Undeniable fact: If the 9 mm had not been there, she would not be dead.

[Stinky The Clown]

Last edited Wed Feb 20, 2013, 11:40 AM - Edit history (1)

The model in the athlete's house would likely still be alive had that gun not been there.

The trajectory was up, or it was down. The lights were on, or they were off. There were screams, or there were not. He had his legs on, or he did not. He killed her intentionally or he did not.

All of that is beside the point.

She is dead.

The only gun in the house was caused to fire the shot that that killed her.

It is a FACT: Had the gun not been there, she would absolutely not be dead by gunshot, and almost certainly would not be dead by some other means.





The rest of this sad case is debatable and will ultimately be found to have happened one way or another by a South African court.



I must confess. I am really at a loss to understand the shitty-toned replies to my OP. I am not defending the man. Personally, I think he's guilty as hell. The point of my OP was that when guns are present, the likelihood of mayhem increases. We can debate whether or not he would have killed her with a bat or a knife or the candlestick in the library. But the fact is he killed her with a gun and if it wasn't there, he would not have killed her with a gun. If he didn't shoot her, the possibility that she would still be alive seems, logically to me, far greater than otherwise. Beyond the fact that she would not be dead by gunshot, it is entirely possible she would not be dead, period. Which is what the OP said.

[livetohike]

1. This whole gun control debate reminds me of Freshman year Logic class

Maybe it should be a requirement. I agree with your logic

[TheCowsCameHome]

2. Guns make everyone safe.

.....or at least some believe.

[calimary]

67. Yep, sure worked out well for her, didn't it?

And for him as well. I'm sure he's VERY pleased with the results.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. Maybe it wasn't the gun. Maybe it was Pistorious.

[Stinky The Clown]

6. Parse each word I wrote. Carefully.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. I did and it makes no sense. You can't seriously suggest she would be alive if the gun was not prese

Had Pistorious not had a gun he would not have said, amid his murderous rage, "Damn! I don't have a gun. I guess I can't kill her now. I wonder what's on the telly?"

[dairydog91]

18. You can't possibly be suggesting...

That he could have killed her without the gun. The firearm is essential; without a gun, a fast, powerful, roided-up male athlete would have no chance to win a fight with a waifish model, let alone kill her. That's why Nicole Simpson made short work of O.J. when he showed up with a mere kitchen knife.

[ljm2002]

27. If he did not have his prosthetic legs on...

...as he himself claims, then he'd have had to be pretty mobile on his stumps in order to capture and kill her.

On the other hand, with a gun in hand, he could easily kill her without being in direct contact with her -- which is what he did.

Guns do make it much, much easier to kill. Deal with it.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

36. Well remind me to only date bi-lateral amputees and make sure to hide his prosthetics

if ever things get out of hand.

Jeez Louise!

[ljm2002]

42. Come on...

...you cannot seriously be suggesting that it's as easy to kill with a knife, or a cricket bat, as with a gun?

In fact the common suggestion by pro-gun people is that we all should have guns in order to defend ourselves. That argument is predicated on the idea that IT IS EASIER TO KILL WITH A GUN than with any other weapon. Otherwise, the argument would be that we should all have knives, or cricket bats, for protection.

I am not arguing for a total prohibition on gun ownership and would not make that argument. I am saying that guns make it much, much easier to kill someone than other weapons do. Other weapons are used to kill, yes. But let's just say, a person who kills with a knife or a cricket bat must be truly committed to kill at the time they are committing the act. While a person with a gun may just lose it, and BANG! BANG! you're dead.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

46. Violence is violence is violence. I wouldn't want to be attacked by gun, bat or bare hand.

But how I choose to defend myself is my choice. It isn't based on what some person thinks I need. It isn't based on statistics. It isn't based on politicians pandering for useless laws. It is my right and that makes it my choice. Period.

[ljm2002]

70. Did you read the part...

...where I said: "I am not arguing for a total prohibition on gun ownership and would not make that argument." ?????

We were discussing whether or not guns make it EASIER TO KILL. Anyone who argues otherwise is either lying or a fool.

