Nothing I've seen so far has indicated that to be the case, or that this family practiced one of the religions where honor killings occur. I suspect that is a bit of bigoted speculation based on assumptions made about the family's names. I have not so far seen their ethnicity positively identified. Some people may hope that shifting the focus to an honor killing will distract from the fact that this was yet another case of a mass shooting, of domestic firearm violence.
What IS clear is that this is another example of emotions and firearms not mixing well, another example of firearms ending lives that could have been avoided.
Victim's last texts: Santa gunman tried to be 'all fatherly'
Christmas Day shooter killed estranged wife, their 2 teenage children, sister-in-law, brother-in-law niece before turning the gun on himself
Darrel Byers / Reuters
Mourners attend a candlelight vigil at Parr Park in Grapevine, Texas, on Wednesday.DALLAS — One of the victims of a Christmas Day shooting in Texas that left seven dead sent text messages before her uncle opened fire on the gathering saying he was there dressed as Santa Claus and wanted to be "all fatherly," police said Wednesday.Investigators say 56-year-old Aziz Yazdanpanah, who had marital and financial problems, killed his estranged wife, their two teenage children, his wife's sister, his brother-in-law and his niece before turning the gun on himself. They were at an apartment in the Dallas-Fort Worth suburb of Grapevine, where his wife and children had been staying.
Yazdanpanah's niece, 22-year-old Sara Fatemeh Zarei, sent a text to a friend just before 11 a.m. saying they had arrived at the apartment and that Yazdanpanah was there. "Soo we're here. We just got here and my uncle is here too. Dressed as Santa. Awesome," she said in one text.
At 11:15 a.m. she texted, "Now he wants to be all fatherly and win father of the year."
NBC News Dallas-Fort Worth reported that, after the killings, Yazdanpanah called 911 at 11:34 a.m. and then shot himself.
Grapevine police Sgt. Robert Eberling said police arrived about three minutes later and found everyone dead. It appeared they had been opening presents around their Christmas tree just before the attack.
A recording of the 911 call released Wednesday revealed someone saying "Help ... Help" and then "I am shooting people." Police said those words, muffled by the caller's labored breathing, couldn't be heard by the dispatcher Sunday but were audible when investigators used a different software system Wednesday. They believe the call was made by Yazdanpanah.
Authorities believe that in addition to killing his wife of 24 years, 55-year-old Fatemah Rahmati, their 19-year-old daughter Nona and 14-year-old son Ali, Yazdanpanah also killed his wife's sister, 58-year-old Zohreh Rahmaty, her husband, 59-year-old Mohamad Hossein Zarei, and their daughter, Sara.
Eberling said one of the two weapons, a 9 mm, was purchased in 1996 and registered to Yazdanpanah. The other weapon was a .40 caliber.
Video: Police search for Christmas murder motive (on this page) The medical examiner's office said Yazdanpanah's son, daughter, niece and sister-in-law were shot multiple times in the head.
His wife was shot once in the head and his brother-in-law was shot multiple times in the head, chest and stomach.
'He was probably overwhelmed' Police believe that before Yazdanpanah killed himself, he tried to stage the scene by placing one of the two guns used in the hand of his deceased brother-in-law, Mohamad Zarei, Eberling said.
"I think he was probably overwhelmed when it was all said and done and decided to take his life instead," said Eberling, who added that Mohamad Zarei had been shot with both weapons.
Eberling said Yazdanpanah was the only one to fire the two weapons found at the scene. A gun was also found in his hand.
Eberling has said that detectives believe Yazdanpanah's marital and financial troubles led him to kill his family, but added Wednesday that his exact thought process that morning may never be known.
"We really don't have a clear idea of why he did this," Eberling said. "Sometimes there's not a really good explanation for irrational behavior."
Federal court records show Yazdanpanah was placed on three years' probation in 1996 after pleading guilty to one count of subscribing to a false income tax return. He was fined $1,000 and required to pay $30,119 in restitution.Larry W. Smith / EPA
Police gather at the scene of the Christmas Day shooting in Grapevine, Texas.
Three years later, Yazdanpanah and his wife filed jointly for bankruptcy. That case was discharged in a matter of months.
Mashy Modjdehi, a friend of Yazdanpanah's wife who owns a beauty salon in nearby Plano, said the family's financial troubles intensified about four years ago when Yazdanpanah stopped working in the mortgage business.
Modjdehi said Yazdanpanah had long forbidden Rahmati, who holds a state cosmetology license, to work. But once he became unemployed, his wife held down jobs at two spas, the friend said.
Separation Rahmati, known to family and friends as Nasrin, had filed for bankruptcy in August 2010, and told her attorney she hoped the proceedings would stave off foreclosure of the home.
She separated from Yazdanpanah in the midst of the bankruptcy and the proceedings were later dismissed because she failed to make the plan payments, said the attorney, George Barnes. Barnes said Yazdanpanah listed his occupation as "self-employed."
Rahmati moved out of the couple's home in Colleyville in April with the couple's two children and into the apartment complex two miles away, Modjdehi said.
Yazdanpanah, often referred to as "Bob," remained in the Colleyville home, currently valued on the tax rolls at $336,200, and was often seen working in his yard. Neighbors said there were few signs of discord.
The couple's daughter graduated from Colleyville Heritage High School this year and was attending a local community college. A friend said she hoped to go to school in California and become a lawyer.
The friend, Yiselle Alvarenga, said Nona had hinted in August that things were becoming increasingly difficult in her life but didn't go into details.
Alvarenga said she knew that Nona's father was "really strict" but that "her mom was more understanding."
The Associated Press, msnbc.com staff and NBC Dallas-Fort Worth contributed to this report.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/12/islamic-honor-killing-in-texas-man-who-murdered-family-on-christmas-morning-was-muslim-who-disliked.html
ReplyDeleteThese are Iranian immigrants, according to news reports and based on their names. The incident looks more like someone whose life was coming unglued and decided to take out his family with him. The guns involved were bought fifteen years ago--I don't know what registered means in Texas--so I don't see how the gun control measures that you insist are all that you want would have changed anything here.
ReplyDeleteJihad watch is hardly a reliable source FWM; it's associated with a group in the UK that is incredibly despicable, the English Defense League.
ReplyDeleteThere is NOTHING in the link you provided that is not speculative and which does not grossly misrepresent information. Jihadwatch is as Islamophobic as Pam Geller who tried to get a boycott of Butterball Turkey's this year falsely claiming they were secretly Halal as part of a covert attempt to Islamify the country at Thanksgiving.
Sheesh FWM - you have to do better than this to be credible.
Dad didn't like a specific boyfriend; he sometimes took away his daughter's phone, and mom gave it back, and he didn't like some of the things his daughter wore. SO? That's true of any number of American parents.
They celebrated CHRISTMAS every year. There is absolutely NOTHING which suggests this is an honor killing; it is NOT characteristic of honor killings to kill this many other people AND himself. I haven't even seen anything which suggests they were actively following Islam, that the wife and/or daughters wore hijab, etc. that would suggest they were not moderate, well assimilated into the US culture, or likely to engage in honor killing.
One of the guns was bought recently - PER THE POLICE. Not fifteen years ago.
This appears to be one more case of domestic violence murder suicides, NOT an honor killing.
Sounds like "Santa" was a control freak; it doesn't sound like he an overt fundamentalist of any stripe.
ReplyDeleteWithout having access to police files it is impossible to know, but it is not at all unlikely that there may have been prior domestic incidents which contributed to the couple's estrangement.
The reason that he killed his own family, another family and himself was NOT that he had gunz. The reason that he was able to do so, so easily, WAS that he had gunz.
Oh, forgot to add, Jihadwatch is the World News Daily of the islamophobic morons that the reichwing panders to.
ReplyDeleteDemocommie,
ReplyDeleteJust how would you prevent this man from having guns? He apparently bought them long ago. There was likely no sign that this would happen. As I said above, how would the measures proposed here have stopped this from happening?
"There was likely no sign that this would happen."
ReplyDeleteGreg Camp:
"No one could have imagined that something like this would happen."
is the standard apologia for morons like you when someone kills with his gunz.
Since we have no way of knowing the shooters mental state and we have no access to his records we don't know if there were warnings or actions on the part of the shooter or his family that would have alerted authorities.
When the issue of the ease of obtaining gunz is no longer defensible you and other gunzpologists always default to the, "It's a mystery" defense.
Honor killings are more of a cultural and tribal thing than a religious thing. Islam may happen to be the dominant religion in many of the regions where such things are common, but just because someone is not a muslim doesn't mean it can't be an honor killing, and just because someone is a muslim doesn't mean it was an honor killing (as opposed to your run of the mill family murder/suicide).
ReplyDeleteDemocommie,
ReplyDeletePay attention, please. The shooter bought at least one of the guns over fifteen years ago. How would anyone have known at that time that he was going to commit murder? What gun control policy, short of no private ownership, have prevented this from happening? Answer that question.
You may be right Guav, but to me there's not much difference between the "honor killing" nut who kills his family and the regular nut who kills his family because the mortgage is under water and he's stressed out.
ReplyDeleteYhey should neither one have guns. And the more guns there are the more of these nuts have 'em.
My comment had nothing to do with gun control or guns—you already know I rarely agree with you on the topic.
ReplyDeleteMy point was just about the misperceptions behind honor killings. They usually have nothing to do with religion.
Obviously, to the dead, it doesn't matter whether they were killed for honor, insanity, rage or religion, or whether they were killed with a gun, machete or burned alive.
Greg Camp,
ReplyDeleteThe answer to your question, of course, is "none."
No gun control law or background check or anything else could have prevented this crime, not even a complete ban.
But those who advocate more gun control can't bring themselves to accept that some killings, regardless of method, are just totally impossible to predict or prevent.
Human beings have been killing each other for 50,000+ years—long before the advent of firearms—and they will continue to do so, unfortunately.
Guav, what's the point of this?
ReplyDelete"Human beings have been killing each other for 50,000+ years—long before the advent of firearms—and they will continue to do so, unfortunately."
Are you saying we shouldn't try to keep dangerous people from getting guns since there's gonna be killing anyway?
What kind of a society we are depends on how many people we allow to kill each other.
ReplyDeleteIn far too many respects we are not a decent society, and not a civil society.
One of those facets is the number of firearm deaths we have each year, and the extent to which we are a heavily armed society, rather than a peaceful society.
The very nature of people being armed in order to kill each other makes us more savage than the societies of other countries where that is not the case.
We have too many guns per capita. We have people with private arsenals, like the guy who killed the park ranger in Washington state, instead of providing for his wife and children. There's a bad case of priorities, if ever there was one.
I'm sure that shootist gave a lot of lip service to the importance of self defense and the 2nd amendment as well.
Really badly fucked up priorities that guy had, but ones that I'll bet were widely shared by other gun lunatics.
If people are really serious about self-defense, let them walk around wearing body armor, helmets, bullet proof visors and the like.
ReplyDeleteWhat they appear to want to have is the ability to kill other people, not actually protection, or defense.
If their actual goal was defense, passive defense like armor would give them better protection against being caught off guard -- as in the case of someone having the drop on them.
I personally think wearing a firearm at all times except when taking a shower is no more ludicrous than wandering around your house wearing a motorcycle helmet -- but it's a lot safer for those in the vicinity if they were wearing the helmet.
You just never hear about motorcycle style helmet or a military helmet going through a house wall and killing a 3 year old. Those helmets are a lot like screw drivers in that regard.
mikeb302000:
ReplyDelete"Are you saying we shouldn't try to keep dangerous people from getting guns since there's gonna be killing anyway?"
Absolutely not. I'm just saying that you guys seem to have this mindset that EVERY homicide or suicide is predictable and/or preventable .... if we just had this or that gun control legislation. That you highlighted this particular story is a perfect example. Not every gun death is an example of a failure of our gun control laws—some number of horrible things are going to happen regardless of what laws we have in place, even if it were a total ban. Greg is still waiting for an answer to his question.
dog gone:
ReplyDelete"One of those facets is the number of firearm deaths we have each year ... The very nature of people being armed in order to kill each other makes us more savage than the societies of other countries where that is not the case."
Oh yeah, we are far more savage than the Congo, where unarmed women and children are gang raped and hacked to pieces with machetes by the tens of thousands. At least their attackers didn't use those uncivilized firearms.
Or Mexico, where there is only one legally authorized retail outlet for firearms in the entire country, run by the army, and concealed carry is non-existent except for the wealthy or politically-connected .... their NON-gun murder rate is twice our total murder rate. That's so much less savage than us. There's something classy and elegant about being stabbed to death that we Americans just don't get to experience all that often.
"I'm sure that shootist gave a lot of lip service to the importance of self defense and the 2nd amendment as well ... ones that I'll bet were widely shared by other gun lunatics."
Hey, remember above when you correctly berated someone for being speculative and jumping to conclusions without evidence? You're doing that exact thing now. You're also using an ad hominem logical fallacy. I guess since Hitler was a vegetarian and so am I, that means I probably want to exterminate Jews.
"If people are really serious about self-defense, let them walk around wearing body armor, helmets, bullet proof visors and the like."
This—and your entire second comment—is by the far the most absolutely moronic thing you've said so far, and is spoken exactly like somebody who has never been in any serious self defense situation.
I'll be sure to tell my mother that maybe if she'd been wearing body armor and a visor, that she wouldn't have been raped.
"You just never hear about motorcycle style helmet or a military helmet going through a house wall and killing a 3 year old."
You also never hear about an 85 year old woman holding a home invader at motorcycle helmet-point until police arrive.
Enjoy life in your fantasy bubble. The rest of us out here in what is called "reality" sometimes have to actually fight for our lives.
I meant to link to this in my last comment:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.examiner.com/self-defense-in-national/armed-homeowner-shoots-intruder-self-defense
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeletePassive defenses only work for so long. Anyone with time or skill can defeat them. We who carry handguns prefer an active response to violence when it occurs. Since you have been one of us in the past, you must agree with that position.
GC writes: Passive defenses only work for so long. Anyone with time or skill can defeat them.
ReplyDeleteGreg, no one cares enough to put in that kind of skill and time to 'get you'. It is equally true that without those passive defenses, anyone can get you at any time without skill or time or effort.
We who carry handguns prefer an active response to violence when it occurs.
No. People like you are delusional about responses to violence; that is what makes you as dangerous as any criminal.
Since you have been one of us in the past, you must agree with that position.
Nope. I have never been anything like you.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteYou carried a handgun for your own defense. You must have believed that it was an effective tool for that purpose. You must have believed that you could recognize when your life was in danger and when the response of lethal force was justified. If you can do it, so can we. It's that simple.
I note that you have yet to answer how any of your proposals would have kept this shooter from doing what he did. He bought a gun a long time ago. His life recently fell apart, and he snapped. Your system wouldn't have stopped him.
Guav, Wherever did you get the idea that we think "EVERY homicide or suicide is predictable and/or preventable."
ReplyDeleteWhat I think is the SOME of them are. What your doing is exaggerating my position to the point of ridiculousness and then arguing against that as if I'd said it.
That's not cool.
You're editing the first half off my quote, which isn't cool either. I said you guys SEEM to have the mindset that every gun death is preventable by gun control laws, not that you literally think that. A minor distinction, but an important one.
ReplyDeleteI get that feeling because you've used this story as an argument in favor of your position (more restrictive gun control measures), whereas I don't see how this could have been prevented by those means at all.
You know what else isn't cool? When someone politely asks you a reasonable question and you blatantly ignore them.
Greg Camp has very plainly asked a question of you guys several times, and not one of you has seen fit to answer. Either you have a good answer--in which case it would be nice to share it--or you have no good answer--in which case you should admit that, concede the point, and move on. Either one is less rude than just pretending you didn't see the question.
Neither you, demo commie or dog gone appear to be willing to acknowledge that this case was not preventable by any gun control laws, so you must think it was. Please share with us.
GC writes:
ReplyDeleteYou carried a handgun for your own defense.
Did not. While I applied for and received a permit to do so, I did not rely on a handgun EVER for my own self defense. I did however enjoy target shooting at a range with it.
You must have believed that it was an effective tool for that purpose.
No, not particularly.
I always put more faith in the usefulness of the dogs for that purpose, and my own intelligence.
You must have believed that you could recognize when your life was in danger and when the response of lethal force was justified.
I was engaging with a specific individual who was dangerous in a way which was intentionally provoking that individual. In a very real sense I went out of my way to BECOME a target for that person, to divert their attention from someone else. I have NEVER relied on a firearm for protection, and when I was in danger, it was never my primary means of defense.
This differs in how you use and carry your firearms, substantially. It was quite different, despite your fevered attempts incorrectly to conflate the two.
If you can do it, so can we. It's that simple.
I don't know if you CAN do it, but you clearly don't do anything remotely like what I did or do.
And NO, it is not 'that simple'. No more so than a screwdriver equates to a weapon as a dangerous object..
Guav wrote:Oh yeah, we are far more savage than the Congo, where unarmed women and children are gang raped and hacked to pieces with machetes by the tens of thousands. At least their attackers didn't use those uncivilized firearms.
ReplyDeleteIn fact if you look at the maps of homicide rates by firearms, the Congo is even worse than most of the U.S., with many of the worst offenders there being armed with BOTH machetes and firearms.
It is an equally, or greater, savage society where violence is a huge problem -- ALL kinds of violence, not ONLY machetes.
Far fewer weapons there would be an enormous improvement to their returning to some form of civilization from what they have now.
then Guav writes:
I get that feeling because you've used this story as an argument in favor of your position (more restrictive gun control measures), whereas I don't see how this could have been prevented by those means at all.
If we required a NEED, a demonstrable danger for carry, and far more stringent requirements, we would have fewer guns and less gun violence.
Would that mean we have Zero gun deaths? No. Could this possibly be preventable? Maybe, maybe not.
Certainly deaths LIKE this are far far less frequent in countries with much more restrictive gun laws, so on that basis it is reasonable to assert that with stricter gun laws this would be much more unlikely.
And that less likely probability is the best that any of us can expect or desire.
First I must admit error. I was actually referring to the Rwandan genocide, which was carried out almost entirely with machetes and farm implements. In fact, 581,000 machetes were imported specifically for Hutu to use in killing the Tutsi. Much cheaper than guns. It has not been called the "machete genocide" for no reason.
ReplyDeleteBut since we're talking about Congo, you are correct in noting that the homicide rate in the Congo is far greater than ours—which was my point—although I was unable to locate a source for firearm homicides specifically (please share if you have one).
"Far fewer weapons there would be an enormous improvement to their returning to some form of civilization from what they have now."
Oh really? Compare our rate of private firearm possession with the Congo's. In a comparison of the rate of private gun ownership in 179 countries, the Congo ranks at No. 137. According to your logic, that place should be one of the safest places on the planet. So where's this enormous improvement you speak of?
Furthermore, the Congo has some of the most stringent gun laws on earth—the right to private gun ownership is not guaranteed by law—and they have pretty much every gun law you guys ask for: there is a complete prohibition on private ownership of both fully automatic assault rifles and even semi-automatic assault-style rifles; no rifles with a folding or removable stock or barrel larger than 6mm; applicants must pass background checks which consider mental, criminal, conduct (and even marital) records; gun owners must re-apply and re-qualify for their firearm license every 5 years; licensed gun owners are permitted to possess no more than two hunting or sport firearms, and no more than one handgun; and even your favorite that you mentioned below—applicants for a license are required to prove genuine "need" to possess a firearm (hunting, sport or personal protection).
Yet, despite the Congo being the virtual poster child for how you want our gun laws and gun ownership rates to be, their homicide and violence rate is far worse than ours.
How can this be?
Because firearm availability and prevalence really has very little to do with how safe or civilized a country is, or how high or low it's crime rates are. It can certainly effect the FIREARM homicide rate, but not the overall homicide rate, which is how you actually determine how likely you are to become dead in any given country. Savagery, and the probability of you being victimized in any given society, has nothing to do with guns at all.
That's why comparing countries fails: politics, economics, and culture all play vastly greater roles in effecting crime and homicide rates—and savagery—than gun availability. Despite having more guns in total, and an enormously higher rate of private ownership, the United States is not as dangerous as the Congo because .... well ... because the United States is not the Congo.
"If we required a NEED, a demonstrable danger for carry, and far more stringent requirements, we would have fewer guns and less gun violence."
ReplyDeleteThere's absolutely no evidence to support that assertion. Furthermore, you reference only carry (and by extension, you can only be referring to legal carry). But those with concealed carry permits are not the main perpetrators of gun crime and gun violence, so I fail to see how restricting legal carry could possibly lower overall gun violence. Please explain the mechanism by which that would work.
Plus, you don't need a gun until you need a gun. I can't demonstrate that I NEED a motorcycle helmet—and in fact, in all likelihood, I and most riders will never, ever be in accident—but I wear one anyway so that in the unlikely event that I need one, I am am protected. Never been in a car accident, but I've been wearing a seatbelt for 39 years all the same. Probably won't ever need one. I could probably have unprotected sex my whole life and not get HIV or give it to anyone, but I wear a condom anyway. You don't need something until you need it, and at that point if you don't have it you're eff'd.
So how would your plan work—does a woman have to wait until after her estranged husband puts her in the hospital in order to demonstrate need, or does he just have to slap her around once or twice? What if he just threatens her repeatedly? Does she have to provide audio recordings, or can she just say "he threatened me" and a judge will take her word for it? Also, if a woman gets raped, does that count as need? Or since it's already happened and she's statistically unlikely to get raped a second time, does she not qualify for "need"? Does my friend qualify for a concealed carry permit only after he gets beaten to death with a pipe in broad daylight?
I'm just curious as to how your suggestion will actually work in the real world. Probably much like in NYC, where the rich and politically connected have no trouble getting handgun permits (or are just able to hire armed guards) while the rest of us poor schlubs would just have to get injured, raped or killed before we can convince someone we might need a gun. Very civilized.
"Certainly deaths LIKE this are far far less frequent in countries with much more restrictive gun laws, so on that basis it is reasonable to assert that with stricter gun laws this would be much more unlikely."
It's actually not reasonable at all, because it doesn't take into account culture or the other factors I mentioned above. It's like me saying that since Japan has no private firearm ownership at all, and their suicide rate is twice ours, that it's reasonable to use that as a basis to assert that with stricter gun laws, our suicide rate would double. That's not reasonable in the least, it's ludicrous.
Guav wrote:
ReplyDeleteThere's absolutely no evidence to support that assertion. Furthermore, you reference only carry (and by extension, you can only be referring to legal carry).
Guav, there is every evidence that fewer guns equates to less gun violence.
I have previously characterized a civil society as one where people do not routinely carry lethal weapons to use on each other. That is a prima facie argument that needs no citation to support it.
We have a lack of civil society when people are armed who do not have a clear, objective, demonstrable need to be armed.
It's actually not reasonable at all, because it doesn't take into account culture or the other factors I mentioned above.
Show me one substantive study, one academic analysis, or one reasonable academic paper of any kind by sociologists, anthropologists, or criminal justice studies experts --ANY researchers - anything credible -that shows our culture is somehow so very different from other comparable western industrialized societies, and where that difference applies to gun violence.
I want to see it documented, defined, and most of all quantified.
In point of fact we are very similar, consistently, by every metric, and our culture is so global in terms of trends that the very opposite, if anything is true.
But if you care to back up that assertion of yours, have at it. You're just whistling in the dark because you're stuck trying to justify something that is inherently unjustifiable.
Then we have your rape comment. I suggest you look at rape statistics. While I have heartfelt sympathy for what your mother endured, I am skeptical that wider gun carry is a solution to that problem. Particularly as the majority of women raped know their rapists, and another significant slice of the statistics are women / girls who are under age, and therefore CANNOT make a fully informed consent. Then we have those who are raped while under the influence of alcohol, date rape drugs or otherwise incapacitated-- how do you suggest they use firearms to protect themselves?
In countries that are very like us, where there are fewer firearms, there is less firearm-related violence - including rape where there is a threat with a firearm.
That is an improvement; it doesn't solve every problem, but it is still a helluva better situation for women at risk of being raped.
Or men for that matter.
"Guav, there is every evidence that fewer guns equates to less gun violence."
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, you said "If we required a NEED, a demonstrable danger for carry," but merely preventing people from carrying guns on their person does not translate into "less guns," just less carrying of them by people unlikely to break the law in the first place. Secondly, since concealed carry permit holders are among the least likeliest to commit unjustifiable homicides, then doing what you suggest has no mechanism by which we could reasonably expect the homicide rate to drop. Basically, it doesn't target the people doing the most killing.
"I have previously characterized a civil society as one where people do not routinely carry lethal weapons to use on each other. That is a prima facie argument that needs no citation to support it."
Yes, you have characterized it as such, but I completely disagree with your characterization. Of course there is no citation to support it, it's not an objective fact, merely your personal opinion and view of the world.
"We have a lack of civil society when people are armed who do not have a clear, objective, demonstrable need to be armed."
I disagree completely. We have a civil society when people act in a civil manner—whether they have a gun or a banana in their pocket is irrelevant if they treat each other kindly and with respect. A civil society, in my view, is not based on possessions, inanimate objects, it's based on actions and end results. By your measurement, a completely unarmed society where people got strangled to death with regularity would be "civil" while a society where everyone was armed but had a 0% murder rate would be "savage." That's asinine.
The way I see it, the lower a countries overall crime rate, their homicide rate, rate of violent crime, then the more civil a society they obviously have. Savagery would be societies where the opposite is true. And what we see when we look all across the world is that there is no general correlation between firearm availability and those things. I don't believe that "an armed society is a polite society," nor do I believe that disarming everyone would make us civilized either. There are are high gun ownership societies with high homicide rates, and high gun ownership societies with low homicide rates. There are low gun ownership societies with low homicide rates, and there are low gun ownership societies with high homicide rates.
"Show me one substantive study (blah blah blah) that shows our culture is somehow so very different from other comparable western industrialized societies ... I want to see it documented, defined, and most of all quantified."
ReplyDeleteThe go do the research yourself, lazy-ass. If you don't think the culture in Japan is vastly different from here, then you've clearly never been to Japan. I have (among other countries). The low homicide rate in Japan is not because they don't have guns, it's because they are an inherently law-abiding and authority-respecting society. That's why we were able to leave boxes of merchandise and expensive band equipment out on the street outside of clubs in the middle of Tokyo, because absolutely nobody is going to steal it. That's why the morning after one of our shows, I came across a new t-shirt and a stack of CDs purchased at the show the night before and inadvertantly left at the bus stop that night. Nobody took it, because the Japanese just don't do that. It probably sat there all day until the kid came back for it. That's also why Japanese-Americans have correspondingly low crime rates. They live here, fully able to get guns, but their culture is ingrained, so they respect laws and police, don't steal and don't murder people. It's in their culture.
Furthermore, I said not just culture, but also political climate, economics, etc. But if your contention is, as it appears, that culture, politics and economics is irrelevant—it's all in the guns—then you've completely lost that argument already. Namely, for example, what I posted about Congo, which you are pretending not to have read apparently. They have done there everything that you want done here, but have not gotten the results you claim are the natural end product of such policies. Explain why then, if not culture, politics and economics.
"While I have heartfelt sympathy for what your mother endured, I am skeptical that wider gun carry is a solution to that problem."
Thank you. But I don't think wider gun carry is a solution to the problem of rape either, I was merely pointing out how absurd your contention that people who are concerned about self defense should walk around in armor and helmets and visors was. That would not protect you against a rapist, for example, or a mugger.
Nothing you suggested would be that effective against a gang of attackers, nor are they realistic suggestions for the elderly, frail, or handicapped.
I'm not suggesting that women should all go out and buy guns to carry around. I'm suggesting that those who want to, and feel comfortable with that responsibility be allowed to do so.
"Then we have those who are raped while under the influence of alcohol, date rape drugs or otherwise incapacitated-- how do you suggest they use firearms to protect themselves?"
I don't. Guns aren't a magic wand. I'm not saying a gun is the best option for every situation, I'm just saying they should remain an option. You don't want them to be an option at all—that's where we differ. I'm not advocating wider gun ownership or carry.
Likewise, I'm not pro-choice because I want women to have abortions, nor do I promote abortion. But I think it should remain a right and an option for those who want to exercise it. Those on the other side of the debate want to remove the option.
"In countries that are very like us ..."
ReplyDeleteWhy do they have to be very like us? According to you, culture isn't a factor.
"... where there are fewer firearms, there is less firearm-related violence - including rape where there is a threat with a firearm."
Firearm-related homicide, violence or rape rates doesn't matter, the overall rate does. My chance of getting killed in this country as opposed to Mexico, Sweden, South Africa or Japan has nothing to do with the method used. Dead is dead. The fact is, I have a greater chance of getting killed in Mexico than I do getting killed here. Here I have a greater chance of getting shot, but there I have an even greater chance of being stabbed. I suppose in Congo I'd be hacked to pieces or something.
If you're concerned with saving lives, or lowering crime, then the question is not whether gun control is effective in lowering gun-related homicides, suicides or crimes, but whether gun control is effective in lowering overall homicide, suicide and crime rates. Because if, in the absence of firearms, there is a complete replacement of firearms with other means, then you've not accomplished a single damn thing.
An apt analogy is this: if we ban red cars, I'm sure we will see a significant drop in red-car related vehicular manslaughter and drunk driving incidents. But there's no reason to believe that there will be a significant drop in overall vehicular manslaughter or drunk driving deaths. The ban will not save any lives.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteWhy do you get to make arguments without support (your definition of a civil society), but we don't? We can define civil society differently. We can say that a civil society is one in which members are able to do as they wish and own what they wish, so long as they harm no innocent person.
Guav: "the question is not whether gun control is effective in lowering gun-related homicides, suicides or crimes, but whether gun control is effective in lowering overall homicide, suicide and crime rates."
ReplyDeleteI agree. And here's an opportunity to use some common sense and logic. Given the lethality and efficiency of guns, does it make sense to you that, if there were no guns, every single incident would happen with other weapons and the same number of dead and wounded would result?
GC, wrote:
ReplyDeleteWhy do you get to make arguments without support (your definition of a civil society), but we don't? We can define civil society differently. We can say that a civil society is one in which members are able to do as they wish and own what they wish, so long as they harm no innocent person.
Because as a group, you DO harm innocent people, all the time. Therefore, as a group, we need to regulate you because you demonstrate that so long as your group has these lethal weapons, you will harm yourselves and others, and when you don't have them, fewer people are harmed at all, and fewer people are fatally harmed, and fewer people are victims of crime with those lethal weapons.
All of which adds up to it being a good idea to limit those lethal weapons for the common good. It is inherently - as in prima facie , on the face of it - more civil NOT to be lethally armed as part of our society. It presupposes solutions to conflict that do not rely on weapons.
Dog Gone: You've finally shown your true colors as a complete bigot. Lumping people into one "group" that can then be stereotyped and demonized is exactly what racists and other despicable people do. You're clearly not someone to be taken seriously at all, a fact I already suspected but is now confirmed.
ReplyDelete"I agree. And here's an opportunity to use some common sense and logic."
ReplyDeleteMike, the problem here is that things that sometimes make total sense don't turn out to be true. "Common sense" frequently misleads us.
"Given the lethality and efficiency of guns, does it make sense to you that, if there were no guns, every single incident would happen with other weapons and the same number of dead and wounded would result?"
It does make sense to me that most of them would. That's because most firearm deaths in this country are suicides or homicides by (and frequently against) people involved in the criminal lifestyle, drugs or gangs. There are certainly many instances of "normal" people just snapping—and "no guns" would most likely lower the frequency of those a bit—but those really are not the predominant means of firearm death in this country. Most otherwise law-abiding people do not just go crazy one day and kill their family. It certainly happens, but not all that often, which is why when it does, it gets an enormous amount of media coverage because it's sensational.
But forget about what "makes sense" to you or me, we don't have to even bother with that. If what you say is true, then when restrictive gun measures are put into place, the overall homicide and suicide rate should go down significantly. When gun measures are loosened, we should see a surge in the overall homicide and suicide rate. And the fact of the matter is, we just do not see that, and nobody has ever been able to demonstrate a causal relationship between the two.
For example, after passing restrictive gun laws in 1991, the Canadian rates of youth firearm suicide dropped from 60% to 22%. That's a HUGE drop—the Brady Campaign would send out a press release with that splashed as the headline, point out how many lives were saved by the new gun control laws, and push for more restrictive gun laws.
But in that same time period, the overall rates of suicides did not change and suicide due to hanging/suffocation increased from 20% to 60%—a complete and total replacement of gun with rope. Australia experienced a similar thing.
Since most gun deaths in this country are suicides, and most suicides are committed with firearms, "it makes sense" that if there were no guns, there would be far less suicides. But "common sense" misleads us here, because in reality, that is simply not what happens.
Mike?
ReplyDeleteGuav, Sorry, I didn't realize you were waiting for a response.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, that claim that most gun violence is gang and drug related is debatable. You state it as if it's an accepted fact. It's not.
Your claims of the replacement theory are also debatable. The only link you provided was to another comment of your own. Is that suppose to convince me of something?
I know you could find sources that back up what you say, and I could find ones that support my ideas. That's why we need to use our heads and ask ourselves if things make sense.
I can picture out of 100 gun suicides about 20 or 30 in which the guy was acting on the spur of the moment and only due to the lethality and convenience of the gun did he end up dead. Remove the guns and most of those 20 or 30 would survive.
I'm not preaching the removal of guns. But I am preaching better mental health screening for gun owners. And I am preaching that your message is a bad one for folks with guns in the house where family members may be depressed or drinking and drugging too much.
"Guav, Sorry, I didn't realize you were waiting for a response."
ReplyDeleteYeah, that's usually how a conversation works :)
You asked me a question, I answered it ... I am obviously interested in your thoughts on what I have said.
"Your claims of the replacement theory are also debatable. The only link you provided was to another comment of your own. Is that suppose to convince me of something?"
What I linked you to contains the supporting links from the Canadian National Institute of Health and the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Yes, it's supposed to convince you. You guys claim that gun restrictions can/would reduce suicides by lowering access to firearms, thus lowering firearm suicides. Since firearm suicides make up the majority of suicides in this country, your "common sense" tells you that the overall suicide rate would drop as a result. I'm showing you evidence that in reality, it doesn't work that way. If evidence won't convince you, what would?
"I know you could find sources that back up what you say, and I could find ones that support my ideas."
Then show them to me.
"That's why we need to use our heads and ask ourselves if things make sense."
No, we don't, for the reasons I already explained. "Making sense" is not evidence—it's instinct, hunches, personal concepts of logic, anecdotes, etc, and is entirely subjective.
"I can picture out of 100 gun suicides about 20 or 30 in which the guy was acting on the spur of the moment and only due to the lethality and convenience of the gun did he end up dead."
Are you serious? "You can picture"? That's another way of saying "I imagine in my head." It has no basis in reality or the truth whatsoever—you just invented that statistic! Come on Mike.
"Remove the guns and most of those 20 or 30 would survive."
Great, except you've provided absolutely no evidence to support that claim. That's exactly why you guys are losing—your entire position rests on a foundation of hunches, emotions, guesses and so-called "common sense."
"First of all, that claim that most gun violence is gang and drug related is debatable."
ReplyDeleteThen debate it. Connect the dots, Mike. Seventy-one percent of gang members are between the ages of 15-24. Unsurprisingly, we find out that, according to the National Institute Of Justice:
___________________
Who Is Most Affected by Gun Violence? People between the ages of 15 and 24 are most likely to be targeted by gun violence as opposed to other forms of violence. From 1976 to 2005, 77 percent of homicide victims ages 15-17 died from gun-related injuries. This age group was most at risk for gun violence during this time period. Teens and young adults are more likely than persons of other ages to be murdered with a gun. Most violent gun crime, especially homicide, occurs in cities and urban communities.
Youths, Gangs and Guns Juvenile firearm violence became common in many U.S. cities during the 1990s, and although gun violence peaked in 1993, it remains a persistent problem. Most youth gun violence is concentrated within a few urban neighborhoods (sometimes called "hot spots") and is perpetrated by gang members.
Wikipedia: Gun-related violence is most common in poor urban areas and in conjunction with gang violence, often involving juveniles or young adults.
US Dept of Justice: The impact of gun violence is especially pronounced among juveniles and adolescents ... the firearm homicide rate for the 15- to 24-year-old age group increased 158 percent during the 10-year period from 1984 to 1993. This contrasts with a 19-percent decline in gun-related homicides for those 25 and older.
One study involving 800 inner-city high school students reported that 22 percent said they carried weapons. An even greater number of convicted juvenile offenders reported carrying guns—88 percent, according to another study. Firearms are readily available on the illegal gun market, and those who are most likely to possess guns are drug sellers and gang members—overwhelmingly young and male.
Center For Problem-Oriented Policing: Although overall U.S. homicide rates declined between the 1980s and 1990s, youth homicide, particularly gun homicide, increased dramatically. Between 1984 and 1994, juvenile (younger than 18) homicides committed with handguns increased by 418 percent, and juvenile homicides committed with other guns increased by 125 percent.2 During this time, adolescents (ages 14 to 17) had the largest proportional increase in homicide commission and victimization, young adults (ages 18 to 24) had the largest absolute increase, and there was much crossfire between the two age groups.
ReplyDeleteYouth gun violence is concentrated among feuding gangs and criminally active groups. In some cities, criminally active groups who are not considered “gangs” are major gun offenders. In Baltimore, violent groups active in street drug markets were involved in numerous homicides in 1997. Most of the murders occurred in or near a street drug market, and many victims and suspects were part of a drug organization or a recognized neighborhood criminal network.
Most Homicides Related To Drugs And Gangs, Says Police Chief: Flint Police Chief Alvern Lock said during a press conference on crime Wednesday that most of the 50 homicides that have occurred in the city this year have been related to drugs and gangs.
___________________
I know you like to think that most homicides are perpetrated by middle-aged, white rural redneck "gun nuts" who got drunk and then shot their wife in an argument over NASCAR, but that is simply not the reality of firearm homicides in this country.
If you have evidence that firearm homicide in this country is not a predominantly young, urban male phenomenon—frequently connected with gang or drug involvement—then I'd like to see it.