The Washington Post reports on a Maryland shooting.
A double shooting in broad daylight in a quiet Brandywine neighborhood on Sunday afternoon stemmed from a neighborhood dispute and left one man dead and his teenage son wounded, Prince George's County police said. It was one of a spate of shootings that left three dead and nine wounded during a 24 hour period.The name of the victims were not released. Officer Evan Baxter said a neighbor who apparently had a longstanding disagreement with the dead man was taken into custody after the shooting and was being questioned.
Residents of the 8800 block of Charm Court told news reporters that they were aware of the dispute between the men, but never suspected it would lead to violence.
These guys sound like ordinary citizens, probably law-abiding folks up until the time the dispute went over the line. In other words these are exactly the kind of people that are affected most by gun control laws.
This is the kind of incident which is made more commonplace with the easy availability of firearms.
What's your opinion? Doesn't a story like this put the lie to the old rationale that gun control laws are ineffective because criminals don't obey the laws?
Please leave a comment.
You mean Brady top-ranked Maryland? Get out. What about all those Common-Sense Gun Laws®?
ReplyDeleteInconceivable! Maryland already has strict gun control!
ReplyDeleteprobably law-abiding folks up until the time the dispute went over the line.
ReplyDeleteI see no evidence of this one way or the other. It would be conjecture to try and use this to bolster an argument.
Mike W:
ReplyDelete"Inconceivable! Maryland already has strict gun control!"
No matter how much the existing gun control, the answer is always MORE gun control.
RuffRidr saw no evidence one way or the other. But I saw this:
ReplyDelete"Residents of the 8800 block of Charm Court told news reporters that they were aware of the dispute between the men, but never suspected it would lead to violence. One neighbor told WRC-TV Channel 4 that the shooting was deeply shocking for a suburban community that in the past has experienced little crime other than occasional graffiti."
Admittedly not "evidence," but it does lead one to think what I said about their being law-abiding gun owners, at least one was a gun owner, until the incident spilled over.
That "evidence" tells us nothing. They could be CCW holders, drug dealers, or gang-bangers for all we know.
ReplyDeleteBut hey, lack of evidence has never stopped you from making ASSumptions and wild claims before.
And yes FJ, the answer is always "more gun control." There's never a point where they say "OK, we have enough gun control, we'll stop infringing upon your rights now." That's what makes anti-gunners so dangerous, and it's why they must be stopped.
Apparently our gunloons believe fewer or no gun laws would have prevented this needless tragedy.
ReplyDeleteAcross the nation, arguments that used to result in, at worst, shouting matches now end up in gun fire. We saw the case of the neighbor who thought his neighbor was blowing leaves onto his lawn and wound up shooting the neighbor.
It's a proven fact there are more instances of neighbors, acquaintances and family members turning guns on one another than DGUs.
--JadeGold
It's a proven fact there are more instances of neighbors, acquaintances and family members turning guns on one another than DGUs.
ReplyDeleteWhich is why you have no facts to back up that "proven fact" huh?
Apparently our gunloons believe fewer or no gun laws would have prevented this needless tragedy.
Where has anyone made that claim? Oh that's right, no such claim has been made.
It's a proven fact there are more instances of neighbors, acquaintances and family members turning guns on one another than DGUs.
ReplyDeleteI see. You wouldn't mind proving that with DOJ or FBI crime statistics would you? If it is a proven fact you should be able to do so, right? Otherwise the only thing we have proven is that you are a liar. Again.
Which is why you have no facts to back up that "proven fact" huh?
ReplyDeleteThe facts are there, even for one with your limited facilities.
--JadeGold
RR - He is a liar, and has proven it again.
ReplyDeleteHe also has no facts, which is sad but predictable. Actually, it's step #2 of "Sad but Predictable."
Now watch as I once more prove Mike W and RR wrong. This is what will happen:
ReplyDelete1. I produce my evidence.
2. Mike W and RR respond with a series of ad hominem attacks.
3. mike W and RR quickly change subject.
Happens every time. Watch.
The National Crime Survey notes there are not quite 65,000 DGUs annually in the US. It should be noted that about 20% of these DGUs were by police.
OTOH, there are over 11,000 gun murders annually in the US and another 850,000 nonfatal gun crimes yearly.
We also know, from DoJ crime stats, that in all crimes where the perpetrator/victim relationship is known--about 70% of victims know their attackers as acquaintances, family members or intimates.
If we go to Mr. Calculator, we see that:
(850,000 + 11,000)* .7 = 602,700
Since 602,700 > 65,000, we can easily see the number of acquaintances, family members, intimates pulling guns on each other far eclipses DGUs.
Even if we up the number of DGUs to 108,000--I am still correct by a factor of well over 5.
Let the puling begin.
--JadeGold
JadeGold: "Across the nation, arguments that used to result in, at worst, shouting matches now end up in gun fire."
ReplyDeleteI am curious (but not yet argumentative) about the following:
At what point in time did arguments that used to result in, at worst, shouting matches start to end up in gun fire instead?
And what occurred at that point in time that began that process?
What evidence exists for your point in time as to when that process began and the cause for that process?
Rather than attack JadeGold or reject his claim, I wish to know more about his claim and view his evidence behind it.
FJ: It's difficult to point to a certain year (or time period) where we can definitively say 'this is when!'
ReplyDeleteIf I had to pick a time, it would probably be in the early 1980s. This where we see an interesting phenomenom: according to the GSS, gun ownership per household had been declining steadily since the late-1950s. During the same period, gun availability (i.e., the number of guns produced) had exploded. In the late 1970s, the NRA had shifted from what was a gun safety/hunting safety/competitive shooting organization to what it is today: a lobbying group for the firearm industry. Firearms, specifiaclly handguns, were marketed more aggressively and, correspondingly, we saw a significant jump in handgun murders from that point until the mid-1990s.
--JadeGold
JadeGold: "In the late 1970s, the NRA had shifted from what was a gun safety/hunting safety/competitive shooting organization to what it is today: a lobbying group for the firearm industry."
ReplyDeleteRemember Mikeb's recent post about how anti-gunowner lobbyist Josh Horowitz was outed as the alter ego of sockpuppet Grits Jr?
Here is what Horowitz / Grits had to say on HuffPo:
"I've never heard anyone claim that gun manufacturers control the NRA. It's completely the opposite and obvious to anyone with an IQ of 80 or above."
"about 70% of victims know their attackers as acquaintances, family members or intimates."
ReplyDeleteOf that 70%, how many were rival gang members?
This is what will happen:
ReplyDeleteYou mean like you did when the Brady's had their blog? or when I repeatedly made you eat your words over at Delaware Liberal....
Funny how still haven't provided any evidence and facts.....
NRA had shifted from what was a gun safety/hunting safety/competitive shooting organization to what it is today: a lobbying group for the firearm industry.
ReplyDeleteAnother flat out lie from Jadegold.
The gun industry has its own dedicated lobbying group.
JadeGuy: When you copied almost directly from this Wikipedia entry you forgot to mention the conflicting data for DGU's. The alternate data throws your calculation off quite a bit.
ReplyDeleteJadegold: “In the late 1970s, the NRA had shifted from what was a gun safety/hunting safety/competitive shooting organization to what it is today: a lobbying group for the firearm industry. Firearms, specifiaclly handguns, were marketed more aggressively and, correspondingly, we saw a significant jump in handgun murders from that point until the mid-1990s.”
ReplyDeleteFascinating. But please continue… What has happened since the mid 90s?
First, FJ, as I've noted before--nobody knows if Grits is Horowitz. Second, does it matter?
ReplyDeleteBasically you're using a quote from a largely unknown source and saying it's evidence.
The ties between the NRA and the gun industry are undeniable.
--JadeGold
The gun industry has its own dedicated lobbying group.
ReplyDeleteIt's called the NRA.
Of that 70%, how many were rival gang members?
Does it matter? Or are suggesting that it's ok as long as bad guys are shooting each other?
Let's entertain your 'logic' for a moment and say that all of the 70% are rival gang members who are married to one another--ok?
Even if we engage in your foolishness and stipulate that, it puts a big, big hole in your fetish for firearms. IOW, the imagined threats you fantasize about can largely be eliminated by not being a gang member married to a rival gang member.
--JadeGold
JadeGold: "First, FJ, as I've noted before--nobody knows if Grits is Horowitz."
ReplyDeleteThe evidence is similar to that used re Lott.
And no one -- especially Horowitz / Grits -- has given any credible explanation refuting the relationship.
BTW -- How does one remove one's comment from a HuffPo blog when one is not the blogger?
JadeGold: "The ties between the NRA and the gun industry are undeniable."
Not to Horowitz / Grits, who says:
"It's completely the opposite and obvious to anyone with an IQ of 80 or above."
Do you wish to claim that Horowitz / Grits is the liar or moron? This would be a good place to do so -- so I san have some fun with that on the HuffPo.
Horowitz / Grits posted there:
"I've never heard anyone claim that gun manufacturers control the NRA."
I will have to explain to him about "LynnOge."
The evidence is similar to that used re Lott.
ReplyDeleteNope. As we all know, Lott/Rosh was uncovered by a writer at the pro-gun Cato Institute. He discovered Rosh had the same IP address as Lott did. Lott also confessed after being confronted.
BTW -- How does one remove one's comment from a HuffPo blog when one is not the blogger?
Gosh, that's really hard--not. I've never had a blog at HuffPo, yet I've had a number of my comments removed. Ask TP or one of his sockpuppets how it's done.
Do you wish to claim that Horowitz / Grits is the liar or moron? This would be a good place to do so -- so I san have some fun with that on the HuffPo.
Feel free. Though I can easily have fun noting that FJ uses unsubstantiated quotes from unknown people as evidence.
--JadeGold
And yet screen captures show Horwitz & Grits making near identical posts within minutes of each other.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet those comments BOTH were "mysteriously" scrubbed shortly thereafter.
And no one -- especially Horowitz / Grits -- has given any credible explanation for the above to refute the relationship.
If JadeGold can explain that, I will listen
Say -- there IS a HuffPo poster who HAS made accusations of sockpuppetry in the comments with FAR LESS evidence -- one "Lynn Oge."
BTW -- If JadeGold has removed his own comments from HuffPo blogs, perhaps HE can tell me how it's done? I've made errors that I wished I could have corrected.
"Does it matter? Or are suggesting that it's ok as long as bad guys are shooting each other?"
ReplyDeleteI'm okay with the bad guys shooting each other. It's a self solving problem.
But it does matter. When people say you're more likely to be shot by "neighbors, acquaintances and family members", they always include drug dealers, drug addicts, gang members, thieves and other people who make a lifestyle/career out of shooting or or being shot at by their "neighbors, acquaintances and family members". It skews the statistics.
" the imagined threats you fantasize about can largely be eliminated by not being a gang member married to a rival gang member."
Stop projecting, Jade. I own guns because they are awesome, not because I feel threatened.
AztecRed finally confirmed what I've thought all along.
ReplyDelete"Stop projecting, Jade. I own guns because they are awesome, not because I feel threatened."
But, on the original topic, I don't think anyone said you're MORE likely to be shot by a legitimate gun owner than a criminal. My point is there is too much of that kind of thing going on, not that it accounts for MOST of the violence.
BTW -- If JadeGold has removed his own comments from HuffPo blogs, perhaps HE can tell me how it's done? I've made errors that I wished I could have corrected.
ReplyDeleteNever done it for my own comments because my comments are always accurate and correct--it's a gift.
But TP and several of his sockpuppets have. I once caught TP plagiarizing someone--not paraphrasing, not borrowing a few sentences--but repeating, verbatim, several paragraphs and presenting it as his own. I called him on it and shortly his comment went away. This has occurred several times when I've caught TP in a particularly egregious falsehood.
I suspect all one needs do is email the moderator and request removal.
--JadeGold
Let's slice and dice AzRed a bit.
ReplyDeleteHe claims, When people say you're more likely to be shot by "neighbors, acquaintances and family members", they always include drug dealers, drug addicts, gang members, thieves and other people who make a lifestyle/career out of shooting or or being shot at by their "neighbors, acquaintances and family members". It skews the statistics.
Basically, AzRed is trying to claim that being a legitimate gun owner automatically and somehow magically immunizes you from being a criminal, drug abuser, mentally ill, etc.
OTOH, we have the Hutarees--all of whom were gun owners, all of whom had CCW permits, all of whom were NRA members. By AzRed's logic, these are people you should be happy and proud to have as friends and neighbors.
Except, of course, for the small problem that they wanted to massacre cops. Amd they liked cocaine and meth and steroids.
Again, AzRed is using the old gunloon tactic of claiming all gunowners are honest, law-abiding citizens except they mysteriously cease being gunowners when they wind shooting their partners, neighborsand friends.
--JadeGold
Never done it for my own comments because my comments are always accurate and correct--it's a gift.
ReplyDeleteWell in your case since lying and falsehoods is your default you recognize that as "accurate and correct" since it's all you know.
MikeB: “AztecRed finally confirmed what I've thought all along.”
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean “finally”? Didn’t AztecRed confirm that he likes guns in your 12/31/09 post with the video “I like Guns”. I like guns too. It is not a secret, nor is it a secret that you don’t like guns.
Jadegold: “Except, of course, for the small problem that they wanted to massacre cops. Amd they liked cocaine and meth and steroids.”
Doesn’t that put them squarely in the criminal camp?
Jadegold: "Does it matter? Or are suggesting that it's ok as long as bad guys are shooting each other?"
There is a scale right? Gun controllers will jump on children being shot more than adults. So can we agree that gangbangers being shot are not as bad as innocent civilians which are in turn not as bad as children?
You're right TS. You and Aztec and FWM, as I remember, have admitted that before. It's just that I like to hear it because it puts all the other trumped up justifications in their proper place, you know the old 2nd Amendment nonsense and the need-to-protect-the-family one.
ReplyDeleteMikeB: “It's just that I like to hear it because it puts all the other trumped up justifications in their proper place…”
ReplyDeleteHow so? What difference does literally enjoying a right have on its justification? Do you like doing this blog?
JadeGold: "But TP and several of his sockpuppets have."
ReplyDeleteBy TP do you mean ThirdPower? Then I shall ask how it's done and tell you of the response.
So you are saying that TP can delete his HuffPo comments and does so to engage in sockpuppetry -- but Grits & Horwitz delete their HuffPo comments to NOT engage in sockpuppetry?
JadeGold: "I suspect all one needs do is email the moderator and request removal."
And how does one do THAT? I find no link to email the moderator. I would like to try it (but I wondor how busy Huffpo moderators must be complying with all those comment deletion requests).
Brandywine man is charged with killing neighbor
ReplyDeleteBy Matt Zapotosky
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 4, 2010; B04
As neighborhood disputes go, the ones between Ronald Ragland Sr. and Robert D. Mitchell were pretty trivial, neighbors said.
Who could throw a bigger cookout? Whose lawn was in better shape? These were the kinds of concerns, neighbors said, that had the two men shouting across the street at each other from their Brandywine homes.
But who could have foreseen this?
On Sunday afternoon, the two men again got into a shouting match in their usually quiet neighborhood of single-family homes with spacious yards in southern Prince George's County, neighbors and police said. The dispute ended when Mitchell told Ragland, "Well, go ahead and do what you're gonna do," one neighbor said. About 20 minutes later -- when things seemed to have calmed down -- shots were fired, the neighbor said.
Ragland is accused of fatally shooting Mitchell, 53, and wounding his 18-year-old son, also named Robert. The son, who neighbors say attends Gwynn Park High School, was expected to survive, police said.
"They always went back and forth," said Shante Rice, 34, who lives down the street on Charm Court and heard and saw parts of the encounter. "For it to get that far like that, that was terrible."
Ragland, 54, was arrested Sunday and charged with first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder and related counts, court records show. Officer Henry Tippett, a county police spokesman, said the two neighbors had been having regular arguments for the "past couple years." He said he was not sure what sparked the argument that preceded the shooting.
"Apparently, they just didn't get along," Tippett said.
Rice said Ragland appeared to have gotten a gun from his vehicle and fired it at a vehicle in which Mitchell and his son were riding. She said that when emergency crews arrived, Ragland's vehicle was parked at the end of his driveway with its trunk and door open. Paramedics had to remove the senior Mitchell from his vehicle before performing CPR.
Rice said Ragland had run-ins with other neighbors. On one occasion, she said, Ragland asked her daughter why she was standing on a corner and then said, "Only hookers stand on the corner." Her daughter, Rice said, was waiting for a bus.
"He was kind of belligerent," Rice said.
Court records did not list a lawyer for Ragland, and family members could not be reached for comment. Neighbors said he lived with his wife.
A woman in Mitchell's driveway who identified herself as his daughter said he was an Army veteran who was receiving disability payments. She declined to give her name or comment further. "We're all just trying to deal with it all," she said.
Bonnie Davis, 50, who knew both men, said Ragland, a retired general contractor, commonly criticized others in the neighborhood for landscaping issues, and she said he was sometimes provoked by Mitchell's son, who she said would swear at him. The real problem, she said, was that when Mitchell and Ragland argued, neither was willing to back down.
"Both of them had to have the last word," she said. "It's just sad."
Mitchell's death capped a weekend of violence in the region. In less than 24 hours, 12 people were shot, three fatally, in nine incidents in the District and its Maryland suburbs.
I just posted the new details to this story -- I don't see it changing much of anything so far.
ReplyDeleteI would like to get back on topic by responding to Mikeb's comment below:
"These guys sound like ordinary citizens, probably law-abiding folks up until the time the dispute went over the line. In other words these are exactly the kind of people that are affected most by gun control laws.
This is the kind of incident which is made more commonplace with the easy availability of firearms.
Doesn't a story like this put the lie to the old rationale that gun control laws are ineffective because criminals don't obey the laws?"
Mikeb says: "these are exactly the kind of people that are affected most by gun control laws." But so far, we have NOT seen that the shooter would have been prohibited from gun ownership. As Mikeb says: "These guys sound like ordinary citizens, probably law-abiding folks up until the time the dispute went over the line."
So just how would they be "exactly the kind of people that are affected most by gun control laws"? Only by the gun control laws being so dracon..., er, difficult to comply with that the process itself discourages many law abiding people from gun ownership. And if not enough law abiding people are discouraged from gun ownership, the obvious answer is to make the process even MORE difficult to comply with.
Mikeb's comments once again show us that its not really about background checks and licensing and registration to keep guns out of the "wrong" hands -- it's about making control laws so dracon..., er, difficult to comply with that guns are kept out of many of the "right" hands (because some small percent of the "right" hands may one day become "wrong").
"Basically, AzRed is trying to claim that being a legitimate gun owner automatically and somehow magically immunizes you from being a criminal, drug abuser, mentally ill, etc."
ReplyDeleteI never made such a claim. You built that straw man.
"OTOH, we have the Hutarees--all of whom were gun owners, all of whom had CCW permits, all of whom were NRA members. "
All of whom were allowed to go free too. Apparently, the powers that be don't think they are that dangerous.
"Again, AzRed is using the old gunloon tactic of claiming all gunowners are honest, law-abiding citizens"
No. Only you made that claim as a way avoiding a logical criticism of your rather flawed statistics that include career criminals among those shot by "neighbors, acquaintances and family members".
FishyJay says, "its not really about background checks and licensing and registration to keep guns out of the "wrong" hands -- it's about making control laws so dracon..., er, difficult to comply with that guns are kept out of many of the "right" hands (because some small percent of the "right" hands may one day become "wrong")."
ReplyDeleteI'd say it's about both. The one you say it's "not really about," I say is the first priority, keeping guns out of the wrong hands. As a secondary benefit, diminishing the total numbers would have a long-term beneiit for the reason you stated. Unfortunately, you'll be inconvenienced, sorry.
MikeB: The one you say it's "not really about," I say is the first priority, keeping guns out of the wrong hands. As a secondary benefit, diminishing the total numbers would have a long-term beneiit for the reason you stated. Unfortunately, you'll be inconvenienced, sorry.
ReplyDeleteMikeb, your post "Neighborly Disagreement in Maryland" has NOTHING TO DO with keeping guns out of the wrong hands. So your rhapsodizing about gun control in that post and in this case can only be about keeping guns out of the "right" hands. I have pointed out that the only way to do that is "inconvenience" (your word) for inconvenience's sake. Gun control advocates are always telling us that the inconvenience is for the sake of keeping guns out of the wrong hands -- we see now that's not true.
But the fact is that it will take a LOT of inconvenience to discourage enough American gunowners to make any difference or to make gun control advocates happy. Gun control laws would have to go far beyond inconvenience -- they would have to be SO difficult to comply with that the process itself discourages many law abiding people from gun ownership. And if not enough law abiding people are discouraged from gun ownership, the obvious answer is to make the process even MORE difficult to comply with.
We are not arguing about this -- you and I know that's what you want, and other gun control advocates too. What I want is to get it out in the open.
FishyJay, I think you're trying to pass off your mind reading as some kind of astute analysis of where I'm coming from. I don't find it very convincing. I pretty much say what I think and what I mean.
ReplyDeleteAs a secondary benefit, diminishing the total numbers would have a long-term beneiit for the reason you stated. Unfortunately, you'll be inconvenienced, sorry.
ReplyDeleteIf the number of guns is the problem and the solution is less guns, at what time do you totalitarian bigots stop and say
"OK, enough, no more restrictions, anything more would infringe upon your rights?"
If the solution is "less guns" then by definition your goal is the eradication of private firearms ownership, since your "solution" is to get to a point where private ownership of arms is at or approaching zero.
Of course you'll sit here and claim you don't REALLY want to ban all guns. That just shows how dishonest you are about your true intentions.
Mike W., You are a piece of work to keep insisting you know what my real intentions are.
ReplyDeleteYou made a great point that if fewer guns works, at what point will the gun control folks be satisfied. I agree that would be a difficult situation. Some people would never be satisfied. But some would,that's what you don't seem to believe, that some gun control advocates are honest, honorable and reasonable.
Because you fear facing that situation, you strive to move everything in the opposite direction That's not right.
What I think is, with proper enforcement of proper laws, we could eliminate the 10% I'm always talking about, which would have a major impact and everyone would win.
that some gun control advocates are honest, honorable and reasonable.
ReplyDeleteReally? Who?
You're dishonest, dishonorable and unreasonable, as are your buddies Laci, Demo and Jadegold.
I'll also note that you don't even try to address anything I said in my comment.
ReplyDeleteWhy is that? Is the basic logic contained therein just too difficult for your feeble little mind to grasp?
Mike W., I not only addressed what you said, but I agreed with you.
ReplyDelete"You made a great point that if fewer guns works, at what point will the gun control folks be satisfied."
Now, please don't take this the wrong way, but I want you to stop with the nasty remarks, the negative critiques of others' comments and all that crap. Please try to simply tell us what you think about the issue, not what you think about me or the other commenters.