Texas gun owner shoots and critically wounds intruder in his home

[jgraz]

Oh wait, it wasn't an intruder, it was his girlfriend's son. And they were arguing over a can of beer.

Ex-TCU football player Lorenzo Jones shot during argument over can of beer

A former Texas Christian University football player was shot after an argument with his mother's boyfriend over a can of beer, according to Florida authorities.

According to the Broward County sheriff's office, Jones, who was visiting his mom during a break from school, had gotten into an argument with his mom's boyfriend, Ricky Von Welch, at her apartment complex. Welch knocked a can of beer from Jones' hand and the two men, who were armed with folding knives, threatened to attack each other.

At one point, the men dropped their knives, and Jones slapped Welch in the face, authorities said. Welch then went inside the apartment and got a handgun.

According to the sheriff's office, Jones said, “What are you going to do, shoot me?”

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/070809dnmetjones.18a604ad.html

On the bright side, I bet that beer feels really safe and well-protected with a gun in the home.

[MNDemNY]

1. It's Texas, and a BEER was spilled!!!

What's new?

[ThirdWorldJohn]

9. Actually it is Florida

[Vinnie From Indy]

2. Beer, guns - what could possibly go wrong?

[inkool]

3. Do you have a link to the original story?

Also is there a reason for the misleading title?

[E-Mag]

4. removed

[jgraz]

5. Whoops -- added the link.

And if you don't get the point of the title, I probably can't explain it to you.

[E-Mag]

6. I think this was posted before

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x235799

[jgraz]

7. Oh yeah, Michael's always on top of these shooting disasters

But my post has the added value of snark! :D

[inkool]

8. Thanks for the link.

That is a pretty messed up story...

I still do not get the title. Is it some kind of inside joke or am I just being extra dense today.

[jgraz]

13. Yeah, it's sort of an inside joke

This forum is usually full of celebratory posts about homeowners using their firearms to kill so-called "criminals". The title is intended to be a reminder that household guns are far more likely to be used on the owner or a member of the owner's family.

[benEzra]

16. Only if you include suicide and households of criminals...

both of which tell you little about the relative risk of owning a gun if you are not a criminal and are not at high risk of suicide.

[inkool]

18. And this was a household of criminals..

Von Welch has a long list of arrests in Miami-Dade and Broward counties. He was convicted of first-degree murder in Miami-Dade County in 1986 and served 10 years in prison, according to state records.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking-news/story/1122713.html

[jgraz]

22. You guys use the word "criminal" like comic books use the work "villain"

And with about the same level of believability.

[inkool]

26. A person who was convicted of first-degree murder, and

is in possession of a firearm illegally is not a criminal?

[jgraz]

28. Not in the way you use the word.

In most of these posts, "criminal" is code for an irredeemably evil person whose mere presence excuses any possibly violence that takes place around him.

You should try meeting some of these "criminals". You might find out that, in real life, things don't fit so easily into your manichean pigeonholes.

[inkool]

31. I am not using code words...

Welch was convicted of first-degree murder. He is prohibited from having a firearm. When he picked up the gun he broke the law and became a criminal.

[jgraz]

32. Then explain this to me

How did this shooting suddenly become less tragic because it was a "criminal" wielding the gun?

[inkool]

34. I did not say it was less tragic. n/t

[jgraz]

36. You implied it.

Because it's a so-called "criminal", you can tell yourself that "good people" don't need to be worried about the prevalence of guns in our society.

[inkool]

38. I implied nothing...

I stated that he was a criminal. Not a code word criminal, but an actually breaking the law kind.

[jgraz]

44. At what was your point for saying that?

Why bring it up if you're not implying anything about the nature of the shooting?

[inkool]

52. I was simply...

providing a fact about the shooting in response to the comment by BenEzra.

[X_Digger]

33. There you go again, seeing 'code' words..

Perhaps you should talk to someone about that.

[jgraz]

35. I am talking to someone

I'm talking to the people who use them and don't even realize they're doing it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

55. Criminal is a word to describe someone breaking the law, like in this case.

It's not code for anything. It is a real word with a real definition, that in this case was used appropriately.

David

[jeepnstein]

37. I meet plenty of them, all the time...

Most of them are smart enough to work the system and avoid getting jammed up having a firearm after a felony conviction. The ones who just don't care, those are the ones you have to watch. A man who has already done time for murder and has a gun in his possession? What would you call him?

Since the shooter had time to walk inside the house, retrieve the gun, and return to confront the victim I'm willing to bet they'll be looking at Aggravated Murder on this one. He's killed before so he might get a really long sentence this time.

[jgraz]

21. I had a friend who was not a "criminal" or a high-suicide risk

15 years later, I was on the phone hiring a crew to scrub his brains out of the drywall. "High-risk of suicide" is not a permanent or easily detectable condition.

And your "households of criminals" is not even credible as fantasy. How the hell can households even be classified as 100% "criminal"? Are you saying that all these dead kids were criminals? Or the dead abused wives/girlfriends? Exactly how many "criminals" need to be present for an entire household to be classified as "criminal"?

On the other hand, if guns are only a problem if you're a high risk of suicide, then we seriously need to tighten up our screening programs for gun purchasers. Cuz we have 12,000+ "high-risk" people each year who apparently have no problem getting a gun when they want one.

[benEzra]

39. An inordinate amount of domestic gun violence occurs in households of convicted felons

"High-risk of suicide" is not a permanent or easily detectable condition.

By that, I mean severe depression with suicidal ideation, or other serious mood disorder.

And your "households of criminals" is not even credible as fantasy. How the hell can households even be classified as 100% "criminal"? Are you saying that all these dead kids were criminals? Or the dead abused wives/girlfriends? Exactly how many "criminals" need to be present for an entire household to be classified as "criminal"?

Households in which one of the family members is a convicted felon or is engaged in ongoing criminal activity, e.g. drug dealing or what have you. Those households account for an inordinate percentage of gun accidents and domestic gun violence.

On the other hand, if guns are only a problem if you're a high risk of suicide, then we seriously need to tighten up our screening programs for gun purchasers. Cuz we have 12,000+ "high-risk" people each year who apparently have no problem getting a gun when they want one.

Those same people have no problem whatsoever getting heroin, cocaine, or cannabis when they want it. How tight is the screening process to purchase heroin these days?

[jgraz]

47. Really, exactly how much?

"High-risk of suicide" is not a permanent or easily detectable condition.

By that, I mean severe depression with suicidal ideation, or other serious mood disorder.

Exactly. Gun buyers don't wear signs saying "I'm a suicide risk", do they? Undiagnosed depression is pretty damn common. Depression arising later in life is also common.


Households in which one of the family members is a convicted felon or is engaged in ongoing criminal activity, e.g. drug dealing or what have you. Those households account for an inordinate percentage of gun accidents and domestic gun violence.

Really? What exactly is "inordinate"? 50%? 90%? I'm guessing that an "inordinate" amount of any crime is committed by people who have already committed a crime. I'm also guessing you have no actual data to back up your statements.


Those same people have no problem whatsoever getting heroin, cocaine, or cannabis when they want it. How tight is the screening process to purchase heroin these days?

Ping me the next time we have a mass cocaining by a disgruntled employee.

[pipoman]

71. Dude, really,

you should see someone, I'm worried about your mental state. Read your posts, damn...

[inkool]

20. Well it is not a very good joke. n/t

[BeGoodDoGood]

42. Hang on a sec...

"Statistics indicate that firearms are used more than 2 million times a year for personal protection, and that the presence of a firearm, without a shot being fired, prevents crimes in many instances. Shooting usually can only be justified only where crime constitutes an immediate threat to life, injury or in some cases, property."

Of course you can find any statistic you like on the 'net. But where are yours? Can you show that more family members are killed than intruders are killed, or deterred entirely (well, being killed is certainly deterrence)?

Walt

[iverglas]

43. hahahahaha

Of course you can find any statistic you like on the 'net.

And of course anybody can take crap like you posted (citation?*) and call it a "statistic". ;)


* heeheehee.

http://www.personalselfdefense.info/my_weblog/2009/04/the-armed-citizen-selfdefense-in-the-united-states.html

Nice source. Too bad it doesn't cite one. ;)

[BeGoodDoGood]

46. It is however, a source.

The post I responded to provided none.

If it were true that more family members were killed than intruders were killed/deterred, THAT would be a bomb shell.

Walt

[jgraz]

48. Perhaps you're unclear on the concept of "a source" in this context.

Some random gun nut's unsubstantiated rantings don't count.

By your definition, I can easily "prove" that the Holocaust never happened, that humans walked with dinosaurs and that Barack Obama is the love-child of Beyonce and Saddam Hussein. And you couldn't say a word because I'd have "a source". :eyes:

[BeGoodDoGood]

61. That doesn't follow.........

but you are welcome to think it.

[Deadric Damodred]

10. A gun owner should have more restraint than that...

...however, it does show that if you act like Billy Badass slapping people around, sooner or later you might slap the wrong person.

[jgraz]

11. Or perhaps...

Knowing he had access to a firearm, the boyfriend felt perfectly comfortable acting like "Billy Badass".

[Deadric Damodred]

15. The gun owner wasn't acting like Billy Badass...

...the big football player was when he felt he could bitch slap an elder because he's a big bad ass football player. Looks like this time the bully paid for it. I'm betting that next time he won't be walking around with his muscles out pushing people around.

[jgraz]

24. Oh yeah, you don't feel this is a "good shoot" at all

Once again, your blood lust is transparent.

[iverglas]

41. what are you people, ten?

he felt he could bitch slap an elder

"An elder"??

Welch, 46, was accused of attempted murder

Does one suddenly become deserving of exemption the rules and absolution for all bad behaviour once one is middle-aged?

If I'd known that, I'd have had me about a decade of free passes at this point. Why didn't somebody tell me??



typo fixed

[jgraz]

45. In fairness, I doubt most gun owners would support Deadric's rantings

However, I don't see any of them jumping in to condemn it. :shrug:

[Deadric Damodred]

49. Condem what?

I've already said that the shooter was wrong and deserves to be prosecuted.

[jgraz]

50. Condemn your description of the shooter's actions as taking a stand and teaching a bully a lesson

I doubt that anyone else on this board would get such a chubby at the thought of a 46-year-old man shooting his girlfriend's son.

[Deadric Damodred]

51. You mean the girlfirend's son...

...who was bigger and stronger than the man AND was slapping him around? That son? I already said the man was wrong for shooting the son, but you seem to completely ignore that the son was a big ass football player and was using his strength to slap the guy around. There was wrong on both sides here.

[jgraz]

53. Anything to make the shooting more "fun" for you, eh?

See if you can hold these facts in your head for a bit:

1) von Welch initiated the violence. I'm sure if someone walked up to you and slapped a beer out of your hand, your first thought would be "respect my elders".

2) You have no idea what kind of physique von Welch has. From this pic

he doesn't exactly look like a frail old man.

3) Jones wasn't slapping anyone around. The two men were fighting and then von Welch went inside and grabbed a gun.

But, if it makes you feel better to fantasize about a young bully getting taught a lesson by having his intestines shredded, by all means enjoy yourself.

[iverglas]

12. and people shouldn't eat too much

One difference appears to be that when people eat too much, they might hurt themselves, while when gun owners don't show restraint, they might kill somebody.

That might be one reason why some people think that saying things like "A gun owner should have more restraint than that" demonstrates a level of giving a shit somewhere below what anybody else needs to give a shit about.

[iverglas]

14. you seem to have missed something

it does show that if you act like Billy Badass slapping people around, sooner or later you might slap the wrong person.


WELCH knocked beer from JONES's hand.

Following a knife dance, JONES slapped WELCH.

WELCH then shot JONES.


You wanna figure out who started it, mummy?



html fixed

[jgraz]

17. Don't you get it, iver?

It's ALWAYS the fault of the victim ... er ... target. It's always "They started it," or "They were gang-bangers," or "They got their brains in the way of a perfectly good bullet."

Another "good shoot" for the pro-gun crowd...

[Deadric Damodred]

19. I didn't say it was a good shoot.

The gun owner should and will be convicted of attempted murder. I'm just saying that this is another example of a big guy slapping people around, and someone taking a stand. It just goes to show no matter how bad you think you are, you should watch who you push around.

[jgraz]

23. No, someone didn't "take a stand". A coward ran and got his gun.

You insist that you don't think it was a "good shoot", but you describe the shooter's response in such glowing terms that it's hard to miss your admiration for his actions.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

56. A criminal ran and got his illegally possessed firearm.

[AtheistCrusader]

76. I THINK he meant the victim, who did not back down.

So dirtbag had to go get his gun and shoot him.

Mixed messages maybe. No justifiable homicide here. Trial is going to be ugly though. He MIGHT get away with it. Not sure. I hope not.

[iverglas]

79. did he die?

I've seen you referring to this as homicide, but I thought he was wounded only. No beef, just wondering.

Either way, I can't see someone getting away with shooting someone else in retaliation for a slap, let alone after taking time to go fetch the firearm for doing it with.

[AtheistCrusader]

87. Mea culpa.

I read that as 'mortally wounds', not 'critically'.

Probably won't get away with it, but strange things happen in our courtrooms sometimes. I could share a couple, but I'm sure you're already fully aware of the pitfalls of an iron-clad 'castle doctrine' law that does not allow pursuit of egregious behavior that might bait or lead to an unjustifiable defensive shooting.

[proteus_lives]

25. This story isn't about guns, it's about a pair of assholes.

They argued and lost their tempers, then something stupid happened.

I've been bad arguments with firearms just a few feet away and guess what? No one got shot. Millions of people have done the same thing.

[jgraz]

30. Cute variation on the "No true Scotsman" fallacy

1) Responsible gun owners would never use their weapon during an argument
2) Hey, that gun owner used his weapon during an argument
3) Well, he's clearly not a responsible gun owner.

People are responsible gun owners right up to the time when they're not.

[anonymous171]

27. Let's just ban everything, including free speech.

I have a right to absolute safety from myself and others.

[jgraz]

29. And anonymous171 takes the lead in the most ridiculous strawman of the day contest

Don't worry, I'm sure you won't hold that position for long. But... really good effort on this one. :thumbsup:

[iverglas]

40. where did you get that one??

I have a right to absolute safety from myself and others.


If you can tell me where they're handing it out, I'll have me one too, please.

And then I'll start by demanding the outlawing of the possession of any firearm by anyone anywhere in my vicinity.


Oh my. Did you maybe think you were being sarcastic?

There's such a dearth of understanding of humour in these parts.

In order for sarcasm/parody to exist, it has to have a target.

In order for your comment to be sarcasm/parody, someone would have had to say something resembling what you said.

Oops.

[rrneck]

54. Compound stupid.

Two idiots are socializing when a difference of opinion regarding beer begins. Small idiot escalates fight by slapping beer out of the hand of large idiot.

The use of melee weapons is considered and discarded for reasons unknown considering the apparent toxic level of stupidity of those involved in the altercation.

Large idiot then slaps small idiot in the face. Small idiot leaves the scene and returns with a firearm. Large idiot then taunts small armed idiot and gets shot in reply.

My call: Bad shoot. No threat of death or serious injury was present when firearm was retrieved. Numerous opportunities to deescalate confrontation were ignored.

Moral of the story: Don't start fights with people especially if they are twice your size. And never, ever, never encourage someone pointing a gun at you to shoot you. They will.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

57. My haven't we gotten desperate. Posting criminal shootings as self defense.

[tisfortomi]

58. Criminals, guns, and violence

"How did this shooting suddenly become less tragic because it was a 'criminal' wielding the gun?"

Not less tragic, but certainly less statistically significant to any attempt to "prove" the inherent dangers of having a firearm in the house. Remove factors like criminal history and drug/alcohol use from the equation, and you will see very different numbers. I believe that's the point.

I have been repeatedly told that I am more likely to suffer or commit violence because I have guns in the home. I do not engage in criminal activity, nor do I have social contact with anyone who does. I do not drink, and I do not use any illegal or psychoactive drugs. I make every effort to be safe in the storage and handling of firearms. I have yet to see the stats for people matching my profile.

"Code words" have nothing to do with it; the actions of those who live violent, criminal lifestyles should not be used as a basis for judging and restricting the behavior of those who do not. Not that their lives and their deaths are not tragic; it's always tragic when people are attacked, injured, killed. Do I need to say that? Apparently I do, since I am gun owner and am therefore assumed, a priori, to be indifferent to human suffering.

The assailant was a convicted murderer who had done ten years in prison. He had a history of domestic violence. The confrontation began with knives, and it is reasonable to believe that even if a firearm had not been present, grievous bodily harm would have been done. Much of the discussion of "gun violence" is characterized by a sort of tautology: certainly, no "gun violence" can take place when no gun is present. However, violence certainly can. I suspect that alcohol is the significant factor in this incident. Anyone for Prohibition?

For the record, I do not like the phrase "a good shoot," for the simple reason that it does suggest bloodthirstiness. I realize that such incidents are brought up to counter the claims of anti-gun groups that there is no such thing as legitimate, successful self-defense. But when the opposition is determined to characterize everyone who disagrees with them as a murderous thug, careless use of language can be very damaging.

[iverglas]

60. can you quote 'em?

the claims of anti-gun groups that there is no such thing as legitimate, successful self-defense

You've stated it in the plural, but I'll settle for one. Just one. Just one claim by an "anti-gun group" that there is no such thing as "legitimate, successful self-defence". (What does "successful" have to do with it? Never mind; it's your claim, you provide whatever might prove it.)

C'mon. You volunteered. Don't renege now.


"Code words" have nothing to do with it; the actions of those who live violent, criminal lifestyles should not be used as a basis for judging and restricting the behavior of those who do not. Not that their lives and their deaths are not tragic ...

Oh, dear, I'm drowning again.



(I love that I'm stealing Mark Steyn's bandwidth, don't you?)

The only problem with your little bit of public hand-wringing here is that in the case at hand, and in very many other cases, the victim of the shooting wasn't a criminal at all ...

But they're the "fallout", I gather, of the right to toddle about with a pistol in your pants, which just can't seem to co-exist with measures to keep pistols out of the hands of people who use them to kill, maim and intimidate other people and keep entire communities in a state of insecurity and underdevelopment.

Not even Mark Steyn's speech seems to do quite that much damage.

[tisfortomi]

62. one or two

You've stated it in the plural, but I'll settle for one. Just one. Just one claim by an "anti-gun group" that there is no such thing as "legitimate, successful self-defence". (What does "successful" have to do with it? Never mind; it's your claim, you provide whatever might prove it.)

I challenge you to read the following brochure and come to any other conclusion:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/chapters/california/gunsinthehome-brochure.pdf

As far as "successful," the claim is often made that even with a gun, one cannot defend oneself against violence. The recent ABC television documentary made this argument:

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=7298996&page=1

And yes, I would consider ABC-TV an "anti-gun group."

The only problem with your little bit of public hand-wringing here is that in the case at hand, and in very many other cases, the victim of the shooting wasn't a criminal at all ...

My point was that all such incidents are tragic, regardless of the history or lifestyle of perpetrators or victims. You are free to mock my belief with snarky comments and corny graphics, but I will stand by it.

But they're the "fallout", I gather, of the right to toddle about with a pistol in your pants, which just can't seem to co-exist with measures to keep pistols out of the hands of people who use them to kill, maim and intimidate other people and keep entire communities in a state of insecurity and underdevelopment.

This rather convoluted and vague formulation fails to make the connection between my gun ownership and incidents like the one described. I reiterate: The assailant was a convicted felon who was barred by law from possessing a firearm. That is as it should be. It's my turn to ask you for specifics: What exactly would you propose as a means of preventing such tragedies?

I'm sorry, but I don't know who Mark Steyn is or why he is relevant to this discussion. Please explain.

[iverglas]

63. okay, you can't

You've stated it in the plural, but I'll settle for one. Just one. Just one claim by an "anti-gun group" that there is no such thing as "legitimate, successful self-defence".
I challenge you to read the following brochure and come to any other conclusion:

Kewl. I do keep hoping someone will show up here who can actually substantiate their allegations, I do keep having my hopes dashed.


(What does "successful" have to do with it? Never mind; it's your claim, you provide whatever might prove it.)
As far as "successful," the claim is often made that even with a gun, one cannot defend oneself against violence. The recent ABC television documentary made this argument:

Okay, that didn't even make sense.

You appear to be proposing that an argument that widespread access to firearms is unlikely to avert mass firearms murders is proof that someone somewhere claims that there is "no such thing as successful self-defence".

When it's laid out like that, you do see what a miserable failure it is, right?


This rather convoluted and vague formulation fails to make the connection between my gun ownership and incidents like the one described.

Yeah. It also failed to make pepperoni pizza. Maybe because it wasn't trying. In both cases.

The problem appears to be that the public policies you demand in order to avoid any interference with the activities (even if imaginary) associated with your firearms ownership quite evidently do nothing noticeable to keep firearms out of the bad guys y'all love to hate, and you reject any policy that would foreseeably have a noticeable effect in that regard.

So me, I'm still seeing those amphibian lacrimae.

[tisfortomi]

64. And the Bad Faith Argument Award goes to...

...Iverglass!

It was your turn, remember? I asked you for specifics and you failed to provide them. I gave you specifics in response to your challenge, and you rejected them out of hand without any support for your rejection. You then made the following claim:

The problem appears to be that the public policies you demand in order to avoid any interference with the activities (even if imaginary) associated with your firearms ownership quite evidently do nothing noticeable to keep firearms out of the bad guys y'all love to hate, and you reject any policy that would foreseeably have a noticeable effect in that regard.

The problem appears to be that I didn't demand any public policies. I stated that the policies already in place (which I endorse, by the way: no guns for felons) had failed to prevent the strategy, and I asked for your proposals. I don't see any. All I see is another accusation, rife with weasel words ("appears to be," "noticeable," "associated with," "forseeably," another "noticeable"). You claim that I "reject any policy," yet you haven't suggested one. Please do, so I can decide whether I want to reject it.

In other words, if you have a point, please make it.

[iverglas]

65. indeed, you win

The problem appears to be that I didn't demand any public policies.

Of course not. You have what you want now, why would you? Demanding that the policies already in place remain unaltered, well, that isn't demanding public policies, not at all.

Not to a blind sheep in a snowstorm, anyhow.

Others may be more perspicacious.


I gave you specifics

You gave me a link and told me to draw the conclusions you wanted me to draw from whatever was there.

You gave me a link and asserted that it substantiated an assertion you had made when it did nothing resembling that.


I guess we were done before you started!

[tisfortomi]

67. And your position is...?

You gave me a link and asserted that it substantiated an assertion you had made when it did nothing resembling that.

The inescapable conclusion from the Brady pamphlet is that a gun in your home is more of a danger to you than a safeguard. The inescapable conclusion from the ABC documentary is that you will not be able to successfully defend yourself with a gun in a violent incident. Both of these viewpoints are in opposition to the view that firearms are a viable means of self-defense. Would you agree that this is what they are suggesting? If not, please provide a reasoned refutation. If you can't, then I can only assume you are being deliberately obtuse.

I never demanded that current policies "remain unaltered." I endorse the current ban on gun ownership for convicted felons. I might suggest a whole raft of public policies that have nothing to do with firearms restrictions but might be more effective in preventing violent crime. That's not the issue here. You seem to believe that gun control measures are the answer, yet you want to dance around the issue and refuse to make specific proposals. Therefore, I can only conclude that you are not arguing in good faith.

I'm starting to see your pattern. You prefer mockery and sophistry to substantive argument. I'm still waiting to hear a concrete proposal from you.

[iverglas]

68. and your claim was:

the claims of anti-gun groups that there is no such thing as legitimate, successful self-defense

Yet now you say:

The inescapable conclusion from the Brady pamphlet is that a gun in your home is more of a danger to you than a safeguard.

Hmm. Not seeing the connection here ... not seeing two things on the same continent here.

Seriously. With a completely solemn face. You are making no sense.


The inescapable conclusion from the ABC documentary is that you will not be able to successfully defend yourself with a gun in a violent incident.

From skimming it, the ABC thing seems to be addressing a very particular situation, one that a tiny, minuscule proportion of any population can expect ever to experience. You might characterize it as having as its subject "defend yourself with a gun in a violent incident", in that it is about one specific narrow type of violent incident. But hmm. What was it you said?

the claims of anti-gun groups that there is no such thing as legitimate, successful self-defense

Nope, just not seeing that at all.


I might suggest a whole raft of public policies that have nothing to do with firearms restrictions but might be more effective in preventing violent crime.

Well, aren't you the clever clogs. Maybe you can get elected ruler of all you survey and get them implemented, since presumably nobody else has ever thought of them.

But forgive me, perhaps I presume too much. Perhaps you really are talking about universally accessible child care. Am I warm?


You seem to believe that gun control measures are the answer, yet you want to dance around the issue and refuse to make specific proposals.

Heeeee haw. You seem to think you can plonk your clogs in here and make wild claims, get huffy when you're called on them, offer up junk where you need substantiation, and then start demanding that somebody else dance to your tune.

Hmm. Guess what?

[tisfortomi]

70. All Snark, No Substance

the claims of anti-gun groups that there is no such thing as legitimate, successful self-defense

Yet now you say:

The inescapable conclusion from the Brady pamphlet is that a gun in your home is more of a danger to you than a safeguard.

Hmm. Not seeing the connection here ... not seeing two things on the same continent here.

Seriously. With a completely solemn face. You are making no sense.

Do you call that a reasoned refutation? I call it a failure of reading comprehension.

OK, let me spell it out: an item which is more of a danger than a safeguard to its possessor cannot be said to be a legitimate, successful tool of self-defense. Get rid of those guns, folks. They can't help you. This is the argument that the Bradies and ABC are making. Are you denying that?

Heeeee haw. You seem to think you can plonk your clogs in here and make wild claims, get huffy when you're called on them, offer up junk where you need substantiation, and then start demanding that somebody else dance to your tune.

You have nothing resembling a cogent argument: only personal attacks and venom. With each post, your tone becomes more offensive. I think that speaks to the strength of your position.

[iverglas]

73. can you spell cat?

OK, let me spell it out: an item which is more of a danger than a safeguard to its possessor cannot be said to be a legitimate, successful tool of self-defense. Get rid of those guns, folks. They can't help you. This is the argument that the Bradies and ABC are making. Are you denying that?

And let me ONCE AGAIN quote what you started out by saying:

the claims of anti-gun groups that there is no such thing as legitimate, successful self-defense

The damned thing is, now that I look at it for the seventy-hundredth time: there is no mention anywhere in that claim of FIREARMS.

Are you feeling the disconnect here yet?



Do you call that a reasoned refutation? I call it a failure of reading comprehension.

I call it garbage in, garbage pointed at.


Get rid of those guns, folks. They can't help you. This is the argument that the Bradies and ABC are making. Are you denying that?

Are you denying that your toesies hurt from the dancing? Are you denying that you eat poop? Are you denying that your mother wears army boots?

My my, such civil discourse you do bring to the table.

But sure. I'll deny it. Because it's bullshit. I read what you linked to, and IT SAYS NOTHING about "self-defence". I have to assume that if it did, you would have QUOTED IT BY NOW.

You just don't get to interpret a handout on the risks of having firearms in a home as a claim "that there is no such thing as legitimate, successful self-defense". Good lord. It makes my head spin to think anyone would even try to do that, let alone try over and over and over to do it as you have.


You have nothing resembling a cogent argument

I DON'T NEED ANY ARGUMENT

You made claims, you offered precisely NOTHING to back them up, they are dead, they have returned to the dust whence they came, and I have NO obligation to do anything.

Got it now?


only personal attacks and venom. With each post, your tone becomes more offensive. I think that speaks to the strength of your position.

Yeah. Whatever. It does say quite a bit about how I feel about being forecefed turds of self-righteous nothingness.

[tisfortomi]

74. C-A-T

the claims of anti-gun groups that there is no such thing as legitimate, successful self-defense

The damned thing is, now that I look at it for the seventy-hundredth time: there is no mention anywhere in that claim of FIREARMS.

Are you feeling the disconnect here yet?

Yes. The disconnect is that you, in a forum dedicated to gun issues, in a thread about gun issues, in a posting about issues of self-defense, can't understand that a reference to "self-defense" means "self-defense with a firearm."

Is that the crux of your criticism? Really? How weak.

You just don't get to interpret a handout on the risks of having firearms in a home as a claim "that there is no such thing as legitimate, successful self-defense".

So how would you interpret a statement such as "A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in a homicide, suicide or unintentional shooting than to kill in self-defense"? As an endorsement of self-defense with a firearm? I think the intention is pretty clear. Feel the disconnect?

There are two options here: you are not arguing in good faith, or you are in fact an idiot. In either case, welcome to my ignore list.

[iverglas]

75. stealing my lines now

There are two options here: you are not arguing in good faith, or you are in fact an idiot.

I said it first -- long, long ago.

I've said it uncountable times.

And I've been right every time.

This time, too.

You made a claim; you failed to substantiate it despite all the diversionary grooming you engaged in.


In either case, welcome to my ignore list.

Yes, someone who comes to a public discussion forum, makes claims s/he refuses to substantiate or retract, and "ignores" interlocutors who take exception -- definitely someone engaging in good faith discussion.

[tisfortomi]

77. Still reading--not sure why. Discourse has degenerated: "Is not! Is not!"

I said it first -- long, long ago.

I've said it uncountable times.

And I've been right every time.

This time, too.

You made a claim; you failed to substantiate it despite all the diversionary grooming you engaged in.

I read what you linked to, and IT SAYS NOTHING about "self-defence".

Please see the quote in #73. You may have missed it when you read the Brady pamphlet the first time. Would you care to address that?

I have provided substantiation for the claim that anti-gun groups such as the Brady Campaign try to discourage the use of firearms for self-defense. You can put your fingers in your ears and scream "Bah-bah-bah, failed to substantiate!" as much as you like, but unless you at least attempt to provide a reasoned refutation of my points, you cannot claim to be in good faith. By "reasoned refutation," I mean something a few rhetorical grades above "you are making no sense" and "just not seeing that at all."

Since you are questioning my allegation and demanding substantiation, I assume you believe my allegation to be false. Am I to assume, then, that you believe the Brady Campaign, et al, are not opposed to the use of firearms for self-defense? If not, what exactly do you believe?

Anxiously awaiting good-faith discussion. Not optimistic, though.

[iverglas]

78. your claim, ONCE AGAIN:

the claims of anti-gun groups that there is no such thing as legitimate, successful self-defense

What you have offered to substantiate it:

a pamphlet advising of the risks of keeping firearms in the home.

In other words:













Since you are questioning my allegation and demanding substantiation, I assume you believe my allegation to be false.

You assume too much, but correctly.

Your allegation is false.

Am I to assume, then, that you believe the Brady Campaign, et al, are not opposed to the use of firearms for self-defense?

You can assume I believe the earth is flat, if you like.

That assumption would have precisely as much relevance to the claim you made as this one does.

[tisfortomi]

80. Flag on the play: avoidance

Penalty for avoiding the issue again, and no bonus for the use of white space. Not cute, and not effective.

You said this:

I read what you linked to, and IT SAYS NOTHING about "self-defence".

The pamphlet says this:

"A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in a homicide, suicide or unintentional shooting than to kill in self-defense."

It seems that you were wrong, and that the pamphlet does in fact say something about self-defense. Perhaps you consider deliberate obtuseness to be an effective rhetorical technique. Or perhaps you didn't actually read the pamphlet.

Let's do an exercise in reading comprehension: reading critically and drawing inferences.

1) In the pamphlet, the above quotation _____.
(a) was included in order to support the idea of keeping a firearm for self-defense
(b) was included in order to attack the idea of keeping a firearm for self-defense
(c) means nothing at all if Iverglass doesn't say that it does

If you chose (c), answer this bonus question.

2) Iverglass is _____.
(a) in bad faith
(b) a fool

Really, you're embarrassing yourself now. It doesn't matter much, because I'm sure no one is reading this anymore except me, and I already know what you are and what you do. But let's press on, shall we? Would you care to address your error regarding the contents of the pamphlet?

You don't have to, of course. You don't have to do anything, including lay claim to any shred of credibility.

[iverglas]

82. oh dear oh dear

I read what you linked to, and IT SAYS NOTHING about "self-defence".
It seems that you were wrong, and that the pamphlet does in fact say something about self-defense.

Yes, stupid me. I was a fool to think you recalled the subject of our conversation, and would, er, assume that my statement related to it.

The pamphlet said nothing RELEVANT TO YOUR CLAIM that the group claimed that there was no such thing as legitimate, successful self-defence, or however it goes.

You quote the pamphlet:

"A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in a homicide, suicide or unintentional shooting than to kill in self-defense."

Let's see. I am about 30 times more likely to go to sleep tonight than I am not to go to sleep tonight.

Would you claim that I have just said that I never fail to go to sleep at night?

If you did, your claim would be false. About once a month, on average, I work through the night and don't go to sleep until the next night.

So if I say that I'm 30 times more likely to go to sleep at night than I am not to go to sleep, I HAVE NOT SAID that I never fail to go to sleep at night.

When the group in question says that a firearm is 22 times more likely to be used in a homicide, suicide or unintentional shooting than to kill in self-defense, IT HAS NOT SAID that there is no such thing as legitimate, successful self-defence.

I know it, you know it, the entire world knows it.


1) In the pamphlet, the above quotation _____.

was included to illustrate the risks of keeping a firearm in the home.

Pretty fucking obvious. To me, to you, to the entire world.


2) Iverglass is _____.
(a) in bad faith
(b) a fool

Whatever your name is _____.
(a) so naïve that he thought he could wander into the DU Guns forum and spew any old shit and everybody would pretend to think it was a bouquet of violets;
(b) really pissed that this turned out not to be the case; or
(c) both of the above.

[tisfortomi]

81. La-la-la...

In case you're struggling with the inference, here are a few more:

"Handguns in the real world--as opposed to the industry's fantasy world of virtuous defensive gun use--make people who own them much less safe."

-- http://www.vpc.org/press/0111unin.htm


"The number of crime victims who successfully use firearms to defend themselves is quite small. According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports and the Centers for Disease Control, out of 30,694 Americans who died by gunfire in 2006, only 192 were shot in justifiable homicides by private citizens with firearms."

-- http://www.bradycampaign.org/issues/concealedcarry/


"Using a gun in self-defense is no more likely to reduce the chance of being injured during a crime than various other forms of protective action."

-- http://www.lcav.org/resources/gun_violence_statistics.asp#10


"Currently, only a small minority of adult American women own a handgun. Before a woman purchases a handgun for protection, she must pause to consider whether the grave risk—in 1998, a woman was 101 times more likely to be murdered with a handgun than to use a handgun to justifiably kill an attacker—is one she is willing to accept."

-- http://www.vpc.org/studies/myth.htm

I'm not sure why I'm posting these--I'm sure they will only be met with more fingers in the ears and "La, La, La, not seeing that at all." If you are objecting to my assertion on the basis of the phrase "no such thing" possibly being an overstatement, then your position is truly laughable. The above-referenced groups and those that share their beliefs like to deny the efficacy of firearms as tools of self-defense. It's what they do. It's who they are. They make no secret of it. Why would you even try to deny it? It makes you look like an utter fool.

All these statistics are highly debatable, by the way. And a crocodile isn't an amphibian; it's a reptile.

[iverglas]

83. for you

Let me know if you ever come up with anything to substantiate your scurrilously false claim.

I'll be around.

[tisfortomi]

84. So it's as I expected...

...and your whole argument is based on "no such thing" as an overstatement. What's amazing is that you spent so much time, effort, and snark on such a silly "gotcha," while tap-dancing furiously away from any real issues for all you're worth. It's really quite a show.

Your "going to sleep" analogy is spectacularly inapt, since it doesn't involve any element of risk or danger. If your doctor said, "You are 30 times more likely to die in your sleep tonight than any other night this month," would you head for the bed? You would most likely interpret this as a strong caution against going to sleep tonight. You would be correct. The fact that you can't see the same message in the quoted excerpt suggests... You guessed it: denseness or bad faith.

Sounds like a broken record, doesn't it? Are we having fun yet?

[tisfortomi]

85. And...

...whenever you want to address the additional substantiation provided in #81,...

I'll be around too.

[tisfortomi]

86. BTW...

I love "scurrilously." Makes me feel like a Victorian villain.

[tisfortomi]

72. Snark, snark, and more snark.

But forgive me, perhaps I presume too much. Perhaps you really are talking about universally accessible child care. Am I warm?

Actually, yes, you are getting warm. Violent crime has more to do with the whole complex web of social and economic realities than it does with the simple availability of weapons. I think most sociologists will attest to that. Let's also talk about sentencing and parole guidelines for violent criminals. Let's talk about penal reform and employment programs. Let's talk about ongoing counseling for ex-felons. Or would you rather just sit there and snark?

[tisfortomi]

66. Sophistry 101

But they're the "fallout", I gather, of the right to toddle about with a pistol in your pants, which just can't seem to co-exist with measures to keep pistols out of the hands of people who use them to kill, maim and intimidate other people and keep entire communities in a state of insecurity and underdevelopment.

This rather convoluted and vague formulation fails to make the connection between my gun ownership and incidents like the one described.

Yeah. It also failed to make pepperoni pizza. Maybe because it wasn't trying. In both cases.

So you're claiming that "the right to toddle about with a pistol in your pants" is not a reference to my gun ownership? And that your reference to "measures to keep pistols out of the hands of people who use them to kill" is not a call for increased gun control efforts as a means of avoiding incidents like the one under discussion?

No anchovies, please.

[tisfortomi]

59. True Scotsman? I think not.

"People are responsible gun owners right up to the time when they're not."

Which in Welch's case was the moment in 1986 when his guilty verdict for kidnapping and first-degree murder was handed down. That was when he lost the legal right to own a gun. After that, he was not only an irresponsible gun owner, he was an illegal one.

If anything, your original posting supports the argument that convicted felons should not be allowed to possess firearms. This is already the case.

People are responsible drinkers right up to the time when they kill someone while driving drunk. We still allow them to possess alcohol (and drive cars) until such time as they actually commit a crime.

[burrfoot]

69. I'm wondering if

anyone else is wondering if maybe the fight wasn't really over a can of beer?

Not going to refute that this is tragic, not going to call this anything but murder.

But- I'm a little irritated that the media headlines with:
"Ex-TCU football player Lorenzo Jones shot during argument over can of beer"

Does anyone believe that, out of the blue, one man knocked the beer out of another man's hand, and that this is what caused the fight that escalated to murder?
I've seen fights over some pretty ridiculously stupid shit; and plenty of fights that had NOTHING to do with the apparent "cause" of the fight....oops, I just tripped over my own point.

We don't know what this fight was about. But the media would have us believe that it was about a can of beer.