An open letter to Bob Costas and Jason Whitlock

Posted: December 3, 2012 by alexthechick in Liberal FAIL, Op/Sped, You'll pry 'em from my cold dead hands

Gentlemen: I see that you have chosen to use the horrific crime of the murder of Kasandra Perkins to express your belief that guns are the problem, not the men who wield them. I am utterly certain that you believe that you have the moral high ground on this matter. I am equally certain that such a belief is appallingly wrong, not to mention terribly misogynistic. Why do I say this? Because had your desires on gun control been in place, I would not be alive to be writing this now.

I have an Ex. I have an Ex who, in the process of becoming my Ex, made credible threats to kill me. Why did I believe these threats were credible? Because among the primary reasons why I left him were that he had anger control issues, that he was a problem drinker well on his way to full blown alcoholism and that the things he was throwing at me were getting ever closer to my head. I decided to leave before finally snapped and actually hit me. He was displeased by this and made such displeasure known.

Do you know what kept me safe? Not some piece of paper. Not a judge tut tutting at him and shaking his/her finger and telling him to leave me alone. Not the police, who, after all, would only be able to respond once he had caused me harm. No, what kept me safe was my Glock. What kept me safe was my Glock and the fact that he knew I had both the ability and the will to empty a clip into his chest if he made good on his statements that if I did not come back, I would not see the next week. He never tried to do any of the things he screamed he would because he knew that not only would I defend myself but that I could. My Ex was nearly a foot taller than me and, at the time, had about 150 pounds on me. If he had been able to get close enough to me to harm me, there were very few options I had to protect myself. But with my Glock, well, I would be able to stop him before he got that close. I am alive today because he knew that if he tried to make that otherwise, there was a better than even chance he would be the one lying there in a pool of blood instead of me.

You want to take that from me. You want me to be unable to defend myself. You want to leave me vulnerable to those out there who look at a five foot tall fat girl and think “victim”. You want me to be unable to protect myself when there is no one else around to do so. You want to make me dependent on others to provide for my basic safety and security.

Let us not beat around the bush, you want to sacrifice my life on the altar of your political beliefs. How dare you? Honestly, who do the two of you think you are to demand that my blood be shed so that you may preen about what wonderful people you are? Why, precisely, are you removing the responsibility for Kasandra Perkins’ murder from Jovan Belcher and placing it on an inanimate object? That is what you are doing, after all. Your position is that absent the gun, Jovan Belcher would not have murdered Kasandra Perkins. What utter rot. It’s not as if, to pick something at random, he could have picked up a knife and slit her throat so violently that she was nearly decapitated. Oh no, that would never ever happen. By focusing on the gun, you are choosing to make Jovan Belcher a mere bystander to his own actions. That is horrific. Jovan Belcher murdered Kasandra Perkins. He chose to pull that trigger. He chose to take her life. How dare you attempt to absolve him in even the slightest manner for that crime. He killed her. Not a gun. He did it. No one else.

I will not let you two demand that my blood be shed so that you can sit there and declaim your supposed superior morality to the world. No. You would rather I be dead. That is the logical conclusion of your positions. I will not die for you. No other woman should either.

Alive despite you,


  1. Excellent response, Ms. The Chick.

    • Absolutely, BRILLIANTLY written! THIS needs to go ‘viral’. Well said..

    • Steve says:

      arent you alive ‘despite your own actions”..meaning you chose to marry this drunk abusive loser. why do so many women have so little self respect to think that they might deserve better in life? here’s a thought..don’t marry, have kids, or have relations with men who make you fear for your life. Then you probably would not need a gun to end a relationship.

      Secondly, I do not think that costas or whitlock absolved anyone of their crimes or blamed the gun. The said that guns allow one to quickly escalate arguments into deadly confrontations for too easily.You can see this on any nightly news show from anywhere in America, people using guns to settle arguments instead or reason. why think of other ways to solve a problem, when one can just pull a trigger and eliminate the other side? The gun didn;t kill them, the easy access to the gun and the finality to the solutions that guns provide, creates easy and horrific solutions for people not thinking correctly.

      • Squid says:

        Okay. Let’s add Steve to the list of people who prefer their women defenseless, powerless, and dead.

        • Steve says:

          so you all for abusing women, as long as they are armed? nice….

          • No asshole. We are all for giving women the ability to say “knock it off” and enforce it.

            • Steve says:

              like I said..if you need the credible threat of pulling a loaded weapon on your spouse to keep them in line…you made a real poor choice in your life.

              • Larry says:

                And now Steve is absolving the one making violent, aggressive and illegal choices because the other party made a poor choice at some prior point. Nice guy, this Steve.

                • Dan Catron says:

                  ….and “Steve” convienently fails to acknowlage that the “Dirtbag” is an EX…..(she already admited she made a bad choice in judgment Steve….she won’t make another!)

              • John Hardin says:

                Not all monsters are obviously monsters when you first meet them, and people do change over time, unfortunately sometimes for the worse.

                Blaming the victim is generally considered reprehensible behavior.

              • Zapata says:

                Who gives a shit whether she made a poor life choice or not, asshole? That has nothing to do with her right to defend herself. Lord, you people are obtuse.

              • Just a standup guy says:

                Hey asshole,

                How about those who are not your spouse, nor your boyfriend, nor anybody you chose to meet but total strangers who simply feel entitled to force themselves onto a girl simply by virtue of their size and strength?

                Or to make the argument even broader, how about those who simply feel entitled to steal, rob, beat up or kill anybody they perceive weaker than themselves? Belcher was a football player, after all – he could’ve simply snapped her neck or beat her into a bloody pulp, he didn’t really need a gun. Hell, an average professional football player could easily do the same even to guys much tougher then yourself.

                People like that are precisely why I bought guns to both my wife and my daughter and trained them how to use them well and without hesitation.

                You seem to be terribly upset with the prospect. I wonder why is that? Afraid that you couldn’t get laid if the lady could say no and back it up, are we Stevie?

                • Arturo Mora says:

                  Congratulations! You finally drove the point home in a very simple and direct manner. Gun control advocates seem to be mentally incapable of placing themselves in harms way and thinking about how they would survive without a gun if they where in peril. I commend you for arming and teaching your loved ones to protect themselves.

              • And if it is a stranger, as was the case with me when I was home alone and someone broke into my house? Who only ran when they saw the barrel of my Ruger? Is that okay with you? I do so hope I’ve got your permission to defend myself again in future, Steve.

              • John Doe says:

                So let all those who made “real poor choices” die defenseless? Your “logic” is as small as your limp …

                • Just another day in paradise says:

                  The thing that I find the most interesting is that the common comment is “if he wanted to kill her he would find a way without a gun as well”. This is completely accurate, but what about the other way around? If he wanted to kill her he would have found a way despite her owning a gun. Many of you have pointed out the plenty of different options he would have had.

                  Honestly, we don’t know enough about this woman to know if she would have had the ability to pull the trigger on someone that she cared for and was the father of her baby even if she had a gun.

                  Let’s stop using a tragic loss of a mother to call each other names and speak of facts and studies that only support our side of the conversation. We should be respecting the dead and hoping that the little girl and other family members aren’t permanently scarred from the tragic event.

                  • mightysamurai says:

                    “If he wanted to kill her he would have found a way despite her owning a gun.”

                    Oh really? So he could, what, make bullets bounce off his chest?

                    • blz says:

                      He can hit her from behind, with a little element of surprise and good crowbar. It is completely unnessesary to announce your presence and intentions to victim unless your real goal is to scare her.

              • Heather says:

                Hmmmm…My ex…Steve…(coincindence?)…was the little girl who had a little curl right in the middle of his forehead, when he was good he was very very good, and when he was bad he was horrid…it’s called bi-polar…did not know this before I married him, he failed to mention this to me! So…taking marriage vows seriously…I stood by the man I fell in love with and tried to love him thru and encouraged counseling and medication, not to split up the family…but after a broken nose and knee, choked to passing out and a myriad of bruises and cuts and scratches…and his refusal for counseling and medication…I gave up and left. So…asshole…who made the poor choice?????

                • Heather says:

                  i have to add this…anyone consider that Costas made his remarks because he and all the sports world would like to deflect the truth and not consider the real reason he killed her and himself…roid rage???? Plus, to add to the story above…we did have guns in the house and noone ever attempted to go for them even during the most frightening times!

              • lightning says:

                So, she deserves to die because she made the poor choice to befriend someone who was not who they presented themselves to be upon their inital encounters. Yeah, makes perfect sense.

              • BigFurHat says:

                people change over the course of their lifetime. But, you knew that, right?
                Please tell me you knew that. I would hate to think you’ve been a schmuck your entire life, and I choose to believe you can unschmuck yourself.

              • Clete Torres says:

                Most of us would agree that our own poor choice was first reading, then answering your imbicilic post.

              • Eric says:

                So once you pick your spouse you have to roll with the punches, so to speak? No matter what he does later, it’s all her fault for not being Carnac the Magnificent and divining the kind of person he would turn out to be a decade into the future?

                People have a right to basic self defense. Even women.

              • Nutstuyu says:

                Right, she did make a poor choice and was trying to correct it by leaving her Ex. It was the Ex who wouldn’t let it go. Are you saying that women don’t deserve a chance to right their wrong choices?

              • JacLynn says:

                In this letter the person she needed to defend herself from was an ex, a poor choice as she admits, but it isn’t always somebody that the victim knows that they have to defend themselves from. Sometimes it’s a complete stranger. The outcome is the same either way. Don’t blame the would-be victim.

        • Larry says:

          Steve, you got mental probelms. Women hater. Probably can’t get laid.

        • I think a more level-headed pinko liberal commie response than Steve’s is required here: Hi, I’m a level-headed pinko commie liberal. There are viable alternatives to using a deadly weapon to dissuade violence. Tasers (Not the stun-gun variety) have been used successfully by police to reduce officer injures by 76%. The extended cartridge can reach 35 feet, and officers in Washington successfully used a Taser to bring down a small bear(Granted, the bear got up and ran a way the moment the trigger on the Taser was lifted).

          In situations like those mentioned in this blog, a Taser should have been sufficient to subdue “the Ex” long enough for law enforcement to arrive. Newer Taser models have the ability to shoot 3 independent hooks & lines, making it possible to fire the Taser 3 times, even if “the Ex” was capable of twisting the hooks out of his skin. Civilian models allow for continuous electrical flow without the need to release and re-pull the trigger. The sensation is quite unpleasant, and as several law enforcement officers will probably tell you, it’s excellent at subduing a belligerent or violent suspect.

          All that said, I don’t want to take away your right to carry a Glock. It’s quite effective at inducing obedience, I should know: I was robbed with one once. What we pinko liberal commie’s would like is to see some reasonable controls on parts of the weapons used in mass murders, such as the Batman movie shooting, or Columbine.

          We cannot ban guns. It’s not a good idea to pick and choose with the Bill of Rights. What we can do is ban 300-round drums from being available for psychopaths to mail order from the comfort of their Mom’s basement to then later use to wound 7-year olds in a public place. We also can not ban full-automatic weapons, instead, we use expensive license mechanisms to allow only reputable gun ranges to own and operate them. This allows everyone to enjoy the beautiful craftsmanship of M61 Vulcan to fire 6,000 20 mm rounds a minute at a watermelon, and not a child or other innocent. I’m sure you know of at least one gun range owner who would be happy to use his collection to help restore the USA if the country was invaded by aliens, zombies, or other catastrophic event in which our democratically elected government crumbled.

          If a valid photo-id is required for voting in the election, is there any reasonable argument for not requiring this for gun purchases? Just shoring up this one loop hole with instant background checks with a photo-id at gun shows could mean that we wouldn’t have to do to assault weapons that which we did to fully automatic weapons. I don’t see why a responsible, sane, American citizen shouldn’t be able to own an semi-automatic weapon as a collector if both the proper identification checks & the ban on extended clips and ammo drums was enforced outside of properly licensed gun ranges.

          Also, just so you know it’s not just this one pinko liberal who’s willing to compromise with you, here’s Bob Costas pretty much saying the same thing on the Dan Patrick Show:

          “Here’s where I stand: I do not want to see the Second Amendment repealed. … People should be allowed to own guns for their own protection. Obviously, those who are hunters. … Access to guns is too easy in some cases. I don’t see any reason a citizen should be able to arm himself in some states in ways only police or military should — to have a virtual militia [by] mail order or gun shows. Why do you need a semi-automatic weapon? What possible use is there? … Whitlock wrote about a gun culture. That’s what I was focusing on.”

          And so that it be stated here: At no such time should the banning of flint-lock muskets, or any part of the flint-lock musket powder, ammunition, or other assorted parts be banned or limited with expensive license fees. Our founding fathers strictly forbade it. The difference with those arms is that they require a group of citizens to bind together in democratic agreement to effectively wage war, since a single shot is worthless unless you have a militia to fire cover while you reload your musket.

          Steve, please, in the future, refrain from attacking a Right-Wing woman with talk of “why do so many women have so little self-respect…” That’s a generalized statement about women that as a whole, isn’t true for 100% of womankind. I know in my heart you don’t mean to sound misogynistic, and I’m sure you’re just trying to argue the point I have made here… but you’re coming off a little sexist and it leaves you open to cheap shots like: “Okay. Let’s add Steve to the list of people who prefer their women defenseless, powerless, and dead.” Ironically enough from people who probably believe that there is no inequality for women in America. Attack the ignorance, not the ladies. 😉

          • doubleplusundead says:

            Let me educate you. Tasers and CS spray were not common AT ALL in the civilian market until the late 90s, you’re assuming that the time frame this all happened was in a time when Tasers were readily available and affordable in the civilian market. Tasers are not 100% reliable at stopping determined attackers, and those cops you’re referencing have a sidearm at the ready if/when needed, and usually several other officers backing them up.

            What we can do is ban 300-round drums from being available for psychopaths to mail order from the comfort of their Mom’s basement to then later use to wound 7-year olds in a public place.

            When did they come out with 300 round drums, how much and do they work? First, most of those drums work like shit, the very shooting you reference, at the theater during the Batman premiere, the shooter’s drum jammed up his AR, as they are known for doing (the military tested out those very drums and found them utterly unreliable in the field), he dumped his AR and switched to his pistols after just a few rounds, as I understand it most of the damage and death in that theater was done with a his shotgun. At Columbine, most of the people Klebold and Harris killed they killed again with a shotgun, that TEC-9 they had is known by people who actually own and shoot guns for being an utterly unreliable jamming piece of shit. You have NO logical argument here, the most damage done in both of these incidents was with a basic 12 gauge shotgun, not the ZOMG ASSAULT WEPINZ WIT DA GIANT CLIPZ!!!1!1


            If a valid photo-id is required for voting in the election, is there any reasonable argument for not requiring this for gun purchases? Just shoring up this one loop hole with instant background checks with a photo-id at gun shows could mean that we wouldn’t have to do to assault weapons that which we did to fully automatic weapons. I don’t see why a responsible, sane, American citizen shouldn’t be able to own an semi-automatic weapon as a collector if both the proper identification checks & the ban on extended clips and ammo drums was enforced outside of properly licensed gun ranges.

            This gun-show loophole thing is such utter bullshit. If you’re buying from a licensed gun dealer, you’re still subjected to a background check, and you’re still filling out a 4473, YES, THIS IS STILL TRUE AT A GUN SHOW. You CAN buy from other private citizens without a background check, depending on state law, but you can do this anytime, anywhere, all the gun shows are is a convenient meeting place to make a private sale, and given how badly the left wants to end the sale of untracked gun sales, that tells me it’s worth keeping around when you guys get froggy and try and start confiscating. In PA, all handgun transactions must be done through an FFL, and are subject to a background check, that is state law.

            Access to guns is too easy in some cases. I don’t see any reason a citizen should be able to arm himself in some states in ways only police or military should — to have a virtual militia [by] mail order or gun shows. Why do you need a semi-automatic weapon? What possible use is there? … Whitlock wrote about a gun culture. That’s what I was focusing on.”

            It’s not about a need at this point (in the future, however?), it’s about a right. Semi auto is not nearly as insanely sooper deadly ZOMG as you clowns think it is, nor is reloading a non-semi firearm as slow and cumbersome as you think either. I only use revolvers, we don’t usually load the cartridges in one at a time anymore, we’ve had these things called speedloaders for a long time, it’s just that it doesn’t lend itself to dramatic Hollywood “can they get it reloaded quick enough” scenes, so gun ignorant people like you don’t realize they exist. And I can promise you I can reload nearly as fast as someone with a Glock, it isn’t that hard, I use Massad Ayoob’s reload method when loading from the right (, and a slightly modified method of Michael de Bethencourt’s reload from the left ( If I had a piece that used moon clips I’d run it like Miculek. See? Not that hard. And if you want to see how a pump shotgun and lever action can be run quickly, watch some cowboy action shooting.

            And so that it be stated here: At no such time should the banning of flint-lock muskets, or any part of the flint-lock musket powder, ammunition, or other assorted parts be banned or limited with expensive license fees. Our founding fathers strictly forbade it. The difference with those arms is that they require a group of citizens to bind together in democratic agreement to effectively wage war, since a single shot is worthless unless you have a militia to fire cover while you reload your musket.

            This is utterly fucking retarded. Should we ban or tightly regulate the internet because the Founding Fathers didn’t know that the intarwebs was going to exist? Should we ban Twitter? Put heavy restrictions and licensing on WordPress? I expect to see your response by quill and on parchment, delivered by a courier on horseback posthaste!

            As for why we won’t budge when leftists propose “common sense” gun control? 1) It doesn’t fucking work, and 2) you don’t argue or play in good faith, leading gun control advocates have outright stated they don’t bargain in good faith , and 3) we’re winning, so fuck you.

            Steve, please, in the future, refrain from attacking a Right-Wing woman with talk of “why do so many women have so little self-respect…” That’s a generalized statement about women that as a whole, isn’t true for 100% of womankind.

            And you can get intimate with a rusty chainsaw for this backhanded little line.

          • You asked: “If a valid photo-id is required for voting in the election, is there any reasonable argument for not requiring this for gun purchases? ”

            Seriously? You have that very much backwards. A valid photo ID is NOT required for voting in elections and it IS required for gun purchases.

            As far as gun shows go… One of the safest places I could ever be is right in the middle of a gun show….imagine that.

      • Gigg says:

        what a terrible human being to write something so vile. Shame on you Steve

        • Steve says:

          what was vile? you guys seem to think abusive relationships are normal…they are not.

          • DavidM says:

            Umm a bad relationship has NOTHING to do with someone wishing to do you harm. So if the guy was just stalking her it would be ok then? Maybe she shouldn’t get in a stalkers line of vision , then? Do tell me genius.

            You have a preconceived notion that guns are wrong and will rationalize to your dying breath to defend it. Facts be damned.

            • Steve says:

              the original post was about a bad relationship..don’t change the subject to suit your limited reasoning skills.

              • Eddie says:

                Typical of the people of the left, result to insults….. nice. Here is something to ponder, moron (I can throw them around as well). Do you honestly think that people do not hide these violent tendencies in the courting process. My ex-wife did. Now a few trips to the emergency room because of being stabbed later (I guess in your reasoning we need to ban cutlery) I found out and left. I am so happy nobody has lied to you and not shown their true colors until it is too late, but in the mean time SHUT THE HELL UP ABOUT SOMETHING YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT!!!!

                • Steve says:

                  see you just said “a few trips to the ER after being stabbed” how many times does it take for you to get stabbed before you get a clue that she has violent tendencies?

                  you just illustrated my point exactly, thanks!

                  • DBC says:

                    Steve… that just cracked me up. touche.

                    Eddie, i’d have to agree, if my wife stabbed me once, I’m pretty sure i’d cut my losses.

                    And by the way — This entire article is so narrow in scope. So because ONE incidence where a gun might have (MIGHT is keyword, she also couldve gotten herself a big ass dog to protect her just as well) saved her life, this itself is justification to permit everyone to own them? How stupid. What about all the other cases and stories (a few costas and whitlock cited) where children (Treyvon, the kid at the gas station) were shot and killed BECAUSE of civilians carrying firearms to “protect” themselves. It simply gives people a false sense of invincibility. When I was in high school, I was 5’5″ but had HUGE friends, which gave me the false sense that I was invincible. They were my “glock” and because of it if someone so much as bumped me wrong, i was demanding an apology. I’m not saying everyone is as Napoleon-isque as I was, but it’s a natural tendency for many.

                    Sucks that this lady had to go through being scared but I’m sorry if the fact that she MIGHT have been harmed because she CHOSE to be in a relationship with a psychopath that she CLAIMS might have hurt her if she didn’t have a gun — if that doesn’t sway me to support more lax gun laws.

                    • Seon Lee says:

                      Typical case of projection on DBC’s part. Since you are/were “Napolean-isque” everyone else is also. Nice try.

                    • cargosquid says:

                      Trayvon was killed because he attacked Zimmerman and attempted to beat him to death.

                    • mightysamurai says:

                      “What about all the other cases and stories (a few costas and whitlock cited) where children (Treyvon, the kid at the gas station) were shot and killed BECAUSE of civilians carrying firearms to “protect” themselves.”

                      You mean the same Trayvon who attacked a man for no reason and tried to smash his skull against a concrete sidewalk? What about him?

                    • Pistol Pete says:

                      Ok Napolean, don’t support gun rights. Get out your pink bunny pajamas, put them on and wait for the wolves.

                • Steve says:

                  PS. eddie..he started it with his sarcastic “genius” comments…you only see what you want to see

              • Larry says:

                No, you’re wrong.

                Everybody has been in a ‘bad relationship’. The original post was about a violent and aggressive person making illegal and credible threats against another person. This is another thing entirely. And your judgment of the victim is this case is only slightly more faux-intellectual than “she deserved to get raped because she wore her skirt too high”.

                Look at it this way – this situation could evolve out of ANY type of relationship. Business relationship? That involves money. Friendship? Oh, no former friends have ever shot someone. She could have been involved in a traffic incident with this other violent person, and find herself in danger.

                This type of situation could happen a million different ways. But without knowing any details of the author, the courtship, the relationship, etc, you decide to pass judgment on the victim for a situation that you don’t know more than a few sentences about.

