Pro-Gun Activist on Murder-Suicide: "He killed his children out of love."

On the fourth of July this year, a gruesome murder-suicide took place in Dundee, Oregon. That afternoon, Randall Engels, 37, shot and killed his estranged wife Amy Engels, 35; their daughter Bailey, 13; and son Jackson, 11. Amy Engels had filed for divorce just weeks earlier on May 29, 2012, citing an "immediate danger" to her children. "My husband has threatened to steal them and not return them," she told a Yamhill County judge. "He has threatened to hurt them. He yells at them and makes them feel nervous and upset."

The Dundee community was shocked and saddened by the unspeakable tragedy, but one Oregon pro-gun activist saw the murders as evidence that Randall Engels "loved" his family.

"FancyJack," a prolific pro-gun commenter at the KVAL.com website, had plenty to say about the murder-suicide. When gun violence prevention blogger "Baldr Odinson" responded to an article about the incident by writing, "It's not the gun I oppose, it's the ease of which people like Mr. Engels are able to get them and use them," "FancyJack" was outraged and replied:

You squeeze a trigger, a nice steady pull, so as not to interfere with the aim, everyone is dead so his use of the firearm was proficient ... He did not flip out, he was methodical with the destruction of his family, again everyone is dead. Suicide is a tool, just like a firearm, it has its place in humanity, that you fear it as you fear firearms is not surprising. Once he made the decision, he would have been at peace, he took his family with him, he loved them and could not leave them to the mercies of the type people who exploit the dead to pursue a liberal social agenda, I'd bet Mr. Engels would have echoed my sentiment that he was protecting his family from people, people who think like you.

When another commenter facetiously pressed "FancyJack" to indicate whether it would be OK for parents to seek out an abortion to protect a child from the "liberal social agenda," "FancyJack" replied:

Yes, provided that we killed the mother when we killed the baby as she would not be here to protect the child. He killed his children out of love, liberal women kill their children out of selfishness, if abortion was fair, we would kill them both, but as we both know, abortion is a liberal social agenda whose intent was to clean up the gene pool, from my perspective, killing a mother that would kill her child is a just act and protects the family.

"FancyJack" also recently found time to leave his thoughts on the shooting deaths of young black men at the KVAL website. "Live by the hoody, die by the hoody," he wrote.

Pro-Gun Activists Defend Law that Armed Seattle Mass Shooter

On May 30, 2012, Ian Stawicki walked into Cafe Racer in Seattle, Washington and shot five people,killing four: Joe Albanese, 52; Drew Keriakedes, 49; Kimberly Layfield, 38; and Donald Largen, 57. Fleeing the cafe, Stawicki then confronted Gloria Leonidas, a 52-year-old married mother or two, and beat her physically before shooting her in the head, killing her. Later that day, police confronted Stawicki in West Seattle. As they approached him, Stawicki knelt on the ground and shot himself in the head, taking his own life.

Shortly after the shooting it was revealed that Stawicki had obtained a concealed handgun permit in the state of Washington in August 2010 and legally purchased at least six handguns. This was despite a lengthy history of violence that included prior arrests for assault, domestic violence, and unlawfully carrying a weapon. Stawicki's family also revealed that he had a long history of mental illness. Stawicki suffered from delusions. He told his girlfriend he was married and the father of six. He told others he was a member of a CIA death squad. But the family never pushed to have him committed because they never heard him threaten to hurt himself.

The family did attempt to have Stawicki's concealed handgun permit revoked. When they contacted law enforcement, however, "the response to [them] was, there's nothing we can do, he's not a threat to himself or others, or we haven't had a report of it, or we haven't had to pick him up—call us when it's worse." Law enforcement wasn't simply being indifferent. They were powerless to act. The "Shall Issue" permitting law in Washington, written by the National Rifle Association (NRA), prevents the state from denying a concealed handgun permit to anyone who meets a basic set of criteria. And because Ian Stawicki had never been involuntarily committed nor convicted of a felony or misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, he met those criteria.

That a dangerous mentally ill man was allowed to retain his guns and carry permit despite these warnings is apparently of no concern to pro-gun activists, who came to the defense of the state's gun laws immediately after the tragedy. Dave Workman, the communications director for the Washington-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and a former member of the NRA Board of Directors, had the following to say about Ian Stawicki:

I don't know that there's anything you can do in these situations. We can't treat him like a child, he's got his own life to live and he can make his own mistakes no matter how horrific those mistakes turn out to be.

