Montana Gal Shoots ex-Husband and His New Girlfriend

[mikeb302000]

http://helenair.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/michelle-coller-gable-s-initial-appearance-in-justice-court/vmix_6584aab6-f6cc-11e0-b552-001cc4c002e0.html">Here's a good look at her on the video.

Poor sad girl who couldn't deal well with relationships, but knew all about guns. In Montana, the gun is the answer.

What's your opinion? Do you think it's a stretch for me to blame gun availability and the gun-friendly environment of Montana? I don't think so.

My idea is that access to guns should be controlled, strictly controlled. The result would be that some of these cases would be less damaging. Who really believes that Michelle would have killed her ex with something other than a gun?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
http://www.mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

[LWolf]

1. I don't think it's a stretch.

Having experienced the full depths of betrayal, if I'd been raised in a culture that loved guns, considered them a normal part of the household, and considered "an eye for an eye" an appropriate response to offense, I might have done the same.

The impulse was certainly there; it still is, more than a decade later. I have a long memory, and, frankly, the anger and sense of betrayal, while mostly dormant, haven't evaporated into the ether.

I feel fortunate to have had other values hard-wired into my soul from birth forward: do no harm, and violence is never the answer.

So I meet those visceral impulses to strike back with a concentrated effort to focus on acceptance and moving on. Forgiveness? Not so much. Acceptance, and releasing the whole thing to karma.

[TPaine7]

14. "do no harm, and violence is never the answer"

Put yourself in the position of a G.I. coming upon a German death camp. The Nazis are preparing to execute Jewish and other prisoners. They see you and your fellow conscripts, and there are only two possible outcomes:

a) The G.I.s will be killed, defeated and/or taken prisoner, after which the prisoners will be killed
b) The Nazis will be killed, defeated and/or taken prisoner, after which the prisoners will be released

Which is the better scenario, keeping in mind the cardinal moral principles--"do no harm, and violence is never the answer"?

Put yourself in the position of a parent coming upon the Bind, Torture and Kill (BTK) sadist and serial killer, torturing and abusing your child or spouse. He's working his way (slowly) up to killing them. He sees you and there are only two realistic outcomes:

a) You and your relative will be killed, most likely in an unspeakably horrible fashion (there is no phone access where you are, so calling the police is not an option)
b) You will incapacitate or kill the BTK killer and you and your loved one will live

Which is the better scenario, keeping in mind the cardinal moral principles--"do no harm, and violence is never the answer"?

Violence is never the answer to a verbal insult, to a social snub, or even to infidelity. Violence is the answer if a psycho is trying to abduct your 5 yo for some private fun. Those who see guns and violence as a solution to any slight and as a way to bolster their feelings of insecurity are immature and very confused. But so, IMNSHO, are those who believe that there is no place for appropriate, principled violence and would rather see innocents suffer and die than resort to principled, moral, and necessary preventative violence.

[LWolf]

22. I can't put myself in the place of a GI, because I'd never choose to be one.

I CAN put myself in the position of being attacked in my own home; I have been. When punched and slapped, I hit back. In retrospect, it didn't help anything and was the wrong choice. Shooting him would have been exponentially worse.

I CAN put myself in the position of being left alone for the weekend by a hunting relative, with all of his not-too-bright kids, and told there was a gun in the headboard of his bed if we needed it. I spent all weekend trying to erase myself less one of those kids took offense.

I CAN put myself in the position of a drunk family member pulling his shotgun out and threatening me with it.

I am not anti-second amendment. I am PRO-social and economic justice; I am PRO-social services and safety net that would find and treat budding psychos earlier. I am PRO-don't let your 5yo out of your sight; I raised two kids successfully.

I think the difference is in world view. I don't see the world as a place full of people out to get me. I take reasonable safety precautions, but don't live in fear.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

34. Ok - lets break this down....

You can't put yourself in the place of a GI, because you'd never choose to be one...Hmm...you did notice the rest of it had to do with NAZI Germany right? It is a thought exercise. Given the criteria which choice would you have made?

