Saturday, August 29, 2009
A Staten Island man called 911 Thursday morning and calmly admitted to fatally shooting his wife and their cat - moments before he turned the gun on himself, police sources said.
"I shot my wife," John Pizon, 52, told the 911 operator just before 10 a.m., claiming that the shooting was inadvertent.
"Yeah, it was an accident," said Pizon, "and I shot the cats too."
Pizon then assured the 911 operator he would leave the front door of their Bulls Head home open for emergency responders - but when police arrived moments later, they found him sprawled on the floor, dead of a gunshot wound to the head.
Karan Pizon, who was shot once in the back of the head, was rushed to Staten Island University Hospital North but died an hour later.
I guess you could safely say John Pizon was one of the famous 10%, wouldn't you think? He probably qualifies under several categories, as some of the commenters have pointed out.
He also illustrates another factor, which is only partly covered by my controversial theory. When you consider the suicides and add them to the murders committed by folks who were law-abiding gun owners until the moment they pulled the trigger, you realize criminals aren't our only concern. In fact the majority of gun problems is caused by law-abiding gun owners.
Investigators believe the couple was arguing over some recent financial struggles when John Pizon, a gun collector, reached for a .22-caliber pistol and opened fire.
After gunning down his wife, he also fatally shot Midnight, the couple's black cat. They owned two other cats.
A police source said Pizon had a license for the handgun but it was not immediately clear why he was permitted to have the weapon.
Neither Pizon had a criminal record and investigators had never before been called to their rented Goller Pl. apartment on a domestic dispute, police sources said.
What's your opinion? Is it any wonder that people get nervous and concerned at the sight of guns, regardless of who's carrying them? Would you say that in cases like this guns are bad news for women like Mrs. Pizon?
Often people ask, well what do you want to do about this, New York already has some of the strictest gun laws in the land. My answer is, I'm not sure what to do about it, but the first step is admitting there's a problem. As long as pro-gun folks insist the problem doesn't exist or that its scope is insignificantly small, serious discussion about the solution is impossible.
What's your opinion?
Las Vegas police seized two handguns, ammunition and two bulletproof vests from the home of boxer Floyd Mayweather Jr. and two cars after a shooting outside a skating rink.
Search warrant documents released Thursday said one of the handguns seized Monday was loaded.
No one was hurt in the shooting, and Mayweather has not been named as a suspect by police. Police responded to the shooting at 10:06 p.m. Sunday at the Crystal Palace Skating Center, 4680 Boulder Highway.
The LA Times printed the story under a slightly different headline.
Guns and ammo confiscated from Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s home
Now, that's certainly an attention grabber, but would such an action count as "confiscation," as we use it in the gun debate? I don't think so. But my question is, why were the guns and other items seized? Isn't Nevada one of the most gun friendly states? Can't you have items like that in your home without fear of the police coming in and taking them away? Mayweather is not some gang banger without resources, rather he's a super talented prize fighter, already a very rich one. Wikipedia has the complete rundown, including the famous bout with De La Hoya.
Mayweather's next match was the long-anticipated superfight against six-division champion and current WBC Super Welterweight titleholder Oscar De La Hoya on May 5, 2007. De La Hoya's belt was on the line, which required Mayweather to move up in weight from 147 pounds to 154.
Despite De La Hoya's insistence that money was not a factor, the Mayweather-De La Hoya bout set the record for most PPV buys for a boxing match with 2.4 million households, shattering the record of 1.95 million for Evander Holyfield-Mike Tyson II. Around $120 million in revenue was generated by the PPV, which set another record.
With the percentages factored in, Oscar De La Hoya ended up earning $58 million for the bout, the highest purse ever for a fighter. The previous record was $35 million, held by Tyson and Holyfield. Floyd Mayweather earned about $25 million for the fight.
Mayweather won by split decision in 12 rounds, capturing the World Boxing Council (WBC) title.
The boxing world awaits the next big showdown between Mayweather and Pacquiao, hopefully later this year. That payday should help Floyd Mayweather afford the lawyers necessary to get his guns back. What do you think?
Please leave a comment.
Friday, August 28, 2009
A teenager accused of shooting an officer and his police dog was moved Thursday to a different jail.
Dominick Conley, 18, was moved from the Muskingum County Jail in Zanesville to the Washington County Jail in Marietta because of security issues.
Conley, who pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor charges on Wednesday, was ordered held on a $2 million bond.
I wonder what the "security issues" were. And I wonder if that $2 million bond is so high because he dared to shoot a cop, as opposed to a regular person, or if it's because he also shot the dog. That's pretty cold-blooded.
What's your opinion? Do you think the treatment of cop-killers and cop-shooters is different from regular killers and shooters? Is that a good thing? Could it be an acceptable policy in order to emphasize the respect due law enforcement personnel?
And what about that picture? He's one rough looking 18-year-old.
Please feel free to leave a comment.
The Los Angeles Times reported that Glenn Beck's popularity has not suffered although many of his sponsors have joined a boycott of his show.
Beck attracted 2.81 million viewers Monday, his third-largest audience since his show launched on Fox News in January, according to Nielsen Media Research data provided by the network. On Tuesday, nearly 2.7 million viewers tuned in, his fifth-largest viewership to date. Beck posted his second-highest viewership ever Wednesday, attracting more than 3 million viewers for the hour.
I must admit, in this video, I find him very convincing. Suddenly, it doesn't seem so unbelievable that intelligent people who are not fanatics watch his show. Tammy said as much in a recent comment on another thread.
YES - thinking, intelligent people DO watch and believe him. I am one of them. I have a college degree, have worked in the public, private and non-profit workplace. I have a very high IQ, I own guns, and I'm a woman.
What's your opinion? Tammy said she believes Glenn Beck is sincere when he cries on camera. Do you believe that? I suppose that's exactly where people diverge. If you buy his crying act, the rest is easy to take, all the rousing patriotic talk, all the eloquent disparaging of the Obama administration. But, if you think he's faking when he cries, if you notice that at times there are no tears to go with the choked voice, then you might tend to take the rest with a grain of salt.
What do you think?
Thursday, August 27, 2009
# 1 Wyoming: 21.4
# 2 Montana: 19.2
# 3 Alaska: 18.7
# 4 Nevada: 18
# 5 New Mexico: 17.8
# 6 Oregon: 16.3
# 7 Colorado: 15.6
# 8 Idaho: 15.2
# 9 West Virginia: 14.6
# 10 Arizona: 14.1
# 41 Minnesota: 9.7
# 42 Ohio: 9.4 per
# 42 California: 9.4
# 44 Maryland: 8.8
# 45 Illinois: 7.9
# 46 Rhode Island: 7.8
# 47 Connecticut: 7.7
# 48 Massachusetts: 6.8
# 49 New Jersey: 6.7
# 50 District of Columbia: 6.5
# 51 New York: 6.1
What's your opinion? Why would the top 10 and the bottom 10 be almost perfectly divided between rural and urban? One thing that differentiates these two groups is gun ownership and gun control laws, the rural states where the most suicides take place have lax gun laws and lots of guns in lots of homes. The urban states which have the lowest suicide rates tend to have stricter gun control laws and fewer guns in the homes.
Can you think of any other explanation? It seems like the availability of guns has a major impact on the number of suicides. What's your opinion?
Some pro-gun folks like to eliminate gun suicides from gun violence. It's no wonder because in many places the suicides outnumber the murders. If you leave the suicides out, the numbers don't look nearly as bad. I say all gun violence, criminal, accidental and suicidal must be considered because in many cases if the gun had not been available, the results would not have been so drastic.
What's your opinion? Why does Montana have 3 times the suicide rate of New Jersey?
Please leave a comment.
Meet Chris Bunch, Republican candidate for California's 10th Congressional District, a seat vacated by (F-rated gungrabber) Ellen Tauscher, who has taken a position in the Obama administration, where I guess she figured becoming Undersecretary for State Arms Control gives her the chance to effect even more disarmament.
This has necessitated a special election, to be held in November.
One example of the types of votes cast by Ms. Tauscher which earned her the NRA F-rating is this.
Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1.
I can't think of a better example of legislation which saves lives and inconveniences the law-abiding minimally. But, of course, the pro-gun attitude acquiesces to nothing.
As Mr. Codrea rightly said, the new candidate has taken an unequivocal gun rights stance, something to be appreciated on both sides of the argument. Here are a couple of his answers to gun-related questions.
7. Do you support or oppose registration of weapons? Why?
OPPOSE, because registration attempts to undermine and neutralize the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, which is to ensure that the government will fear becoming tyrannical towards the population. If the government can tell what a person has, then they can use that information to neutralize their rights. We must remember the deep fear and reservations that our founders had regarding the power of a central government. Therefore, it is perfectly acceptable to view our rights as a power (check) against the powers of the government.
8. Do you support or oppose licensing requirements to own or carry firearms? Why?
I do not support licensing to own weapons. I only accept licensing requirements to carry as a point of compromise; this assumes that the licensing requirements are affordable to the population at large, that competency or training requirements are only there to ensure a standard of public safety, and lastly that any requirements enable at risk populations (women or the elderly) to have the skills necessary to use the weapons in a manner to protect themselves from a hostile agent. All that being said, you cannot regulate a right, that is why licensing must be something that enables our rights, the minute that licensing is used to prevent the free exercise of our rights it is no longer acceptable as a point of compromise.
Those are certainly unambiguous answers, but do they work? In question 7, is it fair to presume the reason for registration is to eventually confiscate guns? I believe this is a big jump, one based on paranoia and fear. I know what happened in Nazi Germany, but I honestly can't see that happening in 21st-century America, can you?
The real reason for such a registry would be exactly what its proponents say, to help diminish gun crime. For example, if it were on record where all the guns were and who owned them, wouldn't that force gun-owners to be more responsible in securing them? Wouldn't that make everyone involved in sales and transfers of firearms more careful to do it exactly right? I realize the great majority of gun owners already do this, but the small percentage who do not, would now be motivated to be more careful. This is an example of how proper gun laws do not require criminal compliance; if the law-abiding comply, the criminals have diminished access to guns.
The answer to question 8 is basically, "you cannot regulate a right." Well, I'd like to know who says. I'd like to know who invented that nifty response, which is not repeated frequently by almost every pro-gun person in order to peremptorily end all discussion. I say you certainly can regulate a right if there's a good reason to do so. The other day on Tamara K's wonderful pro-gun site there was a discussion of the frequency of poor muzzle control in gun shops among prospective buyers. It's frightening to imagine that many of those people join the ranks of the lawful gun owning public and in some cases continue with their sloppy gun handling ways. Wouldn't that be corrected at least in part with a licensing requirement? It sure would.
How people oppose these types of suggestions because of fearful presumptions or simply not wanting to be inconvenienced, is beyond me. What's your opinion?
Please leave a comment.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
A tough Bronx store clerk was shot twice during a wild wrestling match with a gun-toting robber - and a surveillance camera captured the entire, minute-long smackdown.
The courageous clerk took two bullets to his left leg during the bitter hand-to-hand combat but managed to rip the gun out of the fleeing perp's hands.
The dramatic clash unfolded Sunday when the suspect walked into a clothing store on Southern Blvd. shortly before 2:30 p.m. and approached the counter, flashing a hangun.
Rarely do we have the opportunity to see the action like this. If in the last seconds of the video, he had shot the fleeing crook in the back and killed him, what would you say about that? I'd say it would be murder and frankly I'm surprised that's not what happened. Immediately following a life and death struggle, with adrenalin pumping, to show prudence and good judgment in gun management is exemplary, to say the least. Perhaps the Harlem shopkeeper and the Oklahoma pharmacist could learn a lesson from this. What do you think?
Please leave a comment.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Now, all these years later I'm reminded of that tape and this song because I am having the best lazy, hazy days of summer of my entire life. My kids are 12, 9 and 5, and have enjoyed our frequent trips to the beach so much that it's just delightful. My boy, the youngest, screams for joy and holds on to me for dear life entering the water. The girls play on the inflatable raft for hours.
We're going later this morning.
Mr. Di Ionno details both universes very well with descriptions of shooting ranges where self defense training takes place and the Newark projects where blood flows regularly. He makes an interesting connection between the two.
There are two universes of American gun culture.
In one universe, the Second Amendment is a stanchion of protected American freedoms, as sacred as free speech. In this universe, when the right to bear arms dies, so does a free America.
In another universe, guns make blood run in our city streets. They kill and maim criminals and innocent alike, make good people prisoners in their own homes.
Fear. It drives people to get guns in both universes.
Jon Vernick, the co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, in speaking on the 2nd Amendment, said the gun debate must start with ways to "not interfere with that right."
"There are ways to frame the issue properly," he said. "There seems to be a consensus that we must find more efficient and effective ways to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. Half the guns used in crimes come from one-percent of gun dealers. There can be better oversight of those dealers, and better enforcement of laws. In some states, people with long records of violent misdemeanors, DWIs or domestic violence, are still allowed to purchase guns. That doesn't make sense. There should be are common-sense approaches that don't duly interfere with law-abiding citizens."
But what also defies common sense is reflexive opposition to all gun laws. "They're afraid if they acquiesce on any point, it will be first step down a slippery slope in the government's ability to take away guns," Vernick said.
What's your opinion? Do gun owners tend to stubbornly resist any and all suggestions for fear of the slippery slope? I certainly hear that business of gun confiscation quite often.
What about the 1% of gun dealers supplying 50% of the illegal guns? How does that work? Does the destruction of NICS records impede the government's ability to identify them, as we discussed the other day?
I'm afraid my comment to the article was not very helpful. Or was it? Maybe it's possible for responsible, honest people to have guns if they want them without placing it under the umbrella of the Constitution or the Bible or anything else. I would think so.
I say the relevance of the 2nd Amendment in today's world is just about the same as that of the 3rd Amendment. Even the 1st Amendment, when it was written, didn't count for blacks and women, but the gun guys always point to it as proof that these ideas are timeless and inviolable. I say it's nonsense. These guys just love guns first, then the use the Constitution and even sometimes the bible to justify it. Meantime, as you said in the article, blood flows in the streets.
Please leave a comment.
WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. - Two Purdue University students have been arrested after a man was fatally shot near campus in what police call an accidental shooting.
Twenty-one-year-old Landon Siela of Fort Wayne died at a Lafayette hospital after being shot in an off-campus apartment about 7 p.m. Saturday.
West Lafayette Police Lt. Troy Harris says Purdue students Cory Lynch and William Calderon -- both 22 -- were pointing guns at Siela as a joke when Lynch's gun fired, striking Siela in the throat.
Lynch was arrested on suspicion of reckless homicide and pointing a loaded firearm, both felonies. He was being held Sunday at the Tippecanoe County jail on a $10,000 surety bond.
Calderon was arrested on suspicion of pointing an unloaded firearm and false informing, both misdemeanors. He was released on bond from the jail.
It's difficult to say if the gun was legally owned, but I suppose it doesn't matter. Whether Mr. Lynch was a legitimate gun owner or not doesn't change the fact that he was engaging in behaviour that violated all of the famous 4 rules of gun safety.
My question always seems to be the same. How common is this? How many times do you think this kind of nonsense results in a round being fired which luckily hits no one? Such an incident would certainly go unreported and therefore is beyond any verifiable statistics, but I suggest it's pretty common. Guys who do this are part of the Famous 10% under the heading General stupidity and irresponsibility. one half of 1%.
What's your opinion? Don't you think young people in their 20s frequently lack the maturity and common sense to be responsible with guns? I didn't say all, but I'm afraid this characterization of your average 20 something young man is true more times than it is false.
What do you think?
Monday, August 24, 2009
Part of the bill was the requirement that prospective gun buyers should submit to a background check, which would ensure they were filling in the forms accurately as far as felony convictions and other prohibitive marks on their record. Before this, non-qualified persons simply lied on the form.
From the beginning the bill included the proviso that after the background check is completed and no disqualifying record is found, "all records of the system relating to the person or the transfer are destroyed." This was a concession to the gun lobby pressure that no hint of gun registration should result. The only problem was there was no specification as to exactly when the records should be destroyed.
During the Clinton administration it was decided that the records of these background checks should be kept for six months, consistent with the FBI recommendation. The NRA mobilized itself to fight against such rcord-keeping based on the concern that it would create a type of registry of gun owners. The problem with that according to them is such a registry could eventually be used for gun confiscation. The NRA demanded immediate destruction of all background records. Their argument was rejected in court.
A compromise was arranged whereby the background check information would be maintained for 90 days, instead of the full six months allowed by law. But even that wasn't good enough for the NRA, who under the Bush administration lobbied to have the records destroyed "within twenty-four hours," supposedly for "privacy concerns."
The result of these efforts on the part of the NRA is dasastrous. All because of their paranoid conviction that the government will eventually use these records to take their guns away, they have succeeded in manipulating the system and weakening good laws. We've talked about a number of cases lately which, had the background check information been available, might have been detected much earlier - the Mexican lady in Texas, and the North Dakota students, to name just two.
Not only are frequent buyers of guns going undetected because of this, but crooked gun dealers who aid criminals and straw buyers are nearly impossible to detect. The results are more murder, more bloodshed, all because the NRA, working on behalf of their members, is so concerned about privacy. The baleful results are incalculable.
I feel this is one of the worst, most blatant distortions of the national gun policy. I say anyone who supports the NRA, anyone who approves of these lobbying tactics that end up costing lives, must share in the responsibility for the gun violence in America. This guilt trickles down to every single legitimate gun owner, unless he has to good sense to distance himself from these dirty politics.
(Quotes taken from Lethal Logic by Dennis A. Henigan, pp 151, 152)
What's your opinion? I'd really like to know.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
It's manipulative because, in order to make the argument, not only are the well-known exhortations of Jesus overlooked - love your enemies and turn the cheek, etc. - but so are some Old Testament dictums such as these.