Workman's boss agreed with him about Stawicki's "mistake." Alan Gottlieb, a convicted felon who petitioned the federal government to have his "gun rights" restored, wasn't focused on the innocent lives that Stawicki took in the wake of the shooting. He seemed to have his own questionable history in mind, telling KING 5 News: "If you did that here in Seattle, you'd have a chief who gave out no gun permits. If it becomes discretionary, then people who deserve guns won't get them."

Workman and Gottlieb were certainly not alone. Keith Milligan, an Election Volunteer Coordinator with the NRA-ILA and author of the pro-gun blog "Shall Not Be Questioned, made it clear to us that he was concerned about individuals like Ian Stawicki being deprived of "life, liberty or property" and "due process." The lives and liberty of those innocent Americans Stawicki killed in cold blood? Milligan didn't mention it...

"Melvin Udall," a pro-gun activist from Virginia, concurred with Milligan, complaining, "So the precedent going fwd is GOV must deprive ALL ppl of life,liberty,pursuit IN CASE one might deprive others?" One? Udall seemed unphased by the fact that Stawicki is now at least the 20th concealed handgun permit holder to have committed a mass shooting since May 2007.

Pat Watson" (AKA "Hazmatpat") of Minnesotans for Firearms Safety Tweeted at us, "did he have a criminal record? Any reason to deny him his rights prior to crime? Otherwise you're talking #MinorityReport stuff!" Minority Report? Watson apparently neglected to read about Stawicki's criminal record, or review the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller, which stated that "concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the [Second] Amendment [and] state analogues." Later, Watson told another Twitter user that if Stawicki was "not safe to be walking around, then prosecute!" For what? He didn't say. But apparently that wouldn't violate his "rights" like, say, preventing him from legally carrying a gun in public despite abundant evidence he was mentally ill and violent.

Finally, Ken Soderstrom, a pro-gun activist from Greenville, North Carolina, decided to just blame Stawicki's victims for getting shot. "We know he was a regular [at Cafe Racer] and knew those in the cafe wouldn't be armed," Soderstrom told us. "Defenselessness promotes violence." How simple. It was their fault for not arming themselves against their fellow citizens in a place they went to relax and enjoy the company of others.

After the shooting, Ian Stawicki's brother would say, "It's no surprise to me this happened. We could see this coming." But pro-gun activists have warned us that preventing people who are clearly dangerous from arming themselves and carrying guns in public is unacceptable, no matter what the ultimate body count is.

Lowering the Boom on the Martin Family

Here at "Things Pro-Gun Activists Say," we have spent a lot of time recently compiling disturbing comments that pro-gunners have made about Trayvon Martin, the unarmed 17 year-old who was shot to death by concealed handgun permit holder George Zimmerman in Sanford, Florida on the evening of February 26, 2012. Martin's crime? He went to the local convenience store to get a bag of Skittles and a can of iced tea. Zimmerman, who looked none the worse for wear after his "altercation" with Martin, has still not been arrested.

Recently, a new group emerged to raise money for George Zimmerman's legal team. Called "Legal Boom," this not-for-profit organization was founded by Christopher Kossmann and three other concealed handgun permit holders in the state of Florida. At its website, the group writes, "For all those wondering. Why? Because we want justice just as bad as you. But justice is a fair trial. Not bounties or death threats."

But a little more digging reveals the rationale for Legal Boom goes far beyond that. On its website, the group expresses an absolutist vision of gun ownership, stating, "The right to defend yourself and the people around you as a fundamental principle has no beginning and no end regardless of where you live." Kossmann almost made it clear to CNN that the group strongly supports the National Rifle Association's "Stand Your Ground" law, which is at the center of the Zimmerman case. The law removes an individual's duty to retreat from a confrontation if he can safely do so and allows him to meet force (i.e., a punch) with lethal force (gunfire). Speaking about the law, Kossmann told CNN, "The 'Stand Your Ground' law is there to defend people and their right to defend themselves and so this law really doesn't need to be changed because of one isolated incident. It's a good law ... The 'Stand Your Ground' law has been used for hundreds [of] justifiable homicides in the state of Florida and it should be continued to be used."

Asked by CNN anchor Carol Costello if it bothered him that Zimmerman might have killed Martin without engaging in a legitimate act of self-defense, Kossmann said, "It doesn't bother really bother me and the reason it doesn't it because we don't know." Kossmann then made the stunning admission that the "Stand Your Ground" law allows an aggressor to kill, stating, "There's a specific part under the justifiable use of force, under the use of force by an aggressor, that would allow somebody, even if they provoked the fight, to use deadly force against somebody provided they used every reasonable means to escape the danger and were still being assaulted and were in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm." Legal Boom expands on this on their website, writing, "If Martin assaulted Zimmerman after any pursuit was made Zimmerman could still use deadly force to end any assault that made him 'Reasonably believe that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.' Right wrong or indifferent this is the law and its intent was to protect everyone legally so that just because you’re a hot head you wouldn’t have to die for it in fear of what would legally happen to you if you defended yourself."

One of the group's founders even posted a blog at their website describing an incident in which he leveled his loaded handgun at a man's chest and nearly killed him. Why? Because he got into a verbal confrontation with a group of people on his block who felt he was speeding through the neighborhood. "I can say to you with the utmost confidence that this man was a hair pin away from being killed," the writer says, but then confesses, "the situation could have been easily avoided in the first place by not initiating a verbal exchange with the group."

Finally, despite Kossmann's assertion to CNN that Legal Boom does not condone personal attacks on Trayvon Martin, the group made a pretty searing attack on Travyon's grieving family on Twitter. Asked by a Twitter user how they would feel if someone raised money for a shooter that had killed their unarmed child, Legal Boom responded, "If someone shot one of our members children we would be just as blinded as others, our judgement would be clouded."



This is actually a common smear in the pro-gun community, this notion that people who care about gun violence (and particularly those who have been victims of it) are overly "emotional" and incapable of thinking about the gun issue rationally.

Overly emotional? Irrational? Ignorant of the facts about gun violence in America? Hmmmm...sounds like there might be more than a bit of projection going on there.

Pro-Gun Activist on Reagan Shooting Survivor: "The Faggot Should Have Died"

March 30, 1981 was a dark day for America. On that day, a mentally ill man, John Hinckley, Jr., ambushed President Ronald Reagan and his entourage outside the Washington Hilton Hotel and fired six shots before being subdued. He injured four: President Reagan (a bullet lodged in the president's lung about an inch from his heart), D.C. police officer Thomas Delahanty, Secret Service agent Timothy McCarthy, and Reagan's press secretary, Jim Brady.

Brady was the most severely injured of the four. He was shot in the head and remains permanently disabled to this day. As he worked his way through a grueling rehabilitation process, Jim and his wife, Sarah, became passionate advocates for gun violence prevention. They were particularly disturbed by the fact that Hinckley was able to legally buy the revolver used in the shooting despite a history of mental illness. In those days, there were no background checks on gun buyers. Purchasers filled out a form that asked them about potential disqualifiers, but there was no process for law enforcement to check and authenticate their answers. It was an "honor system" of the most dangerous sort.

In the late 80s, Jim and Sarah pushed for the introduction of legislation to establish a background check system for gun buyers. President Reagan made his feelings clear about the legislation on the assassination attempt's ten-year anniversary:

March 30...marks an anniversary I would just as soon forget, but cannot ... Four lives were changed forever, and all by a Saturday-night special –a cheaply made .22 caliber pistol–purchased in a Dallas pawnshop by a young man with a history of mental disturbance. This nightmare might never have happened if legislation that is before Congress now–the Brady bill–had been law back in 1981.

The Brady bill became law on November 30, 1993. To date, the law has stopped nearly two million prohibited purchasers from buying guns through federally licensed firearms dealers (FFLs). There is no telling how many lives this has saved, but it is certainly many. Jim and Sarah Brady remain engaged in the battle for better gun laws to this day. During a trip to Capitol Hill last year to advocate for legislation to ban high-capacity ammunition magazines (like the ones used in the January 2011 massacre in Tucson), Jim encouraged gun violence prevention activists to "fight fiercely." "I wouldn’t be here in this damn wheelchair if we had common sense [gun] legislation," he noted.

Most Americans admire Jim Brady for his courage, determination and unflappable sense of humor—in the face of the worst personal tragedy imaginable. Some pro-gun activists, however, wish nothing for Jim Brady but death.

The Starbucks Facebook page has become a hotbed of pro-gun extremism as of late, and recently someone (crudely) impersonated Jim Brady there. When confronted by Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) Director of Communications Ladd Everitt about it, the pro-gun activist in question responded as follows:

Personally I wish he would just let go of that last thread of life already. He's already undone a lifetimes worth of constitutional law. As far as I'm concerned he should die a traitors death.

Pro-gun activist Joe Adams of Colorado was equally blunt in commenting on a photo of Jim Brady at CSGV's Facebook page, writing:

lol the faggot should have died when he got shot!

