Mom Kills Son, Self At Gun Range

[Faris]

#1 South Africa: 0.719782 per 1,000 people
#2 Colombia: 0.509801 per 1,000 people
#3 Thailand: 0.312093 per 1,000 people
#4 Zimbabwe: 0.0491736 per 1,000 people
#5 Mexico: 0.0337938 per 1,000 people
#6 Belarus: 0.0321359 per 1,000 people
#7 Costa Rica: 0.0313745 per 1,000 people
#8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
#9 Uruguay: 0.0245902 per 1,000 people
#10 Lithuania: 0.0230748 per 1,000 people
#11 Slovakia: 0.021543 per 1,000 people
#12 Czech Republic: 0.0207988 per 1,000 people
#13 Estonia: 0.0157539 per 1,000 people
#14 Latvia: 0.0131004 per 1,000 people
#15 Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of: 0.0127139 per 1,000 people
#16 Bulgaria: 0.00845638 per 1,000 people
#17 Portugal: 0.00795003 per 1,000 people
#18 Slovenia: 0.00596718 per 1,000 people
#19 Switzerland: 0.00534117 per 1,000 people
#20 Canada: 0.00502972 per 1,000 people
#21 Germany: 0.00465844 per 1,000 people
#22 Moldova: 0.00448934 per 1,000 people
#23 Hungary: 0.00439692 per 1,000 people
#24 Poland: 0.0043052 per 1,000 people
#25 Ukraine: 0.00368109 per 1,000 people
#26 Ireland: 0.00298805 per 1,000 people
#27 Australia: 0.00293678 per 1,000 people
#28 Denmark: 0.00257732 per 1,000 people
#29 Spain: 0.0024045 per 1,000 people
#30 Azerbaijan: 0.00227503 per 1,000 people
#31 New Zealand: 0.00173482 per 1,000 people
#32 United Kingdom: 0.00102579 per 1,000 people

funny, none of the those countries are in the middle east.

To me the obvious is that guns are what protect us from criminals.

aaand lol...lots of really dumb statements in this thread.

[Kuya]

Nothing to argue here. You apparently need proof that guns make it easier to kill more people than a knife, much less a single person. I on the other hand, wouldn't ask for proof that the ground i'm standing on is not pudding.

[Devek]

It is easier to kill someone with a knife when you know for a fact they are not carrying a gun.

I love how people dodge the demographics issue. In my demographic, I am more likely to be poisoned than killed with a gun.

[Kuya]

This reminds me of that time in Japan a man went on a "killing spree". Of course he took car, rammed it into a market, got out of the car, and started randomly stabbing market goers. If my memory serves right, he didn't kill anyone, but he certainly had the intent!

As for the argument as a whole, i think wanting to ban guns is sort of a red herring in on itself, seeing as how the US has a serious problem with segregation and economic disparity, which are heavily related to crime, however, i'm not absurd enough to deny that banning guns would at least lower the total murder rate, i just think something like banning guns would be sort of an "incomplete" solution.

[Kuya]

It is easier to kill someone with a knife when you know for a fact they are not carrying a gun.

I love how people dodge the demographics issue. In my demographic, I am more likely to be poisoned than killed with a gun.

If you haven't noticed it by now, the "demographics issue" is related to what i've been talking about.

[Devek]

And you know why certain demographics stay away from my demographics?

Cause they don't want to die.

Where I live, there is no crime. No one gets hurt and no one gets robbed. The bad people, they know there are places to stay away from because they don't want to die.

Now, solve the social issues in this country and we might not need as many guns. We will always need our rifles because we go outdoors and have to deal with nature.. but get rid of the poor and drug addicted and we might not need handguns.

[Kuya]

People with more income to spend also have the luxury to spend more on weaponry for self defense, which not so ironically, increases social segregation and difference amongst social classes which, not so surprisingly, raises violence.

You don't need to get rid of the poor, the higher classes are doing a smashing job sealing themselves off in ivory towers already, which interestingly enough, doesn't fix the problem, but it sure makes it easier to ignore.

So incidentally, pro gun or anti gun, you're rather lavishly ignoring the causes again.

[Araelus]

FBI.gov - Table 08, Data Declaration - Crime in the United States 2007
cases per 100,000 people:

Oklahoma City, OK
population: 542,199
Violent crime: 851
Murder and non-negligent manslaughter: 11
Forcible rape: 60
Robbery: 258
Aggravated assault: 522
Property crime: 5,892
Burglary: 1,496
Larceny-theft: 3,546
Motor vehicle theft: 850
Arson: 32

There is never "no crime", Devek.

People with more income to spend also have the luxury to spend more on weaponry for self defense, which not so ironically, increases social segregation and difference amongst social classes which, not so surprisingly, raises violence.

You don't need to get rid of the poor, the higher classes are doing a smashing job sealing themselves off in ivory towers already, which interestingly enough, doesn't fix the problem, but it sure makes it easier to ignore.

So incidentally, pro gun or anti gun, you're rather lavishly ignoring the causes again.

I'm really glad Kuya is around to make intelligent remarks that strike at the heart of the problem: human nature, culture, and the social pressures which drive some people to criminal behavior. People on both sides of the debate can learn from this.

EDIT: You folks already know I'm angry that lives are wasted in senseless violence, and I'm also sympathetic to self-defense being a human right. There has to be some balance between preventing violence and allowing people to choose how they want to live - but the salient term there is live. Cases like this where one human being (in the process of killing herself) kills another (her son, no less, who she should be protecting, not destroying) is just horrific.

Do I think that a total gun ban would have prevented this murder in question? No, I think this lady was going to kill her kid no matter what. Did the presence of a firearm make it easier? Yep.

The reason we hear metaphorical arguments from the people who don't want more restrictions on gun ownership, so far as I can understand, is because these people think of guns as just another object in their daily business. So they make a comparison to kitchen tables, cars, fire extinguishers, blah, etc. because all of those objects can be used in a proper manner (that is, responsibly) or in a manner that is detrimental (improperly, etc.)

If this argument is made from an Aristotelian basis (the objects have some telos) then the proper counter-argument is to claim firearms have the purpose of killing, not self-defense.

If this argument is made from an economic basis, then one side says guns cause more crime than they prevent (the whole cost/benefit analysis).

A notion of how to deal with guns can come from a person's view on the trustworthiness of the average person with lethal force.
It can be based on their notions of the efficacy of police.
It can be based on their personal convictions, rational or existential.

But it's not so easy as "ban guns!" v. "don't ban guns!"

If we're slinging notions back and forth about the apparent issue (guns) we're not going to make any leeway. Anything other than addressing the underlying issues is just bickering because the two (?) sides don't agree on how the world is. Global data indicates to me that people everywhere are... people.

They have their moments of grace and fury. They make good and bad decisions. They have biases and surprising moments of clarity.

Everywhere I have traveled, there have been individuals who choose to harm other people. They will find the means so long as they have motive.

As for myself, I would prefer to be able to defend against predation whenever possible, but I would rather that no-one decide their situation is so hopeless, or troubled, or such, that they turn to violence and theft, whether of property or of life.

While I will not make myself a victim, I also go out of my way to act in a manner that prevents harm by my hand towards any other. Of course, this doesn't always keep me from being snarky. Such is the way of the world.

So all of that is why I was glad to hear useful social commentary from Kuya.

TL;DR: gotta convince people murder is bad, but you know some folk don't want to be friendly

[Faris]

yeah kuya is smart..he's not american bro.

[Kaylia]

It is easier to kill someone with a knife when you know for a fact they are not carrying a gun.

Easier than what?

Are you saying that if no one had a gun, someone with a knife would be an unstoppable killing machine? And if we all had gun, no one would die because it become harder to shoot someone? Obviously, it's less risky to kill an unarmed person, but the whole point is to reduce the amount of armed people.


[edit]
Ironically, the mother in the OP didn't hold back because her son had a gun. And apparently, carrying a gun doesn't protect you from gun that well.

[Araelus]

Did he mean to say "if someone has a gun, the assailant who only has a knife will be discouraged from attacking"?

Seems the Tueller Drill shows that would be wrong, too, Devek.

Preventing crime is not necessarily about armament, despite what gun supporters say. It is about mindset and situational factors that are sometimes beyond any one person's control - but never beyond a person's reach as they are a member of society.

A firearm is not a magic talisman, for protection or harm.

[Rammses]

There is no country in the world like America, so your point is null.

If you're going to play with stats, I implore you to look at the demographics behind them.

A look at the nordic countries:

Denmark
Current Status: Strictly banned (restricted hunting and restricted competitive target shooting)
Homicide rate: 0.79
Firearm homicide rate: 0.23

Finland
Current Status: Legal if valid reason is provided; this does not include self-defense. "In Finland there are over two million licensed firearms (which is more per capita than in the US)"-wikipedia
Homicide rate: 2.75
Firearm homicide rate: 0.86

Norway
Current Status: Banned for self-defense purposes. Legal for collection. Loose restriction on weapon type for target shooting and hunting.
Homicide rate: 0.78
Firearm homicide rate: 0.30

Sweden
Current Status: Strictly banned
Homicide rate: 2.39
Firearm homicide rate: 0.18

...

Finland ranked #1 in the world, in the most recent Program for International Student Assessment. It also has significantly lower immigration than the rest of the nordic countries.

Firearm homicide rate is strongly related to gun access. It follows logic (a large group of homicides being opportunistic/in rage/despair) and it's backed up by statistics.

[Araelus]

Question, if it is phrased inappropriately, please correct me:

"What is going on in Sweden compared to Denmark?"

[Devek]

There is never "no crime", Devek.

OKC is one of the largest cities in America as far as square miles go. Believe me, there are some bad parts where people are hurting each other every day(the "adventurer district") but they are not close to me at all.

14 years ago or so some drunk kids pulled a street sign out on the corner here and threw it through the back of someone's van.. one of the kid's dad paid for the damage.

Did he mean to say "if someone has a gun, the assailant who only has a knife will be discouraged from attacking"?

I'm saying that criminals worry about getting shot, they really do. Take away their fear of getting shot while living the thug life, and what do they have to worry about? Going to prison means nothing to these people besides more stature and respect in their social circles.

I'm saying the person with the knife will be less likely to go after people they think might have a gun. Because remember, if something is more difficult for criminals they won't do it. (If you pay attention, that is the main argument of anti-gun people. They won't kill people if they have to use poisons, bombs, and other weapons because it is too hard.)

Seems the Tueller Drill shows that would be wrong, too, Devek

That whole article is based on circumstances that do not exist everywhere. You don't have to wait until someone is within striking distance of you to kill them in Oklahoma.

If a reasonable person in your situation feels like their life is in danger, you are free to take their life in defense. It doesn't matter how far away they are. There isn't any loopholes here because it is up to a jury to decide... which leads to a popular saying around here about how people would rather be hung by 12 than carried by 6.

Which points out what is really wrong with that article. If you really feel like you might die, you should do what you need to do to prevent it even if you get in trouble for it. You can still see your kids and stuff in prison.

[Beckwin]

it's great how devek is giving guns credit for what white flight accomplished.

[miokomioko]

Question, if it is phrased inappropriately, please correct me:

"What is going on in Sweden compared to Denmark?"

If that's a poke at the theory that a lower "firearm homicide rate" doesn't affect the overall homicide rate because they resort to other weapons then... you're missing a huge massive piece of data to back that up. You know... the "before" the gun bans data.

[Araelus]

If that's a poke at the theory that a lower "firearm homicide rate" doesn't affect the overall homicide rate because they resort to other weapons then... you're missing a huge massive piece of data to back that up. You know... the "before" the gun bans data.

No, it's not a "poke", I am legitimately interested in and asking about:

• Sweden v. Finland
  • lower gun ownership means a lower firearm homicide rate
  • homicide rate similar in both countries, what is causing homicides?
• Sweden v. Denmark
  • firearms banned in both countries, firearm homicide rates comparable
  • thus the higher homicide rate in Sweden must be from a cause other than guns, what is causing it?

I expect that Rammses brought up Nordic countries because they might have comparable demographics, thus allowing us to judge cause+effect based on fewer variables? So my question should be a very useful one, Mioko. I am trying to control for comparisons, and here we have, between three countries, one situation where the firearm situation is different w/similar overall homicide rates, and another situation where the firearm situation is the same, but overall homicide rate is different.

In regards to the second point you make, data from one country before and after a number of important legal changes indicates either no change in ongoing trends but they leave out the gun data, or a decrease in gun violence specifically but dunno about overall trends depending on which side is presenting data, so we have an epistemic fault. (whoops, that country is the United States)

/one sec, still writing my reply to Devek

[Araelus]

OKC is one of the largest cities in America as far as square miles go. Believe me, there are some bad parts where people are hurting each other every day(the "adventurer district") but they are not close to me at all.

It is nice to know there are safe places out there - just please keep in mind that firearms are not a panacea against crime.

I'm saying that criminals worry about getting shot, they really do. Take away their fear of getting shot while living the thug life, and what do they have to worry about? Going to prison means nothing to these people besides more stature and respect in their social circles.

I happen to have a lot of books in my office; I imagine a lot of people do... found it! Here we go:

U.S. Department of Justice: FBI, Criminal Justice Information Services Division - Violent Encounters, a Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation's Law Enforcement Officers

Chapter Three details that felons do not want to go back to jail. Page 25: "One offender said, 'I told him [the officer] he'd have to kill me before he catches me. You know, before he locks me up, takes me off the streets."

Page 26 mentions, based on Table 3.1 and 3.2: "on average, the offenders in all of the studies were predominantly male, young (average age 26), white, single..."

Page 28 mentions all forty-three of the offenders in the study had committed crimes prior to their felonious assault(s) of a police officer. Page 29 says: "When questioned about the possibility that they might be killed or injured while committing a crime, 19 offenders stated that they never gave it a thought, 19 considered it somewhat, and 6 believed that they always would come out on top."

I'm saying the person with the knife will be less likely to go after people they think might have a gun. Because remember, if something is more difficult for criminals they won't do it. (If you pay attention, that is the main argument of anti-gun people. They won't kill people if they have to use poisons, bombs, and other weapons because it is too hard.)

My first reaction:

I am confused by your phrasing. You say an armed criminal is less likely to go after an armed law-abiding person, but then "if something is more difficult for criminals they won't do it. (If you pay attention, that is the main argument of anti-gun people)"?

Maybe you meant to say: "if guns go away, there will be no crime is the anti-gun argument". And what I hear being said is "less guns, less gun-related crime". This is substantiated in cases where there are no guns in the system at all - re: some Nordic countries, and Japan. It is not the case where "no guns" simply means "no law-abiding citizens have guns".

In any case, taking your "I'm saying the person with the knife will be less likely to go after people they think might have a gun. Because remember, if something is more difficult for criminals they won't do it" at face value, then both you and your opponents are saying that crime is a prudential judgment, so if we make it more difficult, there will be less crime. You want to make crime more difficult by having an armed citizenry. Your opponents want to make crime difficult by outlawing firearms.

If that is so, you could have a reasoned debate about which method is more effective, while agreeing on how crime is prevented.

I'm saying the person with the knife will be less likely to go after people they think might have a gun. Because remember, if something is more difficult for criminals they won't do it. (If you pay attention, that is the main argument of anti-gun people. They won't kill people if they have to use poisons, bombs, and other weapons because it is too hard.)

My second reaction:

A gun doesn't prevent you from being attacked. Not being prey prevents you from being attacked. Causation doesn't go the other way around. Those who are not attacked are not necessarily "not prey".

Criminals certainly take opportunities where they can find them. You are correct when you say if crime is difficult then less crimes will occur. But you are not correct if you think the mere presence of firearms (or even the perception of their presence in case of "shall issue" CHL states) automatically deters violent offenders.

What others are trying to tell you is that just as you see guns preventing crime, and there is evidence to support that, they see them causing crime, and there is also evidence to support this. It's the old cost/benefit debate.

If we want to talk about guns as preventing crime, almost anything can do that. For that matter, anything that can harm can cause crime.

This raises the question: Do you think the only way to resist predators is a firearm? Your statements appear to be coming from that opinion.

Perhaps the most salient point you can make (and perhaps it will shore up your argument while making you less biased) is to find evidence that the most efficient way to resist violent crime is a firearm.

If a reasonable person in your situation feels like their life is in danger, you are free to take their life in defense. It doesn't matter how far away they are. There isn't any loopholes here because it is up to a jury to decide... which leads to a popular saying around here about how people would rather be hung by 12 than carried by 6.

Which points out what is really wrong with that article. If you really feel like you might die, you should do what you need to do to prevent it even if you get in trouble for it. You can still see your kids and stuff in prison.

The reason I linked to the Tueller Drill is because you seem to think it is OK to defend yourself so long as you perceive deadly force. But that is not the case legally in all jurisdictions. So no, you are not "free" to take their life if you alone deem it fit.

Since you are armed with a firearm for self-defense, I do hope you have considered whether or not to use that firearm before you are in any kind of dangerous situation. Your comment of "hung by 12, carried by 6", does that mean you are willing to go through a jury trial and possibly the death sentence for making a judgment that is deemed "faulty" by law?

Being open to the possibility that you will choose wrongly, legally speaking, although you remain convinced of your own discernment, indicates to me that you will make a decision in the heat of the moment about what a possible attacker is going to do. Or is your argument obscuring your actual notions about such a decision to defend yourself or others?

And if we move from the law of the land to the natural/moral law, it's even less likely that a spur-of-the-moment impression about what someone else intends towards you is sufficient justification, although I do not need to discuss that here.

My outward opposition to your posts may or may not be an opposition to your end goal, because I am not sure what your goal is. The way in which you present your arguments, and for that matter your thoughts, is very dogmatic.

What you are consistently arguing is "more guns, less crime" in the words of John Lott. Certainly you can go about it in a more rigorous way. Unless we are not even talking about the same questions. I can't tell, from what you are saying.

--
Those of you who care about the same questions as I do, even if we do not agree on the answers, you are my friends:

Correct me, where I am wrong.
Instruct me, when I do not know.
I am a fallible human. So are we all.

[Rammses]

Question, if it is phrased inappropriately, please correct me:

"What is going on in Sweden compared to Denmark?"

The firearm homicide rates are from the mid 90s, while the homicide rates are from 2000+, so it's difficult to compare them directly. The firearm homicide rates are all from the same paper however (Krug 1998 EG Krug, KE Powell and LL Dahlberg. "Firearm-related deaths in the United States and 35 other high- and upper-middle-income countries.", International Journal of Epidemiology 1998. Statistics among 36 countries between 1990 and 1995.)

Sweden's migration stock per capita is twice as big as Denmark's; (many of them refugees: NationMaster - Asylum Seekers > 1990-99 (per capita) (most recent) by country) integration is an issue. But the main reason is probably:

In 2003, there were 189 homicides reported in Sweden.[3] In 2001, there were 169 reported, which gives a rate of approximately 2 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants. This, however, is due to serious shortcomings in the way that the Swedish police report crimes. For example, in the year 2002, 223 homicides were reported, but the actual number of homicides was only between 91-99. This was due to murders being committed abroad but filed in Sweden, double reports, people being reported as murdered if the police had but a suspicion of foul play (their deaths remaining filed as homicides, even if the person later turned out to have died of natural causes).[4] Taking this into consideration, this gives Sweden little more than 1 homicide per 100,000 inhabitants. This figure is in line with most European countries, which also have a level of between 1-2.[5]

Don't know how this is done in Finland. It's impossible to consider every factor when comparing different countries using non-standardized statistics in a forum post. But I think you can see a clear tendency that gun access is a big factor in gun violence, even when comparing countries with well functioning welfare and high education - something that some pro people here have kept denying. You can see the same tendency in Switzerland, a country with liberal gun policies and, at least by reputation and my own personal experiences, one of the richest countries with the least social issues (0.58 in Krug 1998 ).

Gun access in relation to overall homicide rate is a more complex issue. But really... the more accessible you make a route, the more people will take it. Pulling a trigger is easier than stabbing - especially for people who normally wouldn't have the guts to kill. But I agree that this issue is at least debatable; unlike gun access increasing gun violence.

Also worth noting here is that Finland had two school shootings in the past 1.5 years, resulting in 20 deaths, which is hardly negligible in a country with a population of 5-6 million. The other nordic countries have had no major school shootings ever as far as I know. Germany, the other european country with recent noteworthy school shootings, is another country with relatively high gun access - the father of the perpetrator in the March 2009 shooting owned 15 guns, of which one was used to kill the 16 victims.

[Araelus]

Whew, Firefox crashed but saved my post.

useful, interesting info

Thank you for the additional data. That is very significant, especially the point about errors in crime reporting.

The school shootings are particularly troubling to me, especially because it means these societies' children are at risk. What can be done to stop them from coming to harm?

--
Regarding Switzerland, they have a large reserve military, don't they? With most of the adult population being equipped with fully automatic weapons and training? I hear different versions of this from different sources, so I am guessing the word "liberal" in "a country with liberal gun policies" does not mean "American left-wing policies"?

Anywhere there is easy availability of firearms, there are proportionately more gun-related suicides, murders, crimes of opportunity. If it is difficult to accurately record the number of crimes committed, there's no way to determine the crimes that aren't.

Not everyone agrees that self-defense is a right. For those that do, unless we can get rid of violent criminals altogether .... what I would like to see is something more effective than firearms for self-defense, for those people who believe in self-defense as a basic human right.

I just can't figure out what would be useful to defend against harm without that same item being able to cause harm in the wrong hands.

Firearms can prevent violence, but only through the threat of violence.

I said a long while ago:

Most people tell me, if pressed, that freedom is "doing whatever I want". But that's not true. (That's impossible!) No-one, even the obscenely powerful, can do just anything they want to. Kuya is pointing that out, I think, when he says "you are never free..."

Yet human beings yearn for freedom. We don't want to be told that something which is considered a good in and of itself can never be had. To avoid cognitive dissonance, let's consider that maybe "do whatever" is the wrong definition of freedom.

In my experience, it turns out that freedom is not "being able to do whatever you want." Freedom is having the right kind of options open to you. What are the consequences of this definition?

The negative part about this is that where you live, when you live, and what kind of choices you made in the past all directly affect your current options.

The positive part about this is that such a freedom is achievable, and progress towards it is measurable.

Those poor peasant saps in Medieval Europe basically had no options at all besides the raw deal they got dealt. They didn't know enough to do the whole "help, help, I'm being repressed!" shtick if they had a bad ruler, and human nature means if you give someone power they tend to twist up fast.

Nowadays we have all kinds of luxury even the kings back then couldn't dream of, and if they could, they still didn't have refrigeration and antibiotics. No amount of power was going to allow Oliver Cromwell to kick back and fly from London to Brobdingnag in an hour. They didn't have access to a global (albeit blocked regionally) network of information (90% of which is drek) nor an ease of powering the machines to access it.

Yet everyone still has less than absolute power or control over their own lives. Part of the social problems and the reason depression continues to spread is that people want to be "free to do whatever" while at the same time they're human beings. It's endemic to the human condition to be limited. We're not going to acquire total control. We're going to be dissatisfied if that's the goal.

We can, however, work towards having the right kind of options. What do I mean by this?

Different cultures have different value systems, but outside of the anthropology classroom I can't espouse relativistic thinking. In my view, people need to be able to consider how they want to live, express their actual views, engage in meaningful discourse with others who, thankfully, disagree with them, and otherwise go about their lives in a considered way.

TL;DR: In the gravest extreme, do humans have the right to defend themselves? If we do, that right entails certain duties. Part of that duty is to never use the power of preventing violence in a malicious or harmful way. Every gun crime betrays that duty.

As I said before, "There's other stuff here to talk about ... but my posts are too long so I'll wait for someone else to say something. Cheers."