Good Samaritan shot in head while feeding ex-homeless man

[MyrnaLoy]

"The unidentified man, known as "Brother John," was shot in the head by someone in a passing vehicle about 12:30 a.m. as he, his 35-year-old wife and daughters ages 3 and 7 were serving fish, fries and soda from their van" http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/07/good-samaritan-shot-in-head-while-feeding-homeless-oakland-man/1?csp=34news

[iverglas]

1. fool

If he had been carrying a firearm as he should have been, he'd be alive now.

I apologize for sounding flippant about such a horrific event.

But it needs to be pointed out that this is what gun militants say.

I ask for details: what murders (and maimings and other by-products of firearms violence) would be prevented if the victims had firearms on their persons?

There's always the years-old big famous cases that get dragged up: the Texas restaurant and all that.

Never an explanation of how the awful everyday firearms homicides like this one would have been prevented by the victim (or anyone else) "arming" themself.

Utter anti-human drivel from gun militants, and they know it, and everyone knows it.

[Ruby the Liberal]

2. "shot in the head by someone in a passing vehicle"

Because as we all know, drivebys are easily preventable as long as you have a gun on you.

Besides - How do you know he wasn't carrying?

[Divine Discontent]

3. right, that's what iverglas was saying. it's laughable to say having a gun would prevent things like

this horrible attack of someone doing loving deeds. I have fed, given meds, and blankets before to homeless people, and I can't believe I've been threatened by people for doing so. There is hate and evil in this world. Probably why I like staying in! But, we are told to be the salt of the Earth, so I go out from time to time, ha.

May they catch that person who critically injured that kind person who was just doing a very good deed in feeding fish to the homeless. :(


God bless him to recover

[Ruby the Liberal]

4. Hes not dead yet

Thankfully, he is in a hospital according to the link.

[iverglas]

7. (edited subject)

Forgive me, this time I actually didn't click.

The man is on life support and listed in critical condition. A bullet grazed the wife's shoulder; the children were not hurt.

People have indeed recovered from gunshots to the head after being in critical condition and on life support ... at least one of the victims of the Dawson College shooting did just that.

[Divine Discontent]

8. thank you for that bit of info. His being shot was just so disturbing. Hopefully he gets better!

[RSillsbee]

30. And it's just as laughable to say tighter restrictions on guns

would have prevented it

[SteveM]

39. You mean Iverglas' straw man...

Who is saying: "it's laughable to say having a gun would prevent things like this horrible attack..."

Iverglas sets up a straw man and sets it afire. Again.

Please be advised that carrying a weapon on you (or even having one in your home) is no assurance that you will survive a violent attack. And no defender of 2A has to my knowledge ever asserted this. And the framers of the Constitution who recognized the right to keep and bear arms knew this as well.

[iverglas]

48. and yet, and yet

a whole lot of people feel pretty confident that packing will indeed enable them to survive a violent attack.

Look at all the time and energy they put into it. Not just posting on internet forums about it, either. Buying, trading, cleaning, picking out the most suitable fanny pack, consulting others about what fanny pack is suitable and where to acquire it, hauling the damned thing around with you wherever you go, having to figure out what to do if you go swimming or want to try on a new outfit before buying it, constantly having part of your mind devoted to whether you're going to need to draw down in the next few seconds ...

And all for no particular reason?

Well, maybe not no particular reason. We do all know there are loads of reasons for toting guns around, demanding the "right" to tote guns around, occupying the spaces of public discussion with incessant chatter about toting guns around ... some of which have absolutely nothing to do with surviving violent attacks ...

But c'mon. I think gun toters put quite a bit of store by their ability to survive a violent attack by doing something or other with a firearm.

So what's it based on? The fact that they can't come up with any significant proportion of known homicides where that would have happened?

Hmm.

[SteveM]

54. I believe you will find in the archives of this forum...

ample evidence of thousands of instances wherein firearms were utilized in thwarting crime. It is quite possible that many homicides would have been thwarted (or the casualties reduced) by an armed citizen, but evidently da thug in these instances came upon someone who was NOT armed (currently, the odds are in da thug's favor).

I for one am happy that thousands of people daily are preventing crime against themselves and their families. And I think it is useful that folks who choose to protect themselves should discuss the best ways in which to do that. But you don't.

[iverglas]

55. "thousands of people daily"

You and Kleck, pretty tight, are you?

I for one am happy that thousands of people daily are preventing crime against themselves and their families.

Shall we say that you mean, what, 5,000? That's pretty low for "thousands", but let's start with it.

That's 1,825,000 crimes a year.

In the US in 2009, 10,639,369 actual crimes a year.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

At 5,000 a day, that's 1/6 that number again. At 10,000 a day, 1/3 that number again.

Yowsers.

What kinds of crimes are these imaginary ones of yours? Robberies? That would be the biggie, I'd think.

There were 408,217 of them in 2009. So maybe, like, four or five times that many ... or 10 times that many ... didn't happen because somebody had a gun?

Do you actually believe this stuff?

Maybe you mean murder. In 2009, 15,241 of them.

How many murders a day did your gun packers prevent? If it was more than 42, then they prevented more murders than actually happened.

(And once again, we have that small problem of where all the bodies of all the people who didn't have guns have been hidden.)

C'mon. 'Fess up. You don't want to look like a total whacko.

You don't really believe this stuff, do you?

:eyes:


but evidently da thug in these instances came upon someone who was NOT armed (currently, the odds are in da thug's favor).

Stereotyping duly noted. Was the assailant's ethnicity mentioned in the story?

How do you know the victim(s) was(were) not armed?? Have I not seen an update of this one too?

Let's play let's pretend, though. Let's pretend the victim had a firearm, the victim who was shot in the head.

Now you write the script for us in which the victim averts the injuries to himself and the other people, inflicted by shots fired from a moving car without warning, by using his firearm. Bated breath! But dang, I'm afraid I've given you too many hints ...

[SteveM]

57. Quit pulling the race card...

"da thug" is my reference to ANYONE who is a knuckle-dragging thug. You seem to equate the term "da" to some racial stereotype. Disabuse yourself of that notion.

[oneshooter]

58. Personally I prefer "Goblin". n/t

[SteveM]

63. And yet there are some controller/banners who don't like that term...

either. Have you noticed the wrath and hatred spewed toward the drunken lout and idiot who "accidentally" shoots someone, but the same raw emotions are muted when it comes to da thug and crim? I think Iverglas has revealed some of the reason for that: A belief that crims are downtrodden and disadvantaged and need our support and social safety net to correct their misguided ways with guns, especially it would seem when it comes to blacks (she believes that I was stereotyping when I used "da"). Certainly, they are not part of the tens of millions of gun-owners who are condemned at every opportunity, but that is who this culture war is directed toward: Tens of millions of fellow Americans.

In 1959 at the Gainesville Drive-In, my Dad burst out laughing when the trailers for The Fly were shown. "Da Fly!" he yelled, "Da Fly!"

So little is required to pull the card. Gets a little old.

[iverglas]

67. I think your psychoanalyst certificate

was not issued by an accredited institution.

Have you noticed the wrath and hatred spewed toward the drunken lout and idiot who "accidentally" shoots someone, but the same raw emotions are muted when it comes to da thug and crim? I think Iverglas has revealed some of the reason for that: A belief that crims are downtrodden and disadvantaged and need our support and social safety net to correct their misguided ways with guns, especially it would seem when it comes to blacks (she believes that I was stereotyping when I used "da").

What does this "wrath and hatred" whereof you speak have to do with me?

Somehow, something I say gets put into the blender with something someone else allegedly said that I have never said, whirled around a bit, and comes out as evidence that I believe something you have not one shred of evidence for stating I believe?

It's a convoluted and time-consumng way of concocting a falsehood, but hey, if you enjoy yourself, I guess that's what matters.


Certainly, they are not part of the tens of millions of gun-owners who are condemned at every opportunity, but that is who this culture war is directed toward: Tens of millions of fellow Americans.

I'm not part of your culture wars, I think the "culture war" is a right-wing meme and any war being prosecuted is being prosecuted by the right wing against the targets of its hatred, and I've never condemned tens of millions of anybody that I can recall; certainly not gun owners, anyhow. QUITE THE OPPOSITE, in fact.

So that little web of deceit just failed to catch anything at all, I'm afraid.

[SteveM]

83. I'm sorry, was I instead stereotyping Indians?

[AtheistCrusader]

76. It can be regional.

What is an offhand 'acceptable' comment in one region, can be a common-use slur in another. Language has borders all it's own.

[SteveM]

84. True 'nuff. At least I wan't accused of being anti-Indian.

[iverglas]

62. guess the rest of my post

-- like, the actual content, that other bit just being a response to your gratuitous ... ness -- was just unanswerable, eh?

A little simple arithmetic, and you go all wobbly.

[SteveM]

66. I generally don't answer posts which pull race cards...

But here it is:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

I find it interesting that even a member of the NCVS member, Phillip Cook, believes that the number lies somewhere "in between."
Split the difference and you have your thousands of DGUs every day.

Here's to your wobbliness.

[ManiacJoe]

56. Another strawman.

Intentional or not?

a whole lot of people feel pretty confident that packing will indeed enable them to survive a violent attack.

The correct interpretation of previous statements is "a whole lot of people feel that packing will improve their odds of surviving a violent attack." Those making that statement understand that there are no guarantees.

[AtheistCrusader]

75. There's the strawman again.

None of us who carry believe it will shelter us from ALL forms of attack, carried out in ALL manners. There is no single counter-measure to ALL forms of attack/surprise or otherwise.

Anyone who suggests carrying their own firearm would/could is a fool.

But SOME forms of attack by SOME manner of approach, certainly a firearm can augment your defense. That is all the justification I need.

Dissapointing you would try this line of attack.

[iverglas]

80. yeah, there it is alright

I said:

a whole lot of people feel pretty confident that packing will indeed enable them to survive a violent attack.

You reply:

None of us who carry believe it will shelter us from ALL forms of attack, carried out in ALL manners. There is no single counter-measure to ALL forms of attack/surprise or otherwise.

I'm choking on a bale of the stuff.


But SOME forms of attack by SOME manner of approach, certainly a firearm can augment your defense. That is all the justification I need.

That is not "justification".

It is a BALD ASSERTION. And what it ain't is proof.

[AtheistCrusader]

81. It's been proven plenty, as that does not require much more than an anecdote to prove.

Standard of evidence: I specified SOME. Note that I am not dropping '90%' numbers, etc.

It would help your position if you inserted the same word into:

"a whole lot of people feel pretty confident that packing will indeed enable them to survive a violent attack."

where you used an 'a'. (And then pluralize 'attack' for grammar.)

[iverglas]

5. I'm sorry, I may not be taking your point

Because as we all know, drivebys are easily preventable as long as you have a gun on you.

Yes, I believe that was my point. They aren't. Just as thousands of other firearms homicides aren't.

Besides - How do you know he wasn't carrying?

Well wouldn't it just be the icing on my cake if he were?

:rofl:

[Ruby the Liberal]

6. If you had said the exact opposite of what you did, I would have made more sense.

Was listening to countdown when I read your post and *COMPLETELY* missed your point.

:toast:

[iverglas]

9. we got us now

reversing the positions:

:toast:

[Divine Discontent]

10. we all missed something because of something... but we're so good to each other, it's all good! ha

:hug:

[Ruby the Liberal]

12. LOL!

:hug:

[SteveM]

40. And right on cue: laughing over this incident, even as she "apologizes." nt

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TPaine7]

15. Oh my, such heated drivel!

fool
Posted by iverglas


If he had been carrying a firearm as he should have been, he'd be alive now.

Really?

I apologize for sounding flippant about such a horrific event.

No you don't. That "apology" is about as genuine as a $17 bill, US. This is about on par for your BS, iverglas. You apologize for what you're in the process of doing and will continue to do. If it was a real apology, you could have deleted that filth and typed in a decent, respectable substitute. Instead you typed 5 more lines of text. You not only typed more drivel, you posted it.

But it needs to be pointed out that this is what gun militants say.

Yes, like it needs to be pointed out that "gun militants" like to drink the blood of Christian babies. Like it needs to be pointed out that the earth is flat and you're the Goddess of Truth and Beauty.

Who are these "gun militants"? Who says that this person was a fool and that "If he had been carrying a firearm as he should have been, he'd be alive now." Name two. (Two is the minimum number required to support your BS claim.)

Not only is your statement bullshit taken literally, it is bullshit if interpreted liberally.

Name (or cite or point to the thread where the posts appear) any two people who advocate for gun rights, and who also say that a person hurt in a comparable situation is a fool and would have been saved if they carried a gun. (And note I'm leaving out your typical iverglas logic that says the man would have been alive, even though he is alive.)

I ask for details: what murders (and maimings and other by-products of firearms violence) would be prevented if the victims had firearms on their persons?

Public Service Announcement

This is a bullshit challenge. It is impossible for anyone to answer that question whose last name is not "Almighty." It is debatable whether God could convince her.

No human being can tell you what would have happened in a given situation if the victim had had a gun--no matter the victim's skill or lack of skill. No matter the teller's skill or experience.

This same "challenge" was posted here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x440356#440618 . The OP's case was rejected, even after the news story was updated to convey the sheriff's certainty that at least rape was in in the plans for the intended victim after she was tied up.

Let me put this as plainly as I can. This challenge is not winnable--at least to iverglas' satisfaction. The sheriff was not a mind reader. The Texas case is too old. In other cases no one was hurt or killed.

Any evidence which would tend to indicate that a gun would have prevented a murder or injury is inadmissible. Bullshit excuses will be developed as needed. You cannot possibly produce enough evidence, facts, rationale, or anything else.

It is a fool's errand to attempt to answer this challenge.

[iverglas]

17. what a dog's breakfast

This same "challenge" was posted here: ...

Oh, you mean the thread in which I said that the victim had apparently acted reasonably by using force to avert a threat to her life?

That thread.

Still not sure why you seem to think that the allegation that the assailant intended to sexually assault the victim makes some kind of difference to the story or my response to it. Should I be more firmly convinced that she acted reasonably by killing someone intending to rape her than she did when, I understood, she feared for her life? She apparently placed so much more weight on the threat to her life that the threat of sexual assault wasn't even reported for the first day ...

We don't know whether she would have been killed otherwise. Such is life.

But the claim IS made that someone being "armed" would have saved their or someone else's life. Not some years-old story of a multiple murder where someone would allegedly have been able to prevent some of the murders; that really is not preventing. Not some Kleck garbage about several million people preventing a death by doing something with a firearm. Actual real live (well, once live) people whose deaths would have been prevented if they or someone else had a firearm.

The "good Samaritan" isn't one of them. Who is?

What is the ACTUAL, not imaginary, good that toting firearms around does?

[SteveM]

41. Yep. And there's the "dog's breakfast." Again. nt

[DWC]

32. TPPaine, November 5, 2009 was not that long ago

Well trained, disarmed soldiers in a NO GUN ZONE

Fort Hood, Texas located next to Killeen, Texas
November 5, 2009

Fatalities
The 13 killed were:
Name Age Hometown Rank or occupation
Michael Grant Cahill<43>
62 Spokane, Washington
Civilian Physician Assistant

Libardo Eduardo Caraveo<44>
52 Woodbridge, Virginia
Major

Justin Michael DeCrow<45>
32 Plymouth, Indiana
Staff Sergeant

John P. Gaffaney<46>
56 Serra Mesa, California
Captain<47>

Frederick Greene<43>
29 Mountain City, Tennessee
Specialist

Jason Dean Hunt<43>
22 Tipton, Oklahoma
Specialist
Amy Sue Krueger<43>
29 Kiel, Wisconsin
Staff Sergeant

Aaron Thomas Nemelka<43>
19 West Jordan, Utah
Private First Class

Michael S. Pearson<48>
22 Bolingbrook, Illinois
Private First Class
Russell Gilbert Seager<41>
51 Racine, Wisconsin
Captain<49>

Francheska Velez ‡<50>
21 Chicago, Illinois Private First Class
Juanita L. Warman<41>
55 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Lieutenant Colonel<51>

Kham See Xiong<43>
23 Saint Paul, Minnesota
Private First Class
‡ Francheska Velez was pregnant at the time of her death.<52>

And there are untold thousands more where these came from.

Semper Fi,

[TPaine7]

71. I know, you know and I would say tell it to the judge.

But the judge is the Goddess of Lies and Bullshit. Her court works on the Chinese political prisoner model--verdicts are set well before the trial.

The very best strategy is to stay out of the courtroom, which I'm glad to see you did. I try to warn people... I've been doing it for a little while now. See for instance, my efforts here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x176226#176720 and surrounding to fight the BS.

I really hate to see decent folks go down the rabbit hole.

BTW, thanks for your service.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

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

[Tejas]

18. Just when I think you'll never top some of your gems from years past...

iverglas (1000+ posts) Wed Jul-27-11 07:40 PM
Response to Original message
1. fool
If he had been carrying a firearm as he should have been, he'd be alive now.

I apologize for sounding flippant about such a horrific event.

But it needs to be pointed out that this is what gun militants say.

I ask for details: what murders (and maimings and other by-products of firearms violence) would be prevented if the victims had firearms on their persons?

There's always the years-old big famous cases that get dragged up: the Texas restaurant and all that.

Never an explanation of how the awful everyday firearms homicides like this one would have been prevented by the victim (or anyone else) "arming" themself.

Utter anti-human drivel from gun militants, and they know it, and everyone knows it.





...you come along with this. Flippant? Nope, you appear giddy as usual at the opportunity to capitalize on a tragic situation.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[SteveM]

42. Folks on this thread, take notice. nt

[iverglas]

49. does no one around here have mirrors

Got some itchy trigger fingers, that I can see. Awfully thin skins and easily bruised feelings, tsk.

Nope, you appear giddy as usual at the opportunity to capitalize on a tragic situation.

Try looking in a mirror while you say that.

If things seem okay to you then, you might want to check the attic for portraits.

[SteveM]

37. Another verbal breach-burst:

"If he had been carrying a firearm as he should have been, he'd be alive now. I apologize for sounding flippant about such a horrific event. But it needs to be pointed out that this is what gun militants say."

Actually, gloating over someone shot with a gun, and using it to support some kind of gun-control/ban is precisely what controller/banners do everyday. Your apology is as hollow as a bell without a clapper. Your booger-flick about gun-militants is of course one of your many straw men.

"Utter anti-human drivel from gun militants, and they know it, and everyone knows it."

No, only you and a handful of others go along with smearing fellow progressives. Despite all the verbage you have nothing to say that couldn't be heard in some barroom by a high school drop-out.

[iverglas]

38. actually

describing my comment as "gloating over someone shot with a gun" is just a big porky porkie, isn't it?

[booley]

69. You know what? A Pox on both your houses

Gun laws would not necessarily have prevented this guy's death and we have no way of knowing that.

At the same time the "thousands" of crimes prevented by guns hardly covers the tens of thousands of accidents and crimes committed with guns.

What the hell are you doing? All you done is use this man's death as a political football and so you could argue with goobers on the other side.

Congratulations, you all helped cheapen this man's life and death.

[iverglas]

74. congratulations to you too

You have dropped yourself and your comments into a conversation that has been going on for 10 years, evidently without knowing anything about anything or anybody.

What did I feel when I saw this news report?

Bitter. Bitter that such apparently good people should have suffered such a horrible act, that -- and this is the plain fact -- 90% of the posters in this forum, now and over the years, do not give a pinch of poop about their loss, and that hundreds of thousands of people just like them in the US (and fewer, but not none, in other places) actively demand and achieve firearms policies that facilitate events like this.

People in Canada are shot and killed in cross-fire, random drive-by shootings, mistaken-identity shootings, in many instances by people using firearms illicitly imported from the United States.

The same firearms policies in the US that enable "thugs" to lay hands on firearms and use them for purposes like this enable the same kind of people in Canada to do so.

I despise those in the US and elsewhere, including here in Canada, who demand such policies and use their political clout (especially when it derives from the money of their political backers, in particular the NRA-ILA, and especially when it derives from their lies and deception as it universally and always is) to get their way, and both defeat any proposals with a chance of effectively reducing criminal access to firearms and have legislation passed that increases the risks of tragedy.

I despise them.

I read reports of events like this one, and I despise those people.

Like many people, I sometimes resort to black humour to express my outrage.

Perhaps you would prefer it if I and others had said NOTHING about this. Or posted insipid "oh dear, how sad, my prayers are with the family" drivel (like the family knows or cares).

When someone is the victim of an event like this, it is tragic. It is also not without causes.

Anyone who genuinely cares about victims like these looks for causes and and ways of breaking the causal chain.

You say "a pox on both your houses" but you replied to me. So I have replied to you.

[AtheistCrusader]

78. Let me stop you right there.

"90% of the posters in this forum, now and over the years, do not give a pinch of poop about their loss

Cite to evidence please? Because I call bullshit.

[iverglas]

79. gives a shit is as gives a shit does

[The Doctor.]

11. Oh, I hope his friends find the shooters before the police do.

[ileus]

14. No good deed goes unpunished.

[gejohnston]

16. I just hope they catch the asshole who did it

and John makes it through OK. Regardless if we are "pro gun"/"anti gun", I think we all agree on that. Would being armed helped in this situation? Doesn't sound like it. Does that mean it would not have in others, no.

:rant:

[iverglas]

20. I'm going to make this simple

Toting a firearm around is a "defensive measure" against violence, crime, whatever.

The proof of that is in the pudding.

Surely homicides are prevented by toting firearms around.

Which ones would have been prevented if someone had been doing that?

If not this one, WHICH ONES?


(of course I speak not to the author of the OP, but to those who do make the claim, or hold the belief, etc.)

... typo ...

[Tejas]

21. Would you give your blessing if a LEO were there?

iverglas (1000+ posts) Thu Jul-28-11 04:36 AM
Response to Original message
30. I'm going to make this simple
Edited on Thu Jul-28-11 04:37 AM by iverglas
Toting a firearm around is a "defensive measure" against violence, crime, whatever.

The proof of that is in the pudding.

Surely homicides are prevented by toting firearms around.

Which ones would have been prevented if someone had been doing that?

If not this one, WHICH ONES?


(of course I speak not to the author of the OP, but to those who do make the claim, or hold the belief, etc.)

... typo ...





Would it have been okay if a LEO were on the scene and returned fire at the vehicle? Would it have NOT been okay if (absent a LEO) SOMEONE/ANYONE present with a firearm returned fire?

[iverglas]

23. what are you on about?

Who said anything about "okay"?

I haven't a clue what you're attempting to say.

I made it sooooo simple I can't dumb it down any further for you, I'm afraid. Maybe if you read it a few more times.

[Tejas]

26. Yes or No would be fine,

but if that's a stretch for you then don't hurt yourself.

[iverglas]

27. yes or no

Fine, then?

If I had any idea what you were demanding I answer, this might be more fun. But probably not.

You "replied" to a post in which I asked a question.

If you don't want to answer it, you were under no compulsion to reply.

[SteveM]

43. Oh! and that feigning of confusion. same as she ever was. nt

[iverglas]

51. READ THE FUCKING POST THAT TEJAS REPLIED TO

and then maybe YOU can tell ME in what sense it was a reply to WHAT I SAID.

I will of course be extremely grateful for any assistance you can offer.

I ask for a demonstration that someone having had a firearm would have prevented significant numbers of homicides, and he mumbles something about "LEO"s shooting at drive-by shooters obviously after the shooting.

You let me know how you do.

[SteveM]

53. Please. Using all-caps in a title to a thread is poor literary form...

If Tejas was discussing this, you deal with him.

It's your method, dear, and you don't like being called on it.

[Tejas]

90. yup!

[Blown330]

22. Proof is one...

...very healthy hotel clerk and one very dead thug.

[iverglas]

24. like I said

I can't dumb the question down any further.

But hey, you can keep pretending not to understand it.

Or you can pretend that you're pretending not to understand it, if that seems best.

[Blown330]

25. I just keep pretending...

...you'll have something valuable to post sooner or later. Not yet.

[PavePusher]

34. iverglas:debate = jello:wall

It's really not worth the effort.

She's a one-trick pony, just like jpak.

She'll never answer a question directly.

Redirect, misdirect, play disingenuous, make vapid claims not related to the topic, sidetrack, derail, vent vitriol, provide "evidence" unrelated to the subject, play the race card, play the misogyny card, play the "damn Americans" card, play the victim, play dead, insinuate, accuse, build Strawmen, knock 'em down, dismiss, invent, discard, make false associations, disassociate, hypothesize, hyperbolize, hyperventilate, inflate, conflate, Kaopectate.... the list is near-endless.

[iverglas]

35. my little playmates =

... well, my little playmates, I guess. Amusing at times, irritating at times, not to be counted on to make much sense, very short, er, "memories", not yet personality-developed enough to have internalized values like the importance of the truth, firm belief in the efficacy of bullying to get their own way ...

[SteveM]

45. Careful, now Iverglas. You sound de-meaning.

BTW, what is this obsession with "bullying?"

[iverglas]

50. excuse me?

BTW, what is this obsession with "bullying?"

I use the word once, and I'm "obsessed"?

Damn I wish I could visit your world, just for an hour or two.

The world where If I say it, it's so.

Maybe I could just pretend I live there too.

[SteveM]

52. Your excused...

as properly quoted, I merely asked what is this obsession with bullying.

The term crops up among some of your cohorts rather regularly. And here it is again, this time from you.

Just being curious.

[iverglas]

61. oh, so it wasn't an allegation that *I* have an obsession with bullying

Fine. Go ask somebody who has!

I used the word once in a very specific context. So your question has nothing to do with me.

[SteveM]

64. Nope. Just wanted your opinion on why that crops up. nt

[PavePusher]

44. As I said.... n/t

[petronius]

33. You're asking for examples where a person w/o a firearm was actually killed,

but certainly would not have been had they been armed? Surely you know that that's an impossible question, but if you're really interested I'm sure you're as capable as any of us of googling up homicide stories and using your imagination to find cases where armed victims could have saved themselves.

As was expressed in the other thread, no one believes that a firearm is a perfect defense against 100% of assaults, or even that it's an effective or optimal defense in the majority of assaults. However, it's indisputable that a gun is the appropriate defensive tool against some assaults (no number of examples where a gun wouldn't have helped disproves that), and what gun rights advocates want is the right to decide for themselves whether to be prepared for those rare but deadly circumstances...

[iverglas]

36. oh, I won't demand "certainly"

I'll go for anything beyond reasonably foreseeably.

I'm not looking for odd news reports here and there.

I'm looking for something that would make a significant dent in those 12,000 or so annual firearm homicides in the US.

In virtually all to a one of the firearm homicide incidents with which I am familiar in Canada, no firearm in anyone's possession in the vicinity would have prevented a death. Bystander pedestrian, child caught in crossfire outside apartment building, teenager caught in crossfire on busy street, bar patron caught in crossfire, uninvolved man shot in drive-by in his driveway, man shot in car at intersection as a result of mistaken identity ...

And the women killed by their "armed" husbands. Those are the ones I was particularly hoping someone would present me with, if I'm honest. Situations in which ordinary women, trapped in (or trying to escape) abusive relationships, could have averted death by packing. The teacher shot by her estranged husband in a school parking lot, my client shot by her estranged husband who climbed in the window of the family home with a handgun at breakfast time (oh, I know, people here probably cook their eggs with their sidearm in a tasteful fanny pack under their bathrobes) ...

I cannot thing of a single firearms homicide in Canada,* thinking only of the ones of which I recall the details and so that mainly occurred in my province, where anybody having a firearm would have or even could have prevented a death. Of the more notorious ones, the four RCMP constables killed in Alberta were well-armed, I expect; the two RCMP constables pursuing a car in relation to a family dispute probably were too, as were police killed at traffic stops and when responding to family disputes at homes.

Police deaths actually give a good indication of the complete inefficacy of being "armed" in many situations:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/01/07/f-rcmp-deaths-line-of-duty.html


what gun rights advocates want is the right to decide for themselves whether to be prepared for those rare but deadly circumstances

We'd all love the "right" to decide pretty much everything for ourselves, wouldn't we?

Sadly, sigh, that isn't how societies work. Sometimes, the state, i.e. all of us, just is the boss of each of us.

Not capriciously or arbitrarily, certainly. But not not, either.



* edit - meant to qualify that by excluding certain mass murders, e.g. the Montreal Polytechnique. Yes, if there had been people in the school building toting firearms, someone might have succeeded in stopping Lépine before he killed some of the victims. Not particularly likely there would be such a person in the classrooms and other places he chose, and not necessarily foreseeable that anyone could have got him before he got them. And besides, the idea of engineering students in Montreal in the 1970s packing heat, or of college students in Montreal doing that in this decade (at Dawson College), I'm sorry, but it's just laughable.

[petronius]

60. It's still not really answerable. Consider, for example, the recent case of the hotel

clerk that was discussed here. If she hadn't been armed, and had been murdered, it would be very difficult to make a convincing argument that a firearm would have helped her. But it did, and it's impossible to say how many actually completed homicides could have ended differently.

However, I really don't think it matters. I'm willing to stipulate that only a small fraction of completed homicides could have been avoided by an armed victim, and I'll agree that the actual number of homicides that don't occur due to a gun is small relative to the sum total of killings. That said, it's indisputable that firearms do save lives in some circumstances, and so I think that individuals should have the right to choose for themselves whether or not to avail themselves of the option...

[iverglas]

65. yes, but that's not the "if" I'm asking about

clerk that was discussed here. If she hadn't been armed, and had been murdered

There's that second implied "if": If she hadn't been armed, and IF she had been murdered ... .

We don't know and can't say. Really we can't.

The odds of being murdered in a robbery or sexual assault are quite low, but that doesn't mean anything in any particular instance (I say, having calculated them and decided I'd hit the jackpot myself in the situation); no one is asked to play the odds when they face such a threat, and no outcome can be predicted on that basis.

But the fact is that loads of armed robberies and sexual assaults by knife-wielding robbers/assailants do happen where no death occurs.

So we can't say.

The "if" I'm asking about is in situations where someone was killed.

If people can, quite reasonably, say that they believe the hotel clerk would be dead if she had not had immediate access to a firearm, surely it is not too much to expect people to come up with situations in which they can equally reasonably say that someone would not be dead if they had had immediate access to a firearm.

Of all the 15,000 murders in the US in a year?

There are arguments against allowing the carrying of firearms in public. (Take a leap: agree to assume that for the sake of argument even if you won't admit it; accept that there are many people who see very good arguments.)

Surely those advocating allowing it should be able to come up with some at least prima facie evidence of the benefits -- at least a goodly number of homicides that, it can be reasonably said, would not have occurred if someone had had immediate access to a firearm.

[petronius]

70. I do understand what you're asking, but I think it's largely unanswerable

Of course, there are some circumstances where a gun would very likely have prevented a homicide that did occur - e.g. school or other mass shootings of the type you mentioned - but those are rare. My point with the hotel clerk is that I think it likely there are homicides in the list of those that did occur which would have turned out differently with an armed victim; the same setup as the clerk, minus the gun. In that specific case, if she'd been unarmed, the most reasonable assessment would be "she was surprised, alone, unsuspecting, nearly under the control of the assailant - a gun wouldn't have helped anyway." It would sound foolish to argue against that, but it would be wrong. So, it's unreasonable to conclude that there aren't more cases - however debatable and undetectable - of completed homicide where a gun would have helped. I just don't think it's possible to realistically count them after we've toted up the gimmies.

So I'll make three claims: 1) there is a small number of cases of completed homicide where a firearm would quite likely have helped, 2) there is an unknowable number where it would have helped, but like in the hotel case we just can't guess, 3) and there are those cases where it did help (which has its own difficulty of course - how do we really know what the assailant had intended, after the defensive action has occurred?). I'm willing to stipulate that all three of those together are small numbers, but they are evidence in favor of carrying a firearm.

I don't doubt that there are valid arguments against carrying in public, although I don't think gun violence is one of them - the non-criminal carriers who are concerned about their own self-defense are not the ones shooting up the place. The problems I recognize here are that it freaks people out (which is why I support concealed carry) and legal carriers sometime do screw up (why I support CCW licensing and training requirements). But these arguments are outweighed IMO by the (however small) number of successful defensive actions.

Criminal and negligent misuse of firearms is a separate and non-trivial issue. Like most gun-owners, I'm in favor of a substantial set of laws intended to keep firearms away from those who (would) misuse them. But I don't accept that the misbehavior of others should significantly interfere with my own choices in this regard...

[iverglas]

77. and again ...

Of course, there are some circumstances where a gun would very likely have prevented a homicide that did occur - e.g. school or other mass shootings of the type you mentioned

The allegation is actually that the gun (i.e. a person with a gun) would likely have reduced the numbers of homicides. It is difficult to say there would not have still been numerous homicides in such situations -- and woundings, and the trauma to individuals and communities that results from such incidents, etc.


My point with the hotel clerk is that I think it likely there are homicides in the list of those that did occur which would have turned out differently with an armed victim; the same setup as the clerk, minus the gun.

Fine, but I want some evidence.


So, it's unreasonable to conclude that there aren't more cases - however debatable and undetectable - of completed homicide where a gun would have helped. I just don't think it's possible to realistically count them after we've toted up the gimmies.

I haven't asked for a count. I've asked for a good number of examples. Surely google news should provide lots of fodder.

It's true that homicide during robbery is relatively common in the US -- far more common, proportionate to numbers of robberies, than in Canada, for instance. The plain fact here is that the odds of being the victim of a robbery in which a firearm is used are multiple times higher in the US than in Canada and the odds of being killed in the course of the robbery are much higher. (Also worth noting in relation to robbery statistics: robberies that result in homicide are counted as homicides in the US and do not appear in robbery statistics.)


Here is the thing.

The refrain that a firearm can be / is used to prevent harm and in particular to defend life is so constant, so loud, so insistent, here and elsewhere, that those who sing it must surely have something other than self-serving reports by respondents to surveys on which to base this claim.

The very obvious way of substantiating the claim would be to examine actual homicides and at least assess the likelihood that a firearm in the possession of the victim would have prevented the death.

It would indeed be very useful to break the cases examined down into categories, in particular whether the homicide/victim was gang-related/involved. Where possible, it would be interesting to know whether the victim did have a firearm, of course, and it might be worth making some reasonable (and clearly stated, of course) assumptions in that regard for the purpose of the examination.

Sounds like a good dissertation subject.

But meanwhile, I leave the ball in the court of those who claim that carrying a firearm around (or having a firearm unsecured in one's home, for example) is an effective or even necessary preparation for preventing or defending against an assault on one's self or some other person or persons, and in particular for saving one's life.


The problems I recognize here are that it freaks people out (which is why I support concealed carry) and legal carriers sometime do screw up (why I support CCW licensing and training requirements). But these arguments are outweighed IMO by the (however small) number of successful defensive actions.

I won't address your characterizations of the objections (although it really isn't civil to refer to objections by saying that something "freaks people out") -- it doesn't matter how you characterize them; stating your opinion that they are outweighed by some unknown element isn't an effective argument. (If only one life were saved? ;) )


Note that I don't really need to offer a specific argument against "concealed carry" (or any other kind) myself, since I oppose possession of handguns by anyone for any purpose, outside of secure sporting and storage facilities. So that's not what this is about; it's about the actual or reasonably foreseeable/arguable efficacy of carrying a firearm (or having a firearm unsecured in one's home/premises) for the claimed purpose.

[TPaine7]

85. Are surveys good ways to examine human behavior or not?

The refrain that a firearm can be / is used to prevent harm and in particular to defend life is so constant, so loud, so insistent, here and elsewhere, that those who sing it must surely have something other than self-serving reports by respondents to surveys on which to base this claim.

I'd provide you with a few thousand tales of the women and girls who were sexually assaulted in the last few weeks ... mostly by parents, other relations, co-workers, present or former partners ... but their stories don't make the news.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x440356#440757

So which is it? Are surveys a good way to get evidence about human behavior or not?

Or am I to assume that you were present at a few thousand sexual assaults and know personally that they actually took place? Am I to assume that you know that in each of these thousands of cases there was corroborating evidence beyond reasonable (not ivergasian) doubt? Or is it that women don't lie about sexual abuse to, among other things get full custody?

When women and girls (boy and men don't count, I know) report rapes, at least to the places you get your numbers from, are they run through a gauntlet of cross examination like the one in Kleck's survey? Are the ones that don't pass muster dismissed and eliminated from your thousands? Or are you counting girls and women outside America?

Let me be perfectly clear, not for you but for those who might be fooled by a hysterically outraged response. I am not denying that thousands of rapes take place in America every few weeks. (I am not saying that they do, either. I am not familiar enough with the survey methodology to know for sure.) But I have had intimate conversations with multiple women about their experiences, and I believed them.)

The fact is that surveys are a good methodology to find out about human behavior. I have never witnessed a defensive gun use that certainly prevented death. I have never witnessed a rape or child molestation. But I am not simple minded enough to conclude that neither one takes place because of that fact, or that they don't happen often.

Yes I know that I, along with 90% of the men (and apparently women) in this place are raving women haters. I would tell you what to do with that opinion, Your Sophistry, but I won't lower myself.

So rant, rave, whine to the mods, demand my tombstone, throw dirt into the air, or find some minor real or imagined mistake in my post. But don't you dare address the actual points I made.

[iverglas]

86. there is no history

There is no reality outside Master Paine's head, at this very point in space and time.

No one has ever demonstrated the grave flaws in the methodology of surveys in which people report "defensive gun uses". Nobody, nowhere, and certainly not here at old Democratic Underground.

No indeed. So every time the question arises, Master Paine is entitled to demand that people answer his innocent little questions all over again.

In his head.



typo fixed

[TPaine7]

87. I demand nothing; I expect nothing.

As a matter of fact, I was certain that you would provide nothing--of substance.

My opinion, based on what I've heard and read that touched on the subject of rape statistics, is that the methodology--especially the techniques used to detect false positives--in the statistics that you are citing vaguely alluding to are significantly less rigorous than those Kleck used.

What I am interested in is a COMPARISON between the "gravely flawed" methodology of Kleck and the "pristine, scientifically rigorous, and unimpeachable methodology" that would be required to convince a skeptic like you.

Or are your skepticism of surveys and your need for scientific rigor far in excess of Kleck's study (with its gauntlet to catch people caught unawares by a phone call in any lie or inconsistency on the spur of the moment and to require that they repeat the exact same internally consistent lies when they were called back by a supervisor) selective?

I am sure a skeptic like you would have in-depth knowledge of the methodology behind any such horrific statistics as you claim. No doubt you are able to explain in detail the superiority of the methodology behind the statistics you quote so authoritatively over the DGU statistics you condemn with equal ablomb.

Surely you have something, besides BS and evasion?! Surely you won't try to dodge the point and fall back on the same tired arguments we've all heard for years.

I know what you're full of, iverglas, and I'm pretty sure it's becoming evident to many others. As I said before, I demand nothing and I expect nothing. (Actually, I expect a good bit less than nothing, as far as substance is concerned.)

But here's your chance to surprise me and perhaps many readers. After all, you don't need to be divine to answer my challenge.

[petronius]

88. I sense an impending circularity here, but I'll add a bit

Of course, there are some circumstances where a gun would very likely have prevented a homicide that did occur - e.g. school or other mass shootings of the type you mentioned

The allegation is actually that the gun (i.e. a person with a gun) would likely have reduced the numbers of homicides. It is difficult to say there would not have still been numerous homicides in such situations -- and woundings, and the trauma to individuals and communities that results from such incidents, etc.

Yes, that was my intended meaning; sorry if it wasn't clear. A mass murder counts as x homicides. A person with a gun (or other weapon, or luck, or really quick wits), may be able to reduce the number of homicides in the event to x-n.

Fine, but I want some evidence. ... I haven't asked for a count. I've asked for a good number of examples. Surely google news should provide lots of fodder.

How many is a "good number"? I think it's logically indisputable that the number of lives saved by the carrying of a firearm is a non-zero positive number. We know this both from the number of successful self-defenses, as well as the circumstances (discussed above) where a gun likely would have helped. As for how many homicides could have been prevented, I agree it would be a dissertation-scale project and extremely difficult. The hypothetical flip-side of the hotel clerk is one example, here's another:

...the suspect snuck up behind her and ambushed her with a knife at 4:30 a.m.

The attack was horrific. McVay was stabbed more than 30 times, front and back. She was slashed across the throat and jabbed in the torso. There were wounds on her forearms and hands where she tried to defend herself. She fought back, but eventually succumbed to her wounds, police said.

http://www.hanfordsentinel.com/news/local/article_58f649b6-b979-11e0-a640-001cc4c002e0.html#ixzz1TXyl9Z9T

Would a gun have helped Ms. McVay? She had time to fight back, could she have drawn and fired? I don't have the months it would take to hash that out for any substantial fraction of annual homicides.

But more to the point, I don't think it's necessary because we already know that prevented homicides is a non-zero positive number. I agree that it's probably small, both in real numbers and relative to total homicides, but that doesn't matter. Even a tiny number of prevented homicides is sufficient to outweigh the arguments against public carrying (IOW, 'some' is a 'good number' in our non-quantitative discussion).

I won't address your characterizations of the objections (although it really isn't civil to refer to objections by saying that something "freaks people out") -- it doesn't matter how you characterize them; stating your opinion that they are outweighed by some unknown element isn't an effective argument. (If only one life were saved? ;) )

'Freak out' wasn't meant to be uncivil - if you can suggest a concise phrase for "feel a reasonable-to-them-but-empirically-unjustified sense of concern" I'll be happy to use it. (I speak Californian, so "freak out" is like totally the Queen's English for me, dude. It's not a dis. And 'dude' includes women. :)) But do I think it is an effective argument - the points against carrying in public are generally nonfatal, but the arguments in favor are an unknown but non-zero number of prevented crimes/homicides. Even without knowing the number, that carries more weight.

In sum, I think it's indisputable that properly carried firearms have and could have saved lives. I also think that such self-preservations are uncommon. But I think that even the minimum number that must have occurred is sufficient to outweigh the objections to carrying in public.

Note that I don't really need to offer a specific argument against "concealed carry" (or any other kind) myself, since I oppose possession of handguns by anyone for any purpose, outside of secure sporting and storage facilities. So that's not what this is about; it's about the actual or reasonably foreseeable/arguable efficacy of carrying a firearm (or having a firearm unsecured in one's home/premises) for the claimed purpose.

I did note that, yes. But I thought that you had introduced the specific topic of "carrying in public", and it's certainly suggested by the topic of the OP, so I focused on that. But it's not really about the efficacy of carrying - 99.9% of carried guns won't do anything good or bad - it's whether the arguments in favor outweigh the arguments against. And I conclude that they do...

[gejohnston]

89. I get where you are going but

Nothing is for certain, but I would look for home invasions, serial murders, that sort of thing. To get an honest answer, one would have to go through all of the police reports and court transcripts to get the full picture. Situations and the truth are more complex than what you can get from the newspaper. That does not negate our point.


it's more complex than that.
IIRC, the four RCMP officers in Alberta were ambushed by a guy with a rifle from a vantage point and range that the Mounties' pistols would not help. I don't know if Canadian police carry rifles or shotguns in patrol cars.

[Euromutt]

28. For fuck's sake, why?

What kind of sociopathic waste of oxygen opens up on a 61-year-old up-until-recently-homeless guy and a family who are providing food to the needy? Don't tell me it's because of lax gun laws. For starters, this is Oakland, in the state with the highest approval rating from the Brady Campaign regarding its gun laws, and second, somebody willing to commit an act as unequivocally evil as committing a drive-by shooting apparently just for a laugh isn't the kind of person who's going to obey any damn law if he thinks he can get away with it.

[SteveM]

46. Poor guy is clinging to life, and controller/banners have a field day. nt

[Remmah2]

29. I wonder if the drive by shooter had a drivers license? nt

nt

[rl6214]

31. Unrec for drive=by news reporting

Something the OP has spoken out against in the past.

[SteveM]

47. Like Feinstein's packing, it's okay if SHE does it, not you. nt

[ManiacJoe]

59. The husband has died.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/07/28/man-shot-while-feeding-oakland-homeless-dies

[iverglas]

68. unfortunately that was the probable outcome

Gunshot to the head leaving someone in critical condition on life support ... it was the situation with two Mounties shot in western Canada a few years ago and I remember thinking in that case they may well have been maintaining life only so that the person still being sought was not made aware that the charges against him would be murder ...

Words kind of fail when one tries not to be trite. "Senseless tragedy" ... as are so many other similar events.

[Divine Discontent]

73. that's sad. thanks for update. :(

[AtheistCrusader]

82. I'm impressed with the witness coming forward like that.

No small measure of courage.


Sad story all around.