stats for wordpress

Are you on Facebook?

Would you please click "like" in the box to your right, or

Visit us on Facebook!

NRA: Jovan Belcher’s Girlfriend Would Be Alive If She Had A Gun. Well, They Had 8.

by David Badash on December 10, 2012

in Celebrities,Guns,News,Sports

Post image for NRA: Jovan Belcher’s Girlfriend Would Be Alive If She Had A Gun. Well, They Had 8.

National Rifle Association (NRA) CEO Wayne LaPierre claims that Jovan Belcher‘s girlfriend, Kasandra Perkins, would be alive today if she only had had her own gun. LaPierre is dead wrong: there were eight guns in the Belcher-Perkins house. So much for NRA bull.

“The one thing missing in that equation is that woman owning a gun so she could have saved her life from that murderer,” LaPierre told USA TODAY Sports, talking about Kasandra Perkins and Jovan Belcher.

Belcher, of course, is the Kansas City Chiefs linebacker who shot to death Kasandra Perkins, who was just 22-years old, Saturday, December 1, then shot himself to death minutes later.

The couple had a three-month old infant.

“Owning guns is a mainstream part of American culture and it’s growing every day. My God, there’s nothing more mainstream in this country than 100 million Americans who own firearms,” LaPierre says.

Which is utterly pathetic.

Guns shouldn’t be considered part of “culture.” Guns are designed to do one thing, one thing only, and to do it very well: kill. If LaPierre wants to promote guns as “culture,” he’s promoting a gun culture, which is equivalent to a culture of death. So much for the “pro-life” radical right, which isn’t truly pro-life, but pro-birth. And the moment a child is out of the womb, they’re on their own. Like three-month old Zoey Michelle, Kasandra Perkins’ daughter who will now be raised by her grandmother.

“According to Kansas City police, Belcher owned multiple guns, and they were in the house,” USA TODAY reports. “In addition, Sports Illustrated has reported that Perkins went to shooting ranges with Belcher.”

Jack Dickey at Deadspin writes, “Jovan Belcher and Kasandra Perkins kept ‘about eight guns’ in their house and liked to go shooting together, according to a new report from Sports Illustrated.”

So, Wayne LaPierre and the NRA are full of it.

“The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence reminds us that since 1968, when Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy were assassinated, over one million people have been killed with guns in the United States,” Daniel Kaufmann at the Brookings Institution, one of the most-respected think tanks in the world, reports. “On average, almost 100,000 people in the United States are shot or killed with a gun annually.”

Noting that “there appears to be substantial evidence that removing guns saves lives,” Kaufmann writes that the Brady Campaign “indicates that 94 percent of gun-related suicides would not occur had no guns been present. Since keeping a firearm at home increases the risk of homicide by a factor of three, it is not surprising that guns are more likely to raise the risk of injury than to confer protection. In fact, they claim that every year there are only about 200 legally justified self-defense homicides by private citizens.”

Kaufmann’s article, written just after the Aurora, Colorado, massacre in July at the midnight premiere of “The Dark Night,” addresses all those arguments gun advocates like to try to use to derail the only sane argument: guns kill.

Making Wayne LaPierre even more full of it.

And he’s using the murder-suicide of a popular sports figure to advance a falsehood.


“So here are some statistics,” Amy Davidson at the New Yorker writes. “According to the Justice Department’s National Institute of Justice, ‘The data are clear: More incidents of murder-suicide occur with guns than with any other weapon. … In 591 murder-suicides, 92 percent were committed with a gun. States with less restrictive gun control laws have as much as eight times the rate of murder-suicides as those with the most restrictive gun control laws.’ Another study found that the mere presence of a gun in the house increased the chance that domestic violence would escalate to murder six fold’.”

But at least some NFL players have learned from this tragic event.

“At least seven NFL players have turned their guns into their respective team’s security following the murder-suicide involving Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher earlier this month, Sports Illustrated’s Peter King reported on ‘Football Night in America’ on Sunday,” ESPN reports.

According to the report, at least one player handed over multiple firearms, telling his team’s personnel that he didn’t trust himself with the guns.


Pretty sure football is far more mainstream than guns.

Let’s see LaPierre, and the NRA, fight that.


Via: Doktor Zoom at Wonkette

Image composed from Wikimedia Commons


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...


We invite you to sign up for our new mailing list, and subscribe to The New Civil Rights Movement via email or RSS.

Also, please like us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter!


Scott_Rose December 10, 2012 at 12:25 am

Certainly where there is an ongoing domestic violence situation involving an abuser and one or more victims, there should not be guns. There should be a way for the victims to escape to a safe place.