It's impossible to understand why anyone would direct that type of cruelty at a man who has sacrificed so much for his country and fellow citizens.

"A Small Price to Pay"

During a day in which a horrific school shooting occurred at Chardon High School in Ohio—leaving three students dead and two injured—pro-gun activist John K. Haslach of Dunellen, New Jersey left the following comment on the National Gun Victims Action Council (NGAC) Facebook page:

A dead child is a small price to pay to protect our 2nd A rights to stop unjust laws and keep out forgeign invaders!

Haslach wasn't the only pro-gun activist on the attack following the shooting. Hank Fackovec of Woburn, Massachusetts left the following comment on the Facebook wall of Students for Gun Free Schools (SGFS):

People and organizations like SFGFS are responsible for these injured and dead children - If there was an armed teacher - the horror could have been prevented or minimized. Shame on you.

SGFS is an organization that was created to honor Reema Samaha, one of the victims of the 2007 mass shooting at Virginia Tech. "In order to keep her memory alive and try to prevent future tragedies, our mission opposes efforts to allow guns in our schools," SGFS states. The organization's founders include Omar and Randa Samaha, Reema's siblings; Lily Habtu, who was shot in the face and arm at Virginia Tech; and Colin Goddard, who was shot four times during the massacre. The notion that they are responsible for what happened at Chardon High School is beyond the pale. It is equally horrific to suggest that the answer to school shootings is to arm K-12 teachers and instruct them to gun down troubled teens rather than giving them the support and counseling they truly need.

Linda Gaither of the Episcopal Peace Fellowship in Ithaca, New York also became a target of pro-gun activists when she urged Starbucks to reconsider its policy allowing loaded guns in its stores following the Ohio tragedy. Pro-gun activist Devon Siefried of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania lashed into her, writing:

Dance in that blood, Linda. Dance in the blood. You're disgusting.

This horrifying "dance in the blood" rhetoric is, sadly, common among pro-gun activists. Frequently, it is directed at individuals who have lost their loved ones to gun violence. Yesterday, Andrew Johnston (AKA “Weer’d Beard”), who has been mentioned at this blog before, attacked Joan Peterson in a blog entitled, "Blood Dancing 101." Joan lost her sister Barbara in 1992 to gun homicide. In the blog, Johnston claims that Joan and others who advocate for stronger gun laws to prevent tragedies...

...talk about dead victims with zero concern for their situation. This is called “Blood Dancing” and they SHOULD be ashamed of it, but they are not. Are they insane? Yes, yes they are!

Finally, Joan received the following comment from a pro-gun activist Dan Roberts (AKA "Son of the Revolution") at her blog "Common Gunsense." Roberts was responding to a blog Joan posted reagarding the shooting at Chardon High School, in which she wrote, "We can pass more gun laws and we should. Making parents responsible for children getting their hands on guns would help. 28 states have some form of Child Access Prevention laws. Laws requiring mandatory reporting of lost and stolen guns may stop gun owners from being careless with their guns. Safely storing guns should be of utmost importance to keep guns away from the hands of children and teens as well as theft. Guns in the hands of children must first pass through the hands of an adult." Roberts saw this as an opportunity to boast about his six-year-old daughter's proficiency with a bow and gun.

He left a hyperlink that goes to his blog "That Every Man Be Armed" and a piece he wrote entitled, "The Next Top Shot." There he says of his daughter, "I started drilling her on gun safety when she was three. She then moved to trigger time on my lap with my 10/22 by age four, by five she could correctly name all the parts and almost completely reassemble my Ruger .45 by herself and she got her own pink Cricket Bolt Action .22 for her sixth birthday."

Meanwhile, the United States continues to lose more than 3,000 children and teens annually to gun violence.

President Obama Called a "Jugeared Wonder-Tard" by Pro-Gunner

As we've noted before at this blog, nothing enrages a pro-gun activist like a woman speaking out, publicly and confidently, for tougher laws to prevent gun violence. As result, women frequently bear the brunt of some of most vociferous and threatening attacks by pro-gun activists.

This blog features such an attack on Joan Peterson, a gun violence survivor from Minnesota and the author of the blog Common Gunsense. In 1992, Joan’s sister, Barbara, was three years into divorce proceedings with her husband. After he left bizarre messages on her answering machine, Barbara got a restraining order against him. One day, Barbara and a male friend went to her husband’s house to deliver some paperwork regarding the divorce. Her husband erupted in anger and shot both of them in cold blood, killing them. Prior to the shooting, he had no violent criminal history. He took his own life not long thereafter in a psychiatric ward.

On February 17, 2012, Joan authored a blog entitled, "It's a Guy Thing." She commented on a controversial House of Representatives hearing that occurred the day before, in which a panel consisting only of men offered testimony on why religious institutions shouldn't be compelled to offer certain types of health care to women (e.g., access to birth control bills and other forms of contraception) under the Affordable Care Act.

Joan began to think about a quote we hear often in the world of gun violence prevention: Wayne LaPierre's famous quip, "The guys with the guns makes the rules." In Joan's words:

The guys. With guns. Making the rules. Hmmmm. Let's think about that for a while. First of all, apparently there were no founding sisters or women involved in the beginnings of our democracy. Who made the rules back then? Who got to decide about the wording of our Constitution? ... Remember now, these guys (and a very small group of women) with guns make up about 2-3% of Americans eligible to own and carry guns. Should they get to make the rules for the rest of us? ... The guys with the guns and those they have intimidated into believing their world view, have passed laws in 49 states now allowing some form of carrying concealed weapons around in public. When the laws passed, these guys convinced legislators that we would all be safer if they were allowed to carry their guns into every nook and cranny of our communities. Some of them may have mentioned that this would also make they and their families safer, thinking there is danger lurking everywhere they go. I don't know why the 97% or so of Americans who don't carry concealed or openly displayed guns don't feel that same danger risk. So for those folks who feel unsafe wherever they go, we have passed laws that allow for loaded guns in Starbucks stores, in churches, in colleges (or so they hope) in grocery stores, malls, etc. Yes, shootings have happened in all of these places, mostly by crazed people who shouldn't have had guns in the first place. And even people with guns could likely not have stopped these shootings. Some commenters on this blog even wrote that they wouldn't try to protect the public in these cases. It would be every "man" for himself ... I'm very happy that the guys in my life are not like the guys I have described in this blog post. Change is coming. Women are speaking out and claiming their place in the important debates of our time.

Joan might as well have blown a dog whistle for the white male "Culture Warriors" in the pro-gun movement. Several commenters jumped in to claim that more women are involved in shooting activities than ever, a dubious claim given that gun ownership among American women has remained totally flat over the past three decades.

Joan then made the following comment about Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum's controversial statements about religion:



That was the last straw. Pro-gun activist "Thomas," a frequent commenter at Common Gunsense, jumped in and left the following comment:



The "bell-ringing" that Thomas is referring to takes place in a Memorial Garden in Lake Place Park in Duluth, Minnesota. Periodically, Joan gathers with members of the group Protect Minnesota (which formed when the Million Mom March Chapters of Minnesota merged with Citizens for a Safer Minnesota) and other organizations to remember victims of gun violence. Attendees are invited to ring the Memorial Bell for each loved one they have lost to gun violence.



As for the rest of Thomas' comment, well, it speaks for itself.

The Starbucks Militia

On Valentine's Day, the National Gun Victims Action Council (NGVAC) called for an ongoing boycott of the Starbucks coffee chain because of their company policy allowing individuals to bring loaded guns into their stores. The President and CEO of NGVAC is Elliot Fineman, whose son Michael was murdered in 2006 by a paranoid schizophrenic who legally obtained a gun. Fineman says that Starbucks is "[betraying] their claim to be a socially responsible company" by implementing a policy that follows state gun laws, even where they are weak and involve little or no screening of gun carriers. Currently, 28 states allow residents to Open Carry loaded guns in public without any permitting, screening or training requirement. There are also four states (Alaska, Vermont, Wyoming and Arizona) that allow residents to Concealed Carry loaded guns in public without any screening, training or permitting. All of these states also allow "private sales" of firearms, which do not require any background check. Individuals bringing loaded guns into Starbucks in these states could be felons, wife beaters, sex offenders, severely mentally ill, etc., and law enforcement would have no way of telling if they are dangerous until they pull the trigger.

Despite these problems, pro-gun activists were outraged when they heard about the NGVAC boycott and quickly announced a "buycott" of their own. Here is what the "buycott" called for, as described by the "Guns for Everyone" blog:

First, make sure to visit Starbucks on February 14th and carry proudly. Even if you don’t carry, or don’t OC [Open Carry], let them know that you appreciate their policy. But seriously, just man up and carry that heater like a BOSS. Stop being a pussy.

Pro-gun activists then began to flock to the Starbucks Facebook page to tell of their gun-carrying exploits, post photos of their handguns and assault rifles, and attack all those who disagree with the company's policy concerning firearms. This led to some truly ugly rhetoric, some of which is chronicled here:

There was pro-gun activist Joe Amber Barrett of Leesburg, Florida, who told one woman "FOAD [Fuck Off And Die] you dirty hippy" when she announced that she was boycotting Starbucks:

Pro-gun activist Josh Sumpter invoked the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre to justify Starbucks' current firearms policy. When CSGV Director of Communications Ladd Everitt pointed out that both the Virgina Tech Review Panel and the families of the victims and survivors of that tragedy are unanimous in their support for stronger gun laws, Sumpter said, "that just proves that the VT review panel and the families [of the 32 students/faculty killed and 25 wounded during the massacre] are okay with the tragedy happening again." Pro-gun activist Jonathan Kiviniemi of New Albany, Indiana thought this was wonderful and jumped in to echo Sumpter, adding, "they are essentially saying they want it to happen again."

There was a bizarre comment from insurrectionist gun blogger Kurt Hofmann, who thanked Starbucks for "refusing to be conscripted into the anti-gun jihadists' culture war."

Another woman, who posted a "No Guns in Starbucks" photo, was called a "twat" by pro-gun activist Andy Rau.

Pro-gun activist Shay Robertson thanked Starbucks for "having a backbone" and said, "Not everyone in America is a snivelling developmentally disabled functioning retard who is afraid of inanimate objects." Pro-gunner Jeff Adamson loved it and commented, "Please don't insult snivelling developmentally disabled functioning retards by comparing them to anti-gunners."

Other commenters were labelled "faggots" and "homos" by pro-gun activists Adler Smith and Eric Fanning of Oregon City, Oregon.

One pro-gun activist, James Sarah, had a warning for children. He told a commenter, "Keep your children out of Starbucks. I go in to enjoy a cup of coffee and read a paper. It is very disturbing to have some snot nosed little brats running around and making all sorts of noise. My hand gun has never made a peep in Starbucks."

Pro-gun activist Ray Brower of Loveland, Colorado posted a photo of his AR-15 assault weapon and wanted everyone to know it was his "anti-socialist freedom rifle. And he was certainly not the only pro-gun activist to share gun porn on the Starbucks Facebook page. Their photos wall is covered with it. Here are some examples:













You've got to give Starbucks executives some credit, though. Their store policy might be OK for us, but they personally want no part of these guys when they're armed. "They surely know the threat to safety people carrying guns pose," says Reverend Jackie Lynn, Executive Director of the Episcopal Peace Fellowship. "Why else would Starbucks ban guns from its corporate headquarters, Starbucks shareholder meetings and have a company policy forbidding employees (partners) from bringing guns to work?"

Great question.

Pro-Gun "Humor"

The following image was left on the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) Facebook page by pro-gun activist Ryan Ashley on February 18, 2012. Many Fans of CSGV's Facebook page are victims and survivors of gun violence. Some of them have lost loved ones, including children, to gun suicide. In the modern pro-gun movement, this qualifies as "funny."

Virginia Mom Continues to Receive Misognynistic Threats from Pro-Gun Activists

Recently, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) posted a blog about the heinous, misognynistic threats received by a Virginia mother who advocates for tougher gun laws. Now, just three months later, she has received so many new threats from pro-gun activists that we are compelled to post on this topic once more.

The mom in question is Abby Spangler. Abby has two young children and lives in Alexandra, Virginia. Following the horrific mass shooting at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007, she started the Protest Easy Guns movement. As Abby tells it: “I'd been thinking, 'Is this what we've come to in America? But when Virginia Tech happened, I said, ‘I've had enough.’ Then when I found out the Virginia Tech shooter got his gun in a matter of minutes, I was outraged. I decided that someone had to speak out and say this is unacceptable. We're not just going to light candles to mourn the victims. We're going to protest for change.”

And that is exactly what Abby has done. To date, more than 110 “Lie-In” protests have been conducted in more than 30 states across the nation by Protest Easy Guns volunteers. These protests have called for common-sense gun laws to prevent individuals who are clearly violent and/or deranged from easily obtaining firearms.

Unfortunately, the sight of a confident, outspoken woman working to end gun violence is more than many pro-gun activists can take. And they have responded—cowardly and anonymously—by repeatedly emailing her some of the most vicious and ugly comments you can imagine.

