Disgruntled and Upset gunner kills 2

[ileus]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44785704/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/#.ToyRDGEW6eE

You get those Jaw and Cone crushers and screens up and going and nothing is going to be heard outside of the office.


As we’ve discussed here before he was a legal gun owner until the day he wasn’t. I know we all agree that guns in the hands of civilians is what leads to cases like this. Why does the NRA continue to support acts like this?

We may never know for sure what drove this man over the edge….but I must agree he does seem to be disgruntled and unhappy.

[Glassunion]

1. Ban safety meetings... It's the only way we'll be safe.

[spin]

2. It will be interesting to see if he waved any red flags ...

that were ignored.

[hack89]

3. Why do beer makers support drunk driving and the deaths they cause?

Why do swimming pools manufacturers support drowning little kids?

[ileus]

4. We like Beer, people dying from drunk drivers is ok....guns kill people.

[AtheistCrusader]

6. Oh shit, all my guns must be broken.

[ileus]

8. As the king would say...you're a criminal waiting to happen.

[DrDan]

5. funny thing about those pool owners - you don't see them running

around looking for anonymity - do you. No secrets about their pool ownership. Nothing hidden. Part of the property records. Taxes to be paid. Public knowledge. Supportive of pool safety measures.

See a difference? No - probably not. Never mind.

[hack89]

7. So what background check do pool owners go through? How are dangerous owners screened out?

Don't you agree that pool owners should be treated the same as gun owners considering that many more children are drowned vice shot?

Considering the relative number of deaths, where do you get the idea that public knowledge makes pools safer? The anonymous gun owners kill fewer children then all those publicly known pool owners so what exactly is your point?

[DrDan]

11. no paranoia over pool ownership on the part of pool owners

I have owned one for years - have never tried to hide it. More safety rules and regs? Fine with me.

[hack89]

12. And yet you are more dangerous then a gun owner - so what's your point? nt

[pipoman]

55. Yet in a thread I posted a year or so ago in GD I suggested

that code for pool owners should include a retroactive requirement for a full parameter fence, including between the house and the pool. Funny how few, if any, pool owners agreed and most who disagreed adamantly opposed.

[DrDan]

56. Did not see the thread

What was the point of disagreement. I would assume it is over a wall of the house being part of the perimeter fence. Should doors and windows of the house be protected with a fence-like structure, does that meet your criteria?

[pipoman]

57. Some cities already require this type of fence

The main point of disagreement was, 'I don't have kids'. The city code I am thinking of requires a 4' fence with locking gates completely encircling the pool. Because 10 times more children die in residential pool accidents than in firearms accidents, I believe such a requirement would dramatically reduce accidental drownings.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=307454

[DrDan]

58. well - the "I don't have kids" is a ridiculous argument

pools are way to tempting to "kids" of all ages. Can't be too safe as far as I am concerned when it comes to pools.

[pipoman]

59. We agree..

[russ1943]

34. According to latest stats avail from WISQARS

According to latest stats avail there are an average of 43% MORE young people 17 yr old & under killed with firearms than drown in the US each and every year for the last ten years .

The drowning statistic includes all those who drowned in a combination of rivers, lakes, oceans, buckets of water, bathtubs, saunas, ditches, community pools and obviously some number (less than the total), in home swimming pools.
http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe

Can you provide some reputable source to verify your claim?

[hack89]

36. I get 848 drownings and 98 firearm deaths nationally in the age bracket 1 to 17 for 2008

when I did a custom search in WISQARS. As you lower the upper limit there are even fewer gun deaths - which makes sense when you realize you are screening out all the gang bangers getting killed for their choice of professions.


http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe?_service=v8prod&_server=app-v-ehip-wisq.cdc.gov&_port=5081&_sessionid=Yhnr22pJM52&_program=wisqars.details10.sas&_service=&type=U&prtfmt=STANDARD&age1=1&age2=17&agegp=1-17&deaths=5613&_debug=0&lcdfmt=customðnicty=0&ranking=10&deathtle=Death

on edit: 54 percent of the drowning deaths were in pools.

Here is the WISQARS search page.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10_us.html

[russ1943]

46. What u get & what is, seem to be different.

I’ll simply repeat for those that know how to read, as I said in my #34 According to latest stats avail (from WISQARS) there are an average of 43% MORE young people 17 yr old & under that die from being shot with firearms than drown in the US each and every year for the last ten years . (That’s a ten year average)
As to the specific year 2008 there were 1,475 young people 17 yrs old & under
Who died from being shot with firearms and there were 940 who drowned.
That is 57% more who died from being shot with a firearm than drowned for that year.


If, as you claim 54% of 17 yr olds & younger that drowned did drown in “pools” that would mean about 508 of those 940 drowned in pools while 1,475 were killed with firearms which makes your original claim in ur #7 that “many more children are drowned vs shot” at the very least, um...... uh........ er.......... untruthful.