[atufal]

82. No, it isn't.

Society clearly does get to decide how we defend ourselves. I think that is correct and the SC agrees with me. You can claim whatever you want, but like many others, when society disagrees, you'll go to jail.

Like most people, I don't think that "violence is violence is violence" and can *easily* choose between being attacked by a gun, bat or bare hand. And so can you--that's why, when attacked, you don't want to be caught "bare handed".

[Nuclear Unicorn]

33. I wish I could share in the salient humor you offer.

I totally understand the desire to portray absurdity in its natural absurd state but the absurd is becoming dangerous. Women are being told they have no right to defend themselves in the manner they deem fitting. "My body, my choice" only counts when the patriarchy is comfortably confident women actually put-out. Birth control? Abortion? They'll support that all day because they still get to have sex. But go ahead and tell them you want to defend yourself from a rapist or a stalker ex-boyfriend and see how quickly they tell you to shut-up and get back into the kitchen.

[LanternWaste]

50. As that particular fictional bullet point applies towards everyone rather than simply women

"But go ahead and tell them you want to defend yourself ..."

As that particular fictional bullet point applies towards everyone rather than simply women, it becomes little more than a post-hoc-ergo-prompter-hoc statement, quite possibly using the war on women for no other reason than to exploit a false equivalence to further one's own agenda.

[SharonAnn]

48. She was locked in the bathroom. He couldn't have gotten to her without a gun.

[bettyellen]

54. And the gun + dark was a tempting cover story....

People never go for the "accidentally stabbed multiple times" defense. But accidentally shooting your wife? We've all seen this BS before.

[obamanut2012]

69. Except he DID get to her -- he beat the door in

[joeybee12]

99. I think he did after he shot...

I'm reading the shots all went through the door...so he shot before he was in there.

[Mojorabbit]

129. She had to come out sometime

If he was determined he could have strangled her in her sleep. It is horrible when a relationship devolves into this. May she RIP.
Peace, Mojo

[treestar]

89. In that situation every second matters

No, but he would have had to have the rage continue much longer. A gun is easy to pick up and fire and it the most efficient killing machine. Had he strangled her with his bare hands, it would have taken longer and he might have cooled down before he did it.

In fact, in a case where she was locked in the bathroom, strangling her with his bare hands was not going to happen. The gun was the only thing that could kill her through a closed door. Any other method - he could have cooled down before he was able to get through the door to carry it out.

[Walk away]

4. Not that I believe the boyfriend but....

it makes you wonder just how many people are killed mistakenly by some moron with a gun who thinks he is protecting himself with his 2nd Amendment right.

[iandhr]

37. I am sure the number of accidental shooting death are a not a...

... infrequent occurrence.

[Auntie Bush]

51. I wish someone would do some statistical research on that.

Bet there's are more than any one realizes. That would be a good argument for gun control when someone says you need a gun in the house for safety.

[SunSeeker]

56. The NRA lobby has made sure the CDC do no such research for years now. nt

[GreenStormCloud]

104. About 600 accidental gun deaths per year.

However, the issue is more complex than that. The gun accident rate is much higher among those who have a gun illegally than it is among law-abiding gun owners.

[Starboard Tack]

97. Excellent point. Reminds me of an incident.

I had a girlfriend whose father almost did that. Heard a noise in the night, pulled his AR-15 from under the bed and blasted a hole in the bedroom wall. The bullet passed through the wall, through the vanity mirror in the bathroom at eye level, through the shower stall, through the bathroom wall, across the guest bedroom and ended up in an exterior wall. I asked him what he was thinking of. He said he thought there was an intruder. I asked how he knew it wasn't his wife or other family member. He replied "Only I have the house keys." This was a summer house of a man with a wife and two grown kids. His paranoia extended to not allowing his own family members have house keys.

[obamanut2012]

5. He would have used his hands or the cricket bat

It appears from prelim reports he DID use the cricket bat.

Reeva would have been dead no matter what.

