Calif. woman slain on the phone with 911

Status
Not open for further replies.
Correct, CA gun laws weren't really responsible for this one. IMO PC thinking and attitudes probably were. Remember there is a gun shop in West Covina I go to as well as 2 in neighboring Glendora I frequent. As well as gun shops in Azusa,Temple city and Rosemead, all cities within easy driving distance of this.
 
Unless this poor woman tried to legally acquire a firearm within the last 10 days of her life, then California’s laws had little to do with her murder.
Click to expand...

But they did have to do with it. California's laws let the killer obtain a gun to shoot her with, and thereby showing the fact that criminals can get guns even where there are restrictive gun laws.
 
True, California law did not stand in the way of that lady possessing a firearm, but propaganda machines like the Brady campaign warp peoples thinking and contribute to citizen disarmament regardless of law.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't necessarily jump the the conclusion that gun laws have nothing to do with it. That is a lot of assuming.

I have known people that thought about purchasing a gun and decided not to after the whole 10 day waiting period and the paperwork involved made it seem like a really big 'evil' decision, rather than just a decision to purchase an expensive tool.

For example I know a woman who was having problems with her ex-boyfriend who she had broken up with. She called the police, even had him arrested previously.
She went to purchase a firearm she could barely afford (have to thank laws against Saturday Night Specials), and then learned about the waiting period which I think was 15 days at the time.
She needed it immediately, and so decided not to get something that she didn't really have money for.
She was later kidnapped and raped over a period of several days before the policecaught them and the ex was arrested.
I don't remember if the incident happened more than 15 days after trying to get a gun. I think it did because there was several other incidents in the meantime where the police came out to her residence and he escaped before they arrived.
I do however know it was the fact that there was a waiting period that kept the woman from purchasing one.
But I guess to many that is a win/win. She didn't get a gun, nobody was shot, and she was not killed, nor was the ex killed, even though the ex stated if he couldn't have her, nobody would, and may have been going to kill her before being arrested (were on the way to Mexico when caught and he made many such statements.)


So for all you know this lady in the OP's story, or her husband thought about purchasing a gun and were turned off by the "vibes" given by the required process. The paperwork required, the waiting period, the required locks.

For all you know there was in fact a gun in the home, they just stored it the way the Brady's recommend, locked, unloaded in a safe with a child lock installed even while home.

Retrieving, unlocking, and loading a firearm one has little practice with while adrenalin is pumping and criminals are in the home suddenly becomes a lot more complicated than making a phone call to 911 as she did.
Especialy if there is multiple firearms, multiple types of ammunition, and she does not know much about them, they are primarily her husband's (as is the case in many households), and her knowledge consists of 'point and shoot at bad guy' not locking and unlocking, loading and unloading, turning off the safety etc.
Many such individual's limited range time was with the gun loaded for them, husband helping them, and does not prepare them to defend themselves with a firearm that is put away with locks, perhaps even unloaded when thier forebrain constricts, and they go into fight or flight with adrenaline and fear clouding thier thoughts.

So even assuming they had no firearms is assuming a lot. There may indeed have been firearms in the home "properly" stored and worthless for her defense.
 
Bless your heart, Zoogster.

I was going to say much the same, but much less diplomatically.

You saved me the embarrassment of having it deleted..
 
Another stunning victory for the brady bunch and california gun grabbers (sarcasm). I lived in the LA area for 4 years, and there's no way any sane person should live in that town without being armed.
 
1) I feel very bad for this woman and her family
2) The only people to blame are the scumbags who did it.
3) It's just as likely this woman would not have owned a gun even if she knew this was going to happen. There are millions of people (and particularly women) who are like that....I know a bunch of them. To them, a gun is more of a threat than Charles Manson. Once you realize that, you will begin to understand why gun laws pass in the first place...and why many people abide by them.
4) Reread #2
 
The CA news media and government's attitude about firearms and the way they play the ownership of firearms to the general public can be blamed here.
 
So for all you know this lady ... thought about purchasing a gun and were turned off by the ... required process...
For all you know there was in fact a gun in the home, they just stored it the way the Brady's recommend, locked, unloaded in a safe with a child lock installed even while home....
Click to expand...

Bless your heart, Zoogster.
I was going to say much the same, but much less diplomatically.
You saved me the embarrassment of having it deleted..
Click to expand...

Easy guys. I'm not in favor of California's gun laws and my point wasn't to defend them or claim they had absolutely no deterrent effect on the victims here (agreed, we are all speculating here).

The point is that propaganda and lies cause a disarmed mindset. Laws are easy to change once an idea takes root (cuts both ways).
 
I really feel bad for the man who came home to find that his wife is dead.
Worst thing is, nothing will change due to this. Woman dies. The killers, I'm willing to bet, will never be caught, and will probably continue to commit crimes in the future. Gun control proponents might use this to support their nefarious desires, gun rights proponents do the same, and in the end, no one really wins.
 
So for all you know this lady in the OP's story, or her husband thought about purchasing a gun and were turned off by the "vibes" given by the required process. The paperwork required, the waiting period, the required locks.

For all you know there was in fact a gun in the home, they just stored it the way the Brady's recommend, locked, unloaded in a safe with a child lock installed even while home.
Click to expand...


So, wait: All this restrictions may have a "chilling" effect on gun ownership?...

Quite the double standard. Eschew anything that approaches a "chilling" effect on free speech, but go ahead and regulate firearm ownership out of existence.
 
Guys...


This isn't a lesson on CA gun laws. It is a lesson on gun OWNERSHIP.

I live in MS. We don't have those pesky CA gun laws. Yet, my college-professor sister would have NEVER considered carrying a firearm-- until she got the hell scared out of her by a student.

So the first thing she does is call her "Gun Nut" brother about the whole mess. (yep... that's me).

Now she carries.


There are PLENTY of people who simply do not WANT to prepare for things such as this article. If they do, they have to acknowledge that it TRULY could happen to them. Instead they'd rather live under a blanket of illusionary security that 911 affords them.

Many people do not want to be considered a "Gun Person" by their peers (My sister has mentioned that in her college environment). The media has so painted us that we are a group that is to be shunned in many areas.

If a person in CA truly wanted a firearm, they would have gotten one--even if they had to cut through a LOT of red tape.

No... this is a story about the end-result of decades of indocrination has done to society. The Rugged Individualism of Teddy Roosevelt lingers like smoke from a dying fire in many places in our country.


-- John
 
I know people who have spent thousands of $$$ on sophisticated alarm systems who look upon me, as a gun owner, as a technologically atrophied barbarian from the middle ages. Cut open a rabbit for sustenance? No way. Shoot someone in defense? No way. Barbaric and uncalled for in the modern era. UNTIL the time comes when they are starving or faced with a life/death situation and they realize, too late, that they could have indeed done these things but don't have the tools to carry it out...

Life IS barbaric. Modern conveniences just make it more comfortable and some get lost in that comfort.

Knives predate guns by a wide margin yet they are universally used daily without any stigma attached. Not so with guns.

I trust this post makes sense, I'm still on my first cup-o-java.
 
If a person in CA truly wanted a firearm, they would have gotten one--even if they had to cut through a LOT of red tape.

No... this is a story about the end-result of decades of indoctrination has done to society.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
This is true. I have to say this really has little to do with gun laws and more about how the general consensus has come to be that guns are bad. The media portrays it, and if you are a guns owner who chooses to protect yourself then you are bad too. We have let this seep into too many people's minds that have decided it is just a fact of life . The result of this thinking is more victims every day. And this is the perfect example.
 
I don't understand the point of 'not believing that it can happen to you, too'. By that logic, you'd think that people who don't own guns also don't have car insurance or insure house projects :p. I guess a $16,000 car or a $6,000 house roof is more important than yourself nowadays. Go figure.
 
It is because they think with their emotions. That way of thinking is exactly why it might happen to them. This is the difference between a rational person who accepts responsibility for their own safety and a sheep. I can tell you it does not matter how strict the gun laws get I will always have weapons to protect myself.
 
Lots of very good points have been brought up here. I do have an alarm system, but its primary purpose is much more to wake me up & provide me with an early heads up that someone has broken into my home than it is to keep me safe from crime. My Dog is a backup alarm. The second my alarm goes off in the night my first stop will be my digital combo gun safe (3 seconds to open) while my wife grabs a phone. The safety of my family is my own personal responsibility, not the Police. I wrote the following in reaction to this story:

dustinsgunblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/which-is-better-gun-in-your-hand-now-or.html
 
I have a friend who has a friend who lives on a lonely 40 acre ranchette West of Phoenix. Even with her eight dogs she has had her house broken into, now she has a gun and knows how to use it and so far no more break ins after she is now known to be an armed angry female. Its all about attitude.
 
There was a criminologist named Dr. Wright, tulane univeristy in New Orleans, who did a study on criminals in Angola (max,. security prison). He found that criminals feared homeowners more than the police. Good reason since homeowners kill over 3 times more criminals than cops. I bet you one thing, anti gun people will say that result was acceptable and if she had a gun she would have hurt a bystander or some one else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
Calif. woman killed while on phone with 911
Replies
2
Views
325
Larry Ashcraft
Larry Ashcraft
1
  • Locked
911 call interrupted by gunfire, then silence
Replies
4
Views
475
Justin
Justin
F
  • Locked
Calif. woman slain while calling 911
Replies
2
Views
367
Fred Fuller
F
mljdeckard
  • Locked
When seconds count,.....
Replies
0
Views
382
mljdeckard
mljdeckard
E
  • Locked
Woman shot, killed while on phone with 911
Replies
1
Views
377
Larry Ashcraft
Larry Ashcraft
Back
Top