I wonder what was behind all that? The mind boggles at the thought of a mother killing her young daughter. The woman had to have been so distraught that it was visible.In the finished basement of her family's home on Red Fox Run on Wednesday morning, police say, Penelope Luddy, 53, killed her 10-year-old daughter, Alexandra; her father, Harold Bertram, 79; and herself with a shotgun.
About 8:30 a.m., she'd sent her husband, Michael Luddy, 57, to check on an ailing relative. When he returned home at 9:45, he found his wife dead and his daughter and father-in-law shot.
Why in the world would someone like that have access to a gun? Is this the price we pay for our so-called 2nd Amendment Fredom?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
"Is this the price we pay for our so-called 2nd Amendment Fredom?"
ReplyDeleteThat is only part of the price we pay for our Rights protected under the 2nd Amendment. Just like reading misspelled words is part of the price we pay for our Rights protected under the 1st Amendment. Just like food poisoning is the price we pay for feeding ourselves. Being killed in an auto accident is the price we pay to freely travel. Drowning is the price we pay for swimming, etc.,etc. etc.
"Just like reading misspelled words is part of the price we pay for our Rights protected under the 1st Amendment. Just like food poisoning is the price we pay for feeding ourselves. Being killed in an auto accident is the price we pay to freely travel. Drowning is the price we pay for swimming, etc.,etc. etc."
ReplyDeletePiss poor analogies, all of them.
We have regulations out the ass on driving, food handling and preparing, swimming pools, etc.,.*
As for misspelled words, wreading or riding them ain't got nuthin to du with the 1st Amendment.
The shotgun that was used was apparently easy to access, load and fire. A trigger lock might have save a few lives.
* One, "etc." is all that's required.
democommie:
ReplyDelete"...wreading or riding them ain't got nuthin to du with the 1st Amendment."
That's just down right funny.
I was answering the question posed in the article and yes, some people getting killed is part of the price we pay for everyone having the right to bear arms.
decocommie said "We have regulations out the ass on driving, food handling and preparing, swimming pools, etc.,."
Yes,we do have regulations out the ass and people still suffer the same maladies that I wrote, so what the hell will more gun control laws do? Nothing!
What makes you think that a trigger lock would have saved anyone? Would the shooter not have access to the key?
If a firearm wasn't present, would that have saved lives? Maybe, maybe not. Whats to stop the killer from poisoning her family?
You gun control advocates keep holding on to the idea that someone like this woman can be spotted in advance. If we were that predictable, we would be mere machines, and life wouldn't be worth living. Instead, we have free will. As someguy said, freedom is expensive. Anyone who wishes to give up freedom should let me know, and we'll make arrangements to take you into slavery.
ReplyDeleteAnd Democommie, my shotgun has no trigger lock on it. Do you expect me to remove a lock before getting it into action, if it's needed?
Someguy:
ReplyDelete"Yes,we do have regulations out the ass and people still suffer the same maladies that I wrote, so what the hell will more gun control laws do? Nothing!"
People still suffer the same maladies? Like smallpox,malaria,polio,cholera,bubonic plague,diptheria,meningitis,hepatitis,rabies,AIDS--all epidemilogical maladies that have been eliminated or greatly reduced in countries where there are prudent persons and pro-active government agencies.
Food poisoning of all types, "Jakeleg", methyl alcohol poisoning,drug interactions leading to incapacitation and death.
Exploding cars, exploding planes--do I need to go on.
Every single time you gunzloonz start down this road you look like idiots. Regulation, licensing, testing and formulation of rules, including penalties, which are practiced in the real world have led to not thousands or even millions of lives saved, but hundreds of millions or more lives saved, around the world.
Greg Camp:
Your entire comment is an exercise in hysteria, but this;
"Anyone who wishes to give up freedom should let me know, and we'll make arrangements to take you into slavery."
in particular, sticks out.
I've been as free as anyone in this society for a lot more years than you've been alive, you chump. Nobody with a gun ever kept me from getting hurt in any situation I've ever found myself in. Is it possible that you could be more of an asshole?
I thought they have gun control in New York and Brady considers New York one of the best in gun control? Oh yeah, gun control doesn't work. More gun control FAIL.
ReplyDeletedemocommie: Huh? Like WTH huh? my post said nothing about the advancement of medical science. I agreed with you that there are regulations out the ass on food, but people still get food poisoning. Drinking and driving is regulated, but people still get drunk and drive. The point I was making, is that you can regulate guns all you want, but people will still kill other people. I think your Exelon is wearing off.
ReplyDelete"The point I was making, is that you can regulate guns all you want, but people will still kill other people. I think your Exelon is wearing off."
ReplyDeleteThe point that you wer ATTEMPTING to make (and at which task you failed) is to equate the deaths by gunshot with deaths by natural disease processes; illegal or inept sanitation practices; unsafe driving practices; unwise use of recreational facilities without adequate supervision or, as you say, "etc.,etc. etc.".
There is no equivalency, however much you might wish there was; except in one are. People who violate the law, when identified, apprehended, tried and convicted USUALLY pay a financial penalty, lose certain rights (including their freedom) for some period of time and have the stigma of being a criminal on their records, pretty much forever--regardless their actions being deliberate. Oh, that's right, people who ACCIDENTALLY kill people with gunz are not treated that way sometimes.
On the day when they start treating all gun related deaths*, other than suicides or deliberate homicides, as manslaughter or homicidal negligence--then your precious Type2A Rights will be balanced with some sort of responsibility for teh burnin' stoopit that seems to be the province of WAY too many OLAGO.
* Similarly, gunshot woundings that are the result of anything other than a legal case of self-defense, or the prevention of the use of deadly force by an assailant, will be treated in the same way as injuries from traffic accidents.
democommie: Apparently you and I don't use the same version of the English language. I was not trying to equate the deaths by gunshot with deaths by natural disease processes.
ReplyDeleteWell, then, wtf WERE you saying?
ReplyDeleteIf this:
"Just like food poisoning is the price we pay for feeding ourselves. Being killed in an auto accident is the price we pay to freely travel. Drowning is the price we pay for swimming, etc.,etc. etc."
isn't an attempt to equate gunshot deaths with anything else, why even bring it up?
democommie said: "isn't an attempt to equate gunshot deaths with anything else, why even bring it up?"
ReplyDeleteI was pointing out the fact, that although there are regulations on everything that I posted, people still die. You said, and I agreed that there are regulations out the ass on food preparation, but people still get food poisoning. The point I was making, (and I'm putting it clear so that no one has to guess)is that contrary to any regulation (including guns) people will get killed.
"The point I was making, (and I'm putting it clear so that no one has to guess)is that contrary to any regulation (including guns) people will get killed."
ReplyDeleteAnd the fact that you're ignoring is that WITH all the regulations many fewer people die of food poisoning and all of the other things you mentioned.
If you think less regulation is a good thing, visit Somalia.
"The point I was making, (and I'm putting it clear so that no one has to guess)is that contrary to any regulation (including guns) people will get killed."
ReplyDeleteAnd the fact that you're ignoring is that WITH all the regulations many fewer people die of food poisoning and all of the other things you mentioned.
If you think less regulation is a good thing, visit Somalia.
Greg, some of the people like this woman who make the news every day CAN be identified beforehand.
ReplyDeletesomeguy, this is not the price we pay for the "rights" that you hold sacred, this is the price we pay for the distortion of those rights. That's why I blame the gun-rights advocates.
democommie said "If you think less regulation is a good thing, visit Somalia."
ReplyDeleteLet's look a Somalia. They were ruled by two separate socialist governments, then a single socialist government, then put under military and communist rule that dissolved the parliament and the Supreme Court, and suspended the constitution (yeah, lot's of limited regulations there).
Then, the Somali Civil war in the early 1990's led to NO GOVERNMENT. You see, Somalia doesn't have a problem with lack of regulations, they have a problem with law enforcement.
In the event you're actually interested in Somalia's gun control laws, civilians are prohibited from owning automatic riffles and only licensed gun owners may lawfully acquire, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition.
Someguy writes:
ReplyDeleteIn the event you're actually interested in Somalia's gun control laws, civilians are prohibited from owning automatic riffles and only licensed gun owners may lawfully acquire, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition.
The problems in Somalia have some parallels in the U.S.
Lack of government enforcement makes the regulations EFFECTIVELY nonexistent.
Poverty for a huge number of the people who live there is a huge part of their problems with things like effective government. So is their enormous wealth disparity - kina like here, only even worse.
Whether their prior governments were what you describe as socialist or not is NOT in any way part of 'their problem'.
Sopmeguy, here is why regulation is helpful in reducing deaths from various causes.
ReplyDeleteAn example would be mining accidents. Thousands of people died in coal mine and other mining accidents in the 19th century, before we had ANY mining safety regulations.
With each round of major catastrophes in mines, like collapses, there were new rounds of safety regulations REQUIRED, with penalties for non compliance.
There was still some occasional non-compliance, but the combined effect of consequences for that noncompliance and the general public outcry and disapproval combined to make non-compliance hugely unpopular, and drastically reduced preventable deaths from occurring.
The same history has been true of food safety, and road safety, and pretty much every other example you raised, on a per capita basis.
Try reading this for a better perspective that you clearly lack now.
http://www.world-foodhistory.com/2009/02/history-of-food-safety.html
Can we prevent EVERY death with regulation? NO. But we have dramatically incredibly reduced the number of deaths from where they WERE by effectively enforced regulation.
I WISH we had better enforcement right now of our food security and safety.
No surprise, under the false label of freedom, the right wing nuts are trying to reduce effective regulation and enforcement of things like our food safety, including but not limited to trying to make it illegal for workers to take video of illegal practices on factory farms like those which recently caused egg producers to lose their McDonald's and grocery store chain contracts.
You make OUR argument, only in your ignorance and lack of factual information, you don't realize it.
dog gone said: "Whether their prior governments were what you describe as socialist or not is NOT in any way part of 'their problem'."
ReplyDeleteThe military regime dissolving the parliament and the Supreme Court, and suspending the constitution is exactly what led to the civil war, which led to their current state of affairs.
You go on to say "You make OUR argument, only in your ignorance and lack of factual information, you don't realize it."
No I made my argument (contrary to any regulation [including guns] people will get killed.) and you agreed by saying "Can we prevent EVERY death with regulation? NO."
Someguy - no one can prevent every single death.
ReplyDeleteAre you going to be making the incredibly stupid argument that since we cannot prevent every possible death - after all, a piece of a satellite might fall out of the sky and land on someone, but it is highly unlikely - that we shouldn't prevent any deaths that we could avert?
Because that is the essence of what you are saying.
Regulation works to end an overwhelming majority of deaths, and that is more than sufficient reason to do it. It particularly ends the deaths of those who are innocent victims.
The tradeoff is that we no longer cater to the delusional and emotional high you get from your fetish attachment, which has fuck all to do with real freedom for you or anyone else, or real security.
For some inadequacy on your part, you need the rush of playing show and tell by brandishing your weapon in a silly game of macho show and tell at people on your doorstep instead of calling the cops or incapacitating them with a stun gun or pepper spray.
Perhaps I missed it- DID you have a clear line of fire that wouldn't have put anyone at risk? WERE the bad guys you described armed? Did you file a police report?
Nah, you just like the tingly thrill of a gun.
dog gone said "Are you going to be making the incredibly stupid argument that since we cannot prevent every possible death .....that we shouldn't prevent any deaths that we could avert?
ReplyDeleteNo, but I will say that we have enough gun regulations, and some states have too much.
"For some inadequacy on your part, you need the rush of playing show and tell by brandishing your weapon in a silly game of macho show and tell at people on your doorstep instead of calling the cops or incapacitating them with a stun gun or pepper spray."
Hello, 911? um, yeah, two thugs just broke in my house and are raping my wife, could you please send someone out as soon as possible? K, thanks.
I can see how that would be a much better approach.
"Perhaps I missed it- DID you have a clear line of fire that wouldn't have put anyone at risk? WERE the bad guys you described armed? Did you file a police report?"
I had a clear line of fire that have only put the bad guys at risk. Yes, they were armed, yes, they went to jail.
In addition to having a good line fire on the bad guys, there is self defense ammo that's designed not to double penetrate (no that is not a sexual innuendo, you do seem to have this thing with fetishes). There are also shooting techniques that can be used in crowded places, or where there is not a safe backstop, to reduce the chances of a stray bullet hitting an innocent bystander.
Instead of advocating for more gun control, you should advocate for safety classes in school
Every nation that has stricter gun control than we have in the US has far lower incidence of gun violence, and guns used in crime.
ReplyDeleteEVERY ONE OF THEM. Some of those countries, like Canada, are very much like the U.S.
Would you have us believe that you are unable to lock a door to successfully keep a bad guy (or two) on the outside of your house?
You still have not seen evidence that the alternatives here are a big gun or your wife being raped.
You didn't address the issue of pepper spray and./or stun guns / tasers as an alternative to lethal force to stop those guys, and incapacitate them pending the arrival of law enforcement.
And you haven't addressed the numerous weapons that are getting into the hands of criminals that go through the hands of legal buyers either.
someguy:
ReplyDeleteYou filed a police report? It's a public record then? Howazabout showing us a redacted copy?
Somalia was, in most important ways, ungovernable since it's "independence" in 1960. It has had a succession of weak central governments--and for a number of years, no real government--since the government of Siad Barre was toppled in the late 80's. It's like Yemen or Afghanistan. What wealth it has is concentrated and controlled by various individuals or groups.
The notion that anyone can enforce laws across a national landscape in such a situation is laughable. Conversely, the U.S. and over 150 other U.N. member countries*, which do have moderately strong to very strong central governments, regulate many, many processes and institutions to the benefit of their citizens.
You don't like gun regulation--that's a given. You're probably not to crazy about a lot of regulations--basically, any that cramp YOUR lifestyle. Tough shit. If you want to live without regulation--regulation that is meaningfull AND enforced, I suggest, again that you move to someplace like Somalia.
* The actual number of member states is close to 200.
dog gone said: "Every nation that has stricter gun control than we have in the US has far lower incidence of gun violence, and guns used in crime.
ReplyDeleteEVERY ONE OF THEM. Some of those countries, like Canada, are very much like the U.S."
Ok, let's compare the two. Between 1991 and 2004 Canada saw a decline in murders of 36% while during the same period the U.S. had a decline of 44%. Wait, what? Yep, our murder rate dropped more than our restrictive neighbors to the north.
I wonder what was going on during those years. Oh, yeah, that's right concealed carry in the United States started catching on.
"Would you have us believe that you are unable to lock a door to successfully keep a bad guy (or two) on the outside of your house?"
locks keep honest people out. If locks were so effective, burglaries would drop by 80% (yeah, in 20% burglaries a door was unlocked.)
"You still have not seen evidence that the alternatives here are a big gun or your wife being raped."
I'm not sure what this statement is, but I'll try to answer. It doesn't matter if the intent was rape, rob or murder but they certainly weren't coming to visit.
"You didn't address the issue of pepper spray and./or stun guns / tasers as an alternative to lethal force to stop those guys, and incapacitate them pending the arrival of law enforcement."
I used less than lethal force, but at least I wasn't limited to that. Suppose I did spray them with pepper spray, and then one pulled a gun and started shooting.
Less than lethal force (pepper sprays, stun guns, etc) isn't always effective and is dangerous for a homeowner to rely solely on a less than lethal method of protection. Don't get me wrong, now, there are times when it's appropriate, but in this instance, it wasn't. I even carry spray in my POV. Furthermore, there are some jurisdictions where pepper spray and stun guns are illegal, what should those people do to protect themselves?
"And you haven't addressed the numerous weapons that are getting into the hands of criminals that go through the hands of legal buyers either."
Criminals are gonna do what criminals do. Gun safes get stolen out of homes all the time. Gun shops, that are required to have gun safes and are inspected by ATF, still have firearms stolen.
democommie said "You filed a police report? It's a public record then? Howazabout showing us a redacted copy?"
Yeah, that's not gonna happen. I'm guessing that either you don't believe me that it happened or don't believe my accounting. Doesn't matter, there are plenty of news articles available whereas a homeowner brandished a firearm or shot a burglar to protect himself to show that it indeed happens.
As far as Somalia, you're the one that suggested they had a lack of regulations.
"You don't like gun regulation--that's a given. You're probably not to crazy about a lot of regulations--basically, any that cramp YOUR lifestyle. "
Rights shouldn't be regulated. Furthermore, who likes a regulation that cramps their lifestyle? I don't like speed limits sometimes, but that doesn't mean I don't abide by it.
someguy writes:
ReplyDeleteOk, let's compare the two. Between 1991 and 2004 Canada saw a decline in murders of 36% while during the same period the U.S. had a decline of 44%. Wait, what? Yep, our murder rate dropped more than our restrictive neighbors to the north.
Our murder rate was far higher than Canada.
Those states which did not have an increase in gun sales or carry had as high or higher a rate of decline in crime than those which increased the guns.
So your assumption that more people carrying is the cause of the decline is bullshit. There is no more basis for that than there is for the idea that the death penalty is a crime deterrent - it isn't.
"eah, that's not gonna happen. I'm guessing that either you don't believe me that it happened or don't believe my accounting. Doesn't matter, there are plenty of news articles available whereas a homeowner brandished a firearm or shot a burglar to protect himself to show that it indeed happens."
ReplyDeleteIOW, it didn't happen. I mean you can piss and moan all you want about your privacy, but if you filed a report then it's a public record. If you did as you say you did then you must be PROUD of your actions. If I turned a couple of would be rapist/killers away from my door I'd be telling people about it. If your reticence is due to fears about your safety, wtf are the gunz for?
You're starting to sound like Greg Camp. He bragged about carrying his gunz everywhere, including into the property of the college where he teaches. When I asked him about the particulars he began to get evasive. Now he's all about his being a private person. He's a FUCKING LIAR (it's exceedingly well documented, mostly by his own stupidity in posting horseshit lies). I don't know that about you, yet.
I gather that you have not had a lot of experience in dealing with junkyard dog attorneys. They would have had your police report or a court order to produce same, about 10 minutes after you made the statement that you had filed one.
John Lott is famous for his baseless assertions about DGU's.
Then someguy writes:locks keep honest people out. If locks were so effective, burglaries would drop by 80% (yeah, in 20% burglaries a door was unlocked.)
ReplyDeleteIt takes time to get past a locked door, and most locks are bypassed in burglaries when people are not on the inside of that locked door.
So, why would you do something that was both stupid and unnecessary in opening that locked door?
I would agree with you that it would be perfectly appropriate to shoot armed men if they proceeded to break in through a locked door - or broke a window and were climbing in.
But not opening that door and waving your firearm around.
Those men once the door was closed could have left, making it illegal and wrong to shoot them.
It is also a stupid idea to brandish your gun under their nose.
If you draw a weapon, you only do so when there are no other alternatives, and therefore you shoot it. You don't intimidate people with it. That was what I was taught, and the slang derogatory term for doing what you did was 'show and tell', which belongs in the kindergarten class room, not a threat situation. It is the action of someone being stupid and threatening and macho, it is the epitome of badly functioning testosterone.
Burglaries usually occur when someone is not home, or when they are asleep, not when someone has just run inside and locked a door behind them. Burglaries don't, by definition, require a weapon or threat. It's just a specific kind of theft.
Robberies on the other hand, are when someone uses a weapon, or implies they have a weapon, to dispossess you of your property. Not a lot of locks are bypassed or destroyed in robberies. You used the wrong statistics for a situation where someone is inside a locked door, awake, ambulatory, and has presumably called for help. Those occurrences were so rare of someone breaking through a lock that I couldn't find any.
But I find that a lot in arguments with pro-gunners - they use false or inapplicable statistics, they conflate crimes where the statistics they use don't actually apply.
Btw - when you mentioned the homicide rate in Canada, could you provide your cite for that statistic? And did you compare all homicides, or specifically FIREARM homicides. You see it makes a difference, given there is an established connection between firearms and impulsive violence.
So WHY did you open that locked door, if they weren't actively trying to break it down, and if 911 had been contacted and were in route?
Sorry, but that was stupid on the face of it.
I'll get to the other questionable parts of your story next. I see myself as temporarily filling in for the questions my colleague Laci, an accomplished criminal lawyer, would likely ask if he were not off celebrating. With luck, he will be back here later today or tomorrow, to pick up on any topics in your story that I missed.
Then we have someguy writing:Criminals are gonna do what criminals do. Gun safes get stolen out of homes all the time. Gun shops, that are required to have gun safes and are inspected by ATF, still have firearms stolen.
ReplyDeleteActually NO, they don't. Where there are stricter requirements for firearms and where there are far fewer firearms because of stricter requirements regulating who can have them, in point of fact criminals have far fewer guns, there are far far fewer crimes with firearms, and far fewer violent crimes overall.
What I would like to see is for the gun owner to have some skin in the game, some potential risk, for any firearm that goes missing. In the 40% of family and friends who supplied the gun to the criminal there was no indication that was an involuntary transfer of the firearm to the criminal, nor was that the case in straw purchases either. So in at least the 50% of crimes the firearm was not STOLEN. In the other 40% we don't know if it was originally stolen, but since reported stolen firearms are tracked, I would not expect those to be included in that 40% of street guns / criminal to criminal firearms. Rather those would appear to be UNREPORTED thefts.
I'll give you that some of these crimes are previously lawful gun owners who behave unlawfully,but not that many.
The number of guns going from the possession of the law abiding into the hands of criminals is far too many - 90%, combining the categories - of firearms that are going from legal owners too easily to be used in crimes.
With so many people in this country on the receiving end of crimes with firearms, it is reasonable for us to demand that those lawful people with firearms do more - MUCH MUCH MORE to keep their firearms in their control, not in the hands of criminals.
We have another conflating of false information here from someguy:Hello, 911? um, yeah, two thugs just broke in my house and are raping my wife, could you please send someone out as soon as possible? K, thanks.
ReplyDeleteI can see how that would be a much better approach.
The call you presumably made was that two men had threatened your wife AND WERE OUTSIDE YOUR LOCKED DOOR.
There had been no breakin, and frankly there was no reasonable expectation of a break in.
There are just not a lot of statistical OR anecdotal instances of armed men breaking down locked doors of inhabited residences where other people are present to rape women, particularly given how relatively few women are raped by strangers compared to rapists they whose identity they know.
I couldn't find any such reports.
So.....how is it that you even know that they intended rape? I have a hard time believing they were yelling 'wait wait, we want to rape you!' as they chased your wife into your house.
It is just one of the many aspects of your account that seem implausible to the point of being ridiculous.
Someguy describes the two bad guys as being armed.
ReplyDeleteI'd like a clarification on that - were their weapons out, or were they openly carrying with their guns in their holsters?
I'd like to know more about this situation where you were able to unlock, then open the front door, and get the drop on two armed attackers.
Did they just stand there with their guns at their sides waiting for you to invite them in? Or did they have their guns out - because if they had their guns out, then I'd like to know why they were more afraid of your one firearm than you were of their two firearms?
And if they were not brandishing weapons, but had them secured, and if they were not actively breaking down the door.........on what basis did you threaten them under castle doctrine?
Because other than that your wife was afraid, and that you are claiming an attempted rape where no direct contact between the bad guys and your wife appears to have taken place at this point, you don't seem to have legal cause.
And no, waving your firearm in a threatening manner is stupid and it is wrong. I don't care how many news articles you produce to show that it occurs.
Btw, how long did it take for the police to arrive, and what did you do in that interim?
How long were the two men sentenced to jail- or were they just taken to the police station for questioning?
That someguy has a fundamental failure to understand the nature of rights is evidenct here:Rights shouldn't be regulated.
ReplyDeleteThat is stupid. We have a right to vote, and that is HEAVILY regulated; there is an entire legal specialty dedicated to it, election law, for starters.
Not to mention property rights, and every other right I can name.
This idea that a right is unregulated is ludicrous. There are no rights which have not always been regulated. and there are no such things as rights that are not first identified and agreed upon as such. They don't exist independently of that.
You need to do your homework much better someguy; you have a lot of false and inaccurate assumptions about rights, and about crime and about firearms.
dog gone said "So your assumption that more people carrying is the cause of the decline is bullshit."
ReplyDeleteI agree that there is no substantial data to indicate that more people concealed carrying a firearm reduces crime, likewise, there is no substantial data to indicate that more people concealed carrying leads to blood in the streets and fender bender shoot outs.
"There is no more basis for that than there is for the idea that the death penalty is a crime deterrent - it isn't."
I agree with you here, too. However, it is an incentive for a defendant in a capital case to plead out.
dog gone said a bunch of other stuff.
I'm familiar with the differences between robbery and burglary, I was pointing out that locks are ineffective. (Breaking into someone's home, while they're home is called a home invasion in about a dozen states).
dog gone said "Btw - when you mentioned the homicide rate in Canada, could you provide your cite for that statistic? And did you compare all homicides, or specifically FIREARM homicides. You see it makes a difference, given there is an established connection between firearms and impulsive violence."
historically, firearms are used in about 1/3 homicides in Canada, I guess the rest are beat to death. Information is from Statistics Canada.
"So WHY did you open that locked door, if they weren't actively trying to break it down"
They were trying to come inside, and I had no duty to retreat.
"I'll get to the other questionable parts of your story next"
I look forward to it
democommie:
here's one for you, you can find the rest if you like
http://www.rrdailyherald.com/news/intruder-killed-despite-wearing-body-armor/article_83c410b8-2cad-11e1-95f8-0019bb2963f4.html
dog gone said "Actually NO, they don't."
ReplyDeleteFor real? A gun shop has never been burglarized?
"Where there are stricter requirements for firearms and where there are far fewer firearms because of stricter requirements regulating who can have them, in point of fact criminals have far fewer guns, there are far far fewer crimes with firearms, and far fewer violent crimes overall."
Explain D.C. then
dog gone: several paragraphs calling me dumb
The call my wife made was more along the lines of "two guys chased me home and tried to come in, my husband is holding them at gun point."
And again, I have no idea what their intent was if they made entry.
then dog gone goes on to treat me like a criminal.
Then we move on to rights.....
dog gone said "That someguy has a fundamental failure to understand the nature of rights is evidenct here:Rights shouldn't be regulated.
That is stupid. We have a right to vote, and that is HEAVILY regulated; there is an entire legal specialty dedicated to it, election law, for starters."
please explain how a citizen's right to vote is regulated.
someguy said, at his most acutely intelligent, " likewise, there is no substantial data to indicate that more people concealed carrying leads to blood in the streets and fender bender shoot outs."
ReplyDeleteAre you saying there's NO blood in the streets due to concealed carry guys? Are you saying they're NEVER involved in road rage incidents?
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteGiven the number of concealed carry license holders who commit gun crimes, I'd say that our record is excellent. The number from your side, a side that is motivated to find as many incidents as possible, is far less than one percent. I challenge you to name a safer group.
"democommie:
ReplyDeletehere's one for you, you can find the rest if you like
http://www.rrdailyherald.com/news/intruder-killed-despite-wearing-body-armor/article_83c410b8-2cad-11e1-95f8-0019bb2963f4.html"
And that has what to do with my comment to you?
This:
"dog gone said "Actually NO, they don't."
For real? A gun shop has never been burglarized?"
Mikeb302000 actually wrote about this very thing as recently as two days ago. Gunshops get burgled with distressing frequency--many of them are burgled because they have shitty deterrent factors.
mikeb302000: Castle Doctrine? but of course, now I'll be called a bully again. But oh, well. I'm seeing a common trend here. When you can't manipulate the facts to mean what you want them to mean, you misinterpret other peoples post or start name calling.
ReplyDeletedemocommie said "And that has what to do with my comment to you?"
you seem to believe that DGU doesn't happen. I was just giving you a link to a story.
Greg Camp said "Given the number of concealed carry license holders who commit gun crimes, I'd say that our record is excellent. The number from your side, a side that is motivated to find as many incidents as possible, is far less than one percent. I challenge you to name a safer group."
Yep and Police are more likely to commit a crime than CCW holders.
Someguy misquoted me.
ReplyDeleteSomeguy wrote:
"Criminals are gonna do what criminals do. Gun safes get stolen out of homes all the time."
To which I wrote, no they don't. Proper, secure gun safes are not stolen all the time. The very light portable lock boxes that are not secured are stolen, sometimes. Those are usually kept in an obvious place, and while they may slow down, or better, prevent children from getting into them or other adults in the house, those are not sufficient to deter a criminal who knows there is a gun he can steal.
Which is of course, much more common knowledge, much more obvious, if the person carries his weapon and/or plays show and tell with it. If it doesn't leave the house except to go to a range it is less likely to be stolen because far fewer people know it exists.
As to gun stores being robbed, that is less the case where there is stricter gun laws regulating guns so that there are fewer sales. The reason is simple fewer guns equate to fewer thefts, and also to greater care and effort to secure the guns that do exist.
I wrote 'NO, they DON'T." in response to that first sentence that 'criminals are gonna do what criminals do". Because clearly, fewer criminals ARE doing 'what they do', per the trends in crime statistics, and further, where there is very strict gun regulation FAR FAR fewer of them commit criminal acts with firearms because there are fewer firearms available.
The number of crimes committed with firearms is FAR FAR lower in places that are highly restrictive of firearm ownership than the rate of crimes with guns in places with lots of guns, including lots of carry both concealed and open.
So you have yet, someguy, or any of the other pro-gun commenters here, to show that more guns equals less crime compared to the far far lower gun crime rates in places without all those guns.
There is still SOME crime, yes, but it is with less lethal weapons, and as with other locations even those less lethal crimes are declining.
Therefore we are all clearly safer with fewer guns in our society, and that is in large part because the legal gun owners don't keep better control over their weapons.
That is true when it is the legal gun owner who commits crimes, and when it is the legal gun owner who allows his (or her) weapon to fall into the hands of criminals, who use it against the rest of us.
The solution is not more guns, it is fewer guns.
"you seem to believe that DGU doesn't happen. I was just giving you a link to a story. "
ReplyDeleteWell, I don't think I've ever said that.
I'm virtually certain that I have said that the number of DGU's reported by John Lott and other Liars for the NRA are not substantiated by, um, data.
I took a look at the link you provided. It has little or nothing to do with your story about scaring off two intruders by brandishing your gun.
Four home invaders, four or five people in the house. Only one dead perp, one live perp and the homeowner there when the cops arrive. I'm smelling something not adding up.
Oh, here we are:
"Homeowner charged
Martin said the homeowner, Rudolph Deandre Davis, had a right to protect his home and would not be charged in relation to Wednesday's shooting. However, he was detained Wednesday night by authorities as the subject of an ongoing federal drug investigation that was launched by the Halifax County Sheriff's Office.
Maj. Bruce Temple, lead investigator for the sheriff's office, said Davis was taken into custody Wednesday.
"He was definitely prepared," Temple said of Davis' reaction to the home invasion. "He had multiple assailants converging on him."
Davis is in federal custody, facing charges related to cocaine distribution.
According to Temple, the investigation into Davis' suspected drug activity began with the sheriff's office, but was converted to a federal case when an indictment was handed down last week against Davis.
"We made efforts to locate him, unsuccessfully, until the night of the shooting," Temple said.
Davis was held in a federal facility locally until he was turned over to the United States Marshals Service Thursday, Temple said.
Police believe the home invasion was a botched robbery related to drug activity.
Temple could not comment further on the ongoing investigation into the federal case against Davis."
from here (http://www.rrdailyherald.com/news/suspect-sought-following-deadly-shootout/article_19b43736-2e5e-11e1-a6f4-001871e3ce6c.html)
But it's prolly some liebral anti-gun rag that ran that scurrilous story.
Someguy wrote:I used less than lethal force, but at least I wasn't limited to that. Suppose I did spray them with pepper spray, and then one pulled a gun and started shooting.
ReplyDeleteSo, you are admitting that when you opened your previously locked door - a stupid thing to do - you brandished YOUR weapon, while they had NOT draw one then?
Someone who has a face full of pepper spray is not capable of doing anything effective with a firearm. While that is a remote possibility, if they don't already have a firearm drawn, WHY THE HELL DO YOU? They aren't a legitimate threat on the other side of a locked door from you.
Then we have this:I'm not sure what this statement is, but I'll try to answer. It doesn't matter if the intent was rape, rob or murder but they certainly weren't coming to visit.
So long as the authorities are on the way and they are on the other side of a locked door, they are not a legitimate threat. You made them MORE of a threat by opening the locked door. Castle doctrine requires that they be an IMMINENT and immediate threat; they were not.
Or do you selectively read, ignoring all of the very many instances where one or more people wrestle a gun away from people who have them?
And if you do not know their intent, as you indicate here, how do you rationally claim their intent was to rape your wife? You have yet to explain your insistence that was their intention, much less how you would justify that claim while they are on the outside of a locked door.
If they proceed to actually get past the locked door, I'd have no problem btw with you shooting them. No interim waving the gun around to impress them, just straight up shooting them under those circumstances. But that is not what happened, that is not what you did, and that is why we distrust what you tell us and especially why we distrust your judgment with a firearm.
"Yep and Police are more likely to commit a crime than CCW holders.
ReplyDeleteDecember 27, 2011 2:12 PM"
Well, we generally KNOW about cops committing crimes with gunz even if we can't prove they're in the wrong. With the gunzloonz, unless it makes the front page or the lead-in to the talkingshitheads' news shows, we don't even HEAR about it.
Of course the average cop in a truly high crime environment probably deals with more thugs before lunch, on any given day, than most Greg Camps do in a lifetime.
someguy wrote:
ReplyDeleteThe point I was making, is that you can regulate guns all you want, but people will still kill other people.
Which is a stupid and simplistic statement.
It is clearly possible to stop people from killing other people and themselves. We can have a far lower rate of violent deaths if we don't have as many guns.
This includes suicides. While there will still be some people who find other ways to do themselves in, there appears from any number of studies in multiple countries - notably both the U.S. and Switzerland - that absent a firearm, many people who would use a firearm to commit suicide do not kill themselves. There is a clear indication that firearms are a greater means of impulsive suicide decisions, where without that impulsive means to commit suicide people do not do so with other means. Fewer guns = fewer suicides.
The degree of lethality combined with the possible greater range from the targeted person makes guns more of a problem in violent crime than other potential weapons. Without guns, there are fewer killings - including the murders that go with the suicides mentioned above.
There are still some, yes. But so very far fewer that to claim we should not limit guns because we cannot eliminate all suicides, homicides and accidents is like claiming that because we cannot eliminate all traffic deaths we should not have traffic safety, such as stop signs and stop lights, or require seatbelts and air bags be part of car manufacturing, or set speed limits and penalize people for exceeding them.
It is a stupid position someguy, and I'm sure you know it.
Someguy wrote:When you can't manipulate the facts to mean what you want them to mean, you misinterpret other peoples post or start name calling.
ReplyDeleteManipulate facts? You have yet to provide a link to your claims about comparative criminal deaths here and in Canada, you have yet to provide the stats on those that were specifically related to firearms as well, which do not support your assertion that more carry results in those lower stats.
And you confused, either deliberately or through ignorance, the rates of criminals bypassing locks on doors in robberies with burglaries, two very different categories.
So, you would seem to be the one with the fact problem someguy.
But hey, a few links with those stats could change that.
I'm betting you don't want to go anywhere near real facts, because they just do not support your claims.
dog gone:
ReplyDeleteCellphones. Cellphones. Cellphones.
"Hi fellas I just took your picture and texted it to the MAN.". But it's so much easier to open the door and scare people.
someguy:
Those perps, they weren't wearing black slacks, white shirts with pocket protectors and carrying briefcases were they? They weren't riding bikes, I hope. Mightabeen someathem Mormofarian gangstas!
One of the things I hear from a lot of the Greg Camps of this world is how much time (and, preseumably, money) they spend to acquire and maintain their COIOTS,I,AIPGK* but they never talk about the state of the art alarm systems, burglar proof doors and windows, gunsafes and other measures that they use to make sure that four or five armed assailants in body armor don't get into their houses.
* Collections Of Inanimate Objects That Sometimes, Inexplicably, Are Involved In People Getting Dead.
Someguy writes:
ReplyDeleteplease explain how a citizen's right to vote is regulated.
Voters have to be citizens,usually for a specified period of time to vote, and they have to register to do so. Voter registration rolls are closely checked and cross checked with other sources, notably DMV, to ascertain that those voters are who they say they are and are in the right area for the polls at which they vote. Increasingly, there are efforts to restrict voting by legal voters with photo ID requirements instead of simply requiring registration and/or someone who is themselves a legal voter vouching for them, especially but not exclusively in same day voter registration voting. Then we have a lot of regulations for early voting and for absentee voting including military absentee voting. We have a lot of laws that mandate election judges and what they can and cannot do, in terms of election integrity.
I have been part of election recounts here in MN, don't even get me started on all the regulations we have about those.
We further limit voting by age, and we disenfranchise felons, as well as other instances where courts take away voting rights.
Why don't you know this stuff before you make the assertion that we don't regulate rights?
Or are you unaware of the history of voting rights in this country, or in other countries in the world?
There is NO right whatsoever anywhere that is NOT regulated, and what you term rights ONLY exists by consensus, it is not some free floating absolute that exists in the abstract.
We have previously had the right to own other people. For a long time there was no right of minorities or women to vote. Originally, only property owners could vote. Under the 'rights' specified in the Bible, fathers could sell their children into slavery, including sexual slavery, and they could marry off their daughters - by right - at the age of 3 years and 1 day.
What we call 'rights' change all the time. They are not static immutable things, they are dynamic, changing concepts that are only real so far as they are agreed to by a majority.
And as rights tend to conflict with other rights - property ownership for example - we have laws and courts with sort out those conflicts between different rights.
Dang, Democommie, now you're making me out to be a whole group of people. Do you plan to add a category to the census form?
ReplyDeletedog gone said: "I wrote 'NO, they DON'T." in response to that first sentence that 'criminals are gonna do what criminals do". Because clearly, fewer criminals ARE doing 'what they do', per the trends in crime statistics,"
ReplyDeleteYou're right, there is a trend in decline of violent crime at the same time there is a trend of more firearms sales. Is there a correlation between the two? Nobody knows, but one thing's for certain, less guns doesn't equal less crime.
"...and further, where there is very strict gun regulation FAR FAR fewer of them commit criminal acts with firearms because there are fewer firearms available."
Then explain why DC has some of the highest murder rates. DC had an out right ban on guns. Chicago is very similar.
"The number of crimes committed with firearms is FAR FAR lower in places that are highly restrictive of firearm ownership than the rate of crimes with guns in places with lots of guns, including lots of carry both concealed and open."
Then explain why Baltimore has a higher rate of gun violence than El Paso (FBI UCR)
dog gone: berating me for having protected my family.
ReplyDeleteMy state law allows me to use deadly force if someone is trying to unlawfully gain entry, so i'm not even going to argue this anymore.
dog gone said "It is clearly possible to stop people from killing other people and themselves. We can have a far lower rate of violent deaths if we don't have as many guns.
This includes suicides. While there will still be some people who find other ways to do themselves in, there appears from any number of studies in multiple countries - notably both the U.S. and Switzerland - that absent a firearm, many people who would use a firearm to commit suicide do not kill themselves. There is a clear indication that firearms are a greater means of impulsive suicide decisions, where without that impulsive means to commit suicide people do not do so with other means. Fewer guns = fewer suicides."
United States suicide rate 11.0
Canada suicide rate 11.3
dog gone: "Manipulate facts? You have yet to provide a link to your claims about comparative criminal deaths here and in Canada, you have yet to provide the stats on those that were specifically related to firearms as well, which do not support your assertion that more carry results in those lower stats."
I already answered you above, but here it is again. "historically, firearms are used in about 1/3 homicides in Canada, I guess the rest are beat to death. Information is from Statistics Canada."
dog gone said "And you confused, either deliberately or through ignorance, the rates of criminals bypassing locks on doors in robberies with burglaries, two very different categories."
Yes, two entirely different categories, but what I said was
"locks keep honest people out. If locks were so effective, burglaries would drop by 80% (yeah, in 20% burglaries a door was unlocked.)" Which means that 20% of the time a home is burglarized, a door or window was unlocked, so if a lock is so effective, 80% of those burglaries would not occur.
moving on to voting rights.
ReplyDeleteyes, you have to be a citizen to have the right to vote and you have to be registered to vote because that's how the system works, but everything else in that paragraph is about regulating government to insure that one can exercise his right to vote.
please don't get started on all the regulations about recounts.
dog gone said "Or are you unaware of the history of voting rights in this country..." other countries, no but US....All of the Amendments and laws regarding voter rights is regulating government and politicians, and is insuring that everyone elses voter rights are not infringed upon, but I'm sure you knew that.
"There is NO right whatsoever anywhere that is NOT regulated, and what you term rights ONLY exists by consensus, it is not some free floating absolute that exists in the abstract."
Not according to SCOTUS (U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875))
"The right of the people peaceably to assemble for lawful purposes existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. In fact, it is, and always has been, one of the attributes of citizenship under a free government. … It was not, therefore, a right granted to the people by the Constitution. The government of the United States when established found it in existence, with the obligation on the part of the States to afford it protection."
Just in case you missed it, the court said that it's a right found to be in existence prior to the constitution.
and, speaking of the Second Amendment
"This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed..."
Right there it says that the right is neither granted by nor dependent on the Constitution, but protected by the Constitution.
You see, your argument, that rights are by consensus, is defective. Some rights do exist without having to be granted.
You see, your argument, that rights are by consensus, is defective. Some rights do exist without having to be granted.
ReplyDeleteNeither of the so-called rights you cited re right to peaceful assembly or right to weapons existed during thousands of years of recorded history, including during the era where there was a significant belief in 'rights' such as the divine right of kings or right to trial by combat, or the ancient roman 'right' of parents to kill their children during certain eras.
ALL rights exist because we decide they exist, PERIOD. There are NO rights which are not regulated, and properly so.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteAnd at many periods in our history, this whole domestic violence thing would never be discussed, because women had no rights. If rights come by consensus, we could decide to take them away. I recognize that human rights are inherent. The right to vote is a civil right, but it's derived from the human right to govern one's own life. The right to a firearm is a part of the right to defend one's person and to own property.
"Just in case you missed it, the court said that it's a right found to be in existence prior to the constitution."
ReplyDeleteAnd, just in case you missed it, that right is regulated out the wazoo in most places.
Hey, how's that DGU/thwarted home invasion thing goin?
dog gone blathered: "Neither of the so-called rights you cited re right to peaceful assembly or right to weapons existed during thousands of years of recorded history, including during the era where there was a significant belief in 'rights' such as the divine right of kings or right to trial by combat, or the ancient roman 'right' of parents to kill their children during certain eras."
ReplyDeleteReally, that's all you've got? Not one comment on the Constitution or SCOTUS? Not a single comment about voting rights being ENFORCED by the Constitution and instead of being regulated? Not even a quip about Canada having a higher suicide rate than the violent gun free U. S. of A.?
Seems to me, dog gone, that you're over compensating for something. I wonder what that could be.
I see that someguy is a lot like Greg Camp. He accuses others of not giving him enough information then refuses to engage when he's--what's the word I'm looking for? oh,yeah, I got it--when he's fucked up and it makes him look silly.
ReplyDelete