                You’re wrong in so many different ways…..really.

                • Steve says:

                  i don’t believe everybody has been in a bad/violent relationship. This seems to be common refrain from gun proponents..we are all just waiting for the “true colors” to be shown by the people in our lives. there appears to be fine line between paranoia and preparedness.

                  • Larry says:

                    You’ve moved the goalposts yet again. You claimed that “the original post was about a bad relationship”. I responded and wrote that “everyone has been in a bad relationship”, which is true.

                    Your response? “i don’t believe everybody has been in a bad/violent relationship.” Now you’ve equated a ‘bad’ relationship with a ‘violent’ relationship. You’re not only moving the goalposts but you’re trying to muddy the waters along the way.

                    Not everybody has been in a violent relationship. I haven’t. It’s very unfortunate when it happens, and many times it can’t be predicted. You, however, think a violent relationship is entirely predictable and can be avoided with a modicum of common sense. Many, many good people throughout history would beg to differ with you.

                    But everybody HAS been in a bad relationship. Care to debate? I didn’t define ‘relationship’ to mean lovers or marriage. It could be a bad business relationship, or a friendship that went south. This happens to everyone, often, throughout their life.

                    And there’s the rub – any relationship can go bad, it happens to everyone, and it’s not life-threatening. The situation described in the original post was a situation where one person turned violent and started making credible threats of bodily harm against another person. This is an ENTIRELY different situation than a typical ‘bad relationship’, and your attempt to blame the victim is reprehensible. Then you try to run away and skirt the issue with your lame attempt at equating a simply ‘bad’ relationship with one that turns violent with a criminal.

                    As I wrote – you’re wrong in so many different ways, and you don’t even know. Do you really need strangers to explain to you the difference between a bad relationship and a relationship with a violent, aggressive person making credible threats of bodily harm against you? As others have said, you’re so obtuse that it boggles the mind.

              • rick says:

                IN the original letter she said she left the guy ( a perfectly reasonable reaction to an abusive relationship). The letter then went on to say that wasn’t good enough and the gun ensured that whoever the ex was didn’t go after her.

                Your making an assumption that ex meant ex husband. It might have just meant ex-boyfriend or in today’s society ex girl friend.
                Either way she left at some point, and the gun was her safety blanket that according to the letter the threat and knowledge of her knowing how to use that blanket was good enough to keep this situation from escalating.

              • lightning says:

                A bad relationship is a guy who still lives with his mom, and promises that he is going to move out as soon as he gets a job. A relationship where one person threatens the health and physical safety of another goes beyond a “bad relationship”. You appear to be blessed with not having been fooled by a potential mate regarding their true character. Good for you. Unfortunately, many men and women have been fooled. That does not mean that they deserve to die for their poor judgement. Although, many will tell you that the person did not show this side of their character until much later. Had a college classmate who was almost killed due to this “bait and switch”. She was not stupid, but by they time he showed his true colors, it had escalated too far. BTW, she did not stay – once the abuse occurred she left. Unfortunately, he hunted her down and almost killed her. Unfortunately for her she was not armed at the time. She is only alive because he was an inept killer (yes, she almost died due to her injuries). May you never fall victim to your own politics.

          • berserkules says:

            What Steve doesn’t know about relationships is a lot

          • JQ Public, when a whipper passes, fuck yeah, I snap it. 'Sup. says:

            Yah, except no one here was actually defending the ‘normalcy’ of abusive relationships. You need to go back to ‘Strawman Construction 101’. Amoral and stupid is no way to go through life son, and ‘vile’ is an appropriate description for you. Obviously.

          • DVSURVIVOR says:

            Steve, you clearly do not know anything about domestic violence. You should spend some time volunteering at a DV shelter. Leaving is not as easy as you obviously think it is and telling a DV victim to ‘just leave’ is the absolute worst advice you could ever give them. Research the subject – you have much to learn!

      • Meanie says:

        It’s a shame you choose to be an idiot.

        Do you believe Costas would have made the same comments if it were a knife or any other weapon besides a gun? NO! Not at all. He, along with many others, would have discussed the tragic event and the past of Jovan and Kassandra without mention of banning the weapon. Many others would have chimed how he was such a good boy. Good boys don’t kill a mother-to-be. What you also fail to realize is the fact many knives, which lie dormant on kitchen counters, drawers and cutlery blocks are also used when an argument quickly escalates into deadly confrontation.

        Yes, Costas and many other idiotic anti-gun tools BLAME the gun because they lack common logic. Yes, he did absolved the crime and placed blame on the gun. He did ignore the fact Jovan Belcher would have found another way to kill Kassandra without a gun. Sugar coat it as you must, but it doesn’t ignore the fact you’re just as ignorant as Costas and the likes.

        I hope you are extremely skilled in fighting and never encounter an attacker with a knife or other deadly weapon which could be stopped with a gun. You would quickly change your mind, that is, if you make it out alive.

        • Steve says:

          i truly think that football player may not have killed that woman or himself if he didn’t;t have a gun. killing someone with a knife takes a lot more commitment and gets your hands dirty..come on that football player didn;t need any weapon to kill his wife…but the gun makes it quick, impersonal, easy. one quick pull of trigger no thought, no hesitation.

          • Dirty Harry says:

            How many people have you shot, Steve?

            • Steve says:

              does Xbox count?

            • rick says:

              well Steve is right about that. Today guns are effective in it makes killing someone as easy as a push of a button. You don’t get your hands as dirty.

              Even if you argue he’d still kill the girlfriend with his bare hands (he’s a professional athlete, I’m sure he’s capable) I’d imagine its much more difficult to kill yourself with your bare hands.

              You can still kill someone with your bare hands and be depressed/horrified at it. You can still kill someone with a gun and be depressed/horrified at it. You can kill someone during a fit of emotion before your able to calm yourself down. The difference is killing someone up close and personal is a bit more shocking/traumatic then from a “safe” distance.

              I remember history class where in stories from some old battles in America how they were terrified when the bullets stopped flying…because it meant the sabres came out. Killing up close and personal was a brutal way to go, and it left its impression of the survivors.

          • Dianna says:

            Were that true, he would not have killed himself.

          • Scrimshaw says:

            You’re likely wrong in that assertion. Studies show that violent crime is more generally indicated by economic and social pressures than it is by available weaponry. Great Britain has a near total ban on firearms and confiscated almost all of those in civilian ownership yet violent crime increased. Gun ownership and homicide/suicide rates are wholly independent. I point you to a Harvard Law study that actually addresses that issue. The fact of the matter is that if this man was mentally unbalanced to the point of committing this act, he would have done it with whatever was at hand.

            Click to access Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

            Further, the young man in this case used a knife and a bow and arrows to commit his crimes. The tools weren’t the point, the acts were.


            • Shad says:

              Scrimshaw, I applaud you for your reasoned and informed response. So many people simplify arguments and result to name calling to belittle those who disagree with their view. I really appreciated your post.

              I myself don’t know that guns are the problem. Those individuals that are active criminals will always find a way a way to obtain the guns they want. So I suppose the question is if gun control laws would prevent the violent acts that happen as a result of a “normal” person having some type of mental breakdown. Scrimshaw points to a couple examples that whether or not the person has a gun may not matter too much. I’m not going to pretend to know what the right answer is, but I think the topic is worth rational discussion and study.

          • skh.pcola says:

            “Commitment?” You think that this guy didn’t have commitment?! He killed himself after he killed the girl, FFS. Commitment doesn’t come any deeper than that. Your progtard twaddle is entertaining, Stevie. You are a mirror-image of millions of other feckless progtards that prescribe fantasy solutions to problems that you and your filthy ilk will never understand. Pfft.

          • Larry says:

            Now Steve is reading the tea leaves and pulling the ol’ Vulcan Mind-Meld on a dead person.

            Who knows? This football player was obviously mentally unstable. Maybe we should believe Steve when he tells us what a mentally unstable person is thinking? In looking at his ability to reason and logic, he seems to have a corner on that market ’round these parts.

          • Obviously you have never used a gun. There is NOTHING impersonal, easy, or quick about pulling that trigger. Ppl like you who play video games or watch too much TV/Movies think that it really is just as simple as pulling a little trigger and you become invincible. Killing anyone or anything with any weapon takes a very personal, concerted effort on the part of the person using the weapon. We are talking “real life” here not playing a game or watching a fake show. Anyone who has ever gone hunting knows there is a huge difference btwn pulling that trigger at a paper target and pointing it at a live target. If you are the type of person that it is “easy” or “impersonal” then you are sociopathic psycho and banning guns will not stop you from achieving your agenda. Once again, another perfect example of how ignorance perpetuates itself. The ONLY thing banning guns is going to accomplish is taking it away from responsible, educated, law abiding citizens leaving them unprotected, giving the criminals all of the power.

          • SDN says:

            Well, then why don’t you see if you have enough fellow travelers to repeal the Second Amendment? Because you know you would LOSE. So instead you proceed “under the radar” like the liar you are.

          • lightning says:

            Yes, Steve he would have. Now to be fair, it appears that the football player was possibly suffering from some form of head trauma/mental illness (or a combo of the two). The gun doesn’t matter. If his brain was injured, he would have acted on those impulses. Instead of going for gun control, it would be more beneficial to support research on sports related brain injuries and the resulting mental illness. Another help, would be to help the general population learn to see the signs of impending violence, mental illness, and/or brain injury. That more than gun control could have saved that woman’s life.

        • Cmon People says:

          Meanie, I could be wrong, but I really don’t think Costas’ point was to deflect blame from the football player and put it ON the gun. That’s just crazy first amendment advocates’ way of spinning the point attempting to be made that we need to take a closer look at gun control. Who knows what would’ve happened had he not had a gun. Maybe Steve is right, maybe he’s wrong. We can’t assume. but what we can say is that he used a gun to kill them both. So, it brings up the issue of gun control. The same way that 911 brought up issues of TSA security protocols. Nobody blamed them for the tragic events that transpired that day. It’s all the fault of the demented and sociopath terrorists. However, because they used our airways it brings up the issue of stricter security. Comprende? Stop spinning shit to suit your beliefs and stop trying to make Bob Costas some sort of advocate for people like Alexandria to get hurt. That’s just dumb.

          • Seon Lee says:

            You are wrong. The advancement of gun control would ultimately leave people like Alexandria and hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of weaker people vulnerable to violent assailants who have a 150 pound advantage on them. But before we start destroying all the straw man arguments being raised by pro-gun control advocates, let’s discuss all the millions of lives that are saved yearly as a direct result of a defensive use of a handgun.

            That’s right. Millions of lives yearly are saved by non-violent defensive gun use. Just the presence of the gun is enough to dissuade further bloodshed. This is the flip-side of gun-control that so many people like you conveniently dismiss: Guns are used to defend lives daily.

            Fact: Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year or 6,849 every day.Often the gun
            is never fired and no blood (including the criminal’s) is shed.
            – Targeting Guns, Dr. Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State University, Aldine, 1997

            Fact: Every day 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes are prevented just by showing a gun. In less than 0.9% of these instances is the gun ever actually fired.
            – National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000, Bureau of Justice Statistics, BATF estimates on handgun supply

          • Quint&Jessel says:

            Cmon People–The TSA didn’t exist BEFORE 9/11. September 11, 2001 caused not only tragedy and an almost unanimous vote by Congress to confirm Bush’s declaration of war after 14 +/- months afterwards, but also the creation of the TSA.

            This football player likely had damage to his brain, and his impulse control was one of the damaged areas. I don’t know; however, he’d beaten his “baby-mama” before and could easily have beaten her to death, and then od’ed on the pills he was using, washing them down with the alcohol he was abusing. Or he could’ve cut his wrists. Should we ban alcohol/razors/fists?

          • ” Who knows what would’ve happened had he not had a gun.”

            I’ll pass that question off to OJ Simpson.

          • That_Guy says:

            In a calmer frame of mind than most of these people seem to be I say that the problem with laws banning guns is in the mindset of people who believe that tacking on more and more and more and more laws will prevent the breaking of laws in the first place. Does anyone really think that the TSA making vacationers throw away their nail clippers is preventing hijacking of planes? It doesn’t matter how many laws legislators pass that ban rape and murder those two CRIMES keep happening. Regardless of gun possession of LAW ABIDING citizens the plain fact is that shooting someone without a self defense basis is AGAINST A LAW ALREADY. Robbing people – they have a law for that. Rape – a law against that as well. (I say a law but there are many for each crime) Passing MORE laws to make the crime more “illegaller” is the act of an imbecile. Drunk drivers kill people every day. There are a large number of laws against driving drunk. Would making a background check for purchase or rental of a car prevent this? People who are going to commit crimes will not be deterred by another useless bit of legislation. A MAN WHO FELT THAT SHOOTING THE MOTHER OF HIS CHILD WAS THE ONLY SOLUTION TO HIS SITUATION WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DETERRED BY LAWS AGAINST GUN POSSESSION. Regardless of whether he was mentally ill or just that angry if he was going to kill her he was going to kill her. The point of this article is that if the initial victim had been empowered enough she herself might have been able to prevent or avoid this tragedy. People who demonize defensive tools are putting themselves in the position of potentially influencing women like the victim to avoid those ‘evil’ handguns and just wait for the police to arrive and the judges to make everything safe. Demonizing tools for self defense leaves people who need the ability to defend themselves at the mercy of all comers. The truth is that the police are only ever there to clean up after the crime has been committed. The truth is that civil and criminal courts will often be swayed by politics and money. The truth is that a small woman with one nine millimeter and empowerment can prevail against a large man with big fists and any number of weapons.

            • Perfectly said. Laws do not stop criminals. If they did then this tragic crime would never have occurred. If anything banning something just makes the criminals stock up even more and provide other criminals the means to keep funding more crime.

              When this country decided to ban alcohol there were parties thrown all over the world by the criminals because they knew it meant they were going to make vast amounts of money from it. It did not stop the criminals from drinking or selling alcohol. Alcohol consumption and selling actually increased but it also increased the violence in this country to a level never seen before or since that time.

              The UK has been tightening their gun control laws since 1903 but it has not stopped ppl from murdering others at all. It did not decrease the number of murders it just decreased the number of deaths by guns. When they banned guns from the private citizens, knife murders increased. Now they are in the process of banning knives. Banning knives is only going to move ppl onto another type of weapon. Murder is already banned and yet it does not seem to have slowed down the crime of murder at all.

          • lightning says:

            1st point, it is the 2nd not 1st amendment discussion. Simply because someone uses a particular tool to inflict harm does not therefore mean we should do away with said tool. If that was the case, why not start cutting off the penises of rapists? No penis – no rape. Finally, you cannot compare added security to gun control. It is a case of apples and oranges. Not only that, but since the TSA is such a joke, it is a bad comparison. No one is making Costas look bad except for Costas. There are consequences to gun control, and Alexandria makes the point that her safety falls under those consequences. Men especially should be sensivitve to this. Why? You (right now in most states) can lose your right to bear arms if involved in ANY domestic dispute (even if it is not your fault). Given mandated arrest policies regarding domestics in most states, this is patently unfair, especially if the man is the victim. When Costas pushes for gun control he advocates not just for the “benefits” he advocates for the consequences as well.

      • jen says:

        You are a fool, Steve. If someone wants to kill someone else, even if guns were outlawed, they will find a way to do it. Here are some ways that don’t involve guns: knives, fists, feet (for stomping, which I’ve seen happen), rocks, cars, fire, gasoline, water, rope, drugs, booze, electricity, icepicks, tasers, stun guns, baseball bats, hammers, chainsaws and so forth. All of these things a person can use to kill another person. And all of them are readily available on any corner of every street and in every single home in America. Left alone by themselves, these things cannot kill anyone unless a human being takes it upon himself to manipulate them into weapons that kill.

        Also, a lot of times, people have mental issues that just seem to pop up unexpectedly – schizophrenia being one of them. There are lots of mental disorders that develop over time and many people aren’t alcoholics when they marry but turn into one during the marriage. You cannot forsee what is going to happen to someone mentally. Some people aren’t abusive until the word “I do” are promised. You hear about this sort of thing all the time. People snap. People kill. Inanimate objects do not. Screw you for trying to reason away yet another one of our precious Bills of Rights.

        P.S. I would MUCH rather have a gun to defend myself with than your pathetic reasons for not owning one.

        Jennifer Frank – Fort Worth

        • Dirty Harry says:

          History shows that before guns were invented there was no killing. People all held hands and sang kumbaya.

          • Windy Wilson says:

            You are so right, Mr. Harry!
            If guns were the problem and not the evil mind, the gun room at the Autry Museum would be the most dangerous place in Los Angeles, as there are more guns per square foot there than in any gun store in the city. What keeps the museum curators from shooting each other over museum-type tiffs? For that matter, what keeps the employees of gun stores from shooting one another over the vacation schedule?


        • Carl says:

          You guys are right! Steve, you idiot!!! My friends that died in the Virginia Tech shootings wouldn’t have been able to stop Cho even if he didn’t have guns because he could have used other weapons… because there are so many mass murders where the murderer uses all of the above non-gun mentioned methods.



          • heftyjo says:

            There are lots of mass murders that took place without guns. William Unek slayed 21 people with an axe. The Deltona massacre had 6 people bludgeoned to death inside their home. The Rwandan massacres saw 100,000’s of people killed in bloody machete attacks.

            I actually personally knew a girl that, upon getting a phone call from her ex-husband that he was seeking full custody of the kids, went into the bedroom where the children were sleeping and strangled them to death with a scarf and then tried to set the house on fire. Quick ban all scarves! And this was just a seemingly normal person whom I hung out with several times and went to a Rangers baseball game with. Yet here’s this seemingly normal person showing that she was quite capable of squeezing the life out of her own children just to get back at her Ex.

            Studies show that over 100,000 incidents occur every year where someone uses a gun to defend themselves. In most cases it involves nothing more than brandishing the gun to scare the would be attacker away. Advocating a gun ban is tantamount to supporting violent criminals who rob, beat, rape, and murder. Liberals would rather have it like they do in the U.K. where 42% of robbery break-ins occur while the residents are actually home. Criminals over there are so brazen that they’ll bust right into your home and don’t even care if you’re home or not. And they considered themselves more enlightened than us knuckle draggers in the U.S. Why can’t we just grow up as a nation and learn to bite our upper lip and take it like a good citizen when your getting raped?

            • Quint&Jessel says:

              Manson murders, to pick a random horrible double/night murder spree. One person killed by gun, others all hacked to death.

              One wonders whether, if Viktor Freitcheck (sp) had had a gun on him that first night, there would have been only 1 murder…

          • cargosquid says:

            Well, if all they did was hide and lay on the floor like Goddard while he watched a woman be killed….probably not.

          • Prior to OKC, the largest mass murder in US history was accomplished with a gallon of gas and a match.

          • Truman North says:

            If everyone on campus wasn’t disarmed, you can be sure the murderous cretin wouldn’t have been able to kill as many– and maybe none.

        • Mike OBrien says:

          While those objects can potentially be used to kill someone, They were ALL originally created for a completely different purpose.

          For what other purpose were firearms created aside from killing people/animals?

          That is exactly the point your argument is missing and what makes it completely invalid. Tools can potentially kill but guns are specifically created to kill in the most efficient manner possible.

          • GomeznSA says:

            That is one of the favorite strawman arguments that the hoplophobes always use. Guns were designed to launch a projectile (just like bows and arrows before them). You guys ALWAYS conflate the use of an inanimate object with the INTENTIONAL act of the human using it to commit harm to others. We used to call that animism…………………..

            • Mike OBrien says:

              @GomeznSA: How is that argument a “strawman”? can you honestly say that firearms were not created to be a more efficient way of kill things? The Bow and Arrow were its predicessors but the fact of the matter is they were created because previous methods were less efficient and the bow was an upgrade. its a viscious cycle and ignoreing it would be the epitome of ignorance.

              “You guys”? you know nothing about me other than my opinion that comparing guns to hammers is ridiculous.

              I happen to own a rifle and its used for hunting, owning a handgun for “protection” is just as likely to cause your potential attacker to shoot and kill you as it is for you to ward off a possible attack. I never even try to say that my firearm is for anything other than hunting and killing wild animals, because trying to say its for protection or anything along those lines is a pipe dream used by people who are going out of their way to justify something that they have no purpose for owning.

              • cargosquid says:

                Its a pipe dream alright, except, you know….for all those people for whom a firearm HAS BEEN a tool of self defense.

              • Zapata says:

                If using handguns for self-defense is such a pipe dream, why do cops carry them?

                I’ll wait.

              • 86eht says:

                Yeah, my entire family would probably have been brutalized if my dad hadn’t shown an enraged gang of druggies and alcoholics the business end of a revolver some 15-odd years ago. The cops didn’t arrive until an hour or more after we called telling them that our lives were in serious danger. No gun present = sickos coming across our backyard with weapons to kill us. Gun present = sickos peeing themselves, turning around and leaving post haste. Problem = solved. some of these people lived beside us. They weren’t a problem when my parents first moved in before having us kids, but entered into a moral spiral that just kept getting worse after the mother in the situation discovered that her husband had tried to pay their grown offspring to kill her. We were moving as fast as we could to get out of there and live in another location when this event occurred. Hardly a pipe dream. If my mother had not purchased that revolver for my dad as an anniversary gift before that night, who knows what would have happened? Maybe they would have turned around and went back to their house after screaming their intentions to kill us and making their way in the direction of our home. But since we did have that revolver, I’m alive today and KNOW what the results of having that revolver available were, and I’m certainly NOT willing to be the test case that finds out what will happen if my family is someday faced with a similar situation in which we are not armed. Unfortunately I know of way too may test cases that have already been done.

          • “For what other purpose were firearms created aside from killing people/animals?”

            All my guns must be defective then. They’ve never killed anything but paper targets.

      • Jonathan says:

        “arent you alive ‘despite your own actions”..meaning you chose to marry this drunk abusive loser.”

        Are you kidding me? Have you ever known someone for a long time, and realized that they are not the same person they were when you met them? Or gone a long time without seeing someone and realized they had changed since you saw them last? Or are you one of those people who think some people are born killers? Because that is what your statement implies. You have no knowledge of the situation she was in, and you don’t know if her husband had been different prior to his drinking problem. Your statement is ill-informed and ignorant.

        • Steve says:

          she describes a scenario in which the things he threw at her head were getting closer and closer to hitting her. sounds like she knew for a while that this guys was bad news..and yet probably stayed for longer than was reasonable or safe decision. Its been my experience that violent losers have many warning signs that some people refuse to acknowledge

          • Bob says:

            Wow… way to blame the victim. I guess you think the girl that wore a mini skirt deserved to get raped too….

            You seem like a reasonable and very nice guy, Steve.

            • matt says:

              Victim? Of what? Perceived threats she thinks she eliminated with a Glock? Just a reminder that the gun didn’t actually save her life because nothing ever happened. She thinks it was going to, but it’s not like he had her pinned with a knife and she grabbed the gun she had just purchased and stopped him from killing her. I could tell you all sorts of stories of confrontations where the other person “must” have backed off because they knew I had a gun… In reality maybe he was just an ass who made threats, not a guy who was going to kill a person, but decided not to because that person bought a gun.

            • NSJ says:

              Of course he thinks the girl wearing a mini skirt deserves to get raped. How else would Steve get laid?

            • Quint&Jessel says:

              My husband was a nice, gentle man (with the occasional tendency of most men to be a bit too aggressive re: sports). Then he suffered a brain injury. He changed. His impulse control waned. He began drinking heavily. But I took my marriage vows seriously, and worked with him/doctors/therapists to get him straightened out. Then he suffered another brain injury and became, among other things, violent.

              He hadn’t been violent when we married. He became violent. It didn’t take long for me to decide that the vows I’d taken didn’t mean that I had to wait for him to kill me.

              It happens.

            • The Stockholming/denial of abuse victims is a well documented phenomenon. Its not “blaming them” to mention something that’s a very commonly observed thing in women’s shelters. You’re dick to even suggest such.

          • Sean says:

            She danced like she wanted it right steve!

          • Ann says:

            Abusive relationships are not black and white Steve. It is not easy to just leave an abusive relationship. Women aren’t stupid for staying in an abusive relationship for too long.

            Most of the time physical abuse goes along with psychological abuse. The physical abuse is obvious, but the latter is not. It isn’t easy to deal with and it isn’t easy to overcome.

            The abuser can make you feel alone, helpless, they can make you believe that staying is much better than leaving, no matter the outcome. So fuck you and your superiority complex.

            Also, thousands of violent crimes are prevented each year because of guns. Most of the time with out an actual shot fired.

            Millions of Americans legally carry handguns with concealed weapons permits. There are absolutely no statistics that prove that more guns equal more violence. In fact only around 0.002% of permit holders are involved in violent crime.

            Millions of Americans use guns to feed their families, mine included.

            If guns were the problem, than Countries like Switzerland, areas with high gun ownership would see significantly higher rates of violent crime. They don’t.

            Maybe it is hard for many men to understand, but as a 5′ something 120 lbs female, I know I cannot fight off an attacker. I even have martial arts training, but I don’t have the strength to be effective. I don’t ever want to be close enough to even try.

            But my gun is my equalizer. Violent crime happens everyday.

            My gun feeds me and keeps me safe. It has never once jumped up and shot anyone, neither have my kitchen knives.

          • rick says:

            Since your assuming they were married…you do know that married couples do try to work things out, right.

            Most people in a marriage will try to work the problem out before leaving.

          • Chad says:

            Hey Steve, you dumb ass prick. I don’t care about the previous statements on prior relationships. ANSWER THIS: If my wife is at home alone and someone breaks into our home and decides to do her bodily harm do you propose that she not have a gun to be able to stop an unwarranted attack? Should she be forced to use her bare hands, a knife, a bat or some other device that requires her to get within arms length of the intruder? Let’s say he is a foot taller and 100 pounds heavier than her and is intent on assaulting her. Don’t give me some BS about calling the police either. They will never get there in time and don’t assume that the intruder will just leave if she makes that call. That is not a fair bet for you to make with my wife’s life.

            • According to Steve’s “logic”, it would be your wife’s fault for being home alone. As soon as she saw she was alone, she should have been smart enough to not be alone anymore. Otherwise she was just asking for it…

      • tj says:

        Steve you dont know the back story, Maybe he wasnt always like that. Maybe something made him start drinking after they were married and it got out of control. You sir are a jackass!!

      • Heulwen says:

        You should join Costas and Whitlock in their quest to disarm everyone in America EXCEPT the street thugs and gang members.. in the meantime, you also should take a course in tolerance..I mean don’t you libs harp on and on about tolerance of others feelings? BTW..get a dictionary and look up the word hypocrite! I’ll bet there is a picture of you with the meaning.

      • Wow, really dude? People make mistakes, especially in love. It happens to nearly everyone. I bet its happened to you. Regardless, did you miss the fact that she *recognized* her mistake, and fixed it? And in trying to fix it, she was threatened.

        And yes, they did blame the gun. And so did you. They implied that without the gun they would still be alive. Which is utterly faulty thinking. Not having a gun didn’t stop that dumbo in Wyoming from killing his dad and his dad’s girlfriend, did it? And you will tell me with a straight face an NFL football player- a huge muscular guy- had no other means to kill his girlfriend and himself? Say choking her, beating or, and stabbing himself?

        Come on dude.

        • Steve says:

          do you not see a distinction between planned attacks with knife and arrows..and a heated argument that escalates into death because of a gun…that is the blame they put on they put on the gun. guns are too easy and quick..he could have eassily killed her barehanded…but he didn’t, he used a gun. it’s impersonal, it does do the killing for us.

          • NSJ says:

            Clearly it is impossible to “lose it” and grab a knife, baseball bat, or other weapon and quickly escalate the violence. Your thinking is flawed all around.

          • Quint&Jessel says:

            Steve, my husband tried to strangle me after his brain injuries. Answer that with one of your “guns escalate violence” idiocies. If I had had a gun, maybe he wouldn’t have choked me quite so much. (Yes, I’m still alive, due purely to luck.)

          • rick says:

            if he’s angry enough to shoot her, then its a safe bet he would have been angry enough to beat her.

            People kill in anger…it happens. It doesn’t even take that long. I don’t know the woman’s stats, but the boyfriend being an nfl football player, its a safe bet he’s on the physically superior side of things. Maybe enough where even if its just one punch in anger, that one punch would have been enough anyway to kill her.

            So far I haven’t seen anyone talk about, what if the woman had the gun and not him, or what if they both had guns.

        • Dirty Harry says:

          Did OJ use a gun? Another well liked football “hero”. Steve, better quit while you’re behind.

          • Steve says:

            OJ planned an attack . he knew when he woke up that day he was going to kill his ex-wife..Costas and others are bemoaning the apparent escalation of family argument into a murder suicide because of the presence of a gun.

            can’t people express their frustration with senseless violence and look to see if maybe the presence of firearms in the house leads to more problems than any potential problems it prevents?

            Nope I know the answer..more guns for everybody..husband and wife sitting on couch each armed and ready to defend themselves against the possible attacker sitting next to them. That is domestic bliss.

      • chet says:

        Hey steve- you dont think costas or whitlock blamed the gun? I bet you either didn’t read his rant or chose to ignore that costas said if belcher didntposess a gun he and Kassandra perkins would be alive today. Try again.

      • Married to One Who Fooled Me says:

        Steve, As someone who didn’t know my husband had an anger issue until we had been married for 11 years and he was throwing a heavy pottery bowl at my head, believe me, we don’t always “choose” or intend to marry a$$holes. But thanks for your support, a$$hole.

        • Steve says:

          Can I ask? would having a gun in the house helped in your situation? or would it have made it worse?

          • chet says:

            one night, as my mother was leaving her late shift job, three criminals surrounded her car just as she got in and started trying to break the window to get in. she produced a legally owned handgun, pointed it at the window, and they ran away so fast she would have laughed if she wasnt so terrified. can i ask? did having a gun help in her situation? tell me how it could have made it worse.

          • The victims aren’t here to argue with you.

        • Derek says:

          Give me three headline making stories of a gun saving a person’s life.
          Here’s three (maybe 2.5) of lax gun laws severely affecting a person’s life: Jovan Belcher shooting, Trayvon Martin’s shooting death, and Gabrielle Gifford’s.
          I realize that Gabrielle Giffords was not killed, but was severely injured so if you want to make it a .5, fine. I agree with steve.

          • lpcard says:

            I don’t have the time right now but there are a lot of them. Three right off the top of my head (no links, like I said I don’t have time); a boy in Henderson NC who defended his home from crackheads trying to break in, a hotel worker in SC who shot and killed a rapist, a grandmother in (I think) GA who is quoted as saying “I shot them as much as I could”. Add to that George Zimmerman who could be dead from the lethal force attack that your hero Trayvon initiated.

            FTR, concealed weapon permit holders are more law abiding, as a group, than even policemen. We carry not because we want to kill, but because we want to live. Don’t start nothin, won’t be nothin.

          • Pistol Pete says:

            “Headline” making stories? The Lamestream media rarely makes that kind of story a Headliner. That way sheep like you can still feel morally superior in your abysmal ignorance.

          • mtwzzyzx says:

            National Headlines are irrelevant- most crime stories are local, and the national media like the ones that make guns look like a problem. Here’s a site FULL of links to news stories where someone successfully defended themselves against an attacker with a gun.

          • cargosquid says:

            Here’s one; Gun saves Zimmerman from attack. Large teen attacks and attempts to murder Neighborhood Watch.

          • Here are 4 stories for you…

            “Police say suspected intruder killed in Savannah home invasion” August 27, 2012

            “Texas Homeowner shoots Knife Wielding Afternoon Burglar” November 28, 2012 (from an NBC affiliate)

            “Farmer, 92, shoots intruder dead through heart” September 4, 2012

            “Okla. mom Sarah McKinley won’t face charges for shooting intruder” January 5, 2012

            There are plenty of stories of this nature to be found, but you do have to dig for them. The media doesn’t seem as interested in them as they are in the stories where firearms are used in the commission of a crime.

            Don’t blame violence on the victims or the weapons. Just as some would argue that it can’t be said with any certainty that crimes are prevented by potential victims having access to an ‘equalizer’, the other side of this argument can argue that it can not be said with certainty that death would not be the result had the assailants not had access to firearms. It boils down to this- is an individual responsible for their own actions or not?

            Gun restricting legislation only removes guns from the hands of people who actually care about the law. These are usually not the ones who are dangerous. Criminals, by definition, break the law. If you think that laws will restrict a criminal’s access to firearms, I would advise you to consider the impact of other prohibition-type laws have had (alcohol, drugs, etc).

            Guns exist. You can’t put that cat back in the bag. Violent criminals exist. An individual who is in a rage and bent for violence will find a weapon- be it a knife, a gun or a vehicle. Taking guns away from potential victims will not change the violent person’s access to weaponry. I’d rather know that the law-abiding folks have access to something to protect themselves, personally.

            The national average for police response time has been estimated at 5-7 minutes. One in three women will experience sexual assault at least once in their lifetime. A violent rape can happen in less than 5 minutes. The next time your mother, sister or daughter leaves the house, take a moment and think about those numbers. **I am NOT wishing harm on anyone**, but I am asking you to consider women that you care about when you look at those statistics.

            One of every three.

          • tyler says:

            How about the truck driver I saved from a beating and robbery in the middle of the night with my gun? I didnt shoot the crook, but held him for the cops. Guess I should have let him die there….

          • lightning says:

            Actually, there are several, published by the NRA every month in a column entitled, “Armed Citizen”. My favorite story however is the story of grandma. She had a gun, but couldn’t get to it. So as the crook burst into her bedroom she picked up the ax next to her bed and threw it at his head. He ran out screaming. Go grandma!

          • Oh, and look at this- 2 very different reports regarding the final moments of the Oregon mall shooting:
   says, “Did a concealed carrier end the rampage? Or show the limits of armed civilians fearful of injuring one another in emergencies?”

            while a smaller, local affiliate actually quotes the concealed carrier as saying:
            “As I was going down to pull, I saw someone in the back of the Charlotte move, and I knew if I fired and missed, I could hit them,” he said.
            Meli took cover inside a nearby store. He never pulled the trigger. He stands by that decision.
            “I’m not beating myself up cause I didn’t shoot him,” said Meli. “I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself.”

            I’m guessing here, but you probably think that guns don’t save lives because all you hear about is what the news programs that you watch or read choose to report. If you do a little of your own honest research, though, you’ll learn that most news coverage of at least the last 25 years has extreme bias (not just on the liberal side, either). The fact of the matter is that we’re all lead to believe that news coverage is unbiased and fair, when that is very much NOT the case.

      • Dirty Harry says:

        Easy access to guns? I take it you’ve never tried to buy a gun especially in liberal states. Of course cities like Chicago, NYC, DC have some of the strictest gun control laws and they have some of the highest murder rates anywhere. So much for gun control. I also am amazed at the hypocrisy of little gun nazis like mayor Bloomberg in ny who want all guns banned for us but surrounds himself with gun toting bodyguards. The law is for thee and not for me.

      • Bryan S. says:

        Steve.. how many women are killed by a single hit of a fist? That doenst take much planning, and happens in the spur of the moment, just like using a firearm. The only thing made easier was his self infliction of the death penalty, which without a firearm, he would have been left offing himself in any number of traditional ways.

        How about we do one better, and get a law on the books that outlaws murdering your significant other. Because a law helped here, so obviously.

        • Steve says:

          I would assume far more women survive a punch in the head, than a shot to the head.

          • mtwzzyzx says:

            In the heat of the moment, they don’t stop at one punch, and I’m sure more people than you think survive a shot to the head (Gabrielle Giffords), not that it’s just fine- look at her, or the SF paramedic who was beaten at Dodger Stadium last year having to live with severe brain damage. In passion, fists will do just fine to kill someone.

          • IF they got a gun, it never get that far.

      • GrinningDwarf says:

        “I do not think that costas or whitlock absolved anyone of their crimes or blamed the gun.” Whitlock most certainly did! He wrote: “What I believe is, if he didn’t possess/own a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.” What sort of gun control would have kept a gun out of his hands?

      • Smartone says:

        Steve go back to your X- box violent games . Should those be banned as well ?

      • Tyler says:

        I personally agree with Steve. That is not to say that at times, guns are beneficial and do truly help those rational people that own them. The problems is that there are to many guns and there is to easy of access to those guns. You see, read, or hear about people turning a simple verbal argument into murder ALL the time. From things as simple as one driver giving another the single finger salute turns to murder. Here locally that exact scenario happened. The point Steve is trying to make is that to often, people (not just women) stick around in a relationship WAY to long. They see problems or concerns and turn a blind eye for comfort or ease. This is NO excuse for taking or receiving abuse of ANY kind.

        As for the Chicago argument, guns laws are not as effective when you have already flooded a population with guns. Enforcement of laws also is a reason why Chicago has not seen the level of success they would like to see. An attempt to improve the situation is better than throwing gasoline on an already out of control fire.

        Last point is that there are types of guns in the hands of the general public that have absolutely zero purpose other than killing people. NO ONE needs to have an assault rifle or automatic. I have never heard of someone going out deer hunting with an AK. The gun industry has become WAY to large and has WAY to much money flowing through the political system to ever really be dealt with. Fix money in politics and see REAL results on just about any issue

        • NSJ says:

          Jovan didn’t use an AK or fully automatic weapon, but nice try.

        • Daniel Goad says:

          So Tyler has it in his head that gun industry needs to have a cap on it, too much capitalism to deal with there…and some guns have no purpose other than killing people…well, hello! Guns kill people, they also kill animals that are tasty, and some that are not…you can kill a person with the same gun you shoot a deer with…so because you ARE ABLE to kill a person with a deer hunting rifle, now you can’t own a deer hunting rifle? Too many guns, huh? Who made you the judge? Do you have too much money? I need some…I think I’ll take yours, because I BELIEVE I need it more than you, and you have too much already…whaddya say?

        • mtwzzyzx says:

          How do you explain the huge rise in gun sales over the last four years, and the DECREASE in violent crime, then? I thought you guys told me that if there were all these guns around, there would be more gun violence?

          • Steve says:

            its the same people buying the guns…Ive seen the shows..gun lovers really love guns…have like 50 of them.

            i don’t know..but random senseless violence doesn’t seem to be going shootings, etc. Oakland is a violent hell hole & there is lots of guns there.

            • Dianna says:

              Oakland, this year, isn’t as bad as, say, Chicago.

              And please, come to the gun show with me. I want you to point out the nut-jobs, because I have never met any. Nor anyone with a sloping forehead, nor yet anyone who dragged his knuckles. Nor any KKK types – though I’m sure you’d claim every middle-aged white guy there was one – and a remarkable dearth of slavering maniacs.

              As to owning 50 guns: I know a great many people you would think of as “gun nuts”, and they usually own fewer than ten guns.

            • Josh says:

              Steve, because I am genuinely too tired to argue and I think the previous posters have done a commendable job of dressing you down…

              ……..(‘(…´…´…. ¯~/’…’)
              ……….”…\………. _.·´

              For your own sake, I dearly hope you find the time to review 8th grade grammar & punctuation between your spurts of boorish diatribe at some point in the future.

            • RageAgainstTheSheeple says:

              The only reason why you think that senseless violence isn’t going down is because reporting in the media is UP. It’s actually better now than it was in the 80s and 90s for the most part. Especially crimes against children. But we hear now about every. little. thing that involves someone picking up a gun and shooting someone. Hmmm. I wonder about their motives. . .

        • chet says:

          tyler. educate. yourself. you obviously have no clue about guns when you throw the word assault weapon out there. and automatic weapons? they are one of the most restricted and hard to get weapons allowable by law. they are NEVER used in any crime by someone who legally owns one. once again, EDUCATE yourself!

        • doubleplusundead says:

          Try going to Youtube and looking up hunting with AK…people do it (but not here, semi-auto rifles are verboten for deer here), ARs are quite popular for hunting, a LOT of people hunt with SKS, which uses the same cartridge as the AK. Ballistically, the 7.62×39 behaves very much like the .30-30, which has probably been used to kill more deer in the US than any other cartridge.

        • Quint&Jessel says:

          Well, Tyler, let’s also ban compound bows. No one needs to have a compound bow. There! The hunting industry will just have to sell slingshots. Oops! Some guy named Goliath was killed by slingshot…

        • RageAgainstTheSheeple says:

          Did you know that in California now, I can no longer buy COMPETITION pistols? It seems that the specialized 1911s made by Colt and Kimber for competition shooting are banned. These are the types of guns that they don’t believe should be in my hands. Umm, hello? They’re a 1911. One of the most populous guns out there. They don’t want me to have it. Rat b@stards.

          Have you ever attempted to go deer hunting with an AK? It’s actually very good. It’s a good bullet that flies true and has enough knock-down power to take down the deer. It’s comparable to my 308 in the ones I’ve taken down. Comparison fail there my friend.

          It seems you really have a problem with the gun industry thriving in capitalism. Way too large with way too much money flowing through the political system? Sounds like green energy to me pal. Or perhaps the banking industry. Why pick on my guns?

        • lpcard says:

          I took my Saiga out deer hunting last weekend. The Saiga, by the way, is an AK pattern rifle chambered in 5.56 NATO/.223, its military counterpart would be the AK-101 (AK-47s are chambered in 7.62 NATO, which is an excellent deer cartridge).

          Fully automatic weapons have been banned for civilian use in the US without special licenses since 1934.

          And lastly, “because I want one” is a perfectly legitimate reason to own a semiauto AK or AR pattern rifle.

      • IamLendawg says:

        Steve, you desire for reason is OK. However, some people are unreasonable and violent. An unarmed, innocent man had his face chewed off earlier this year, and guns likely saved his life. If you are as reasonable as you make yourself out to be, you’ll recognize that guns have a place in our society.

        In the meantime, I too will continue to call for reason, but I’m not about to give up my gun at this point in time.

        • Steve says:

          yeah..i agree they have a place….but i think they are turning up in too many places they don’t need to be…so what’s the fix? do just keep accepting these atrocities as the price of freedom, or is there a solution? I never once mentioned banning guns. I just don’t sea need for them in my life..and yeah I know i will want one when i’m getting mugged…blah blah blah..but I live pretty low key life, stay out of trouble, and am tired of reading about innocent people getting killed.

      • Daniel Goad says:

        Steve…in a word or two or three, or four…you are an IDIOT! So she married a guy, though it was love…turns out, he wanted to be a drunk, pathetic loser who prefers his women defenseless. Mistake on her part…so she should pay for that mistake with her life, according to you, because she shouldn’t have access to a gun, because (sigh) it allows arguments to quickly escalate into deadly confrontations??? Yeah, for the piece of crap who tries to hit her or worse…get a clue

      • Steve says:

        OK I may have misspoken about choosing to live with abusive husband…but really, Alex gets to use inflated hyperbole like “she is alive in spite of bob costas” like bob costas wants all abused women to die “that is his logical conclusion” of his argument?? …that isn’t over board??? that is pretty presumptive and vile itself….

        I just popped in today today to stir the pot…peace out!

        • stace says:

          No, Costas does want more women to get killed or raped–not consciously, but that is in fact the end result of what he proposes. Crime stats show this, and so does Alex’s anecdote. I have a similar anecdote–twice attacked, but the second time turned out much better due to the gun I bought after the first attack. Costas can lecture me all he wants, but he lives in a bubble where he doesn’t have to worry about being sexually attacked when his beater car breaks down on the highway.

        • Zapata says:

          No, Steve, you popped in (such a cheery turn of phrase) to troll in the comments of a personal story written by an abused woman sharing her experience. Whatever fears you may have about people owning guns ought to be far exceeded by fear of the ugliness in your soul. It’s cancer, Steve, and it doesn’t look good for you. Get some help.

          • steve says:

            Really?? I have fears?? alex claims that bob costas wants her blood?? she actually thinks that bob costas is a bigger threat to her than her abusive drunk loser ex. come on..Alex is using grossly exaggerated metaphor to make her points…I was just calling her out trying to point out the real danger in her life….and all the gun lovers just drool all over go girl..go get that bad bob costas…he’s the real problem…whatever.

            • 86eht says:

              Umm. What? She is not saying that Costas WANTS that to happen. She is saying that, whether Costas knows it or not, the end result of his argument WOULD CAUSE that to happen. She is simply pointing out that Costas argument is counter-productive and has apparently unseen (by him) consequences. I have been in situations where the presence of a firearm immediately ended potentially deadly situations without even being fired. And don’t jump on me because I say “potentially”. The only way to know 100% that a situation is going to be deadly is for you to die, so one is forced to make a decision based upon the warning signs. This is why “an armed society is a polite society”, as author Robert Heinlein puts it; because people are more inclined to be polite and decent to a citizen whom they think may be carrying a firearm and whom could interpret their behavior as that of which precedes violence (threatening to kill someone, charging them, etc.) gun laws do not make it more difficult for criminals to commit crimes, they simply make it more difficult for innocent, law-abiding citizens to defend themselves from these crimes.

      • Silly. A knife is typically within easy reach. A gun typically has to be loaded and deliberatively employed.

        The knife is the weapon of passion, not the gun.

      • Craig says:

        Guns arent absolute not everyone shot dies, and the lawful elimination of guns would not have stopped Belcher from killing his girlfriend. Like the letter stated he could of slit her throat stabbed her with one stroke in the chest, heck a 260lb NFL linebacker could have probably killed her with his barehands. Costas is blaming the gun which is ridiculous. If he used a spoon to kill her what would u say outlaw all spoons??? People make mistakes even in relationships I bet u have also calling someone crazy because is a dick move.

      • Dorothy says:

        Wow Steve I didn’t know that as a woman I have the ability to read a man’s mind and know his every intention. These kind of relationships don’t start out that way and most abusers can be very subtle. I’ve been in an emotionally abusive relationship and made excuses for my ex because I cared about him and truly believed his lies. It lasted about a year until I came to my senses and realized that I deserved better. Aside from abusers how about random thugs that commit break ins, or don’t I have the right to defend myself from them? How about rapists? pedephiles? There are 5 of them in a mile radius of my house. I am a single mother and my gun is my equalizer. It is nothing but a tool for me to use to keep myself and my kids safe from anyone who feels they can hurt me and mine.

      • Did Steve just blame the victim? Really?

      • Candi Luchau says:

        Steve, I really just have to say, you are so horribly, incredibly, blatantly, exhaustively, shamefully, stupid and more naive than anyone should be allowed. You and people like you, with your simple minded thinking, are the very people that have brought this country to the incredible mess we are now dealing with. By blaming the lady that wrote this letter, that she would purposely pick a violent and sick man to marry, says volumes about you and your simple minded thinking right there. Also the fact that you must be willing to give up your second amendment right to bear arms, also says the rest of the story, of who you are. You need to do some research, about what has happened in other countries when they gave up that right. There always has been and there always will be, the twisted, sick idiots out there that will kill another person for absolutely no good reason what so ever. For exactly that very reason Steve, is why we must NEVER give up our Second Amendment Right To Bear Arms!! Do you seriously want to be put in a position, of not being able to defend yourself, or your family if you should need too? You can’t fix stupid, don’t be one of those that can’t be fixed. You have a lot to learn Steve, you better get right to it and not waste anymore time.

        • steve says:

          I have lost 3 childhood friends to guns, one murdered, and two suicides (1 iraq vet). I have strong feeling about guns…you will notice i never mentioned banning guns. I never called for end to 2nd amendment. I also like costas and others am just tired of hearing about it and just want an end to senseless violence..i know its a pipe dream…and there is lots of violence that doesn’t involve guns…but i just don’t like guns..and that is my god giving right as an american..
          Guns play no part in my life and never will. that is my choice. people like me just don’t understand the infatuation that many have for them. its creeps us out.

          I only blamed alex for her being “alive in spite of her choice” because it is just silly to for her to make a claim that bob costas want her blood, wants the death of all abused women…i mean come on..that’s the funny thing..that is the most outrageous thing posted here all day….But no that part of the the fear mongering that you guys always use to whip up support and get other gun people are riled up

          • lightning says:

            My condolences on your friends. Their deaths however had more to do with mental health problems than with guns. I understand the desire to hate guns. Hating them makes the solution easier. Get rid of guns and everybody is all better. Unfortunately, that is not reality. The person who murdered your friend would have simply used another tool to gain what they wanted, and suicide is especially related to mental health issues. Want to work on that “sensless violence”? Get involved in mental health. Volunteer at a crisis center. Learn how to help people struggling with mental health issues. Learn when you can’t help and need to either walk away or call the policy to ensure someone’s safety. Alex is mad at Costas because he wants to take away her ability to defend herself. That is what gun control is (especially due to connections between gun control and domestic violence). Costas can afford personal security. Alex cannot. His beliefs have consequences to her. Both you and he need to think about that when espousing anti-gun views. There are consequences to real people when you take away the rights to self-defense.

      • Gun control will only affect people that legally own guns. There are plenty of criminals that buy weapons illegally all of the time. If you don’t like guns, don’t own one. Plain and simple.

      • Bob says:

        Steve should apologize and go to his room. He has no respect for victims.

      • Elizabeth says:

        Domestic violence is a complicated issue, if one grows up in a family dynamic that is abusive, one will believe this is *normal* and thus go out and seek this *normalcy*. If it were as simple as not marrying those who are abusive then it would be done. Those who abuse they too, learned this behavior, there must be a concerted effort, on the part of the abuser to get help. I spent the first 40 years of my life in one dysfunctional relationship or another and I thus I can honestly tell you that it isn’t as cut and dry as you would like it to be. Having said that, violence never solves a problem – just creates more havoc.


      • Face it, Steve. In being against legal gun ownership, you are for giving the power of “the finality of the solutions guns provide” to criminals only. Which is among the stupidest (or most evil) possible opinions one can have. I’ll grant you stupid since I’ve read the rest of your responses. Go experience the world and come back when you’re not so transcendentally naive.

      • Steve, she didn’t say he was abusive and a drunk when she met and got involved with him. She said he became abusive and threatened her life. How does one “reasonable settle the argument” when someone threatens to kill you and won’t allow you to leave? The reasonable way to protect yourself in this situation IS to protect yourself. That can’t be done with words or a restraining order. If you are smaller, slower and weaker than the person threatening you, you get and learn how to use a gun. It is an equalizer extraordinary. You don’t go after him to murder him but you don’t cower in fear. You live your life and if the guy attacks you, you end the problem. What is wrong with that? What would you do if someone twice your size hated you enough to kill you and told you in no uncertain terms that he intended to? How would you handle that “reasonably”?

      • Unit 34A Hunter says:

        It is a regrettable thing in this world that none of us have perfect information. We can not know everything about a person and therefore discover things about each other as we associate with them. Many of us are in the fortunate position of discovering joyful things as the years pass. Some, like the writer, discover that people like her ex-husband had well-kept secrets and problems managing the lesser angels of their own nature. Blaming her for marrying a man that turned out to be abusive is among the more arrogant, immature, and ill-considered notions I will hear advanced by anyone– hopefully for at least a month.

        Firearms are not the problem. In the hand of an idiot a firearm can be used to commit crimes and to kill or maim. The same may be said of a steering wheel.

        The difference between the two of them is that a firearm in the hands of a just person enables them to defend themeselves in every sense of the word against people who would kill them if they were sufficiently vulnerable. A person who breaks into an occupied home is not a “problem” to be “solved”; instead, such a person is an immediate and clear and present danger. Shooting that person is a fair, just, appropriate, morally virtuous and Constitutionally protected act. The universe is an objectively better place for it when criminals are killed in the act of their crimes.

        True, as a society we all hope that criminals may be redeemed. Some of them are redeemed. Many are not. But you cannot know at the time a crime is committed, when upstanding, law abiding citizens lives are threatened, which criminals are redeemable. It is, therefore, morally repulsive to subordinate citizens safety and right to self-protection to the interests of some absurdist fantasy about negotiating with criminals.

      • frank says:

        I am a little middle ground on this. leaning toward more gun control. but like all the gun advocates say, guns dont kill people , people kill people. well your Glock did not stop him from trying to kill you, his choices stopped him from killing you. if he wanted you dead, it can be done, bigger gun. sneak up on you, where there is a will there is a way.

        but the outcome of the use of a gun is so fast and so finale. may it be a disagreement with a friend or a foe or yourself.
        if there is a gun in your house you are 100X more likely to have gun shot wound, than a house with no guns.

        and also, in all the comments from people who endorse gun control….I did not see anyone say that guns should be outlawed…..just gun control….just make things harder…for some…just saying.

        • First, like most BULLIES, this woman’s ex had no wish to go head-to-head with EQUAL OR SUPERIOR FIREPOWER/SUPERIOR FORCE, so his “choice” was the obvious one–avoid being taken down by her and her Glock, and just go find another, less well protected VICTIM!!….Second, I grew up in a household with 2 rifles and a pistol(@ minimum!), and we NEVER had a gunshot wound, and neither did any of the folks in my hometown…and this was a town FULL of hunters and target shooters and etc!!!!!!!!….Your “100x” stat appplies to households where the parents don’t keep control of the guns in the house and don’t PARENT their kids-educate them abt guns and when and how they are to be used PROPERLY, and discipline their kids so they can discipline/CONTROL themselves in most any situation they might get into where they might want to take down the “opposition” with a gun or some other form of superior force!…..Third, we ALREADY have laws on the books to keep “some” from having guns….at least IN THEORY…..if we were ALLOWED to ENFORCE the laws by making penalties–including…….ESPECIALLY…. the death penalty–stick, and make enforcement be EXPEDITED(such as no appeals after six months or mebbe a year MAX!!), then mebbe the deterrent effect of the CONSEQUENCES would help make those who might think of killing/raping/etc somebody THINK TWICE!!!!….esp if we were allowed to make prison time–“hard time–actually HARD time….no outdoor exercising(let alone working out or weightlifting!!) except an hour or so of time out walking around the yard ,a few inmates @ a time, and for DAMN SURE no operations/medical procedures/etc that folks on the outside can’t afford to get by themselves…in short, if you take somebody’s right to live free from attack(of whatever kind!!), you lose your rights!!!!!!!

      • Wraith says:

        …people using violence to settle arguments instead or reason.

        Fixed that for you. People prone to violence will use violence, in the form of a gun, a knife, a baseball bat, a crowbar, a car…I trust you get the point(although, judging from your commentary so far, maybe not).

        The personal sidearm is the equalizer. It lets the 5′, 98lb woman tell a bunch of ‘wilding’ dirtbags bent on rape, “Oh, no you don’t!” It puts the 80-year-old pensioner on equal footing with the young, strong mugger.

        Tere was a time before guns. That was when the world was ruled by large men with swords, and life was neither pleasant, nor fair.

      • Chris Y says:

        Steve, your reasoning is flawed. When I married my husband I was the apple of his eye, his queen, princess whatever you want to call it.. He showed NO signs of being abusive and didn’t drink alcohol, so you can’t blame the woman for marrying an abusive man. For four years this continued.. if I even expressed an interest in something, he would get it for me.. He treated me like a virtual queen. Then one day I came home from work to find that he was not home. My other daughters seemed terrified, so I convinced them to talk to me. They told me that daddy got mad at my 4 yr old daughter and put her in the basement for punishment. I found her, beaten badly and bruised from head to toe. I bathed her, put her in warm pj’s and swore my other daughter’s to secrecy.. That night, as he was drifting off to sleep, I told him in a very calm soft voice, that if he EVER laid a hand on one of the kids again, that I was calling the police and DCYF, and he better pray that they got to him first because I would bash his head in while he was sleeping with anything I could get my hands on.. He NEVER came home when I was still awake, and switched the direction of his abuse, to me. Small things like verbal and mental abuse at first, then the shoving, pinching etc started.. When I found out from one of my daughters that he had been putting a pillow over my face at night (one of them walked in when he was doing it), and then he shoved me so hard against a building that my knuckles were scraped off, I called a lawyer and had a no contact order placed against him. I was lucky because his threats to have me beaten up, or to burn the house down with me and my children in it, were caught on tape while a police officer was at my house (outside the door) when my soon to be ex husband was picking up some of his things. I played the tape for the officer immediately after my husband left, and what they did with the information, I have no idea, but I never had another problem with him. A man can kill a woman or a child with his bare hands and needs no weapon if he is so inclined, but if the woman is armed with a gun.. you can bet your boots it evens out the odds..

      • Drdeano says:

        “You don’t think” Maybe – just maybe if you had read the article by whitlock or heard the comments by costas you would know what was said and the absolution that was implied.

      • “you chose to marry this drunk abusive loser”….which ignores the possibility, or even the LIKELIHOOD, that he was not a drunken f-up when she married him…or at least all he showed her when they were dating was some kind of prince, instead of the beeer-addicted, testosterone-overloaded f-up he REALLY was!!!!!!!!!!!!….and your “secondly” paragraph just sounds like a rehash/restatement/parrotting of that troublemaker Whitlock’s BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!….I suppose you think that the NRA is the new KKK, too?!?!????…instead of the NBPP–which is the new REVERSE KKK!!!!!!!!!

      • Mitch Baxter says:

        I nominate Steve for Idiot of the Year. It’s Alexandria’s fault she married someone who turned out to be abusive? Steve is a poor excuse for a man, which is fairly common among liberals these days.

      • Rob says:

        Yes, because the murder rate in ancient Rome was far lower than now correct, when there was no guns? Or the murder rate in society 500 to 1000 years ago vs now. In fact, the areas of the US with the highest murder rates (Chicago, LA, etc) are the ones with the most gun control laws. People kill people. To say that guns are the primary reason someone is dead is like saying a golf club, knife, a car, etc is the primary reason. Murder with any type of weapon isn’t even in the top 15 reasons for death in the US–even with all of the gang violence. You are far, far more likely to be killed in a car accident or die from alcohol than murdered.

        • rickl says:

          On the first day of the Battle of the Somme, July 1, 1916, the British Army suffered almost 20,000 soldiers killed in action. The Germans used rifles, machine guns, and artillery.

          In the Battle of Cannae, August 2, 216 BC, the Roman Army was defeated by the Carthaginians. Various sources estimate the Roman dead from a low of 10,000 to a high of 50,000. The Carthaginians used swords and spears.

      • NoFixedAddress says:

        F*ck off Steve

      • bravo says:

        steve, cars can be deadly weapons that ‘allow one to quickly escalate arguments into deadly confrontations’ ditto kitchen knives. and hammers.

        troll off to a different page, you’re clearly beat by ethos, pathos and logos on this one.

      • Shane Mullins says:

        Steve, you are an idiot….

      • Larry says:

        Steve, You are an idiot. Blame the women for violance against her. What a dumb ass. My daughter was almost choked to death by what appeared to be an upstanding citizen. WTF.
        ARE YOU CRAZY? Your comments really pissed me off! I do not like to attact the person, jsut the comments, but yours are just stupid..

      • @DiscardedVirtue says:

        Steve, we can explain this to you, but we cannot understand it for you. Suffice it to say, your position on this matter would result in firearms becoming illegal, which means they would only be owned by people for whom the crime of owning one was the least of their concerns. Because all firearms and the knowledge of how to make them cannot be purged from the human experience, the only intelligent position on this issue is to ensure that good and decent folk have access to them as well. Even setting aside the important argument that this is the wrong conversation to have, since individuals should always and forever be accountable for their actions, and that once a society chooses to create a set of circumstances that relieve even a portion of them from this burden, we have broken the trust that permits a polite society to exist.

        Given the rapid moral descent of our nation and its leaders, an armed populace serves another important purpose foreseen by the founders that you may just live long enough to experience as well.

      • dancewkim says:

        Yo, Steve.. I married one like the one Alexandria married, not having known he was abusive. They’re nice when they’re dating you, so can the verbal abuse, dude. Leave her alone & address the real issue.

      • Cheesy says:

        Steve,I’m going to go out on a limb here and say you probably have no women in your lfe, except maybe mom, however restraining orders atre another story…

    • dan says:

      You are right that possessing a gun to prevent a potential life threatening attack is reasonable. and just as it such an effective defense for you it can also be equally as effective criminally. No one wants criminals to have more effective ways to commit violent crimes. And no one wants to take away a persons right to self defence. Smart solutions are needed to this problem. Smart regulation. Both sides of the issue are trying to do what they see as helping our society, both sides include smart people looking at the issue with different concerns. And just as the situation describes reminds us of the importance of gun rights, others show their voilence. killings such as those at columbine or vergina tech could not have taken place without guns. A knife in those situations would be simply ineffective regardless of the level of motivation. If we continue to have such a polarized debate we will continue to have ineffective and polarized solutions.

      • Steve says:

        kinda like congress

      • That_Guy says:

        It was against the law for the individuals at Columbine and Virginia Tech to have the firearms they had when they committed their crimes. It was against the law for them to have them on school property and it was against the law for them to openly or concealed carry them for any purpose other than training at a range or hunting. So let’s make more laws that the criminals won’t follow.
        The point that the Second Amendment rights supporting individuals are trying to make is this:

        More laws are not the answer. They will prevent people who need to defend themselves from being able to do so. I do agree that smart solutions are necessary for this problem but video games did not cause Columbine. Sales of propane tanks did not cause Columbine. Modern sporting rifles did not cause Columbine. The ongoing erosion of family values and a growing alienation of these marginal individuals and a severe lack of supervision of several massively disturbed individuals caused Columbine and Virginia Tech. The media making a huge deal about these tragedies and getting the CRIMINALS fame and notoriety is a factor in these tragedies.

        The only benefit from more laws is that lawmakers will appear to some people to have done something useful that day. That is an illusion that we cannot afford to harbor.

      • Dan, I believe at Columbine the shooters also employed home-made bombs. Anti-gun laws would not effect bombs at all. Those laws may not have kept the Columbine shooters from having guns either. Criminals get what ever they want. I think illegal drugs are also forbidden. Anyone can get illegal drugs. In a life and death situation, death is often the outcome. That’s life.

      • Unit 34A Hunter says:

        I’d rather that government be utterly ineffective at regulating firearms ownership. Criminals do not obey regulations anyhow, so any course of action along those lines only harms law-abiding citizens and violate their civil rights.

    • GySgt Dave says:

      Abso-f’ing-lutely correct.

    • Jane says:

      Stupid reply, if the guy didn’t have a gun, he wouldn’t have committed suicide!

  2. Jay in Ames says:

    Bravo, Alex. I for one am glad you are made of stern stuff, and stiff spine.

  3. DaveinNC says:

    Bravo, Ms. Alexandria.

    • doug says:

      great letter without are 2nd amendment how long do you think it would take to loss the rest of are rights. If the people doing all the complaining werent allowed to voice there opion because there were no check and balance. Lots of people have served in are armed forces and more will to guarantee are rights some paying the ultimate price. Because of these people and are forefather you have the right to say what you want but the rest of us dont have to agree. If guns kill people do penciles misspell word? Of course not but that how mislead you and other like you are.

      doug illinois

  4. BackwardsBoy says:

    Most excellent points, all, Alex.

  5. This times eleventy.

    What kind of utter moron thinks an inanimate object can impose a will on a human being?? And I’m not just appalled, but sickened that the murderer would be elevated to victim status, while the victim would be relegated to the dust bin. That selfish motherfucker murdered the mother of his child, in front of HER mother, and then went and killed himself in front of his teammates!! At what point did the GUN tell him to do this??

    Costas and Whitlock can DIAF.

  6. This is excellent! Good job, AtC.

  7. HayZeus says:

    What these morons said. Best takedown of those two douchewagons that I’ve read yet!

  8. MJ says:

    We should all die so the left can get on with their utopia of an earth devoid of people.

    But you first, Bob.

  9. Jay in Ames says:

    Nick Searcy tweeted AtC’s letter to Costas:

    EXCELLENT retort to Costas’ preaching. An open letter to Bob Costas and Jason Whitlock via @wordpressdotcom— nick searcy (@yesnicksearcy) December 3, 2012

  10. Steve Skubinna says:

    How selfish of you, to insist that your own life should weigh in the posturing and preening of our betters! I don’t see you with a newspaper column or a TV show, and yet you presume to lecture Messers Costas and Whitlock as though your life, let alone opinion, should have some significance to them.

    If you got killed I doubt President Obama would even take the time to have himself photographed frowning at your grave.

    • perturbed says:

      “If you got killed I doubt President Obama would even take the time to have himself photographed frowning at your grave.”

      You’ve got that one right. But if Obama had had a son, would he have looked like Alex’s ex if the chips were down and the ex had gone to the morgue?

    • Nathan Myers says:

      Sorry Steve, but you are way out of line on your comments! I take it if you are married, then your wife has never threatened you with bodily harm or death! If you are not married or ever had a girlfriend that had violent tendencies, then I don’t see how you can criticize the writer! Maybe if you lived in fear as she did, you would be more understanding and compassionate!

    • RageAgainstTheSheeple says:

      Oh, no. Obama would just take the time to have himself photographed at her grave and then tweet about it. Just like he did sitting on Rosa Park’s bus. It’s all about him, dontchaknow?

  11. © Sponge says:

    VOX POPULI!!!!!!

    Well said and Spot. On.

  12. Garry says:

    When seconds count, the Police are only minutes away.

  13. Captain Whitebread says:

    An excellent post, Alex.

  14. ChrisP says:

    Well said, Alex!
    Admirable restraint on the four-letter words.
    I could not have been nearly so civil and probable would have sounded like EddieBear…

  15. LASue says:

    Beautifully said, Alex!

  16. Jdubya says:

    Bob Costas is a charlating charlatan of complete stupidity and douchbaggery.
    Also, NBC should be boycotted until this moldy hair-piece finally falls to the dustbin of nothingness…

  17. massideas says:

    Hey AtC, fellow moron here… well said, and bang on… one typo though: I decided to leave before [he] finally snapped and actually hit me.

  18. Hrothgar says:

    Liberal reasoning on gun “control” is so distorted that it makes one wonder about their sanity in general. It’s as if the shooter does not have free will, but the inanimate gun (that requires several mechanical steps to be able to fire at all) has free will and preordains that the shooter take a life (or several lives) to placate the gun. What utter rot!

    The real moral issue is whether or not people are allowed to defend themselves against both known and unknowable circumstances. If their self defense is justified, it does not matter if they use a gun or a club to kill an attacker. If there is no self defense involved, it does not matter if they use a gun or a club, they have committed murder.and should be prosecuted.

    Alex is spot on here and I for one am glad she had the foresight to understand how to use her Glock as a defensive weapon, rather than allow herself to be disarmed and harmed to prove a liberal theoretical point.

  19. Anna Puma says:

    Very well put as I have said already.

    Where was Costas when Rae Carruthers helped helped gun down his pregnant girlfriend? Or when OJ knifed his wife and a man to death?

    Dear Mr. Costas, its not the instrument’s fault it was used by an evil person. In fact my dear Horatio the fault lies in each of us.

  20. lauraw says:

    This one should go viral.

  21. maverick muse says:

    Brava, Alex!

    Bob and Jason want to stay stuck on stupid, as if better than thou. May the results of their choices be their own to suffer, rather than permitting them to victimize others on the alter to their own obese ego. With PC revisionism, fools juxtapose pretty words like compassion over the most heinous of atrocities. They’d never lift a finger to be the good Samaritan upon witnessing an act of violence. Hypocrites, vipers and prima dona cowards.

    • I couldn’t have said it any better than you did or applauded with better language than the maverick muse. Maybe Mr. Costas needs to stick to sports – we don’t turn to him for political insight. Especially since neither he nor Mr. Whitlock have any.

  22. Paladin says:

    I’ve know her since she was just a mear Moronett at AoS. Well said AtC. Love you for a long time now…

  23. perturbed says:

    Here via Ace of Spades HQ.

    Well said. I do not think it could have been put better.

  24. […] Remember, anti gun bigots would prefer to see this woman dead than allow her to have the most effect… […]

  25. occam says:

    so why did you marry him ? for the money ? Sounds like you made a really bad choice on a very important decision. And yeah quit being a victim. And lose some weight you sound like a mess

  26. Apparently, her keyboard is just as ‘stompy’ as her boots. Good stuff, Alex.

  27. jaguardo says:

    Well said. You’d think a petite, wee little lady like Costas would be more in tune with this reality.

  28. Josh M. - Champaign, IL says:

    It has become my mantra that I am confounded when I see that we as a tool making race have developed the means for the smaller, the weaker, the less aggressive to match themselves against the larger, the stronger, the more aggressive for the first time in history, to keep the will of another oppressive and abusive person from being forced on them and what happens? We suddenly want people to take that away from them? What kind of backwards, inconsiderate, ill-compassionate person does it take to state such a position and insist that their will be done? They wish to weaken and remove choice from people such as the disabled, the elderly, those who are genetically dispossessed of physical superiority and leave them to their predator. Shame, shame on these men and women who insist on a superior moral and intellectual stance. Shame.

  29. grandmalcaesar says:

    Also, I was thinking…what are the chances that Costas owns a firearm, or uses a security firm which offers armed protection? I wonder……

  30. Mjölnir, the banhammer from the gates of Hell says:

    The pimp hand is strong in this one, Kemosabe!

  31. Jim Dunger says:

    Uh, word of caution to Bob and Jason, watch out for the Stompy Boots. Well said AtC Well said.

  32. Bravo, Alex!

    A chick with a gun AND stompy boots – it’s a good thing Mr. TiFW is already married….. (wink)

  33. Tam says:

    Two thumbs up!

  34. The Last One says:

    Alex, most excellent response to those idiots. I will stand and fight with you any day. But you really should look at a Sig Sauer or H&K instead of the Glock. Classier weapons for a classier dame.

  35. DejahThoris says:

    Alex, your awesomeness has grown exponentially in my eyes. I could blather on for days about your awesome-osity, but suffice it to say, that I would be proud to call you friend.

  36. Ironsun says:

    Bonehead response in my opinion. You are as bad as costas with your ‘not to mention terribly misogynistic’ line. Kneejerk and unthinking to even say that. Always the fall back position of a feminist.

  37. Nathan Myers says:

    Should we tighten laws on baseball bats, dowel rods, knives, hands, etc??? Cracks me up how the people in high visibility positions and should be highly intelligent, show how really ignorant they are, all at the cost of “looking good” to the American public! Until you figure out a way for all people to be mutable, kind, with anger in check, you will never stop a human being from murdering another person. So it doesn’t matter if it’s a gun or some other object to commit the crime! Living in a free country is the price we pay correct? Instead of making laws to control an object, how about trying to make life fair and equitable for all Americans! Maybe then the violent crimes committed in America would be reduced greatly!

  38. Eddie Baby says:

    Alex and her Glock, a love story.

  39. Dietpepsiman says:

    He sure had no problem with his armed bodyguards!

  40. cleverpawn says:

    Reblogged this on CleverPawn and commented:
    Well said. There are millions of stories like this one and some go further and prove out what Alex says.

  41. Neo says:

    You can use the same weapon to “off your spouse” that you use for seppuku, yet I heard no call for “blade control” last night.

    Tantō isn’t a friend of the Lone Ranger.

  42. barb says:

    that was wonderful, alexandria.

  43. George says:

    Excellent post. Screw the babbling liberals.

  44. Terrific post, straight from the heart.

  45. C.V. says:

    According to Mr. Costa’s opinion and in light of recent events, we would also have to outlaw edged weapons and arrows.

  46. pplplzer says:

    The same argument could be made for inner city gangsters who use and misuse weapons to defend themselves in their own backyard. If this is a nation of personal responsibility….Im glad your glock justifies your bad life decisions, but next time don’t date a psychopath. Gimme a break.

  47. Rob in Katy says:

    Progressives/Socialists should not have guns, they have proven many times that they don’t have the mental cognitive reasoning required. They believe that they can wish things and make them so, they believe that they can steal the rewards of another’s work which makes them insane and greedy – you should never allow a greedy insane person to own or touch a firearm.

  48. Anna Puma says:

    I see a few here are being typical in their MO. Never address the truth in the post or the profound lack of thought from Costas. No, the poster must be attacked and destroyed per Alinsky.

  49. Count de Monet says:

    AtC has the range … pour it on!

  50. J. says:

    Very well said.

  51. Cato says:

    These people act like guns get up on their own hind legs and walk around shooting people of their own volition. Ask Britain how well complete gun control works, they have banned knives now too. Fact is that a murderer bent on murder will use any tool at his disposal, whether it be a gun, knife, sword, baseball or cricket bat, can of gasoline and match, fists, and so on. In a world without guns, brute strength gives a criminal a nearly limitless ability to victimize others. In a world with guns, a small woman or 85 year old man can defend themselves from bodily harm in a manner even more effective than years if martial arts training. God created men equal, but Sam Colt made them equal.

  52. San Antonio Rose says:

    Alex, that was awesome. I wish I had a Glock when I was married to my abusive ex husband. Violent people will hurt others with whatever is at hand.

  53. I am Glad to have shared a drink and Meal w/ AtC. The only other moron in this 2 bit town. DO NOT sell this woman short. She’ll make you cry w/her wit, then kick your ass and leave stompy boot marks on your DNA.
    Contact me anytime you want to sharpen your range skills. And I enjoy the company! Ammo & dinner is on me.

  54. […] on the part of pampered, amoral, noveau-riche thugs; and all that sort of thing, this crime would never have happened, […]

  55. saME says:

    I know what Mr. Football did for a living and the preening preventer class does too. The truth is he could probably snap her in half with his bare hands. Maybe HE’s dead because of his access to a gun. I don’t necessarily take that as a net negative given his capacity to murder others who don’t act the way he wants them to.

  56. gizbot7 says:

    For those of you who are saying “Just don’t date a psycho!” you are deluding yourselves. Unfortunately, most nutjobs don’t come with a tattoo on their forehead letting the rest of us know to steer clear. Ever heard of Ted Bundy? There are STILL people who knew him who can’t believe he was a pyscho-rapist-killer even though he confessed. You have also never been stalked to a frightening degree only to have the police tell you that they have to wait until you are physically harmed for them to do anything. Get out of la-la land and take the time to learn something about this topic before you comment on someone else’s potentially deadly situation.

    • PDinDetroit says:

      Agreed. A simple Google Search on Castle Rock v Gonzales and Warren v DC should provide what most people need to know: The Police are not responsible to provide Personal Protection for Any Person, even if said person has a Protection/Restraining Order. Heck, the Police have No Duty to even respond to 911 Calls!

  57. PDinDetroit says:

    Great Letter, re-posted to Michigan Gun Owners.

    I, like you, refuse to be a victim and carry one or more “defense options” daily. I Open Carry most of the time, this way the perp knows EXACTLY what they are in for (though I pray I never need to use it).

  58. kcduffy says:

    Reblogged this on Pixie Place II and commented:
    The thinking – or lack thereof – of Costas and Whitlock is a verification that everything we hold dear – Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness – is not just in peril, but has pretty much disappeared from sight in this country. The Founders would be smugly heart-broken, as they designed a plan that is truly the best for Mankind…but destroyed, bit by bit, by Man himself…

  59. Occasional Reader says:

    Alex, a superb response. (You get a trifling half-point off, though, for referring to a Glock magazine as a “clip”…) The gun-grabbers would, indeed, let you die to prove their erroneous point; and apparently, they believe that inanimate objects leap up and kill people of their own volition.

  60. Truman North says:

    U sound hot. A/S/L?

  61. Nick Shaw says:

    O.J. Simpson didn’t need a gun. If people gonna’ murder, they’re gonna’ murder.
    Just sayin’.
    Good response, Chick.

  62. […] An open letter to Bob Costas and Jason Whitlock ( […]

  63. […] UPDATE: I have an Ex. I have an Ex who, in the process of becoming my Ex, made credible threats to kill me [… RTWT […]

  64. Dr Spank says:

    Can’t we all agree that Costas and Whitlock are douche-bags without attacking alcoholism?

  65. rkinroanoke says:

    AtC – I have enjoyed reading you comments at AoS. Now I shall also come here. Very well put. I suspect that we will know much more about the relationship between these two in short order. I shall not be surprised if we learn that this was not the first issue of physical violence between them. It is rarely the first time that brings murder. Congratulations for getting out early enough to prevent your death at his hands.

  66. This guy didn’t need a gun. Necessity is the mother of invention. But since I own guns and know how to use them, I am just a mother.

  67. Mike OBrien says:

    My initial response to your argument would be simply this: Make better personal decisions. If you had chosen to stop associating with this person who was so ready to cause you harm as soon as you saw he had “anger control issues” then the need for a gun goes right out the window. If he keeps bothering you then thats stalking and the Cops can and will do something to keep him away from you. The need for a gun to “protect” yourself is as misguided an argument as the one you are trying to discredit with your indignation. A calm, cool head on your shoulders will do you much more good than any fire arm ever has to anyone in the history of firearms.

    Half of the problem is people don’t know the warning signs, those moments when you Know something is not right and what to do when those moments come to pass. If everyone was able to accurately analize a situation and recognize the need to get as far away from that situation as humanly possible then none of your story or any other argument for/against gun control carries much weight.

    So the point, although rather round-about, is that more or less gun control is not a solution to the current “problem.” Education and only education can prevent the very need for fire arms sufficiently enough to make tragedies like this past weekend truly a thing of the past.

    • Nick says:

      @Mike OBrien: Let’s assume that your premise is 100% correct, and the author’s only potentially life-threatening situation is from this ex, and the police can offer complete protection from said ex. If you can convince me that premise is accurate, then I might put some stock into your argument that looking for the warning signs is all she would need to properly protect herself.

      Until you convince me of that, your “cool head” approach for total protection is completely off base. There is no possible way the police can provide total protection to anyone from anyone else, unless one of them is incarcerated (and known to be incarcerated) or dead. Further, the possession of a firearm provides a level of protection against threats you can’t possibly anticipate. Let’s replace an anger-consumed ex with a random burglar who has an eye on the TV in your living room. Now what? You can be as calm, cool, and collected as you want, if you don’t have that firearm, you might find yourself in the same situation as with a deranged ex, but you couldn’t warn the police ahead of time.

      I don’t think that owning a gun is the be-all-end-all for protecting yourself or loved ones in all situations. In some situations, people should use their heads and take reasonable precautions to mitigate the possiblity of bad things happening. Just because I choose to wear a seatbelt when in a car (even before most states made it a law) doesn’t mean I’m going to play demolition derby on the freeway.

      • Mike OBrien says:

        @Nick: Very rarely does a type of anger control issue like she is describing come up out of the blue with no warning signs at all. The ability to recognize and act upon those warning signs is what I’m talking about.

        As a counter point, say you do have a gun and you know your significant other is coming after you with a gun or some other weapon of their own. How does having that gun make you any safer? You are still in a life threatening situation that, no matter what the outcome is, will change you forever. Either he will kill you, which we can both agree would be a life changing experience, or you will kill him and you’ll have to live with the knowledge that you failed to get someone you cared about the help that they needed and were forced to take their life as a result.

        So looking back, how would that gun have helped you? It would have either escalated a volatile situation and gotten you killed or made you a murderer.

        Now take firearms out of the equation. You have someone coming after you with the clear intent to harm you, what are your options? play like a Scream movie and run upstairs? Not likely but it is an option, I suppose. My first thought would be to get in a car and leave, incidentally breaking the law and talking on your cell phone to report the incident to the cops as you drove away. It’d be a sticky situation all around but at the end of the day you all would have lived through it, probably.

        The fact that guns are made for the sole purpose of ending things lives is what makes them an unwelcome addition to any argument/confrontation. Ask any cop what their least favorite call to respond to is and I guarantee they will say domestic disturbance for the simple reason that they have no idea what those people have in their home or on their person.

        • Quint&Jessel says:

          Oh, dear, Mike, I can tell you’ve never had to worry about being raped.

        • Zapata says:

          When Mike’s daddy touched his peepee, he always told him it was because Mike didn’t run fast enough. Mike learned this lesson well. Run away fast or get your peepee touched. #LiberalLifeLessons

    • Occasional Reader says:

      Ah, so “education” will magically eliminate all acts of human evil (and hence, the need for means of self-defense). Yes, of course. It’s so simple! Why didn’t anyone think of this before?!

      • Mike OBrien says:

        @Occasional Reader: Alright so, if you had read the full post and understood it you would already know this and wouldn’t be wasting my time, but all sarcasm aside the “education” that I was refering to has to do with peoples ability to recognize signs that would tell them that certain unstable people need help or that they need to stop associating with said person. There will always be evil people and for those the problem is how they gain access to the firearms more than anything else. Certain attrocities are going to happen because no policy is perfect but we are specifically talking about situations that deal with one person not feeling safe in their relationship. If that person could see that their significant other was unstable or a danger to them or others they could be smart enough to get out of the way, preferably to report it to someone who can help the unstable person but if not then to just get themselves away from the person they feel threatened by. If that doesn’t make sense to you then I’m afraid you were a little too lacking on the education that helps you in everyday life and I can’t help you. Well, won’t would be more accurate.

        • mtwzzyzx says:

          The problem, Mike, is that some of these people are actually clever and charming, and so can fool you. We aren’t mind readers. Back off- you can’t possibly know what someone saw or didn’t and how they might have been able to act ‘if only…’

  68. Mark says:

    Way to go fatty! Hopefully one day you’ll actually have the self confidence and self worth that you try to portray in your letter and stop dating guys that don’t respect you and treat you like a piece of property. Trade you a piece of cake for that glock?

    • Dr Spank says:

      Mark, judging by your comment, I’m going to assume you’re a little bitch, because only a little bitch would blame ATC for her ex’s douchebaggery. I guess you believe rape victims, who were short skirts, had it coming and that pedophilia is all a misunderstanding. I, for one, hope you take your pro rape and pro child-fucking beliefs elsewhere.

    • Occasional Reader says:

      You’ve just demonstrated amply your own level of self-respect, “Mark”. Nice job.

      • mtwzzyzx says:

        “Mark” is clearly one of those guys who is at least slightly sociopathic and thinks it’s o.k. to smack people he sees as ‘inferior’ around a little. I’m sure it’s wonderful to be your girlfriend, “Mark”.

  69. matt says:

    If I may: why, precisely, are you removing the responsibility for your own safety from yourself and placing it on an inanimate object? You can shoot the guy but you can’t get a restraining order and change the locks? Yikes.

    • NF says:

      Riiiiiiight, because noone EVER ignores restraining orders and noone has EVER been able to break into a locked home. Try again, jizz hose.

      And how the fuck exactly does saying “I’m glad i was able to use this gun to defend myself” place the responsibility on the gun?! You fail at life, Matty Boy.

      • matt says:

        Riiiiight, because noone EVER fails to get to their glock in time and noone has EVER chickened out and couldn’t take the shot and noone has EVER missed a shot and noone has EVER simply shot someone described as enormous and failed to put them down and noone has EVER shot an “intruder” and ended up in court for manslaughter and noone has EVER blown their head off cleaning the damn thing.

        And they are placing responsibility on the gun. If you trust a gun to save you, you’re putting your faith in an object and not in your ability or willingness to use it. So she bought a gun. Big fuckin deal. Can she pull the trigger on a guy she married? Will she hit him? Has she ever killed before? Does she know how to fire the damn thing, or is she going to try it out one handed and put one through the roof of her apartment and into her upstairs neighbor? Is she cool with taking a life? In that moment when the rhino is charging, will she sack up or will she be a victim? You can buy a gun but that don’t make you fuckin Rambo. You can buy a crown but that doesn’t make you a prince. You can buy a race car but that doesn’t make you Mario Andretti.

        I’m calling bullshit on her. It’s all bluster. If anyone is exploiting “tragedy” to score political points, it’s her, and she’s on the wrong side.

        • NF says:

          So, because a gun isn’t an infallible source of protection, she should just make do with restraining orders and locks? I’m really having trouble following the argument you’re trying to make.

          And, again, why exactly is buying and learning how to use a gun putting “your faith in an object and not in your ability or willingness to use it”? Who the hell – here or anywhere else – ever said “cool, I got a gun, therefore I’m an expert! No need to learn anything else!” Seriously, I think you’re operating from a bullshit preconceived notion about Alex and all gun owners generally; i.e. that they never bother to learn about gun use and, more importantly, the moral & legal consequences of gun use and what it means to injure or kill someone with your weapon. Nope, just buy it and go, to make up for crippling insecurities, right?

          If I try to follow your argument to it’s logical conclusion, then Alex (and, by extension, all potential victims, which is damn near everyone) may as well never have *any* weapons or weapon-like instruments on her, including pepper spray, because hey, something could go wrong, like spraying innocent passerby, and she shouldn’t “place her faith” in an object to protect her. And, what the hell, she may as well not have any locks, or alarms, or restraining orders either, since wouldn’t that be a much more clear cut example of placing faith in inanimate objects as well? Alex should have been unarmed so that, even if she ended up dead, well at least she never made any mistakes (or hesitated or whatever else) and would have passed from this earth a pure, uncorrupted victim. And that’s what really matters, isn’t it?

          p.s. – yes, you’re right that it could be that her psycho ex didn’t attack her for another reason besides the gun….or it could be that he’s emotionally unbalanced, but not stupid enough to attack someone who’s armed. Even crazy and/or violent people often don’t like getting shot. Now, lets say he got a gun himself – since it’s apparently SO damn easy – then they’re still technically on equal ground. I know I’d rather face an armed intruder with my own gun than either both of us having nothing (since I’m also a small person who could only fend off a very weak attacker) or the intruder having something but I don’t. Anything to give me a better chance at survival. And you can bet your life that I, like every responsible gun owner out there, would do everything I could to educate myself about proper use and moral and legal consequences. Because, believe it or not, I (and I know I’m not alone in this) don’t take shit like that any lighter than my [our] right to self defense.

    • Paul Zummo says:

      How is getting the Court to intervene not removing the responsibility from oneself? Also, correct me if I’m wrong, locks are also inanimate objects.

      • matt says:

        Because buying a gun and expecting it to do the job for you is shirking your responsibility for having made poor decisions that got you in trouble in the first place, and expecting an easy way out (“emptying a clip” into a guy) instead of going through the long, tedious heartbreaking process of legally separating from someone and making sure they stay away from you forever. You can’t shoot all your problems. I wish you could.

        • Windy Wilson says:

          What we have here is a classic case of problems with reading comprehension. The original poster did not claim she had to actually SHOOT her ex, she also made no claim that because of her purchase she became Mario Andretti or (more appropos to the subject, Annie Oakley). The key point to take away from her essay is that 1.) in a marriage you endure bad circumstances for a while until you understand where they are going and that they will not get better, and 2.) she is safe and alive today because her ex understood that owning a pistol ensured she could in fact contest his desire to kill her if she persevered in divorcing him.
          What if she can’t get to the gun or hesitates in using it are valid questions, but only if we were discussing an actual shooting.
          Relying on oneself is a screwy argument when the stated alternatives are a TRO or changing the locks.
          One might as well argue that carrying a spare tire instead of an AAA card was relying on an inanimate object rather than ones self.
          Arguing about whether she should have never married the bum is particularly unproductive. It is common for women to believe that “my love can change him, he loves me, it is a phase he’s going through, it will be better when the economy improves.” Everyone has a reason to not marry, and hindsight is 20-20. I suppose you had reasons to not sail on the Titanic that would have been convincing on April 9, 1912?

          • matt (mr. jizz hose, to you) says:

            Exactly, thank you for proving my point…given that the gun never actually came into play, I’m really very suspect of the argument that it was a deterrent. That’s a case of reading what you want to hear into the fact that she had a gun. If this guy was really such a psycho, what stopped this guy from getting his own and “emptying a clip” into her? Until proof for this deterrent effect of her merely having a gun is somehow corroborated by reality, it remains bluster. She’s put the same kind of totemic significance into the lifesaving properties of guns as my OCD aunt does in turning the lights on and off fifty times before she goes to bed, and to largely the same effect.

            • mtwzzyzx says:

              When you don’t have an argument, you attack the person’s credibility. The problem for you is, we know it’s a perfectly reasonable thing to believe that, knowing the situation as she did as the first hand actor, the guns was the reason he didn’t act on his passions to hurt her.

