about it, and having a thunderstick of some type was unlikely to change the outcome. Assuming she was even able to clear leather before getting stabbed repeatedly, the best she could have likely achieved is to get a round into her assailant before dying.

Given that she was a Subject of the People's Republic of New Jersey, there is a fair chance that what she knew for certain about firearms came from Hollywood (hey, they get paid a lot of money - they MUST know what they're talking about...).

From a practical standpoint, she would have been in better shape if she invested in A) a good set of running shoes and B) some serious close-range martial arts training (though coming up to speed with techniques for dealing with edged weapons is not in the beginners course). Getting out of stabbing range would have been a hell of a good start, and a shovel kick to the knee may have distracted him if he was too close already.

If she had, in fact, been able to halt the attack with lethal force, her New Jersey legal problems would have just begun. The powers that be may have concluded that it was a righteous shoot, but that is not particularly likely. Odds are that, even if she was severely wounded in the attack, she would have felony charges filed against her as a matter of course.

The right to bear is, in a sense, a side issue here. Surviving the attentions of a homicidal maniac all too often requires much more than a neophyte having a firearm available.

If she had been at home and the assailant stormed the place, an 18" 870 with OO Buck and a million candlepower of illumination would probably have worked in a real messy kind of way, but I gather she was waylaid without much time to react.

Any way you cut it, this situation sucks coming and going.


BSBD,

Winsor

Hey Winsor,

When you dig into it, there probably wasn't much that she could have done. Her assailant out weighed her by over 100 lbs. which put her in a difficult spot.

You bring up a lot of valid points, which when you add them all together points out that by putting such stringent restrictions on her right to bear arms, what really happened was that it restricted her right to self defense.

Which is what liberals are really attacking, control over your own life.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[cruelpops 0]

It's fucking New Jersey - who cares? They're right up there with Kalifornia, Illinois and New York. They deserve whatever crime they get.

[kallend 1,618]

cruelpops

It's fucking New Jersey - who cares? They're right up there with Kalifornia, Illinois and New York. They deserve whatever crime they get.

Interestingly, none of the states you mention are in the top ten for violent crime rate in the USA. Maybe they're doing something right. (Source, FBI UCR)

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[headoverheels 291]

cvfd1399

Per capita? I wonder.

Then only about 3x. But that isn't 3x rate, that is 3x in one year (e.g.2014) as the total cowboy number over 50 years. So after accounting for population growth, still 150x the annual rate.

[kelpdiver 2]

winsor

Similarly, the use of firearms for self defense is hardly a panacea. In this case the perp knew the victim well enough to get close before she could do anything about it, and having a thunderstick of some type was unlikely to change the outcome. Assuming she was even able to clear leather before getting stabbed repeatedly, the best she could have likely achieved is to get a round into her assailant before dying.

That's rather presumptious. That's the best outcome you could see? If my last action was to wound my killer, I'd prefer that to him walking away. You can't just walk into a hospital to receive care for a gunshot wound without questions being raised, law enforcement being involved.

If he thought that it might end with him taking a round, do you think he'd be as likely to attack her? Unless you want to assert that he was suicidal, the answer is no. And having a restraining order against him, the mere sight of him is grounds for pulling out her gun and signalling intent to defend herself. Now that doesn't mean he couldn't consider trying to surprise her, but if she's armed, he doesn't have minutes of time to attack her/ break into the house/ whatever, knowing that she has no means of defense.

Quote

Given that she was a Subject of the People's Republic of New Jersey, there is a fair chance that what she knew for certain about firearms came from Hollywood (hey, they get paid a lot of money - they MUST know what they're talking about...).

If she had the gun, she could be practicing with it. Please don't repeat this falsehood that non LEOs are incapable of learning basic markmanship. I've taught Canadians that in a single afternoon. The people you see at the range practice more than the typical LEO.

