The Kentucky woman who shot her boyfriend in the head and face multiple times said she was giving him “the nose job that he wanted,” detectives said.

Investigators revealed a string of gruesome new details at a preliminary hearing Thursday for Shayna Hubers, 21, the Eastern Kentucky University student charged with murder in the slaying of on again-off again boyfriend Ryan Poston, 29.

“She said she couldn’t stand to see him deformed [after shooting him in the face]. She said he was vain,” Highland Heights Detective Bill Birkenhauer said in a chilling testimony before the Campbell County District Court.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/woman-shot-boyfriend-gave-nose-job-detective-article-1.1193488

Gun supporters accept the fact that people criminally use guns to kill and wound people. Heck, it's a prime reason why many gun supporters want a gun.

Meanwhile, a frequent statement by DU anti-gun posters as well has national level gun confiscators is that guns are virtually never used to stop crime.

Actually, the more postings of a good gun use along with a bad gun use bolsters the RKBA argument the more folks will see there really is a considerable positive contribution of privately owned guns for self defense. The 2nd amendment thanks you for your support.

And this one gets high marks for creativity.

have a purpose or is it just to harass?

Love them drive-bys...

Not sure what it had to do with my OP, but it's interesting reading.

In other words, "All power to the physically strong."

country makes me less safe?

Than how do you intend to go about being a "tough victim"? Roll into a ball and hope they'll get tired before they can inflict too much damage on you?

Show me where I ever suggested that you did. That's your "STRAWMAN" -- not mine.

You said that you felt confident in your physical strength to protect yourself against assault as long as the assailant didn't have a gun. Then you claimed to not be violent. You can't have it both ways. You will use physical violence to protect yourself. Goody for you. What are the weak, the elderly, and the infirm supposed to do?

Obviously. Puh-leeze ...

my chances of death and injury are higher because of guns?

Goody for you. What are the weak, elderly, and infirm supposed to do?

I really don't care about your happiness. I do care about your desire to render others helpless against assault.

In a world without guns, no one would get shot. That's a meaningless truism. Violence would still exist. That's a historical fact. You could look it up.

elderly and infirm?

I get the money, that's one thing. But my life for a stranger? What the fuck?

And it of course implies that the elderly and infirm are safer in a world with guns, but that's probably not true. Yeah they're helpless, but I'd rather be with no gun 2000 miles from a war zone than with a gun in a war zone.

I said nothing of the kind. You are able to defend yourself, but you don't want to allow them the means to do the same.


I tell you what: Go out and create the world with no guns in it, and then we'll talk about whether it's true.

In the meantime, down here in the fallen world we live in, I'm not too eager to put impediments in the way of people taking steps for their own self-defense.


Yeah, but you're not them. You're a tough guy -- remember? Try a little empathy. Imagine life as a weak, elderly, or infirm person.

And by the way, war zones can exist without guns. You could look it up.

Are you one of those people who says, "If your neighborhood is dangerous, why don't you just move?"

put my life on the line for others.

I tell you what: Go out and create the world with no guns in it, and then we'll talk about whether it's true.

In the meantime, down here in the fallen world we live in, I'm not too eager to put impediments in the way of people taking steps for their own self-defense.

It's pretty well verified that other industrialized countries with very strict gun laws are generally safer.

Yeah, but you're not them. You're a tough guy -- remember? Try a little empathy. Imagine life as a weak, elderly, or infirm person.

Not a guy. I've been infirm as well when very sick or after surgery. Never thought shit I better get a gun.

Are you one of those people who says, "If your neighborhood is dangerous, why don't you just move?"

What the fuck? No.

I'm not forcing you to do anything. You are laboring under the misapprehension that (a) you can create a world without firearms, and (b) that this will mean the end of violent and fatal assaults. Neither one is true, but even if you did succeed with the first, the people who would still be the most at risk would be ... need I say it again? The weak, the elderly, and the infirm. You don't seem to care much about their well-being.


Pretty well? Generally? Only industrialized countries? Very strict? Could you hedge that a bit more while you're explaining how these countries are just like ours in every other respect, so that the difference in gun laws is the only possible answer?


Sorry -- you're a tough gal, then. Do you live in a dangerous neighborhood? Do you live alone? How sick/disabled were you? For how long? Do you see what I'm getting at? You were not at risk, and seem to be unable to imagine the situation of people who are.



So what do you say to the people who live in "war zones" and don't have the means to move themselves "2000 miles" away?

I'm not forcing you to do anything. You are laboring under the misapprehension that (a) you can create a world without firearms,

Bullshit. I never said that.

and (b) that this will mean the end of violent and fatal assaults.

Bullshit. I never said that. I said that less (not none. LESS) guns = less crime, so even though the elderly and infirm are helpless, they're still more safe. And this doesn't even take into account other things that can be used that are probably better for personal safety, provided someone is mobile, like a panic room.

Neither one is true, but even if you did succeed with the first, the people who would still be the most at risk would be ... need I say it again? The weak, the elderly, and the infirm. You don't seem to care much about their well-being.

When it's their life or mine I sure as fuck do. What's next, force me to donate a kidney who needs one? I'm young, healthy, and strong. I'll be ok.

And again, you imply that the elderly and infirm are safer in a world with a lot of guns. They're not. They're even more likely to be victimized and instead of beaten up and robbed, shot and robbed.

You were not at risk, and seem to be unable to imagine the situation of people who are.

You seem to not give two shits about my life.

So what do you say to the people who live in "war zones" and don't have the means to move themselves "2000 miles" away?

What, are you going to tell me I need to move out of the US?

... you didn't say that. You said that "lack of guns makes me a tough victim." Unless your grievously misspoke (which may be possible), what you were saying was that you could defend yourself against a non-gun assault. It has nothing to do with crime rates or odds or anything like that. You were asserting the desirability of a gun-free world for an able-bodied person.

Helpless but safer? That doesn't compute. Without a gun, who will a mugger mug? Whose home will be more likely to be invaded? By now I think you know the answer.


I'm picturing elderly Social Security recipients telling their Section 8 caseworkers that they need an apartment with a safe room. Yeah, that'll work.


So it's just as I thought: You would gladly remove an otherwise-defenseless person's means of self-defense if you think that doing so makes you statistically less likely to be the victim of a gun crime. Yeah, that's pretty self-absorbed.

Nobody's asking you to give up a kidney or anything else.


More likely to be victimized? Not a proven assertion. More likely to be shot? Yes, probably. Is that meaningful distinction? Only if you believe that it's better to be beaten or stabbed to death than to be shot. Remember that we're talking about the ... repeat after me: weak, elderly, and infirm. They tend not to take beatings particularly well.


Why do you say that? You have the same right to self-defense as anyone. But when you start talking about reducing your odds of victimization by increasing somebody else's, you tend to lose my sympathy.


No. I'm going to tell you that some people are trapped in neighborhoods where their lives are far more endangered than your own. The ones victimizing them have for the most part lost the legal right to own firearms, but they own them regardless. Taking the firearms away from their erstwhile victims would be an act of stunning callousness.

I'm picturing elderly Social Security recipients telling their Section 8 caseworkers that they need an apartment with a safe room. Yeah, that'll work.

Ok, you have a fair point in an apartment. Maybe. But a safe room could be constructed with a metal secure door and sandbags or old refrigerators. It doesn't need to be a richy rich hidden passage way with a $50,000 panic room. Not that it's likely one would be shooting through the wall if you went into a room with a metal door anyway.

So it's just as I thought: You would gladly remove an otherwise-defenseless person's means of self-defense if you think that doing so makes you statistically less likely to be the victim of a gun crime. Yeah, that's pretty self-absorbed.

And they gladly put me in harm's way to have theirs. Doesn't sound like they're being any less self absorbed.

More likely to be victimized? Not a proven assertion. More likely to be shot? Yes, probably. Is that meaningful distinction? Only if you believe that it's better to be beaten or stabbed to death than to be shot. Remember that we're talking about the ... repeat after me: weak, elderly, and infirm. They tend not to take beatings particularly well.

Your assertion that more guns means less victimizations also has yet to be proven. And old and infirm people often survive being beaten up. Hell, they survive being shot. So while they're also more likely to die if they get beaten up, they're also more likely to die if they get shot too.

Why do you say that? You have the same right to self-defense as anyone. But when you start talking about reducing your odds of victimization by increasing somebody else's, you tend to lose my sympathy.

And you tend to lose my sympathy when you say their life trumps mine.

No. I'm going to tell you that some people are trapped in neighborhoods where their lives are far more endangered than your own. The ones victimizing them have for the most part lost the legal right to own firearms, but they own them regardless. Taking the firearms away from their erstwhile victims would be an act of stunning callousness.

Link? but even if so: Because it's fucking easy to have a gun when the country is awash in them and guns are for the most part legal everywhere. You start making just carrying a gun a felony sentence for anyone and the only people who have guns are going to be organized criminals.

And said old/infirm people are not often victimized by gang bangers or mobsters. They're victimized by their own family members. When their heroin addict grandson wants to take grandma's jewelry and he has a gun it's worse than if he doesn't.

They're doing no such thing. You have the same right of self-defense as they do.

Are you trying to say that this country is awash in guns because the elderly and infirm are arming themselves in self-defense? I hope not, because that would be a ridiculous claim.


Do I need a link to prove to you that the bulk of gun crimes are committed by people with prior disqualifying convictions, i.e. "felons in possession"? Look at Table 7: 23% of state and 9.5% of federal offenders had no previous sentence. How many does that leave? You do the math.

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf


Bingo! When guns are outlawed, only outlaws, etc.

They're doing no such thing. You have the same right of self-defense as they do.

Are you trying to say that this country is awash in guns because the elderly and infirm are arming themselves in self-defense? I hope not, because that would be a ridiculous claim.

They have a right to self defense, but they are putting me in harm's way by giving them guns. Taking away guns does not mean you lose your right to self defense.

Of course I'm not saying the country is awash in guns because of seniors. Don't take me for stupid, what in the actual fuck...

Do I need a link to prove to you that the bulk of gun crimes are committed by people with prior disqualifying convictions, i.e. "felons in possession"? Look at Table 7: 23% of state and 9.5% of federal offenders had no previous sentence. How many does that leave? You do the math.

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

So what? It's easy to get a gun through a straw purchase, a shady dealer, or stealing one BECAUSE THE COUNTRY IS AWASH in guns. This has zero to do with whether the offenders have a sentence or not. When they still a gun or buy a gun for $1000 it's no big deal. If the act of carrying a gun was a felony criminal offense, guess how much black market guns would cost? It would be about $30,000 (what they are in Australia). So very few common criminals are going to have them, only the hardest of the hard, like Mafia members are going to routinely have them. And guess what, they aren't going to be mugging grandma.

Bingo! When guns are outlawed, only outlaws, etc.

More accurately: when guns are outlawed, only a few extreme outlaws will have them. Instead of any outlaw who wants one will have one (the current situation).

It does if you're -- repeat after me -- weak, elderly and infirm.


Really? Then who is the "they" in your statements below?




So what? So if the bulk of the crime problem is caused by people who are already banned from owning guns, making all gun ownership illegal will have little effect on it.


News flash: the act of carrying a gun is already a felony criminal offense, unless you are licensed or live in a state that allows permitless concealed carry. And for those with prior convictions, it's always a felony offense.

If you're contemplating an Australian-style "buyback" (misnamed because the government didn't own those guns in the first place), then I wish you good luck in embarking on the most expensive, difficult, and socially divisive enterprise this county has seen since Prohibition. And we all know how that turned out ...

In any case, the Australian model is not the runaway success that gun controllers often assume (or pretend) it is.

It does if you're -- repeat after me -- weak, elderly and infirm.

Never heard of other weapons besides guns and other security measures?

Secure construction, tasers, knives, etc?

Really? Then who is the "they" in your statements below?

Generally, fit and healthy gun nuts and arms dealers blocking any laws (even reasonable restrictions) on guns and letting the criminals get them easier.

News flash: the act of carrying a gun is already a felony criminal offense, unless you are licensed or live in a state that allows permitless concealed carry. And for those with prior convictions, it's always a felony offense.

It's easier to have sting operations. It's also kind of hard when you can't readily buy ammo.

I was just pulled over last week. It's still winter here, wearing thick black clothing. I could have easily had a pistol on me. Did the cop even bother asking me... no...

So you're telling grandma that she could prevail in a knife fight against the 20-something meth-head who has just broken into her home? Tasers actually harder to deploy than firearms, and if the first shot fails, all you've done is pissed your assailant off. Secure construction is all well and good if you can afford it, but it's not foolproof.

And I think we're seeing a definite case of Pinocchio Nose -- or perhaps just faulty memory -- in the exchange below:*


This was the prior exchange:


Hmm... "an otherwise defenseless person" -- in other words weak, elderly, or infirm, just as in the entire subthread -- has suddenly become "fit and healthy gun nuts and arms dealers." How did that happen?


*(Italicized statements are mine. Plain-text responses are yours. Bolding added by me to emphasize relevant points.)

So you're telling grandma that she could prevail in a knife fight against the 20-something meth-head who has just broken into her home? Tasers actually harder to deploy than firearms, and if the first shot fails, all you've done is pissed your assailant off. Secure construction is all well and good if you can afford it, but it's not foolproof.

Unless grandma is disabled, yes, she could. Would she? IDK. But same goes for a gun, it's not an automatic I win death ray machine. Just more likely to work. So yes I know that tasers and knives are not "as good" as guns, that's basically by definition. A taser is harder to use and less likely to work and a knife requires you to be close.

Secure construction is just as good as a gun (where did I say it was foolproof? Your implication is that a gun is fool proof, it is absolutely not. In fact it's worse than nothing, statistically, because you're more likely to use the gun on yourself).

And I think we're seeing a definite case of Pinocchio Nose -- or perhaps just faulty memory -- in the exchange below

Bullshit. Things can have more than one cause. If you asked me about the MAJOR cause, yes it is healthy gun nuts and the NRA unwilling to budge. But if you asked me if old people who are not gun nuts but have guns are a minor cause, that's also true.

What is about weak, elderly, and infirm that you don't understand?

No, guns are not magic death rays, but they are the single most effective weapon for personal self-defense.

You're very free with the "bullshit" accusation for a person who tries to change the discussion topic on the fly. Are you familiar with the expression "bad faith"?

my argument, engaging in black and white thinking (and thinking that I'm doing the same), and taking what I say as the only cause of x, y, or z in a way to make it look like you're "winning" or scoring points but it's either a failure of reading comprehension or a case of willful dishonesty (and I'm very much inclined to believe it's the latter).

And no shit I never said guns weren't the best personal defense weapons (well, there are a few other things but they're pretty cost prohibitive or illegal). So again take your straw man and shove it.

What I said is that while guns are the best self defense weapons, they aren't worth the other costs that get involved, like unarmed people being assaulted or shot, armed (but innocent) people being assaulted or shot, etc.

Am I supposed to know what you mean despite what you actually say? That's not the way this works. Sorry, but I'm not responsible for the content of your posts. All I'm seeing is weak arguments and evasions.

What you said? No, actually, you never said that. You may have thought it, but you never said it.

And allow me to retort: the "other costs" are going to be felt with or without guns. Assaults can be accomplished with a wide variety of weapons. Ban guns across the board and you remove the most effective self-defense weapons from the ... wait for it ... weak, elderly, and infirm. I've said it over and over and over, yet you still seem incapable of comprehending it.


I know it must be frustrating to be incapable of adequately expressing yourself, but that's pretty crude. It doesn't say much for your credibility.

Ethos, logos, pathos: one out of three ain't good enough.

Oh brother.

Prevent someone from machine gunning the place to hell and back or burning it to the ground, but how many enemies do you have that this would happen? Come on now, if you ran into a secure room what are most criminals going to do? Take some of your shit and leave.

2 bedroom, 1 bath, 900-square foot apartment.

Perhaps you can explain how my unreasonable suggestion is different from your unreasonable suggestion.

needed to repurpose the closet.

Instead it's guns guns guns guns

Fuck it if thousands of people die every year.

shooting guns (shot some of grandfather's as a kid) and I do like a FEW computer games that involve shooting to one degree or another, but they're not my favorite.

Sorry, I know that was a tangent. But why do you ask if I had guns?

Apparently it was not.

That's not what Lover Boy said --

What kind of person are you?

makes my life more likely to end early, or make me one of the infirm.

Advocate for taking away my best defense against bigger, stronger human predators, then you have a responsibility to at least present an alternative that works...or protect people like me (5'2", 112lbs) yourself.

Absent that, I'm keeping my defensive firearms...and that's 100% non-negotiable.

never support the arms industry, they are scum who profit on death.

One of the most important is to practice proper firearms security. My guns are locked up in a strong gun safe when not in my possession or direct observation. I've had weapon retention training. I consider it to be an intrinsic component of responsible gun ownership to take effective steps to keep one's weapons out of the wrong hands.

On the (enormously unlikely) chance we were both in a situation where an armed person was clearly threatening violence and it wasn't practical to either skedaddle or hunker down and wait for a police response, I'd consider it my moral responsibility to assess the situation and see if I could reasonably intervene. I consider that to be the moral responsibility of any person who has a realistic chance of stopping such things.

For example, I delivered pizzas. Was never robbed. Every other driver apparently was. Most had guns or knives pulled. Would rather just drop the pizza and money, even if it was an unarmed person smaller than me asking for it, had that situation ever happened to me. Wouldn't want you rushing in and playing rambo though.

I'll be keeping my firearms, thanksverymuch.

Also you know the country being awash in guns makes you more likely to be a victim too right?

That's because it's bollocks. Precious few people of the sort that commit violent crime (statistically, highly likely to be a reasonably-fit male much larger and stronger than me) need a weapon to victimize me. Even if it were possible to remove firearms from our society, that would by no means necessarily make me any safer.

I'm also quite familiar with the statistics about crime, gun ownership, etc. Trust me, this isn't my first gun-control rodeo. More to the point, I understand statistical analysis very well (it's a huge component of what I do for a living), and understand how reduction of confounding factors works, and thus in what areas my individual situation varies from the statistical norm, making any such study's generalized probabilities less-applicable.

More guns = more crime and more violent crime and said violent crime is scarier:

I don't care if you have a gun or not, but you should (and rightly so) be much more afraid of having a gun and going against a gun armed attacker than being unarmed against an unarmed attacker.

No point in being subtle with a brick wall.

Honestly, some anti-gunners should charge $ and get paid by the GOP. Why work for free?