 |
|
Add to My Group
|
October 7, 2007 at 22:34:36
Another Poster Child for the NRA by Jayne Lyn Stahl Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
 
|
Okay, it's not like this is the first time a police officer has been involved in a violent crime, and okay, maybe we can rationalize this outrageous, and horrifying event by noting what a rare occurrence it is to see members of law enforcement committing homicides. Oh, and yes, maybe it's completely inappropriate to talk about ready access to firearms of all kinds, especially when we're talking about police. But, what does the police manual, in Crandon, Wisconsin, say about carrying a weapon when off duty? Yes, of course, this appears to have been a crime of passion, so one wouldn't expect the deputy sheriff to consult his manual beforehand.
That said, there appears to be far greater leniency with respect to the carrying, and use, of weapons by members of law enforcement in this country than is desirable.
Interestingly, as you know, police officers in Great Britain don't carry guns, and that country has a much lower incidence of violent crime.
There are many who will use the "rotten apple" argument iin defense of America's law enforcement, and say that police departments needn't bother taking a closer look at the way they train their recruits with respect to when, where, how, and why they discharge their weapons, tear gas, and tasers. Maybe they're right. The commission of a crime like this by a police officer is clearly an anomaly, but we, as a society, can no more afford complacency, and apathy, when it comes to the actions of those we entrust with enforcing our laws than with those we elect to higher office.
And, factoring the National Rifle Association, and the abuse of legal, and illegal, weapons in this country, out of the equation, there have been way too many images, on the news, lately of policemen holding down an agitated, and anguished 45 year old woman at a Phoenix airport,.as well as rounding up members of Code Pink at a recent Lieberman/ McCain rally, and tasering an overzealous undergraduate at a Florida university for refusing to succumb to campus police after making controversial comments about impeaching the president. Oh, this is only what has been captured on camera. You wouldn't have to be there to guess how law enforcement handled the so-called Jenna 6, in Louisiana, when making their arrests judging by some of the amateur video that has made its way to primetime news of big city police beating up Rodney King, and others like him in inner cities around America.
But, what does this have to do with a clearly deranged young man who, possibly after what may have been little more than a lover's quarrel, does in his girlfriend, and her whole family? Simply this, when we are bombarded with news accounts of soldiers gunning down innocent Iraqi citizens, of Los Angelenos being tear gassed for speaking out against draconian measures targeting illegal immigrants, of riot police routinely making their presence felt at anti-war protest rallies, of youngsters being tasered, whether they be students at a college in South Florida, or young men of color in our nation's inner cities, how can any reasonable person possibly expect anyone who has access to a gun not to model the kind of obscene, irrational behavior that destroyed the lives of six, and will force the state attorney general of Wisconsin to consider what the evaluation process is, and how it is this 20 year old got to be a member of a sheriff's department in the first place. Hopefully, too, the attorney general will place more restrictions on the use of deadly force by the police on the police, or on any human being. Deadly face is no substitute for due process.
While one often thinks of Charleton Heston when thinking about the NRA, in this age of the cowboy, any gun-toting madman will do just as well..
Hopefully, the terrible event that took place in Wisconsin today will compel us all to examine empowerment by weapon, as well as an issue increasingly swept under the table, that of police brutality, and abuse of power. We know we've arrived when the "authorities" who shot the off-duty deputy sheriff to death themselves face review. We have become far too accepting of fatal shootings by on-duty police officers just as we're far too tolerant of those who think it's their constitutional right to bear arms, even when, increasingly, it's at the expense of innocent life.
This officer who fired his gun, and took the lives of six isn't the only poster child for the NRA; each of his victims is, too.
http://ladyjaynestahl.blogspot.com
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 28 comments |
|
Facts are in Error
You should really research your facts before publishing a public document. A LOT of your facts in this case are WRONG!!!!! Just my $ .02 by Gerry Parks (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Monday, Oct 8, 2007 at 10:04:23 AM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: 2¢ is too much, or not enough...