A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. (Leviticus 20:13)
The transparent cherry-picking of appropriate quotes is not what makes this justification so pathetic, it's the attempt to put questions about gun ownership on a higher plane, an untouchable plane, a divine plane.
It's foolish because any reasonable person, I'd suspect even many Christian gun owners, see this for what it is, a blatant and pathetic manipulation.
Bob S. said this in his post which I linked to above.
First, GOD is unchanging and unchanged. What he approves of in the Old Testament is still valid. Jesus did not replace the old covenant but came to fulfill it. I know of only one case of Jesus contradicting what was established by GOD in the Old Testament – that was clean and unclean foods.
How does that work exactly? Are some Christian people really in favor of burning to death young girls who lose their virginity before marriage? Are those same people in favor of murdering gays? Of course not, only the most deranged would favor such things. Does it mean, then that according to Bob, only certain parts of the Old Testament are still valid if they support his gun policy?
What's your opinion? What do you think about justifying things like gun ownership using the Bible? It reminds me of the millionaire televangelist who justifies his wealth using excerpts from the Bible. Isn't he a pathetic manipulator?
Please leave a comment.
The Harvard Injury Control Research Center recently published a report about this very thing. First they described how the survey questions might be presented.
Approach 1: ask everyone about gun use;
Approach 2: ask only those who first report that someone tried to commit a crime against them--and assume that a negative response to this screener question means that the respondent could not have experienced either a genuine self-defense or criminal gun use. For example, a preemptive strike would not be considered a self-defense gun use.
Approach 2, which obtains gun information from only a subset of those asked in Approach 1, yields much lower estimates of both types of gun uses (see McDowall et al. 2000 for the differences with respect to self-defense gun use).
The results were as follows:
Approach 1: 10 million (Box A criminal) 2.5 million (Box B defensive)
Approach 2: 800,000 (Box C criminal) 80,000 (Box D defensive)
One of the most fascinating things for me is that approach 1, maintains the famous 2.5 million DGUs but puts the criminal figure at four times that, 10 million.
No one likes Approach 2, which is the one used by the NCVS.
The Harvard researchers go on to point out another important factor, one which I find of particular interest. Some, they say most, of the 2.5 million supposed defensive uses of guns are nothing of the sort.
Regular citizens with guns, who are sometimes tired, angry, drunk, or afraid, and who are not trained in dispute resolution, have lots of opportunities for inappropriate gun uses. People engage in innumerable annoying and somewhat hostile interactions with each other in the course of a lifetime. It should not be surprising that inappropriate, socially undesirable "self-defense" gun uses by people who believe they are law-abiding citizens outnumber the appropriate and socially beneficial use of guns.
Although most of the reported self-defense gun uses from Approach 1 surveys seem more like criminal uses, even if one believed they were all genuine socially beneficial uses, the number of criminal gun uses would still vastly exceed the number of self-defense gun uses in the United States. No survey using similar methodology to determine both criminal and self-defense use has ever found otherwise.
What's your opinion?
A Roma woman has been sentenced to more than three years in prison for lying about her purchase of at least 25 military-style assault weapons that made their way into the hands of the Gulf Cartel.
One of the firearms — which federal prosecutors say she bought for a man she knew only as “El Mano” — has since been linked to the torture and execution of a retired Mexican general earlier this year.
“I didn’t know what they would be used for,” 44-year-old Mireya Rivera Juarez said in Spanish at her sentencing hearing Thursday. “This is my first time in jail. I’ve always been hardworking.”
The motherly, 5-foot woman with a courtroom full of children and family members looked like an unlikely accomplice in Mexico’s ongoing drug war — which has contributed to the deaths of more than 11,000 since late 2006.
Why don't they arrest El Mano or some of the so-called legitimate gun dealers who sold assault rifles to a "motherly, 5-foot" Mexican woman? It seems to me she's the least of the guilty in this deal.
One of the difficulties is that background checks which are supposedly done each time she bought a gun are destroyed almost immediately, according to law. Guess who lobbied for that law? Had those records been maintained a big red flag could have been available to law enforcement personnel. Lives would have been saved.
The best part of the article is the final line. I guess no one told The Monitor.
According to agency data, 90 percent of the traceable weapons used in Mexican drug violence originated in the United States.
What's your opinion? What do you think a law-abiding gun dealer thinks when a woman like this buys more than one assault rifle from him, when he fills out the paperwork for her background check for the second or third time? Do you think he realized exactly what she's up to and turns a blind eye? That's what I think?
Please leave a comment.