Your source that “54 percent of the drowning deaths were in pools”?

[hack89]

48. How about fixing your link so I can actually see your stats

I did a search in the WISQARS database - got different results then you. Why don't we compare searches to see what the problem is?

Yes my source said that “54 percent of the drowning deaths were in pools” - it is an interactive display and you need to drill down into the IDC codes.

When you look hard at the numbers, you see a huge spike in gun deaths at age 17 and higher. Those are the gang bangers getting shot.

[hack89]

49. WISQARS gives me 9286 drownings and 1189 firearm deaths from 1999 to 2008

http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe?_service=v8prod&_server=app-v-ehip-wisq.cdc.gov&_port=5082&_sessionid=8lUweTrJM52&_program=wisqars.details10.sas&_service=&type=U&prtfmt=STANDARD&age1=1&age2=17&agegp=1-17&deaths=72943&_debug=0&lcdfmt=customðnicty=0&ranking=10&deathtle=Death

[russ1943]

66. Get it, yet?

Wisqars gives you what you ask of it.
Did you post in ur #7 titled 7. So what background check do pool owners go through? How are dangerous owners screened out? & that ...“many more children are drowned vs shot” (many more children are drowned vice shot)?
You queried; Why don't we compare searches to see what the problem is?
In Ur #49 you titled your post “WISQARS gives me 9286 drownings and 1189 firearm deaths from 1999 to 2008.
WISQARS gives me what I’ve copied and pasted below:

1999 - 2008, United States
Drowning Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races, Both Sexes, Ages 0 to 17
ICD-10 Codes: W65-W74,X71,X92,Y21
Number of
Deaths Population*** Crude
Rate
10,447 733,305,742 1.42

The above says 10,447. That is the number of drowning deaths from 1999 thru 2008 in the US, all races, both sexes aged 0 – 17. It includes how many drowned in a rivers, lakes, oceans, buckets of water, bathtubs, saunas, ditches, community pools and home swimming pools.

You post WISQARS gave you;1189 firearm deaths from 1999 to 2008.
WISQARS gives me what I’ve copied and pasted below:

1999 - 2008, United States
Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races, Both Sexes, Ages 0 to 17
ICD-10 Codes: W32-W34,X72-X74,X93-X95,Y22-Y24,
Y35.0,*U01.4
Number of
Deaths Population*** Crude
Rate
14,976 733,305,742 2.04

That result says 14,976. That is the number of firearm deaths from 1999 thru 2008 in the US, all races, both sexes aged 0 – 17.
Which, is as I stated in my#34 & again in my#46, (According to latest stats avail) an average of 43% MORE young people 17 yr old & under killed with firearms than drown in the US each and every year for the last ten years.
One of us is just wrong about what the numbers are.
If your “source” is accurate then the Firearm death statistic I posted as 43% larger for the 17 yr old & under drowning death statistic, is about 265% larger than the 17 yr old & under drowning in pools statistic.
If you mean ICD 10 Codes, I know what they are, my question was & still is; What is your source that “54 percent of the drowning deaths of 17 yr olds & under drowned in pools?”

[gravity556]

39. See, your pool is far more dangerous than my guns.

Sitting in your yard, unattended all day. I think that's called an attractive nuisance. Little Billy sees that nice clear refreshing pool, just over the fence. And since his folks didn't teach him to respect other folks' property, in no time flat Billy could be drowning in your unguarded pool. I keep my guns in a safe. And they aren't visible from the street, because there are tons of little kids and teenagers and junkies with no reguard for private property.

If you really wanted to make an honest comparison, you'd compare guns to automobiles.

[ileus]

9. We pay more for our insurance, and put up fences....all baser toters should do the same.

[DrDan]

10. agreed!!!! Can you imagine the outcry.

[slackmaster]

13. Anyone who owns OR rents a home would be foolish not to have a liability insurance policy

Whether you own a firearm of not.

[rl6214]

18. Dead is dead, dosen't matter. If you REALLY wanted to cut down on

deaths, you would start where you could really make the most difference.

Can you get that? No, probably not, never mind.

[DrDan]

22. or you would start where no other redeeming qualities were forthcoming

Can you get that? No, probably not, never mind.

[PavePusher]

25. So, you pledge never to call the police then, amIright? n/t

[rl6214]

30. Yeah, dosen't really matter HOW MANY are dead

just as long as it fits into YOUR social scheme of things. We all get that.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

62. There are many redeeming qualities of firearms.

Far more in fact than there are of pools.

Keep trying though. You'll eventually run out of lies and emotional pleas and be forced to address facts with facts. Of course, at that point you'll discover there really are no facts for the gun-control side of the argument, and you may, in a moment of intellectual honesty, switch to our side.

[DrDan]

65. "many redeeming qualities of firearms" - what a load

[PavePusher]

24. Criminals don't break into your house to steal your pool....

the government doesn't come to seize them, and no-one's trying to ban them.

See the fucking difference? No - probably not. Never mind.

[Gregorian]

14. Guns are designed for killing. Beer is for drinking. Pools are for swimming.

It takes a real leap of logic to confuse this issue.

[Riftaxe]

15. Of course we both know that is a

flat out lie. Guns are designed to throw a projectile down a range towards a target.

They can be used to kill people, but that is such a fraction of the percentage of that use in this country when compared to the number of paper targets, clay pigeons, and other inorganic targets they are used against.

Cars are designed to kill people and do it much better if you look at fatalities in this country. So go ban some automobiles.

[Gregorian]

16. Automobiles are designed for transporation.

Let's be clear. The design of something is what it is ultimately designed to do. Guns are designed to kill. Spin all you want.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

21. So the intent of design is all that matters?

What about items that were designed to help and end up causing more harm than good... does it not matter because they were conceived with good intention?

[PavePusher]

26. Design does not equal intent OR morality.

Spin all you want.

[rrneck]

42. Who are they designed to kill? nt

[We_Have_A_Problem]

63. Ooooh - does that mean you now support private ownership of...

...machine guns, silencers and dynamite?

After all - all of those were most emphatically designed to save lives, or in the case of silencers, improve the quality of life.

Hey thanks! Nice to know you support my ownership of Class III weapons! You'll be pushing for a repeal of the 1934NFA then?

[hack89]

17. Isn't the issue we are discussing the misuse of items

and why the NRA is condemned for supporting gun rights while organizations that advocate for things that kill just as many people are not condemned? Surely the Beer brewers trade organization is just as morally culpable as the NRA - their product kills hundreds every day.

[Gregorian]

19. I thought it was about a guy who killed people with his gun.

I see your point. I just happen to think the world would be better if we didn't have all of the power that we have from external sources. It is always misused. Sticks and stones are lethal too, but it requires a bit more intimacy to accomplish.

[hack89]

20. It was the anti-NRA rant in the OP that I was commenting on.

However, just remember that you have never been safer. You have to go back to the early 1960's to find lower rates of murder and violent crime.

[PavePusher]

27. So you endorse domination of the weak by the strong.

Hardly a progressive ideal, eh?

[Gregorian]

29. I'll side with Martin Luther King Jr. and Ghandi on this one.

It's not something I will compromise on. I'm not picking up a gun. Besides, anyone who thinks guns are going to be of much use against the miniguns and all of the rest of the government owned military equipment is delusional.

[PavePusher]

31. well, you don't seem to know your Ghandi or King very well....

and your knowledge of assymetrical warfare is dismal.

Good luck with that.

[Angus86]

37. Neither King nor Gandhi were anti-gun

For instance, I bet you didn't know that King owned a number of firearms. He even applied for an Alabama concealed carry permit after receiving numerous death threats, but was unconstitutionally denied based on the color of his skin. This is one of the reasons why I believe King would have supported "shall-issue" concealed carry laws.

And as for Gandhi, in his autobiography he wrote: "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." So obviously Gandhi did support the use of arms at certain times, although he is most remembered for NOT using them in open revolt.

[Gregorian]

44. I stand corrected. I have been reading up on MLK recently.

I have to say it doesn't fit in with his Love Thy Enemy speech.


It's a very interesting subject to me. That's all I'll say for now. I think it's one of the most basic topics, which is why it is fraught with controversy. I probably should have mentioned Jesus when I originally replied. But then for all I know he might just be willing to use lethal force too, under certain circumstances. I kind of doubt it.

I can't change the world. I can only change me.

[Angus86]

47. Actually, Jesus instructed his disciples to carry a sword.

"He said to them, 'But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.'

The disciples said, 'See, Lord, here are two swords.'

'That is enough,' he replied." Luke 22:36-39 (NIV)

Jesus said this to his disciples after the Last Supper, before he left to pray at the Mount of Olives. There was a distinct possibility of an armed confrontation with those who sought to arrest him, so he instructed the disciples to be ready to defend themselves.

Thank you for keeping an open mind on this topic. As you said it can be a tricky subject, especially when studying the teachings of Jesus, King and Gandhi, who sometimes seem to come down on both sides of the issue.

[Gregorian]

50. There is question whether this is metaphorical or literal. It's very interesting.

I do recall that in the temple, Jesus did use violence against the money changers. But not deadly.

What I find interesting about what you quoted is that even when Jesus was being arrested, and even after the sword had been used, he halted it. Live by the sword, die by the sword. He's pretty clear about it.

But after reading interpretations on this particular passage, I'm seeing that scholars have used some pretty good logic to conclude that self defense can be used, but only as a last resort. And only as far as necessary.

Something that has always fascinated me is how "stealing" is not the act of taking, but of the intention behind the act. A starving man taking a loaf of bread isn't stealing. And I've always extrapolated that to self defense. What is murder? Even though this entire subject of defense and religion is highly charged, I have always had a difficult time maintaining that pacifism is the best avenue.

I've claimed that the beginning of war is the act of defense. Yet if no one defended themselves, the world might very well be populated by the most violent offenders.

I'm glad you stuck in there with me. I may come around to justifying self defense after all.

[Angus86]

52. I do agree with your interpretation

The way I've come to understand that passage in Matthew 26 is that Jesus was referring to the initial blow struck by his disciple, saying that those who initiate violent action will be met with violence in return. This squares up with his earlier statements to his disciples that they should arm themselves, presumably for self-defense. However, it turns out that the first blow is struck by one of his own disciples, causing Jesus to rebuke him for his actions.

The right to defend oneself against violent action is the cornerstone of modern self-defense law. The states have legislated this right to varying degrees, but all follow the basic premise that individuals have the right to defend themselves from violent actions.

[Gregorian]

53. I've got a lot to think about. Things I've put off most of my life.

My great uncles were conscientious objectors in world war two. Quakers.

My father is a biblical scholar. I will want to discuss this with him. But I appreciate your comments. You've sparked me to rethink my stance. It never made much sense to simply let myself be killed without a counter of defense.

This subject is probably one of the most crucially important of almost any. It's so basic.

[Angus86]

54. Hey no problem

I'd be very interested to hear what your father has to say on this topic as well.

[PavePusher]

51. "I have to say it doesn't fit in with his Love Thy Enemy speech."

Not at all; "love thy enemy" doesn't mean "stand and be a victim".

[Glassunion]

60. Just some food for thought on Gandhi...

I feel that non violence is more effective when practiced by those who have strength and the ability to become very violent, but choose not to. Gandhi seems to agree...

"Man for man, the strength of non-violence is in exact proportion to the ability, not the will, of the non-violent person to inflict violence." - Gandhi

Basically if I was standing next to Brock Lesnar and we were both participating in a non-violent protest. His non-violence would be far more effective than what I would contribute. Or you could look at it like the fact that 10 people being non-violent is not effective at all. Those 10 people will be easily controlled by a police force. However, if you have 10 thousand people, who greatly outnumber the police force, their non-violence is quite effective and makes a much stronger point.

[PavePusher]

61. I never thought of it in those terms.

Something to chew over, indeed.

[Glassunion]

64. Gandhi was a very interesting dude. I don't 100% agree with him.

But he definitely can make a person think.

I personally feel that he thought that any movement which gathers large numbers, the psychological fortitude to see it through and a strong spiritual development(the cause they are behind), will at the same time attain the ability to act quite powerfully. That movement has two choices: to operate in either a violent or non-violent manner. The one question is how to tip the balance in favor of the more difficult... sometimes impossible choice of non-violence.

This is a difficult choice as usually what did and does happen is that the powers that be tend to enjoy dealing out violence towards peaceful movements: India, Kent St, Civil Rights Marches, etc...

Folks also tend to confuse Gandhi's beliefs with pacifism. Gandhi was not a pacifist.

[Glassunion]

41. So... Murder with sticks and stones is morally superior to a firearm?

[DrDan]

35. EXACTLY! - But if you were looking for that "real leap of logic", you are in the right place

[PavePusher]

23. "...one of which was a fully-loaded AK-47 or SKS assault rifle..."

Quality reporting is so rare these days, it's refreshing to see the lengths a few reporters will go to to get the cold hard facts without bias or buzz-words....

[iverglas]

28. pretty fucking bizarre

This thread, that is.

Scarce hours ago I was reading someone's inconsolable grief at the suicide of someone alleged to have made death threats and known to have been in illegal possession of a good number of weapons and a lot of ammunition ...

Here we have people who have died violent, unwarranted deaths, others who have been injured -- and a jokefest going on.

Have I missed something?

What was the point of this thread?

I'm pretty sure I've missed something.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

32. typical anecdotal thread . . .

looks like to me

:shrug:

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

38. who was that masked poster?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=466186&mesg_id=466268

and others in the same vein.

Grief for one character in an anecdote, mockery for others. I find it odd, but I guess that's just me.

[hack89]

40. It was the swipe at the NRA that derailed the thread. nt

[ileus]

43. I derailed my own thead...

I suck ass.... :(

I just wanted to hit all the high points in the OP to take "ammo" away from the antis.

[ileus]

45. Update : gunner is a goner.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-10-06/quarry-shooter-profile/50676164/1


To his friends, Allman was the big man with a big smile, a devoted single father of two who once worked tirelessly to raise money for Hurricane Katrina victims, and who penned a novel about the evils of domestic violence.