Would be nice if you'd enlighten us by pointing out specifically which facts you think are in error. by Robert Sargent (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 26 diaries, 318 comments) on Monday, Oct 8, 2007 at 10:19:02 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: stats you wanted
David Robertsonposted 9/14/07 @ 7:26 PM EST - In Australia 4.1% of the population experienced a contact crime. by Duane Owen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Tuesday, Oct 9, 2007 at 8:04:59 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: sarge
stat sheet was for future fights you may incounter by Duane Owen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Tuesday, Oct 9, 2007 at 8:15:33 PM (0+)
|
|
Disgusted
You know, I'm really getting disgusted with the comments on this blog. I got my facts DIRECTLY from the Associated Press report Sunday morning. Obviously, as the day wore on, more details leaked out. Why don't YOU do your research before attacking a writer----google the original AP report. Easy to attack---try writing something like this yourself. Are the editors so desperate for a numbers count, on comments, that they'll print anything, however derogatory or derisive, that any neanderthal has to write???? You win, guys; you obviously don't want me to write anymore, so I won't; at least, not for this blog. You can have the political sphere to yourselves again! by Jayne Lyn Stahl (188 articles, 2 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 72 comments) on Monday, Oct 8, 2007 at 11:24:22 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I sent sarge the stats for you, and here is a copy for you
David Robertsonposted 9/14/07 @ 7:26 PM EST - In Australia 4.1% of the population experienced a contact crime. by Duane Owen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Tuesday, Oct 9, 2007 at 8:08:04 PM (0+)
|
|
An Absurd Act of Slander
Congratulations! Your article is by far the most snide and uninformed excuse for an editorial on gun control that I have ever read. No person involved in this tragic shooting is a "poster child" for the NRA. If one of the victims had been armed and had successfully defended himself, that person might be a poster child for the NRA. In short, you simply used this tragedy as a device to slander the millions of law abiding NRA members. You are desperately in need of some factual information on gun control. For starters, I would recommend a. Attorney and criminalogist Donald B. Kate's "Guns, Murder and the Constitution" at http://www.guncite.com/journals/gun_control_katesreal.html b. criminalogist Gary Kleck's comments on guns and self-defense at: http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html Kleck notes that guns are used for self defense in the United States 2.5 million times per year. Persons who use guns for self-defense are less likely to be injured than those who resist by any other means or who do not resist at all. c. attorney David Kopel's web page at http://www.davekopel.com/2dAmendment.htm by Don Bohlken (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Tuesday, Oct 9, 2007 at 12:10:47 AM (0+)
|
|
Only a question of time
As one lucky enough to be an X pat I'm sure the vast majority of yanks back in the old country are dazed and confused by life in 2007. I am and I haven't been back there in 15 years. Am I correct is suspecting that American has become a much angrier place post 9-11. All these "warnings" it seems to me have created a chicken licken vibe of a "terrorist" behind every tree. There was a window after 9-11 where America had sooo much sympathy and compasion and look at things now. Our "leaders" roll modeled "the sky is falling - the sky is falling" by running and attacking all over the place and now, well, now is seems this behavior is becoming more and more commonplace at the people level. I have a great deal of compassion for the yanks that have come to realize that this "plan" of attack WILL NOT WORK. Hate only creates more hate. YUP, we need a paradigm shift, A HUGE ONE. STAY STRONG I learned from this article not to ever pick on the NRA or you get a huge amount of blah blah blah sheeesh and these are the folks with guns. by davy (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 240 comments) on Tuesday, Oct 9, 2007 at 6:23:07 AM (0+)
|
|
Connection to NRA?
Where in the AP article from which you derived your information was the NRA mentioned? by Dave Stevens (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Tuesday, Oct 9, 2007 at 7:41:57 AM (0+)
|
|
More fiction from Ms. Stahl...