            • CB says:

              Do you understand the word “deterrent”?

            • Windy Wilson says:

              When you say you are “really very suspect of the argument that it was a deterrent,” I don’t think you use the word in the same way the rest of us do. A deterrent is a potential threat, never carried out, that influences the behavior of another. It has to be realistic. “I’m going to kill you by sticking pins in a doll if you don’t do as I say” is not a deterrent to most of the western world. Two arsenals of atomic bombs with the means to deliver them across continents was a deterrent, and we have 67 years of no all-out war between the USA and the USSR as proof (which is more than you can say about Imperial Germany, Imperial Britain, France, Russia, and Austro-Hungary).

              I think you can read this and believe the gun in her hands was in fact a deterrent. NOT a guarantee, because as you say, if he decided to shoot first the situation COULD be different, but her having a gun meant that the probability of a guaranteed outcome for the ex was much less.
              The key is Alexandria did not merely have the gun, she told her ex that if he tried to hurt her she would try to hurt him back and was specific about the means by which she proposed to respond to any initiation of violence. Far from being mere bluster, she said what she intended to do and indicated she had the means to carry out the intention if he brought violence to her. The response, she left up to the ex, who as we are led to understand, was not completely psycho.

              • matt says:

                I know what deterrent means. Our nuclear deterrent is well documented as fact; someone writing on the internet about having a gun is not. Hence I call it bluster. I could walk into any bar and scream at the top of my lungs about how I’ll punch the next person that talks to me; if no one decides to take me up on the offer, do my threats represent a deterrent, or just tough guy posturing?

                Anyways. We learned yesterday that Jovan Belcher’s house was full of guns, and that didn’t stop him from plugging his girlfriend. Why didn’t she “empty a clip” into him? My point is that guns don’t prevent violence; they beget violence. That is what they do. That is what they’re designed to do.

                • matt says:

                  Also–not to reply to my own reply, but they don’t have an edit option–per Jason Whitlock, “Handguns do not enhance our safety. They exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments, and bait us into embracing confrontation rather than avoiding it.” Instead of pursuing legal recourse, asking for police presence at her house, or any of a dozen other options to keep her ex away, the author decides to start carrying a gun. This reduces her options to a violent binary. In preparing for confrontation, the author takes her own life in her hands and reduces her own safety. It’s hypocritical then for her to argue that the gun saved her life when embracing the gun narrowed her options to kill or die.

        • Dianna says:

          You rather miss the point. She left; he threatened her; she believed him, and explained the likely consequences of his attempting to carry out his threat.

          Fortunately, he believed her, and the separation process continued without bloodshed.

          What I would like to know is why you think that Alex’s willingness to stand up for herself would have been obviated by a restraining order? How many women are murdered by their ex-husbands and ex-boyfriends after said men have repeatedly violated the restraining order? I believe there was a spectacular case just a month or so ago, where the ex not only killed his former wife, but some of her co-workers. Restraining orders are not magic.

          A gun is not magic, either. But, if you own one, know how to use it, and make sure it’s always to hand, you stand a fair chance of defending yourself. A far better chance, certainly, than waving a piece of paper and a phone will give you.

          • Donna V. says:

            In my city, a physician lost it when his wife left him. He become obsessed with her and started stalking her and harassing her. His practice went to hell. He was barred from a hospital where he had held staff privileges for many years because he was sending her threatening emails from a hospital computer. She got a restraining order against him. That restraining order didn’t do her much good when he confronted her in an underground garage and slit her throat. (Afterward he bragged to the cops that “I’m a doctor. I knew exactly where to make the cut.”)

            This was a couple with grandchildren. He had been a well-respected professional for many years. She was an accomplished musician. And yet he ended up slitting his ex-wife’s throat and she couldn’t stop him. She wasn’t armed. Yeah, that restraining order really helped her.

            Matt, it’s entirely possible, I suppose, that if she had carried a pistol in her purse and tried to use it that she could have lost heart, or missed, or he could have taken the pistol away from her and used it to kill her. How is that worse than the fate which actually befell her? The bottom line is she would have had a chance. Unarmed, she had no chance, even against a man who is not a young 250 lb. linebacker.

            Here’s a link to the story:

            I know him. He didn’t look like that before he lost it. He looked like any professional man getting on in years.

            If she was still alive, Steve and Matt, then you could scold her for not knowing-somehow- that she had married the wrong guy, that she should have perceived that one day the man would turn pyscho on her. You are both so good at looking into the hearts and minds of strangers and judging what they should have known and should have done.

            Santimonious hypocrites.

            Bravo, Alex!!

    • Occasional Reader says:

      Bzzzzt. Straw man argument. Try again.

    • Mike says:

      Right. Because a restraining order and new locks will most assuredly keep an unstable ex boyfriend from carrying out his violent threats. And for clarification, Alex is not at all removing the responsibility for her own safety from herself; quite the opposite. She is instead taking on ALL the responsibility for her own safety (i.e. not relying on the courts and police), and providing herself access to a tool that will increase the odds of preserving that safety. In fact, if you read the entire open letter, she does mention that “he knew I had both the ability and the will to empty a clip into his chest”, which does imply that her Glock, inanimate object that it is, does in fact become somewhat animated once controlled by human hands. She, as most people (and I would argue even you, though I can’t be sure) likely believes that guns do not by themselves shoot people.

  70. Flounder says:

    Well done.

  71. You rock, AtC. Very well said! I’ve been missing from the HQ comments for a while but I am another ‘ette with a gun (I prefer SIG).

  72. Charles says:

    Right on Alexandria

  73. Roderick says:

    We are all happy that you are alive. But the fact that a gun acted as deterrent is not the issue, yet you (and all the people who agree with you) have chosen to make the fact that you are alive the issue over three people being dead and a two month old without a mother and father. Gun related deaths are eight times higher in the United States that are economically and politically similar. As Mr. Whitlock says, guns give people the confidence to make confrontations out of innocuous circumstances. Pulling a trigger is much easier than thrusting a knife into somebody as you suggested Mr. Belcher MAY have done. He could have made the decision to use a knife, but he made the easier decision to pull a trigger. It’s absurd to believe that he would have used a knife or another object to kill her. And with a knife, she would have at least had the chance to defend herself. Guns make it easier for a person to kill another person. It’s more efficient. Why do you think they fight wars with guns? Using your platform to say that it’s the person who has the problem when he or she chooses to use a gun when you are the one who chooses to date an abusive alcoholic is selfish and unintelligent. Just as you so easily say that people and not guns are the problem, I can easily say that your poor choice in men and the even poorer choice to continue to date that man even after he threatened and became even more abusive to you lead to having to get a gun. Yes, maybe Kassandra Perkins would still be dead if a gun was not involved, but the chances of her being alive are exponentially higher. By all accounts, Jovan Belcher was an outstanding young man who has had nothing but positive things spoken about him prior to Saturday. So far, it doesn’t sound like a troubled man with a troubled past who resorted to one last act of violence. In the majority of cases where a gun is involved, if there was no gun, all parties would still be alive; the same goes for this one as well.

    • Occasional Reader says:

      Do yourself a favor. Use your favorite search engine. Pull up the best result (Wiki, let’s say) for “homicides per capita worldwide” in one window; “gun ownership per capita worldwide” in another. Try to find a positive correlation. Want me to save you some time? You won’t. US? High rate of gun ownership; relatively high homicide rate for industrialized countries (but steadily improving, even as guns have become more prevalent); low homicide rate compared to world. Canada and Switzerland? High gun ownership rates, very low homicide rates. Venezuea and Jamaica? Low gun ownership rates, shocking homicide rates.

      How shall I put this… ah, right: Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. To coin a phrase. (Oh, and see also John Lott, on the positive correlation between small-“l” liberalization of gun laws in the US, and falling violent crime rates.)

      Jovan Belcher chose to commit a homicide, and then chose to commit suicide. The gun did not jump up and do those things of its own volition.

    • mtwzzyzx says:

      “He could have made the decision to use a knife, but he made the easier decision to pull a trigger. ”

      I take it you might know about how easy or not the decision is personally? The number of people in human history that have been stabbed/shot would seem to undermine your premise that it’s terribly difficult.

      • Quint&Jessel says:

        You do know that in order to fire a gun and kill someone with it you have to buy the gun; buy the bullets; load the bullets correctly into the gun; pick the gun up from wherever you have stored it and take it to the place where your victim is; take off the safety; aim it; pull the trigger. Guns don’t teleport at will.

  74. Katie says:

    You are completely correct in that guns don’t kill people – people kill people. I wish everyone could understand that.

  75. Chip says:

    You all do realize that this one instance of a gun (theoretically) keeping someone safe against an attacker is just absolutely and completely dwarfed by the thousands of people killed every year in handgun related violence? It’s great that this Glock kept Alexandria safe (even though she never did actually use it.Wouldn’t the idea of knowing you had a 12 gauge shotgun next to your bed have done the same trick?) but the only purpose of a handgun is for one human to cause harm or death to another human, no matter which way you slice it. You all have been talking about guns not being the issue and how if someone is determined to hurt someone they will. You’re absolutely right! But guns make it a hell of a lot easier. What do you think happens when Alexandria and her Glock run into drunk, abusive ex… who bought a .44 Magnum after a three day waiting period because there was absolutely no legitimate restrictions on him doing it?

    • turfmann says:


      Go back to the top of this article and notice the no-so-subtile reference to near-decapitation by knife.

      You do know who used to do play-by-play with Costas, right?

      The guy who sawed off Nicole Brown Simpson’s head just before/after he nearly sawed off Ron Goldman’s head.

      If either one of those people had a Glock, they would be alive today.

      That seminal fact points out the idiocy of Costa’s logic – his buddy didn’t require a gun to kill his wife, and if his wife had one when it counted, she could have turned the tables on him.


      End of story.

      An American citizen has a Constitutional right to possess a firearm. State and local laws dictate in what circumstances they may be carried and under what circumstances they may be used for self-defense.


      End of Story.

    • Occasional Reader says:

      You just failed basic logic.

      “One instance of a gun protecting someone is dwarfed by thousands killed in gun violence”

      Okay, class, can we spot the logical flaw in this argument (if it even merits the name)?

    • mtwzzyzx says:

      I may be wrong, but I’m pretty sure if you have a restraining order, you might pop up as a no-go on the background check.

  76. daddybear71 says:

    Outstanding. Just when I thought I knew how to write, I find someone who reminds me I have a lot to learn.

  77. turfmann says:

    Damn, that was a great screed. I enjoyed that so thoroughly that I think I’m going to have a cigarette.



  78. derrick says:

    The problem is you believe the Glock is protecting you, but if he wants to harm you, then he will. Sorry, but guns cause more violence not less. No one is removing responsibility from human beings, guns make it easier to kill someone.

    • Butch says:

      Amazing, Chicago has completely banned handguns, yet they have one of the highest murder-by-gun rates in the nation. Same thing for New York City, Detroit, and many other places that have strict gun control laws. Guns do not “cause” violence just as automobiles do not cause reckless driving and accidents. Look at the other nations that have outlawed handguns, they still have murders, rapes, and other violent crimes. The banning of guns will not reduce violent acts in this or any other country, only a change of heart, spirit, and mind will accomplish that. I have guns to hunt with, use in Competitive shooting events, and to protect my family. You cannot, nor ever could, depend on the police to protect you when you need them. I could kill you just as fast with a knife, fork, or rock as I could with a gun. A lack of guns guarantees two things: 1. You WILL become a victim when confronted by a criminal; 2. You will not have the ability to resist your government if and when they decide to really take away all of your freedoms … I believe the founding fathers of the USA warned us about this many times in their writing and speeches. Finally, let us not forget what our own anti-gun government has done … provided weapons to the Mexican Drug Cartel in order to bolster their own agenda, which had nothing to do with catching drug dealers.

    • DB says:

      Derrick you cannot prove that. Guns do not cause more violence, simply because there is no way to measure what would have happened if the gun was not there. You can say that there is statistical likely hood that is not that same as X caused Y.

  79. I find it tragic and sad that Steve, Roderick, and Chip all fail to grok a simple truth: Taking guns away from the stable and law abiding means that there are exponentially higher numbers of people who can fall victim to the unstable, and the criminal, who have already failed the fundamental test of impulse control.

    The problem is not the instrumentality available to many; it is the flawed nature of the individual. Banning self-defense by banning personal firearms will only create more victims.


    Well done, Alex.

  80. Tonestaple says:

    Beautiful, Alex, and very well said. I posted it on my facebook page.

    And, Chip, the drunk abusive ex would not have scrupled to buy an illegal gun since his property had deserted him. So we are still left with Alex defenseless against the drunk abuser, just because you have, in your infinite wisdom, decided we shouldn’t own guns.

    For the 10 millionth time, guns are inanimate objects with no will of their own. The responsibility for the use of an inanimate object rests entirely with the user.

  81. raysackett01 says:

    Totally agree with Alex. Guns don’t kill, people do! Guns should be made accessible to any responsible citizen who follows the laws. Never take that right for granted!

  82. Eric Tull says:

    The comments against this post are so stereotypically liberal. Someone threatens and assaults Alex, so who do they blame? The guy who commits the violence? Of course not! Can’t you see he’s the victim?

    Oh, and she’s overweight. I don’t know what that has to do with this article, but apparently it matters to them.

    • NF says:

      Eric, I believe these are the same type of people that will say a rape victim deserved it for what they were wearing.

  83. John Severs says:

    powerful words…I doubt anything else could state the facts as well as you have

  84. cody wait says:

    It is hilarious that you point out that others are having trouble reasoning! You clearly don’t understand the simple point being made here. I am glad to know though Steve, that without guns people would’nt be killing because then they would get their hands dirty! Idiot! THEY ARE MURDERERS! If you are saying its too dirty, then why wouldnt that “thoughtful, clean” murderer just poison someone? After all that is way cleaner than shooting someone. Then there would most liekly be no mess at all!oooh but you would still be a murder, weird. Your points suck! I would like to think that you would have enough common sense to know that a murderer or someone robbing your house will make it in anyway. They will have a gun and you will not! You will die and they will not! Guns become illegal…ok. Criminals/ bad guys will still get them and the law abiding citizen will not! The Criminals will basically rule! is this still really hard for you to understand?

  85. Mike338 says:

    @ Mike OBrien: Do you really expect anyone to believe all your bullshit? Do you live in a fairy tale land? So according to your thoughts all of this can be avoided if people can recognize a bad situation and run from it as fast as humanly possible. So the victims are to blame for what happen to them right? They are too stupid to see the writing on the wall. If everyone were just as smart as you think you are then there would be no crime. No need for a gun to defend yourself because you can just run away from every situation because you can see the future and what is about to happen.

    Explain to all of us what exactly the cops will do to keep someone away if they are stalking you? Do you think they will assign a cop to protect this lady 24/7? No! Or will they put him in jail for 5 or 10 years for stalking? No! They will probably tell her to get a restraining order. Everyone with the exception of a few ignorant idiots such as yourself know how well those work. They offer no form of protection and as she stated he would have to do something first to violate that order. Hopefully it would have been a small violation and not something more like a homicide.

    So how does that work if a rapist decides to break into your house in the middle of the night and rapes your wife while you are forced to sit by and watch, or will you run like the coward you are and leave her to defend herself? What if you happen to be in a store while it is being robbed? What if someone decides to rob you or car jack you? Now tell me how education is going to prepare you to accurately analyze these situations and see the need to run like you suggest? What about this incident The lady was home by herself when a man tried getting into her home and yelling threats. She called the cops and waited on the phone for 20 minutes before she had to make the decision to defend her life with her gun. Tell me how your logic would have saved her life without the need of a gun.

    The only thing that doesn’t carry much weight around here is your severely flawed thought process.

  86. Keith says:

    What’s wrong with pepper spray or stun gun Alexandria? And a secure lock on your door? I understand the need to protect yourself against a much larger, mentally unstable threat. But escalating the threat of his potential violence to an instrument of death is a big jump. Isn’t there another step you’re not considering? And one that doesn’t have an equal chance (if not more likely chance) of hurting yourself or own children by accident?

    • Scout/Sniper says:

      I am a Marine Sniper! I could kill her with my bare hands. This has nothing to do with guns. You idiots that blame everything on gun ownership should kill yourselves and do us all a favor.

    • Windy Wilson says:

      Did she have pepper spray or a stun gun? She may have, that was irrelevant to the point.
      Does she have secure locks? Funny, we’d only know if they weren’t secure if someone broke in. Keith admits the need to protect oneself from a much larger mentally unstable threat, but — threat of what? Everyone who seems to think that a gun as deterrent is outweighed by the risk of unintended harm missed the nature and extent of the threat.. HE threatened death. Only a reciprocal threat of death is effective. Or has amnesia already set in about nuclear war and mutually assured destruction vis a vis the Soviets?
      The chance of a gun being turned against the owner was shown to be inflated when it was first trotted out as a scare statistic 20 years ago, and the likelyhood of that happening is reduced by a determination to use the thing when a threat appears. “go away or I’ll shoot!” and then shoot if he steps closer. It isn’t a magic wand, so you may have to shoot.
      And nobody said anything about children in the situation.

      If the laws were as we want, you would be free to not buy a gun, and that is your choice and right.
      If the laws were as you wusses want, everyone except thugs would be unarmed, and there would be no choice for anyone. Why the difference in choices?

    • I’ve personally seen situations where rage alone has fueled people through pepper spray and multiple stungun hits.

    • rickl says:

      A few years ago I bought a couple of guns and some ammo. I took a course in how to use and clean them. It also heavily emphasized principles of safety.

      A little while later I replaced some doors and windows. The new ones are reinforced and are much more secure than the old ones were.

      I spent much more money on the doors and windows than I did on the guns and ammo.

      It doesn’t have to be either/or.

  87. TexasFred says:

    OJ killed Nicole and Goldman with a knife … BAN KNIVES
    Chris Benoit committed suicide with a rope … BAN ROPE
    Karen Carpenter starved herself to death … BAN anorexia
    Marilyn Monroe committed suicide with pills … BAN PILLS

    The damned liberals have NO idea how stupid they sound when they cry about 1 gun owner killing someone and committing suicide…

    There is something like 80 MILLION gun owners in America, owning approximately 258 MILLION guns..

    Given the logic of Bob *dumber than dirt* Costas, shouldn’t there have been MILLIONS of murders today?

  88. droid1963 says:

    This has been posted up on… should also find it’s way to 24hourcampfire, AR15, and every other pro-gun, pro freedom site. Also, tell NBC and the NFL that you will not support them by buying tickets or merchandise…

  89. Michael says:

    Just another Right-Win gun toting American shooting her mouth off! Everyone wants their 15 minutes of fame. All Bob Costas did was read what a reporter wrote in Kansas City. Don’t blame Mr. Costas or NBC. Now that you’ve come out on a blog and write about this you’re fair game to everyone else. That reporter has his opinion about guns and obviously so do you. You have a glock, big deal. Maybe you should have married your glock and not your ex who sounds like a real catch. (What does this say about the men you choose?) Obviously the glock was your protection so good for you. Nothing wrong with folks owning guns and no (Obama isn’t trying to take your guns) Your ex kept away due to your glock and obviously you know how to use. The probelm is; not everyone does and when you have an unstable football player who carries; well, we see the results. Athletes from football players shooting themselves (like Plexico Burress) to what just happened I believe all this reporter was trying to say is I think we have too many guns. Our 2nd Ammendment allows us to Bear Arms which is true. The trouble is too many unstable people carry guns and it’s too dam easy to obtain one.

    • doubleplusundead says:

      So we should make it harder for people who are poor, disenfranchised or in imminent danger to acquire the tools needed to defend themselves…gotcha. As for being too easy for shitheads to get guns…dude, it’s 500+ year old technology, they’re gonna get an iron if they want one.

    • stace says:

      “Right-Win gun toting American”:

      And? Is that supposed to be an insult? If so, it’s a massive fail, so I didn’t read past that.

    • Zapata says:

      Hey Mike, is it painful with that strap-on up your ass?

  90. DB says:

    you got link in this yahoo article. Well said.

  91. Smartone says:

    Ban all violent X- box games that Steve is so fond of . Allow nothing sharper than a butter knife to be sold . Make all glass shatterproof . No bow and arrows allowed either .

  92. DB says:

    Ok that was horrible here is the small ver

  93. Oh, so you think a gun will always protect you, and you have no need for locks on your door or restraining orders or cops?

    No, use of force is a continuum, lethal force is the last resort.

    Oh, so you think a gun will always protect you, and you have no need for locks on your door or restraining orders or cops?

    Wrong, FBI crime stats, 10k firearm homicides which includes justifiable homicide, the rest are suicide and accidents. Also in the FBI stats 750k defensive firearm uses a year, with studies showing more. Display of a firearm prevents a crime, no crime no uniform report. Defensive use, homicides prevent rapes prevent far out number firearm homicides.

    You might not be able to get that Glock out in time, and the stalker might kill you anyway; therefore, the Glock is useless.

    Since it may not be 100% effect it should never be used? This logic medicine should be banned because it does always work and you die anyway.

  94. jonathan Bomar says:

    OJ simpson never killed anyone without using a gun. If there were no guns there would be no violence.

  95. italianmama says:

    As an ex-wife of an abusive husband, he didn’t use a gun to try to kill me – he tried to choke me and tried to push me out a highrise window – so I applaud you Alexandra!
    Italy banned guns – yet criminals still have them to use against victims and plenty of wives still die by guns and by other means!?

  96. JR says:

    While it’s compelling, I’d bet that it is pure fiction. It just doesn’t ring true. It was written by a male.

  97. Jorge Sanchez says:

    If Florida hadn’t confiscated Sean Taylor’s gun after he previously used it to defend his property, we might be talking about the greatest safety era in football history with three of the four greatest safeties of all-time, Taylor, Polamalu, and Reed, all being contemporaries. Instead we had to listen to Jesse Jackson pontificate about how he’d be alive if not for stricter gun laws; in that case Taylor had his legal gun ownership revoked and abided by the decision-having a knife by his bed instead, and someone illegally owning a guy shooting him.