Siddigfan January 10, 2013 at 12:02 am

I'm sure you have the best intentions, but, surely you need to realize that there often is no escape, especially if you have small children in the house.

unclenunzie December 10, 2012 at 2:08 pm

I've been reading tncrm off and on for a while now, and I applaud your focus and dedication to the cause of equality. But I was a little disappointed to see a typical boilerplate article attacking gun rights among the usual articles of interest to me, which are why I come here.

I don't hold with the NRA. Never been a member, never will be, for reasons that need not be explained. But it's tiresome to see the same arguments against gun ownership and defensive use rights from my fellow progressives, particularly from those who have long histories of being discriminated against and victimized.

We have the police, of course, and they do protect us in aggregate from common criminality and the occasional deranged individual. But they owe us no personal, individual protection from specific threats, and it is within this gap of protection that personal security and associated responsibilities has it's place. Yes, for the individual, and especially for typically victimized minorities, I advocate for gun rights.

Maybe this particular woman might not have been able to protect herself had she been properly armed and trained to do so. Sadly, we'll never know. Certainly, her chances of any better outcome than death would have been possible if she were, though. But it should be her choice to avail herself of that protection, and her personal decision to to so or not to do so should not be questioned, Or yours, mine, or anyone else's.

jchastn December 22, 2012 at 4:14 pm

I agree. The woman who was killed may not have felt threatened in her own home. The assailant was someone she lived with. That is an extremely difficult situation involving what kind of threat she may have perceived, if any. I own handguns and am learning how to use them to defend myself and my home. There are many ramifications to carrying and potentially using a handgun in self defense. My fear is that most gun owners have not gotten proper training in gun use, ownership, or responsibilities.

lepidopteryx December 12, 2012 at 1:35 pm

I have nothing against people owning guns AND being properly trained in their use and handling. But I don't take my gun with me every time I leave the house and I certainly don't take it with me into church services.

Grant_lcenhour December 18, 2012 at 12:31 am

Yes I agree, and people should have to take a gun safety class and have proof of taking it before being able to own a gun, I'm only fourteen and I know more about gun safety than most of the dumb asses that own them.

lepidopteryx December 18, 2012 at 9:27 am

Grant, you're absolutely right. You have to provide proof of having passed a driver's education class to get a driver's license (at least in my state). So why shouldn't you have to provide proof of having passed a gun safety course before buying a gun?

Siddigfan January 10, 2013 at 12:07 am

I'm glad that you are taking safety classes. However, it's very important for you to realize that most civilians can't even clear their guns out of their holsters in a crisis. They don't have the reflexes that come with continuous crisis/combat type training month after month after month as police and the military do. They are more likely to shoot themselves or a bystander and, of course, they become the primary target as a threat to the shooter. Also, when the police arrive, are you sure that they will know you from the criminal?

Siddigfan January 10, 2013 at 12:10 am

Many civilians make the mistake of becoming reliant on the gun alone for their safety, becoming careless or taking risks they would not normally take if they weren't armed. I'm not saying that you do this. I am only saying that many civilians do.

lepidopteryx January 10, 2013 at 12:14 am

Unfortunately, that is a common mistake. And one that any firearms instructor warns students not to make.

Siddigfan January 14, 2013 at 12:20 am

Thank you for that information. That is very comforting. I'm very glad to hear that.

Grant_lcenhour December 18, 2012 at 12:29 am

If you OUTLAW guns, only OUTLAWS have them. It takes a real liberal pinhead to not see this. Yes, people take it too far in BOTH directions, but when the people are no longer able to defend themselves against anyone, including the intrusive government that seems to love controlling our lives lately, then all we can do is lay down and die when the mean man comes around looking for blood and control.

jchastn December 22, 2012 at 4:26 pm

Poor logic, Grant. If people own guns illegally, it is possible to arrest them and confiscate the illegal guns. Its a bad idea to do nothing to make sure that those who own guns own them and operate them legally. That requires training and licensing. Thru that process, we could catch some of the mentally unstable people who are acquiring an arsenal. We license cars and drivers, why not guns?

Siddigfan January 14, 2013 at 12:25 am

Respectfully. If by the mean man, you are referring to the national gov't, how are any amount of guns going to defeat tanks, drones, Apache helicopters, missiles, etc. And, were you successful in defeating the national gov't. wouldn't other major world powers be a little concerned that you might gain possession of our considerable armament of nuclear missiles and take action to prevent you from acquiring them? You can't fight the whole world. I'm not trying to be a sarcastic person. I'm looking for an honest answer about what your plans would be.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: