Woman's body found posed beside road

[JayS]

July 21, 2004, 10:03AM
Woman's body found posed beside road
By S.K. BARDWELL
Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/2693679



Another woman's body -- this one posed with feet crossed and hands on her chest -- was found by a passer-by early today along a Harris County road.

A driver spotted the body about 3:30 a.m. near the intersection of Hirsch and Winfield. Harris County Sheriff's Department detectives said an autopsy will be necessary to determine the cause of the woman's death.

*SNIP*

The woman had no identification. Her pants were unfastened and her shirt pulled up, but deputies said it is unknown whether she was sexually assaulted.

Her body was found about five miles from where the body of Shelley Marie Lang was found Monday, at a construction site in the 12100 block of North Lake Houston. Lang's cause of death is not yet known.

*SNIP*

[Bowline]

1. I'd be willing to bet a paycheck that this woman was unarmed.

It's always nice to see a gun-free murder victim, eh?

[The Backlash Cometh]

3. ?

What an odd response. Because the obvious retort would be, if guns were required by everyone, how many more accidental deaths would we have than murdered victims? Would there also be a law that you can't carry and drink at the same time? Or, was this woman murdered by someone she knew and trusted, therefore a gun would have been insignificant in stopping her murder?

Absolutes are never the answer.

[iverglas]

4. ya think?

It's always nice to see a gun-free murder victim, eh?

Me, I find it perennially disgusting to see someone objectifying a woman and exploiting her death (or any other form of abuse that women as women are subjected to in most societies) in the service of his own questionable agenda.

But hey, don't let me stop you from exposing the rotten core of that agenda.

[FeebMaster]

7. Yes objectifying and exploiting people's deaths

in the service to their questionable agenda is disgusting.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x72033
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x72451
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x71820
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x71159

But then, we can all see the rotten core of that agenda.

[iverglas]

8. you would appear to be talking to me.

Did you have something to say to me?

[FeebMaster]

9. I think I said it. (nt)

[OpSomBlood]

11. It's hard to argue with that.

n/t

[TX-RAT]

5. What a ridiculous comment.

[OpSomBlood]

6. This forum isn't all about guns.

While I don't disagree with your sentiment, I also don't think that it is appropriate.

The woman is dead...what's important now is finding the person who did it and bringing them to justice so they don't do it to anyone else.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

26. I just gotta say, that's a lame reaction to the news of a murder.

How is a murder like this connected to if she had or didn't have a gun? Even if she did have a gun, doesn't mean she wouldn't have hesitated to kill someone with it. And it doesn't mean she didn't have it taken from her if she did have one. Good lord, what is wrong with you people and your crazy conclusions!?
Duckie

[FeebMaster]

27. Oh you haven't heard?

"Even if she did have a gun, doesn't mean she wouldn't have hesitated to kill someone with it."

Guns turn people into remorseless, unhesitating, killing machines.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

28. I know that's a smart ass remark....

BUT that's how people think and they are just ignorant. I'm not anti gun, but I do think extensive education is needed when you get a permit to carry a weapon. It's just like when we were kids. My dad had guns all over the house, as did my bf's granddad. If we touched any of these things, we would have gotten our asses blistered. And we SHOULD HAVE. But at the same time, they didn't not show us what they did or the things they could do. If people taught their kids like our parents did that guns kill and if we touch them we are going to suffer consequences, NOT TIME OUT, we wouldn't see as many stupid needless deaths because of accidental shootings. I hate it when people say stupid shit like "Guns turn people into remorseless, unhesitating, killing machines." It's a fallacy and ridiculous. Quit listening to Rosie O'Donnell, and get some facts! (feebMaster, I know you're parodying someone else's stupidity, and again, this is not aimed at you.)
Duckie

[MrBenchley]

29. Feeb's not parodying anybody's anything...

That's the default setting...

[YellowRubberDuckie]

30. Please explain that remark?

Are you dissing him/her or what?
Duckie

[FeebMaster]

31. He's just upset because mostly everyone is voting for

Kerry according to that poll down here.

[MrBenchley]

32. Nope, feeb....I'm just laughing as usual

[FeebMaster]

34. If I saw someone wandering around

laughing at nothing in particular, well, I'd be worried.

[MrBenchley]

35. Gee, feeb, I'm laughing at something in particular

No prize for guessing what it is.

[FeebMaster]

36. Well if there's no prize

maybe you could spell it out for me.

[MrBenchley]

33. Stick around

[Th1onein]

2. I live in this area.........this has nothing to do with guns.......

This sounds like that serial killer....

[Bowline]

10. 100% Correct!

It's about one or more women brutally murdered, yet some people still seek to deny these women the ability to defend themselves. "She doesn't need a gun for defense, that's what the police are for" they claim. Well, I ask you, where were the police when these women were attacked and killed? Why weren't they there to protect them?

[iverglas]

12. tell us, please

"She doesn't need a gun for defense, that's what the police are for" they claim.

Who are these "they"? Why are you quoting them here? Who cares what they say? Can you spell straw?


It's about one or more women brutally murdered, yet some people still seek to deny these women the ability to defend themselves.

Agenda, being advanced by demagoguery.

Yup, that's what that is. That's all it is, and that's the nasty thing it is.

There are undoubtedly people who are swayed by it. They're probably the same people who see an ad that tells them that John Kerry voted against a piece of legislation that "protects pregnant women against violence" and believe that that's what John Kerry did.

And we know what we call the people who wrote that line.

[Th1onein]

13. Nope, you're wrong.

You are twisting things. There is nothing wrong with having a gun, and Dems are not out to take your guns away. That is a lie promulgated by the right wing. Dems don't believe that there is any reason to have assault rifles, though.

However, when you follow logic down that road, you are asking for problems. Someone on here wrote, today, in their signature line: "He who lives by the sword, dies by it!" I believe that.

There is nothing wrong with these women having guns to protect themselves. The only question that the Dems pose is what KIND of gun?

Do not attempt to obsfucate this issue with emotional rhetoric.

[FeebMaster]

14. All this arguing some people seem to want to do

about assault rifles seems kind of useless to me. They've been heavily regulated since 1934 and the supply has been frozen since 1986. It's unlikely that any of those laws are going to be repealed any time soon if ever.

[Th1onein]

15. I did not know that. That is interesting information.........Perhaps this

is one of those "wedge issues" that the Republicans are always trying to make fly?

[FeebMaster]

16. They don't like to talk about it.

It was Reagan who banned the civilian production of machine guns in 1986 after all.

You're probably confusing assault rifles with assault weapons, a common misconception and a distinction often blurred in gun control propaganda. Assault rifles are by definition machine guns. Assault weapons are generally semi-automatic rifles that look like assault rifles, but aren't actually machine guns.

[Th1onein]

17. Explain to me how they blur this issue? And what are the current

arguments, on both sides? I am not very familiar with this issue....

What I do see is that societies where the police do not carry guns have a lot less violence in them. At the same time, I WILL carry a gun, if I am afraid for my safety.

[DavidMS]

18. There are several arguments

Favoring gun control:

1. You just don't need one.
2. No sporting use.
3. Easy to attack symbol system.

I would check http://www.millionmommarch.org/ and http://www.bradycampaign.org/

Opposing gun control:
1. Guns are incapable of harming someone without a human actor.
2. The are just objects.
3. Their civilian ownership is constitutionally protected by the second and forth amendments.

I would recommend checking http://www.awbansunset.com/ and http://www.guncite.com/

My own observation is that while Japan has practicaly no handguns a low murder rate and a high suicide rate, Switzerland also has a high suicide rate and a very high rate of civilian firearms ownership (including assault rifles) but oddly enough a very low murder rate. I also understand that Finland and Sweden have relatively high rates of firearms ownership and very low crime rates. I do not believe that civilian firearms ownership in and of itself affects rates of societal violence. I do believe that cultural factors, level of education, economic opportunities, opportunities for economic advancement, wealth disparity and levels of spousal and child abuse are much more likely to be drivers of crime (violent or otherwise).

Firearms just have increasable symbolic power.

Edited to add links and correct some minor spelling errors.

[iverglas]

21. and can *you* spell straw?

There are several arguments
Favoring gun control:

1. You just don't need one.
2. No sporting use.
3. Easy to attack symbol system.

I'm in favour of quite restrictive firearms control, and I would not be such an ass as to make ANY of the above "arguments".

Just think ... if you'd actually given an accurate representation of arguments made in favour of firearms control, you might have had to offer some coherent arguments against it.

[DavidMS]

22. Thats what the link are there for.

I just attempted to summerize the primary arguments I have seen.

[iverglas]

23. ooooh yeah

I just attempted to summerize the primary arguments I have seen.

Maybe if you tried to winterize them you could do a better job.


Thats what the link are there for.

The links are there to tell me what the REAL arguments for firearms control are?

Like, as compared to the FAKE arguments for firearms control you "cited" when you said:

There are several arguments
Favoring gun control:

1. You just don't need one.
2. No sporting use.
3. Easy to attack symbol system.

?

So your point was ...?

What I saw was someone presenting an exhaustive list of "arguments favoring gun control", since there was nothing there that looked like "which include", or "etc.", or "inter alia <among others>".

Can I play?

There are several arguments
opposing gun control:

1. I have a small penis.
2. I am a racist.
3. I am a republican.

I would check www.nra.org and www.gunowners.org/

Looks about right, eh?

[FeebMaster]

19. It varies

from using assault rifle and assault weapon interchangeably, to claiming that rifles like the SKS are assault rifles or assault weapons when they certainly aren't assault rifles since they aren't machine guns and they aren't covered by the assault weapons ban or any of the expanded assault weapons ban proposals for that matter. The more ignorant or dishonest among supporters of gun control (Bill O'Reilly comes to mind) will just outright say that the assault weapons ban needs to be renewed to keep machine guns off the streets.

It really depends on the source and how familiar they are with the law and with guns in general.


"What I do see is that societies where the police do not carry guns have a lot less violence in them. At the same time, I WILL carry a gun, if I am afraid for my safety."

Hah! I like you already. I've been advocating that we disarm the police since I got here.



Hmm. It just occurred to me that I really only discussed how gun control propaganda blurs the Assault Weapon/machine gun issue. Are you saying you don't know about the Assault Weapons Ban in general? I'd be more than happy to explain what the AWB actually does if you're not familiar with it and are interested.

[Th1onein]

20. I do not understand the distinction that the laws make between these types

of weapons. And, yet, I think that there is some line that may be drawn, both to perpetuate both personal safety, AND to support public safety. The fact that these other countries, that DavidMS speaks about, do the former, without apparently sacrificing the latter, tells me that someone else has already found the model that we should follow.

Why not copy success, after all?

[gatlingforme]

25. very well said.

[gatlingforme]

24. That sounds like a socio path. That is terrible. - very scary