You say that you hit back when you were attacked and it didnt help anything and shooting him would have been worse. How do you figure? Were you hitting Superman?

Being left alone for the weekend with his kids, and rather than be someone who doesn't live in fear (your words) you spend the whole weekend in fear...Hmmm...

Being put on the wrong end of a shotgun sucks all the way around. Glad you're still around.

In all those situations though, you essentially took the approach of doing nothing and freezing in fear, yet you claim you don't live in fear...you realize those don't quite coincide right?

[mikeb302000]

17. thanks

[We_Have_A_Problem]

33. Many times, violence IS the answer.

Violence is morally neutral. The reason behind the violence is the problem.

For example, shooting someone is a violent act, yes? We can agree on that certainly.

Now, if Person A is shooting Person B because Person B merely offended them with words, then Person A is way the hell out of line.

On the other hand, if Person A shoots Person B because Person B is attempting to rape Person A, then Person A has done nothing legally, morally or ethically wrong.

In both cases, violence was used. In the latter case, violence was most assuredly the correct answer and solution to the problem.


The "violence is never the answer" bullshit is just that - bullshit. It sounds nice, but it is a completely useless mentality when dealing with the human race. It is no different than the lie that violence never solves anything. It solves a LOT of things.

[Jumping John]

2. My opinion is that the rhetoric of having the right to possess firearms is looked on by

The owners of the firearm as a right to use the weapons against those who the owners of the firearm perceive as their enemy.

This logic is heightened by the NRA and the rhetoric that they use:

FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!

Also we as a society see the death penalty as a justifiable punishment for others and some think using the gun for that reason is a right.

And the everyday war without end that we need as a country to survive the economic chaos of capitalism makes death just another event that just happens. People grow accustomed to death and dying with the war - gangs and daily suicides that foster a thinking that the dead and death is no biggee anyway.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

32. "FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!"

Well, since you're unarmed you can't kill them so they have nothing to fear from you so why do you fear them?

[SteveM]

35. Respectfully, I think you have it wrong...

"...the right to possess firearms is looked on by The owners of the firearm as a right to use the weapons against those who the owners of the firearm perceive as their enemy."

Actually, owners of firearms have a right to firearms, and a right to self-defense. That is different from "...owners the firearm those who the owners of the firearm perceive as their enemy." Your view suggests an affirmative action, when by its very definition "self defense" is a reactive action. Further, the "enemy" must in reality be a Threat to the armed individual; otherwise, he/she may find trouble with the law.

Your equating of the death penalty with "...using the gun for that reason is a right" is pure speculation, based on a mis-reading of what self-defense and the right to keep and bear arms is about.

I find it curious that you should use "...the everyday war without end that we need as a country to survive the economic chaos of capitalism..." indicates that perhaps you have been influenced by your own rhetoric of war, violence and death. Gandhi was far more successful with his approach to fighting colonial rule by a superpower. He was also a strong advocate of self-defense.

Please note that I attend Occupy demonstrations in my area, am against the death penalty and have been an activist for most of my 63 years. And I own several firearms.

[ileus]

3. Another gun vitimized by humans....all the gun wants is

a loving and caring home. Firearms want to be taken out shooting, cleaned and lovely stored with care. All these scumbags don't have any idea how unique our society and country is to have the 2A. People need taught respect....not only for other humans, but respect for the firearm.

[xchrom]

4. Poor misunderstood guns. It's cryin shame. Nt

[SteveM]

36. You're soft on fiordarms! YOu must dissiplin them when they wet the lock box.nt

[ObamaFTW2012]

5. People

People intent on killing themselves and/or others are not deterred by laws against it, nor impeded by the lack of lawful access to firearms. If they were, Washington D.C. and Chicago would be shining examples of safe urban living.