In the similar article you posted to your blog, you include this bit of fiction: by
Dave Stevens (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Tuesday, Oct 9, 2007 at 8:55:03 AM
|
|
Reply: The missing link
by Dave Stevens (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Tuesday, Oct 9, 2007 at 8:55:44 AM (0+)
|
|
This article is digustingly biased, inaccurate, and libelous
While the name of your website starts with “OpEd” which would suggest a certain cavalier attitude towards facts, that the full name is “OpEdNews” would seem to suggest that you should at least get basic facts correct. The writer Jayne Lyn Stahl would seem unable to handle that responsibility. She says the following: “That said, there appears to be far greater leniency with respect to the carrying, and use, of weapons by members of law enforcement in this country than is desirable.”-- Jayne Lyn Stahl This is, at best, merely an opinion, which might be forgivable if it didn’t paint with such an irresponsibly broad brush based on a few isolated incidents. However, her following statement is wrong on both counts. “as you know, police officers in Great Britain don't carry guns, and that country has a much lower incidence of violent crime”-- Jayne Lyn Stahl Police in GB are starting to carry guns: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_Kingdom And are doing so because GB has higher crime rates than the USA (despite extreme under-reporting of crime in GB): A US Dept. of Justice report documents the explosion of crime in gun-prohibitionist Britain: Other sources: http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9641 http://www.saf.org/JFPP14ch5.htm Lastly, Ms. Stahl closes with this statement: “This officer who fired his gun, and took the lives of six isn't the only poster child for the NRA; each of his victims is, too.” As a card-carrying member of the NRA, I find this statement contemptible. Absolutely NOTHING in the mission of the NRA in any way condones any illegal activity with any firearm. This statement is unconscionable, and is bluntly; libel. I respectfully request a written apology be posted on this web-site, on the same page as this article for as long as this article is available. by PersonalResponsibility (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Tuesday, Oct 9, 2007 at 12:24:13 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: wishin' and hopin.
You can ask, but you don't get a retraction or apology. The author posted this as an op-ed-- an opinion piece. This is her opinion. And we know about stats. I don't follow the most recent gun and shooting stats. But I remember Bowling for Columbine, with senile Charlton Heston, the NRA's "representative." As publisher, I don't feel as opposed to gun ownership as Jayne. But I support her right to express her opinion. You NRA boys might find one of my articles interesting, since it may apply to you. by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Wednesday, Oct 10, 2007 at 12:13:16 AM (0+)
|
|
Wow
Six negative comments and the author goes into complete meltdown mode. I think the author is far too thin skinned to be writing for a public forum. Apparently she only operates well when surrounded by people who reflexively agree with her. The fact is, this article is very difficult to agree with, and I don't think it matters what your political philosophy is. The article is not well written and not completely coherent. To blame the NRA for American police officers having access to weapons is to blame the NRA for the trade deficit, the number of unwed mothers, and global warming. That is to say, the NRA isn't to blame for any of these things. The NRA is all about citizens having access to firearms, not government agents including police. Government agents having access to firearms is a foregone conclusion. If the NRA lobbied for or against it vigorously, it wouldn't matter. The government will always arm their agents. Pointing out the complete aberration of Great Britain doesn't really improve her argument. Britain is a huge aberration. Every other country, whether it is a violent country (Russia, Mexico) or a fairly non-violent country (Canada, France), arms it's police. And Britain is moving quickly in that direction also. by Going Bust (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Oct 9, 2007 at 12:30:12 PM (0+)
|
|
hissy fits
"What does the police manual in Crandon, Wisconsin say about carrying a weapon when off duty?" I don't know. But I do know that the cops I play golf with always have their weapons with them. They are required to do so, in my state as well as in other states I have lived in. What does that have to do with the NRA? Nothing. I am told that people in Great Britain eat a lot more cabbage than we do here in the U.S. Could that explain the violence, or lack of it? I didn't do any research for this either. by B York (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 119 comments [12 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Oct 9, 2007 at 1:45:22 PM (0+)
|
|
Now, folks
let's try educating (as was done by the fella with the stats) instead of slamming. One sentence in the article was absolutely correct , where she stated that an action like this "by a police officer was clearly an anomaly". Of course, you can delete "police officer" and the statement would still be correct. These behaviors are rare when broken down to % of people in general. But bad news sells. by George Venable (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Tuesday, Oct 9, 2007 at 9:29:06 PM (0+)
|
|
Okay, guys
I get it, I'm a big moron, and a big stupid woman. You can knock off the insults now. If the editor had any decency, he would stop posting comments that personally attack his writers, especially when he doesn't pay them, but clearly that isn't going to happen, so I'm going to ask you to stop whipping me. I already told you that you won---I'm a big dunce, and you won't ever see me post on this big dunce Web site again. by Jayne Lyn Stahl (188 articles, 2 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 72 comments) on Tuesday, Oct 9, 2007 at 10:45:55 PM (0+)
|
|
Freudian hoplophobia on display.
Very immature, but not surprising given Freud's thinking on the subject of hoplophobia. by Dave Stevens (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Wednesday, Oct 10, 2007 at 5:34:06 AM (0+)
|
|
Misplaced anger
The Author is threatening to punish us because so many people find so much of what she says offensive. BRING IT ON. There are many insane people in this world who are kind enough not to share their blatherings with us. We thank them silently but we thank them. Her biase and irrational views of the world around her are exposed by her insinuation that this is an "NRA poster child". She hates the NRA for what they do on the surface AND hates the NRA for what they really do. The NRA SUPPORTS strict enforcement of existing laws. If someone breaks the law with a gun, they lead the charge to make sure that that person is punished. The Author ADMITS that she is anti enforcement of laws as well as she attacks the police as to "rough". So, one would assume she hates crime, but also hates the enforcement of laws against those who commit crimes. This author can not comperhend thoughts complex enough to accept that so long as there are certain freedoms, those being essentially that the entire population be confined to straight jackets, there will be crimes of violence. it is not a good thing, but it is reality. So, so long as there are crimes of violence those who commit those crimes will need to be punished to protect the rest of us. Even if that WERE to happen this author would likely hate the ADA because they support folks rights to have teeth, and crimes are being committed with teath, it breaks the calm of the perfect society she expects, Even the police have to have training on defensive use of their teeth because in her world that is about all they can defend themselves with. Law abiding citizens will have strict restrictions put on where they can go with teeth, etc. May sound crazy, but then again I just read her op-ed, so I am still trying to gather all of the pieces of my head that exploded about half way through. Of course we do not have enough straight jackets for the entire population, so I say we start with HER! by DougClem (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Wednesday, Oct 10, 2007 at 9:35:57 AM (0+)
|
|
WOW, feedback drives the point home . . .
The authors reaction to the correction of her work speaks volumes. She puts her ideas out there, many disagree and express as much, and she recoils and is frustrated. My bet is this is a common pattern in her life. It is also a common theme throughout her work. Criminals do something wrong, society strikes back, and she sees THAT as brutal and wrong. Her "op ed" was a vicious attack on the police AND the NRA. But should anyone viciously attack HER, well now that is just a little to much. Should she have received postive responce she would have likely patted herself on the back. But since it was otherwise she is likely rolled up in a corner wondering why everyone is so mean to her. She simply can not rationalize the action/reaction sequence unless it is to her liking. And most real life situations are far to complex for her to comperhend to be of her likeing. by DougClem (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Wednesday, Oct 10, 2007 at 10:04:44 AM (0+)
|
|
NRA poster children
The author is right, the victims in WI are NRA poster children, they could NOT defend themselves because WI does not allow it residents to have guns. The LEO is not a NRA poster child - even the most rabid anti-gunner like Schumer or Pelosi never advocae disarming the police or the military (or their personal armed guards:). They just want to disarm you and me. The NRA has better taste than to dance in the blood of the victims. Look how quick the anti-self-defense crowd jumps in to take away our guns. You'd think they would respect the deceased for a couple of days at least. by switch (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Wednesday, Oct 10, 2007 at 2:26:44 PM (0+)
|
|
altar-ed states
by Jayne Lyn Stahl (188 articles, 2 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 72 comments) on Thursday, Oct 11, 2007 at 12:16:15 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: The harsh reality...
...of Jayne's original hit-piece and her ensuing vitriol is that she is the poster child of the NRA. by Dave Stevens (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Thursday, Oct 11, 2007 at 9:01:57 AM (0+)
|
|
quite a lesson
Thank you Jayne and Op-Ed, this article and comments have been quite educational. Sooooo glad I'm an X pat. Whew !! got out just in time. by davy (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 240 comments) on Thursday, Oct 11, 2007 at 2:52:42 AM (0+)
|
|
Jayne off her meds?
It appears Jayne has let her prescription lapse. by Dave Stevens (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Thursday, Oct 11, 2007 at 6:20:31 AM (0+)
|
|
Just because...
Just because Ms. Stahl is mis-informed, is no reason to insult her. People make mistakes. People are also entitled to their opinions. Granted, referring to the murdering deputy as a "NRA Poster Child" is something I consider insulting. It's no reason for us to turn around and insult Ms. Stahl. Instead, we SHOULD be trying to inform her of her mistake, in a sane and level manner. But that's just my humble opinion. by Big Gay Al (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Thursday, Oct 11, 2007 at 11:02:42 AM (0+)
|
|
Wow.
Lady, you should seriously seek some counseling. I've been around the blogosphere long enough to know that there are comments that I -- coming late to the party -- didn't see, but your reaction to some (frankly well-deserved) criticism is ... well... SAD, really. Pull up your big-girl panties, and do a bit more research and fact-checking before you post another poorly-written article. England and Australia are much more dangerous places than they used to be, and BECAUSE (not in spite of) their draconian gun laws. Now that guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns. Now the outlaws know that their victims will be defenseless. Predators prefer defenseless prey. This is why tigers attack antelope instead of Lions. This is why Lions attack baby wildebeest instead of elephants. This isn't rocket science. Guns are "icky" and "scary" but only because you fear them. They are a tool, like any other, and can be used for ill or for good. My guns make you safer. I know you can't fathom that, but it is true. States which have liberalized their concealed-carry laws have seen precipitous drops in violent crime. Why? Because now the hyenas can't be sure if that's a baby zebra or a lion who only happens to LOOK like a zebra. It makes them think twice. Since my wife carries, the predators also think twice about messing with YOU. IF you feel so strongly about your anti-gun stance, here's how you can prove it: Wear a shirt bearing the words "I am 100% unarmed" and walk the streets of your city. Place a big sign "This family is proud to say that this house is a gun-free zone" in your yard. I know you won't, because to do so would invite victimization. You know it, and you therefore prove my point. Our guns protect you. You have every right to go through life an unarmed potential victim. You do not however have the right to force the rest of us to do the same. Many of us have seen "the belly of the beast" and when it comes to us, we are determined to be equipped as best we can to fight it, to protect ourselves and our families, to honor the life G*d gave us by doing everything we can to protect and preserve it. I wish we lived in a world where arms are unnecessary. Sadly, we do not. Magical thinking will not change that. We've seen what happened to England and Australia, and be assured that when they come for the guns in America, they're likely to get the ammunition first. That makes us patriots. What (after all) do you think sparked Lexington and Concord? Read your history. Not the selective/edited pablum from the Brady bunch. DD by Dedicated_Dad (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Thursday, Oct 11, 2007 at 8:20:39 PM (0+)
|
|
How you could have avoided all this trouble...
I took the liberty of some minor editing.
Not only is your article much more readable, it is also now focused and reasonably accurate.
Best of all, it puts the blame where it belongs -- on abusive power in the hands of The State.
The second amendment exists for exactly this reason -- so that The State cannot turn citizens into subjects without said subjects having the means to fight back.
If you could get over your hoplophobia, and the brainwashing that leads to to blame the NRA for every ill (even the ones they exist to combat) you'd probably be a decent companion.
Hope this helps.
DD
===========================
Only a few hundred miles outside of Milwaukee, in a town of 2,000, a twenty year old "off-duty" deputy sheriff, and part-time police officer, apparently went bezerk, and went on a shooting spree, at an undisclosed private house, taking the lives of at least six people. The suspect, whose name is being withheld, was himself fatally shot by "authorities," some of whom may have worked at the same sheriff's office. Many of the specific details of this crime are being withheld, and t here is only speculation about the motive. (AP) A mother of one of the victims suggests jealousy might be behind the killler's rampage.
There are many who will use the "rotten apple" argument iin defense of America's law enforcement, and say that police departments needn't bother taking a closer look at the way they train their recruits with respect to when, where, how, and why they discharge their weapons, tear gas, and tasers. Maybe they're right. The commission of a crime like this by a police officer is clearly an anomaly, but we, as a society, can no more afford complacency, and apathy, when it comes to the actions of those we entrust with enforcing our laws than with those we elect to higher office. Widely published, poet, playwright, essayist, and screenwriter; member of PEN American Center, and PEN USA. by Dedicated_Dad (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Thursday, Oct 11, 2007 at 8:28:31 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
