The Silent and Hidden Victims of Gun Violence

[mikeb302000]

The Daily Times of Farmington New Mexico reports

Witnesses report that Monday's fatal shooting of a Farmington man stemmed from a domestic violence situation involving the deceased and his ex-girlfriend.

Christopher Lucero, 34, was shot three times shortly before 3 p.m. inside a residence on County Road 3958, where he went to see the mother of his three children.

He was pronounced dead on the scene.

Deputies arrested David Markham, 57, who at the time of the shooting told deputies that he was breaking up a physical fight between Lucero and Leandra Tafoya.

The couple's 4-year-old son was present at the time of the shooting.

How many times have we heard about the low percentage of gun deaths and how many ways have we seen that figure manipulated to look even lower? When talking about suicides it's a person's right to do it, or he would have used another means. When it's a criminal doing something wrong, that has nothing at all to do with lawful gun owners.

Even when they talk about the peripheral damage, the woundings and property damage, nothing can trump the god-given, natural-human right to own and carry that inanimate object called a gun.

But, in this story we have a tiny glimpse into a little reported aspect of gun violence. "The couple's 4-year-old son was present at the time of the shooting." Most of the time they don't mention it, but this must be a fairly common situation, an innocent person, not necessarily a child, witnesses the violence and is never the same again. Imagine the Post Traumatic Stress experienced by these innocents. Imagine the cost to society in lost wages and wasted potential.

(cross posted at Mikeb302000)
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

[LAGC]

1. Clearly we need to ban all guns... for the children!

As if a child wouldn't be even more traumatized by witnessing a parent being stabbed or bludgeoned to death.

[Hoyt]

2. Sadly, most gun owners don't care because alternative is restrictions on them buying another weapon.

Think about the Republican debate when one of the callous ole fools said it's OK if people die in the streets -- same thing here. We are talking "greedy" gun owners and they could not care about collateral damage to kids, spouses, or anyone else.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

3. Since my rights are far more important than someone else's feelings...

It isn't that we don't care. We simply recognize that life is not safe, shit happens, and statistically insignificant events are not a reason to limit the freedoms of everyone.

I have all kinds of sympathy and empathy for what those affected must feel. However, just as someone getting in a car accident won't stop me from driving, a firearms accident doesn't stop me from owning guns.

[Hoyt]

5. Calling them "Insignificant Events" is exactly what I am talking about.

I really don't care about people owning a few guns at home -- I do care about too many more guns in society.

As to your car example -- you and I both will continue to drive, but I have no problem with restrictions on cell phone use while driving, miles per gallon, increased law enforcement to get drunk and unsafe drivers off streets, and anything else that makes life safer for me and others on the road.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

6. They ARE insignificant

Last edited Thu Dec 15, 2011, 02:16 PM - Edit history (1)

At least to those not directly affected.

Seriously Hoyt - this nation has over 300,000,000 people. What would you call it? It sure isn't exactly epidemic, no matter what certain people like to claim.

I'm sorry you have no problem with restrictions on your freedom in the name of safety. That is pretty much the exact opposite of the reason this country was formed - but hey - you're welcome to feel that way. Of course, you'd likely be happier if you moved someplace more to your liking, but whatever.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

11. "I'm sorry you have no problem with restrictions on your safety in the name of freedom."

I don't see how "restrictions" can be characterized as "freedom".

[We_Have_A_Problem]

13. *sheepishly looking at his feet*

Um...mistyped? Just got a little cixelyd

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

15. Yeah... I figured :) n/t

[We_Have_A_Problem]

16. Although sadly...

....many people DO see restrictions as freedom.

Reference the mentality of banning firearms in order to secure a right to be safe...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

18. But...

...my Bill of Rights doesn't name a "right to be safe". I also can't understand how being less prepared or equipped for self-defense can make you safer???

I wonder if those same folks see fees, taxes and surcharges as discounts?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

21. If such a right actually COULD exist....

...it would be covered under the 9th. Remember, the Bill of Rights is not intended to grant a thing. It protects existing rights.

The "right" to be safe is an absolute fantasy though. The idea that it even could exist would require such a degree of control of everyone, that you would by the very nature of attempting to protect that right, violate every other right.

Safety is your responsibility.

[Hoyt]

19. I guess you are ticked you can't own grenades, etc., so you can feel like you are in free society.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

22. Not at all.

I can own them if i want to.