[gejohnston]

6. and USVI

would be shining examples of tropical living

http://virginislandsdailynews.com/news/homicides-in-v-i-1.1089794#axzz1auRPmhqF

http://www.vipd.gov.vi/Departments/Office_of_the_Police_Commissioner/Firearms_Unit.aspx

[ObamaFTW2012]

8. Interesting

I got married in St. Thomas. Absolutely beautiful place. I did find it uncomfortable to know I couldn't carry there.

[gravity556]

11. She has apparently had frequent contacts with police

http://helenair.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/joe-and-michelle-gable-timeline-of-a-troubled-relationship/article_87ca364a-f6ea-11e0-ba97-001cc4c002e0.html

Three years later, at 11:45 a.m. on July 11, 2008, Joseph Gable was listed as the complainant on police dispatch forms, but the dispatcher said that a female was requesting an officer, because “she is involved in a confrontation with two males.” She requested the officer meet her outside and wouldn’t stay on the phone. Officers who arrived at the scene at 12:38 p.m. said Michelle Gable was “very upset to the point of being hysterical,” because her lawn was being mowed at the request of the rental property manager.

“Upon my arrival, the lawn was being mowed and she was in the street screaming at them to stop. She stated she was having trouble breathing and asked for an ambulance,” the dispatch report states. But when the ambulance arrived, she refused transport or further medical attention. The property manager also came to the Cutler Street home, telling officers he was on vacation and hadn’t been able to return her phone calls from her asking him to delay having the lawn mowed.

“Michelle was very angry and feels like she’s been ignored. She stated her life was in danger today and wants to make sure it doesn’t happen again,” dispatch records state. “While I was present, (the property manager) and Michelle came to an agreement that she or her husband will mow the lawn from now on. She was claiming that the lawn mowers the other people were using had pesticides on them which made her sick.”

She sounds super-stable. :sarcasm:

[Kennah]

31. It's always interesting to read newstories with interview statements along the lines of ...

"He/she seemed so quiet."
"There was never any indication there were problems."

Meanwhile, if local police could comment about such stories, their comments would likely include, "Yeah, we knew that fucker was gonna blow a cork and kill someone eventually."

[LAGC]

7. People who are intent on murder will always find a way.

While guns certainly may have been convenient since they were available, I have no doubt she would have either poisoned them or attacked her husband with a knife when he was sleeping, burned the house down via arson, or some other way got her revenge.

Montana will literally be last place that seriously controls guns. Even all the Democrats in that state are staunchly pro-gun. It really is silly demonizing the tool, when guns have so many positive uses in everyday Montana life.

[mikeb302000]

16. there are a couple problems with what you said

1. many people who commit crimes with handguns are not "intent" on anything. They're reacting emotionally and on the spur of the moment. Without the easy access to one of the most lethal "tools" around, they might do less damage or none at all.

1. as already touched upon in point 1, we are not demonizing the gun. We are demonizing the society which makes guns too easily available and which teaches people like this poor woman that guns are the answer to her problems.

[SteveM]

37. Problems with your stuff, per usual....

"...we are not demonizing the gun. We are demonizing the society which makes guns too easily available and which teaches people like this poor woman that guns are the answer to her problems."

I don't know who "we" is. Whom do you speak for? More importantly, you give yourself away as an intolerant and aggressive sort by "demonizing the society." How do you ever expect to convince anyone with that sort of crap? It is the language of the hard-line prohibitionist. Further, who ever said that "...guns are the answer to her problems?" Sounds like more of your typical, broke-record social straw men (if I may be allowed to mix metaphors).

And again, most homicides are committed by criminals with a history of crimes and felonies. This must be re-iterated in any discussion over "spurs" of the moment. "Spurs of the moment" are what civilized people seek to avoid. Criminals have no use to avoid such spurs; in fact, many celebrate that spontaneity.

[gejohnston]

9. It is a safe bet this is her one strike

According to this, the word ex is not used. That being the case, there are countries, with very strict gun laws, where that would be an excusable or justifiable homicide.

http://helenair.com/news/local/two-dead-in-shooting/article_c3b6132c-f5a0-11e0-8d4c-001cc4c03286.html


This reminds me of a war story I once heard when I was in the Philippines. In a nutshell, the wife offed hubby and girlfriend with a kitchen knife, then (being a Thai citizen) eluded the Philippine Constabulary long enough to get on a plane for Bangkok. Once there. the Thais would not extradite her for (under Thai law) is excusable homicide. The whole story was a lot more interesting, but not really relevant here. But I digress.

In Montana, the gun is the answer.

regional bigotry? Or is it the rural subculture?

Do you think it's a stretch for me to blame gun availability and the gun-friendly environment of Montana? I don't think so.

Yes, it is a very big stretch, not to mention lack of imagination on your part.

My idea is that access to guns should be controlled, strictly controlled. The result would be that some of these cases would be less damaging.

No, it could be more damaging is she decided on a bomb or a can of gasoline. Or, homemade flamethrower
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cologne_school_massacre

Who really believes that Michelle would have killed her ex with something other than a gun?

Is that a serious question?

[mikeb302000]

18. you're a really funny guy.

You attempt to mock my question, "Who really believes that Michelle would have killed her ex with something other than a gun?" by asking if it's serious.

But, in the same comment you said "it could be more damaging is she decided on a bomb or a can of gasoline. Or, homemade flamethrower."

A homemade flamethrower? You're a regular riot.

[gejohnston]

27. not funny at all

nor was it intended to be. It has been done. Stabbing seems to be most common worldwide. I was not mocking your question, just the "correct" answer because it is absurd and have no basis in reality. Murder/suicide is common in Japan, no guns there. Homemade flamethrower? It has been done. Did you click on the link about the German school massacre using such a device?
Ever read about the school massacre in Bath, Mich.? It was in May 1927. 45 dead and 58 injured. What did he use? An Browning Automatic Rifle (a machine gun) or Thompson sub-machine gun he bought at the hardware store? Legally, he could have with no paperwork at that time. They were expensive (as in civilian sales were nonexistent. Even Dillinger stole his.)
Handguns?

No, a member of the school board set three bombs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Edit to add, I personally find the term "gal" as condescending if not sexist.

[SteveM]

38. "Funny" how you "demonize" Montana. Tired of Florida? nt

[gravity556]

10. Who really believes that Michelle would have killed her ex with something other than a gun?

Would they be less dead if she had used a molotov cocktail? Those seem to be popular in Italy right now. What about an axe handle or an axe? Betting a few club like objects are doing some damage in Italy right now as well.

And be honest-you are for a total ban on legal gun ownership. I think (and I'm paraphrasing, here) it was vaguely like this (or something insipidly similar) "my clever plan will disarm primarily law abiding citizens, because criminals don't follow laws anyway, snork snork snork". So why try to hide behind the "sensible gun laws" tripe you try to peddle? Why not let your criminal hypocrite freak flag fly? Come on, honesty-you should try it!

Have there ever been any cases of women murdering their ex husbands and his lover in any place guns are tightly controlled? Like NYC or CA? Nah, gotta be a total fluke because folks in Montana like all of their rights rather than just a few.

[mikeb302000]

19. you're mischaracterizing me again

here's the real deal.

http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/08/my-official-goal.html">my goal

http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/09/solution.html">my solution

[rl6214]

21. Now you're sounding like the past illegal gun owner that now

blogs about the evils of gun ownership from the comfort of his UN office in italy and badmouthing and bashing various parts of the US on a day to day basis while posting blind links to his blog in an attempt to drive traffic to said blog and increase revenues.

YOU WANT US TO READ YOUR IDEAS, POST THEM HERE INSTEAD OF BLIND LINKING TO YOUR FUCKING BLOG.

