Two more family amd domestic killings in Portland metro area over the holidays- 4 dead

[depakid]

Another likely to be imprisoned for life... they just keep on coming.

One is dead and one is injured in Hillsboro domestic shooting

A man shot his girlfriend to death in Hillsboro Sunday afternoon and then shot himself in the head, police said. The man walked into a Great Clips shop at 22075 N.W. Imbrie Drive about 4:30 p.m. He and his girlfriend, who worked at the barber shop, argued in the back room before he shot her, said Hillsboro Police Lt. Michael Rouches.

Then the man shot himself. He was taken to a local hospital. The man, who is 40, had been dating the 20-year-old woman for about a year, Rouches said, adding that this was not the first domestic dispute between the two.

The man shot five rounds from a .357-caliber revolver, one of which traveled through a wall and grazed an employee in a restaurant next door. The injury did not require medical treatment.

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/11/one_is_dead_and_one_is_injured.html

------------

Shooting in Forest Grove kills couple, son


Cindy England was killed and her son, Kevin Coleman, injured by her husband in this Forest Grove home. Her son later died, and her husband was found dead in a nearby shed.
----------

A husband killed his wife and shot her adult son before shooting himself Friday evening in Forest Grove, police said.



The shooting occurred at a home in the 2500 block of 21st Avenue, said Capt. Aaron Ashbaugh, a Forest Grove police spokesman. It was about three blocks from Pacific University, a private school in the city west of Hillsboro. Officers responded about 6:30 p.m. and found Cindy England, 52, shot dead and her son, Kevin Coleman, 28, lying injured atop her body in the house, he said.

Coleman, who suffered gunshot wounds to his back and shoulder, called 9-1-1 to alert authorities, Ashbaugh said. Coleman was airlifted to OHSU Hospital in Portland, where he died about 11 p.m. Friday.

More: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/11/shooting_in_forest_grove_leave.html

[virginia mountainman]

1. 5 killed, 10 injured in crash on interstate

A minivan packed with children blew a tire, clipped a delivery truck and flipped over on a Louisiana interstate Saturday, killing five people and critically injuring 10, state police said.

Thirteen children who were riding without seat belts were thrown from the van, including four who died and were found in the median of Interstate 10 near Baton Rouge. All those killed and injured were aboard the GMC Safari minivan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/28/AR2009112802445.html

[oneshooter]

2. Meanwhile in OZ

Mum, dad, son charged with Jarrad Fitzpatrick murder

AAP
November 30, 2009 06:28am

THREE members of the same family have been charged with murdering a 23-year-old man in Western Australia.

Jarrad Fitzpatrick was allegedly attacked and killed on Friday outside a house in Bunbury, 180km south of Perth.

Police say the victim was visiting a childhood friend when her ex-boyfriend and his parents arrived at the Glen Iris property just after midnight.

Officers were called to the Morrissey Street home a short time later and discovered Mr Fitzpatrick's body.

Kenneth Smith, 20, his 40-year-old father Colin Smith and his 38-year-old mother Tanya Smith have each been charged with murder.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26418837-421,00.html


Woman charged over church stabbing death
A 28-YEAR-OLD woman has been charged with murder after the stabbing death of a man in the grounds of a church in NSW's Hunter Valley.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw-act/woman-charged-over-church-stabbing-death/story-e6freuzi-1225794894160



A 22-YEAR-OLD from West Hobart has been found guilty of the stabbing murder of a young man in Hobart's Target store.
The Mercury reports the jury in the Supreme Court in Hobart deliberated since Wednesday afternoon before finding Jayden Glenn Montgomery guilty of murdering Adrian Shane Fitzpatrick.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,,26155444-1244,00.html


So the "Perfect Society" of OZ still has problems. If no firearms are available then other means will be found.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[depakid]

19. Are you really going to argue relative incidence based on 3 cases on an entire continent

compared with four recent sets of family killings in one relatively small community?

Crikey, we ought to look at the state of Texas then- and see what we find. Or even part of Texas.

<on edit> I didn't even look into stabbing cases in the community- there have probably been a couple of those, too. And this is (or would be) anything but a "scary" place. 'bought as run of the mill as you can get.

[Euromutt]

34. An "entire continent" with a population of 21.2 million

That's less than Texas (24.3 million), let alone California (37 million), and not a whole lot more than New York state (19.5 million). Just to put things in better perspective.

[oneshooter]

35. No I just want to remind you that firearms are not the only

means that humans use to kill each other. Where firearms are not available, something else will be found.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[GreenStormCloud]

3. In other news, tens of thousands of Portland area legal gun owners did nothing illegal.

Sad that some people want to take everybody's rights away because of the actions of a few, or in this case of one.

[depakid]

6. Actually, in these same neighborhoods there was a road rage incident last week- killed two

and a couple of weeks ago- 2 MORE FAMILY KILLINGS. One you heard about at a drug testing lab (husband & wife orphaned kids) and another you didn't.

Chandubhai Suthar last spoke with his 9-year-old grandson, Ronak, a week ago.

The fourth-grader had become sick after Halloween, and Suthar wanted to check on him. Ronak, who stayed home from school, said he was keeping busy with video games his father had bought him.

"He said, 'I'm doing OK now. I like the video games that they bought for me,'" Suthar said Wednesday afternoon from his San Jose, Calif. home. That was the last time the families spoke. On Wednesday, an investigator from the local coroner's office visited Suthar to give him the shocking news.

Suthar's son, Mukesh Suthar, 44, his daughter-in-law, Varsha Suthar, 39, and his grandson had been found shot to death in their Bethany-area home, authorities told him. A gun also was found, Suthar said.

The Washington County Sheriff's Office confirmed the identities of the parents and that the deaths were an apparent murder-suicide.

More: http://www.oregonlive.com/washingtoncounty/index.ssf/2009/11/three_bodies_found_in_home_in.html

More innocent victims of your obsession and advocacy.

[pipoman]

7. Jeezuz

it really takes a complete moron to believe that domestic violence is caused by gun ownership...or even exacerbated by gun ownership..:dunce:

[depakid]

8. "or even exacerbated by gun ownership"

That was sarcasm, right?

Those last two families had NO history of domestic violence, although in the drug testing lab case, the usually mild mannered husband threatened to go and get guns- which he easily did- and as a result, the kids are orphaned.

The other case simply illustrates (yet again) why having guns around is a bad idea- and makes a household less safe than others who sensibly don't.

This one from late May I found even more disturbing a tragic. Maybe because I have frequented the wildlife refuge where the bodies were found:

Two Small Children & Adult Killed in Apparent Murder / Suicide


The Jackson Bottom Wetlands Preserve is a 725-acre wildlife preserve located within the city limits of Hillsboro, Oregon.
-------------

Hillsboro Police say officers were called out Friday at approximately 1:00 p.m. to The Jackson Bottom Wetlands Preserve on SW Hillsboro Highway, over a report of three bodies found deceased.

Lt. Michael Rouches says a hiker on a trail near Otter Marsh viewing area, discovered the bodies of two children; approximate ages 6 or 7 years old, and an adult male, approximately 35-40 years old (the single father).

"Based on evidence at the scene it appears that this is a murder/suicide and that the victims and perpetrator could have familial ties," Rouches said. "This crime likely occurred sometime in the morning hours of May 29, 2009. The persons involved were victims of gunshots."

He says the case is currently under investigation by Hillsboro Police Detectives and the Jackson Bottom Preserve and viewing areas will remain closed until Saturday afternoon.

More: http://www.salem-news.com/articles/may302009/kids_death_5-30-09.php

If these families died of disease, the entire region would be clamoring for action. In a way of course, they did die of a disease, with multiple etiologies- the common theme being easy access to and the proliferation of guns.

[pipoman]

9. So you really are claiming gun ownership caused these incidents? Really?

[depakid]

10. I'm saying no guns in the house (or easily accessible) and most- maybe ALL of these people would

be alive today.

Pretty airtight logic, really. Reduce the ease and "social distance" it takes to kill, reduce the lethality of means, and less people will act on impulses and kill themselves and their families.

Makes a whole lot more sense than saying having a gun doesn't exacerbate domestic violence (a statement that a reasonable person could only take as sarcasm).

[TPaine7]

11. I can make a similar point in cases where an unarmed victim is killed by a younger or stronger

assailant or by an assailant armed with a knife or by multiple assailants:

I'm saying easily accessible guns in the house or on the person and most- maybe ALL of these people would be alive today.

Pretty airtight logic, really. Reduce the disparity of force, and the predators would most likely flee. Even if they didn't, government statistics clearly show that intended victims who resist with a gun are half as likely to be hurt or robbed--logic dictates that they are even less likely to be killed.

Makes a whole lot more sense than saying that having a gun leads to ordinary people with no criminal or serious mental health records and who are not addicts or drug dealers impulsively killing their families on a whim.

People who murder almost always have exhibited ample signs that they are dangerous people--domestic violence, armed robberies, assaults, felonious threats, mental health issues, or obvious substance addictions (including alcoholism). The fact that you can find apparent counterexamples in a population of 300 Million + is not that impressive.

Impulse murders are almost entirely the domain of felons or people not in their right minds--the insane or substance abusers. On the other hand, if a person has been plotting to kill someone for months or weeks a gun ban will not stop him. There are just too many ways to kill. There are just too many ways to kill that don't involve guns. And your comment about social distance becomes irrelevant with many ways of killing.

[depakid]

12. That's a weak rationalization

At the very least- you should acknowledge that having an easy method right at hand for a sure murder suicide increases the likelihood that such an event will occur.

[GreenStormCloud]

14. That FBI crime statistics say you are wrong.

Over the last 20 years, gun crime has gone down to about half what it was then. During that same time, about 100,000,000 more guns have been purchased. So we have a LOT more guns and much less crime. How do you explain that?

[depakid]

15. That has absolutely nothing to do with the points raised in this thread

Although analyzing these sorts of stats from a criminology perspective would make an interesting thread or two. Perhaps it would provide a justification for having built the world's largest and most expensive prison system.

[eqfan592]

18. depakid, once again, I ask you to provide more than...

...anecdotal evidence to prove your point. You believe that the presence of a firearm inherently increases the likelihood of a domestic violence incident. PROOVE IT. PROOF, depakid. Anecdotes are not proof. I know this is a hard lesson for you to accept, but it's the reality.

EDIT: And for the record, that statistic DOES have EVERYTHING to do with what we are discussing. If guns inherently increase the risk of violent crime, then more guns MUST equate to more crime. But it doesn't. You dismiss these facts because they are devastating to your case. Thankfully, anybody with a brain stem is capable of seeing your evasiveness for what it is.

[depakid]

22. I've posted the epidemiological studies on this board more times than I can count

You and others won't accept that either.

Bottom line is that YOU make your own households more dangerous- and people in them more likely to suffer a tragedy- be victims (or perpetrators) of a violent crime than households without guns.

These cases simply serve to illustrate- and bring home that unpleasant point.

[GreenStormCloud]

24. And we have posted the errors in those studies every time you have put them up. N/T

[depakid]

26. :sigh: No, you haven't

Though you have come iup with some creative (and sometimes quite bizarre rationalizations). Obsessives tend to do that with other deals as well- so don't worry, you're not unique in that regard.

[eqfan592]

27. Ummm, yes, we have.

You just refuse to acknowledge the gaping holes in your "studies."

Refusal to acknowledge something happened when it did is akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "LALALALALALALA"

[depakid]

32. The only thing I've heard you say is "they twist the numbers" or "liars can figure"

There are of course quite a few of them out there (and before you start hollering about Kellerman- that's just one of MANY).

This one's nice because it's the full article (free) and it references (and links to) abstracts of other studies. You'll need access to something like science direct or pub med to access them.

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/160/10/929#KWH309C20

There are also a bunch of related risk and injury studies summarized here:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/

(toolbar on the left)

Have at 'em, howse.

[GreenStormCloud]

36. One major error in the first study.

It does not differentiate between LEGAL and ILLEGAL gun ownership. I will readily accept that illegal gun ownership presents a markedly elevated level of danger. Legal gun ownership rarely poses a problem. The study makes no effort to separate the two. Pro-RKBA people promote LEGAL gun ownership, NOT ILLEGAL gun ownership.

Second article links, as you noted, to publications that one needs access to. Sorry, but I am not willing to pay for that access. The level of DGUs is widely disputed, with no proof on either side. I personally know enough people who have used a gun to defend themselves that I believe the number to be much higher that the anti crowd is willing to accept. Besides, it is funded by the Joyce Foundation and they will only fund gun studies that will produce the answer that they desire. So in advance we are able to know the study is as heavily biased against guns as an NRA study is going to be for guns.

If one assumes that a gun is used to for self-defense (Including merely scaring the criminal away)only once in four gun owners lifetimes, that still yield a rather high number of events per year. Yet only once in four lifetimes would be a rare event. Estimate a gun owner to own a gun for 50 years. That would require 200 years of gun ownership to scare away one villain. Estimate 100,000,000 gun owners in the country. That is a low figure as many gun owners are married and their spouses have access to the guns too. So if just 1 in 200 gun owners in any year has a DGU, that would still yield 500,000 DGUs per year. That is a number that reflects both the rarity of the actual event, yet is so high that the anti crowd will not accept it. I think the actual number of DGUs is higher than that.

Personally, over my own lifetime, I have had several incidents where I would have welcomed having a gun legally on my person. I have been a victim of violent crime (Strong arm robbery in 1964)and threatened enough that I was scared enough to carry illegally until the threat was resolved. In each of those situations I would have welcomed being able to have legally had a gun on me. Once, 21 years ago, I was a boyfriend to a woman whose ex-husband was leaving death threats, in writing, on her door. Until he was arrested, I stayed with her and kept a .357 handy. He had also threatened to kidnap the kids (They weren't his. She had a marriage before the violent guy.)so I often guarded them. (A judge gave her permission to be armed. But back then there was a five-day waiting period. Please tell me how the waiting period helped her.)

[Euromutt]

40. Oh come on, we've done better than that

As you note, we've taken Kellermann's work apart repeatedly, so that's a little more than saying "they twist the numbers" without providing supporting evidence. And admittedly, Kellermann's studies form only a handful of the studies out there (though it should be noted that a relatively small number of researchers crank out these studies), but his work is emblematic of the whole field, in that it contains all the flaws, at least some of which are found in every study I've ever seen in the public health literature on this topic.

The big one, the one that every public health study on this topic suffers from, is failure to establish a causal relationship and the nature of that relationship. It's not an unreasonable assumption that there's a casual link between a gun being kept in the household and a household member getting shot, but it's bad science to treat that assumption as fact, given that a fundamental rule of good science is that "correlation does not imply causation." But even leaving that aside, you simply can't draw any useful conclusions without researching how the causal relationship operates. Is there a higher likelihood of a household member being shot because of the presence of a firearm in the household? Or is the presence of the firearm due to the fact that one or more household members consider themselves to be at elevated risk of becoming a victim of criminal violence? Or is the correlation created by a third, as yet unidentified factor? These are possibilities that have to be investigated to draw any useful conclusions.

This, the public health literature almost invariably fails to do. Study after study establishes no more than correlation, and then states--or at least strongly implies--in its conclusion that increased likelihood of a family member being shot is caused by the presence of the firearm, seemingly oblivious to the fact this is a blatant post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. In the study "Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault" (Branas et al., AJPH http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/AJPH.2008.143099v1) that came out two months ago, the authors acknowledged that they "did not account for the potential of reverse causation between gun possession and gun assault," and yet the conclusion, abstract and press release were written as if they had, which is just sheer intellectual dishonesty.

The Dahlberg study from the AJE that you cite falls into the same pattern. The abstract starts:

Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home <...>

So the authors are seeking to establish a causal relationship: is the risk of violent death increased by having a firearm in the household? However, what they conclude with is:

Results show that <...> having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.

Note the phrase "associated with"; i.e. the authors established a correlation. That's all "associated with" means (having insulin in the house is "associated with" having diabetes). But correlation, I reiterate, does not imply causation. Because the authors fail to acknowledge this difference between their stated objectives and their actual findings, they are in effect pulling a bait-and-switch. It also reduces the findings to Tooth Fairy Science.

You could measure how much money the Tooth Fairy leaves under the pillow, whether she leaves more cash for the first or last tooth, whether the payoff is greater if you leave the tooth in a plastic baggie versus wrapped in Kleenex. You can get all kinds of good data that is reproducible and statistically significant. Yes, you have learned something. But you haven’t learned what you think you’ve learned, because you haven’t bothered to establish whether the Tooth Fairy really exists.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=44

This figures, because the fundamentally flawed premise that the epidemiological approach to firearms is based on is that firearms are a pathogen, that they affect everyone in more or less the same way. For example, you run the same health risks from smoking if you're an office worker as you do if you're a member of a drug gang. But what you're going to do with a firearm, or what someone else is likely to (try to) do to you with a firearm, is very different. The epidemiological approach to firearms consistently fails to take this into account.

This is reflected in the methodology that every one of these studies employs, which is to take as a study group a bunch of people who've been shot, and then compare them to a control group of people who weren't. Right there, they make the selection based on a variable that is not the hypothetical causal variable (namely the presence of a firearm in the household), but instead, the hypothetical outcome variable (someone in the household getting shot). This is exactly the wrong way to approach the question, because instead of isolating the variable the causal effect of which you're (supposedly) trying to study, you're comparing a study group which, by definition, has a higher chance of having been shot (100%, because that's what you selected them for) than your control group (0%, because that's what you selected them for), allowing any number of possible confounding factors to creep in, and then trying to identify and control for them after you've allowed them to creep in. But unless you've thought of every possible variable, there are going to be errors.

The findings of each one of these studies can be at least as plausibly be argued to indicate that engaging in high-risk and/or criminal behaviors increases the risk of a household member dying a violent death, and also increases the likelihood that the subject will keep a firearm in the home or on his person; leaving open the possibility that a person who keeps a firearm, but does not engage in high risk and/or criminal behavior, does not suffer a similar risk.

[Euromutt]

51. Some salient quotes on case control studies and medical peer review

From David Gorski on ScienceBasedMedicine.org (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2962), discussing a Polish case control study concerning MMR vaccine and autism:

Whatever the case, here’s one thing to remember about retrospective studies in general. They often find associations that later turn out not to hold up under study using prospective studies or randomized trials or, alternatively, turn out to be much weaker than the retrospective study showed. They do not so often find a result that is exactly the opposite of hypothesis tested for. In other words, when such a study is used to look for a positive association between a factor and a specific condition or disease, it is quite uncommon to find a negative association, particularly one this strong.

Emphasis in bold mine.
Thus, case control studies have their place, but it is unwise in the extreme to take their results as gospel, certainly if those results have not been replicated in a prospective study.

Interestingly, in a different entry on the same blog (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2889), Ob/Gyn Amy Tuteur comments (speaking of a rather egregious bit of cherry picking in the study under discussion):

Although this is particularly surprising because it is so obvious, a lot of bad analysis gets by reviewers at leading medical journals. That’s why it is so important to read a scientific paper in full, not just the abstract. All too often, the data in the paper does not support the conclusion in the abstract.

Emphasis in bold, again, mine.

[Euromutt]

41. Paging depakid... I have a critique for you to refute

Or are you just going to ignore it in expectancy of the next murder-suicide story* you can start a thread about, just like you've done several times already?

* - If this were Japan, you wouldn't have to wait that long, since there's on average more than one multiple murder-suicide a day. Of course, none of those are committed using firearms, so they don't really count in your book, do they?

[paulsby]

47. what's interesting about the japanese

is that they also have a very high suicide rate in the US (iow, japanese americans). yet, unlike in japan, they tend to use guns most of the time.

notice:

high suicide rate in japan. very few guns. very few gun suicides.
high suicide rate in the US amongst japanese americans. many guns. many gun suicides.

so, what's clear is, at least in the instance of these suicides, is that they likely use what's avaialable, and guns certainly make it quick and easy. but the presence of guns doesn't cause more suicides. the japanese manage to do many more suicides per capita than US citizens as a whole, in a country where access to gun is severely limited

[rd_kent]

49. Depakid, I am bookmarking this post of yours where you are thoroughly refuted but FAIL to respond.

As you do on most of your threads.

[X_Digger]

28. Guns = germs, doncha know!

Yes, treating a social problem like an epidemiological one is perfectly valid. :sarcasm:

Go ahead, pull the other one, it plays yankee doodle.

[TPaine7]

31. Sigh

Gun possession, use and crime is not an epidemiological issue.

epidemiology...

n.
The branch of medicine that deals with the study of the causes, distribution, and control of disease in populations.

Source: http://www.answers.com/topic/epidemiology

Gun availability is not a disease. Gun ownership is not a disease. Gun carrying is not a disease. Gun use is not a disease. Even gun crime is not a disease.

Post criminological studies by competent criminologists if you want serious debate.

[rl6214]

44. I have a curio and relic license

I collect firearms so I have somewhere around 60 firearms in my house. So with your logic, just because I have those firearms in the house, I am making my household more dangerous? Just because those guns are in the house we are going to "be victims (or perpetrators) of a violent crime"

You really are nuts.

[paulsby]

46. rubbish

that you can't understand the difference between causation and correlation is clear.

[GreenStormCloud]

20. We still have more guns and less crime.

So guns are not the cause of crime.

[eqfan592]

21. PROOVE IT!

Provide statistical evidence that guns increases the risk/likelihood of murder suicides.

And at the VERY least, YOU should acknowledge that firearms DO allow law abiding citizens a significantly better opportunity to defend themselves should the need arise, though I doubt you're capable of such rational thought when it comes to firearms.

[depakid]

25. The relative risk of injury and death INCREASES with guns in the household

and that includes defense.

Fear of "bad guys" -and in most places, like the ones under discussion irrational fear causes you to increase yours and your families' risk of harm

Instead of safety- you put them in more danger. As these cases- and others where a kid gets hold of a gun, illustrate.

[eqfan592]

30. Way to not reply to what I asked.

You did NOT respond to the question I asked. I asked for proof that the presense of firearms lead to an increased risk of violent crime and/or domestic violence.

Also, for the millionth time, saying that the presence of a firearm in the home increases the risk of a person being injured by a firearm is about as useless a statement as anybody can make. It's equivalent to saying driving a car increases your risk of getting into a car accident. These risks can be largely mitigated by safe handling practices, while still allowing you to enjoy the benefits of firearm ownership, both sporting and defensive.

Also, the study that showed that a firearm was more likely to injure a person in the home than be used in a defense situation was torn apart years ago. The person in charge of the "study" was VERY selective in what defensive uses he would include, and if I recall, only bothered to include cases where the perp was killed, and never attempted to include cases where the firearm was never discharged, which make up the fast majority of DGU's.

Nice try depakid.

EDIT: To be exact, I actually requested proof that firearms increased the risk of murder/suicides. And you saying something isn't proof.

[GreenStormCloud]

37. If that were true, then gun crime and gun accidents should be trending up.

After all, there has been an increase of 100,000,000 million guns purchased in the last twenty years.

But the truth is that the rate of gun crime and gun accidents is about half what it was twenty years ago. Obviously, something is wrong with your conclusions.

My wife has used her gun to prevent herself from being murdered. She is not in any danger from me with my guns, nor am I in danger from her with hers.

But you would be happier with her unarmed and dead from a mugger.

[TPaine7]

29. Your logic is flawed

If a man has no intent to kill his wife, no number of available weapons will increase the likelihood of his murdering her.

If a man has no intent to burn down the local church, selling him a gallon of gasoline in a container and a box of matches will not increase the odds of his torching it.

Now there are people who are always on the verge of violence--people with serious impulse control issues. Almost exclusively these people are felons. They have offended before; they have been caught; they have been convicted. Murder is not even close to their first violent crime.

Selling a gun to a violent felon is and should be illegal. It's similar to selling matches and a gallon of gasoline to a know pyromaniac.

Now the disgruntled parishioner who has been plotting to burn down the church for the last year is an anomaly. He has a clean record. He does not have impulse control issues. He has had time to come up with multiple ways to burn the church down.

Banning matches and gasoline or making ordinary people jump through hoops to get them will not stop the disgruntled parishioner. It will only make politicians look like they are doing something and make the less logical anti-pyro activists feel good.

[rl6214]

43. And just how's that working out in Australia?

[SteveM]

48. "airtight logic," you say? If the seal is a screen door...

We already have prohibitionist laws regulating marijuana. How well have they worked with regards keeping that substance out of houses?

You have made an assertion: "Reduce the ease and 'social distance' it takes to kill, reduce the lethality of means, and less people will act on impulses and kill themselves and their families." Now, prove it with "airtight logic." Be aware that the number of childhood deaths by gunfire accidents has been declining in this country for over 10 years, now, even as Americans have increased the number of firearms in their possession by over 100,000,000. (National Safety Council, and the Shooting Sports Foundation).

Prohibition doesn't solve problems, it creates them, if for no other reason than little is prohibited (including a violent disposition).

[rd_kent]

50. How many times do you have to be shown that guns in the house DO NOT MAKE ANYONE ANY LESS SAFE?

For fucks sake, its like talking to a brick wall.

[paulsby]

45. false

you do not know they had no history of domestic violence.

only they knew if that was or wasn't true.

what you might mean is there is no REPORTED history of domestic violence.

here's a hint. many incidences of domestic violence are not reported to authorities.

i'm not being nitpicky. this shows a lack of attention to detail and preciseness in your post.

[safeinOhio]

52. Remember some rules about signs of Intellectual Honesty when you call

some one a moron as part of your argument

Posted on DU


1. Do not overstate the power of your argument. One’s sense of conviction should be in proportion to the level of clear evidence assessable by most. If someone portrays their opponents as being either stupid or dishonest for disagreeing, intellectual dishonesty is probably in play. Intellectual honesty is most often associated with humility, not arrogance.

2. Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist. The alternative views do not have to be treated as equally valid or powerful, but rarely is it the case that one and only one viewpoint has a complete monopoly on reason and evidence.

3. Be willing to publicly acknowledge and question one’s own assumptions and biases. All of us rely on assumptions when applying our world view to make sense of the data about the world. And all of us bring various biases to the table.


4. Be willing to publicly acknowledge where your argument is weak. Almost all arguments have weak spots, but those who are trying to sell an ideology will have great difficulty with this point and would rather obscure or downplay any weak points.

5. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when you are wrong. Those selling an ideology likewise have great difficulty admitting to being wrong, as this undercuts the rhetoric and image that is being sold. You get small points for admitting to being wrong on trivial matters and big points for admitting to being wrong on substantive points. You lose big points for failing to admit being wrong on something trivial.

6. Demonstrate consistency. A clear sign of intellectual dishonesty is when someone extensively relies on double standards. Typically, an excessively high standard is applied to the perceived opponent(s), while a very low standard is applied to the ideologues’ allies.


7. Address the argument instead of attacking the person making the argument. Ad hominem arguments are a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty. However, often times, the dishonesty is more subtle. For example, someone might make a token effort at debunking an argument and then turn significant attention to the person making the argument, relying on stereotypes, guilt-by-association, and innocent-sounding gotcha questions.

8. When addressing an argument, do not misrepresent it. A common tactic of the intellectually dishonest is to portray their opponent’s argument in straw man terms. In politics, this is called spin. Typically, such tactics eschew quoting the person in context, but instead rely heavily on out-of-context quotes, paraphrasing and impression. When addressing an argument, one should shows signs of having made a serious effort to first understand the argument and then accurately represent it in its strongest form.

9. Show a commitment to critical thinking. ‘Nuff said.



10. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when a point or criticism is good. If someone is unable or unwilling to admit when their opponent raises a good point or makes a good criticism, it demonstrates an unwillingness to participate in the give-and-take that characterizes an honest exchange.

While no one is perfect, and even those who strive for intellectual honesty can have a bad day, simply be on the look out for how many and how often these criteria apply to someone. In the arena of public discourse, it is not intelligence or knowledge that matters most – it is whether you can trust the intelligence or knowledge of another. After all, intelligence and knowledge can sometimes be the best tools of an intellectually dishonest approach.

see #7

Arguments about gun rights would be better served if those in the gun room of this board would attempt to follow those 10 rules. One can make a good case and still stay with in those guidelines.

[GreenStormCloud]

13. No history of domestic violence? You FAIL.

From the article you referenced about the first family.

The man, who is 40, had been dating the 20-year-old woman for about a year, Rouches said, adding that this was not the first domestic dispute between the two.

Rouches is Hillsboro Police Lt. Michael Rouches, so that would mean that their domestic dipute was rowdy enough to get the cops involved. IOW, there was a history of domestic violence.

Also:

The couple had a history of domestic disputes, according to the police department. http://www.kptv.com/news/21756113/detail.html

And look at this:

Hillsboro police: Victim was afraid of boyfriend
Last week the woman, who was 20, spoke with a Hillsboro police officer about her boyfriend's behavior. "He had been threatening and scaring her,"
SNIP
"She felt uncomfortable based on his anger and what he was saying to her,"
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/11/hillsboro_police_victim_was_af.html

I will check during the next few days to see if the media does a follow up on Curt Wayne Wise, the killer. It will be interesting to see his history.


Now lets look at the second family. Look at what is in the article that you referenced:

Officers had arrested him on a domestic violence accusation in January 2008, and he was convicted the next month. A neighbor said he was the subject of a restraining order.

It was already illegal for him to even touch a gun. But violent criminals don't care about laws.

[depakid]

16. I can read, knucklehead

Those weren't the cases I was referencing.

How is it that you say?

FAIL

[rl6214]

42. Did you just move to this area?

Is that why you are so obsessed with it?

[TheWraith]

4. Clearly, Glenn Beck is proof that free speech is evil.

Because the fact that one person does someting evil with a constitutional right proves, in Depakid's world, that no one anywhere ever deserves that right.

[depakid]

17. We can leave the jurisprudential arguments to another thread-

Right now I'm looking at the issue from a public health standpoint. Specifically, from a womens' and family health standpoint- though I suppose the perpetrators deserve some consideration too.

[cowcommander]

5. Hurr Durr

[GreenStormCloud]

23. How many people used guns to prevent a crime during that period?

During that time, I am confident that there were several people who used their gun to defend themselves from violent crime. But those cases aren't in the papers, because usually nobody gets shot. The bad guy runs away. No blood so the papers don't bother with it. That is what happened with the time my wife defended herself against a mugger that would have killed her. Without her gun, and concealed carry permit, she would be dead today.

[TPaine7]

33. Your wife's story doesn't count for two reasons, and cannot be cited in any debate:

1) It hasn't made the newspaper as you yourself conceded.
2) It does not support gun control.

As someone who has been on this forum for some time now, I am sure you know which one of these is most important. (Number 2, of course.)

And please don't fall back on the defense of truth. Your wife's experience may be true. Heck, it could even have appeared in the newspaper and that would not have made a difference. Surely you've figured out that truth is not the point here, right?!

Gun control is not reality based.

[GreenStormCloud]

38. So true, so true.

But it is fun to post it, just as spin posts about his daughter's DGU, and watch the antis ignore it.

[proteus_lives]

39. Ok, please explain why this tragedy justifies millions of Americans losing their rights.

Can you do that?