[Stinky The Clown]

7. Conjecture. Unlike the OP, which is an undeniable fact.

[obamanut2012]

9. Nope, same thing as your OP

Your OP isn't a fact.

She was alive about 30-40 minutes after he clubbed and shot her. If the EMTs had been called immediately, she may have lived. So, your OP is incorrect.

This isn't a gun incident, it is a DV incident, and there is evidence he attacked her with means other than his gun before he shot her.

[cali]

16. hmm. not even close. much more conjecture and opinion than fact

[HappyMe]

8. I agree.

I don't know what sort of policies they have for guns in SA. If change has to come there, I will leave that to the people of SA.

[n2doc]

14. He could have killed her with the bat

or with knives, or his hands. The gun just made it easier since he didn't have to break the door down first.

Agree with poster above, this is a domestic violence case, not a gun issue. If the stories are true, he was a vicious, murderous thug no matter what weapon he used.

[obamanut2012]

28. To paraphrase someone downthread

The gun only comes into play if you believe it was an accidental killing. If you believe it was murder, than the gun's absence saving her is moot.

[cali]

79. that's not true either. guns do make it easier to kill

and she had a better chance of surviving if he hadn't had a gun.

[obamanut2012]

115. He was the bullet in the chamber

The only way she was safe is if she wasn't with him. Cricket bat, beating, strangling.

[Walk away]

117. If the bat worked then why did she scream out between shots...

face it the bat probably didn't work so he had to use the gold standard in murder weapons...a gun.

[graham4anything]

11. If not for the bullet in the gun.

[obamanut2012]

29. He was the bullet in the chamber

[graham4anything]

31. The gun/bullet is responsible. Clint Eastwood in Gran Tarino showed why

A clicked finger doesn't kill.

[obamanut2012]

32. Right, and Oscar was the bullet

He is what fired.

[graham4anything]

47. The gun fired. Bullets, NOT in the constitution, should all be banned.

then the gun would be a mere shell of itself.

There never in history has been an invention like the gun and bullet.
There is no good reason for it to be invented.


A gun in the hands by any private citizen (except for law enforcement on duty) never saved anyone.

[sarisataka]

57. You do realize

this happened in South Africa? They have their own constitution.

[hack89]

59. "Arms" has always been interpreted to include ammunition

can't have a well regulated militia if they can't practice.

[obamanut2012]

66. This was in South Africa

Where, as far as I know, the US Constitution has no force. Please link if I'm mistaken on this.

And, no, Oscar was the bullet in the chamber.

[Bake]

85. The Supreme Court says you're wrong.

You can't abrogate the 2nd Amendment by going in the back door and banning bullets.

But nice try, thanks for playing.

And your last sentence appears to be more a statement of your opinion than of verifiable fact.

Bake

[graham4anything]

91. Chief Justice Obama will in a few years render quite a different opinion.

after all any supreme court is only tendered on the members who opine.

President Clinton, will nominate President Obama to the US Supreme Court, (probably 2018),
and some years after, he will become Chief Justice.

Hopefully, to coin a clintonian phrase, Sooner rather than later.

I for one am hoping the corrupt five will retire once it is evident the democratic party will keep the presidency for many years forward.

[Bake]

94. Even Democrats won't do it.

You're dreaming.

Bake

[graham4anything]

95. 90% of the public used to smoke. 90% of the public now doesn't smoke.

The end is coming for the NRA and for candidates who are blackmailed by the NRA.

[Bake]

98. It's actually more like 80% don't smoke.

But feel free to cite whatever "facts" suit you.

Bake

[GreenStormCloud]

105. Ammunition is a part of an arms and is covered by 2A. N/T

[graham4anything]

109. The 2nd did not apply to the streets, but to a cannon in a private home.

Again, the new court can interpret any ole way they want to.

I await the day guns are gone from the streets.

The 2nd did not apply to the streets, but to a private home.

With a cannon and in a national guard type group.

[GreenStormCloud]

110. You got a loooong wait coming. N/T

[cali]

38. neither does a gun that isn't fired. no clicked finger and the gun is just an object.

I have no fondness for firearms but are you honestly blaming the gun instead of the murderer who "clicked" his finger 4 times?

[obamanut2012]

40. yes

[cherokeeprogressive]

12. This thread took a LOT longer than I thought.

I wonder how many people in the world will die by gun today...

If only...

[GreenStormCloud]

106. Julius Caesar called.

He wants you to know that he was murdered before guns were invented.

Murder rate in medieval Europe was around 35 per 100K, which is many times higher than modern rates.

[cherokeeprogressive]

116. et tu Brute? n/t

[NoPasaran]

13. Good thing OJ didn't have a gun.

Lord knows what sort of mischief might have ensued.

[dairydog91]

20. Fortunately he didn't, so Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman are still alive.

[obamanut2012]

22. +1

[graham4anything]

52. Too bad the terrorist, Dorner,the corrupt ex-cop had a gun. OJ was found 100% innocent.

To say OJ was guilty is a travesty of American law.

By a count of 12 to 0, OJ was found 100% innocent.

[sarisataka]

60. He was found Not Guilty

Legally is distinct from innocent. Were the trial held in Scotland the verdict would likely have been Not Proven.

[obamanut2012]

68. Of course OJ was guilty -- he got away with domestic murder

Thanks to Christopher Darden, and a jury that, literally, didn't believe in DNA science.

He WAS found guilty in the wrongful death trial.

[graham4anything]

87. Civil cases have no basis in a conversation of a criminal trial.

apples and oranges.

And you mean Marcia Clark.

[cali]

15. You contradict yourself. First you say it's undeniable fact that she would not be dead,

then you say it's likely she would be alive. they both cannot be true. I'll go with the latter- to a degree. It's unknowable. We don't know with any degree of certainty, Pistorius' state of mind. We do know that there was a cricket bat taken from the house.

You can't possibly come to a logical conclusion that she " almost certainly would not be dead by some other means. ". the most one can accurately state is that she had a better chance of not being killed had no gun been in the house.

[Puzzledtraveller]

21. I loved the "your conjecture is conjecture" meme that was being born in this thread

[WinkyDink]

23. The contradictory title and body show a desire for an argument.

[cali]

34. Maybe not. It looks like the op has left his thread

It's not a well crafted argument.

[Stinky The Clown]

49. .

OO

[cali]

76. brilliant response to my points, stinky!

wow, how can anyone possibly dispute your "facts"?

[Stinky The Clown]

88. That wasn't a reposnse to your points

It was an acknowledgement I hadn't "abandoned my thread"

As to your points: their yours. 'nuff said.

Buh bye

[JVS]

17. Incorrect. If it was murder, he'd have found a way.

Only if it was an accident could the absence of a the gun have changed the outcome.

[obamanut2012]

24. Exactly -- you stated it better than I did upstairs

[WinkyDink]

19. Don't play coy and write a different post from what your title clearly states.

Undeniable fact: If the 9 mm had not been there, she would not be dead.

vs.

It is a FACT: Had the gun not been there, she would absolutly not be dead by gunshot, and almost certainly would not be dead by some other means.

Oh, and DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Gee, if there's no gun, nobody can die by gunshot!

[marble falls]

25. And the cricket bat he beat her with? He was going to kill her one way or another. This isn't ....

about guns. This is about domestic violence.

[Bucky]

26. Another thing to think about. If she'd only been armed in the bathroom...

she could've returned fire. So maybe, and I'm just going with LaPierre's logic here, maybe she died because there were not enough guns in the household. If she'd been allowed to stand her ground, or I guess "stand her linoleum" in this case, she'd still be alive today. Again, just something think about.

Guns don't kill people. Going #1 in the middle of the night kills people.

[obamanut2012]

30. He was the bullet in the chamber

Only his absence from the home would have saved her life.

[jmg257]

35. "Undeniable Fact". If Oscar Pistorius had not been there, she would not be dead. nt

[obamanut2012]

39. Bingo

[JVS]

113. There remains a non-zero probability that someone else would have killed her.

[pipi_k]

41. I think the only thing that is certain

is that if the gun hadn't been there, she would not be dead from a gunshot wound (or 2 or 3).

You can't kill someone with a gun if a gun isn't there.

You can, however, kill someone with a golf club, a baseball bat, a large kitchen knife, a length of rope or your bare hands around someone's throat...

Unless one is absolutely 100% positive that the story the defendant is telling about "hearing an intruder" is true, it's hard to believe he didn't mean to kill/hurt her intentionally. In which case, he could have used any of the methods I listed above.

Personally, I would call the cops first thing if I heard strange noises in my house.

And I did reassure Mr Pipi that, knowing he lives here also, if I ever hear strange noises in the bathroom, I won't grab his gun and "accidentally" shoot him through the door.

[DanTex]

43. I wouldn't say it's a fact, but it's likely.

All of the evidence indicates that the presence of a gun in a home greatly increases the risk of homicide to residents, and this is particularly true in incidences of domestic violence. We can't of course, say with certainty what would have happened without a gun, but we can say that statistically it would have been less likely to result in death.

Like a lot of people, Pistorius convinced himself of the fiction that being armed to the teeth was increasing his safety. In fact, using a gun to protect against a home intruder is one of the least likely things to occur. Now, sadly, he and his girlfriend have become part of the statistics.

[sinkingfeeling]

44. Well, maybe he could have stabbed her to death through a locked door? Of course, having a

gun immediately at hand is the reason people get killed during arguments.

[cali]

45. He broke the door down. Abusive men kill women in other ways

too. Are you actually suggesting that there is no way he could/would have killed her without a gun?

It may be less likely that he would have killed her sans a gun, but there is really no way of knowing as we cannot know his exact state of mind.

[bettyellen]

55. No, just that its a lot easier with a gun. Therefore,

All things being equal, more likely.
His story wouldn't fit a knife attack. Too many loved ones get "accidentally" shot people can find it very plausible.

[OmahaBlueDog]

53. Your post contradicts itself

Undeniable fact: If the 9 mm had not been there, she would not be dead.

In the title, you present this as indisputable, pure fact. Just as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, she would not be dead.

Then...

The model in the athlete's house would likely still be alive had that gun not been there.

Well now wait a minute...undisputible fact has now become "the sun will most likely rise in the east and set in the west, but we're not quite sure."

Then...

It is a FACT: Had the gun not been there, she would absolutely not be dead by gunshot,

Well yeah, if a gun is not there, she's most likely not dead by gunshot, just as someone who dies in a falling accident is most likely not dead if the cliff is not there or someone who dies in a plane crash is likely still alive if they didn't fly. The next statement, however, is somewhat of a leap in logic.

and almost certainly would not be dead by some other means.

That's a stretch. The cops have indicated that testosterone was found; we know the prime suspect (not withstanding his legs) is a world class athlete, and the police have indicated the victim had been beaten with a cricket wicket, which is not unlike being beaten with a baseball bat or a 2 x 4". I would ask the reasonable question "If a world class athlete on steroids were beating OmahaBlueDog with a 2 x 4", could that kill him?" The answer is certainly in the affirmative.

I realize that Stinky The Clown would like to beat OmahaBlueDog with a 2 x 4" right about now, but that's another subject...

[Stinky The Clown]

58. Your last line is . . . .

Ah fuckit

Go target practice.

[cali]

77. yet another non-response to the claims you

insist are facts.

[B2G]

61. You do realize he bashed her head in too

She had a fractured skull and they found a bloody cricket mallet.

What makes you think she would still be alive?

[KG]

62. he could've used lawn furniture...

[AtheistCrusader]

63. You assume the shooting was accidental.

I do not. If he in fact MEANT to murder her, lack of a gun probably wouldn't have saved her. Blunt force trauma works just fine for such purposes, and he did break down part of the door with that cricket bat.

I would not want to be hit by a cricket bat in the head.

Stabbing, strangling, beating to death, he had plenty of options if he meant to murder her.
I would be more agreeable to your point, if it can be truly proven that the shooting was ENTIRELY innocent and accidental. Which of course, I do not personally believe, but hey, innocent until proven guilty.

[Gorp]

64. My handguns are in a fire safe (family heirlooms) and I have no ammo for them.

I do have ammo for the shotgun (also a family heirloom) but it is in a 2-cartridge clip and not in the bolt-action gun. They are in different places, but that's the only useful weapon - as in worthy of having ammo. We get rabid skunks and coons around here and a shotgun can come in handy if one comes around. The dogs have their shots and could easily take out a rabid animal, but a shotgun is much more efficient at the task and doesn't involve veterinarian bills.

But you are correct. Without the gun in the house, the murder would have been far more difficult. I can't fathom why anyone would kill someone they love. It's just not in my craneal wiring.

[AtheistCrusader]

65. Your edit is a pretty lame backpedal.

Your subject: "If the 9 mm had not been there, she would not be dead."

You could say 'she would not have been shot', or 'she might not have died', but to state she WOULD NOT BE DEAD is a ridiculous absolute, and frankly, plays into the idea that he didn't have murder on his mind that night.

The tone of the replies would be very different, had you not selected those 'undeniable fact' yadda yadda for the subject line, because it is NOT an undeniable fact, and that's going to get a reaction even from people who aren't necessarily friendly toward guns, for instance; people concerned about domestic violence, which can be enabled by, but is not solely to blame upon the availability of firearms.

[FBaggins]

71. So? What conclusion can we draw from that?

Is it that 9mm handguns should be banned?

What then of the contrary situation where someone would be dead were it not for the handgun they defended their family with?

[pediatricmedic]

74. A murderer will use whatever weapon or means available

If it is indeed true(waiting for credible source) she also had her head bashed in, then the presence or absence of a gun is irrelevant.

The most dangerous weapon is a human mind intent on doing harm to others. We need to ban brains, also good for preventing zombie attacks.

[Kalidurga]

72. Yes this is definitely a case of domestic violence.

But, she was locked in the bathroom. We don't know the extent of her injuries when she arrived there. But, if there was no gun she wouldn't have been shot by a coward through the door. She might have still died. But, so would have the "accidental" shooting defense. There would be no question in anyone's mind that she was beaten to death if she would have died from those injuries.

I hope someday people get it in their heads that guns aren't necessary, they are just a means to kill or practice killing.

[ybbor]

73. I'm sick of people claiming it is their right!

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It is my right to require it to be "well regulated"! When do I get to have my right?

I am so sick of the gun nuts! We have every right to regulate the hell out of who may have guns and what type!!!!!

[B2G]

75. Uh, this was South Africa.

But hey, let's blame all of the murders worldwide on the 2nd ammendment.

[ybbor]

80. What's your point?

I know it is South Africa. The OP suggests that if there was no gun she may be alive. People here again are defending their right by saying he would have killed her anyway. Maybe, maybe not, I'm not him. There are then posters here using their "right" to have guns for protection. I am saying that the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution calls for a "well regulated militia" as the basis for the citizens to bear arms. Well regulated means just that, well regulated. These people do not want any regulation at all! No licensing, no background checks, no training, nothing! I am sick of it! I want my right guaranteeing the "well regulated" portion of the 2nd Amendment. That's my point.

Would Pistorius have killed her without the gun being there? No one can say. But, the fact that a gun is present in other situations leads to many unnecessary deaths all the time. I don't care if you have a gun, but I think you should receive as much training required to drive a car. You should be required to get a license to own one. You should be required to have an insurance policy on each gun you own equivalent to the amount of damage they may accidentally cause. You should be required to sell them through a government run procedure. I want them regulated!

And I am not blaming murders worldwide on the 2nd amendment. I am just tired of the pro-gun faction taking the portion of the amendment they like and discarding the rest. Much like the religious zealots conveniently choosing which parts of the bible they need to make their side seem more righteous.