Quote

From a practical standpoint, she would have been in better shape if she invested in A) a good set of running shoes and B) some serious close-range martial arts training (though coming up to speed with techniques for dealing with edged weapons is not in the beginners course). Getting out of stabbing range would have been a hell of a good start, and a shovel kick to the knee may have distracted him if he was too close already.

and now we're back to blaming the victim for not engaging in Hollywood like thinking about how martial arts will make up for a greater than 2X weight differential and a knife. Bullshit. Those self defense moves can be effective on a random mugger/assailtant who wants an easy score. A murderous ex is not so easily deterred. Guns are a far superior equalizer for smaller women. And running shoes are no more effective than a holstered gun - if the attacker is already close, he can sprint to close the gap before you can run away.

Quote

If she had, in fact, been able to halt the attack with lethal force, her New Jersey legal problems would have just begun. The powers that be may have concluded that it was a righteous shoot, but that is not particularly likely. Odds are that, even if she was severely wounded in the attack, she would have felony charges filed against her as a matter of course.

I guess it's better for her that she got killed.

Come on. We know what actually happened. She was killed. No circumstance with her being allowed her 2nd amendment rights would have worsened the outcome. Many many reasons to think the opposite.

The law on approvals within 30 days is equally clear, and was not met. (Though that's still 30 days too long for someone with a restraining order)

[winsor 185]

kelpdiver

***
Similarly, the use of firearms for self defense is hardly a panacea. In this case the perp knew the victim well enough to get close before she could do anything about it, and having a thunderstick of some type was unlikely to change the outcome. Assuming she was even able to clear leather before getting stabbed repeatedly, the best she could have likely achieved is to get a round into her assailant before dying.

That's rather presumptuous. That's the best outcome you could see? If my last action was to wound my killer, I'd prefer that to him walking away. You can't just walk into a hospital to receive care for a gunshot wound without questions being raised, law enforcement being involved.

Neither presumptuous nor the best outcome I could see. Since the goal is to emerge unscathed from any potential encounter, the best approach is to avoid said encounter. Having to resort to the use of firearms is an indication that the situation is in doubt.

Quote

If he thought that it might end with him taking a round, do you think he'd be as likely to attack her? Unless you want to assert that he was suicidal, the answer is no. And having a restraining order against him, the mere sight of him is grounds for pulling out her gun and signalling intent to defend herself. Now that doesn't mean he couldn't consider trying to surprise her, but if she's armed, he doesn't have minutes of time to attack her/ break into the house/ whatever, knowing that she has no means of defense.

***
Given that she was a Subject of the People's Republic of New Jersey, there is a fair chance that what she knew for certain about firearms came from Hollywood (hey, they get paid a lot of money - they MUST know what they're talking about...).

If she had the gun, she could be practicing with it. Please don't repeat this falsehood that non LEOs are incapable of learning basic markmanship. I've taught Canadians that in a single afternoon. The people you see at the range practice more than the typical LEO.

Having taught rather a few LEOs how to use firearms, both from a marksmanship and a tactical standpoint, I agree with the notion that the skillset of all too many LEOs is on a par with Barney Fife.

However, to use a tool of self defense (particularly one where earplugs are useful) requires one hell of a lot more than knowing how to keep groups in the black at 50'. One would be advised to put in an awful lot of training if the firearm is to become more of an asset than a liability.

Quote

***
From a practical standpoint, she would have been in better shape if she invested in A) a good set of running shoes and B) some serious close-range martial arts training (though coming up to speed with techniques for dealing with edged weapons is not in the beginners course). Getting out of stabbing range would have been a hell of a good start, and a shovel kick to the knee may have distracted him if he was too close already.

and now we're back to blaming the victim for not engaging in Hollywood like thinking about how martial arts will make up for a greater than 2X weight differential and a knife. Bullshit. Those self defense moves can be effective on a random mugger/assailtant who wants an easy score. A murderous ex is not so easily deterred. Guns are a far superior equalizer for smaller women. And running shoes are no more effective than a holstered gun - if the attacker is already close, he can sprint to close the gap before you can run away.

Quote

If she had, in fact, been able to halt the attack with lethal force, her New Jersey legal problems would have just begun. The powers that be may have concluded that it was a righteous shoot, but that is not particularly likely. Odds are that, even if she was severely wounded in the attack, she would have felony charges filed against her as a matter of course.

I guess it's better for her that she got killed.

Come on. We know what actually happened. She was killed. No circumstance with her being allowed her 2nd amendment rights would have worsened the outcome. Many many reasons to think the opposite.

The law on approvals within 30 days is equally clear, and was not met. (Though that's still 30 days too long for someone with a restraining order)

Please go over what I actually wrote and lay off the straw man arguments.

1) New Jersey is without redeeming value regarding the rights of its subjects, so I am not even addressing those issues. In that venue, the Constitution is viewed as a set of nice suggestions, kind of like the way a drug-addled pervert Televangelist sees the Top Ten Commandments.

2) The most effective way to survive a confrontation involving lethal force is to avoid it in the first place, regardless of what artillery you possess and how well you can use it.

3) Even pros who have to use firearms in self-defense are not always successful in emerging unscathed. Nobody bats 1000.

4) Complete familiarity with a firearm is only part of the skillset necessary to survive a potentially lethal encounter.

5) I am all for her having shot the sonofabitch before he could get to stabbing, and would applaud her having done so. I would also likely contribute to her legal defense fund, since its requirements would have been breathtaking. In New Jersey it is orders of magnitude more expensive to do the right thing than it is to do otherwise.

6) The best thing she could have done is to get the fuck out of New Jersey. If she had done so, the proscription against interfering with a murderous assailant would be moot and she would likely be alive.


BSBD,

Winsor

[Andy9o8 0]

I notice that at least 2 of those in here pointedly refusing to jump on the waiting time bandwagon, and who emphasize practical alternatives, have advanced tactical military training and experience (one of whom is currently active duty). I realize there are some vets on the other side, but it's certainly still worth considering.

[jgoose71 0]

Andy9o8

....and who emphasize practical alternatives....

The man out weighed her by 100lbs, was a little bit crazy, and had a knife. What would you consider a "practical alternative?"

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[SkyDekker 1,119]

jgoose71

***....and who emphasize practical alternatives....

The man out weighed her by 100lbs, was a little bit crazy, and had a knife. What would you consider a "practical alternative?"


I don't get it. The argument against any type of gun control is generally that somebody intent on killing is going to find a way to do it, gun or no gun.

In this case, this guy was obviously intent on killing her. Now the argument is that she would be alive if she had a gun? But, if he is intent on killing her, wouldn't he just walk up behind her, grab her and stab her? She would never even have a chance to use a gun.

If people who are intent on killing are going to find a way to do it regardless, then her having a gun would make no difference whatsoever.

[kelpdiver 2]

SkyDekker

In this case, this guy was obviously intent on killing her. Now the argument is that she would be alive if she had a gun? But, if he is intent on killing her, wouldn't he just walk up behind her, grab her and stab her? She would never even have a chance to use a gun.

no, the argument is that she COULD be alive if she had a gun. But without it, she didn't stand a chance.

And Windsor, perhaps you could help explain to women how they can prevent a lethal confrontation with ex boyfriends and husbands that don't respect restraining orders. Continue to date the loser? Never date in the first place? Live as a shut-in?

[turtlespeed 212]

SkyDekker

******....and who emphasize practical alternatives....

The man out weighed her by 100lbs, was a little bit crazy, and had a knife. What would you consider a "practical alternative?"


I don't get it. The argument against any type of gun control is generally that somebody intent on killing is going to find a way to do it, gun or no gun.

In this case, this guy was obviously intent on killing her. Now the argument is that she would be alive if she had a gun? But, if he is intent on killing her, wouldn't he just walk up behind her, grab her and stab her? She would never even have a chance to use a gun.

If people who are intent on killing are going to find a way to do it regardless, then her having a gun would make no difference whatsoever.

She would have had a much better chance to live through it.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun