posted
STF: you might want to check the last reference I posted about the rate of suicide being several times higher in homes with guns, and about the unusual effectiveness of a gun as a suicide option.
-------------------- ~~Ai am in mai prrrrrraime!~~ Posts: 10111 | From: Oklahoma | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Snowy Chloe: And I don't understand your "not the deaths mentioned in your post" issue. I am concerned about *all* deaths of innocents, whether suicide, homicide, or accident.
What I mean is: many of the deaths you showed in the original cite were deaths in the household from the gun that "belonged" in the household. Thus my point about what I do in my household does not affect you in your household regarding things like gun suicide or domestic violence. Then you posted about the ways that a gun can affect someone outside the household.
So what I am saying is: if you use the justification about the danger posed outside the gun-owning household, then the numbers of deaths cited should be deaths due to an outside gun, not deaths from an inside gun.
-------------------- IIRC, it wasn't the shoe bomber's loud prayers that sparked the takedown by the other passengers; it was that he was trying to light his shoe on fire. Very, very different. Canuckistan Posts: 3694 | From: Arizona | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure "inside gun" and "outside gun" are terms in great use in the gun-control/gun-rights debate, and neither do I see their importance here. Why does it matter if only the household of gun-owners is immediately threatened? (which, as we know from the OP, is simply not true). Is someone's death any less moving or significant because they live in a house where a gun is kept? Of course not, and you don't think so either, so I know that it must be that I'm missing your point.
ETA: Got to go--might get back to this later. If not, tomorrow. Don't wait up!
-------------------- ~~Ai am in mai prrrrrraime!~~ Posts: 10111 | From: Oklahoma | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GenYus: If someone gets within 7m of you, then lunges for you, that is not the end of the situation.
its very likely to be the end of the situation.
Remeber the attacker has a lot of momentum, it wouldn't take much effor to pile drive a person's head to the ground.
That might not be as easy as you suspect, especially if the attacker has some fighting skill. We are not all judo blackbelts. And not every situation goes as well as you plan for.
quote:
quote:Now you are locking in a struggle with an assailant. If you have a gun, your options are much greater. You can fall on your back and use your feet and legs to keep them (and their knife) away from your vulnerable throat and torso while you shoot/threaten them with your gun.
Will apply to any weapon at all.
I am on my back. My feet and legs are keeping the attacker far enough away from my torso and neck so that he can't attack them with a knife. If I am using a knife or stun gun, how are my arms (attached to my torso) long enough to reach his body when his arms are not long enough to reach my torso?
quote:The bigger the weapon, the more of a chance you have to hit your target. If someone was going to come at you, you're much better off with a weapon that's sure to hit them, even if its range is reduced.
Um... what? Size of a weapon has no bearing on accuracy or the ability to hit the target. If someone comes at you, you are better off with a weapon that can hit them at a range they can't hit you. If you get within knife/stun gun range of an attacker, he is within knife/stun gun range of you.
quote:Any weapon drawn and in a ready position is a going to either deter an attacker or not. It doesn't matter what the weapon is.
Bullshit. Not everyone has the same fears and respect for any particular weapon. A criminal who is an experienced knife fighter is not going to be scared of your knife because he figures he is better than you and you have to get within his knife range. But if you have a gun, then he knows you can use your gun while he is still out of knife range. And any non-lethal defense has the downside that the criminal is not going to fear death.
-------------------- IIRC, it wasn't the shoe bomber's loud prayers that sparked the takedown by the other passengers; it was that he was trying to light his shoe on fire. Very, very different. Canuckistan Posts: 3694 | From: Arizona | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know the thread has moved pretty far away from this discussion now, but I just wanted to point out that a vast majority of those who commit violence as adults also witnessed or experienced violence as children. Real violence, not television or videogame violence. If we did something about that we could reduce shootings without violating the Constitution.
The guy who shot the Amish girls had apparently already molested some girls years before. That is a pretty good predictive factor for him doing it again. If he was a victim of abuse in childhood then there is another excellent predictive factor.
-------------------- Officially Heartless Posts: 3065 | From: The Montgomery County of the West Coast- Berkeley, CA | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Snowy Chloe: I'm not sure "inside gun" and "outside gun" are terms in great use in the gun-control/gun-rights debate, and neither do I see their importance here. Why does it matter if only the household of gun-owners is immediately threatened? (which, as we know from the OP, is simply not true). Is someone's death any less moving or significant because they live in a house where a gun is kept? Of course not, and you don't think so either, so I know that it must be that I'm missing your point.
ETA: Got to go--might get back to this later. If not, tomorrow. Don't wait up!
I'm not making it well. In a nutshell, my household is under the control of the adults living it in. The children in that household are subject to the decisions made by that household. If I choose to have a gun in that household, then that is a risk that I have chosen to make regarding the members of that household. So the internal deaths that result from that internal decision aren't valid when the argument is how that internal decision causes external loss of life.
Maybe an anology would help:
It would be the same as if we the adults choose not to have a fire extinguisher in the house or if we the adults choose to have no smoke detectors* in the house. We have made a choice that puts the members of that household at risk. The lack of smoke detectors or fire extinguishers only puts your family at risk if my fire spreads out of control to your house.
To reduce your risk of fire death, you install smoke detectors and have fire extinguishers in your house. But you are worried that my undetected and unchecked house fire will spread to your house and hurt your family. To prove the danger to your family of my fire spreading to your house, you quote the statistics about people who die in houses that don't have smoke detectors or fire extinguishers.
My point is that if you are going to use the danger my fire poses to your family when it spreads to your house, then you should quote the deaths from fires that spread, not fires in the original non-protected home.
*Arizona law only requires smoke detectors to be installed when a house is sold.
Also going to be offline until tomorrow.
-------------------- IIRC, it wasn't the shoe bomber's loud prayers that sparked the takedown by the other passengers; it was that he was trying to light his shoe on fire. Very, very different. Canuckistan Posts: 3694 | From: Arizona | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Snowy Chloe: Like what, though, ThistleS? You seem to be saying that we can best reduce the violence by reducing the violence.
(Really knocking off for today now).
Genius. Utter Genius!
-------------------- IIRC, it wasn't the shoe bomber's loud prayers that sparked the takedown by the other passengers; it was that he was trying to light his shoe on fire. Very, very different. Canuckistan Posts: 3694 | From: Arizona | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ThistleSquall: The guy who shot the Amish girls had apparently already molested some girls years before.
I heard something about this on NPR yesterday. Supposedly he called his wife from the schoolhouse and said he'd molested two female relatives when he was about 12. The two were evidently named to the wife but those names have not been released. They did say that they would have been about 5 at the time. They also implied that the girls in question don't actually remember the molestation so they're wondering if it might have been something he dreamed up or some incident he exaggerated in his mind.
Posts: 716 | From: San Antonio, TX | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Snowy Chloe: STF: you might want to check the last reference I posted about the rate of suicide being several times higher in homes with guns, and about the unusual effectiveness of a gun as a suicide option.
I'll be sure to check that out, but even accepting that I guess I still look at it as two separate issues: the suicide issue and the gun issue. I just don't like the terminology of referring to people who kill themselves with guns as innocent victims of gun violence.
quote:Originally posted by Snowy Chloe: Statistic linked to here :http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm
It's a NEJM reference: Kellerman AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. "Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership." NEJM. 1992; 327(7):467-472
Unfortunately, New England Journal of Medicine full text articles, prior to 1993, are not on the internet. However, the abstract and list of later citing articles is interesting. I was especially impressed by this follow-up:
I was prepared to find that the studies were inadequate. But I instead learned that the relationship between having a gun in the house and suicide is strong and consistent, much more than I thought possible.
I'm not in the habit of thinking Chloe is right, but, well, here she is.
My guess is that the high gun ownership rate in the US deters many burglaries. But people are dying to obtain that benefit, and few of them are criminals.
-------------------- "Hillel says yes, naturally, and Shammai says no, and Maimonides is perplexed, and what do I know?" Julius Lester Posts: 5780 | From: Suburban Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GenYus: [QB] That might not be as easy as you suspect, especially if the attacker has some fighting skill. We are not all judo blackbelts. And not every situation goes as well as you plan for.
If you hit someone high, and maintain contact there head is going to hit ground hard. There's nothing complex about it, its simple physics.
(jsut the action of falling from its usual height is enough momentum to crack your own skull... add more momentum from the attacker… )
quote:I am on my back. My feet and legs are keeping the attacker far enough away from my torso and neck so that he can't attack them with a knife. If I am using a knife or stun gun, how are my arms (attached to my torso) long enough to reach his body when his arms are not long enough to reach my torso?
A) people bend. if your egs are fully extended part of the person's body is still within arms reach.
B) As far away as possible, won't necessarily mean your legs are fully extended.
C) you can always unextend your legs once you get your weapon into position.
quote:Um... what? Size of a weapon has no bearing on accuracy or the ability to hit the target.
I'll take a baseball bat, you fire a bullet, now let's see who would hit more targets. It should be obvious.
quote: If someone comes at you, you are better off with a weapon that can hit them at a range they can't hit you.
You are better off with a weapon that WILL hit them, then a weapon that is likely to miss. (and in the gun case possibly kill an innocent person)
quote: If you get within knife/stun gun range of an attacker, he is within knife/stun gun range of you.
By the time you fire your gun, the same applies. And more than likely you've been contacted.
A knife only needs to be pointed, not fired.
quote: Not everyone has the same fears and respect for any particular weapon.
Agreed.
quote:A criminal who is an experienced knife fighter is not going to be scared of your knife because he figures he is better than you and you have to get within his knife range.
Or a criminal who might have been trained know how to spot someone who isn't used to using guns, and might find the odds are better against a gun than a knife.
SOme criminals might be more afraid of guns, some might be less afraid of guns.
Or, if you have a ranged weapon your attacker might think you would use it whether or not the attack continues. The might not stop/retreat from a gun because s/he fears death.
But if you have a knife or a non-ranged weapon, the attacker knows that s/he can escape without being harmed.
Posts: 201 | From: Toronto, ON | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
It doesn't say why he wants to picket the funeral, but I suppose it's the usual reason.
-------------------- "He feeds the sparrows of the field, but He doesn't sit there and cram worms into their mouths." -- Mouse Posts: 396 | From: Pasadena, CA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DaGuyWitBluGlasses: If you hit someone high, and maintain contact there head is going to hit ground hard. There's nothing complex about it, its simple physics.
Unless they grab ahold of you. Then you are both going down.
quote:A) people bend. if your egs are fully extended part of the person's body is still within arms reach.
What are you, a chimpanzee? If my legs are fully extented, my hands cannont reach past my legs.
quote:B) As far away as possible, won't necessarily mean your legs are fully extended.
Far enough to keep my body out of his reach means his body is out of my reach.
quote:C) you can always unextend your legs once you get your weapon into position.
And once I unextend my legs, now my body is within reach of his knife. I'd rather leave my legs extended and shoot from outside his knife range.
quote:I'll take a baseball bat, you fire a bullet, now let's see who would hit more targets. It should be obvious.
And if you miss with your first bat swing, your body is twisted around and your vunerable side is exposed. If I miss with my first shot, I fire again. A practiced shooter can fire off a second round within a second of the first round. Can you reswing a bat within a second?
quote:You are better off with a weapon that WILL hit them, then a weapon that is likely to miss. (and in the gun case possibly kill an innocent person)
That is why you practice with your gun until you can hit your target. You don't just buy a gun and never fire it until you are in a situation.
quote:By the time you fire your gun, the same applies. And more than likely you've been contacted.
True. But did you miss the point where I pointed out that the gun gives you the option of getting free and threatening the attacker from beyond the range where he can threaten you?
quote:A knife only needs to be pointed, not fired.
Same with a gun.
quote:Or a criminal who might have been trained know how to spot someone who isn't used to using guns, and might find the odds are better against a gun than a knife.
So don't be a person who isn't used to using guns. You are comparing the potential results of either a trained judo victim or a victim that knows how to knife fight to a victim that is unfamiliar or uncomfortable with a gun. If you were as unfamiliar with a knife as your gun-owner is with a gun, you'd be in just as much danger or more.
quote:SOme criminals might be more afraid of guns, some might be less afraid of guns.
So carry both.
quote:Or, if you have a ranged weapon your attacker might think you would use it whether or not the attack continues. The might not stop/retreat from a gun because s/he fears death.
So the criminal fears that you'd shoot them in the back, therefor the gun is going to make them attack when a knife would make them run away? Is that what you are saying?
quote:But if you have a knife or a non-ranged weapon, the attacker knows that s/he can escape without being harmed.
Unless you chase him down and knife him in the back.
-------------------- IIRC, it wasn't the shoe bomber's loud prayers that sparked the takedown by the other passengers; it was that he was trying to light his shoe on fire. Very, very different. Canuckistan Posts: 3694 | From: Arizona | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Steve Eisenberg: My guess is that the high gun ownership rate in the US deters many burglaries. But people are dying to obtain that benefit, and few of them are criminals.
True. But many of them are the ones that made the choice (or kids whose parents made the choice). There are other dangerous things that affect those who make the decision (or their kids), but we don't talk about prohibiting those things completely.
-------------------- IIRC, it wasn't the shoe bomber's loud prayers that sparked the takedown by the other passengers; it was that he was trying to light his shoe on fire. Very, very different. Canuckistan Posts: 3694 | From: Arizona | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hijacking the Hijack, it looks like another girl will die. It is reported that the family is taking her off life support and bringing her home to pass away there.
-------------------- "If I didn't see it and didn't know it was a real news report, I wouldn't believe it. I mean, how nutty can you get?"-Pat Robertson Oct 26, 2006. Posts: 2936 | From: Mean Streets of West Virginia | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Snowy Chloe: Like what, though, ThistleS? You seem to be saying that we can best reduce the violence by reducing the violence.
(Really knocking off for today now).
Reduce child abuse, is basically what I'm saying. There are programs in place to combat child abuse (crisis hotlines, parenting classes) but they should be more widespread and more aggressively implemented. Reducing spousal abuse, which is the kind of violence children are most often witness to, would also help. There are a lot of programs for victims of spousal/ domestic abuse but not a lot out there for changing the perpetrators. The perpetrators are the ones teaching kids to behave that way so anything that we can do to get them to stop would be good. There is mandatory counselling for drug and alcohol offenders- why not for abusers?
-------------------- Officially Heartless Posts: 3065 | From: The Montgomery County of the West Coast- Berkeley, CA | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
They were showing footage of a funeral on CNN or Fox (not sure which one), and it appeared to be from a helicopter. How sad that these people can't mourn the loss of their children without thumping helicopters and snooping press.
-------------------- "How do you make chocolate? You take dark chocolate, you mix it with white milk, and it becomes a delicious drink. That is the chocolate I am talking about." --Ray Nagin Posts: 1325 | From: Missouri | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How strange, the ABCnews article I read said that they had restricted the airspace to prevent that.
quote:The news media was being kept at a church in the village of Georgetown, away from the homes but along the route where buggies will drive to a cemetery for a short graveside service. Even the airspace was restricted so that TV news helicopters couldn't get video from above.
-------------------- "He feeds the sparrows of the field, but He doesn't sit there and cram worms into their mouths." -- Mouse Posts: 396 | From: Pasadena, CA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by UrbanRenewal: How strange, the ABCnews article I read said that they had restricted the airspace to prevent that.
quote:The news media was being kept at a church in the village of Georgetown, away from the homes but along the route where buggies will drive to a cemetery for a short graveside service. Even the airspace was restricted so that TV news helicopters couldn't get video from above.
Obviously the news media needs to invest in spy satellite technology. Posts: 716 | From: San Antonio, TX | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Unless they grab ahold of you. Then you are both going down.
You're both going down anyways. But the victim is the one colliding with the ground.
quote:A) people bend. if your egs are fully extended part of the person's body is still within arms reach.What are you, a chimpanzee? If my legs are fully extented, my hands cannont reach past my legs.
I'm sorry did you jsut say you have arms and legs coming out of the same joints?
If you have your legs extend against someones abdomen, there chest would be within arms reach.
If you hhave your legs clsoer to their shoulders, you'd likely be able to stab them in the thigh.
quote:ar enough to keep my body out of his reach means his body is out of my reach.
If your legs are good enough to keep the attacker out of reach, why do you need a weapon in the first place?
quote:C) you can always unextend your legs once you get your weapon into position.And once I unextend my legs, now my body is within reach of his knife. I'd rather leave my legs extended and shoot from outside his knife range.
If you make the decision you have the advantage.
quote:[qb]I'll take a baseball bat, you fire a bullet, now let's see who would hit more targets. It should be obvious.And if you miss with your first bat swing, your body is twisted around and your vunerable side is exposed.
If I miss is a pretty huge assumption.
quote: If I miss with my first shot, I fire again. A practiced shooter can fire off a second round within a second of the first round. Can you reswing a bat within a second?
So why can people only be trained to use guns and not other weapons? Yes i can re-swing a bat in both direction.
If i miss with the baseball bat it means that the attacker has slowed down some, given me more time.
quote:That is why you practice with your gun until you can hit your target. You don't just buy a gun and never fire it until you are in a situation.
No matter hwo much you practice, you only hit your target when you have the opportunity to aim. This does not apply to being attacked.
quote:A knife only needs to be pointed, not fired.
Same with a gun.
No, a person can run into your knife impaling themselves, you need to pull the trigger on the gun.
[qb]
quote:Or, if you have a ranged weapon your attacker might think you would use it whether or not the attack continues. The might not stop/retreat from a gun because s/he fears death. So the criminal fears that you'd shoot them in the back, therefor the gun is going to make them attack when a knife would make them run away? Is that what you are saying?
Most attackers will want to escape with his/her life yes.
[qb]
quote:But if you have a knife or a non-ranged weapon, the attacker knows that s/he can escape without being harmed.
Unless you chase him down and knife him in the back. [/QUOTE]
If he attacked you he thinks that he is the better "athlete." The attacker believes he could outrun you.
Posts: 201 | From: Toronto, ON | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
DGWBG, I can't comprehend your post. Can you fix the UBB so I can tell what you're responding versus what you're responding to?
Thanks.
-------------------- "The little local company I buy from has CHEAP shipping and I have met their goats." (snapdragonfly)
"And that's one lost erection I'll never get back! You hear me Dan! I'm owed an erection!" (I'mNotDedalus) Posts: 2658 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DaGuyWitBluGlasses: You're both going down anyways. But the victim is the one colliding with the ground.
Do you mean the attacker?
quote:I'm sorry did you jsut say you have arms and legs coming out of the same joints?
No. Here is the situation. I fall on my back with my legs pointing towards the attacker. I use my feet against the attacker's legs or abdomen to keep him at a distance from me. So he is standing upright and I am on my back.
If all I have is a knife, I can't reach past my feet to get him because my legs are extended to keep him away from me and my legs are longer than my arms.
quote:If you have your legs extend against someones abdomen, there chest would be within arms reach.
What?!? My legs are near full extension against his abdomen. How can my arms reach his chest?
quote:If you hhave your legs clsoer to their shoulders, you'd likely be able to stab them in the thigh.
Thigh wounds are not going to stop him unless I am lucky enough to get him in the inner thigh. And since my legs are on his shoulders, I am stabbing blind because my legs are between my eyes and his legs.
quote:If your legs are good enough to keep the attacker out of reach, why do you need a weapon in the first place?
Because my legs are not an impregnable wall. They are there because they can keep him away from me for a very short period of time.
quote:If you make the decision you have the advantage.
So I get the first stab in. Then (since stabbing is very rarly instantly fatal) he gets the next stab. We continue trading stabs until someone falls.
Maybe you'd care to do that, but I don't want to get into a stabbing contest with only the initial stab advantage.
quote:If I miss is a pretty huge assumption.
True. But when you only get one shot, it is a very critical thing to make it count.
quote:So why can people only be trained to use guns and not other weapons? Yes i can re-swing a bat in both direction.
You can certainly train with a bat if you choose. But as the al force of a bat requires that it be moving at a rate of speed enough to disable/knock down an opponent, a miss is going to make the bat swing away from the attacker.
quote:If i miss with the baseball bat it means that the attacker has slowed down some, given me more time.
True. But given the range of a bat is a few feet, is it enough time to hit him again, now that he is expecting a bat strike?
quote:No matter hwo much you practice, you only hit your target when you have the opportunity to aim. This does not apply to being attacked.
What aiming? Weapons practice includes firing unaimed from the hip for close quarters combat.
quote:
quote:By the time you fire your gun, the same applies. And more than likely you've been contacted.
True. But did you miss the point where I pointed out that the gun gives you the option of getting free and threatening the attacker from beyond the range where he can threaten you?
quote:
quote:A knife only needs to be pointed, not fired.
Same with a gun.
Did you miss these? You didn't reply.
quote:Most attackers will want to escape with his/her life yes.
Agreed. But I would think that would make the attacker more likely to break off when facing a gun.
quote:If he attacked you he thinks that he is the better "athlete." The attacker believes he could outrun you.
No, if he attacked you he belives you are an easy target. He is evaluating how easily he can rob/kill you. He isn't gauging who is the better runner.
-------------------- IIRC, it wasn't the shoe bomber's loud prayers that sparked the takedown by the other passengers; it was that he was trying to light his shoe on fire. Very, very different. Canuckistan Posts: 3694 | From: Arizona | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
This story touches on the fact that the widow of the killer was invited to the funerals. In watching the news this morning it was confirmed that she attended. The Amish could teach us all a lesson in what it means to grieve with diginity and about forgiveness.
-------------------- If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, it's just possible you haven't grasped the situation. - Jean Kerr Posts: 18428 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was just having a conversation last night with some friends about this incident and the media circus around it. One of them mentioned that everyone (newspapers, news shows, etc. etc.) is making such a big deal out of this like "Oh, the Amish will hate us, it'll change them forever, etc. etc." Yet here they have already forgiven and moved on.
Then the topic of how this would make a lot of people say "Well, this is proof that God does not exist. How could he let this happen?" One of my friends then countered "This is total proof that God DOES exist, because how else would the Amish forgive this act? If that's not proof God exists, I don't know what would be."
Just an interesting thing to roll around in your brain...
-------------------- "Oh, now we're going to start judging each other on things we've done?? Real fair!" Posts: 1114 | From: Cincinnati, OH | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How interesting to take an incident like this as proof that God doesn't exist. Why not take it as proof that demons do exist?
-------------------- You can't say no-one ever gave you anything. Posts: 7 | From: Newburg, PA | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
Sara at home
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
The Amish believe in free will. They baptize only adults because members must choose to be part of the community. They wouldn't hold God accountable for what happened, they would hold the shooter accountable, then, using their free will, would choose to forgive him because it's the right thing to do.
-------------------- Assume that all my posts will be edited at least once. Dyslexic -- can't spell, can't type, can't proofread. Posts: 8317 | From: Reading, PA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kind of late to the thread but I just wanted to throw in my vibes for all the families involved.
Posts: 41 | From: Philadelphia, PA | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
Canuckistan
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
quote:Originally posted by HebsFarm: How interesting to take an incident like this as proof that God doesn't exist. Why not take it as proof that demons do exist?
This doesn't prove that, either.
All this incident proves is that there are some very disturbed people out there.
-------------------- People need to stop appropriating Jesus as their reason for behaving badly. It's so irritating. (Avril) Posts: 8429 | From: New York run by the Swiss (Toronto) | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Sara at home
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
quote:Once again, the Amish believe that God knows all and that God, and only God, can judge. What the Amish emphasize, stressed Arnold, is that forgiveness is the only way that humans can break a cycle of violence and sin.
In this case, the gunman left suicide notes that showed that he was driven by guilt and a grudge that he would not surrender. It appears that Roberts could not forgive God and could not forgive himself.
In the end, this killed him and through him killed others.
"If you hold a grudge, it will live on in your heart until it leads to violence of some kind," said Arnold. "If you do not forgive, then you cannot be healed. Forgiveness can heal the forgiver as well as the one who is forgiven. This is what the Amish believe. It will take time, but this is what they now must strive to live out for all the world to see."
-------------------- Assume that all my posts will be edited at least once. Dyslexic -- can't spell, can't type, can't proofread. Posts: 8317 | From: Reading, PA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Snowy Chloe: Statistic linked to here :http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm
It's a NEJM reference: Kellerman AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. "Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership." NEJM. 1992; 327(7):467-472
Unfortunately, New England Journal of Medicine full text articles, prior to 1993, are not on the internet. However, the abstract and list of later citing articles is interesting. I was especially impressed by this follow-up:
I was prepared to find that the studies were inadequate. But I instead learned that the relationship between having a gun in the house and suicide is strong and consistent, much more than I thought possible.
I'm not in the habit of thinking Chloe is right, but, well, here she is.
My guess is that the high gun ownership rate in the US deters many burglaries. But people are dying to obtain that benefit, and few of them are criminals.
quote:OBJECTIVE: This study examined the association between access to a firearm and risk of suicide in a consecutive sample of individuals who had made serious suicide attempts. METHOD: The study used a case control design in which a sample of 197 individuals who died by suicide and 302 individuals who made medically serious suicide attempts was contrasted with 1028 randomly selected community control subjects. RESULTS: Suicide attempts by gunshot accounted for 1.3% of all serious suicide attempts (with non-fatal outcome) and 13.3% of suicides. However, among those making serious suicide attempts, gunshot had a high rate of fatality (83.3%). While access to a firearm was associated with increased risks that gunshot would be chosen as the method of suicide attempt (OR = 107.9; CI = 24.8-469.5), this access was not associated with significant increases in the risk of suicide (OR = 1.4; CI = 0.96-1.99). CONCLUSIONS: For this sample, access to a firearm was not associated with a significant increase in the risk of suicide, although such access was associated with an increased probability that gunshot would be chosen as the method of suicide attempt.
Doesn't make suicide attempts more likely, but does make them more successful.
You might also check out this article from the Tennessee Law Review. Section XV deals specifically with problems in the methodology of the NEJM study. Here's one:
quote:70.9% of the homicide victims (p.587)were killed by people whose relationship to the victim indicates that the killer did not live in the victim's household, and thus presumably used a gun not kept in the victim's household.
-------------------- "Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide." - Jerry Pournelle Posts: 14567 | From: Pennsylvania | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:70.9% of the homicide victims (p.587)were killed by people whose relationship to the victim indicates that the killer did not live in the victim's household, and thus presumably used a gun not kept in the victim's household.
Surely that doesnt necessarily follow? If Steve breaks into Bobs house and shoots Bob with the rifle Bob has hanging over the fireplace, then, despite them having a relationship that would indicate that Steve and Bob dont live together, Bob was nevertheless killed with a gun kept in his own household.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the study though, I'm tired and hungover, but it does seem they are making something of a leap of logic.
-------------------- This Space For Rent. Posts: 210 | From: Glasgow, Scotland | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
Sara at home
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
quote:Originally posted by SiKboy:
quote:Originally posted by First of Two:
quote:70.9% of the homicide victims (p.587)were killed by people whose relationship to the victim indicates that the killer did not live in the victim's household, and thus presumably used a gun not kept in the victim's household.
Surely that doesnt necessarily follow? If Steve breaks into Bobs house and shoots Bob with the rifle Bob has hanging over the fireplace, then, despite them having a relationship that would indicate that Steve and Bob dont live together, Bob was nevertheless killed with a gun kept in his own household.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the study though, I'm tired and hungover, but it does seem they are making something of a leap of logic.
I think a more common scenario is the one that recently happened here: Teens having party when parents are home, kid who lives there gets out Dad's gun to show off, for whatever reason someone gets shot and sometimes it's the kid who lived there.
-------------------- Assume that all my posts will be edited at least once. Dyslexic -- can't spell, can't type, can't proofread. Posts: 8317 | From: Reading, PA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
This story touches on the fact that the widow of the killer was invited to the funerals. In watching the news this morning it was confirmed that she attended. The Amish could teach us all a lesson in what it means to grieve with diginity and about forgiveness.
Agreed Christie. I was reading Sunday AM about how the Amish had attended the funeral for the man, had set up a fund for his children & had brought food to his widows house. I put myself in the place of his widow & I could not imagine opening my door & seeing the very people my DH had attacked standing at my door offering help. Such a Grace of God moment.
-------------------- I cannot live without books-Thomas Jefferson *~* A child educated only at school is an uneducated child - George Santayana I'm going to pummel you with such zeal, Buddha will explode! *~* Never miss a good chance to shut up - Will Rogers Posts: 6585 | From: Dallas/Fort Worth, TX | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Sara at home
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
quote:Originally posted by Morgaine La Raq Star: I put myself in the place of his widow & I could not imagine opening my door & seeing the very people my DH had attacked standing at my door offering help.
If you had been living in rural Lancaster County for a few years, you wouldn't be surprised.
-------------------- Assume that all my posts will be edited at least once. Dyslexic -- can't spell, can't type, can't proofread. Posts: 8317 | From: Reading, PA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
