litch: (Default)
[personal profile] litch
Whoa

The link above is to an uncut video of a woman who took her kid to a gun range, shot him in the back of the head then killed herself. Audio tapes she left behind make it very clear she was way coocooforcocoapuffs (as if the video could leave you any doubt).

Date: 2009-04-12 01:33 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] contentlove.livejournal.com
Link, no thank you, pass. People who shoot their children and themselves are mentally ill and terribly sad, really, and for some reason, I don't feel the need to gawk it.

Date: 2009-04-12 02:10 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kaffee-spinne.livejournal.com
Sorta wish there was an app. that would serve as a filter so that I don't have to read news re: tragedies involving children. There's nothing that I can do in each case. Already I cannot read SFGate.com b/c they love to report on all spectacular deaths of toddlers. :p

Date: 2009-04-12 05:22 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] scorpionis.livejournal.com
I've been sticking to New York Times and unless it's something truly grisly with global "appeal" (ugh) they tend to keep it off the main news pages. I stay off Google and Yahoo News for the same reason as you.

Date: 2009-04-12 06:12 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] litch.livejournal.com
The kid was not a child, just a young man.

Date: 2009-04-12 07:13 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kaffee-spinne.livejournal.com
A mother intentionally killing their child, regardless of age is always a tragedy.

Date: 2009-04-12 06:12 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] litch.livejournal.com
I don't blame you, it's why I didn't embed it. It is visually arresting to watch. I saw a semi-sanitized snippet on the broadcast news that snagged me enough to make me look for the uncut.

Date: 2009-04-12 09:05 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] luxcanon.livejournal.com
Having cinematographic value is an indescrete basis for consumption.

Date: 2009-04-12 10:53 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] litch.livejournal.com
It's hardly the only reason for mentioning it, were experiencing a wave of familial destruction almost certainly exacerbated by the economy. In this example we see one of the shortcomings of depending on the discretion of gunshops in deciding who should and should not be allowed access to firearms.

Want to go rent a couple handguns & go shooting at Red's sometime?

Date: 2009-04-12 11:44 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] egosumquisum.livejournal.com
Some things simply cannot be prevented, and this is one of them.

I am sick and tired of people always insisting that something be "done about" something or other every time there is some sort of accident or tragedy. Sometimes bad things just happen and there's nothing anyone can do about it. There is nothing to fix, nothing to prevent, nothing to remedy. Nothing is broken in a systematic way. A woman decided she would very much like to murder her son and kill herself. If she was indeed very determined about this, no law, policy, standard or other action by others could have prevented it. Are we going to require a full psychological analysis before each and every time allowing anyone to do anything which has the slightest chance of causing them potential harm?

You cannot punish everyone to prevent bad things from happening to or by a small number of people. Its absolutely not worth it. Its not a society anyone wants to live in if you take it to its logical totalitarian ends. The best you can do is provide the means by which people can provide help for themselves to prevent tragic situations or punishment sufficient to provide a deterrent for the results of their antisocial actions.

We as a society and civilization are not children. We don't need protection from ourselves. If anything, we need MORE freedom, not less.

Date: 2009-04-13 12:08 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] litch.livejournal.com
I don't think nothingcouldabeendoneaboutit is accurate or reasonable in this situation.

In this case it was reported that the woman had previously been banned from the store (though the store denies this) and several witnesses on the scene commented on her acting flakey & and unusual.

The sole purpose of a handgun is to kill other people, providing access to that technology should be held up to a higher level of scrutiny than most other actions our society tolerates.

Date: 2009-04-13 12:19 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] egosumquisum.livejournal.com
The store has a right to do business or not do business with anyone they choose. Whether their policy enforcement or lack of enforcement is negligent or irresponsible is a matter of civil law, not criminal law.

The vast majority of handguns sold in this country never end up killing anyone and damn near any object, even bare human hands, can become a lethal weapon if employed in a concerted intentional way toward that purpose. You simply cannot prevent people from doing harm to others by putting up external barriers. The best you can do is deter them from doing so internally, by convincing them that the punishment for such an action is not tolerable. Once they have an idea in their heads to do harm to others, external legal barriers will not prevent the crime from happening.

Date: 2009-04-13 02:44 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] litch.livejournal.com
The store has a right to do business or not do business with anyone they choose

No, they don't. There is a litany of restriction on whom they can do business with, they are barred from selling guns to people underage, convicted felons, mental patients, aliens, anyone lacking proper ID, etc. As a society we have a right & responsability to control access to dangerous products.

any object can be lethal

Function follows form, few things if any result in a high proportion of deaths/injury per use than handguns. They are the most dangerous object commonly for sale to the public in our society.

Date: 2009-04-13 12:35 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] luxcanon.livejournal.com
No. Televisions are.

Date: 2009-04-13 03:10 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] paddy-garcia.livejournal.com
That would most certainly be the automobile, by logic and sheer numbers.

Date: 2009-04-14 12:50 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] litch.livejournal.com
this says there were 14.24 firearm related deaths per 100k of pop, there were 15.6 vehicle related deaths per 100k of pop.

this says there are 250 million registered vehicles in the US, 192 million firearms, 65 million handguns.

Factor in the relative uses of each and I think it is clear there are more deaths/handgun use than there are deaths/car use.

Date: 2009-04-14 01:53 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] paddy-garcia.livejournal.com
I think it is worthy of note that suicide accounts for nearly half of all firearm deaths in this country. Also: the US doesn't have a significantly higher rate of suicide than other countries with markedly different gun situaations.

Date: 2009-04-13 03:33 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] egosumquisum.livejournal.com
No, they don't. There is a litany of restriction on whom they can do business with, they are barred from selling guns

While there are classes of people federal law dictates that gun dealers cannot sell to (felons, aliens, etc), there are no such federal-level restrictions on RENTING firearms at a range, or simply allowing someone with their own weapon they've brought in use the range. No NICS background check is done as no ownership transfer is performed. Their decision to do business with them would be based solely on their own policy, not on any federal law (state/local laws might apply, especially in particularly states such as California, Hawaii or Massachusetts).

Function follows form, few things if any result in a high proportion of deaths/injury per use than handguns. They are the most dangerous object commonly for sale to the public in our society.

As Paddy says, the automobile (and all vehicles in general) trumps the handgun by quite a lot in terms of proportion of injuries per use. The vast majority of firearms in this country are never used in anger and spend most of their time punching holes in paper. In fact this is more often than not the intended use for a firearm. A handgun is merely a tool, just like any other.. it has no inherent intentionality. That intentionality exists solely between the ears of the user of the tool, and the only thing we may effectively regulate are actions based on that intentionality, not the tools by which they are performed.

In 2003, a CDC study concluded that there was "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes":

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

Its clear that gun control laws and gun registration have nothing whatsoever to do with curbing crime and preventing violence and in the absence of any other rational explanation I can only conclude that those proposing them are either profoundly deluded by ignorance and kneejerk emotion, or they are a part of concerted yet clandestine effort to undermine the Constitution and disarm the American public for some sinister purpose.

Date: 2009-04-14 01:15 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] litch.livejournal.com
here was "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes"

To qoute the next line from that study:
(Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.)

its clear that gun control laws and gun registration have nothing whatsoever to do with curbing crime and preventing violence

The very study you cited rejects that claim. The idea of a concerted clandestine attempt to undermine the constitution on behalf of gun control advocates is delusional paranoia.

What the incident in the original post immediately suggests to me is that NCIS background checks should be broadened to include rental or firearms and use of public ranges.

In larger reform I think banning the possession & sale of handguns and handgun ammunition would cause a significant decrease in firearm violence in our society. Without impinging on the second amendment more than we already do through the ban on individual possession of artillery or nuclear weapons.

Date: 2009-04-13 03:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] trav23.livejournal.com
The vast majority of handguns sold in this country never end up killing anyone

people buying something and never using it does not change the item's purpose.

and damn near any object, even bare human hands, can become a lethal weapon if employed in a concerted intentional way toward that purpose.

what other productive, non-lethal use can a handgun be put to? any tool can be a weapon if you hold it right, but weapons cannot generally be made to be tools, no matter how you hold them.

Date: 2009-04-13 03:22 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sphinxie.livejournal.com
any tool can be a weapon if you hold it right, but weapons cannot generally be made to be tools, no matter how you hold them.

Very well said.

Date: 2009-04-13 07:10 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] luxcanon.livejournal.com
For millions of decent, law abiding citizens, a handgun's primary purpose is to secure their liberty, and help them feel safe and capable of defending their lives, and their families. An object's purpose is not only what its form dictates-- it is the use found in it by a human being. Or a chimpanzee I guess.

Date: 2009-04-13 08:44 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] trav23.livejournal.com
a gun doesn't secure your liberty. it's not a magic wand that you wave around and then you get a big poof of fairy dust and a scrolly sign that says "liberty secured!" i kills the people you feel are taking your liberty away.. or threatens to kill them, in which case i guess you would be just waving it around, but you only get the big cloud of fairy dust if you actually fire it..

and as to helping people feel things, there's cheaper and safer ways to help people feel things.

a knife's purpose is to cut things. the knife does not in and of itself feed my family. the knife cuts food, which can then be cooked and then be eaten. the fact that i eat the food that the knife cut doesn't mean the knife fed me. the fact that i feeeel safe from the person i kill with a gun doesn't change the fact that they are killed. the purpose of the gun is to kill them. my feeling about them being killed, or my reason for killing them, does not change the fact that that is what the gun does.

Date: 2009-04-14 01:01 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] luxcanon.livejournal.com
Except the gun can serve the purposes I posit without being fired. So, it "does" what I say it does even when it is not killing people. I don't know where to find the statistic, but, I'm curious, out of the total number of handguns, how many of them have been used to kill someone. Not that I am comfortable with any sort of statistical rationalization.

Date: 2009-04-14 01:24 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] trav23.livejournal.com
if all you are concerned with is feeling like you are now magically safe because you could kill someone, then yes.

Date: 2009-04-14 03:09 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] paddy-garcia.livejournal.com
Exactly. Just like seat belts.

Date: 2009-04-14 03:30 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] trav23.livejournal.com
i'm inclined to believe seat belts do reduce traffic fatalities/injuries, depending on the nature of the accident.

i'm disinclined to believe that 30 cents worth of styrofoam helmet is gonna save your kid from anything other than scraping their head in a simple 0 mph topple over type fall. if they are moving at anything other than a crawl, or hit something, or get hit by something, the crappy little helmets that some kneejerk petitioned and got made legally required ("don't you CARE about the CHILDREN???")aren't gonna do squat.

Profile

litch: (Default)
litch

May 2009

S M T W T F S
      1 2
3 45 6789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 21st, 2017 10:48 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios