Cops: Husband shot soccer mom as she chatted on webcam

[RamboLiberal]

A Pennsylvania soccer mom was chatting with a friend via webcam when she was shot to death by her husband, who then went upstairs and shot himself, police said Friday.

-----

Hain was in her kitchen talking with a friend via webcam just before her death, police said.

The friend, who police will not name, was looking away from the computer screen when he heard a shot and a scream, police said. He turned back to the monitor, he told police, and no longer saw Meleanie Hain but instead saw Scott Hain firing several rounds from a handgun toward where his wife had been.

Police said that the woman's body had already fallen to the floor by the time the friend turned back to the screen.

Scott Hain then went upstairs to a bedroom, where he shot himself in the head with a 12-gauge shotgun, police said.

Meleanie Hain was shot several times with a 9 mm handgun, police said. Her fully loaded 9 mm handgun was found in her backpack hanging on the back of the front door.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/09/gun.soccer.mom.dead/index.html

[cliffordu]

1. Wow.

he musta been really pissed.

Used his good gun instead of the throwaway.

:sarcasm:

for the thicker of us.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

2. Are the reports that the husband was a law enforcement officer true?

[RamboLiberal]

8. Prison guard or was a prison guard and now working security

That's what I remember reading.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

17. Someone said parole officer.

[valerief]

3. Maybe all these crazy gun people will "extinct" each other. nt

[Horse with no Name]

4. Invariably "we" get caught up in their crossfire

:(

[Euromutt]

144. You got caught up in the "crossfire" of this particular incident?

If not, your use of the word "invariably" is incorrect.

[MissMarple]

25. But, they just keep replicating.

:shrug:

[valerief]

29. Not once they're dead. nt

[Retired AF Dem]

100. And why do they keep replicating?

:)


By http://profile.imageshack.us/user/bruckner>bruckner at 2009-10-10

[MissMarple]

136. Good reason. I can see the appeal.

The young women at this event look sensible and well adjusted. The dead woman was weird She thought an ostentatious show of a weapon at a children's sporting event was perfectly normal. I wonder if she was in a chest thumping contest with her husband, or perhaps one of the coaches. :shrug:

[Shell Beau]

76. Except he "extinct"ed his wife.

[aikoaiko]

109. Way to support domestic violence.

:shrug:

[Cali_Democrat]

5. Live by the gun....

Die by the gun.

We need a gun-free America.

[vadawg]

9. still wont stop the crzies or the criminals, all it means is that everyone becomes prey

[Cali_Democrat]

13. Guns are illegal in most industrialized countries

They have fewer murders than we do.

Of course we cannot stop every murder, but we can drastically reduce them by banning guns.

[Statistical]

18. We have more NON-GUN homicides then most countries....

think about that for a second even with the sheer number of guns available we kill MORE people (per capita) with non-guns then other countries do by all methods combined.

Maybe it isn't the guns?

Unless you can somehow explain how a large number of guns makes Americans kill Americans by knives, clubs, poison, rope, fists, feet, etc more than other countries.

[Cali_Democrat]

26. We can still reduce overall murders if guns are banned IMO. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. No we can... to lower them we need so many changes in the general culture

read Deer Hunting with Jesus... will explain a lot of this to you.

[LiberalFighter]

40. Until you provide the stats and the appropriate comparison that statement is squat.

Cripes this country has more people than most of the other countries.

[Statistical]

58. "PER CAPITA". Homicide rates are per capita. Look it up.n/t

[LiberalFighter]

79. Since you brought it up... you should bring it here.

[smoogatz]

107. Here you go, as of 2005.

Here's the link: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm

[ljm2002]

54. Link please...

...regarding our non-gun murder rates; also, you only talk about non-gun murders in relation to other countries' murder rates -- how about non-gun murders vs. gun murders in this country? Which number is larger, and by how much?

[Selatius]

106. Stats are found here:

Murder rate per capita with hand-guns:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita

Murder rate per capita with and without hand-guns:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

As we can see:

Murder per capita (with and without hand-guns) = 0.042802 per 1,000 people
Murder per capita with just hand-guns = 0.0279271 per 1,000 people

Let's remove all murders with hand-guns from the equation. This leaves us with this:

0.0148749 per 1000 people. Now, we can compare ourselves to the rest of the industrialized world that has banned guns, but first, let's look at Switzerland.

The best country in the industrialized world to compare to the United States as far as gun ownership rates is Switzerland. Private ownership of guns is very extensive in that country like in the United States. Let's look at their stats:

Switzerland: Murders per capita = 0.00921351 per 1,000 people
Switzerland: Murders per capita with hand-guns = 0.00534117 per 1,000 people
Switzerland: Murders per capita WITHOUT hand-guns = 0.00387234 per 1,000 people

United States: Murders per capita = 0.042802 per 1,000 people
United States: Murders per capita with hand-guns = 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
United States: Murders per capita WITHOUT hand-guns = 0.0148749 per 1,000 people

The US has major problems compared to Switzerland. If anything, the US should adopt Switzerland's gun control regulations given these numbers. However, even if that were done, the murder rate per capita in the US would still dwarf Switzerland's murder rate per capita by multiples. We have social problems that are being neglected, and they dwarf the gun debate, although I admit this is conjecture on my part. This is likely more to do about inequality in America socially as well as economic inequality between the rich and the poor, but this statement is also conjecture on my part.

However, there is some evidence to suggest the US isn't the only one dealing with high murder rates without hand-guns in the industrialized world. All of these countries--I believe--outlaw private ownership of firearms:

France: Murders per capita = 0.0173272 per 1,000 people
Germany: Murders per capita = 0.0116461 per 1,000 people
Japan: Murders per capita = 0.00499933 per 1,000 people
Spain: Murders per capita = 0.0122456 per 1,000 people
Italy: Murders per capita = 0.0128393 per 1,000 people
UK: Murders per capita = 0.0140633 per 1,000 people

Conclusion: If the US either banned guns outright or adopted Switzerland's regulatory framework for firearms, we would be comparable to the rest of the industrialized world as far as murder rates go.

Crime rates per capita are a different story:

United States: 80.0645 per 1,000 people
France: 62.1843 per 1,000 people
Germany: 75.9996 per 1,000 people
Japan: 19.177 per 1,000 people
Spain: 22.8867 per 1,000 people
Italy: 37.9633 per 1,000 people
UK: 85.5517 per 1,000 people

[smoogatz]

108. According to the DoJ:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm

[Canuckistanian]

82. That was the point of Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine"

It's not just the gun deaths, it's the general murder rate that's the problem.

Here in Canada, we have almost as many guns (although not handguns) and yet, we have a lot less murders.

He made the conclusion that Americans were just more prone to using violence as a means to solving everyday problems.

[Greyhound]

93. Thanks for noticing that that was his point.

I can't count how many times I've seen BfC used in an argument for banning/regulating gun ownership, and I always ask if they even saw the film.

Personally, I think we kill so much more often because the "American Lifestyle" is nothing more than a vast, corporate, plantation model without the burden of taking care of the slaves. We live our lives under the constant threat of deprivation in order to force submission to the parasites, a condition lacking in civilized nations.

[spin]

146. Life in many other industrialized counties...

is more pleasurable and relaxed. In our country people are afraid of taking all of their vacation days for fear the company will consider them for layoff before some other fool who gives his vacation back and ruins his family life. Many employees refuse to take sick days (if they are lucky enough to get them) even when they are sick. They come to work and infect other employees and get better yearly appraisals because of it.

Plus Other developed have medical care systems that actually work for everyone.

What we have here is pressure, pressure, pressure. No wonder people occasionally snap.

[vadawg]

36. and do you have any idea how easy it is to get a gun in a lot of these countries..

very easy if you have the cash.

[jgraz]

37. Which is why their per-capita gun deaths are so much higher than ours

Oh wait, they aren't.

[vadawg]

38. nothing to do with that, all im saying is that if you ban guns, it isnt going to stop

the hardened criminals or the crazies from getting one if they want. you will never be able to remove guns from society completely no matter how hard you try..

[Cali_Democrat]

39. but it will reduce the overall number of gun deaths n/t

[Retired AF Dem]

102. All it would do in increase overall numbers of non gun deaths

Since July, one family in TN wiped out, a family in GA wiped out and a family in IL wiped out. Fourteen people killed and no guns used.

[krispos42]

141. Which in and of itself is meaningless.

If I said that green-painted cars were involved in 15% of traffic fatalities and started a movement to ban the possession and ownership of green-painted cars, then after the law passed that number would drop to virtually zero. I would be able to go on TV and pontificate about how I had reduced green-car-related fatalities by over 99%, and that the few green-car-related fatalities were done by a handful of criminals driving illegal vehicles. But claims that I made the highways safer would of course be ridiculous.

Doesn't mean progress was made, it means I shifted the fatalities onto other colors.


Guns are the tools of crime, not the motive. People don't buy a gun and say "Well, now it's time to experience the thrill of committing a felony", they say "I'm going to commit a crime, and one of the tools I need is a weapon".

[jgraz]

41. So you should expect countries that ban guns to have comparable gun death rates

You know, like Britain and Japan. They must be shooting each other left and right.

[vadawg]

42. nope because they have different cultures from the US

take britain for example you are more likely to get stabbed or glassed than shot, but it would take about an hour from getting of the plane to being able to get a handgun ilegally, dosent mean everyday people are carrying them but they are still available if wanted..

[jgraz]

44. So it seems one approach is to stop promoting gun violence in our culture.

Maybe by enacting some public policy that helps reduce the number of guns in circulation?

[vadawg]

45. nope aint ever going to happen, the US is unique in its views on guns

hell it even has the right written into its founding, americans love their guns, you are never going to be able to take them away no matter how hard you try.. and thats just the legal ones

[jgraz]

47. We used to be unique in our views on African slaves. We changed.

If you recall, that was written into our Constitution as well.

[vadawg]

48. not at all, i think you will find everybody used africans as slaves from arabia, to the africans

themselves, to the europeans to the americas, good luck with trying to get guns banned, you will get a civil war before the populace will allow any government to disarm them, would you trust bush to take your guns.

[jgraz]

49. Nobody said anything about taking everyone's guns

Just reducing the number in circulation through intelligent public policy. If *that* would cause a civil war, maybe we DO need to think about disarming people.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

81. Take all of the illegal guns off the street. I'm in 100% agreement.

[proteus_lives]

92. They don't want to stop criminals.

They want to punish legal gun-owners.

[smoogatz]

117. Nope. Obvious strawman.

How do you go about taking all the illegal guns off the street when the country's flooded with guns? What's your plan?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

145. Since you asked.

Start prosecuting people for illegal possession of firearms (it's quite rare), increase the penalty for being a felon in possession of a firearm to an automatic 10 year sentence to be served day for day and make that sentence be served consecutively with any other sentence, open up the NICS to private sellers. That's where I would start. Do you have any objections to those?

[Statistical]

60. You honestly think our "view" on slavery was unique? Wow.

[jgraz]

85. Certainly in the legal framework and in how it was supported.

There are several fine books on this period in our history. You may wish to open one of them.

[krispos42]

140. So there should be an artificial limit on the number of guns?

An artifical limit on a Constitutional right?

[spin]

147. Enacting policy that is supposed to reduce the number of guns in circulation...

leads to a rush on guns.

Just the possible threat that Obama and the Democrats might enact draconian gun laws led to an historic increase in gun and ammo sales.

An actual attempt to do this would result in all the gun store shelves being cleaned to the bone. Ammo would disappear.

Any attempt to force people to turn their firearms in would be a bloody disaster and would instantly make millions of Americans criminals.

[cabluedem]

113. The gun nuts hate Obama cause they know new gun bans are coming soon. nt

[smoogatz]

119. They hate Obama because they're racist nutjobs.

No one in Obama's administration has proposed any new bans on guns.

[X_Digger]

125. Might want to check the news..

Sos Clinton-

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/03/26/2009-03-26_secretary_of_state_hillary_clintons_call.html

"Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's call for assault weapon ban in U.S. gets blasted by gun lobby"

AG Holder-

http://i.abcnews.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1

"The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today. "

President Obama-

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/16/obama.latin.america/index.html

MEXICO CITY, Mexico (CNN) -- Reviving a ban on assault weapons and more strictly enforcing existing gun laws could help tamp down drug violence that has run rampant on the U.S.-Mexican border, President Obama said Thursday.

"We can respect and honor the Second Amendment while dealing with assault weapons," Obama says in Mexico.

Speaking alongside Mexican President Felipe Calderón, Obama said he has "not backed off at all" on a campaign pledge to try to restore the ban. It was instituted under President Clinton and allowed to lapse by President George W. Bush.

[smoogatz]

127. It's not a new ban.

They're sensibly working to reinstate the Clinton assault weapons ban that expired under Bush.

[X_Digger]

129. Okay, okay, technically not new :P

How do you call that ban 'sensible', though?

Do you know what the ban did? Took a few rifles and made them WILDLY popular..



Rifles with the same rate of fire as hunting rifles, of the same caliber, used in the same low number of crimes (<3% for ALL rifles by the last FBI report)- rifles with certain characteristics related to _appearance_ (when's the last time anyone was killed by a bayonet?)- banned them from import or sale. Only it didn't, really, as it was easy to modify any of the rifles to meet the conditions of the ban.

eta: expanded data re type of weapon- http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_20.html

[spin]

148. The assault weapons ban expired because it was useless...

I should know. I watched people who had had absolutely no interest in owning an "assault weapon' suddenly get the urge to buy one after the ban took effect. Assault weapons were the rage. The manufacturers made some cosmetic changes to their firearms such as taking off the bayonet mounts and they sold like hotcakes.

The high capacity "clips" never disappeared or became impossible to obtain. If they were made before a certain cut off date they were legal. The manufacturers went to three shift operation and pumped out enormous quantities of these high cap magazines. They sold for an enormous mark up. All my friends at the range just had to have an assault rifle with at least half a dozen high cap magazines. I was the only one who wasn't overcome by desire.

[Paladin]

128. Might Want To Check Your Wishful Thinking.

You gun militants are absolutely horny for the Obama administration to tighten up on guns. Ain't going to happen.....

[X_Digger]

130. Not me..

.. but it's silly to say that this administration hasn't proposed reinstatement of the ban that helped give the rethugs congress for a decade.

Granted, they were smacked down, even by the leadership of both the Senate and House, along with a pile of congresscritters.

Doesn't mean they don't have it on the agenda, albeit at a lower priority.

[krispos42]

139. Unlikely

If we can't pass significant health-care reform with 65% of the country backing it, I don't think we're going to pass some new gun bad that only 30% of the country supports.

[krispos42]

138. They have better social services

This pattern is true even in America: blue states are safer than red states, generally speaking.

It is also easier to get abortions in blue states, and that has long-term effects on crime rates.


Frankly, we'd save far more lives by leaving the guns alone and legalizing drugs. About half of all murders are drug-related, and that would be true for decades after the beginning of any attempt to make America gun-free.


The UK's been trying this since 1989. Their homicide rate (total, not just gun) has almost doubled since 1982.

I can provide a graph if you want.

[proteus_lives]

90. No thanks.

Most Americans are attached to their rights. I wouldn't want to live in a free speech-free America either. Try addressing the real problems.

[Selatius]

105. At this point, getting rid of the 2nd Amendment may actually provoke a violent civil war. nt

[spin]

149. Sadly that is quite possible...

Some states are already considering ignoring Federal gun laws. Montana is the state in the lead on this issue.

October 1, 2009 3:50 PM

Montana Gun Suit Challenges Federal Authority

A Montana lawsuit filed on Thursday challenges federal authority to regulate guns manufactured and sold within the state, an argument that would effectively invalidate federal firearm laws in Big Sky Country if adopted by the courts.

The lawsuit arose out of a state law signed by Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer that took effect on October 1. It says that firearms, ammunition, and accessories manufactured entirely inside Montana are not subject to federal regulation, including background checks for buyers and record-keeping requirements for sellers. They would remain subject to state regulation, and machine gun manufacturing is not permitted.

This is part of a new grassroots movement that's seeking to invoke the principle of states' rights -- including states' authority to regulate firearms within their borders -- to thwart what backers view as an increasingly overreaching federal government.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10/01/taking_liberties/entry5356494.shtml

[The_Casual_Observer]

6. They sure loved their guns!

[charlie]

7. Fully loaded handgun in her backpack on the front door

With kids at home.

Gun-obsessed pair of idiots.

[grytpype]

11. Well that was her mistake, she should have had it in one hand while she typed with the other.

That's what I would do if I had to live with a lunatic armed with a 12-gauge.

[jgraz]

16. And where were the kids? Why weren't they packing heat?

As always, the answer to gun violence is... more guns.

They don't call them "gundamentalists" for nothing.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

27. I've never seen anyone besides you call for arming children.

[jgraz]

33. Not true. I've seen several people suggest you should be allowed to carry.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

68. Do you have any links to prove your point?

[EFerrari]

24. No kidding. n/t

[Jeep789]

43. Exactly what I was thinking. nt

[jeffbr]

Another blow for on-line romance while living with your spouse

[Tigress DEM]

124. You have a point there.

[jgraz]

10. I guarantee you, if Melanie had managed to shoot first, the gungeon would be celebrating her today.

As they do with every gun story where, by the literal luck of the draw, a so-called "law-abiding" citizen narrowly manages to avoid becoming a statistic in the same culture of violence they support.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

19. Instead you are here rejoicing in her death so you can get on your soapbox.

How nice for you. :puke:

[jgraz]

31. Wow, the pot calling the kettle a pot

I seem to remember someone celebrating thwarted rape attempts and then using rape victims to make cheap political points.

Who was that again? Oh yeah: you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=258146&mesg_id=258146

BTW, congrats on your "Most Vile" prize from the mods. I hope it looks good next to your gun collection.

[charlie]

50. Holy Geronimo Christ

There are some people I'll never fathom, I guess. Gads.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

70. It's just an inability to process complex thoughts. You and jgraz may develop it one day.

[jgraz]

72. I hope we never develop your inability to process complex thoughts.

I think we'll leave you as the winner and champion of the Vile Awards.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

74. That one is priceless. I appreciate the support.

[Zix]

97. Hi Dave!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

63. Imagine the joy in pissing both of you off that badly.

[jgraz]

73. I can't imagine your joy at using rape victims for your schoolyard taunts

But then, I'm not a sociopath.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

75. The joy comes from your irrational anger. I do take some joy when women shoot men attempting rape.

Just to be completely honest about it.

[jgraz]

84. I'm sure it's all part of your rich fantasy life.

Fire Marshall Dave and his giant gun ride to the rescue of the damsel in distress. Just how grateful do you imagine her being?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

86. I see your reading still needs work. Try hooked on phonics.

[slackmaster]

20. I think most people would agree that having one person dead would be better than two

:shrug:

[jgraz]

32. And the option of having no people dead didn't occur to you?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

71. The problem is it didn't occur to her husband. Once again the important things escape you.

[slackmaster]

83. Her husband took away that option when he decided to murder her

That would obviously have been the best possible outcome.

[LisaM]

12. Ugh. The scary part of this

is that it proves that these people stalking around in public brandishing these weapons are unstable enough to use them. These are angry people. We should all be afraid.

[Sukie]

14. I am really a very sensitve, caring person.........

but I can't seem to muster up enough compassion for this couple. However, their poor children. I can only hope that they have a family chain that will help to raise them in a less violence oriented environment.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

21. You can't muster up compassion for a woman murdered by an abusive husband?

That doesn't say much about the job your parents did.

[Sukie]

30. Excuse me? Why do people on this board react to another

posters comments with comments such as yours? Was that really necessary? This woman walked around wearing that gun and knew her actions made others feel threatened. I am not saying that I think that she should have been killed, but you don't know that he was abusive towards her either. It may have been a mutual thing. Please don't insult my parents just because I felt it was okay to express my opinion on this issue. geez

[jgraz]

35. Because you're threatening his Second Amendment binky

Don't be offended. Dave does that to all the sane people.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

87. Reading is fundamental. There are reading classes for adult learners, most are free.

She didn't threaten any part of the Constitution that I can think of.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

66. I'm just expressing my opinion about your lack of compassion for an abused, murdered woman.

[lolly]

34. She was proud of bringing a loaded gun to a kids' game

She got off on putting all those kids in danger.

I'm sorry for the kids. But what if she'd actually used that gun at a game? And if you tell me she didn't intend to, then why did she bring it? Who was she hoping to take down? Or did she just want to piss people off?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

67. That's really funny. Thanks for the laugh.

[noiretextatique]

15. too bad she didn't have her gun

:sarcasm:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

23. I obviously worked out far better for her, that she was unarmed.

[noiretextatique]

56. even if she had a gun, her ending might have been the same

since she had her back to him when he started shooting.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

64. So things would be better or no different. Makes sense to me.

[lolly]

59. But she was armed

She just didn't have her gun at the moment--are you seriously suggesting we should all carry guns in the toilet, in the shower, in bed?

That's part of the problem w/ the whole "I'm safe cuz I have a gun" thing. You can still get killed while you sleep, eat, whatever, AND you're more likely to kill someone else.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

65. What are you talking about?

I don't suggest that anyone should carry a gun. That is a personal decision. I don't carry one and haven't since I left the military many, many years ago.

[Zomby Woof]

22. My sympathies are with the children left behind

Much sorrow and pain are with them now.

[JNelson6563]

52. +1

Exactly. Very sad for them.

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

46. Did she carry a gun because she was afraid of her spouse? nt

[Ikonoklast]

53. She filed for divorce, but still lived in the same house.

Article didn't say, but she was on-line with a male when shot, might have been her new SO.


Fucked-up family all around.

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

55. Wanted the house perhaps? Very Sad from all angles RE:

[TorchTheWitch]

57. not when her loaded gun was in her backpack hanging on the front door

that just makes things easier for the abuser and demonstrates she wasn't afraid of him.

Thank GOD the kids never got ahold of these guns so causually left around and loaded.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

69. Your explanation is clearly the only logical one. LOL. You guys are really funny tonight.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JTFrog]

98. She open carried at her kids soccer games. Was she afraid of the kids? n/t

[TexasObserver]

51. He's dead. She's dead. They worshipped guns. Their god took them.

While it is possible for a gun to provide protection, as this sad tale reveals, the presence of guns in the home make the home owner more likely to see the gun used to hurt a family member than any intruder. Whether it is kids shooting each other or themselves, or teens suiciding, or parents shooting each other, guns and death are fellow travelers in the home.

People who hang with people who place guns too high on the chart of important things in life run the risk of getting shot some day. Why? Because the more one embraces the gun as the appropriate response to conflict, the more one is likely to use it at some point. Isn't that what happened to this couple?

[lolly]

61. Yep.

Guns weren't just a tool for her (h/t to "Shane!") They were very, very important to her--enough for her to sue people for the right to carry them around children.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

77. Your title is despicable. The rest of it is quite funny though.

[TexasObserver]

88. Your penchant for insulting hyperbole is despicable.

You're hyperventilating again, Fire Marshall Bill. Put a bag over your head until your breathing returns to normal.

Then, try focusing on the discussion of the topic, not the posters discussing the topic. You seem to go very quickly to "I hate your guts" in these discussions.

[MajorChode]

94. Perhaps it's despicable to someone who worships guns

When the false paradigm that guns makes a person more safe gets busted, I can see how someone who values that false paradigm dearly might get their feelings hurt. Sometimes reality is cold when the truth is inconvenient.

[armyowalgreens]

96. A gun is a tool to be used if it becomes necessary to do so.

They will not magically resolve situations. They will not make one invincible. They will not automatically make you safer.

When used correctly, guns can save lives. When used incorrectly, they can take lives.



With that being said, stop embarrassing yourself. Stop mocking these deaths. No one here had their feelings hurt. Some people simply do not like it when others use a horrific tragedy as an excuse to poke opposing sides with a stick.

I'm sure there are plenty of pro-gun and anti-gun persons that agree with me. So please, stop with the snide, tasteless commentary. It's really disgusting and absolutely uncalled for.

[MajorChode]

101. Exactly when did I mock anyone's death?

It shouldn't be too hard for you to find because I have exactly two posts in this entire discussion and that's counting this one.

You obviously have me cornfused with someone else. An apology is in order unless you want to continue to embarrass yourself.

[armyowalgreens]

103. Maybe a better way of putting it would have been "You are making a mockery of their deaths"...

And you and several other people in here are doing just that.

You're turning this story into an excuse to mock pro-gun Duers.

[MajorChode]

126. Maybe a better way of putting it would have been "You made a mistake and now you won't admit it"

I made no comments about their deaths, good, bad, or indifferent.

Pretending I did only makes you look foolish, but if that's what you insist on doing, be my guest.

Cheers!

[armyowalgreens]

143. I dont need to pretend. The comments you made prove my point.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

118. It's really the callousness about the murder of an abused woman that's despicable.

[smoogatz]

120. Trivializing the suffering of rape victims

in a failed attempt to equate it with the "victimhood" of gun owners, on the other hand--you're apparently fine with that.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

122. As if I did that.

[Name removed]

123. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MajorChode]

134. Time to send up the flag

First of all, I've seen your "callousness" on a number of occasions on a number of issues to include abuse and murder. So you trying to take the high road now is pretty much the epitome of hypocrisy.

Next, he made an observation of this woman which was essentially, live by the sword, die by the sword. Regardless of how you want to spin his statement, it can't be construed by an objective person that she deserved what she got, and as I've already asserted, you are anything but an objective person on this issue. So I'm sure you think it's "despicable", but that's generally what you think of anyone who dares challenge your warped sense of reality.

Cheers!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

135. I care about the women being abused. Feel free to go the other way on it and defend the abusers.

[MajorChode]

137. Right...

:rofl:

[aikoaiko]

110. No, because whether this killing happened with a gun, knife or club, she would be just as dead

and all because some piece of shit thought she should die because of some direspect to him.

[Euromutt]

150. How does a single incident confirm a hypothesis?

This is a single incident. It is an anecdote, one data point among many. It does not, by itself, prove anything.

I'm going to keep posting this excerpt:

<C>ontrary to the understandable imagery of in-home violence as domestic violence, most killings in the home involve killers who do not live in that home and who, if they used a gun, usually would use their own guns, brought in from elsewhere. Based on the relationship of victim and offender, only 7.2% of all US homicides committed between 1976 and 1994 were committed (1) with guns and (2) by a person whose relationship to the victim was as a spouse, lover, sibling, parent, child, or roommate, indicating that there was a significant likelihood that they lived in the same home as the victim. Thus, it is quite uncommon for people to be killed with guns by members of their own household. Likewise, only 18% to 37% of defensive uses of guns occur inside the home of the victim/defender.

(Kleck, G. "What Are the Risks and Benefits of Keeping a Gun in the Home?" JAMA 1998;280:473-475)
Emphasis in bold mine.

By contrast, from a survey conducted in 1994, Ikeda et al. ("Estimating intruder-related firearm retrievals in U.S. households" Violence and victims 1997 Winter;12(4):363-72.) projected that there are some 468,000 incidents a year (or were in the mid-1990s) in which an occupant of a house hears what (s)he believes to be an intruder, retrieves a firearm, sees the intruder, and drives the intruder to flight by displaying/brandishing the firearm. (Specifically excluded from this number are incidents in which the occupant retrieved a firearm but saw no intruder (~1,897,000) and incidents in which the occupant retrieved a firearm, saw an intruder, but the intruder fled because of something other than the gun (~503,000).)

One of the deliberately misleading phrasings of the claim that "a gun kept in the home is more likely to be used to harm a member of the household than an intruder" is that it conveniently excludes these estimated almost half a million incidents in which a firearm was successfully used to prevent the completion of a crime, on the basis that nobody was hurt. Surely that's a good thing?!

Moreover, the claim is based primarily on a couple of studies, all by the same guy, Arthur Kellermann. In his study "Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home" (Journal of Trauma 45:263-267), he concluded that for every intruder injured or killed (note that the study conveniently ignored intruders driven to flight or surrender without being shot), there were 22 instances of a household member being injured or killed with a firearm. What was only made clear by reading the paper--as opposed to the abstract or the press release--was that, of the assaultive shootings (as opposed to unintentional shootings and suicides), only 14.2% were committed with a firearm known to be kept in the household in question, while 67.4% were committed with a firearm known to not have been kept in that household. That means that 5 or 6 of those 22 shootings were not "due to <the> firearms in th<at> home," but Kellermann counted them as such anyway.

Another issue is that 11 of those 22 shootings of household members were suicides. There is a bit of a problem with the notion that access to a firearm will result in a suicide that would otherwise not have happened, which is that the American suicide rate is quite unremarkable compared to other wealthy industrialized nations, and is lower than many countries with much more stringent gun laws (e.g. Germany, France, Sweden, and especially Japan). Somehow, in those countries, not having access to a firearm doesn't prevent people from offing themselves, which means that there's really no reason to assume that restricting access to firearms would prevent Americans from offing themselves, especially in the internet era, when instructions on how to tie a hangman's knot or create lethal gas using household chemicals is readily available to anyone with access to an internet-connected computer. We also have to examine the role of the news media in this context, because research indicates that detailed media reports on a suicide are rapidly followed by an increase in suicides using that method. (Similar considerations apply to the way the news media covers mass shootings.)

But the underlying problem with the epidemiological approach to firearms research is that it treats firearms as if they were a pathogen, with the risks affecting everybody who is exposed more or less equally. Criminological research indicates that this is not the case: irresponsible use of firearms is concentrated in households containing irresponsible people. Domestic killings are almost always the culmination of an escalating pattern of abuse, until either the abuser murders the abusee, or the abusee kills the abuser in what amounts to self-defense. Incidents in which children find a loaded firearm lying around and unintentionally shoot themselves, or even intentionally shoot a fellow student, frequently seem to occur in households in which the owner of the gun is a substance abuser, or even involved in the illegal drugs trade. Something in the order of 90% of homicides are committed by people who have an extensive prior criminal history, consisting of multiple arrests and/or convictions, and that applies to quite large number of homicide victims as well.

The long and short of it is that if you're not the kind of person who engages in high-risk (including criminal) behavior or abuses substances, and you aren't a perpetrator or a victim of domestic violence, possession of a firearm does not constitute a major risk factor for becoming a perpetrator or a victim of "gun violence." And if you're sufficiently suicidal to be serious about offing yourself, not having (or being able to buy) a gun won't stop you.

[Bucky]

62. I can't be smug about this. What a horrible tragedy for them, their kids, their family...

This is beyond politics. The family obviously had other problems that led to them being a bit fetishistic about their guns, but the bottom line is that two people where killed who didn't need to die and their children will carry a horrible burden for life. It's just heartbreaking.

[Shell Beau]

78. Yep. All of that.

People are dead. Children are without parents. That is sad. Very sad.

Some people are so quick to decide what happened, what could've happened, what should've happened.... This is what happened. And there are children left with all of the pieces.

[armyowalgreens]

89. +1 This is a horrible tragedy. These kids lost both parents...

What a miserable situation.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Greyhound]

95. Can't argue with that. n/t

[seabeyond]

99. +1. i kept seeing thread coming up. couldnt understand what there was so much to talk about

with this story.

sad and tragic.

finally read this morning and now i see why thread is staying on front page.

better to have just wondered.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[H2O Man]

112. This lady had been

in the news before, for carrying her hand gun at school sporting events, on her hip. It is a shame when anyone is murdered, by a gun or otherwise. But a person who carries a gun to a school sporting event seems to increase the risk to themselves and others. I am not "anti-gun" in the least, but there are people who I think allow their aggressive nature to blind any potential for insight.

[slackmaster]

116. That's cold

So are a lot of the replies on this thread.

[smoogatz]

121. U of Penn study shows gun owners 4.5 times more likely to be shot

in an assault than those not possessing a gun.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090930121512.htm

"What Penn researchers found was alarming... although successful defensive gun uses are possible and do occur each year, the chances of success are low."

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

131. It actually shows that criminals engaging in criminal activity with guns are more likely to be shot.

As if we needed a study to tell us that.

[X_Digger]

132. Except it doesn't say that..

When you compare apples to oranges, you can come up with all kinds of fascinating (yet invalid) conclusions.

From the study itself:

However, compared with control participants, shooting case participants were significantly more often Hispanic, more frequently working in high-risk occupations, less educated, and had a greater frequency of prior arrest. At the time of shooting, case participants were also significantly more often involved with alcohol and drugs, outdoors, and closer to areas where more Blacks, Hispanics, and unemployed individuals resided. Case participants were also more likely to be located in areas with less income and more illicit drug trafficking (Table 1).

So those already at high risk of being shot (involved in illicit drug trafficking, poorer, in neighborhoods with higher crime rates) also carry arms at a higher rate. How fucking brilliant!

Quoting Slackmaster (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x258435#258461)-

The Astute Reader(TM) will note that the following two statements actually mean very different things:

"Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed"

"People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed"

The first implies causation. The second does not.

[Euromutt]

152. To which I will add the point I've made in the pre-existing two threads about this study

Namely that the shooting case participants in this study fell into a demographic most likely not to have a land line telephone, whereas the "control" participants (by definition) all did have land lines, because federal law prohibits making unsolicited calls to a cell phone.

You can claim "we adjusted for confounding factors" until you're blue in the face, but the fact that you generated your control group by a method that anyone who's watched a single episode of The Wire would tell you would result in a control group that bore little relation to your study group is a very strong indication that you're too fucking clueless to anticipate all the confounding factors.

And at the end of the day, the authors had admit (though they did not include that admission in the abstract or the press release) that they had not controlled for reverse causation, i.e. that people at higher risk of being shot are more likely to carry guns. You'd think that would be an obvious point to consider, wouldn't you? If you were a competent, open-minded and honest researcher, that is, rather than some hack looking to collect data to support a predetermined conclusion.

[TexasObserver]

133. And their kids are about a Brazilian more times at risk than otherwise..

Many gun owners are not very responsible, and their kids are always at risk.

In this particular family, the mother not only walked around strapped at inappropriate locations, she had her 9mm loaded and in her bag nearby at the time she was shot. She was armed. She was trained. She was in her home. But she died of a gunshot.

The correlation between having guns in the home and having injuries from gun shots is compelling.

[Euromutt]

151. One incident is correlation?

I think you need to take a remedial statistics class, if there is such a thing.

See also my response to your post #51 above.

[ajax24550]

142. Another reason to ban guns