12 Dead 53 Injured in Mass shooting @ Aurora Colo Movie Theater

pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2478
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
12 Dead 53 Injured in Mass shooting @ Aurora Colo Movie Theater

A lone gunman went on a shooting spree early this morning at a screening of the new Batman Movie : The Dark Knight Rises in the Denver suburb of Aurora.

So far 12 are dead and 53 injured. The shooter was captured in the parking lot, James Holmes, 24 a drop out student from UCD in a graduate PHD program who had moved to the Denver area last year.

Local news is updating this on channel 7 Denver to be possibly 18 dead, though that has yet to be confirmed.

See - http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/31289126/detail.html

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Have

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Have you ever tried to out run a bullet ?  Besides your continued insistence that one can simply run away borders upon lunacy.

If you're asking whether I was near a shooting and ran away then yes.
ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Jesus Christ Gauche are you just too terrified to take a risk in order to preserve someone else's life ?   You will do nothing unless the outcome is guaranteed ?

I'm being realistic about the fact that if someone is being killed in a public place then you're obviously not dealing with the boy scouts, and the victim has problems that are beyond my ability to ameliorate. It's not like there's a good guy and a bad guy, you shoot the bad guy and now you're a good guy. Real life is more complicated.
ProzacDeathWish wrote:
You steadfastly cling to this "you deserve to get shot at" scenario, why is that ? 

Deserve is a strong word. If someone wants to kill you then it doesn't typically come out of nowhere. That's why a senseless killing is newsworthy, because most killings are not senseless.
ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Perhaps you should lobby the "idiots" who passed this law, who by the way usually are accompanied either by armed body guards or carry hand guns themselves (  Politicians, judges, etc )  Incidentally, I enjoy the irony of "progressive" politicians who pass laws that disarm their constituents but nevertheless rely upon armed defense to protect their own lives.

I never said anyone should be disarmed. I said they shouldn't.
ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Yes, but as you previously suggested, what if you accidentally killed a gang member by mistake ?  Do you think they'll forgive you because you only used your hands ?

No I don't think they would and I believe the reason we have such different ideas about these matters is that we have completely different life experience. I don't know exactly what your experience was but I think you've never been close enough to these things to understand what involvement in them truly entails.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10139
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:The vast majority of

Quote:
The vast majority of crimes prevented by armed citizens are prevented without even firing a shot. Most criminals are cowards and tend to run away when faced with the possibility of being shot.

The same is even more true for police officers. Rarely must they fire a shot. It's not so much cowardice as self preservation. Most people are rational when it comes to trying to live, and won't screw with the guy who is armed.

But that would never happen in this scenario. Noone sees it coming. Anyone obviously armed will be the first to go down, because while you are eating popcorn and talking to your girlfriend the shooter is surveying the scene, looking for threats. It doesn't take long. He could have been watching the theatre for hours, known exactly how many people were inside, and roughly where they were located.

But even if he didn't, when he starts shooting most will run. Those that don't are obvious and priority targets.

Your best chance at survival is to be unnoticed.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3502
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote: While I was a

cj wrote:

 

While I was a military wife in Hawaii, there was a news article about a shooting.  It happened on a Naval base.  Dad was out on his ship and mom had a gun she kept loaded in the nightstand by the bed - in case of rape.  The six year old son got out the gun and fatally shot his two year old sister.

Don't know what happened to the family.  I do know what it is like when CID - Criminal Investigation Department in the military - gets involved. 

For every story of someone defending themselves with a weapon, there is another story of some tragic unintentional shooting.

 

 

      In a similar vein, veteran police officer shoots and kills his son in a case of mistaken identity. 

http://www.uticaod.com/features/x42015524/Western-NY-man-shot-killed-at-Old-Forge-hotel


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Gauche wrote:Beyond

cj wrote:

Gauche wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Gauche's idea that you can simply "run away" while it is certainly a good idea if possible, is obviously not always possible. I am sure that every rape victim has attempted to run away and failed. I am sure that every unarmed person who has been assaulted by a mugger has attempted to run away. Since these crimes still happen, obviously running away didn't work.

I said you can flee a shooting, not a rape or mugging. If someone is going to rape or mug you then they will not come in and shoot you first. Maybe the NRA has a list of things you should say like if someone comes at you with a gun then you don't know if it's a shooting, rape or mugging. If they are shooting then it's a shooting.

 

While I was a military wife in Hawaii, there was a news article about a shooting.  It happened on a Naval base.  Dad was out on his ship and mom had a gun she kept loaded in the nightstand by the bed - in case of rape.  The six year old son got out the gun and fatally shot his two year old sister.

Don't know what happened to the family.  I do know what it is like when CID - Criminal Investigation Department in the military - gets involved. 

For every story of someone defending themselves with a weapon, there is another story of some tragic unintentional shooting.

 

That is not really an argument against citizens with guns. That is quite possibly (although obviously I do not know the specifics of the accident) the failure of the parents, and gross negligence. Why was the gun where the six-year old could get it? Why did the parents not teach the child about the danger of guns? If the gun was out, why was their not supervision? Even if all possible precautions were taken, it was still not nessecarily an indicator of anything but a tragic accident.

I'd like to see the statistics of that last statement CJ. Even if it is true, which imo seems unlikely, unintentional shootings can be decreased with education and proper supervision, and crimes are much harder to suppress.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
ThunderJones wrote:That is

ThunderJones wrote:

That is not really an argument against citizens with guns. That is quite possibly (although obviously I do not know the specifics of the accident) the failure of the parents, and gross negligence. Why was the gun where the six-year old could get it? Why did the parents not teach the child about the danger of guns? If the gun was out, why was their not supervision? Even if all possible precautions were taken, it was still not nessecarily an indicator of anything but a tragic accident.

I'd like to see the statistics of that last statement CJ. Even if it is true, which imo seems unlikely, unintentional shootings can be decreased with education and proper supervision, and crimes are much harder to suppress.

 

I don't know - it was fairly common for "waiting wives" - women whose husbands were on ship or deployment - to have a gun in the house.  And they would keep it loaded and handy.  The idea being that if you were going to be raped, likely the perp would enter your house, go to the bedroom, and rape you in your bed.  So the gun was kept in the nightstand, loaded and handy.  I never heard of this happening - at least not while I was living on base in family housing.  Maybe too many people had heard of the likelihood of a gun in the nightstand.  I was never bothered and I never had a gun. 

I did get the expected obscene phone calls.  As soon as a group were deployed, there would be some dope on the phone.  I would just hang up on them.  "Grow up!"  You don't need a gun for that.

I have no desire to hunt up statistics for you.  Last time I tried that, it was impossible to come to any conclusions as there are no standards for data collection and it seems like no two jurisdictions keep the same kind of records.  And both sides look to me to be collecting the data that supports their agenda.  If you can find some balanced stats on the subject, I would be interested.

I have heard of one person defending themselves lately and it wasn't in my city.  If someone in my town had managed to defend themselves using a gun, it would have been all over the news.  But nothing lately.  Locally, a young man growing up in a house with a lot of guns who had been taught by his dad all the safety stuff and went to gun safety classes shot his best friend.  By accident.  There have been a number of gang shootings recently in the city.  There have been some shootings with fatalities by the police in the city.  It wasn't the police who suffered the fatality.

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-city/index.ssf/2011/01/oregon_city_boy_13_faces_possible_criminal_charges_after_accidentally_shoo...

If you search "boy shoots best friend" you get a lot of articles besides this one.

I grew up with guns in the house.  My grandfather was an avid hunter and a deputy sheriff.  He kept his guns in a locked gun cabinet, unloaded, with the ammunition in a separate locked drawer.  We didn't have any accidents - ever.  When I was young, I thought that was how everyone stored their weapons.  I know better now.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
ThunderJones wrote:That is

dp


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4160
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:While I was a

cj wrote:

While I was a military wife in Hawaii, there was a news article about a shooting.  It happened on a Naval base.  Dad was out on his ship and mom had a gun she kept loaded in the nightstand by the bed - in case of rape.  The six year old son got out the gun and fatally shot his two year old sister.

Don't know what happened to the family.  I do know what it is like when CID - Criminal Investigation Department in the military - gets involved. 

For every story of someone defending themselves with a weapon, there is another story of some tragic unintentional shooting.

 

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

613 people died in firearms accidents in 2007, 65 of them were under 14. Fortunately, people have become far more aware as this statistic is substantially lower than it was 20 years ago when the number was in the thousands. There is no excuse for a young child to have access to a firearm and it is quite easy to make it impossible for a very young child to access them. Most gun owners exercise great care and accidental deaths are rare.

For comparison, the same year 134 children under 14 died from accidental poisoning, 92 from falling, 739 from drowning, 457 from fires, 72 from environmental dangers (heat/cold), 1210 from suffocation, 80 from being struck by or against something, 94 from riding bikes and 512 from road accidents while walking. Basically the only things on the list that account for fewer accidental child deaths than guns are knives-only 4 deaths, and machinery which accounted for 12 deaths. 

I don't mean to minimize it, only to point out that it is not a widespread problem. It is healthy for gun owners who might have any children, (or really any person) in their house to be slightly paranoid about making sure their firearms are secured and accessible only the them and very trusted people. Gun safes are not expensive, basic models run around a couple hundred dollars, more than worth their weight in gold if they prevent an accident. 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4160
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 There were 326 cases of

 There were 326 cases of justifiable homicide according to research done by the Wall Street Journal they claim to have gotten and compiled the numbers from all 50 states. It only includes cases where there was an actual death, so it doesn't include injuries or the number of crimes prevented by the would be victim simply drawing their firearm. I am not sure if it includes uncertain cases where the shooter was charged with murder which was later found to be justifiable by a jury or if it only includes cases where no charges were pressed because the police and county prosecutor decided it was justifiable. I wish they would publish details.  

The only studies I know that have been done to attempt to analyze how often/successfully firearms are used for self defense is the McDowell study from 1987-1990 which estimated guns were used for self defense 64,615 times a year, and the Kleck study (which I can't find a link to) which claimed firearms prevented as many as 2.45 million crimes a year. The reality is probably in between as the McDowell study only included crimes where violent contact had already occurred, thereby discounting any home invasion where a gun was brandished and the perp ran away. While the Kleck study used a small sample size and extrapolated it out to an absurd number.

Either way, both studies are irrelevant now because concealed carry laws are very different now and they were done so long ago. Gun control just hasn't been a big enough issue for anyone to bother paying for a study and government does not track statistics of potential victims who defend themselves especially if no shots are fired. The news media also prefers to report on actual deaths, so if some armed citizen scares away a would be burglar without firing a shot and that same night someone is shot or stabbed elsewhere guess which story is making the headline?  

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10139
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Perhaps I'm mistaken but I

Perhaps I'm mistaken but I doubt people stab the wrong person as often as they miss their target with a gun and hit someone else. Collateral damage is far less severe. Hence, less newsworthy.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Anyone interested my latest

Anyone interested my latest poem is about this event, in regards to the bad logic of an "all loving" god. It is the last poem in my poetry thread titled "Aurora High Tec",

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Do more justifiable

Do more justifiable homicides mean it is safer or less safe? A justifiable homicide could mean that two people were in an argument, one of them ended up dead and prosecutors couldn't make their case because the killer had no duty to retreat.

I read an article in the Washington Post a few weeks ago that said the number of justifiable homicides in the state of Florida tripled after removing duty to retreat from the law.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/stand-your-ground-laws-coincide-with-jump-in-justifiable-homicide-cases/2012/04/07/gIQAS2v5...

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3502
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote: If you search

cj wrote:

 

If you search "boy shoots best friend" you get a lot of articles besides this one.

 

 

 

   I Googled "Boy shoots best friend" and the header at the top of the page stated "about 61 results"

   I Googled "Gun saved my life" and the header at the top of the page stated "about 40,300,000 results"

 

  Although I found there is a huge disparity between the number of Google hits for each search term don't assume that I am indifferent to the point I presume you were trying to make.  Human carelessness is the foundation of these gun accidents and if one chooses to own these potentially lethal devices then one should be held accountable for their misuse.  

The same goes for alcohol consumption and operating a motor vehicle.   Every few weeks here in north Texas where I live in there is a report of another drunk driver who gets on the freeway, drives the wrong way, and slams into another vehicle.  There are usually no survivors. 

 Based upon the frequency of what is being reported in the local news, more people are dying from vehicular man slaughter than accidental shootings.   { edited to remove last sentence,  redundancy }


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:ThunderJones

cj wrote:

ThunderJones wrote:

That is not really an argument against citizens with guns. That is quite possibly (although obviously I do not know the specifics of the accident) the failure of the parents, and gross negligence. Why was the gun where the six-year old could get it? Why did the parents not teach the child about the danger of guns? If the gun was out, why was their not supervision? Even if all possible precautions were taken, it was still not nessecarily an indicator of anything but a tragic accident.

I'd like to see the statistics of that last statement CJ. Even if it is true, which imo seems unlikely, unintentional shootings can be decreased with education and proper supervision, and crimes are much harder to suppress.

 

I don't know - it was fairly common for "waiting wives" - women whose husbands were on ship or deployment - to have a gun in the house.  And they would keep it loaded and handy.  The idea being that if you were going to be raped, likely the perp would enter your house, go to the bedroom, and rape you in your bed.  So the gun was kept in the nightstand, loaded and handy.  I never heard of this happening - at least not while I was living on base in family housing.  Maybe too many people had heard of the likelihood of a gun in the nightstand.  I was never bothered and I never had a gun. 

I did get the expected obscene phone calls.  As soon as a group were deployed, there would be some dope on the phone.  I would just hang up on them.  "Grow up!"  You don't need a gun for that.

I have no desire to hunt up statistics for you.  Last time I tried that, it was impossible to come to any conclusions as there are no standards for data collection and it seems like no two jurisdictions keep the same kind of records.  And both sides look to me to be collecting the data that supports their agenda.  If you can find some balanced stats on the subject, I would be interested.

I have heard of one person defending themselves lately and it wasn't in my city.  If someone in my town had managed to defend themselves using a gun, it would have been all over the news.  But nothing lately.  Locally, a young man growing up in a house with a lot of guns who had been taught by his dad all the safety stuff and went to gun safety classes shot his best friend.  By accident.  There have been a number of gang shootings recently in the city.  There have been some shootings with fatalities by the police in the city.  It wasn't the police who suffered the fatality.

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-city/index.ssf/2011/01/oregon_city_boy_13_faces_possible_criminal_charges_after_accidentally_shoo...

If you search "boy shoots best friend" you get a lot of articles besides this one.

I grew up with guns in the house.  My grandfather was an avid hunter and a deputy sheriff.  He kept his guns in a locked gun cabinet, unloaded, with the ammunition in a separate locked drawer.  We didn't have any accidents - ever.  When I was young, I thought that was how everyone stored their weapons.  I know better now.

 

Just because there is a base legend of spontaneous rapes does not excuse the child not being given education about the gun, and the gun not being placed out of reach.

Lack of reporting in your town does not really mean anything. You could have missed the story, or it wasn't "all over the news" as your assert.

Also, if you are not going to hunt statistics for your bold claim, I would appreciate you wouldn't use it implying that it was fact. Additionally, if you view the issue as highly biased, than you should be making claims much more carefully as well.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
ThunderJones wrote:cj

ThunderJones wrote:

cj wrote:

ThunderJones wrote:

That is not really an argument against citizens with guns. That is quite possibly (although obviously I do not know the specifics of the accident) the failure of the parents, and gross negligence. Why was the gun where the six-year old could get it? Why did the parents not teach the child about the danger of guns? If the gun was out, why was their not supervision? Even if all possible precautions were taken, it was still not nessecarily an indicator of anything but a tragic accident.

I'd like to see the statistics of that last statement CJ. Even if it is true, which imo seems unlikely, unintentional shootings can be decreased with education and proper supervision, and crimes are much harder to suppress.

I don't know - it was fairly common for "waiting wives" - women whose husbands were on ship or deployment - to have a gun in the house.  And they would keep it loaded and handy.  The idea being that if you were going to be raped, likely the perp would enter your house, go to the bedroom, and rape you in your bed.  So the gun was kept in the nightstand, loaded and handy.  I never heard of this happening - at least not while I was living on base in family housing.  Maybe too many people had heard of the likelihood of a gun in the nightstand.  I was never bothered and I never had a gun. 

I did get the expected obscene phone calls.  As soon as a group were deployed, there would be some dope on the phone.  I would just hang up on them.  "Grow up!"  You don't need a gun for that.

I have no desire to hunt up statistics for you.  Last time I tried that, it was impossible to come to any conclusions as there are no standards for data collection and it seems like no two jurisdictions keep the same kind of records.  And both sides look to me to be collecting the data that supports their agenda.  If you can find some balanced stats on the subject, I would be interested.

I have heard of one person defending themselves lately and it wasn't in my city.  If someone in my town had managed to defend themselves using a gun, it would have been all over the news.  But nothing lately.  Locally, a young man growing up in a house with a lot of guns who had been taught by his dad all the safety stuff and went to gun safety classes shot his best friend.  By accident.  There have been a number of gang shootings recently in the city.  There have been some shootings with fatalities by the police in the city.  It wasn't the police who suffered the fatality.

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-city/index.ssf/2011/01/oregon_city_boy_13_faces_possible_criminal_charges_after_accidentally_shoo...

If you search "boy shoots best friend" you get a lot of articles besides this one.

I grew up with guns in the house.  My grandfather was an avid hunter and a deputy sheriff.  He kept his guns in a locked gun cabinet, unloaded, with the ammunition in a separate locked drawer.  We didn't have any accidents - ever.  When I was young, I thought that was how everyone stored their weapons.  I know better now

Just because there is a base legend of spontaneous rapes does not excuse the child not being given education about the gun, and the gun not being placed out of reach.

Lack of reporting in your town does not really mean anything. You could have missed the story, or it wasn't "all over the news" as your assert.

Also, if you are not going to hunt statistics for your bold claim, I would appreciate you wouldn't use it implying that it was fact. Additionally, if you view the issue as highly biased, than you should be making claims much more carefully as well.

 

What bold claim?  I have stated what is my opinion and what I have seen in the news.  My impressions are admittedly biased and so are yours.  BS' stats demonstrated about 2 accidental killings per 1 self defense killing.  And he was not real sure of the accuracy of the stats he found.  "Confirmation bias" affects all of us - me, you, BS, everyone.

I have been very careful to not state that what my experiences are merits any conclusions about the possible benefits or detriments of gun control.  I actually have no opinion on gun control as I can not think of a way to change the laws that would make any difference.  As stated, the long borders the US has means we can not effectively control guns or drugs or people crossing those borders.  The cost is prohibitive.  And I don't think isolation is healthy for any society.

With different laws, different borders, different cultural ideology about guns, the shootings in Colorado may have happened differently.  Not very likely.  As the tragedy in Norway adequately demonstrates, gun control will not prevent the crazies from being crazy.

I choose not to own a gun.  I once had a relationship with a crazy guy for a few months and it totally turned me off of the idea of having that kind of weapon in the house.  I also learned to make better choices in my relationships, so it wasn't all bad.  But again, my experiences and my choices are not yours, nor am I advocating that you make the choices that I have made.  I just couldn't leave the discussion as one sided as it was starting to be.

Happy now?

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
 cj wrote:ThunderJones

 

cj wrote:

ThunderJones wrote:

cj wrote:

ThunderJones wrote:

That is not really an argument against citizens with guns. That is quite possibly (although obviously I do not know the specifics of the accident) the failure of the parents, and gross negligence. Why was the gun where the six-year old could get it? Why did the parents not teach the child about the danger of guns? If the gun was out, why was their not supervision? Even if all possible precautions were taken, it was still not nessecarily an indicator of anything but a tragic accident.

I'd like to see the statistics of that last statement CJ. Even if it is true, which imo seems unlikely, unintentional shootings can be decreased with education and proper supervision, and crimes are much harder to suppress.

I don't know - it was fairly common for "waiting wives" - women whose husbands were on ship or deployment - to have a gun in the house.  And they would keep it loaded and handy.  The idea being that if you were going to be raped, likely the perp would enter your house, go to the bedroom, and rape you in your bed.  So the gun was kept in the nightstand, loaded and handy.  I never heard of this happening - at least not while I was living on base in family housing.  Maybe too many people had heard of the likelihood of a gun in the nightstand.  I was never bothered and I never had a gun. 

I did get the expected obscene phone calls.  As soon as a group were deployed, there would be some dope on the phone.  I would just hang up on them.  "Grow up!"  You don't need a gun for that.

I have no desire to hunt up statistics for you.  Last time I tried that, it was impossible to come to any conclusions as there are no standards for data collection and it seems like no two jurisdictions keep the same kind of records.  And both sides look to me to be collecting the data that supports their agenda.  If you can find some balanced stats on the subject, I would be interested.

I have heard of one person defending themselves lately and it wasn't in my city.  If someone in my town had managed to defend themselves using a gun, it would have been all over the news.  But nothing lately.  Locally, a young man growing up in a house with a lot of guns who had been taught by his dad all the safety stuff and went to gun safety classes shot his best friend.  By accident.  There have been a number of gang shootings recently in the city.  There have been some shootings with fatalities by the police in the city.  It wasn't the police who suffered the fatality.

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-city/index.ssf/2011/01/oregon_city_boy_13_faces_possible_criminal_charges_after_accidentally_shoo...

If you search "boy shoots best friend" you get a lot of articles besides this one.

I grew up with guns in the house.  My grandfather was an avid hunter and a deputy sheriff.  He kept his guns in a locked gun cabinet, unloaded, with the ammunition in a separate locked drawer.  We didn't have any accidents - ever.  When I was young, I thought that was how everyone stored their weapons.  I know better now

Just because there is a base legend of spontaneous rapes does not excuse the child not being given education about the gun, and the gun not being placed out of reach.

Lack of reporting in your town does not really mean anything. You could have missed the story, or it wasn't "all over the news" as your assert.

Also, if you are not going to hunt statistics for your bold claim, I would appreciate you wouldn't use it implying that it was fact. Additionally, if you view the issue as highly biased, than you should be making claims much more carefully as well.

 

What bold claim?  I have stated what is my opinion and what I have seen in the news.  My impressions are admittedly biased and so are yours.  BS' stats demonstrated about 2 accidental killings per 1 self defense killing.  And he was not real sure of the accuracy of the stats he found.  "Confirmation bias" affects all of us - me, you, BS, everyone.

I have been very careful to not state that what my experiences are merits any conclusions about the possible benefits or detriments of gun control.  I actually have no opinion on gun control as I can not think of a way to change the laws that would make any difference.  As stated, the long borders the US has means we can not effectively control guns or drugs or people crossing those borders.  The cost is prohibitive.  And I don't think isolation is healthy for any society.

With different laws, different borders, different cultural ideology about guns, the shootings in Colorado may have happened differently.  Not very likely.  As the tragedy in Norway adequately demonstrates, gun control will not prevent the crazies from being crazy.

I choose not to own a gun.  I once had a relationship with a crazy guy for a few months and it totally turned me off of the idea of having that kind of weapon in the house.  I also learned to make better choices in my relationships, so it wasn't all bad.  But again, my experiences and my choices are not yours, nor am I advocating that you make the choices that I have made.  I just couldn't leave the discussion as one sided as it was starting to be.

Happy now?

 

Uh, thanks for the all the disclaimers but I think you misunderstood me. I get that everyone is biased, and I didn't think you were pushing your experiences and opinions on me or anyone else.

The point of contention was "For every story of someone defending themselves with a weapon, there is another story of some tragic unintentional shooting."

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
ThunderJones wrote:Uh,

ThunderJones wrote:

Uh, thanks for the all the disclaimers but I think you misunderstood me. I get that everyone is biased, and I didn't think you were pushing your experiences and opinions on me or anyone else.

The point of contention was "For every story of someone defending themselves with a weapon, there is another story of some tragic unintentional shooting."

 

If you look at BS's post, it is actually, by his statistics, about 2 to 1 more accidental than defense.  So yeah, there are likely more stories of accidents than defense.

If you don't like those statistics, if you think education will solve the problem, fine.  In my experience accidents happen to well-educated, experienced people - just maybe not quite as often as the dodo-heads.  'K?

It is sort of like abstinence classes.  If you never have sex, pregnancies and STDs can't happen.  Realistically, people will not stop having sex.  So you educate them - and unwanted pregnancies still happen.  The only way to prevent any and all weapons related accidents is to 1) lock them up like my grandfather did or 2) don't own any in the first place.  Neither option is realistic - and so I don't see weapons related accidents going away any time in the near or distant future. 

Weapons related crimes are also a fact of life - and I wish I could see a way to prevent them, but I don't. 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:ThunderJones

cj wrote:

ThunderJones wrote:

Uh, thanks for the all the disclaimers but I think you misunderstood me. I get that everyone is biased, and I didn't think you were pushing your experiences and opinions on me or anyone else.

The point of contention was "For every story of someone defending themselves with a weapon, there is another story of some tragic unintentional shooting."

 

If you look at BS's post, it is actually, by his statistics, about 2 to 1 more accidental than defense.  So yeah, there are likely more stories of accidents than defense.

If you don't like those statistics, if you think education will solve the problem, fine.  In my experience accidents happen to well-educated, experienced people - just maybe not quite as often as the dodo-heads.  'K?

It is sort of like abstinence classes.  If you never have sex, pregnancies and STDs can't happen.  Realistically, people will not stop having sex.  So you educate them - and unwanted pregnancies still happen.  The only way to prevent any and all weapons related accidents is to 1) lock them up like my grandfather did or 2) don't own any in the first place.  Neither option is realistic - and so I don't see weapons related accidents going away any time in the near or distant future. 

Weapons related crimes are also a fact of life - and I wish I could see a way to prevent them, but I don't. 

 

Generally I agree with this, but good education stops unwanted pregnancies and STDs much much better then abstinence classes.


 

Abstinence classes actually possibly add to the problem.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
My parents own around 40 or

My parents own around 40 or so guns.

357s, 9 mil, 45s, 410 shotgun, 20 gauge shotguns, 22, 30 aught 6, 30.30s, etc.

They were everywhere.   Under beds, in closets, ammo everywhere.   Not a single one locked up or with any kind of trigger lock.

Not a single one.

Amazingly, neither myself nor my brother, nor my parents have ever been shot.  Not even a grazing.  Nor has a single bullet hole ever been put in a single wall, floor, or ceiling in the house.

Wowzer.

Treat every gun like it's loaded.   And don't point a gun at someone unless you intend to kill them.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3502
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:My parents own

Watcher wrote:

My parents own around 40 or so guns.

357s, 9 mil, 45s, 410 shotgun, 20 gauge shotguns, 22, 30 aught 6, 30.30s, etc.

They were everywhere.   Under beds, in closets, ammo everywhere.   Not a single one locked up or with any kind of trigger lock.

 

    Holy crap, you weren't raised on a compound in Waco, were you ?  


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4160
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:Do more

Gauche wrote:

Do more justifiable homicides mean it is safer or less safe? A justifiable homicide could mean that two people were in an argument, one of them ended up dead and prosecutors couldn't make their case because the killer had no duty to retreat.

I read an article in the Washington Post a few weeks ago that said the number of justifiable homicides in the state of Florida tripled after removing duty to retreat from the law.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/stand-your-ground-laws-coincide-with-jump-in-justifiable-homicide-cases/2012/04/07/gIQAS2v5...

Depends on who you are, it is safer for the person who did the shooting, less safe for the person who was shot. You keep returning to the "two people in an argument" point, do you have any evidence that happens on any meaningful level? Most of the evidence I have seen suggests that the in the vast majority of justifiable homicide cases the parties involved are strangers, not people having a prolonged personal argument that escalates. If you have some kind of existing relationship it is far more likely to be categorized as 2nd or 3rd degree murder or manslaughter rather than justifiable homicide.

The term justifiable homicide solely applies to situations where charges were not pressed. For example, the Trayvon Martin shooting will not be recorded of justifiable homicide even if George Zimmerman is found not guilty. As such, most cases dismissed as justifiable homicide are clear cut cases where there is little doubt in the minds of the investigating officers and the prosecutor that the shooting was self defense. Stand your ground laws provide law enforcement more lenience in calling a homicide justifiable rather than filing charges of manslaughter which may be dismissed later or the shooter could be found not guilty in trial.

I'm not sure that such laws actually create more shootings as much as it reclassifies shootings that were already happening. I find it rather far fetched that someone in a shooting situation thinks to themselves, "Oh yeah, stand your ground law, I can shoot" most likely in that high adrenaline situation you are making decisions based on your instincts and what you believe is best to preserve your own life. Although I am open to being corrected if you have data that suggests otherwise. 

FBI website wrote:

The killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen. Because these killings are determined through law enforcement investigation to be justifiable, they are tabulated separately from murder and nonnegligent manslaughter.

 

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expandhomicidemain

 

 


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:   

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

    Holy crap, you weren't raised on a compound in Waco, were you ?  

The funny thing is, is that my brother, who is about 2 and a half years older then me, was going to law school at the University of Texas during the Waco standoff.   Our mom and I were driving down to Austin, through Waco, during the standoff to help him move apartments during the summer and I BEGGED my mom to go do a sidetrack to see the standoff.   There was some old dude that had set up binoculors for visiters to check it out on a neighboring hillside.

She refused.   So we drove right through Waco during the standoff.   (The Waco thing wasn't actually in Waco, or really all that near it.   There was a much smaller town a heck of a lot closer to the compound.   So any Waco person will rage at you about that incident, saying they took the blame for something nowhere near them.)

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


peto verum
atheist
Posts: 46
Joined: 2011-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:My parents own

Watcher wrote:

My parents own around 40 or so guns.

357s, 9 mil, 45s, 410 shotgun, 20 gauge shotguns, 22, 30 aught 6, 30.30s, etc.

They were everywhere.   Under beds, in closets, ammo everywhere.   Not a single one locked up or with any kind of trigger lock.

Not a single one.

Amazingly, neither myself nor my brother, nor my parents have ever been shot.  Not even a grazing.  Nor has a single bullet hole ever been put in a single wall, floor, or ceiling in the house.

Wowzer.

Treat every gun like it's loaded.   And don't point a gun at someone unless you intend to kill them.

 

Same for me while growing up.  Safety was taught and insisted upon and those lessons adhered to by my younger sister and I.  Guns were leaned up in corners found in bedrooms or closest and ammunition keep in draws not so far from the gun.  I don't think we locked the doors to our home ever.  That was 30 years ago.  I grew up, learned a few things, took less things for granted and realized that I make my own luck.  I have two little girls, the oldest , 11.  I keep my moderately large collection of guns secure in a safe now, bullets kept in another safe in another area of the house.  I still teach gun safety as my parents had demanding my children implement those lessons at all moments when around gun. 

I think Watcher and my childhoods are not the exception with firearm owners but the norm for many Americans.  The aberrant gun owners who do horrible things do not represent us.

 

 

KORAN, n.
A book which the Mohammedans foolishly believe to have been written by divine inspiration, but which Christians know to be a wicked imposture, contradictory to the Holy Scriptures. ~ The Devil's Dictionary


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Depends

Beyond Saving wrote:
Depends on who you are, it is safer for the person who did the shooting, less safe for the person who was shot. You keep returning to the "two people in an argument" point, do you have any evidence that happens on any meaningful level?

Yes, the most commonly cited reason for homicide is argument.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/htus02.txt
Beyond Saving wrote:
Most of the evidence I have seen suggests that the in the vast majority of justifiable homicide cases the parties involved are strangers, not people having a prolonged personal argument that escalates. If you have some kind of existing relationship it is far more likely to be categorized as 2nd or 3rd degree murder or manslaughter rather than justifiable homicide.

Obviously strangers can have arguments so I'm not sure what your point is.
Beyond Saving wrote:
As such, most cases dismissed as justifiable homicide are clear cut cases where there is little doubt in the minds of the investigating officers and the prosecutor that the shooting was self defense. Stand your ground laws provide law enforcement more lenience in calling a homicide justifiable rather than filing charges of manslaughter which may be dismissed later or the shooter could be found not guilty in trial.

That's one way to frame it. One way to frame it is that it allows prosecutors more leeway to let killers go. Another way is that it makes it more difficult for prosecutors to build cases against killers they would otherwise prosecute.
Beyond Saving wrote:
I'm not sure that such laws actually create more shootings as much as it reclassifies shootings that were already happening. I find it rather far fetched that someone in a shooting situation thinks to themselves, "Oh yeah, stand your ground law, I can shoot" most likely in that high adrenaline situation you are making decisions based on your instincts and what you believe is best to preserve your own life. Although I am open to being corrected if you have data that suggests otherwise.

I don't know if it emboldens people, but that's not what I was saying. It seems like you're quoting these statistics as if they are some indicator of how much safer people are because of gun use. If a drunk walks into the wrong house and the person who lives there shoots him that's justifiable homicide but no one was safer because of it because nobody was going to die in the first place.

Going back to this stand your ground thing, you might say it's a clear case of self defense so someone was going to die. But if the killer had no duty to retreat then you can't really be sure of that. Had he retreated both people might have lived.





 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4160
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:Beyond Saving

Gauche wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
Depends on who you are, it is safer for the person who did the shooting, less safe for the person who was shot. You keep returning to the "two people in an argument" point, do you have any evidence that happens on any meaningful level?

Yes, the most commonly cited reason for homicide is argument.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/htus02.txt
Beyond Saving wrote:
Most of the evidence I have seen suggests that the in the vast majority of justifiable homicide cases the parties involved are strangers, not people having a prolonged personal argument that escalates. If you have some kind of existing relationship it is far more likely to be categorized as 2nd or 3rd degree murder or manslaughter rather than justifiable homicide.

Obviously strangers can have arguments so I'm not sure what your point is.

Most homicides occur between people who know each other, most justifiable homicides occur between strangers. We are not talking homicide, we are talking justifiable homicides and there are substantial differences between their characteristics. If you have a reason to believe that justifiable homicides frequently occur from situations that began as an argument that escalated I would like to see it. 

Oh, if you read your own link it says,

You really should read your own source before you use it to prove your point- unlike some people I actually read the links provided wrote:

The most frequent circumstance cited for justifiable homicides by citizens 

is to disrupt a crime while in progress.

 

Gauche wrote:
 
I don't know if it emboldens people, but that's not what I was saying. It seems like you're quoting these statistics as if they are some indicator of how much safer people are because of gun use. If a drunk walks into the wrong house and the person who lives there shoots him that's justifiable homicide but no one was safer because of it because nobody was going to die in the first place.

Under no circumstances would shooting an unarmed drunk person who walked through an unlocked door be considered a justifiable homicide. Castle doctrine only applies if the entry was forced and the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death. Obviously, a drunk person mistakenly entering the wrong home does not fit that description unless for some reason the drunkard breaks through the window or physically attacks the occupant. A homicide can only be declared if the person shot was doing something illegal and posing a legitimate threat.

 

Gauche wrote:
  
Going back to this stand your ground thing, you might say it's a clear case of self defense so someone was going to die. But if the killer had no duty to retreat then you can't really be sure of that. Had he retreated both people might have lived.

Granted, but if the killer attempted to retreat and got killed then we would know wouldn't we? But sucks to be the sucker who tried to retreat. I will grant that many of the robbers/muggers/burglars that get shot probably would not have significantly harmed their victims. In many of those situations, by simply allowing the theft to proceed, no one would have died. From a purely utilitarian perspective, I think it is quite plausible to argue that more total people die when civilians are allowed to carry guns. However, there is also no question that in some of those cases the robber would have killed the victim, it does happen, and I assume that in 100% of cases where an unarmed victim was killed during a robbery, they attempted to not be killed and many of them probably tried the running away technique.

There is no way to determine while the crime is happening whether the perpetrator is actually willing to fire his gun before it is over. Personally, if anyone points a loaded gun at me, I assume they intend to pull the trigger and will react accordingly, even though statistically, the robber is unlikely to shoot me- I don't care to play those odds gambling my life. You are welcome to gamble your life and try to run all you want or just hand the mugger your money and hope he doesn't decide to shoot you anyway. IMO, the life of one innocent who is killed during a robbery is more valuable than the lives of a dozen people who are willing to use the threat of a weapon to steal. 


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Most

Beyond Saving wrote:
Most homicides occur between people who know each other, most justifiable homicides occur between strangers. We are not talking homicide, we are talking justifiable homicides and there are substantial differences between their characteristics. If you have a reason to believe that justifiable homicides frequently occur from situations that began as an argument that escalated I would like to see it.

Oh, if you read your own link it says,

I did read it. That predated stand your ground laws and as I said justifiable homicide tripled, but it doesn't mean a significant number of them weren't a result of arguments anyway. If the majority of homicides result from arguments that's reason to believe some justifiable homicides are the result of arguments.Weren't you just making a case that stand your ground laws reclassify shootings that would otherwise be homicides as justifiable?
Beyond Saving wrote:
Under no circumstances would shooting an unarmed drunk person who walked through an unlocked door be considered a justifiable homicide. Castle doctrine only applies if the entry was forced and the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death. Obviously, a drunk person mistakenly entering the wrong home does not fit that description unless for some reason the drunkard breaks through the window or physically attacks the occupant. A homicide can only be declared if the person shot was doing something illegal and posing a legitimate threat.

Trespassing is illegal. I read a story about a college student in Colorado who wandered into someones house drunk and was shot, and she was charged while the shooter wasn't. So you're saying that had she died it wouldn't have been rule a justifiable homicide even though the shooting was ruled justified and she was charged with a crime.
Beyond Saving wrote:
Granted, but if the killer attempted to retreat and got killed then we would know wouldn't we? But sucks to be the sucker who tried to retreat. I will grant that many of the robbers/muggers/burglars that get shot probably would not have significantly harmed their victims. In many of those situations, by simply allowing the theft to proceed, no one would have died. From a purely utilitarian perspective, I think it is quite plausible to argue that more total people die when civilians are allowed to carry guns. However, there is also no question that in some of those cases the robber would have killed the victim, it does happen, and I assume that in 100% of cases where an unarmed victim was killed during a robbery, they attempted to not be killed and many of them probably tried the running away technique.

There is no way to determine while the crime is happening whether the perpetrator is actually willing to fire his gun before it is over. Personally, if anyone points a loaded gun at me, I assume they intend to pull the trigger and will react accordingly, even though statistically, the robber is unlikely to shoot me- I don't care to play those odds gambling my life. You are welcome to gamble your life and try to run all you want or just hand the mugger your money and hope he doesn't decide to shoot you anyway. IMO, the life of one innocent who is killed during a robbery is more valuable than the lives of a dozen people who are willing to use the threat of a weapon to steal.

Well, you're gambling with your life either way whether you retreat or not. It would also suck if you stayed for a shootout and lost when you could have just left. I just don't see any reason to think the fact it might be ruled justifiable homicide says anything about gun use being safer.

 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4160
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:Beyond Saving

Gauche wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
Most homicides occur between people who know each other, most justifiable homicides occur between strangers. We are not talking homicide, we are talking justifiable homicides and there are substantial differences between their characteristics. If you have a reason to believe that justifiable homicides frequently occur from situations that began as an argument that escalated I would like to see it.


I did read it. That predated stand your ground laws and as I said justifiable homicide tripled, but it doesn't mean a significant number of them weren't a result of arguments anyway. If the majority of homicides result from arguments that's reason to believe some justifiable homicides are the result of arguments.Weren't you just making a case that stand your ground laws reclassify shootings that would otherwise be homicides as justifiable?

Maybe, maybe not. As I pointed out cases listed as justifiable homicides tend to have very different attributes that cases of other homicides. There may well be cases of justifiable homicides caused by arguments, I don't see news stories about them and all the evidence I read is that the majority occur to stop on going crimes which your link supports as the most common. Which is why I asked if you have any evidence that arguments lead to a significant number of such shootings. 

 


Gauche wrote:
 
Trespassing is illegal. I read a story about a college student in Colorado who wandered into someones house drunk and was shot, and she was charged while the shooter wasn't. So you're saying that had she died it wouldn't have been rule a justifiable homicide even though the shooting was ruled justified and she was charged with a crime.

I assume you are talking about the case of Zoe Ripple in Boulder, CO? She was shot in their bedroom after being yelled at numerous times and not leaving. According to the law you have a right to shoot if you have a reasonable expectation that you are in imminent danger, a stranger in your bedroom who refuses to leave was apparently enough to convince the county prosecutor that there was a reasonable expectation of danger. I tend to agree. A little different from walking through the door, looking around and realizing you are in the wrong house. It is very unfortunate in that in 20/20 hindsight the girl obviously wasn't a danger to anyone but in such situations you don't have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. I never declared that accidents never happen, in fact I posted the data of exactly how many accidents end with fatalities above. However, the data clearly suggests that incidents like this are the exception. The job of the police and the county prosecutor is to determine whether it was a clear case where the shooter was reasonable to believe they were in danger given the specific circumstances or whether there is the possibility that there was not and the case should be left to jury.

If you have reason to believe that certain prosecutors are allowing too many cases to be ruled justifiable then perhaps you should look at replacing them. It would be interesting but time consuming to look at cases now being ruled justifiable homicides and compare them to similar cases that went to jury in the past and see if people were convicted or not. My gut tells me that most of the cases ruled justifiable homicides are cases that would be found not guilty by a jury anyway, but I don't have any statistical proof of that.  

 

 

Gauche wrote:
 

Well, you're gambling with your life either way whether you retreat or not. It would also suck if you stayed for a shootout and lost when you could have just left. I just don't see any reason to think the fact it might be ruled justifiable homicide says anything about gun use being safer.  

Where has anyone claimed that no retreat laws make gun use safer? My only claim on such laws is they reduce the number of people who face criminal charges when using their guns in self defense situations. I have always taken it for granted that if I used my gun in self defense I would face a jury trial, that prospect would never have stopped me from defending myself if I believed it necessary- my life is far more valuable to me than the cost of a jury trial. Castle doctrine and no retreat laws just lower the odds of facing jury trial. I don't think it really effects the actual use of the gun one way or the other. I think it is unreasonable to believe that someone who wakes up to find a stranger in their bedroom is carefully thinking about legal consequences before they fire the shot. The very fact that they own a gun and have it in their bedroom demonstrates that they are willing to use it in that type of situation. 

The problem is that to confirm this one would have to sit down and review the number of cases pre-stand your ground law that would be ruled justifiable homicide today, since law enforcement previously didn't report such cases separately you would have to review every case individually. But it is no surprise that when you expand the definition of justifiable homicide more cases are going to be included. 

 

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2478
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Have

ProzacDeathWish wrote:



Have you ever tried to out run a bullet ?


Yes, it didn't work out, I got hit.

Which is probably why I follow these things. I relate to what the injured are going through.

When I was 18 I was out hunting with a friend in Southern Colorado. We went different directions and as I was coming around the edge of a rocky hill, he shot in my direction. I was probably 75 to 100 yards away and he had a 4-10 shotgun. I got hit in the face with several shot pellets and right eye. Instantly my head felt like it was slammed into a wall. There was a ringing that would not stop. I was instantly blind in my right eye. My 1st thought was to shoot back at my stupid friend. I didn't because logic suddenly kicked in.  I eventually lost my right eye a a result. I spent weeks in the hospital and months recuperating. I still have the shot pellet lodged between my brain and my skull.

Did this stop me from owning guns? No.

I owned a tanning salon in Orlando and had a concealed carry permit. I also kept non-lethal defense as well, such as CS tear gas and a baseball bat.

Never had to use any of them.
 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2478
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Now it starts

The first possible lawsuit may come from this. A guy not even hit has hired a lawyer over the trauma.

See - http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/31298006/detail.html

And the miracles are being claimed.

Petra Anderson was shot through the nose and it safely passed through her brain. Her pastor sees this as a miracle.

See - http://kdvr.com/2012/07/24/pastor-delighted-surgeon-nearly-called-shooting-victims-recovery-miracle/

His post has gone viral supposedly, see - http://bstrait.wordpress.com/2012/07/22/a-miracle-inside-the-the-aurora-shooting-one-victims-story/

These things happen. In my last post I mentioned I was shot when I was 18. Several pellets hit me in the face. One went through my right eye and another lodged on the outside of my skull on the edge of my left eye. A fraction of an inch and I'd have been blind in both eyes not one. Miracle? Nope. I never saw it that way when I got shot and I was very religious then. Shit for luck is how I saw getting shot in the 1st place. Clearly the god was pissed at me for some reason right? Or he had a plan for me I didn't understand. I needed the pain and near death experience to strengthen my faith or something. So my religious parents and family told me. I always saw it otherwise. Shit for luck to have a careless buddy.

Then we have people seeing angels in the sky - see - http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/31296155/detail.html

If somehow looking at clouds and stars gives one the comfort to deal with this, then whatever works. I knew this would start eventually.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3502
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:



Have you ever tried to out run a bullet ?


Yes, it didn't work out, I got hit.

Which is probably why I follow these things. I relate to what the injured are going through.

When I was 18 I was out hunting with a friend in Southern Colorado. We went different directions and as I was coming around the edge of a rocky hill, he shot in my direction. I was probably 75 to 100 yards away and he had a 4-10 shotgun. I got hit in the face with several shot pellets and right eye. Instantly my head felt like it was slammed into a wall. There was a ringing that would not stop. I was instantly blind in my right eye. My 1st thought was to shoot back at my stupid friend. I didn't because logic suddenly kicked in.  I eventually lost my right eye a a result. I spent weeks in the hospital and months recuperating. I still have the shot pellet lodged between my brain and my skull.

Did this stop me from owning guns? No.

I owned a tanning salon in Orlando and had a concealed carry permit. I also kept non-lethal defense as well, such as CS tear gas and a baseball bat.

Never had to use any of them.
 

 

  Wow, man I'm sorry about the loss of your eye.  Glad you lived to tell the tale, though.

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2478
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:



Have you ever tried to out run a bullet ?


Yes, it didn't work out, I got hit.

Which is probably why I follow these things. I relate to what the injured are going through.

When I was 18 I was out hunting with a friend in Southern Colorado. We went different directions and as I was coming around the edge of a rocky hill, he shot in my direction. I was probably 75 to 100 yards away and he had a 4-10 shotgun. I got hit in the face with several shot pellets and right eye. Instantly my head felt like it was slammed into a wall. There was a ringing that would not stop. I was instantly blind in my right eye. My 1st thought was to shoot back at my stupid friend. I didn't because logic suddenly kicked in.  I eventually lost my right eye a a result. I spent weeks in the hospital and months recuperating. I still have the shot pellet lodged between my brain and my skull.

Did this stop me from owning guns? No.

I owned a tanning salon in Orlando and had a concealed carry permit. I also kept non-lethal defense as well, such as CS tear gas and a baseball bat.

Never had to use any of them.
 

 

  Wow, man I'm sorry about the loss of your eye.  Glad you lived to tell the tale, though.

 

It's been a long time since it happened. 1969 actually. My friends went to Nam and got fucked up and I got it here.

It's been so long I can't remember what its like to have 2 eyes. The only thing that sucks is I can't see 3 D movies.

Another older member lost his too, Yellow Number Five if you remember him. Don't remember how, don't think his was gun related

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10139
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Shitty. I had no idea. 3D

Shitty. I had no idea.

3D movies are overrated, if it makes you feel any better. > >

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2478
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Shitty. I had

Vastet wrote:
Shitty. I had no idea. 3D movies are overrated, if it makes you feel any better. > >

Glad to hear it.

As they say, what one goes through makes you into who you are. I have never been held back due to what happened to me.

It may have contributed to my realization that the god thing was fantasy as well.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Maybe,

Beyond Saving wrote:
Maybe, maybe not. As I pointed out cases listed as justifiable homicides tend to have very different attributes that cases of other homicides. There may well be cases of justifiable homicides caused by arguments, I don't see news stories about them and all the evidence I read is that the majority occur to stop on going crimes which your link supports as the most common. Which is why I asked if you have any evidence that arguments lead to a significant number of such shootings.

You are the one who claimed the rise in justifiable homicide was caused by reclassifying other homicides. Going only by what you say I have reason to think a significant number of justifiable homicides are resulting from argument.
Beyond Saving wrote:
I assume you are talking about the case of Zoe Ripple in Boulder, CO? She was shot in their bedroom after being yelled at numerous times and not leaving. According to the law you have a right to shoot if you have a reasonable expectation that you are in imminent danger, a stranger in your bedroom who refuses to leave was apparently enough to convince the county prosecutor that there was a reasonable expectation of danger. I tend to agree. A little different from walking through the door, looking around and realizing you are in the wrong house. It is very unfortunate in that in 20/20 hindsight the girl obviously wasn't a danger to anyone but in such situations you don't have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. I never declared that accidents never happen, in fact I posted the data of exactly how many accidents end with fatalities above. However, the data clearly suggests that incidents like this are the exception. The job of the police and the county prosecutor is to determine whether it was a clear case where the shooter was reasonable to believe they were in danger given the specific circumstances or whether there is the possibility that there was not and the case should be left to jury.

If accidents happen then some justifiable homicides aren't preventing a death they're only causing one.

My only point about that was, just because a reasonable person could believe their life was in danger and the person did believe it doesn't mean that it was true or had to be for it to be ruled justifiable homicide. The fact a homicide is justifiable doesn't necessarily mean that kind of danger was thwarted.
Beyond Saving wrote:
Where has anyone claimed that no retreat laws make gun use safer? My only claim on such laws is they reduce the number of people who face criminal charges when using their guns in self defense situations. I have always taken it for granted that if I used my gun in self defense I would face a jury trial, that prospect would never have stopped me from defending myself if I believed it necessary- my life is far more valuable to me than the cost of a jury trial. Castle doctrine and no retreat laws just lower the odds of facing jury trial. I don't think it really effects the actual use of the gun one way or the other. I think it is unreasonable to believe that someone who wakes up to find a stranger in their bedroom is carefully thinking about legal consequences before they fire the shot. The very fact that they own a gun and have it in their bedroom demonstrates that they are willing to use it in that type of situation.

I didn't say you claim stand your ground laws make gun use safer. I asked if you are claiming the number of justifiable homicides indicates how many people were safer because they used guns.
 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4160
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:If accidents

Gauche wrote:

If accidents happen then some justifiable homicides aren't preventing a death they're only causing one.

My only point about that was, just because a reasonable person could believe their life was in danger and the person did believe it doesn't mean that it was true or had to be for it to be ruled justifiable homicide. The fact a homicide is justifiable doesn't necessarily mean that kind of danger was thwarted.

And I already conceded that. Even when the person shot was clearly a "bad guy" who was committing a crime, odds are that a good portion of the time they wouldn't have caused any significant physical harm anyway. 

 

 

Gauche wrote:
 
I didn't say you claim stand your ground laws make gun use safer. I asked if you are claiming the number of justifiable homicides indicates how many people were safer because they used guns.

The number of justifiable homicides is irrelevant to determining how many dangerous crimes were stopped by armed citizens since a justifiable homicide is the exception. Most of the time, when a gun is used to stop a crime, no shots are fired. When they are fired a good portion of the time they lead to injuries, not death. To determine how many people were safer because they used guns would require an in depth study of thousands of news stories over a period of time since the government does not track that data at all. Then you would have to come up with some sort of method to determine how many of those encounters would have likely been violent if they had not been stopped etc. Basically, it would be incredibly time consuming, expensive and no doubt the results controversial like the two studies that attempted to do so in the 90's.

Unless police separate crimes where an armed civilian interfered from crimes where one didn't we will probably never know how many crimes are prevented and never be able to guess how many of those crimes would have been violent encounters. That data simply isn't available. I think it is unquestionable that armed citizens do stop some violent crimes, and that cases where a complete innocent is killed are exceedingly rare. Certainly a larger number of people who we wouldn't normally assign the death penalty to are killed. But I believe that individuals have the right to protect themselves and it is unreasonable to expect them to sacrifice their own safety. The consequences of allowing people to drive cars is that sometimes sad accidents happen, the consequence of allowing people to carry handguns is that sometimes sad accidents happen. Sometimes the world isn't safe.


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Shitty. I had no idea. 3D movies are overrated, if it makes you feel any better. > >

Glad to hear it.

As they say, what one goes through makes you into who you are. I have never been held back due to what happened to me.

It may have contributed to my realization that the god thing was fantasy as well.

Yeah you aren't missing anything as far as 3D movies go. They are ok. I prefer 2D actually.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2354
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Question............................

 

 

                         .........I just did a TV show where the host,  me and another guest talked about the Colorado shooting.  Now the real question;  should I post it here or at "Arorah  and  more..." or start a new post???????  Please reply quickly since  it is available on youtube tomorrow [July 26].

 

 

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10139
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I think you're safe with a

I think you're safe with a new topic under the circumstances.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2478
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick

Jeffrick wrote:

 

 

                         .........I just did a TV show where the host,  me and another guest talked about the Colorado shooting.  Now the real question;  should I post it here or at "Arorah  and  more..." or start a new post???????  Please reply quickly since  it is available on youtube tomorrow [July 26].

 

 

 

I'd start a new post Jeffrick.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3502
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I think the

Vastet wrote:
I think the biggest problem with the average citizen carrying and opening fire defensively in most of the situations laid out is that the average citizen has little to no training on the use of the gun (when compared to a police officer or especially a soldier), or guns in general, let alone guns in crisis situations. If even trained cops can screw up, the likelyhood of extra casualties increases exponentially for someone who's only shot a few pop cans in the back yard, and more so if the person has never even fired a gun.

 

  The aspect that you are neglecting is that all CHL holders ( in Texas ) must undergo class room training in the legal "do's and don'ts" of self defense as well as actual range time.  The standards are set by the Texas Dept of Public Safety.  It isn't a forgone conclusion that everyone will pass these requirements and receive a license.   Since my CHL expired in 2011 I have been ...for the last few months...training every Monday.   I shoot between 200 and 400 rounds every seven days as well as using a snap cap to "dry fire" my handgun at home which is an exercise that enhances proper trigger technique. 

The State of Texas determines what level of training is required as it relates to self defense, who is eligible to apply ( no felony arrests even if not convicted ) and whether or not any applicant has satisfied those standards.  It is all highly regulated.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10139
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
If the state is at good at

If the state is at good at licensing gun owners as it is drivers, that doesn't make me feel any better.

Not a knock on Texas, but bureaucrats in general.

State sponsored training for adults tends to be lacking in my experience. It could be that Texas, and its officers, takes it far more seriously than drivers. But realistically, you can expect there's at least a few people who have licenses who shouldn't.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3502
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:If the state is

Vastet wrote:
If the state is at good at licensing gun owners as it is drivers, that doesn't make me feel any better. Not a knock on Texas, but bureaucrats in general. State sponsored training for adults tends to be lacking in my experience. It could be that Texas, and its officers, takes it far more seriously than drivers. But realistically, you can expect there's at least a few people who have licenses who shouldn't.

 

    Oh, yes.  There are undoubtedly those who receive concealed handgun licenses who later prove that they are no longer fit to have one.  Such an example of CHL misconduct just occurred here and was reported in the news.  I suppose that is a statistical inevitability, similar to Police agencies who employ highly trained and supposedly ethical police officers who later end up committing crimes and going to prison.    I only recently removed a link from my signature ( http://policethugs.com/ ) that provides a seemingly never ending list of such examples.

Proper human behavior is predictable only up to a certain point and beyond that the legal authorities have to deal with those exceptions who refuse to follow the rules be they civilian, law enforcement or even military.