[davidn3600]

93. What right are you being deprived of exactly?

This is like saying you shouldn't have the right to free speech because your speech might be hurtful to my feelings. That you shouldn't have freedom of religion because your religion offends me.

The 2nd amendment is very clear that you cannot ban firearms. "Well-regulated" at the writing of the document meant something like what the Swiss have today. They have a militia system of defense and that's really what the founding fathers wanted for America. They didn't like the idea of a large standing army. They saw that historically large armies are expensive and counter-productive. Rome for example was very successful with it's militia-style system in the early years of the Republic. When they started forming a large standing military during the imperial years, it got incredibly expensive. And eventually they collapsed. One can argue the same thing is happening in America today. Our military is incredibly expensive and it's draining our resources in other areas.

So lets do it... I agree with you. Let's have a well-regulated militia. Guns and military training for everybody! Disband most of our standing army. Next time the government needs to respond to war or crisis, we can just call up the militia to respond. It will be much, much cheaper, and it will avoid all these stupid, unnecessary wars.

[dkf]

78. Seems to me the only way she would be alive is if she had shot him first.

Without any way to defend herself this was her likely fate.

[Bake]

81. So obviously, let's ban ALL handguns. Hell, ban ALL guns, period.

That's what you want, right?

Bake

[Stinky The Clown]

83. Right. Every fucking one of them.

[Bake]

84. And then what do we do about the deaths where the victim could not defend him/herself?

Oh, too bad about them, huh.

Bake

[Stinky The Clown]

86. Oh stop it.

[graham4anything]

111. a gun never saved anybody who couldn't have saved oneself using ones wits to do the same

People are smarter than guns.
Having a gun against the mafia will only get the rest of the mafia after one.

No person in the middle of the night, fast asleep with a gun safely locked up to not harm the kids in the house, can stop someone who already is there who has a gun

every single NRA talking point has been debunked

Nothing else besides cigarettes were ever made that were 100% bad for a private person.

What's next? Individuals should all have shoulder to air misssles?

[sarisataka]

118. Pretty absolute statement

Will you admit to being wrong if I can find one case where a person saved themselves with a gun?

[Bake]

120. Really? You know this for an actual fact, or are you just making shit up (again)?

Never mind. I already know.

And nice reductio ad absurdum. That's a logical fallacy, in case you don't know.

Bake

[Eleanors38]

112. So, those controllers who say "No one wants to take your guns" are wrong?

[obamanut2012]

114. +1

[Eleanors38]

119. I've posed this rhetorical question in some form 3 times today.

[Bake]

121. Yeah, but we knew that already.

+10000000000000000000000000000



Bake

[MineralMan]

90. Interesting that so many are jumping all over your statement.

You're right of course. It's simple to kill someone if you have a gun handy. Not so simple otherwise. So, you're right. Another death by bullets fired from a gun by someone who was fucked up, pissed, or stupid. Without the firearm, you're right. She'd almost certainly still be alive.

[WinkyDink]

92. "She'd almost certainly still be alive." See now, that is a ridiculous statement based on nothing.

Reeva would not have been shot if Oscar had had no gun.

Now, after one states the PAINFULLY OBVIOUS DUH, one must ask: Were Oscar in a murderous rage AND had no gun, how, then, might he have killed her?

Gee, I wonder if he had any, you know, ARM STRENGTH? Enough to wield a CRICKET BAT? On a defenseless woman?

[MineralMan]

96. It is far more difficult to kill someone

while looking them in the face and by beating that person to death, than to shoot the person through a bathroom door. Think about it.

[Lizzie Poppet]

100. Probably because the statement in the headline is nonsense.

The qualified version in the message body is more supportable...but pretty far into "thank you, Captain Obvious territory.

[MineralMan]

101. Whatever you say, Lizzie.

I disagree with you on that assessment of the title, though.

[Lizzie Poppet]

122. No worries.

I just think that in this particular murder, it's a real stretch to say that w/o the handgun, the victim wouldn't be dead. That kind of depends on how determined the killer was. It's obviously a lot easier to kill with a pistol than with whatever else happened to be lying around. But if Pistorius is in fact the killer, I really don't think a world-class athlete would have needed anything but his bare hands to kill a smaller, weaker person if he really wanted to.