The following is a sampling of the comments received by Abby in the last three months alone. The first comment is in reference to a video Abby posted of Lori Haas, a mother whose daughter survived after being shot in the head during the Virginia Tech Massacre of April 16, 2007. Lori is now a staffer with the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and also works with the Virginia Center for Public Safety. The remaining five comments are targeted directly at Abby:













Those who think this type of cowardice will stop Abby from working to prevent the 30,000+ gun deaths each year in the United States are wrong. She remains as determined as ever, and has the love and appreciation of not only gun violence victims/survivors, but all those who care about this senseless epidemic.

Pro-Gun Activists Find Humor in Tributes on One-Year Anniversary of Tucson Massacre

January 8, 2012 marked the one-year anniversary of the horrific mass shooting in Tucson, in which a young man, Jared Loughner, killed 6 innocent Americans and wounded 13 others, including U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-AZ). Despite the fact that he was severely mentally ill and a substance abuser, Loughner passed a background check and legally purchased the handgun used in the murders.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence organized a series of “Too Many Victims” candlelight vigils to recognize the anniversary and pay tribute to all Americans who are victims and survivors of gun violence. The staff of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence was proud to attend a vigil in the District of Columbia at Shiloh Baptist Church. It was a moving event that included powerful testimony from gun violence survivors including Colin Goddard (who was shot four times at Virginia Tech), Nardyne Jefferies (who lost her daughter Brishell to AK-47 fire in a horrific mass shooting in southeast D.C.) and William Kellibrew (who was forced to watch as his mother’s ex-boyfriend shot and killed her and his brother). This was just one of the scores of solemn vigils that were occurring that evening in states across the country.

These events were emotional and meaningful to the gun violence survivors and other concerned Americans who participated in them. But to pro-gun activists, they were apparently humorous, something to be mocked and laughed at.

One pro-gun blogger in Massachusetts, Andrew Johnston (AKA “Weer’d Beard”) urged his readers “Do More Than Just Light a Candle” by sending him photos of their guns arrayed around a candle. Johnston explained that he “takes offense” to the term “gun violence.” And he urged those who agree to “[show] what tools you have to back up your desire to prevent violence.” Johnston was so proud of his work that he sent it directly to gun violence survivor Joan Peterson, who lost her sister in a gun homicide involving domestic violence (the comment in question was left on Joan’s blog, “Common Gunsense”). Johnston then blogged to tell Peterson, "We show respect for the victims, you dance in their blood."

Another pro-gun blogger, Jon C. Sullivan of Knoxville, Tennessee (AKA "Linoge"), wrote the following at his blog “Walls of the City”: “By holding their candle-light vigils for ‘victims of ‘gun violence’, the Brady Campaign and their sycophants are, by definition, memorializing those murderers, rapists, thieves, muggers, robbers, home-invaders, and other scumbags who were shot down in self-defense by their intended victims, or by the police in the execution of their duties. As always, ‘gun control’ extremists are aiding, abetting, and sympathizing with criminals. Disgusting.”

Christie Caywood (AKA "Bitterb"), the girlfriend of fellow NRA volunteer election coordinator Keith Milligan of Langhorne, Pennsylvania (AKA "Sebastian"), found the vigils hilarious. Along with Milligan, she co-authors the blog “Shall Not Be Questioned.” On December 19, she mocked the “Too Many Victims” tributes, writing, “Yes, they want you to light a candle. Because candles will stop violence ... If candles can stop bullets, then they can do anything in this season of holiday miracles, right?” On Twitter, she said the following about gun violence prevention activists holding candlelight vigils: "We should report them as arsonists." Caywood and Milligan also shared a laugh about Joan Peterson's loss of her sister to gun violence. Milligan Tweeted that he won a bet with his girlfriend that Peterson would ring a bell instead of lighting a candle at the vigil. He hash-tagged the Tweet #toomanyfools. Milligan was referring to bell-ringing ceremonies held by the group Protect Minnesota, of which Joan is member. Gun violence survivors step forward to ring a bell once for each loved one they have lost to gun violence. Caywood loved it. "I didn't bet against you dear," she Tweeted back.

Milligan also issued the following warning to victims and survivors of gun violence: "Once your grief crosses over into trying to remove my freedoms and shred part of the Bill of Rights you can no longer claim the right to be left alone." "These aren’t people who are just concerned citizens," Milligan declared. "They are hate filled people out to destroy lives. How are these people different from a bigot who would enjoy the idea if a black man got an ass beating because he was visiting Mississippi in 1954, and didn’t know certain fountains weren’t for his kind? I posit they are no different in terms of their corrupt character, only in the form of bigotry they have chosen."

Miguel Gonzalez of Miami, Florida, author of the pro-gun blog “Gun-Free Zone,” described “Too Many Victims” as the “Candlelight Dance Over Corpses.” And as the South Florida Daily Blog and Florida Progressive Coalition Blog pointed out, he published another offensive post in which he attacked Colin Goddard—who was shot four times at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007—for "doing nothing till he got shot" without even identifying him correctly (Andrew Goddard is Colin's father). According to the South Florida Daily Blog, "[Gonzalez] and his minions have become the gun advocates' version of Westboro Baptist Church and have decided that posting callous and inflammatory pictures that are nothing more than gun porn is the best way of delivering their message. Good job, guys ... MLK Day is just around the corner."

Illinois militia member Roy Kubicek (AKA "Thirdpower"), co-author of the blog “Days of Our Trailers,” said that those who participated in the candlelight vigils are “enablers of violent crime, religious and racial bigotry.”

St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner blogger Kurt Hoffman used the Too Many Victims vigils to reiterate his standing threat of armed violence against our government.

Perhaps most offensive, however, was a video posted by pro-gun bloggers Barron Barnett of Washington and Joe Huffman of North Central Idaho. The video shows pro-gun activists holding candles, saying “candles don’t stop violence” and then drawing their handguns and firing at paper targets that are supposed to “simulate the January 8th 2011 shooting in Tucson.” On his blog, Barnett added that those who participated in the vigils "are faster on the draw than a personal injury lawyer to dance in blood."

It’s difficult, if not impossible, to understand how pro-gun activists believe such comments were appropriate on a day when gun violence survivors and others were remembering those they have lost.

Meet a Pro-Gun Activist: Karl Hadley

In a universe of pro-gun activists that love to harass, intimidate and threaten Americans who call for stronger gun laws, perhaps no single activist is more aptly nicknamed than Karl Hadley, AKA “Kaveman.”

Hadley, a 40-year-old resident of Corvallis, Oregon, is well known to those in the gun violence prevention movement as the co-author of the blog “Days of Our Trailers” (http://daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com/). There—along with co-blogger Roy Kubicek (an Illinois militia member who goes by the screen name “Thirdpower”)—Hadley launches endless personal attacks on gun violence survivors and others engaged in the fight to reduce gun violence in America. Hadley and Kubicek pride themselves on being “the bane of hoplophobes everywhere” (“hoplophobe” being an imaginary term made up by former NRA board member Jeff Cooper to describe those with a supposedly "irrational" fear of firearms).

Normally, Hadley’s attacks wouldn’t raise many eyebrows here at CSGV, but certain comments he recently left at one of CSGV staffer Ladd Everitt’s blogs surpass even his “standard” in terms of profanity, crudeness, and viciousness.

On October 24, 2011, Ladd posted a blog at Waging Nonviolence entitled “The Racist Charge.” The blog dealt with accusations by pro-gun activists that gun control was “racist,” based on some very flimsy suppositions.

Hadley jumped in with a series of ugly comments on the blog, including this one:

"Hey Laddie, have you consulted with your mommy about the hard majic of black cock?

She sure does like sucking her own shit off it.

Don't tell your dad."



He also made some not so thinly-veiled threats, by suggesting he could post Ladd’s home address and even the location at which his wife works:



This is nothing new for “Kaveman.” Earlier this year, he celebrated the threatened posting of the home address of Joan Peterson, a gun violence survivor from Minnesota (Joan’s sister was shot and killed by her husband three years into divorce proceedings) in a blog entitled, “The Most Dangerous Game.”

There is certainly concern that Hadley could back up these threats. He has bragged of owning an arsenal of firearms and other military-style equipment (e.g., grenade launchers), is permitted to carry a concealed handgun in public in Oregon and 15 other states, and brags of serving with a paramilitary citizen’s militia in Oregon. He had at least one felony arrest in April 1994, when he was charged with manufacturing and/or dealing a controlled substance. And he is well-tied to other pro-gun activists nationwide who regularly spew venom at Americans who disagree with them about gun laws. For our part, CSGV promptly reported Hadley’s recent comments to law enforcement authorities.

But perhaps the most disturbing of all our recent discoveries about “Kaveman” is that he and Roy Kubicek are treated as credentialed media by the NRA at their annual conventions. It’s a disturbing statement about how extreme today’s pro-gun movement has become.