MDA’s latest blood dance shows absolute stupidity

If you live outside Virginia, you probably haven’t heard about a murder-suicide that took place in Culpeper last week. According to reports, the bodies of Clarence and Shauna Washington, both 35, and their three daughters — 4-year-old Olivia, 6-year-old Onya and 13-year-old Omesha — were found in their house. All dead of gunshot wounds.

Family and friends told authorities the couple had been having an ongoing domestic dispute that apparently grew more heated Saturday night. Authorities did not receive any calls for help from the home.

Culpeper Sheriff Scott Jenkins said the death investigation has been preliminarily classified as a murder-suicide.

And if you didn’t think Moms Demand Action Attention would be on this story like Oprah on a baked ham, using it to promote their latest ineffective disarmament efforts, you’d be sadly mistaken.

Some hysterical Virginia mommy named Gena Reeder penned an editorial, which ran in today’s Richmond Times Dispatch, whining that if ONLY Virginia had stricter gun control laws…

Well, we’ve heard this all before, haven’t we? So let’s examine Reeder’s claims a bit more closely.

More than half of mass shootings committed in the United States are incidents of domestic violence. Every month, 48 American women are shot and killed by current or former intimate partners. A recent report from Everytown for Gun Safety found that American women are 11 times more likely to be killed by guns than women in any other developed nation. Armed stalkers also put women at risk: Nine out of 10 attempted murders of women involved at least one incident of stalking in the year before the murder attempt, according to a study in 10 major U.S. cities.

How does one define “mass shootings?” We’ve already seen Everytown’s claim about 74 school shootings having taken place since Sandy Hook debunked so thoroughly, that even PolitiFact kicked Bloomberg’s hoplophobic hordes in the nuts. But mass shootings? Generally, unless you have a political agenda, when you think of a mass shooting, you think of random shootings in public places, not just any slaying involving multiple bodies and a gun. This would, in any sane circle, be considered an intimate partner homicide that tragically involved the couple’s children. Clarence Washington, who apparently shot his wife and his daughters, wasn’t out to murder as many people as he could before taking his own life. He wanted to end whatever demons he had in his head, and in the process took the lives of his family.

Tragic? Yes. Mass shooting? Only if you have a political agenda.

But let’s look a little further into the statistics cited by the sniveling Momtard.

“48 American women are shot and killed by current or former intimate partners.” 

I tend to take any statistic Everytown and its hoplophobic spawn feed me with a grain of salt, so I did my own bit of digging.

National data on intimate partner violence reveals a few things:

1,818 women in the US were killed by men in single victim/single offender incidents, as reported to the FBI’s 2009 Supplementary Homicide Reports.  Where the victim/offender relationship was known, 63% were killed by an intimate partner (likely an underestimate, as ex-girlfriends were not included) – 550 of them with a firearm – most often a handgun.

Out of the 1,818 women in the United States who were murdered, 63 percent, or 1145, were killed by an intimate partner, and 550 of them –48 percent – were killed with a firearm, and if we go by the numbers provided by New York’s Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence, the number of women shot by current or former intimate partners per month is closer to 46. Regardless of the gun grabbers’ usual inflation of numbers (a single violent death is a tragedy, no matter what the implement used to commit said murder) one has to wonder why the Mommies and Bloomberg are more concerned with the 48 percent of intimate partner homicides that are committed with firearms, than the 52 percent committed via other violent means!

Apparently only “gun violence” is bad. Screw the rest of you ladies victimized by abusive shitbags!

Despite these statistics, which Reeder helpfully manipulates to support her cause, Virginia’s lax laws apparently are somehow responsible for the murder suicide. But are they? According to the Virginia State Police, the following people are prohibited from purchasing or owning firearms.

  1. You are under indictment for a felony offense.
  2. The subject of an active misdemeanor or felony arrest warrant from any state.
  3. You have been convicted, as an adult, in any court of a felony offense?
  4. You are 28 years old or younger, have ever been adjudicated delinquent as a juvenile 14 years of age or older at the time of offense of a delinquent act, which would be a felony if committed by an adult.
  5. You were adjudicated as a juvenile 14 years of age or older at the time of the offense of murder in violation of § 18.2-31 or 18.2-32, kidnapping in violation of § 18.2-47, robbery by the threat or presentation of firearms in violation of § 18.2-58, or rape in violation of § 18.2-61? (If adjudicated as a delinquent for these offenses, you must answer yes. You are ineligible regardless of your current age and prohibited for life unless allowed by restoration of rights by the Governor of Virginia and order of the circuit court in the jurisdiction in which you reside.)
  6. You have been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime punishable by more than 2 years even if the maximum punishment was not received.
  7. There is an outstanding protective or restraining order against you from any court that involves your spouse, a former spouse, an individual with whom you share a child in common, or someone you cohabited with as an intimate partner. (emphasis mine)
  8. There is an outstanding protective or restraining order against you from any court that involves stalking, sexual battery, alleged abuse or acts of violence against a family or household member?
  9. You are an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any controlled substance? The Federal Gun Control Act defines an addicted person, or unlawful user, as a person who has a conviction for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year or persons found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided that the test was administered within the past year.
  10. You have been acquitted by reason of insanity?
  11. You have been adjudicated legally incompetent or mentally incapacitated, or adjudicated an incapacitated person?
  12. You have been involuntarily admitted to a facility or involuntarily ordered to outpatient mental health treatment?
  13. You have been the subject of a temporary detention order and subsequently agreed to voluntarily admission for mental health treatment?
  14. You have been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable discharge?
  15. You are an alien illegally in the United States?
  16. You are a nonimmigrant alien? A nonimmigrant alien is prohibited from receiving a firearm unless he or she falls within an exception to the nonimmigrant alien prohibition (e.g., hunting license/permit; waiver).
  17. You are a person who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced your citizenship?
  18. You have been convicted for the misdemeanor crime of domestic violence? This includes all misdemeanors that involve the use, threat of, or attempted use of physical force (e.g., simple assault, assault and battery) if the offense is committed by one of the following parties: a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent or guardian of the victim. (emphasis mine)
  19. You are person who, within a 36 month period, within the last 5 years, has been convicted under Virginia law of 2 misdemeanor offenses for Possession of Controlled Substance, Possession of Marijuana, and/or any offense involving synthetic marijuana? (Handgun Purchases Only)

Apparently that’s not enough for Reeder, who snivels about being a Virginia mommy, who is just not “certain about our future in a state that does so little to protect women and children from perpetrators of domestic violence.”

Lady (and I use that term very loosely), you’re either a paranoid loon, a liar or some nefarious combination of both!

There is nothing lax about Virginia’s firearm laws! All manner of violent scum is covered, but you and your Mommy friends won’t rest until everyone is disarmed or inconvenienced to such a point when exercising their rights, that the cost/benefit analysis reveals it’s no longer worth bothering.

But Reeder goes on, and the absolute total bullshit that spills over from her poisonous keyboard is appalling and easy to fact check.

Just a week ago in Emporia, Va., Lamont George shot and killed his ex-girlfriend, Michelle Roper, while her teenage son watched. According to reports, a restraining order had been issued in the past, yet George had no problem obtaining the gun he used to kill Roper.

This is the type of incident that the February legislation could have prevented. This is exactly why Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America will be fighting this fall to get the legislature to protect all Virginia families.

 The U.S. Marshals apprehended Lamont George a few days ago, and guess what! No February law (in February, Virginia’s General Assembly rejected legislation that would have prevented anyone convicted of stalking, sexual battery or physical assault of a family member from having a gun for a period of five years.) would have prevented this tragedy. Know why? Here’s why:

The man faces charges of murder; the attempted murder of Wakki Roper; breaking and entering of a residence with the intent to commit a felony; possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a violent felony; larceny of a motor vehicle; two counts of using a firearm while committing or attempting to commit murder.

Lamont George was already a felon in possession of a firearm. By law, he was not allowed to have one! He already violated the law by merely possessing said gun. In addition to that, he was also already prohibited by law from owning a pistol, because according to reporting, he was under a restraining order.

So how would an additional law have stopped him from obtaining said gun and shooting his girlfriend, Gena?

It would not have. And had you done a shred of research, you would have known that. But maybe you did know that, eh? Maybe you just decided to spout lies in your froth-flecked zeal to push your gun control agenda, you lying, hysterical sow!

Let’s now take a look at the Culpeper murder-suicide, which Reeder uses to emphasize her claim that Virginia’s gun laws are weak, and that the February proposal would have prevented this crime.