[SteveM]

39. Boy, you mention "UN office" and he cuts out like Nosferatu at dawn. nt

[gravity556]

25. I've seen your "ideas" before.

Without having to click your fucking blogspam links.

You want a total ban on legal ownership. Which won't stop a criminal from breaking those laws-but it will ensure a nice, unarmed pool of victims for those criminals to choose from. Because laws don't stop criminals from doing anything, do they mikey? ;)

[jmg257]

28. You know how simple minds work...

"Since we all agree criminals don't obey laws, proper gun control has to be aimed at the law-abiding."
mikeb Sept 2011


Allowing the corporate-controlled state to control YOU, will REALLY teach the criminals a lesson!

[Remmah2]

29. The methods do not justify the means.

Applying intellectual dishonesty to achieve a goal is wrong.

[friendly_iconoclast]

30. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. In your own words, from your own blog:

http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/06/why-pro-gun-folks-wont-be-reasonable.html

....All right, I was exaggerating. If you guys suddenly cooperated with the common sense gun control laws that we propose and we saw a tremendous decrease in gun violence, we would naturally want stricter laws in order to lower even more the remaining gun violence. Eventually, I and most of the others would conclude that no guns at all in civilian hands is the best way to go.

So, in order to ensure that the three-steps-down-the-line situation never happens, you resist even obvious things like background checks and licensing and registration.

That's why you're in the wrong, not us. You see? If you cooperated and we reneged on our promise, which I admit we probably would, then we would be the wrong ones. But with your never-give-an-inch attitude, you are the wrong ones...

Like I said the last
time people here were reminded of your mendacity, this is why we should not seek compromise with you and your ilk- You simply cannot be trusted.

[ileus]

12. So why did to refer to this woman as a GAL?

[beevul]

13. A stretch? yeah. A big one.

"Do you think it's a stretch for me to blame gun availability and the gun-friendly environment of Montana?"

Is that like blaming drug availability on the drug friendly environment in America?

You really aren't very good at this.


Your ideas run right smack into government doing something it is expressly forbidden to do.

[krispos42]

15. List of states by homicide rate

New Hampshire
Iowa
Vermont
Utah
Idaho
Minnesota
Hawaii
Maine
North Dakota
Wyoming
Oregon
Nebraska
Wisconsin
Massachusetts
Washington
Connecticut
Rhode Island
Alaska
Colorado
Montana
South Dakota
New Jersey
New York
Kentucky
Delaware
Kansas
Virginia
West Virginia
Ohio
Indiana
California
North Carolina
Pennsylvania
Texas
Arizona
Florida
Nevada
Georgia
Arkansas
Michigan
Oklahoma
Missouri
South Carolina
Mississippi
Alabama
Tennessee
Maryland
Illinois
New Mexico
Louisiana



20th on the list of "States with the Lowest Homicide Rates". So there are 30 more states that have higher homicide rates than Montana, including such gun-unfriendly states as New Jersey, New York, Illinois, California, and Maryland.

Again, if I bought you a donor star and unlocked DU's advanced search feature, do you think you could get a clue?

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0308.xls



Maybe you should rename your site "FailedBlog". I mean, really, this is like shooting fish in a barrel. You write like Michelle Bachmann answers questions.

[rl6214]

20. So tell us mikey, what laws would you propose specifically,

that would have kept a gun out of her hands to prevent these shootings? Specifically.

"Do you think it's a stretch for me to blame gun availability and the gun-friendly environment of Montana?"

Yes

"My idea is that access to guns should be controlled, strictly controlled."

How would you have kept a gun out of her hands?

Again, high five for no blind links to your blog in this thread either. That's two in one day.

[ileus]

23. you already know...

www.this.com

and


www.that.net

and guns are bad for www.women.org

[jmg257]

26. don't forget

www.payattentiontome.blog.org

and

www.controlismyhobby.ihavenolife.com

[jmg257]

24. Sometimes 'the gun' IS the answer, and not just in Montana. So define "strictly controlled". nt