When Stephanie Hernandez, an Arkansas mother of a 3-year-old and an 8-month-old daughter, was found dead recently, the police did not have to look far. They simply checked out social media and found a picture of her boyfriend, Rafael Gonzalez, pointing a gun at her head. Hernandez was killed just hours after the pictures were posted on Snapchat.
The pictures were taken in Hernandez’ Little Rock home. He added the caption “Strap Chat” to the picture of pointing a gun at his girlfriend’s head. Hernandez, 21, was later found dead from a gunshot wound. The home was also ransacked with blood all over one of the floors.
Gonzalez, 20, was arrested the next day and has now been charged with first-degree murder. The family had reportedly tried to get Hernandez to stop seeing Gonzalez who was viewed (with obviously good reason) as a loser and a “bad influence.” Hernandez had moved into a new home and was beginning a new life with a new job (to begin the Monday morning before she was shot).
Friends says that Gonzalez is “fresh straight out of the penitentiary.”
Shooter: You Honor… We were having sex, and things just got out of control…
Jury: Your Honor… We find the defendant Not Guilty.
Here is a perfect example of the mendacity of 2nd Amendment haters. In his hand wringing statement, admittedly politicizing this tragedy, OBAMA LIED. He said, “We know where there are strict gun laws there is less violence.” The man hails from Chicago, the city that violated 2nd Amendment rights for decades, still has draconian gun laws, and consistently has one of the highest murder rates in the country. And, that’s after Rahm and his police chief cook the books trying to lower the numbers. You can’t trust 2nd Amendment haters, and that blatant lie shows why.
90% of Americans believe that there should be background checks for ALL gun transactions. Yet DBQ believes, hey what the heck, it won’t change a thing so let’s leave it the way it is. Oh yeah, snakes and coyotes, intruders that hear a round being chambered, etc. Yup.
issacbasonkavich wrote: “90% of Americans believe that there should be background checks for ALL gun transactions.”
If I want to sell a gun to my daughter, how exactly do I do a background check on her? Is it really necessary since I raised her and have known her all her life? And do you mean that I should not be able to give her a gun without first performing some kind of background check and alerting the government? How does this legalistic policy protect society?
DBQ
So if something doesn’t work, then just forget the whole thing. Doesn’t sound very American, tenacious, intelligent, to me. As a student of history, I keep seeing peoples and nations figuring out how to repair faults, advance strengths. Your ‘throw in the hat’ response to reducing the carnage as it doesn’t solve the complete problem would be laughable if it weren’t so sick.
“I will say that watching the mental acrobatics on this site regarding gunz is entertaining.”
Max-1,
This site certainly mimics Slick Willy in framing viewpoints and opinions. Which way is the wind-blowing?
The fact is that we don’t know if these laws would be successful or not in reducing the carnage, because they are ignored and/or not in effect.
Yes we do know, because we have plenty of laws already on the books for gun registration, purchase of guns, waiting periods, background checks. Criminals ignore those laws.
Once again, unless you can come up with a real, concrete, foolproof way to keep criminals from getting guns on the black market,from buying stolen guns, from being able to buy that gun from your neighbor, from being able to swap a gun in a trade or barter transaction……..you are [to put it civilly] talking.
through your hat.
Wishing that everyone would obey the existing laws or obey any new laws is just that. Wishful thinking. Unless, as Texas stated you plan to have Brown Shirts from the government rounding everyone up and confiscating guns, there is not going to be the utopia of gun control that you envision.
Molon labe!!
TexasP
You compare the US with Russia. Why not North Korea. This makes your argument ludicrous. Now compare the US with its peer nations and we can discuss the efficacy of regulations and restrictions regarding gun ownership.
My two feet are firmly on the ground and my head is square on my shoulders. I don’t compare apples to piles of sh*t. If that helps you believe that you have a point, well so be it.
DBQ
“The issue is that laws like Isaac proposes are useless, flights of fantasy.”
The fact is that we don’t know if these laws would be successful or not in reducing the carnage, because they are ignored and/or not in effect. The fact is that recent slaughters could have been prevented if the gun purchaser/killer had been better scrutinized. You speak with an authority of ignorance. The fact is that in most other countries one cannot obtain a gun as easily as here in the free US of A and they have far far far less incidents of gun carnage than we do. Statistics and facts prove unfettered gun ownership to be responsible for the carnage that is unique to the US.
@Karen
I have to go Annie this time with a twist. “That’s very misandrist”, since you’re very heavily prejudiced against men.
“Most men are stronger than most women. Period.”
I concur. That’s why women should not apply for Rangers, Green Berets, Marine Corps. They should stay within specialized roles that prevent them from engaging in combat. This way, women can play to their strengths as opposed to their weaknesses. Thanks for acknowledging Biology 101. Most feminists would call you a ‘gender traitor’ for pointing this out.
“They kill them every day with their hands, hammers, pillows, cars, and guns.”
Of the 53.9% perpetrators in child abuse, more women abuse their children often than men do at a trailing 45% as I indicated earlier. However, boys die more than girls at the rate of 2.36 as opposed to 1.77. The idea that men kill women every day with their hands, hammers, pillows, cars, and guns is a broad generalization. You’re going to have to be specific and statistical. You need to quote the percentages of men killing their women according to the weapons of means in an array: [hands, hammer, pillows, cars, guns]. By using a statistical model, you would end up finding out just how many men use just one of the means to accomplish their own goal.
In fact, if women are being killed every day, why is it that women actually account for more than half of the population in the United States alone? According to the Census 2010, the population of females in the whole United States are: 156,964,212. The total population of the USA is 308,745,538. Now, using arithmetic subtraction, the total of males are 151,781,326. The base difference is 5,182,886. So, we’d have to do a lot more than use everyday weapons to bring women far lower than what the Census 2010 indicates on pages 32-33.
What you are doing is known as argumentum ad passiones (or appeal to emotion) by painting men as very evil and killing women everyday. How about the women who are killing men everyday using the same array that I employed with your argumentum ad passiones? Shall I add more variables to the array to produce a more realistic statistical model in comparison between genders? Of course, if I can be supplied the means to create the table.
“The only prayer a woman has in the world of protecting herself from a psycho stalker is owning a firearm, and even then, she would need enough warning to get to it. I had a psycho stalker once, and the only place I felt safe was home, because there were guns in the house. I would not wish that situation on my worst enemy.”
Good for you. That means you are taking responsibility for yourself instead of becoming a victim. I’m very glad that you feel safe around guns in your own abode. Common sense requires that guns be in the abode of law-abiding citizens to deter ne’er-do-wells from committing crimes.
There are feminists who actually proscribe to the idea that in order to prevent a rapist from hurting you or anyone else is to piss your own pants, scream “rape”, and think it’ll be all right. There’s even a list on abcnews where a college listed asinine things to avoid rape:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/02/colorado-college-advises-students-to-urinate-vomit-to-stop-rapists/
Even a House Representative, A Democrip nonetheless, by the name of Joe Salazar, agreed with this.
Karen
Yes. It is the “he needs me”….”I can fix him” syndrome.
Foolish foolish women. You see it all the time. It is a fantasy.
DBQ – what is especially tragic is that she persisted in dating a man her family warned her about, while she had young babies at home. Moms have to make more responsible decisions. A lot of women fall for that diamond in the rough or bad boy syndrome. If they’re lucky, they grow out of it.
Paul:
You are correct. Our current gun laws prohibited this person from owning a gun. This proves that, by definition, gun laws only affect law abiding citizens.
ninian:
“The second amendment gave her lots of protection didn’t it?” Did she own a firearm? Because it’s not going to help her very much if she doesn’t own one.
Most men are stronger than most women. Period. They kill them every day with their hands, hammers, pillows, cars, and guns. The only prayer a woman has in the world of protecting herself from a psycho stalker is owning a firearm, and even then, she would need enough warning to get to it. I had a psycho stalker once, and the only place I felt safe was home, because there were guns in the house. I would not wish that situation on my worst enemy.
If he didn’t have that gun, but still wanted to murder her, would she have been safe?
That poor woman looks so scared in that last picture.
What is heartbreaking is that the person most likely to murder a woman is the significant other – a husband or boyfriend who won’t let her go.
The worst of it is that her kids were so young when they lost their mom that they won’t even remember her. They missed everything their mom was supposed to do for them growing up.
What a gutless, pathetic excuse for a man.
@Isaac background checks on what?
What you are proposing is that everyone, who purchases a gun, must undergo a background check. Even if the swap meet was done, the sale conducted on-line, or from Bubba next door, there’s zero background checks there. So what are you going to do? Conduct door-to-door and say, “Papers please” before checking to see if the guns are still there, not being sold “illegally”? That alone would require massive resources, a large civilian police force (like Obama said in his first election), and keeping a “Big Brother” eye on everyone.
The 2nd Amendment is not hated. In fact, the 2nd Amendment is cherished big time. It allows everyone to bear arms. There is no restriction in that amendment that requires background checks. Background checks sounds good in theory, but limits the good citizens to acquiring a number of guns. Criminals? They’re too savvy for that sort of thing. They go straight for the black market, where guns can be sold illegally.
Consider another country that _forbids_ the use of firearms: Russia. There are countless videos of Russian police officers who assault citizens, and force them to confess. They’re thugs, operating under Putin’s orders. Here’s an example video of what happens when you do not have the right to a firearm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zAcxAXPLZY
Here, the same will be applied. Cops, who are able to carry firearms, can and will do as the Russian officer does to intimidate people. There are already bad officers in the force who are capable of getting away with certain things while good police officers continue to operate without turning in their ‘bad’ partners to Internal Affairs or risk losing their job. While the number of bad officers are small, it affects public perception when they’re doing illicit things on the job.
Are you prepared to have a cop, like the Russian police officer, come up to you, smash your head up against the wall, continue to force himself into your view, and then continue to smash you against a window? There’s no firearm! There’s no self-defense. You’re at the mercy of a police officer! That’s assuming if you have done no crime. It is not illegal to take down a police officer with a firearm provided you do fear for your life and that your life is in imminent danger, most especially if you have committed ZERO crimes!
Return to Earth, Isaac.
What’s telling is that if a proposal is laid out to make every gun transaction subject to a background check, Wayne the Peter and other gun nuts will rise up to squash it. It’s OK to have token background checks at some stores but limiting the opportunity to purchase a gun at a swap meet, on line from another idiot, or perhaps from Bubba next door is nothing less than hatred of the 2nd amendment. That’s the spooky part.
The issue is that laws like Isaac proposes are useless, flights of fantasy.
The only people who would abide by and be restricted by those laws are the responsible and legal owners of guns who ALREADY go through the screening processes.
All this idea of Isaacs would do is ensure that those who buy guns illegally, under the table, from other criminals, buy stolen guns, trade a goat for a rifle etc etc etc. THOSE people will still have unfettered access and the rest of us would be further restricted in owning legal weapons.
Until you can come up with a REAL solution to the problems of being able to STOP the opportunity to purchase a gun at a swap meet, on line from another idiot, or perhaps from Bubba next door then I suggest that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Fantasy land is a really comforting place to live. Hope you enjoy it while it lasts.
I live in the real world.
Also when people talk about committing mass murder on social networking sites as this guy supposedly did, and no one calls the FBI or whomever, those people should be held to account. It was reported that there were people who were actually encouraging him, that is sick.
A Conservative Republican “Christian hater”, go figure. This guy seemed to be an antisocial personality type who had some serious mental health issues. When hatred of any group is so irrational as to gun them down, it’s clearly mental illness, IMO. Irrational hatred toward minorities, women, Muslims, Christians, etc. is pathological.
Inga – I thought your degree was in nursing, not psychology.
What’s telling is that if a proposal is laid out to make every gun transaction subject to a background check, Wayne the Peter and other gun nuts will rise up to squash it. It’s OK to have token background checks at some stores but limiting the opportunity to purchase a gun at a swap meet, on line from another idiot, or perhaps from Bubba next door is nothing less than hatred of the 2nd amendment. That’s the spooky part.
What’s telling is that if a proposal is laid out to protect the 2nd amendment by instituting attempts to guarantee that the right to bear arms is limited to rational, sane, non criminal types in a reasonable manner including education and licensing for all guns, those ‘lovers’ of the 2nd amendment or ‘anti-haters’ of the 2nd amendment will rise up and on top of spending enormous sums to thwart the democratic process, layer accusations of blasphemy on those proposing a modicum of sanity.
You are either, by accepting the slaughter as necessary to uphold the present conditions, responsible in part for the carnage or by proposing limitations, controls, regulations, and education, not accepting the slaughter. I do not accept the slaughter.
What’s telling is that the only solution the gun nuts have is more guns; guns in the classrooms, guns in the churches, guns in the coffee shops, guns everywhere. Yup, yup, yup.