    Once again, those who would rob us from our freedom to protect ourselves are making idiotic examples of football player violence to justify doing so…I just didn’t expect it to come from Costas, even though he works for the anti-freedom network, instead of Jackson or Sharpton…

    Society has been robbed of lives again, and yet again we’re left being told that it is because we have too much freedom in a time when most of us feel little control over our declared right to pursue happiness at the foundation of our once-great land.

  98. Ernesto says:

    You are 100% correct!

  99. Vmaximus says:

    According to the gun banners here guns should be banned because
    they make killing so easy
    they are the only thing ever that’s sole purpose is killing
    they kill thousands of people every year!
    In reverse order because that last one is fun, do you now that more people die each year as a result of playing that deadly sport of tennis? Yes about 30,000 people die a year from playing tennis. Then there is the flu do you know that 36,000 people die from the flu? Yes tennis is 3x more deadly than guns

    The first cave man that picked up a club did not do it to tickle someone. There are plenty of things that have been made solely for killing. Spears Trebuchets and electric chairs all come to mind.

    Finally it is too easy to kill with a gun tells me you should never own one.

  100. --- says:

    What’s wrong with everyone, we really should ban guns. Domestic disputes will have to switch to kitchen knives and terrorists and criminals will have free reign with their smuggled guns! Finally we will be able to live in peace.

  101. SiM says:

    A Glock and Stompy Boots. Invincible! Whadda U got for SMOD?

  102. […] to people who don’t think guns can’s save lives, I offer you this open letter to Costas and Jason Whitlock (via. Ace of […]

  103. Tom says:

    14,299 people were killed by means of guns in the US in 2008. Sure, some of those murders would have happened regardless, but can you definitively say all of them would? Consider the answer to that question in light of the following:

    The next nine methods combined, all the methods that were the cause of 10+ murders in the US, combined only for 3,859 murders, or about 27% of that total; in other words, if you were to be murdered in the US, it was nearly three times as likely to be by gun as any other method.

    Part of the appeal of a firearm as a murder weapon is the precise reason it was so valuable for your protection: guns can inflict serious damage at long distances. The next five most popular methods (knives/cutting weapons, “personal weapons” (fists, etc.), blunt objects, strangulation, and asphyxiation), all generally require being within arm’s length. Would every person who commits a drive-by shooting or mass murder by means of firearm in a crowd instead run up to the person(s) and stab, bludgeon, or choke them to death? Maybe some, but particularly in the latter case it would seem the death toll would be limited by how many people the murderer could chase down and kill. Granted, the latter are rare, isolated incidents, but the point is the fact that a person prone to such atrocities has access to a gun greatly amplifies his deadliness.

    My point is, I’m glad you’re alive. That a gun helped accomplish that is wonderful in your case. But counterbalancing that is the fact that there are also many people who would still be alive to day were there fewer or no guns. Are your life and the lives of those similarly situated more valuable than their lives? To you, certainly, and I would expect you to wholeheartedly say so. But just remember for every you out there there are mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, sons, daughters, other family members and friends who have lost loved ones to gun violence, and they could accuse you of making their loved one sacrifice their life for the sake of yours and those like you in the same way you accuse Costas of doing for the sake of his soapboxing.

    • doubleplusundead says:

      Firearms have been around for over half a millenium, and are quite easy to manufacture, not to mention there are more guns than people in the US already. You’re never going to rid the world of 500+ year old technology, thinking you can is laughable.

      • Tom says:

        Get rid of? No, you can’t get rid of it. But you can bar or severely limit its use. Drugs are a decent example: we’ve had access to many of the more natural drugs for centuries, if not miliennia, and yet many of them are banned or limited.

        Does that stop people? Not always. But think of the amount of people who smoke or drink in this country compared to the amount that use cocaine or heroin. Government bans matter in terms of the sheer numbers; if there was a gun ban, there would be far fewer of them around, and likely far fewer in the hands of the people who would use them in the worst ways.

        Now, I’m actually not in favor of a gun ban. In spite of the absurdly outdated motivations behind the Second Amendment, and my personal belief that one would likely save lives, I like our Constitution for the most part, and am unwilling to cut down the Law just to make a few relatively minor tweaks. But I am not unsympathetic to the victims of gun violence, and will speak up when I feel they’re being marginalized, as I thought they were here when you made this issue about you, Bob Costas, and Jason Whitlock without a word about them. As I said, I’m happy you’re alive, but just as Costas and Whitlock need to understand that their choice of stance on gun control would affect lives, so I believe you need to remember that your ability to defend your life doesn’t come without a price.

        • chemjeff says:

          ” if there was a gun ban, there would be far fewer of them around, and likely far fewer in the hands of the people who would use them in the worst ways.”

          Right, because violent criminals are known for their scrupulous obedience to the law.

          “your ability to defend your life doesn’t come without a price.”

          More vague insinuations. What is this “price”, Tom? Please inform us, specifically and in detail, how Alex’s gun comes at a cost to you.

    • chemjeff says:

      First, Tom’s statistics aren’t even valid. In 2008, there were 14,180 murders *total*, of which 9,484 were committed by firearms, and 6,755 were committed by handguns.

      So Tom’s credibility is already in question.

      Second, Tom here is engaging in a false equivalency. Nobody wants to force anyone to own a gun.

      And it’s clear that Tom is just pushing an agenda, because he uses typical lib-speak phrases like “lost loved ones to gun violence”. No, people die because murderers kill them. “Gun violence” is not some shadowy force that yanks someone’s soul out of their body.

      • Tom says:

        Got bad info on the murder numbers; my mistake for not checking the original source. Here’s the site the site I was referencing referenced: Only 2/3rds of the people murdered in the US were killed by means of a gun (I’m always careful to include “by means of,” since I don’t want to be accused of accusing guns of doing anything without human aid), instead of the 4/5ths I was hovering around.

        And to paraphrase Eddy Izzard (a comedian, in a serious firearms debate? I know, it’s crazy), “It’s true guns don’t kill people. But I think the guns help. Just standing on the corner going, ‘Bang!’ isn’t likely to harm anyone, is it?” To say, “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people” is an incomplete phrase. The phrase is, “guns don’t kill people; people kill people, primarily (in this country at least) by using guns.” In the same way, your phrasing would be “people die because murderers kill them, primarily by using guns.” And as I said, I’m of the opinion that if there was a severe limitation on access to guns, there would be fewer murders in this country, either because there would be fewer murderers (people unwilling to get their hands dirty and kill someone in a more direct fashion) or fewer murders by those murderers (because they will, due to the need for greater proximity with their target and lessened ability to kill than one would have with even a semiautomatic firearm, be less successful).

        And I don’t believe I ever said anything about forcing people to own guns; I’m going to have to ask you to explain that one.

        People who buy guns illegally now, would, in all likelihood still be reasonably able to access such weapons with or without a gun ban, which as I said, I believe would be a good thing but would not advocate, since I believe it means at least in some small part undoing the Constitution (a dangerous step that, once taken, can lead to all sorts of nasty results). But I would also say that money saved on gun regulation in that hypothetical world could be used instead to buffer policing of illegal gun sales, and that with one of the primary purchasing countries for handguns out of the market, fewer non-military guns would be produced in the future, and therefore, criminals would likely have less access. But all that is admittedly speculation.

        And finally, there’s no cost to me personally of Alex’s particular gun use. I don’t believe I know her, haven’t to my knowledge met her, and will be unlikely to do so. But as I said, I believe there is an aggregate cost in human lives as a result of guns being so prolific in the US. It’s silly to say that just because one person uses guns in a way that doesn’t do harm to a particular person (or even to anyone at all), we shouldn’t place any restrictions on guns. Similarly, it would be silly to say that if one person uses a gun in a bad way, we should ban all guns. My propositions, as I believe I’ve stated them, are these:

        1. I believe there would be fewer murders in this country if guns were outlawed, but I am unwilling to state that I believe we should undo the Second Amendment to make it so, unless of course it is so ratified by a constitutional Amendment (which is exceedingly unlikely at any point in the foreseeable future).
        2. Though unwilling to ban guns, I still believe that gun violence is an issue in this country, and as such am loath to let a person’s personal positive history with guns overshadow that issue without it being given a voice. To that end, I attempted to remind Alex that just as there are people still alive because of the access to guns, there are people who are dead because of the access to guns.
        3. I have nothing personal against Alex, or her beliefs, except insomuch as they ignored that issue, and am glad she wasn’t killed by her ex-boyfriend because of guns, in the same way I would be glad about people avoidably killed as a result of gun violence were there no guns.

        • Tom says:

          Oh, and I guess a 4. would be that I thought that Costas and Whitlock’s comments were out of place, both because of the forum in which they usually speak and that this to me seems to be clearly more about domestic violence than gun violence.

        • G Mohawk says:

          >>>> ” But I would also say that money saved on gun regulation in that hypothetical world could be used instead to buffer policing of illegal gun sales, and that with one of the primary purchasing countries for handguns out of the market, fewer non-military guns would be produced in the future, and therefore, criminals would likely have less access.” <<<<<

          Three Words: Fast and Furious

        • chemjeff says:

          Your response is full of strawmen, emotional twaddle, and utopic thinking.

          First, nobody has said “no restrictions on guns”. Nobody would disagree that “gun violence is an issue”.

          Second, all throughout your response you use clauses like “I believe’, “I speculate”, “I’m of the opinion”, etc. For instance:

          ” I’m of the opinion that if there was a severe limitation on access to guns, there would be fewer murders in this country,”

          That’s nice. I’m sure that opinion makes you a member in good standing at liberal cocktail parties. However, your opinion is wrong. Check anything written by John Lott for instance. Here is something from current events to get you started:

          Third, you continually betray your desire to have this utopian perfect gun-free society. You say you don’t want to ban guns, but then you are dismayed by all the murders committed by “gun violence”. Well, in your world, the only way to get rid of murders caused by “gun violence” is to ban all the guns. You say it would require “undoing the Constitution” and that would be a dangerous step. Yes, it would be dangerous. But if push ever came to shove, I think you’d be willing to take that dangerous step because all of your same reasons apply: it would cut down on murders and gun violence (in your line of reasoning, anyway) and would make the country a safer place (in your line of reasoning, anyway). Who cares that a little bit of liberty is sacrificed along the way? You’re already willing to sacrifice *most* of it when you advocate for heavy, heavy gun restrictions in the first place. Taking the *last* step to ban all the guns is actually the easiest step. It’s taking the first step, to deprive the innocent of his/her liberty to do something that harms no one, such as owning a gun as a defensive weapon, that is the hardest. And you’re so already there.

          This is something liberals tend not to get: you can’t create a society that is both perfect *and* free. You just can’t. The only way to make a perfect society is to deprive everyone of liberty from making any free choices. Because once someone makes a free choice, then it is inevitable that someone makes a free *bad* choice, which is decidedly imperfect. So, pick one: free or perfect.

          • Tom says:

            I had a huge answer written, filled with points about things that were said, and then I realized how much time I had wasted on this. I mean, this conversation is literally pointless; I have personal beliefs (some based more soundly in fact, some more in gut feeling), but I don’t feel I should impose them on anyone else. To that end, I don’t even vote. Even if I were to completely come over to your side, you wouldn’t be gaining anything tangible, and I am unwilling to do in-depth research to rebut your position because even if I think the facts are with me, I am not so much a fool as to believe that I will change any minds through particularly forceful internet argument.

            It all comes down to this: I’m saying essentially, “I believe X,” and you’re saying, “You should believe Y.” In these kind of debates, the more information that a person provides to disprove the other’s position, the more firmly the other believes in that position, not because they think the person’s information is wrong, but because it’s perceived as a personal attack. I knew this going in, and still let it happen; you trolled me most expertly sir (though I believe it was unintentional), first through impugning my credibility, and through accusing me of “emotional twaddle.” But no more.

            All I wanted to say was literally that, “I’m happy that a gun helped you, and Costas and Whitlock were out of line, but there are many people who have had just the opposite experience, and maybe a little ‘I in no way advocate the killing of people with guns.’ or ‘I understand gun violence is in an issue, but…’ disclaimer would have been appropriate. Also, I personally think that there are more murders because guns are readily available.” Instead, I got dragged into a debate about gun regulation when I don’t particularly care about it. Maybe I was asking for it in the way I said what I said; had I done the two sentence version of things, I might have escaped unanswered. But no point in worrying about it now. As I said, I have my leanings, but they’re mine, and I don’t force them on anyone else in any way more powerful than merely voicing them. And with that, I will bow out of this conversation. Congratulations Jeff, and good luck Alex.

        • stace says:

          “To that end, I attempted to remind Alex that just as there are people still alive because of the access to guns, there are people who are dead because of the access to guns.”

          There are more people in the US who’ve benefitted from access to guns than have suffered from it. They are disproportionately the female, elderly and disabled, who by possession of guns are put on equal footing with their larger, younger, stronger, male attackers. These are the people you claim to have to have compassion for, but you would leave them defenseless against murderous stalkers, home invaders and rapists. Shame on you. Leftists really do hate women. You want us helpless and dependent on men for protection.

        • Quint&Jessel says:

          I believe, as a small handicapped female, that if a rapist breaks into my home, I can even the odds of being raped and killed if I have a gun. You, Tom, have never had to worry about rape, or have you?

        • bill-o says:

          “I believe there would be fewer murders in this country if guns were outlawed”

          You believe this in spite of the fact that where the laws on gun ownership are strictest, Chicago, DC, the murder rate is higher?

  104. brett says:
    I think theres a lot to learn from the 2nd amendment video clip
    “If everyone has a gun, then no one has a gun”

  105. […] Alexthechick – An open letter to Bob Costas and Jason Whitlock […]

  106. Hollis says:

    Well really the fact of the matter is people kill people not guns.
    After WWII my dad went to the hardware store and bought dynamite to blast rocks from our field and right after WWII you could by a Thompson Sub Machine gun thru the Sears and Roebucks catalog.
    Let see the reason I can’t do that either of those things is probably prohibition since the gangs made the Tommy gun and gang violence famous.
    Let face it the cowards of the world keep giving up their rights in the pursuit of complete safety and still die buy the thousands at the hands of any depraved wolf that can’t figure out what he is doing is illegal.
    Wake up America life will never be perfectly safe this is not a fairytale your living and no one can protect you, but yourself, hopefully, first by managing your risks and hopefully, only as a last resort by force.
    Even if the police wanted to they are always at least 10 minutes away.

  107. magiccat says:

    The topic of gun control always brings to mind a story that was told to me by the owner of a sporting goods store in England.

    Gun control doesn’t disarm criminals. Yeah, sometimes honest people do bad things with guns but in reality, it is usually people who don’t even qualify to own a guy under the existing gun control laws.

    • magiccat says:

      Sorry, my story didn’t make it for some reason, so here it is again.

      Before we had strict gun controls in England making it virtually impossible to own a gun legally, you would walk into a bar and someone would walk over and say “Hey, do you want to buy a gun?”. The answer was “No, I’ll just to the store and buy one”. Now that we have these strict gun control laws, you want into a bar and someone walks over and says “Hey, do you want to buy a gun?”.

  108. garrett says:

    Wait…was this the Kassandra from 227?
    I loved that show!

  109. Merovign says:

    There hasn’t been a “discussion” on this topic in thirty years.

    Control freaks: No. You can’t have it. It’s non-negotiable, find another hobby.

    Non-negotiable means it’s not negotiable.

  110. Rhon says:

    “If it weren’t for guns, this wouldn’t have happened.”
    Abel had not trouble killing Cain without a gun.
    Nichole Brown Simpson was also not murdered with a gun.

  111. garrett says:

    ‘MARY?’ –

    that shit cracked me up.

  112. chemjeff says:

    AtC, that is a very powerful story. Thank you for sharing.

  113. Well said Alexandria. Maybe Costas or Whitlock would have a clue if they read a firsthand account like this one. The biggest victims of gun bans are women and elderly. They rarely could fend off a large male attacker but for a firearm.

  114. JL says:

    Is less firearms really going to slow down murders?
    Let’s compare Maine and NYC for just a moment.
    Murders in Maine: 1.6 per 100,000 people.*
    Murders in NYC: 6.6 per 100,000 people.*
    * Statistics from 2005.

    Firearm laws in Maine?
    Handgun/shotgun/rifle/ and scary ‘assault rifle’ ownership in Maine is unrestricted. No permit or license required.
    Concealed carry permits are granted on a ‘shall issue’ basis.
    Needless to say, gun ownership in Maine is quite high.

    NYC, it’s very difficult to own guns. Few people do, fewer still will conceal carry their weapon(s).

  115. Chris C. says:

    Thank you. That was brutally honest…too honest for the objects of this open letter to comprehend…kudos…

  116. Rip VanBullwinkle says:

    Taliban…looks more like TaliBob. You go girl!

  117. GCAYSE1 says:

    Guns are NOT the problem. We currently live in a culture that glorifies death and violence and cheapens life (abortion is perceived as the answer to pregnancy). Society sees children as a burden rather than a precious life. So, when a man strangles a woman we cut off all the arms of men? When someone stabs and kills someone, we ban knives? When someone gets behind the wheel while drunk and kills someone, we ban vehicles? This is just stupidity run amuck!

  118. Kinley Ardal says:

    There’s no point in attempting to argue with leftist maroons like those above hounding atc for her excellent post.

    Thing of it is, these individuals fall back to the only thing they know – deriding the target du jour with personal attacks and juvenile mocking, because they do not actually have a reasonable answer.

    Typically, a Leftist claims to be the caring, understanding one in a battle of political ideals. In practice, they are malicious, callous, and insensitive, because little things like pity or compassion get in the way of their Elysium (I say Elysium rather than Utopia, because it is a slightly more accurate representation of Leftist paradise – ‘those chosen by the gods’ as opposed to all manner of folk). The Leftist cares nothing for the fact that atc was under threat of attack by a violent and deranged man – her personal story gets in the way of the narrative.

    The narrative is that firearms are evil, unless wielded by those Leftists in power, or at their command, and nothing, not one single thing, can change their narrative.

    Therefore, they do not address atc’s very real points, and instead, only mock her.

    It is against such people as these that we remain armed, to the teeth, because we prefer not to be subject to the whims of such cold-hearted, uncaring reprobates as Steve above. He will attempt to alleviate real experiences with studies he has read about – as a Leftist, he is, by default, disconnected with reality, and does not understand actual life experience outside his bubble of Elysian superiority.

    He will tell you that men will think twice about using a knife to kill – or a car – or a baseball bat – or a sock with a rock in it – because he is doing his part to eliminate the only thing keeping his Elysium at bay – threat of a well-armed reprisal.

    Such transparency would be amusing, if it weren’t so depraved.

    ATC, keep kicking ass and taking names. (*’-‘) Alextopia FTW.

  119. Palandine says:

    Wow, there’s a lot of men up top who want to deprive women of the ability to defend themselves. The left is so sexist.

  120. G Mohawk says:

    I highly suspect that Steve dude beats his wife and doesn’t want her to know how to defend herself.

  121. Dave says:

    AtC What a great letter and justification for why every women should own a gun (and be trained in its use). One of my ex-girl friends was a liberal did not believe in guns in her house until she started having an ex boyfriend start to stalk her and scare the crap out of her. She tried to go the restraining order route and was told by police we cant do a thing (notes/letter in a mailbox don’t/did not count as stalking apparently)…”call us when he breaks in they maybe then we will have some options”.

    I met her shortly after the breakup. Once I learned of all this (was a month or so later) I took her to the gun range to teach her how to use one just in case. Once she got used to it, learned how to handle it safely she never complained about having it in her closet. The only time it was ever mentioned was about two years later when her little nieces and nephews were coming to visit for Christmas and “if I would make sure they do not discover it.”

    I firmly believe that all women should get training and issued a pink gun by the government.

    Strike that all women should get training and issued a gun by the male members of their family. It is my job to protect the women members of my family all of them are going to be trained in the use of a firearm and “stoompy boots”.

  122. An excellent treatment of this; way to go.
    Glad we saw it so our blog could link to it.

    The majority of the country IS on your side. It’s morons with microphones like Whitlock (who’s truly contemptible for a variety of reasons) and Costas (who’s merely an idiot) who congratulate themselves on being above such things as “needing” a gun.

    After all, that’s what high-priced Personal Security Services are for, doncha’ know…

    Thanks for posting.

  123. Jman says:

    Very well written Alexandria; however, you think that the only reason your ex never took your life was because you owned a “glock”. Not only is that statement absurd, it’s an example of exactly what is wrong with people in our society. Let me ask you: did you sleep with it under your pillow, did you bring it into the shower with you? Did you carry it around while shipping at the mall or while you were at the park? Did you have it strapped to your leg 24/7? While the answer to some of my questions above may indeed be yes, I’m sure the answer to my last question is NO! Fortunately for you your ex didn’t commit an awful crime and take your life away. However, I can assure you his reason for not doing this was because he knew you owned a gun. Guns kill, it’s plain and simple. There are so many more horrific stories of violence with guns as opposed to self defense. When will the average American get that straight?

    • stace says:

      Wrong. Guns are used far more often for self defense than to commit crime. Depends on the study, but the figures range from 500,000 to 2 million times per year.

      The stories of self-defense are legion, but they are only carried in local papers and on the net. The national media blacks them out.

      I stopped a guy from sexually assaulting me just by drawing my revolver halfway. I’m one of those stories.

  124. Palandine says:

    So, I was short and snarky earlier, which is what folks who wish to deprive me of my God-given rights deserve, but I thought I’d go into more detail. I live in a city with a high crime rate. When I went to take my CCW (concealed carry) class, I was both surprised and pleased to see that the majority of my classmates were African-American, and most were middle-aged or older. The reason that was a surprise was that the media had brainwashed me that African-Americans abhor gun rights. I, admittedly, should have known that was stupid–these citizens live in terrible neighborhoods and are menaced by criminals who don’t follow our betters’ carefully crafted laws banning crime. The cops are minutes or more away, and they want to be able to defend themselves. I am thrilled they have the ability to do so. Firearms equalize the criminal and the would-be victim. I would never choose to deprive any law-abiding citizen from the ability to defend himself. All this leaves aside that the second amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting or self-defense, but I despair of teaching the left to understand the Constitution.

  125. Brad says:

    Fantastic job! Now if only Costas or Whitlock might actually read the letter.

  126. Excellent writing, ma’am. I agree with you wholeheartedly.

  127. >>>In spite of the absurdly outdated motivations behind the Second Amendment,<<<

    Do tell, Professor Chinstroker…Absurdly outdated notions such as what, exactly? Please cite your sources for these "notions" when giving your answer.

  128. RedHot says:

    Ma’am, a brilliantly-expressed bit of outrage.

    >>>In spite of the absurdly outdated motivations behind the Second Amendment,<<> Do tell, Professor Chinstroker… Absurdly outdated notions such as what, exactly? Please cite your sources for these “notions” when giving your answer<<

    And do so in oak gall ink, with a quill pen, on parchment.

  129. Darryl says:

    Whether someone kills someone else or not has nothing to do with our gun rights. Our guns rights are in the constitution to protect ourselves from our government, period. And if you think there will ever be a time when tyranny of government is not reason to have guns, then you have very little clue about the true nature of the body politic. “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” .

  130. Chris says:

    Regardless of how one feels about gun control, the number of logical fallacies inherent in this article, which is apparently being bandied around the internet as a realistic argument against gun control, is disconcerting at best, depressing and frightening at worse. I tend to agree that it’s presumptuous of Costas and Whitlock to claim that this couple would not be dead if a gun wasn’t in the house – there is nothing that suggests that is the case. But this article fails on multiple levels to support that argument. Among them: a) “the man killed her. not a gun” – This sentence is just false. Period. It should read “A man used a gun to kill her.” Those are the facts. b) “You want to sacrifice my life on the altar of your political beliefs. How dare you?…I will not let you two demand that my blood be shed….” I can respect the fact that this is how you feel because of your personal experience and deep emotional connection to the issue, but the notion that these men are suggesting anything remotely close to that idea is ludicrous, as they both made it abundantly clear that they are advocating the sanctity of life. c) “[The police and the law didn’t keep me safe, my gun did]” – Perhaps I should remind the writer at this point that regardless of what her Ex did or said to her, to repeatedly threaten to murder him is not exactly the most lawful and ethical way to go about protecting yourself. While I’m sure his knowledge of your possession of the gun was useful for self-defense, I refuse to believe that there could not have been more possible alternative courses of action to threats of murder. d) “You want to make me dependent on others to provide for my basic safety and security” – This statement implies that taking your gun away would leave you with absolutely no other means of self defense, which simply is not true. Martial Arts, mace, throwing stuff BACK at him, or simply kicking him in the proverbial gonads all come to mind as viable alternatives.

    I could go on, but I think what I find most frightening about this whole article is not necessarily the rationale behind it, but the fact that the people using this kind of logic to justify their reasons and actions are the ones holding automatic weaponry. And that’s just fucking scary.

    • rickl says:

      the fact that the people using this kind of logic to justify their reasons and actions are the ones holding automatic weaponry. And that’s just fucking scary.

      I’ll bet it is.


    • 86eht says:

      Hrm? Murder? In the US deadly force is justified as a means to keep someone from injuring or killing you and always has been. Even the Bible makes a distinction between self-defense and murder. Self-defense is not murder. Get your logic straight.

  131. Alex Smith says:

    I agree their beliefs are way too conservative on the issue, but you swing way too much the opposite way to be effective with your writing. I believe in the right to bear arms, but the way you present your case so far left makes it hard to support you. Of course guns don’t kill people, in the same way pencils don’t misspell words. However, when you come off saying you’d leave him in a “pool of blood,” you sound like some redneck chick with an agenda.

  132. Just to lighten things up says:

    Just want to point out that everybody is missing one key aspect to the debate….The #1 reason to have guns is the looming zombie apocalypse. Wouldn’t you rather kill the zombies from a distance than have to get up close and use melee weapons?

  133. Chad says:

    Hey Steve, you dumb ass prick. I don’t care about the previous statements on prior relationships. ANSWER THIS: If my wife is at home alone and someone breaks into our home and decides to do her bodily harm do you propose that she not have a gun to be able to stop an unwarranted attack? Should she be forced to use her bare hands, a knife, a bat or some other device that requires her to get within arms length of the intruder? Let’s say he is a foot taller and 100 pounds heavier than her and is intent on assaulting her. Don’t give me some BS about calling the police either. They will never get there in time and don’t assume that the intruder will just leave if she makes that call. That is not a fair bet for you to make with my wife’s life.

  134. RS says:

    >>However, I can assure you his reason for not doing this was because he knew you owned a gun.<<

    Speaking as a physician who treats victims of domestic violence on a routine basis (and who sits on the local domestic violence task force along with LEOs including the Sheriff) I can assure you that your post is one of the most condescending, poorly reasoned and insulting things I've ever read.

    You begin by berating a domestic violence victim for her choice of an instrument of self-defense. Through some amazing gift of omniscience, you know how and under what circumstances her use of a firearm (yes, carrying a pistol is a "use") affected her security and her ability to survive what was likely one of the most horrendous periods of her life.

    The peace officers I know, and I know many, would not only have assisted her in selection of a firearm, they would have taken her to the range for familiarization. They recognize that guns are indeed useful instruments for killing. Some people need to confront that potential level of force in order to be stopped. She also understood this. Apparently you do not. It must be nice to live in your world.

    You make a point of asking rhetorical questions, including one directed at Americans at large.

    Fine. Here's a question, from blogger Joe Huffman, that isn't rhetorical: Can you demonstrate just one time, one place, throughout all of human history, where restricting the access of handheld weapons to the average person made them safer?

    (Go ahead. We're all waiting for your response.)

    In the meantime, please haul your pompous, smug little ass over to the nearest domestic violence shelter and offer your services as a volunteer. Listen to some of the stories. Gain a little insight into the minds of victims and perpetrators. Look at the injuries and realize that the mental trauma is often much worse and rarely heals. Consider that these are the lucky ones who weren't killed outright.

    Ask yourself: If this was my child, would I rather see her with a gun in her hand or strangled to death by her ex?

    Then re-read what you wrote above, pen an apology or kindly go drown yourself in a toilet.

  135. Just sayin' says:

    If guns kill people, then:
    Do pencils misspell words instead of the writer?
    Do cameras cause child pornography instead of the perverts?
    Do ovens make forgotten cakes burn instead of the forgetful baker?
    Did airplanes cause 9/11 instead of religious extremists?
    Did spoons make Rosie O’Donnel Fat?

  136. Henry Bowman says:

    “It’s not as if, to pick something at random, he could have picked up a knife and slit her throat so violently that she was nearly decapitated. Oh no, that would never ever happen.”

    Just ask OJ.

  137. Walker says:

    What are the odds Kasandra Perkins might be alive today had she been as astute and self-reliant as you about guns?

  138. Doug says:

    You’re more than twice as likely to be a victim of knife crime in the UK (where guns are largely banned) than gun crime in the US. Gun control doesnt stop violence, it just changes the flavor.

    And a knife wound, on average, is a much more serious injury than most small-caliber arms fire – a wider damage zone, slashing rather than penetrating, more likely to sever major blood vessels, and much less likely to miss vital areas.

    Its not the weapon, its the wielder. A knife can be grabbed and stabbed as fast and unthinkingly as a gun can be drawn and fired. In cases like the author’s, she could have been just as quickly bludgeoned to death with any blunt object handy – or even just with his fists. You cant take away the ability to kill someone – if thats their undeniable intention, even just for a moment….well, we’re all mortal.

    That being said, a gun in your nightstand keeps you a lot safer from people that want to hurt you than a knife in your kitchen or a baseball bat in your closet.

  139. Andrey Lesnykh says:

    Reposted (a link, and a breif summary). Thanks a lot!

  140. […] decided to spew the liberal anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment agenda against guns. It appears that others have open letters to Bob Costas as well.  What was more unfortunate, the fact that Costas thought he was on MSNBC […]

  141. Bridget says:

    Steve unfortunately the poor choice here wasn’t the mistake to marry a dangerous man (because many of them don’t appear dangerous until they have you where they want you and helpless), the poor choice here was the man to abuse his wife, to take for granted her life, and to use his mere size, stature, and gender as a weapon.

    The poor choice here too was for you to unfortunately open your mouth and blame the victim in this situation.

  142. QWe says:

    I’m not sure where I come down on the gun control issue, but to say that proponents of gun control are misogynistic is quite a stretch. I mean, really, does everything have to be a gender issue? Fuck off.

  143. QWe says:

    You lost all your credibility the moment you made it about gender.

  144. sight66 says:

    Someone in my neighborhood took their own life with a shot gun last night. My neighbor made a comment about gun control. I asked her somewhat facetiously if she could think of any other possible way he could have killed himself. The obvious answer is that there are too many ways to list.

    I own two pistols (one is a glock) mainly for self-defense and target shooting. I’m well trained by professional law enforcement instructors and I firmly believe that people have the right to protect themselves. That being said, I know MANY people that have no business owning a gun for a variety of reasons. So, I understand why people are afraid of guns, too.

  145. Unit 34A Hunter says:

    That was an excellent reply to Costas. It remains true that humans may have been born equal under the law, but not equal in their biological capacity for mayhem. A handgun is an equalizer. It elevates the risk to criminals and elevates the security of the law-abiding. I see no rational reason to ban them or regulate them.

  146. J-West says:

    There is a real asshole commenting incessantly on this thread. His moniker is Steve. Stop feeding him. He is jerking you around. He is s troll of lowest order hiding behind his firewall in moms basement.

  147. Six says:

    Wonderful. You are so going on my blog list, modest though it may be.

  148. […] Take guns for instance. If you start off talking about the 2nd Amendment or gun ownership being the last against tyranny, you’re going to lose most people right off the bat. Arguments like that are too conceptual and usually too extreme for people who aren’t highly motivated one way or another. If you want to protect gun rights, tell everyone you know about Alex The Chick’s story. […]

  149. What a great response to Bob Costas and Jason Whitlock. As my Army buddies used to say, “our rifles don’t kill dirtbags, we do”. It’s not your choice of weapon that matters, but the person holding it. By Costas logic, terrorists didn’t kill anyone on 9-11, the planes did.

    Thanks again for the post. I’m sharing this via twitter for sure.

  150. JCS says:

    I would love to issue a statement to Mr Costas, only I refuse to lower myself to his level of mentality.
    He has the right to have his own opinions yet he chose the wrong place to voice his sentiments publicly.

  151. BigFurHat says:

    If only that murderer’s wife had your insight and self-determination.

  152. 1 — The Supreme court has affirmed in two cases, District of Columbia v Heller and McDonald v City of Chicago that the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms means that every citizen of this country may possess a firearm for personal defense. The demmorhoids that argue against your firearm rights have never read, or probably even heard of those two SCOTUS cases. But we conservatives and all conservative politicians are required to recite Roe v Wade, verbatim, whenever they demand.

    2 — You will notice that the author says her EX was an emotional and physical threat to her. What is the one thing that libtards are always on about? Yeah, “leveling the playing field.” What does a gun do for someone that is at a severe disadvantage in a position similar to the author? Yes, it levels the playing field. Not to libtards because to them, leveling the playing field means passing a few thousand laws that solve nothing.

    3 — According to the FBI, there are over 2 million crimes, of all varieties, from murder to simple theft, that are thawarted every year by the mere brandishment of a firearm. That is, without a shot being fired.

    4 — In a bank in Texas, a man walked in carrying a bomb. He set it on a table and held everyone hostage while he went into his Unabomber rant about God only knows what. One of the bank patrons noticed that the bomber was starting to stray just a little too far from his bomb to be able to get back to it quickly. Being a person with a concealed-carry permit, he waited for the perfect moment. He then drew his lawfully concealed weapon, forced the bomber to the floor where he was subdued and held for the authorities. It was later estimated that the man with the concealed weapon saved about 200 lives. The bomb was powerful enough to take out one quarter of a city block. Which means, all floors above the bank would have come crashing down. He did all of this without firing a single shot.

    5 — As Bill Whittle said, why do you think that even a fictional character like James Bond uses a gun? You will notice that he doesn’t go out on his latest mission with a strongly-worded paper from the U.N.

    6 — More guns, less crime. FACT.

  153. B. says:

    After you take away the gun that did nothing until the human pulled the trigger, then will you take away a baseball bat? It does nothing, until the human swings it at someone. What about the rock laying in the driveway? It is doing nothing, until it becomes a weapon because a human picked it up and crashed it into someone’s head. Oh, and don’t forget the kitchen knife that we use to cut our meat……Does it also need to go away because someone used it for a weapon?

  154. […] Must be a genetic thing, no?  So we need to disarm Billy Bob and Cletus so that a Jovan won’t kill his girlfriend and then himself.  But what about Alexandria? […]

  155. Pit says:

    Who actually read the article? Here is what we know for sure:
    1) A woman is dead by via a gun.
    2) A man committed suicide via the same gun.
    3) There were no eye witnesses.
    4) Friends, Family and Co-Workers were in shock.

    The hypothesis is that he killed her, but we must be balanced here. There are MANY things that could have happened.

    1) He could have been an abuser, he used the gun to control her.
    2) She could have been an abuser, he used the gun to defend himself.
    3) He suffered from some form of mental illness, resulting in very poor decision making.
    4) She could have committed suicide. He, in his grief, killed himself.

    I am sure there are other possible things that could have happened too, but I don’t feel like analyzing the situation more based on extremely limited information. If we look at this based on information given and using Occam’s razor then factors, 1, 2 and 4 are the least likely, leaving 3.

    (Note, during the writing of this, I was linked on facebook. While control and abuse walk hand in hand, sometimes being protective and being controlling look the same as well. Due to the quote: “There was just a lot going on. She was stressed. He was stressed,” Perkins said. “It just started to go bad, but they had the child, and they were trying to make it work.” it seriously looks like there was no abuse from either party and they were both trying…but high stress/mental breakdown->poor judgement skills->incident)

    I have been EMS for over 10 years now and I can honestly tell you that people will USE anything to hurt/kill someone else given the right opportunity. In the same amount of time it takes to end someone’s life with a gun, an individual can do the same with a knife, sword, baseball bat or anything else they get their hands on. Some might even use prescription medicine to do the crime. Let’s pretend for a moment he drugged her food because he was mentally unstable. She dies, he drugs himself. Should we stop giving people medicine too? The same arguments about a gun could be made for medicine.

    Gun control in this situation is about as relevant as “…that guns are the problem, not the men who wield them.” Don’t you mean the individuals Alexthechick? Violence is violence no matter who does it. A male or a female. This country is inundated with women’s abuse help centers, but almost nothing exists for men. Irony? Women are actually typically more abusive because….they can get away with it. Society looks at women as the ‘weaker sex’, so when a man uses his ‘power’ to hurt a woman, she’s a victim because he’s stronger; however when a woman is abusive…that’s ok, right? So, let’s capitalize on this 3 month old’s lack of parents to move both the feminist movement and gun control forward, shall we? Let’s forget about the TRUE victim on all this…the child. Guns aren’t the problem here. Abuse isn’t the problem. Men aren’t the problem. Know what the REAL problem is? I’ll tell you…

    A little girl by the name of Zoey Michelle Belcher has no parents because her PARENTS collectively made poor choices over a long period of time and did not seek the help they needed resulting in a horrible and violent thing.

  156. […] And what Liberals like Martin want is to take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens who usually have guns for protecting from criminals. Make sure to read this open letter to Costas at Doubleplusundead. […]

  157. Well said, Atc. Also, I love how liberals like “steve” and others get all over her for her choices (and actions to deal with them), yet they want us to pay, ala Sandra Fluke style, for the life choices of others.

    Oh, and fuck you, liberals.

    • Smartyarty says:

      An economist estimated that for Ms. Fluke to have spent $3,000.00 thru out her college career on birth control . She would have had to had sex 7 times a day and 10 times on Sunday every day of the year . Based on using the pill and rubbers .

      They also suggested that Ms. Fluke apply for a EPA grant and designate her vaginal area a wetlands area .

  158. G says:

    With respect, Steve is either in denial or an idiot or has a political agenda.

    None of these have survival value. **** him.

    Alex, my respect to you for facing reality. The human race would be better served by more of you rather than by drooling idiots/quislings. You lead by example.

    FWIW, my sincere admiration and thanks.

  159. Excellent letter, Alexandria. These people trying to turn this into a gun control issue do NOT know the entire story…because NO ONE DOES. We don’t know what caused the fight or the snap. These people also don’t know those of us who actually own guns, apparently. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. I was taught it growing up. I stress it with my daughter. But society in general seems to have forgotten it. One of my favorite quotes “My gun and my bow are mere tools; *I* am the weapon.”

  160. […] Must be a genetic thing, no?  So we need to disarm Billy Bob and Cletus so that a Jovan won’t kill his girlfriend and then himself.  But what about Alexandria? […]

  161. […] “Alexthechick” is an expert on murderous exes. She had one. She tells about it, much as I have heard it from other abusive ex-spouse survivors, here. […]

  162. RS says:

    “Steve” is nothing more than a disinformation troll:

    Scroll down the lists and see how many items he racks up.

    Then consider: “Sometimes, these strategies are used by average people with serious personality issues. However, if you see someone using these tactics often, or using many of them at the same time, you may be dealing with a paid internet troll.”

    He’s probably sockpuppeting here as well. Don’t waste time on him.

  163. Blue_Tiger says:

    I read this awesome response on Well stated, my Lady! Well stated!!!

  164. Mother says:

    I have never been a gun “lover” nor have I ever owned a gun. It’s my choice. I have been held up in my house by 3 armed gunmen who threatened to kill both me and my 6-week old baby. Did I wish I had a gun then? No. It would have been used against me in the worst way.
    Do I deny someone else the right to arm and protect themselves? Yes.
    We are currently in 16 Days of Activism against abuse to women and children (of which I am an ardent campaigner). I am also in the process of interviewing survivors of abuse and rape in South Africa and will be releasing this as a blog series in the new year. Their stories are horrific – it’s not even abuse, it’s torture.
    Should all potential victims now arm up as such? No. But where there is no semblance of self confidence and empowerment remaining – a gun may very well be the only message strong enough to an attacker.
    When my Abuse series does come out next year I would really value your contribution to support the survivors who still need encouragement.

  165. […] and I wasn’t alone.  Some of us were quite vociferous in our disagreement, and thankfully, some were quite eloquent at it.  Some, on the other hand, expressed an opinion that Mr. Costas and Mr. […]

  166. kountryking says:

    Or, you could choose your friends and intimates from among those of better character.

  167. Wayne says:

    Very well said Alexandria! Some people on this planet just don’t get it.

  168. Jeff Walker says:

    Very well said. Thanks for your response to the misguided.

    • Joe says:

      “Here’s where I stand: I do not want to see the Second Amendment repealed. … People should be allowed to own guns for their own protection. Obviously, those who are hunters. … Access to guns is too easy in some cases. I don’t see any reason a citizen should be able to arm himself in some states in ways only police or military should — to have a virtual militia [by] mail order or gun shows. Why do you need a semi-automatic weapon? What possible use is there? … Whitlock wrote about a gun culture. That’s what I was focusing on.””

      We need those weapons precisely BECAUSE the military and police have them. They govern with our consent. Without weapons, they no longer need our consent, and tyranny results.

  169. […] an open letter to them saying that guns and the 2nd Amendment is the reason that she is alive. Read the open letter here. But what no one is talking about is how the dispute started that caused the murder of Kasandra […]

  170. thebronze says:

    Excellent commentary, ATC!!!! Bravo!!!

  171. Gun control laws are not and have never been a deterrent to violent criminals. The data speaks for itself.

    When gun ownership goes up, crime rates drop severely. That’s not my opinion, that’s fact. A couple of examples that highlight this point beautifully are Switzerland and right here in the USA down in Kennesaw, Georgia.

    Switzerland’s gun laws are some of the most lax in the developed world, and because of it their violent crime rate is astoundingly low. Recent initiatives to try and reign in the countries relaxed gun laws were defeated at the ballot by Swiss voters.

    The town of Kennesaw, Georgia, also has a mandatory gun ownership law on the books. Passed in 1982, it requires that the head of a household own a gun and ammunition, with exceptions of course being violent criminals, those that cannot afford it, and conscientious objectors. After the law was passed, the population swelled and the crime rate dropped substantially.

    Need I remind the gun control crowd that many of the states with the strictest gun control laws are also home to some of the largest numbers of gun related crime? Maryland, California, Illinois, New York and the District of Columbia all have some of the toughest gun laws on the books. Illinois in particular has made it extremely difficult to buy a handgun. Despite this, there have been over 250 murders in Chicago since January 1st… a 37% increase compared to this time last year. Strict gun laws have done little to deter violent crime.and the overwhelming majority of those weapons used, were purchased on the black market.
    The gun didn’t make Belcher kill. His own sick mind did that.

  172. Charlie says:

    Wow, AlexTheChick. I am proud of you for standing up for yourself. Despite these recent tragedies, people need to be able to DEFEND themselves. I am glad you acted on your real need to defend and I am proud. Keep up the great work, my dear. I loved your letter!

  173. Paula says:

    Steve, you are just ANOTHER person that doesn’t get it when it comes to the dynamics of an abusive relationship. Many women that have escaped an abuser with their children (or without kids) are murdered after they leave with a gun or without a gun. Abusers will use whatever weapon (or their own hands) that is convenient for THEM to use. Abusers often wear the “nice guy” facade for all to see. Sadly, the family courts often give abusers full or shared custody, even with a proven history of abuse and in spite of the protests of their victims. This gives abusers unfettered access to their victims over and over again. I am damn sick and tired of those, with less intelligence than that of a tree limb, that blame victims for the abuse they suffer. Put the blame, not with guns or access to them, on to whom it belongs: THE ABUSER!!

  174. Brandon Haverstock says:

    Well said!

  175. How did u pick up the suggestions to post ““An open letter to Bob Costas and Jason Whitlock doubleplusundead”?
    Regards -Chelsea

  176. Freda says:

    Asking questions are genuinely fastidious thing if you are not understanding something completely,
    but this post presents fastidious understanding yet.

  177. […] I’d like to share this article with all of you posted from DOUBLEPLUSUNDEAD […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s