[cali]

103. whoa there. I jumped all over the contradictions in the op

and although a gun does make it easier, you absolutely cannot correctly claim that she'd almost certainly be alive if not for the gun. If this is, as it appears, domestic abuse, he could have beaten her to death with the seized cricket bat- and indeed, that may be what killed her.

[OmahaBlueDog]

108. As with the OP, I'm with you up to the last line

IMO, the police evidence strongly suggests he'd beaten her with the cricket wicket, so (in the absence of a firearm) I have no reason that he wouldn't have simply bludgeoned her to death. As I state in post 53 - he's a world class athelete, and the cops found steroids.

It's all just our humble opinions. She's dead; his inspirational life and career are now ruined and wasted (presuming he's convicted); it's all tragic.

[NCTraveler]

102. These two sentences are not consistent.

"Undeniable fact: If the 9 mm had not been there, she would not be dead."
"The model in the athlete's house would likely still be alive had that gun not been there."

[OmahaBlueDog]

107. Refer to Post #53

..then envision hitting me with a 2 x 4".

[apocalypsehow]

123. "I am really at a loss to understand the shitty-toned replies to my OP" - You attacked the precious

gun - once you did that, a swarm was guaranteed. More to the point, you illuminated the fact that it was the presence of a handgun that made the model's death a certainty, as opposed to a possibility:

"The only gun in the house was caused to fire the shot that that killed her.

It is a FACT: Had the gun not been there, she would absolutely not be dead by gunshot, and almost certainly would not be dead by some other means."

This is an irrefutable fact. But the "RKBA enthusiast" mentality simply doesn't care about mundane things like "facts."

[FreeJoe]

124. I completely disagree

I'm anti-gun and pro gun regulation. I live in a gun loving part of the country but have never owned a gun. I don't like them at all. Yet, I still found the OP's title annoying.

The OP could have said something like, "If there had been no gun in the house, she would probably still be alive." None of us know for certain whether she would have been killed without a gun in the house. He was an Olympic athlete and could have killed her in any number of ways. The highest profile murder case in my lifetime often attributed to an athlete was done using a knife. People sometimes kill people without guns. My personal belief is that Pistorius would probably not have done so without the lethal convenience of a gun, but I doubt that even he really knows for sure how it would have turned out if the gun hadn't been there or hadn't fired. If he was in a 'roid rage, as is claimed by many, there is no telling what he would have done.

What the OP titled the post was "Undeniable fact: If the 9 mm had not been there, she would not be dead." That's just not true. It's not a fact. It is speculation. It is a hypothesis. I think it is a good one, but as partial as I am to it, I wouldn't confuse it with being a fact. It is certainly not an undeniable fact. Instead of raising a good point in an accurate and palatable manner, the OP staked out an extreme and indefensible position. For that, the OP has been resoundingly mocked and the value of the point they were trying to make has been diminished.

Honestly, I see it as a sad commentary on a trend, most commonly see on the right, that increasingly plagues our discourse. People briefly think about an issue, make a decision, and then stake out an absolute position that is not open to any alternative viewpoints. It's a sad trend and it annoys me greatly when I see examples of it here.

[smirkymonkey]

125. First of all, why would an intruder be locked in your bathroom?

Secondly, if they were locked in your bathroom, wouldn't you have them hold hostage until the police arrived?

There is no way they could have could have gotten out if you let them know that you had a gun on them and that the cops were arriving at any minute. There would be no reason to shoot to kill. This is complete bullshit. Nestorius committed murder, pure and simple. There is no way he can get out of this now.

[Warpy]

126. The statistics are all on your side

The biggest predictor of death by gun violence is the presence of a gun in the home.

[apocalypsehow]

127. +1. n/t.

[cantbeserious]

128. Solution - Outlaw Private Gun Ownership - Stiff Punitive Measures For Violators

eom