You didn't know that? Oh well - that's what usually happens when you don't bother actually learning the facts about things.

[beevul]

27. Actually, Hoyt, people CAN own grenades.

Actually, Hoyt, people CAN own grenades.

I guess you are ticked you can't come up with any good arguments, so you can feel like you are in "safe" society.

[Hoyt]

30. Go walk down street with one and see what happens -- some little ole lady might tackle you.

The little ole, frail ladies have stopped a lot of such incidents lately.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

35. If i did, you would never know.

Grenades fit in a pocket quite easily.

Regardless, I said nothing about desiring to walk down the street with one. In fact, your original inaccurate claim was that people like me were upset we could not OWN them - you said nothing about walking down the street in public.

Do those goalposts get heavy Hoyt? Does being wrong all the time take its toll on your psyche?

[beevul]

38. I neither own any grenades, nor have any desire to.

I neither own any grenades, nor have any desire to.

Though firing one off in a safe area just once, might be entertaining.

"The little ole, frail ladies have stopped a lot of such incidents lately."

Really?

Has there been a rash of incidents involving "little ole, frail ladies", tackling people who are in possession of grenades or other explosives, lately?

[DissedByBush]

73. Grenades are a blast

Pun intended.

Seriously, I threw them in practice in the Army, and they are fun. The only problem is the requirement to duck behind cover as soon as you throw, so you don't get to see the explosion (getting hit by casing fragments sucks, thus the requirement).

C4, TNT, and shaped charges are more fun, big booms, timed so you get to watch from a safe distance. So is a ma-deuce, the standard .50 caliber machine gun, HUGE smile on your face guaranteed.

I highly recommend any of the above, conducted in a safe environment with experts present (even the .50 can kill you if headspace and timing are improperly set).

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

32. You guess...???

Well guess what? You guess poorly!

And I am in a free society.

[Doctor_J]

12. Then where do you draw the line?

As Hoyt said, every speed limit is, in your words, "a restriction on your safety in the name of freedom", though I think you got that backward. We also have special speed limits near grade schools - talk about an infringement on my rights! And I am almost sure that if cars were allowed to drive 55 mph around schools, the ensuing loss of life would be negligible - certainly not epidemic. Maybe I need to form a National Reckless driver Association (NRdA) to collect money from like-minded civil libertarians and lobby all the corrupt right-wing governors to do away with these fascist speed limits.

Your logic could be said to break down, if it even existed.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

14. Yes, we limit things like actions which are explicitly dangerous

However, carrying a gun is no different than having a car in your driveway. Actually LESS inherently dangerous.

Hoyt's desire to eliminate private ownership is not the same thing as putting a speed limit on things now is it?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

17. The point has been made...

...about "reasonable restrictions". It is the burden of those wanting the restrictions to PROVE that they are reasonable.

Btw, you should try replacing that Michael Jordan fellow in the Hanes commercials.

[Hoyt]

20. Why don't you take your "soldier of fortune" attitude and move somewhere you can use it?

In response to Problem's suggestion I move elsewhere.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

25. There is no soldier of fortune attitude

Simply put Hoyt, since you have such a problem with the freedoms enjoyed by the people of the United States, including apparently the freedom of speech, you would likely be happier were you to leave the US and move some place more in line with your stated desires. I'd recommend China or Cuba.

[rl6214]

77. I think he might be happy in italy

others seem to be.

[spin]

8. You do not oppose gun ownership at home?

But you oppose the licensed carry of firearms by civilians in public.

Strangely, statistics show those who have carry permits are the most responsible gun owners and rarely commit crimes that involve a criminal misuse of their firearms.

Florida, for example, has had "shall issue" concealed carry since 1987 and has issued 2,092,966 concealed weapons permits of which 878,174 are currently valid. In that 24 year period of time only 168 carry permits have been revoked because the holder committed a crime with a firearm.
source: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/news/reports.html (click onMonthly Summary Report [PDF])

Other states have had similar results. Texas publishes a yearly report which compares the total number of convictions for various crimes and lists how many of those crimes involved those who have carry permits. The latest report dated 2009 reveals that of the 2,603 convictions for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, only 7 were committed by a permit holder. There were a total of 1,845 convictions for aggravated robbery none of which involved a person with a carry permit. 8,443 individuals were convicted of an aggravated assault that caused bodily injury but only 7 had carry permits.

The Texas reports for 2009 and other years can be found at: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm)

It's obvious that those who are licensed to carry concealed weapons are not the problem. Those who illegally carry firearms in public are.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

9. Tsk tsk tsk

You know better than to bring facts to this debate...

[Hoyt]

24. Similar stats for those who could get permit, but choose not to carry, are even more impressive.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

28. No sorry, but they arent.

That would be the general public without a felony conviction - after all, that is about the sole restriction. As the stats clearly indicate, CCW permit holders are far more law abiding than the general population.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

[Hoyt]

33. We're not talking about "general" population, we are talking about people who could get a permit.

I know the concept is difficult for you guys to grasp because you've been listening to this right wing gun crud for far too long.

Those of us who can pass a BG check for a permit -- but realize it is not in our or society's best interest and therefore refuse to carry -- are far less likely to commit a gun crime, or injure someone on the street because . . . . . . .we don't have a friggin gun on the streets to brandish, touch in an intimidating fashion, discharge accidentally, allow a criminal to steal and use again, etc.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

36. That would be the bulk of the general population

In a "shall issue" state, there are few limitations which would prevent a CCW permit. In short, if you could buy a gun, you could pass the check for a CCW.

VERY few people take the view you do as far as it being not in society's best interest. You overestimate the reasons why most people dont. The vast bulk do not simply because they don't know shit about guns and don't want to.

As far as everything else you mentioned...lets see...

Brandishing is a crime. A CCW holder who does that loses his license and probably goes to jail.
Touching in an intimidating fashion? That comes under the brandishing statute in most cases.
Discharge accidentally? Happens - rarely - and usually with cops.
ALLOW a criminal to steal? No, hoyt, that is a criminal committing a criminal act. Simple as that.

Keep it up - I need the laughter.

[spin]

40. You're missing one very important point ...

Something that I have heard a number of people mention who carry on a regular basis .

If you have a license to carry a firearm and do, your attitude changes. Unlike what you fantasize, a person with a permit becomes more polite and far less likely to act aggressively. You realize that if your actions escalate a situation to the point that you may be attacked and you use your firearm for what you consider self defense, the authorities may question your actions and you may end up behind bars.

If you find yourself dealing with an angry or argumentative individual it's best to defuse the situation and walk away, even if it makes you look like a coward.

Once I started carrying I was amazed at how my personality changed. I even became a far more polite driver. At one time I might have flipped the bird to a driver who cut me off in traffic, but no longer.

Even if you are not carrying a weapon engaging in or starting a fight might endanger your carry permit.

I've mentioned before that my daughter attracted the attentions of a stalker a couple of years ago. My son in law has a carry permit and while he did consider beating the crap out of the stalker, he realized that he might lose his permit. Therefore he agreed with me that the best path was to have his wife file a restraining order. My daughter also has a carry permit and while she was concerned about the stalker attacking her, she didn't change her lifestyle out of fear.

Eventually this persistent individual was arrested and had to spend several weekends in jail for his stalking. The judge threatened him with a year in prison if he continued. His stalking has ceased. All ended well without any violence.

Perhaps Robert Heinlein was right when he wrote, "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

[Hoyt]

45. Your attitude may have changed, but plenty of others' simply changed for the worse.

Actually, the "polite society" is really BS when someone is packing a gun for intimidation. You guys really crack me up.

I don't carry a gun and am very polite to almost everyone except those who think guns are peaceful. Reminds me of a KKK member I got into it with because he said he was a "civil right activist."

[Union Scribe]

47. Relating DUers to Klansmen now?

Nice. Really nice.

[Hoyt]

53. Like I said -- that "peaceful" BS sounds exactly like them.

I grew up where they appeared on TV and radio running for political office and claimed they were not racist, were peace loving people, they were Christians, patriots, and similar BS.

Someone packing a gun in a church, family restaurant, public park, etc., does not sound peaceful to me.

If you are out in the wilds -- who cares. But around other people . . . . . . .

[We_Have_A_Problem]

61. Being racist

is fully within someone's rights. Like it or not.

Further, one can be racist and peaceful. The two are not exclusive.

[Hoyt]

62. Good point that you should learn. Being legal, doesn't make it right!!!!!!!!

That's the way I feel about guns and those who promote their proliferation.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

65. Fine - so you don't believe it is right.

That is your right - nobody has ever said otherwise.

If you don't believe it is right, then don't own one. Again - people have repeatedly stated just that.

What is absolutely wrong though is to suggest that people should be penalized for exercising their rights just because you don't believe it is right for them to do so.

[Hoyt]

67. No, carrying guns should not be promoted. Nor should corporate greed (even though it's legal).

Like I said -- corporations can pollute; one can drive around with a confederate flag on the front of their auto; Aholes can look at minorities with hate; banks can take people's homes; corporations can treat employees like dirt; states can discriminate against people who've come here from Mexico for a better life; etc. But, that doesn't make it right. Carrying guns in public -- especially in cities -- is similar, maybe legal but not good for society.

I know, you don't care.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

70. Nope sure dont.

If everyone acted the same way, there would be no need for protection of rights. Those protections exist for when people like yourself think your opinions are more important.

Whether or not you believe carrying a gun is good for society does not matter. It causes society no harm and that's all you have to worry about.

[gejohnston]

48. so what does

the Klan have to do with us? You do realize many of us would be denied membership even if were on the side of evil? That includes everyone of the SCOTUS, who are either Catholic or Jewish.
How does it intimidate if you don't know it is there?
Yeah, I'm a white guy of Western European descent. You know what else? My dad was a Mormon, my wife is Catholic, my son is Agnostic, my daughter a Wiccan, and I am an undefined theist that voted for the black guy. How would that look on the application?
Have you ever stopped to think that your post is a broad brush attack or a very offensive over generalization?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

49. Sounds like you're one who's attitude has changed for the worse...

You're rude to people simply because you disagree with them exercising their rights. Wow.....just wow....

[spin]

59. From your posts I seriously doubt that you actually know many who carry on a regular basis...

and formulate your opinion on a few people you know with carry permits or from reading posts on conservative forums.

You do need to expand your horizons in order to discuss concealed carry rationally.

It would be like my discussing the nature of those who carry openly. Open carry in urban areas in Florida is illegal; therefore I don't know anyone who does. I can speculate on their motivations and their attitude. I might say that in my opinion, they really don't open carry to intimidate others but I have no firsthand knowledge to base my opinion on.

[slackmaster]

90. How odd to apply or eschew application of an attribute of behavior such as peacefulness...

...to an inanimate object.

[Hoyt]

91. Let me straighten it out for you.

"Who think guns are peaceful" should have been "Who thinks carrying guns is peaceful" or something along those lines.

Evelyn Wood taught me to read in chunks of words rather than that pointy-fingered, word-by-word stuff some of you guys do when you get on-line to post about guns.

[slackmaster]

92. Millions of people carry guns in this country daily without attracting attention

There is nothing inherently unpeaceful in discretely carrying ANY inanimate object.

[Hoyt]

93. First, some don't tote discretely. 2nd, too many toters make stupid decisions that impact society.

[Simo 1939_1940]

83. Great post, but we should add that in addition to the fact that permit holders are

are extremely law abiding, they are also more statistically likely to be attacked away from home than they are while within their homes.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=44

Edited to add citation

[spin]

84. Very interesting statistics. Thanks. (n/t)

[Atypical Liberal]

23. Hoyt, he called them STATISTICALLY insignificant events.

Hoyt, he called them STATISTICALLY insignificant events.

Neat how omitting that one word totally paints a different picture, eh?

Again - no one is saying that a death is insignificant. Clearly even a single death is a very traumatic thing for the friends and family and loved ones left behind.

What he said, correctly, is that such events are STATISTICALLY insignificant.

Don't twist people's words around to fit an agenda.

[Hoyt]

26. They'd be even less statistically significant if we had tighter restrictions on the number of guns

you guys introduce into society.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

31. Upon what do you base that claim?

After all, when gun ownership was at a much lower rate nationwide, there were actually more accidents and more crime.

Suicide rates have remained so constant and consistent - regardless of method used - that bringing them into the discussion makes you look like you're grasping at straws.

Now, I will grant if firearms did not exist, we would have no accidents with them - this is true.

[Atypical Liberal]

56. No doubt.

But that would also mean restricting freedom.

Given that they are so statistically insignificant now, why not keep the freedoms we have AND enjoy low crime rates?

[Callisto32]

80. ...

[Atypical Liberal]

29. Why the difference in caring?

I really don't care about people owning a few guns at home -- I do care about too many more guns in society.

I'm curious what it is that accounts for your difference in caring.

People with CCW permits have been shown to hardly ever be involved in crime. They are more thoroughly vetted than people who just keep them at home. Why would you be more concerned about people who legally carry them "in society" than ones who own them at home?

[Hoyt]

34. Simple -- I don' think our parks, restaurants, bars, hospitals, etc., should be polluted by guns.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

37. Your opinion is just that...your opinion.

Others do not find the carriage of firearms to be "polluting". However, I'll make a deal with you, OK?

When you manage to come up with a way to 100% guarantee I will NEVER need a firearm in any of those environments, then I will consider being unarmed in those places. Deal?

[Hoyt]

46. As yours is "opinion" too along with other 3.7% of society who think carrying guns in public is good

[We_Have_A_Problem]

50. Based on the fact...

...that 49 states allow some form of concealed carry, most of which are shall issue, and those laws all went into effect quite recently, it would appear it is far more than 3.7% of society....

Did you just pull that number out of thin air? I have yet to see any actual information on where you got it.

[Hoyt]

52. Your fellow gun carriers have posted that stats here. Look em up. 3.7% is actually generous.

The people you hang out with may carry for some reason, but the facts are that nationwide the number is relatively small -- Thank God.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

54. What has been posted is...

...the number of applications - nothing more. YOU took that number and somehow decided it meant ~4% of the eligible population.

As I pointed out, your numbers do not consider those in states where no CCW is permitted so they couldn't carry if they wanted to, states where CCW is MAY issue, so basically your average person cannot carry if they want to, states where a permit is not required, so you have no idea HOW many people may carry. They do not consider those who are not legally allowed to carry such as felons, children, illegals or active duty military living on base.

In short, your ~4% is pure bullshit - just like most of your claims...

[Hoyt]

57. So how many do you think carry guns, and how do you know?

Is it something like the Masonic handshake, where you walk around and give a nod.

It's a relatively small number who can't walk out the door without a gun or two strapped to their bodies . . . . . . and you know it -- just can't admit it.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

60. Don't care how many carry...

That's their choice to make, not mine to know. It really is simple as that.

Doesn't matter how small a number is either. Rights are not dependent upon popularity.

There are a very small number of homosexuals too Hoyt. Would you suggest that because the percentage is so small, that they don't deserve the right to live their lives without being persecuted?

[Hoyt]

64. If you read my posts in other sections, you'll know absurd that is.

I hardly put guns on the same level as human civil rights, sexual orientation, etc.

Next thing we know, you'll be telling us it's OK to stockpile explosives and other weapons just as lethal as guns.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

66. Don't give a damn that you don't put them on the same level...

...the law does. Really not my problem if you cannot wrap your head around that.

Incidentally it is perfectly legal to stockpile explosives and other weapons just as lethal as a gun. Hell, you can stockpile ones which are MORE lethal. (here's a hint - not all of them are current technology).

Hoyt, the biggest problem you seem to have with this issue is not your feelings or passion, but rather your complete lack of factual knowledge of the issue. In short, you don't know what you're talking about.

[Hoyt]

68. Plenty of things are legal, but immoral, unethical and not in society's best interest.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

71. Carrying a firearm...

...is perfectly legal, not immoral, certainly not unethical and has no effect on society. It is an individual choice - nothing more.

Don't like it? Don't carry one.

[Hoyt]

79. Sorry, I think you are wrong. There are many indirect/collateral effects you need to consider too.

But the truth is, even if you admitted more and more folks packing guns in public is bad, you'd still carry.

Hopefully packing a gun in society will become like wearing mink coats in the not too distant future.

[friendly_iconoclast]

81. And what *are* those "indirect/collateral effects"?

BTW, your last sentence indicates once again your desire for a moral crusade...

[PavePusher]

82. What's wrong with a mink coat?

They are warm, biodegradeable, and made from a renewable resource.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

85. No, really I don't.

Indirect perceived harm is quite different from direct actual harm.

Just because you're offended by the idea that someone may be carrying a concealed firearm does not mean you've actually been harmed.

[beevul]

39. Why?

You're free to pollute all those places and more, with your opinion.

Whats to stop you from enciting a riot with it?

[PavePusher]

44. "polluted"?

Wow, isn't that straight from the KKK phrase book?

[Hoyt]

69. Good point, KKK did endorse using their guns to intimidate.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

72. And those they intimidated....

...used their guns to defend themselves. Apparently you have a problem with THAT too.

[Hoyt]

76. You obviously know little of that time -- they would have lynched a Black man with a gun.

Best that no one carry them.

[gejohnston]

78. not really,

only what I read. I was only a kid then, and I was in Wyoming. Everything was and is integrated. I do remember a couple of my grade school teachers explaining what was going on in the south, it flew over our heads. It was totally alien to us.
Although there are very few African Americans (although Cheyenne had one of the first, if not the first, African American police chiefs in the US, in the 1970s) there, there were a fair number of Hispanics and Asian descent (mostly Cantonese from the Rail Road building days. The older part of my town's cemetery has a number of tombstones are in Chinese), such barbarity like your home state did not exist. Their parents probably all had guns too.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

86. Pretty hard to lynch someone...

...who has the means and intent to poke holes in you.

You want to believe your fantasies are the same as facts, you go right ahead. Don't expect the rest of us to enable or endorse your beliefs.

[Atypical Liberal]

55. "polluted" implies there is some negative consequence. What negative consequence do you forsee?

Simple -- I don' think our parks, restaurants, bars, hospitals, etc., should be polluted by guns.

Yes, I get that, but again, I don't understand why you think that.

People who lawfully carry firearms in parks, restaurants, bars, hospitals, etc, are almost certainly not going to be involved in crime. Why do you consider this "pollution" when almost no harm will come from it?

[Callisto32]

4. Still so angrily ignorant.

[oneshooter]

41. Does this mean that I should not give my 13yr old son

The custom made AR-15 that I built for him for Christmas?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[We_Have_A_Problem]

51. Definitely not...

...you should give it to me...

[oneshooter]

74. I'm not sure that you would enjoy it as much as he will. n/t

[We_Have_A_Problem]

75. Oh certainly not.

After all - you made it for him.

[slackmaster]

89. The problem isn't guns or people who don't care. Please see reply #88.

Thanks.

[michreject]

7. how are you measuring wasted potential?

You're assuming that they are gonna grow up and change the world into a better place. They could grow up to be one of the biggest killers know to man ALA Hitler.

[rrneck]

10. Well, to be fair,

and as much as it galls me, a kid in a toxic environment like that is much more likely to grow up to be Hitler.

[Starboard Tack]

43. Well said

[montanto]

58. Domestic violence? Murder? There should be a law against that!

A former H.S. student of mine witnessed both his parents murdered when he was seven or eight. Inner city kid in a gang infested neighborhood BTW. It changed him. He recently graduated from Berkley, started an NPO to help families and victims of domestic violence. Go figure. Someone actually attempting to deal with the problem rather than the symptoms.

[SteveW]

63. Fresh new site -- same ol' agitprop...

Hi fellow 2A-supporters!

I think I have this figured out after several days of attempts to get back on. For some reason, my user name is now SteveW and not Steve M, and I cannot figure out how to get rid of my temporary pass # so I can get one I remember; commands don't work or I am using them improperly. Anyway, I am thankful for getting back!

SteveW/SteveM

[kudzu22]

87. Unless the kid had hearing damage from the gunshot

the trauma is the same as if the victim had been stabbed to death in front of him. Your example doesn't support gun control, period.

[slackmaster]

88. Shit happens around kids all the time, and they often don't get the help they need when they need it

Children witness domestic violence, sickness, and vehicle accidents. They see family members and pets die. They suffer from parents who are alcoholics, addicts, or absent for whatever reason. They get teased and bullied at school.

My own father died when I was seven years old. I was the first one on the scene. It had nothing to do with guns or violence, it was an accident, but it has affected me for the rest of my life. For almost 20 years I lived in self-doubt, wondering if I was somehow responsible for not responding more quickly to danger signs that I had sensed minutes earlier. I was only seven years old, but there was nobody around to ask me how I felt then assure me that what happened was not my fault.

It took some serious counseling over many years to get me to forgive myself, but the experience left me hardened with a life-long policy of acting immediately and without fear to any situation I see as dangerous. I don't give a shit if I overreact and piss someone off. If I see someone I believe needs to be rescued, I'll dive in and help or escalate the situation to a professional.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

I think suggesting that kids who are witnesses to "gun violence" belong in some special class overlooks the far larger problem of children who have post-traumatic stress disorder and don't get treatment. I think it's rather small-minded to try to make that a "gun" issue.

That is my opinion.