Clarence Washington had a clean record. He was not a convicted criminal in any way, shape or form. He was not subject to a restraining order, and police had never been called to the home, even after the last fight, which was loud enough for the neighbors to hear. There was nothing legally preventing Washington from owning one or several firearms. No amount of maneuvering, twitching or spinning by Gena Reeder or her MomTard team of statist snotwads would have prevented Washington’s legal purchase.

Perhaps if guns were banned altogether… But that’s exactly what these shrews want! They don’t want “common sense” laws. We already have them and more.

And considering that the vast majority of criminals don’t purchase their firearms via any kind of legal manner anyway, and I suspect Reeder and the Shrews Demanding Attention know that, their ultimate goal seems pretty clear.

And one final thing, because this woman is so completely ridiculous and ignorant that she claims that a woman who gets a restraining order against a former intimate partner is clearly making every effort to “get away from him”  – a restraining order is a piece of paper. A goon intent on doing a woman harm is already willing to violate several laws, like, say… ASSAULT and MURDER, will not be deterred by yet another legal document. But does Reeder want to give women a real chance at defending themselves? Of course not!

When a woman buys her own gun for protection against a possible domestic violence attack, her chances of dying by a gun go up drastically. Women involved in domestic disputes are almost 10 times more likely to have a gun used against them than to use a gun in self-defense.

Words cannot properly describe how despicable I find these self-righteous ignorami, who spread egregious lies and misinformation about armed self defense (remember, Reeder’s prevaricating hero Shannon Watts claims that defensive gun uses do not exist)! Virginia’s women don’t need disinformation, deception and deceit thrown at them by the likes of this screeching harpy. Fact of the matter is Tammy Duvall, Ltuanya BallardJessica Cothon, this unnamed ladyJoni Prater, Elsie Thomas,  Shawna Brush, and scores of others whose lives were saved by armed self defense after attacks by violent exes would tell Reeder to screw herself.

I know I would.

3 responses

  1. “When a woman buys her own gun for protection against a possible domestic violence attack, her chances of dying by a gun go up drastically. Women involved in domestic disputes are almost 10 times more likely to have a gun used against them than to use a gun in self-defense.”

    Neat logical fallacy there, Reeder. The two statements are not logically linked. Read the second statement alone, trying to ignore what the first one said. All the second statement really says is that the women involved in a domestic dispute who are willing and able to use a gun in self defense are outnumbered by a factor of 10 by the women who had a gun used against them. This could be a result of 90% of women who needed a gun during their domestic dispute NOT HAVING ONE. To support the first statement, that a woman having a gun INCREASES her chance of being killed with a gun, the second statement would need to say something like “women who own a gun are X times more likely to have a gun used against them during a domestic dispute than women who do not own a gun”. I would imagine that the bad wording was deliberate, to obfuscate the fallacy being espoused.

    And of course, the idea that the reason a woman would buy a gun for protection against a possibly violent domestic partner is because he’s a serious threat to her safety, and that in cases where the woman involved is correct about the man NOT being a threat to her safety, and so doesn’t need to buy a gun, doesn’t occur to Reeder. So all the first statement really says is that a woman who has a domestic partner that she feels the need to protect herself from with a gun are more likely to die by gunshot than women who have partners who aren’t violent (I bet they’re also more likely to be stabbed). In other words, the purchase of the gun is a signal that the domestic partner is perceived as being a threat sufficient to need a gun, whereas the lack of such a purchase is a signal that the partner isn’t. But Reeder seems to think that the purchase of the gun is the CAUSE of the violence, rather than an attempt at having a defense against anticipated violence.

    Reeder needs to take a course on logic, and critical thinking, if she can’t get a simple cause and effect situation like this correct.

    Like

  2. 1) jealous?😀
    2) someone well-armed with a bad attitude – mmm boy, gimme some of that. That fairly SCREAMS responsible gun owner. LOL keep it up, you’re making us look even better by comparison with your screeching rant❤

    Like

    1. 1) Jealous of what? You? Don’t make me laugh!
      2) I have a Master’s degree, a job that requires a ton of responsibility, and I have been trained by the Army to responsibly use my firearms.

      You… Well… you’re sad and have no facts. NOTHING could possibly make you and your shrieking shrew patrol look better! Your lies are well documented and clear. So run along now, loser. Unless you can refute any of the lies Reeder has been spreading, you’re worthless.

      Like

%d bloggers like this: