Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumGun Control contributed to a womans death in NJ
She tried to get a gun in NJ to protect herself from her ex, but due to the abhorrent permitting process, she was unable to. So her ex ignored the restraining order, which is just a sheet of paper anyway, and KILLED HER..
Check said Friday that he did not wish to discuss circumstances surrounding Bowne's application.
For first-time gun ownership applicants in New Jersey, a person must go to their local police station, take home forms to be filled out, submit to background investigations regarding their criminal history and mental health, be fingerprinted, pay pertaining fees and submit contact information for references. Police will then conduct a 14-point investigation and give an approval within 30 days.
At least that's how it's supposed to work
http://www.nj.com/camden/index.ssf/2015/06/nj_gun_association_calls_berlin_womans_death_an_ab.html
O well, atleast she was kept from getting an evil death spewer..she might have hurt someone.....
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)nt
Human101948
(3,457 posts)The Kentucky woman who shot her boyfriend in the head and face multiple times said she was giving him the nose job that he wanted, detectives said.
Investigators revealed a string of gruesome new details at a preliminary hearing Thursday for Shayna Hubers, 21, the Eastern Kentucky University student charged with murder in the slaying of on again-off again boyfriend Ryan Poston, 29.
She said she couldnt stand to see him deformed [after shooting him in the face]. She said he was vain, Highland Heights Detective Bill Birkenhauer said in a chilling testimony before the Campbell County District Court.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/woman-shot-boyfriend-gave-nose-job-detective-article-1.1193488
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)http://www.hngn.com/articles/98692/20150605/woman-fatally-stabbed-in-n-j-was-waiting-on-state-permission-to-own-gun.htm
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)department that checks them. I would suspect she did fingerprints when she turned the paperwork in. That is normally how it works. I know, I had to go through a similar process.
S_B_Jackson
(906 posts)Carol Bowne's fingerprints to the state police for their review.
Personally, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if they had not done so and that dragging their feet in such a manner is customary procedure for the department - all the better to discomfit anyone who isn't wealthy, politically connected, or some sort of celebrity from having the most effective means for their self-defense.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)But the news probably will not carry that part.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)Well, no fingerprints, no gun. So she doesn't get to defend herself.
Oh well, hopefully her psycho ex won't try to kill her.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)(a) Every person applying for a firearms purchaser identification card or for a permit to purchase a handgun shall furnish such information and particulars as are set forth in the application form designated STS-33, in the case of an identification card, or STS 33A, in the case of a permit to purchase. Forms can be obtained from municipal police departments, State Police stations and licensed retail firearms dealers.
(b) The applicant shall waive any statutory or other right of confidentiality relating to institutional confinement.
(c) The applicant shall provide the names and addresses of two reputable citizens personally acquainted with him as references.
(d) The application shall be signed by the applicant and the completed application, together with two sets of the applicant's fingerprints and fees as established by N.J.A.C. 13:59 in accordance with N.J.S.A. 53:1-20.5 et seq. (P.L. 1985, c. 69), a consent for mental health records search form designated STS-1 and a nonrefundable application fee of $5.00 for a firearms identification card and $2.00 for a permit to purchase a handgun, shall be submitted to the chief of police of an organized full time police department in the municipality in which the applicant resides. If the municipality
does not have an organized full time police department, application shall be made to the State Police station servicing the municipality in which the applicant resides, or to any State Police station in the case of a non-resident.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)which is not the fault of requiring background checks before purchasing a gun. If it got hung up in bureaucratic limbo, that's a separate problem.
The way the article read, to me, was she had submitted some initial paperwork but not the fingerprint part.
I think we can all agree that background checks should be completed in a reasonable amount of time. Where we'll differ is where to draw that line (1 day, 1 week, or whatever, for the research and paperwork) but taking more than a month does seem to me to be too long. The other question this raises is what should happen if it does end up taking longer, but that'd also depend on why a particular application took longer.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)to take more than 15 minutes, actually, there's no excuse for a permit to purchase a firearm, which is a civil right.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)When any cop in the USA pulls someone over for a traffic violation, they have the ability to know in a matter of moments, the criminal history of the cars registered owner... If another person is driving, they will have that information in a few more moments.
And that is without fingerprints.. Yea, take us back to the 1950's with that one........
It is NOTHING BUT PURE BS that it takes 30+ days for a gun permit check...
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)'Not researching the subject on which I opine', is only one of your failings
in this thread.
You've blamed the victim all through it, from failing to choose a form of self-defense
more acceptable to you:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172168288#post5
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172168288#post21
to not being selective enough in her choice of paramours:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172168288#post19
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172168288#post109
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172168288#post162
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)nt
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)that again sir is just sickening and I wish you would stop it.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)is when we try and educate on weapons or like this the process, we are derided for quibbling about details. It does help to know at least some things before making wild statements like that. The worst thing is even after he has been corrected and said he did not know how the process worked, he kept making that statement and kept those prior posts up. IF I am found to be wrong, I edit or self delete. This poster refused to edit or self-delete where he blamed the victim for her own death.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172168288#post19
Jurors, please read the linked post for context as I fully expect this post to be alerted no by the poster.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Straw Man
(6,625 posts)which is not the fault of requiring background checks before purchasing a gun. If it got hung up in bureaucratic limbo, that's a separate problem.
And it's not a separate problem.
Nobody said it was the fault of requiring background checks. It's the fault of deliberate bureaucratic foot-dragging and understaffing, all for the purpose of making gun ownership as onerous as possible. When police are investigating a crime, they somehow manage to get fingerprint data processed in minutes, not months.
It took me three months to get my NY State pistol permit. That's after submitting all the paperwork. I was lucky. For many, it takes over a year. That is inexcusable.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Seems they already have a provision that you must be approved upon application to the top law enforcement official in the county where she resideDDD.
Had several of those of those type laws .
In the South.
During Jim (large, raucous black bird) days.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)or deny an application is too long, imho. In this day and age, with everything digital (it is, right?) a minute should be more than enough. Oh, wait, it's not, yet? Ok, then how about 2 weeks, if all the paperwork is submitted correctly in the first place? That seems reasonable to me.
She could still have been killed if she had a gun, but if she was legally able to pass the background check, then she should have had the right to try defending herself in every legal way from this asshole who killed her.
I still think she had other options, too, that she didn't pursue, and she made some bad choices too, but I'm *not* blaming her for Eitel killing her. That's all on him.
G'night.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Last edited Mon Jun 8, 2015, 07:31 AM - Edit history (1)
if fine with you, we will never agree with that. It should take no more than 15-20 minutes in this digital age. It is the gun control laws that you guys wanted that caused the delay for her to have HER CHOICE of protection. She might be alive today if she was ALLOWED to have HER CHOICE of protection. We will never know though as she was not due to the gun control law. And you sir are indeed at least putting partial blame on her once again and it it still just as sick. Yes Mr Eitel killed her not the knife, and there is a possibility it would not have happened if she had a firearm for protection as was HER CHOICE.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)You have been less than truthful in many ways. And I can not believe that you can/will change so suddenly.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I have given him many times to come clean on issues about me and he never does. It would take a lot for me to trust that individual. People can change, I guess. I just do not see it in his deeds or other postings.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)"nuff said.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)If it is ok to restrict ONE civil liberty in that way, it is OK to restrict them ALL the same way..
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Our resident gun control people that have been here lately will be be eerily quiet.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)The article is unclear.
"The bottom line is if you have access to a firearm, at least you have a fighting chance," Bach said.
When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
In other news, N.J. man wanted in killing of ex-girlfriend found dead
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)...was DENIED her.... She tried to jump thru the hoops, and it was not enough..
In most states she would have been allowed her desired weapon, in minutes...
People that insist on strict gun control directly contributed to her untimely death.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)too bad the control side did not allow her to exercise that choice. New Jersey, enough said.
At least that's how it's supposed to work, Bach said.
"This woman's life was tragically taken because of New Jersey gun laws," said Bach.
Why did you not highlight this part, I will be helpful and do it for you. You can thank me later.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and not recommended against armed assailants, especially the type that is legal in NJ. Worse than useless in rain, indoors, head wind.
http://www.loyola.edu/club/maru/self-defense/resources/mace
IOW, she was denied her right to life and choice, by denying her the most effective means of self defense.
Gun control activists have as much right telling a man or woman how they deal with their personal security as Bible thumpers do regarding his or her family planning: Zero. Recommendations from Dr. Oz, you (unless you happen to be a self defense expert/trainer), or self important pompus assholes like Piers Morgan should have even less say.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Do you think he will come back with some reply?
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Was it windy or rainy when she was stabbed? Pepper spray might have saved her life.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)The type that is legal in NJ is capable at most minor irritation, not incapacitation. That means he would still be slashing with a knife. Even then, what is legal is capable of only one shot.
Maybe she did explore other options. The point is, the police violated the law by not getting the permit to her within 30 days. A gun is the most effective means. It is her natural human right to have the most effective means available.
Did you read this part in the link:
The products covered by this consent agreement include Mace and other chemical self-protection products. We advise that you limit your use of Mace in accordance with these restrictions:
(2) Mace may take several seconds to work; and
(3) Mace may not work on enraged, drugged, or intoxicated assailants.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)and she's too intimidated or scared to actually use it, so he takes it from her and shoots her instead. That's the scenario you'd prefer?
Maybe we should be praising NJ's laws for making the killer resort to a knife instead of arriving with a gun himself
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and common in the movies. There is no evidence that it happens in real life and is sexist bullshit. In fact, most gun control arguments come from the movies and TV and have no basis in reality. IOW, my hypotheticals are informed, yours are not.
Abusive types like him don't use guns because they are don't inflict humiliation and pain, see OJ. Maybe he didn't like guns. In no way, did NJ's gun control laws prevent him from getting one.
What happened to the "the Gun Control Act isn't worth the paper it is written on and he could have gone to Vermont?"
Seriously, come up with a valid and intelligent argument, that is why your side is losing the grassroots. That is why you are dependent on assholes like Bloomberg.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)you can not admit that some the gun control you people push for, removed the choice from this poor lady and she is dead now. Now you are trying to put the blame back on her as she did not choose a much less effective means of defense. That sir, is just not right and I suggest you rethink your argument.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Maybe if I dig long enough I can find a cartoon that depicts this ugliness.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)it is sad
sarisataka
(18,663 posts)Was a nail.
Since she couldn't get a super-duper restraining order she had to defend herself
So because he hanged himself all is ok? But thank Dog no one was killed with a gun.
Shamash
(597 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)The gun killed nobody. Seems other weapons were used.
Shamash
(597 posts)and I quote:
"Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was used by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies"
So not only was a firearm the defensive strategy she was denied a choice of, it was also the one most likely to have kept her alive.
For added gun control irony and EM repellent, she was murdered not with a gun, but with a knife.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Now he might start something in the safe haven, but I doubt that also as it does not fit the narrative.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)So she chose not to exercise other options, or plan ahead to arm herself earlier, or maybe not date that asshole in the first place, but somehow this thread is becoming about me again? Try and stay on topic.
Shamash
(597 posts)a sample dialog from the "Dating Tips" chapter of EM's upcoming book: "So, You Want to Move to New Jersey"
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Shamash
(597 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)And I am not always the sharpest knife in the drawer. Too bad he did not give her advance notice of him being abusive.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)in the body but not the subject line meant the subject line was directed at me, not a hypothetical conversation with Ms Bowne.
Shamash
(597 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I will post what I want. She tried to exercise her right but was stopped buy the gun control crowd. To bad they prevented her from choosing the method she wanted.
sarisataka
(18,663 posts)Talking about 'classy' and blaming the victim
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)It did seem in my humble opinion he did just blame the victim. I hope I am wrong and he will either edit or self delete that disgusting post. I know he id better than that.
DashOneBravo
(2,679 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Nice, I'm making Chicken Cacciatore spread over Bowtie pasta.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)Recipe please.
I grilled boneless chicken tonight. We had that along with brown rice, grilled mixed onions and mushrooms, Paule Dean style green beans (butter and crumbled bacon) and some local beer.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)We'll likely cook the rest tomorrow.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Yummy.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)You're blaming the victim.
Truly vile and disgusting.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)http://www.hngn.com/articles/98692/20150605/woman-fatally-stabbed-in-n-j-was-waiting-on-state-permission-to-own-gun.htm
Talk about red flags that he might just do the same again, or worse. Not the kind of person I'd ever go on a date with if I were a woman.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)people normally conduct Purpose Code "C" background checks on those with whom they plan to interact with socially. Right.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Truly vile and disgusting.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)http://www.hngn.com/articles/98692/20150605/woman-fatally-stabbed-in-n-j-was-waiting-on-state-permission-to-own-gun.htm
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Repugnant.
What next? "Well, if she didn't want to be raped she shouldn't have left the house dressed like that and without a male member of her family to escort her."
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)But the poster refuses to do that.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)It's not like the police themselves can't get a BGC done in a reasonable amount of time. You place all the burden on the victim while going through contortions to exonerate the police (who would, coincidentally, be charged with enforcing the regime of fantasy laws you favor).
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)sarisataka
(18,663 posts)But perhaps if you had gone out dressed a bit more conservatively and drank less..."
Nope, not victim blaming at all
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Lack of enough gun control contributes to 30000 American deaths a year.
I think the overall balance suggests there should be more gun control, not less.
sarisataka
(18,663 posts)The CDC also states
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Shamash
(597 posts)The suicide rate in gun-free Japan is more than the US murder rate and suicide rate combined. Which would seem to indicate that gun control does not do much to affect suicide rates. You can also look at before and after suicide rates after stricter gun laws were enacted in the UK and Australia. The firearm suicide rate went down, but not the overall suicide rate. Those that serious about ending their lives simply found other unfortunately successful means to do so.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)So I'll take suicides out of the figure. Instead of 30000 to one, we're down to 18000 to one, then.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)to 11K
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I flipped the 18k and the 12k, since I don't usually separate them.
But I still would request a group host ban me to prevent me posting by mistake in this group in future.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)Shamash
(597 posts)Since Australia's big gun ban and buyback was in 1996, perhaps you can explain to me what the usefulness of the "12 times greater" figure is? Doesn't seem like their gun laws did anything for the overall murder rate. If you're concerned about people being murdered with guns, seems like a good idea. If you're concerned about people being murdered in general, I'm not seeing any improvement.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)So I think that we can conclude that we have a culture of violence in the good ol' USA. Guns are just a part of the problem--but a significant part. We also have cops shooting and killing citizens at an outrageous rate--400 so far this year. Australia had 105 people killed in 22 years.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/fatal-police-shootings-in-2015-approaching-400-nationwide/2015/05/30/d322256a-058e-11e5-a428-c984eb077d4e_story.html
http://theconversation.com/shoot-to-kill-the-use-of-lethal-force-by-police-in-australia-34578
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)than Australia. If you want to see a "culture of violence" you might want to check out Brazil.
Guns are irrelevant. There are more legal guns in the US and Australia than ever before and crime is still dropping.
We also have more people than Australia.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)Since the US non-firearm murder rate exceeds the overall rate (both guns and all other means) for countries like the UK, I conclude that the US is more prone to violence than some other countries. The UK and Australia in particular have numerous social support systems and economic helps that we lack in the US. Aside from the often mentioned single payer healthcare, let me highlight wages and what the working folk actually earn.
Waiter/Waitress in Australia:
$16,414 - $33,033 (in USD using today's exchange rate)
Waiter/Waitress in USA:
$7,072 - $34,664
The folks at the bottom of those scales make less than half in the US. The top end of those ranges pay is comparable but in the US those folks are likely paying for their own healthcare.
Young people are often at the low end of the scale. They may be high school grads without a degree or college grads with over $50,000 of loan debt. Most of the undegreed are looking at getting unskilled work. The degree holders are competing for jobs and some won't find one before needing to make those loan payments. Some of those degree holders may be taking some of the unskilled jobs.
Where does this leave folks in the US? Correct me if I'm wrong but I think college costs less in the UK or maybe it's free as it is in some countries.
Bankruptcy?? Good idea; here in the US those student loans don't qualify. Thank you Republicans. Bankruptcy will keep you from being evicted from your overpriced apartment but those loans will always be there to garnish your pay along with interest and penalties. Guess what. If you're a single parent that cosigned your kid's college loans and he/she hasn't found a job to pay them, you're on the hook. If you're working as a waiter or waitress or some other low paying job, just make sure your kid doesn't die because if they do, you're still on the hook.
What a system! Frustration, arguments, strife and hopelessness; the perfect environment for a place with a violence problem.
I can't remember exactly but I think the average age of violence perpetrators is between 17 and 24. I feel blessed to be a part of this experiment in wealth diversity.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)I'm starting to think shamash doesn't understand how to post links to sources; either that or he's shamming us. In my post 262 I noted he posted irrelevant graphs which did not corroborate anything he said in his post.
shamash:... Doesn't seem like their {Australia} gun laws did anything for the overall murder rate.
Shamash, I believe those are not rates on your graph, but total murders. If so Shamash posted a graph which shows overall murder. From 1995 - 97 Australian murder total was approx. 315. The gun buyback was 96/97. Murder spiked only one year 1999 to approx. 345, but has been lower than 315 for 6 of the 10 yrs to 2007 (shamash's graph limits), remained at parity for 3 yrs, rose the 1 year 1999.
I approx'd the murder figs for the ten years 1997 - 2007 as follows (290,345,315,310,315,300,265,265,280,260) and they average out to 295. So from 1996/97 buyback year, total murder is on average 20 murders less each year since the buyback.
Also, the firearm percentage used in murder in 1996/97 was approx. 25%, in 2007 it was ~15%, which corroborates with the drop in murder totals over the ten year period. If aussie population grew, this will be enhanced by comparing murder rates with firearm rates.
One wonders what shamash is trying to pull, with his illogical weird science.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Does not like to block people as this group likes all viewpoints. It is up to you like one of our regulars to check what groip they are posting in. The funny thing is he relized his mistake, self deleted the post and EM, the host over there still blocked him. No SOP violation, I would like to know the excuse, as to me it is a clear abuse of a hosts powers.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)the post is in the other 'gun control' group, not the one that actually believes in useful gun control.
It would be helpful, in fact, if a group host would ban me in this group, so that I don't post in the wrong 'gun control' group in future.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Shut down dissent in your safe haven and then come here to deliberately stir up shit.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)It's very obvious what he's trying to do here.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I truly think that is one of his motivations of posting in his favorite group
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)that poster shall remain nameless
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)then why the fuck are you posting here? Why haven't you trashed this group?
I know why you're here, you tried that last night.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)I keep getting drawn in, basically, because I don't want pro-gun propaganda to go unchecked.
You could try asking the admins for a safe-haven, if my point of view (and that of roughly 2/3 of Americans) offends your delicate sensibilities too much.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)I'm not trying to get a hide nor a ban, I welcome a robust debate, I'm not baiting people, as you're doing right now.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)We like debate from both sides. Quite unlike your group. And if I remember correctly, you ran and wanted Skinner to remove this group.
Here is another simple question for you to answer, IS THAT TRUE OR NOT?
Pro gun propaganda? Allowing a woman to have a CHOICE of a firearm for her protection that gun control laws prevented and she was killed.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)The post didn't need to be turned into a debate on the virtues of gun control. I've seen it a thousand times, somebody posts a story citing a case where a life was saved through the defensive use of a firearm and first thing you know, there's a response saying "All guns bad, ban all guns" and first thing you know, the thread has become an exercise in name calling and finger pointing, and the original story is lost in all the bullshit.
And it's never the RKBA supporters who start this crap.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Last edited Sun Jun 7, 2015, 09:42 PM - Edit history (1)
I think you are making shit up again. You just can't stand the the notion that some Dems actually like guns and dare to disagree with you on gun control. Your behavior in Bansalot is proof of that.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)but facts do not seem to matter
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)What will be next, I wonder?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Unlike the "safe haven" that you want to go to. Truly sad that they require that.
Shamash
(597 posts)We're open to everyone and glad to inform people. If this discussion were in the "other" group you would never have learned that new item about suicides and gun control, since people posting things in GCRA that do not agree with "the narrative" get banned.
You may get argued with here, and mocked if your position is based on ignorance, intolerance, double-standards or authoritarianism, but we won't pre-emptively restrict your conduct just because we disagree with you.
That's more of a gun control thing...
sarisataka
(18,663 posts)One group does believe in useful gun control but can be very contentious about what is useful and is aware of Constitutional pitfalls.
The other group believes in control- and consequences be damned.
If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.
George S. Patton
ileus
(15,396 posts)jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)shamash: The suicide rate in gun-free Japan is more than the US murder rate and suicide rate combined. Which would seem to indicate that gun control does not do much to affect suicide rates.
You omit one relevant detail, that being in Japan insurance companies pay off to the family of a suicide, which is an 'incentive' to commit suicide. American insurance companies do not pay anything to suicide families. That is an important reason for the higher suicide rates in Japan, as men are deemed 'honorable' in a sense, for providing for their family, esp if there was lack of employment.
Even wife-mothers who commit murder suicide with a child, when the father was unfaithful or an awful father, are generally not ostracized since it's her way of punishing the cheating father.
Here in America you can go straight to hell if you suicide, so much a cultural difference.
Shamash doesn't post any links to his graphs, which are confusing & one wonders how relevant. Shamsash's top graph evidently contrasts by rates Australian 'deaths' with those of deaths in the NT (northern territories) of Australia, but does shamash conflate 'deaths' with suicides? Why does he single out the northern territories as if they prove something overall? Where is the link to these graphs? or is he a sham artist?
His bottom graph is even more confusing, contrasting male suicides in the UK (Britain) with female suicide rates, but this doesn't prove anything whatsoever as to what shamash is talking about in his post.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)hollysmom
(5,946 posts)do we know she would have been carrying or that she would have had her gun out and ready to go or that he would not have taken the gun from her and used it on her or she would not have been approached from behind or or or. It may increase your chances, but in this case I am willing to bet that woman would be dead.
Now I have had a restraining order against me by someone who was mad at me long and unimportant story, but I got it rescinded, still the whole restraining order thing needs to be fixed first.
And maybe give the people who are under attack a button like those old people who fall down and cant get up. If she had seen him before she got out of her car, she could have avoided it by staying in her car and pressing that button, if she saw him before hand she also could have gotten out a gun, but she would still have to get off a shot before he took her down and been accurate under stress. I think the button is a better idea..
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and the fact that it took over 30 days, the state violated the law.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=168344
Bible thumpers have no business telling anyone their family planning, the same goes with gun control activists telling anyone their personal security.
hollysmom
(5,946 posts)I live in a small urban time and I think the furthest the police are away is 5 minutes - very physically small town, not everyone can be as lucky. I live in the center of town, so when I called the police 3 times, they came in about 1 minute. they are only a block away. One time was when a very large guy was dragging his girlfriend out of her car and beating her up - thankfully he has moved away, he was just living there temporarily. I wa running looking for a club to use on him but the police got there first. both my neighbors had guns, but they "didn't want to get involved".
I was merely pointing out, that there is not a lot of detain in the story, but the good news (as far as it can be good) is that it is probably caught on video, that will answer the questions.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)that is true in small towns with their own departments. Rock Springs, Wyoming, is probably five. Granger, Wyoming, they simply they aren't coming. A deputy or game warden might show up, or might not.
The national average is eight to ten minutes. Trenton can take up to 30 minutes. Detroit is four hours.
Point is about individual rights and the right to choose.
Of course, there is the DC public safety director
District of Columbia Deputy Mayor for Public Safety, Paul Quander
Of course, she can't replace her life. Of course, the deputy has his guns, and his family is surrounded by people with guns. Yes, I find Quander's words morally repugnant and is unfit for office, but I'm fortunate enough not to be a DC resident.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)there is absolutely no reason to believe that the outcome would have have been different is she was able to get a gun
and yes it is GOOD that there are rules in place to prevent easy access to guns,the problem is that the restrictions do not go anywhere near far enough.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Response to Electric Monk (Reply #58)
GGJohn This message was self-deleted by its author.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)there is every reason to believe so it would have come out better.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)and gotten her permit to her, she would've have been able to successfully defend herself and would still be alive.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)She was denied a"Choice".... She paid the price for New Jersey's gun control... and what's with the name calling?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)when they have no legitimate argument or pertinent facts for the discussion. I find it childish but but they will do what they do.
Wait till what comes next.....
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)as he moderated himself, lol
At least he moderates posters, well the only one he has the power to. Himself
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)He left it up long enough for me to read it, though.
Classy, as always.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)No, it wasn't, and a jury of your peers ruled 0-7 that it wasn't.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)That is quite unlike what happens in other groups and other DU members.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)oh wait, you can't alert yet can you?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)7-0 jury result will do that
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I can say the opposite with just as much certainty.
sarisataka
(18,663 posts)how you feel about a black man carrying a gun:
he should have broken his damn arms....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=159688
nor did successful self-defense matter
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172146444#post1
but then victims are unimportant, it's just guns that matter.
Nice voice of sanity
daleanime
(17,796 posts)Where did he say that?
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)it was the knife, not the individual that killed her. Knives kill! Wonder if it was one of those scary black plastic assault knives?
See how idiotic that sounds.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)the next time someone on the pro-control side attempts to blame law-abiding firearm owners for the criminal actions of violent sociopaths. Or when they try to blame the "lax gun laws" of some states for the actions of criminals in states that are more restrictive regarding the rights of citizens to arm themselves.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)You have to sometimes just laugh.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)it was NJ's violation of state law that prevented her from obtaining a gun, so, NJ contributed to her death.
beevul
(12,194 posts)heh.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)applied. I think you are out on a limb with this one.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)this time it was not the evil gun. She was not given the choice due to the gun control laws.
Nope, he is on firm, solid ground
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)applied. How does a gun law have an effect then? She could have had a gun and didn't use it correctly
Any number of scenarios here. Sorry you don't get my sympathy on this one.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)He used a knife after she tried to do the right thing by the gun control mandated laws. The state failed her and he killed her. Please do nit make up facts.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)http://www.hngn.com/articles/98692/20150605/woman-fatally-stabbed-in-n-j-was-waiting-on-state-permission-to-own-gun.htm
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Bad reporting. Still the gun control laws pushed by people like you caused the state to fail her. If that state allowed the federal instant background check, things might have been different. Sucks to be on the side that took that choice away from her. I hope you edit or remove the post where you blamed her for her death.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172168288#post19
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)So, no.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I know you are better than that
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Remember how your side likes repeating "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"?
Now you're saying "People don't kill people, laws against guns kill people."
Does the cognitive dissonance give you a headache?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)but it was the failure of the state that allowed that to happen by their draconian firearm laws.
At least you're not victim blaming any more.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)You know, "gunz kill!", the pro-controllers favorite saying. Was this one of those assault knives?
I feel fine in saying criminal with a weapon killed her but the state was complicit as it did not allow her to defend herself.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)group that say guns kill and blame the weapon and not the individual.
sarisataka
(18,663 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)bet you will never see it over in "bansalot"
Thanks
jonno99
(2,620 posts)blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)The police chief's statement is clearly that results from having the fingerprints checked had not been received. The applicant had submitted prints as part of the application process; having the prints checked clearly was not a priority for the police department.
This is odd as the process is largely automated by now. Police departments even have portable scanners to check suspects at the scene to confirm identity and check for outstanding warrants.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)they didn't get the results back from her fingerprint card, which she had already submitted.
Still victim blaming?
Disgusting and vile.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Those laws were in place long before Christie became governor, and the problem is that NJ failed this woman and now she's dead because of those laws.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)hard to get himself out now, but step one would be to stop digging.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Those laws were pushed by gun control organizations and it is just wrong for you to fail to accept that fact.
The laws you help push for, and the state that enforces those laws failed this young lady who is now dead.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)hoo hoo the big bad gun control lobby
Shamash
(597 posts)The victim is dead. Unless you can make a solid case that she would be more dead if she had possessed a gun, the obvious conclusion is that there is no way possessing a gun could have given her a worse outcome.
See comment #10.
The gun control laws prevented her from having that choice and are exactly as culpable as would be an auto law that prevented people from using seat belts. Sure, you might still die in an auto accident even if you are wearing a seat belt, but wouldn't you rather have a choice in the matter?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)The laws that they pushed for prevented this person from her choice of protection. This may or may not have helped, we shall never know as she is dead. The government and gun control laws were a factor.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)She might well still be alive if it weren't for NJ's draconian permit system.
ileus
(15,396 posts)personal safety device many moons ago.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)On the Second Amendment Absolutist side, the argument is that if only the woman had been allowed a gun immediately, presumably without any background check, she would of course have been able to kill her assailant. She would have reacted to the attack with accuracy and would have still been alive.
And that kind of thing does happen, but generally in a Chuck Norris movie, or in NRA cartoon style propaganda.
My father in law was a homicide detective, a Marine sniper, and a competitive shooter. He told me of a situation that he helped investigate. There was a Police Officer and a suspect in a bedroom. 10 by 12 foot room. Numerous shots were fired by both men. Neither was hit.
And THAT is closer to reality than the NRA fantasy of an armed civilian with little shooting skill defending against an armed attacker.
On the other side, we have people who feel that gun purchases should not be treated like shoe purchases.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)And how do you know she would have had to shoot him? Just drawing the weapon may very well have scared him off, most DGU's only consist of showing the weapon.
But because of NJ's draconian gun laws, including their permit to purchase, she was unable to get that chance to possibly defend herself, now she's dead.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)How do you know that he wouldn't have turned tail and run if she had shown the firearm?
But we'll never know because of NJ's draconian firearm laws.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)http://www.hngn.com/articles/98692/20150605/woman-fatally-stabbed-in-n-j-was-waiting-on-state-permission-to-own-gun.htm
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)The state hadn't gotten the results of her fingerprint card back yet.
Still victim blaming.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)the fingerprints are submitted with the application, they would not accept the application without them. The fingerprint results have not been returned from the state mandated check back to the local officials.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Shamash
(597 posts)Because I think you're posting in the wrong one. Unless of course you can show me the "Second Amendment Absolutists" in this thread (because Absolutist needs to be capitalized, donchaknow?) who are saying the things you are merely "summarizing".
And last time I bought shoes, it did not require a criminal background check nor waiting period nor to sign a statement telling me I was going to jail if I lied about my particulars. But New Jersey might be more strict than my state about things like that.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)"Gun Control contributed to a womans death in NJ
She tried to get a gun in NJ to protect herself from her ex, but due to the abhorrent permitting process, she was unable to. So her ex ignored the restraining order, which is just a sheet of paper anyway, and KILLED HER.. "
So while my summary was heavy handed, so was the original post. "Gun control" did not kill the woman, her ex-boyfriend did. And no one here can tell me as fact that if the woman had been able to buy a gun immediately that she would not have been killed. It is all speculation to support the supposed fact that possession of a gun protects from violence. A common NRA theme.
There are many examples of armed Police Officers killed in the news on a regular basis. They all have guns, and some of them are reasonably well trained in shooting. How can they be killed if possession protects?
Shamash
(597 posts)And it seems you missed #10 before you decided to write "It is all speculation to support the supposed fact that possession of a gun protects from violence. A common NRA theme."
Being heavy-handed is fine, but try to do so in an accurate fashion and be equally heavy on the excesses of both sides.
But I do appreciate the part where you said the boyfriend was the one responsible for the murder and not the weapon he used. You should definitely go heavy-handed on people who assert the opposite.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)That would not be anywhere close to the truth and it just destroys your own position. How about she could go to a retailer and pass an instant background check and not have to wait 30 plus days as the current gun control laws state? That would be what I think most if not all here would say.
and like the other person said, firing a weapon is the absolute last option. Many if not most defensive gun uses are just showing and not even necessarily drawing the firearm.
They are not, to purchase from an FFL person or dealer, you have to be of age, 21 for a pistol, no criminal record, no domestic abuse convictions, and pass a background check by the FBI. Of course some states are more restrictive.
sarisataka
(18,663 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)"I am sitting in the smallest room in my house with your critique before me. Soon it will be behind me."
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)as there are in every other state. Background checks have been federal law for 20 years. New Jersey's licensing system predates NICS, and is set up to discourage gun ownership more than anything else. Even after she got her licence to possess, she would still have to go through the same process to buy a gun and still go through the NICS background check at the dealer or gun show.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)fingerprints as part of her application?
"We did not get the fingerprint information yet," Berlin Township Police Chief Leonard Check said of Browne's application.
http://www.hngn.com/articles/98692/20150605/woman-fatally-stabbed-in-n-j-was-waiting-on-state-permission-to-own-gun.htm
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)The police won't accept an application without the fingerprint card, it was the police waiting for the results of the fingerprint card, not the other way around.
You really should correct the numerous posts you've made claiming this.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)it is the last little thread of hope he has. Anyone that has done a background check knows this. If the paperwork is not complete it will not be accepted and they take your fingerprints as the last part when you turn in your fully completed application. Since her application was turned in and accepted, she did provide her fingerprints.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)we know the process and it is always a good day to learn something new, don't you agree?
That is why it is nice to have all sides in the discussion.
If you do not own a gun, good for you. That is your choice and I, and I would think all here respect your decision. The problem becomes when you try and force your decisions about gun ownership on us.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)but it would bolster your credibility to know what the process is before posting false information.
Just sayin.
Here in AZ, we don't have to submit fingerprints to buy a weapon, we don't have a permit to purchase system, the majority of states don't have that system, we also have constitutional carry, but if you want to be able to carry in other states, you can get a CHL, which does require a fingerprint check, an FBI background check, a training course consisting of the laws of self defense, the do's and don't's of self defense, and range time to qualify.
I chose to go for the whole monty and got a CHL.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)I walk into a store. Give them my ID, they run a background check and I am approved.
I never understood democrats who are for shall issue gun laws.
I guarantee you a rich white guy can get a gun permit.
If you are black, you better hope your sheriff is not racist, since he can just stall and deny the permit.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)The states should not require registration, background checks, or controls of any kind. </sarcasm off/>
Response to cheapdate (Reply #128)
Duckhunter935 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)And it is Still illegal to knowingly sell a firearm to a felon under any circumstances. Clearly, the deceased was trying to follow the law, but the laws in NJ are based on old Jim (large, raucous black bird) laws, which not only duplicate federal law but add layers of bureaus to the process. The intended effects of these laws are big delays and arbitrary denials. These laws were common in Southern states, post Civil War. Not anymore, becuase of the 1964 CR Act. Seems the South learned faster.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)if they want one. But, she wasn't killed because of a lack of having a gun. She was killed because her ex knew where she lived. So, people with restraining orders should also be offered a place to live where their abusers don't know where they are and also a job transfer if they can get it or a different job. We have completely inadequate means to address domestic violence and we should also change that term as well it's domestic terrorism.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)things might have turned out differently. We will never know as the gun control laws of the state prevented her having one. I agree, domestic violence issues should be a very high priority to protect the victims, male and female.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)There is no way to tell what outcome having a gun would have been. She might still be dead. He could have snuck up on her, he could have been too close with the knife before she could have drawn she could have been a bad shot or he could have maybe gotten the gun and used it on her, but she should have had the chance to find out. Or she should have had the option to relocate. I am fine with either choice.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)and he might have run away or been shot. that seems to be overlooked, even in this last response.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)But, the outcome is not a given. I would be more comfortable with people who are abused being taken completely out of the area where the abuse took place. It's hard to kill someone if you don't know where they are. They should be treated like they are in witness protection because many in fact are witnesses to a crime or several crimes. However, if LEO took the position to issue a fire arm to someone who is a victim of abuse and that is how the victim wanted to handle it I am okay with that as well. The victim gets to choose.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)That we agree. It reminds me of a kid I knew in fourth grade, back during Nixon's first term. Step dad was a abusive drunk, and everybody knew it. He, mom, and siblings had bruises. One day step dad was in the process of beating mom to death when my classmate got her gun and put an abrupt end to it. The community should have stepped in before he had to do that. While things are better than those days, but still not ideal.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)I spent some time in a shelter. It was as bad as being with my abuser. I was not treated like a victim of abuse, I was treated like a criminal. If that is how most shelters are that is unacceptable. There should be some kind of independent housing for victims of abuse it could be long term short term and the victims should be able to pay what they can while others would be there free of charge, no counselors and draconian rules.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)but I would like to think that today, something the community at large would have stepped and not, for all practical purposes, forced a ten year old to pull the trigger on someone.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)I am glad you are inexperienced in this area. I wish there were a lot less experienced people in this area.
Historic NY
(37,451 posts)a shotgun would have been more helpful to an inexperienced person, Jersey doesn't require permits for them.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)she may have been experienced with a pistol and long guns are not very good to use in closed in areas. Of course that is the only area that I disagree with the Vice President
Biden Advises Shooting Shotgun Through Door
Coincidentally, a 22-year-old man in Virginia Beach, Va., was charged Monday with reckless handling of a firearm after doing just that a couple days earlier.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/02/28/biden-advises-shooting-shotgun-through-door
Historic NY
(37,451 posts)on experience with a hand gun. Many people think having a hand gun is going to save them, and its not always the case. They think the intimidation factor will work.
As to the article you cited every RW board or forum used the same article and not one ever cited a main stream newspaper from 2013 with any police details or followups, to poke at Biden.
The actual person charged was issued a summons
http://wtkr.com/2013/02/25/man-charged-with-reckless-handling-of-firearm-after-allegedly-shooting-at-two-intruders/
Because his dog was acting strange!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)It works both ways. So did the Vice President say that or not? I seem to remember a video to that effect.
Historic NY
(37,451 posts)they found no evidence to support his claim...
But you saying if only the victim had a handgun she'd be alive.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I said it is a possibility if the had the weapon she chose to pretect herself but was denied by the current gun control laws of New Jersey.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Warpy
(111,276 posts)If the scum who killed her knew she had one, he'd simply have shot her while she was out somewhere. Never underestimate the element of surprise. You can have the gun in your hand and still not have the time to flick the safety off and aim the thing before you are dead. There is also no guarantee she'd have been able to shoot to kill someone she once loved.
Shamash
(597 posts)sarisataka
(18,663 posts)A guaranteed life saver and we don't know what would have happened if she did have one.
We do know with 100% certainty that draconian laws against nearly all forns of self defense, an inept and uncaring bureaucracy and reliance on paper restraining orders did not save her life.
As for the rest of the hypothetical possibilities I am reminded of a sarcastic adage:
A gun is so complex that you will never be able to use it to save yourself. But it is so simple an untrained teenager mugger will take it from you and shoot you with it.
Warpy
(111,276 posts)I knew it was little protection.
I got rid of him by being a lot scarier than he was and it didn't take a gun to do it.
sarisataka
(18,663 posts)I will never second guess a person who knows themselves well enough to say a gun is not for me.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)Two friends went hiking in the woods. It was a beautiful day. They walked and talked as they watched nature's beauty. When they stopped to rest and cool off, the first said, "I brought a pistol in case we encounter a bear." The second said, "That was a wise decision. I wore sneakers in case I have to run." The first hiker then asked, "Do you think you can outrun a bear?" The second answered, "No but I can outrun you and you can shoot the bear."
At this the first friend looked hurt and asked, "What if I miss or just wound the bear and he attacks me? Would you leave me to save yourself?" His companion answered, "No. No way. I brought a pistol as well but it wasn't my first choice."
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)too bad you did not support her preferred choice. I do not care for people forcing there decisions on others, do you?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)prevented her choice in the matter.
There are many cases of successful DGUs that have happened. and he did not have a firearm so what you posted is not correct anyway.
We do know that she was denied her choice and she is now dead, may she RIP.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Arrogant, willfully ignorant, hypocritical, Democratic Party-sabotaging LIARS.
Of course a gun isn't a magic wand, and she might not have been able to draw in time to defend herself......but for F's sake, she had a right to TRY. And we claim to be the political party that stands up for the underdog. Oooops.......here it comes.........
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I think he gets his thrills on alerting on us. That is one of the reasons he comes over here and posts the utter crap he does. The one that gets me is him blaming the victim and treating her so badly. Very sick in my opinion. I think it is acually worse than the spoonerism that got a long time member banned.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Suppression of the truth is one of the favorite tactics of The Controllers, since they can't argue with empirical evidence. Don Kates has righteously pointed out that if a financial institution suppressed information to customers to the same extent that the media does w/regard to the gun violence issue, it could be convicted of fraud.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)harder to alert when some of these posts show context
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)If I find a post offensive, especially if it's a rude personal attack directed at me, I tend to alert. Yes. That's what it's for.
Thanks for the never-ending stream of thinly veiled personal attacks, btw, trying to be just vague enough to survive a jury. Classy as always.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)you, however...........................
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)You know, the one where you said that I had 4 hides and to please hide that one and put me on another time out?
Apparently the jury didn't agree that my post was offensive, nor a personal attack.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)I've never been in the timeout chair. Not once.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)At least I have the class not to post the jury results, you, OTOH...............................
When one is alert stalked, one will inevitably end up getting posts hidden.
Remind me why I care that you've never been in the timeout chair?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)only the admins and the stalker know for sure but I have a VERY good idea who it is.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)the transgressor.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)would alert on it.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)BY JURIES.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)it is common knowledge that the process is not always fair. You blamed a victim for her death and jury let that bullshit stand.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)which seems to happen with regularity to the pro 2A members here.
You flat out begged the jury to hide my post and place me back in time out.
Am I that much of a threat to you?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)hell, I even had a post hidden, when I apologized to him.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I know there are a few that alert. You can tell by the wording in the alert message.
take this one for example, nice use of the insult directed at me in the alert body.
See the offending post here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172162356
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)I really do have better things I could be doing than rehashing the same old crap over and over.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Don't anticipate a problem with that suggestion.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)to have us actually show what happens and how rudely some of us have been treated. I will miss you, but that is OK. The one thing that makes this group different than the group you host is all viewpoints are allowed and open to challenge. By the number of your posts from you here compared to the number of posts by you in the group you host, we know which one is your favorite and you will be back. Take some leave from here and have a great time. Go back and host that extremely busy group you host and please moderate some of the more nasty insults directed at DU members that support the RKBA and the individual right to own firearms. Some of the comments are just very insulting and the sexual references are very childish. As a host you can block, lock posts and even post a message our PM posters to roll back the nasty insults and sexual references. It gets pretty ugly as we have pointed out here, don't you agree?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)for the jury to hide my post and put me in another timeout?
I would love to believe you, but the evidence suggests otherwise.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)and we shall see by his deeds in the future.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Response to Electric Monk (Reply #240)
GGJohn This message was self-deleted by its author.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)And we know how honest and impartial DU juries are when it comes to anything gun-related!
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)very nice, or should I say BRAVO.
Response to Electric Monk (Reply #219)
Duckhunter935 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Also notice that a randomly selected jury voted 5-2 to hide your post. None of those votes were the alerter's.
I like juror #5, whoever they are
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I see you will not answer, and it is piece of work that the alerter has to post personal insult in the alert directed at me. That is some very chickenshit behavior by whoever the alerter is. I hope it was not you.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Shall I post them? Naw, I won't, I don't want to embarrass you too badly.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/12629046
And yet, your favorite group is the one you wish would go away?
Hypocrisy much?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)stalkers are around and want to pounce. I am sure you are not one, right?
Would be nice if you could moderate some of those rude attacks and sexual references directed at DU members that own firearms over in that "safe haven" group you host. You seem to be genuinely concerned about rude attacks.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I have asked you on many occasions and you refuse to say you did not. The part I find real cute was the insult directed at me in the alert.
Can we have an honest debate on gun control laws?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172162356
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Calling out the host (EM) of a safe haven group (GCRA) that this person (duckhunter) has long been blocked from (gun nuts not allowed), for something not even written by that host. Hosts aren't responsible for everything posted by other members. This arrogant gun nut needs to be reminded what website they are on, and they are not on ar15.com.
Intentionally rude, hurtful, inappropriate = hide.
JURY RESULTS
A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Mon Mar 2, 2015, 06:58 PM, and voted 5-2 to HIDE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Thou shalt not insult a forum or group host.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
CONSEQUENCES OF THIS DECISION
So I will ask the simple question again, yes or no, was this your alert on me?
Shamash
(597 posts)Ask a serious question and watch them disappear...
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Matrosov
(1,098 posts)Whenever one of us asks about the rights of the thousands murdered with a firearm every year, the local Tactical Tier 1 Operator Team on DU comes up with all sorts of logic bending excuses for why those people don't really matter. I think my favorite is being told that there is nothing in the Bill of Rights that gives people the right NOT to be shot and killed, the way the Second Amendment gives people the right to bear arms.
Yet when there is the rare story of someone using a firearm to defend themselves or an even rarer story of someone who wanted to use a firearm to defend themselves but couldn't pops up in the news, the same Tactical Tier 1 Operator Team that tells us murder victims do not have the right NOT to be shot and killed then suddenly shouts in unison "Controllers don't care about crime victims!"
Shamash
(597 posts)I think it is pretty common knowledge at DU that the CDC has reported that defensive gun use is at least as common as criminal gun use. It's been mentioned here dozens of times. I think the only places stories of people using guns to defend themselves are rare is on sites where people do not want to hear about it for fear of diminishing "the narrative". By the CDC's reckoning, defensive gun uses will happen about 800 times...each day. Rare, indeed.
But, let me take this opportunity to take back the accusation that you might be "ignorant". A quick check of the DU archives shows that you participated in at least two discussions where the relevant parts of this CDC report were quoted. So you are certainly aware of it, yet you insist on pushing a view implying these events are rare. So, it has to be one of the other three possibilities. Since you are already on record as wanting to ban all gun ownership and openly advocate using the same legal and ethical shenanigans that anti-abortion crusaders use against abortion rights supporters, expecting you to look at the issue with any degree of objectivity is unlikely. So I'm giving you a very generous benefit of the doubt with "forgetful".
So Matrosov, as long as you're here, let me put you on the spot. Do you believe that tolerance of differing views, presumption of innocence, ethical consistency and being measured as individuals and not stereotypes are liberal values? If so, welcome to the club of "people who think that gun ownership is perfectly okay", a group that includes >99.9% of all gun owners, of whom at least 30% are Democrats.
And if you do not think the aforementioned list of values are liberal ones, please elaborate. I'm sure we'd all love to hear your defense of fearmongering, demonization, and double standards. And speaking of double standards, let me just substitute in a few words from your journal on bigotry to illustrate a hypothetical double standard on gun ownership:
Shamash
(597 posts)Last edited Tue Jun 9, 2015, 07:53 PM - Edit history (1)
Because gun control advocates would never exploit a shooting to push an agenda. At least not more than ten times a week, anyway.
Oh look, a story blaming lax gun laws for a death...by the same guy whinging when gun rights people blame strict laws for a death (this is where we need a smiley for pot-calling-kettle-black).
Help, help, he's being oppressed! No, you crapped all over the thread with
edit: self-correction. The post he crapped on with unrelated shootings was this one. This post was crapped on with victim-blaming and incorrect assertions made from a position of ignorance. Management regrets the error and will strive to be more vigilant on these things in the future.
I made the same points about "legitimate topics for discussion" in the Georgia story that you claim to have made. Oh wait, no I didn't. People who make legitimate comments over there get banned.
I thought about alerting this, but he's the little tyrant of his safe haven from reality, so I'd rather it stood as a permanent monument to his attitude. Besides, since holding that 2nd is about an individual right is an opinion I share with 30% of Democrats, the President and the Democratic Party platform, having him infer that me, Barack, the party as a whole and 30% of its members in specific are "gun trolls" is actually kind of amusing.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)I think it is hilarious that they go run and hide behind "locked doors" when good, knowledgeable people on the subject at hand utterly devastate Bloomberg's/VPC's/Brady's myth!
beevul
(12,194 posts)When the mask slips, sometimes it really slips.
WOW.
Just WOW.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)Or at least had a fighting chance....
but they got their way....stall stall die.
sarisataka
(18,663 posts)Detroit Five men who broke into Dietta Gueye's east side home early Tuesday morning got more than they bargained for when the 34-year-old woman opened fire at them with the 9 mm Glock she keeps by her bedside.
"They weren't ready for that 9 I had," she chuckled from a lawn chair in front of her house hours after the home invasion.
One of the men shot back and hit Gueye in the right thigh. But after treatment at a local hospital, she said she felt fine.
"I'm kind of just a little sore," she said. "I'm OK, though."
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/detroit-city/2015/06/09/woman-hospital-gunfight-home-invaders/28727561/