jump to last post 1-36 of 36 discussions (386 posts)

Gunman Takes the Life of a 1-year-old Child

  1. SpanStar profile image60
    SpanStarposted 3 years ago

    A 1-year-old baby girl shot to death by a Gunman who was shooting at a babysitter carrying the child running away.

    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08 … lence?lite

    I wonder what other countries think of a country who continuously incur innocent men, women and children murdered needlessly by Gunmen?

    I wonder what the statistics are on using the gun to defend ourselves versus using it to murder-could it be 2 times to defend and 98 times to murder?

    This reckless taking of human life and we good gun owners simply fold our hands and do nothing.

    1. Disappearinghead profile image90
      Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Guns are so far integrated into your culture that it's too far gone to do anything about. Compare your TV and film industries with those of Europe and we see far more inclusion of the glorification of guns, violence, the 'good guys against the bad guys' than you would ever see in Europe. From the ages of two your children are exposed to cartoons which include gun violence.

      The cry from your pro-gun lobbies are that to take the guns away from the good guys means that they will not be able to defend themselves against the bad guys. They also cling to an outmoded thinking about the right to bear arms as if they were still living in the Wild West or they hold on to crazy ideas of a New World Order, etc. The result is that your successive governments haven't the courage to do anything to stem the tide of gun usage.

      Perhaps something is missing in your education system. Do your schools teach children about the evils of gun use or social responsibility? Is there something that can be done about the ammunition manufacturers such as incrementally reducing the power of the ammunition or restricting the amount that can be manufactured? What's wrong with outlawing certain types of guns?

      What is needed is a long term phased plan of gun removal from your society perhaps over 50 years, and a reducation of your population. But alas this will never happen as you have far too many vested interests in gun culture.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
        Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        ++++

        1. 84
          Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Ralph,

          We are forced to teach:

          aids education
          sex education
          nutritional education
          bullying education
          skin cancer education
          peer pressure education
          character education

          Even if I were to agree with you about the need to teach about guns in schools, and I don't, when would we have time to teach math?

          1. LauraGT profile image88
            LauraGTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Kids can't learn math (or anything else) if that are malnourished, victims of violence or bullying, or suffering from undiagnosed mental health problems.  Ensuring health and safety in school is a precursor to learning, not an impediment.

            1. 84
              Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, it is a precursor, but when we spend too much time on the precursor, we get nothing accomplished.  It's like watching the pregame show but never watching the game.  Bureaucrats who live hundreds or even thousands of miles away know what I should teach?  That's part of the problem in education.  Somebody who has never even met my class thinks they know what my class needs more than I do.  Just let me do my job; I'll teach any one of the "precursors" if it's needed.

    2. Silverspeeder profile image59
      Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

      I suppose you have to look at the people to find the answer.

      What sort of gun control would the US have to bring in to stop people killing people with guns. Here in the UK we have some of the strictest gun controls in the world but we still have numerous shooting every year.
      The bad guys and the nutters couldn't give a toss about gun control.

      1. SpanStar profile image60
        SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        As one person said a while back "A gun can make the biggest coward feel brave!"

        The problem is depending upon others to get the job done. If we as citizens sit back and simply do nothing what makes us think things are going to get better?

      2. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        We still have far fewer shootings per 100,000 people than the US

        1. Silverspeeder profile image59
          Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Absolutely John, but the USA was born of the gun and there are said to be 300 million guns in circulation in the US, taking away the rights of the lawful citizen to own one will not stop the criminals and nutters from using them.
          Its a very difficult situation but I doubt taking the right to own a gun will stop the killing it will just make it a little harder.

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            You are aware that it was perfectly legal to own a gun and carry it in public well into the 20th century in the UK?

            1. Silverspeeder profile image59
              Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              What percentage of the population did John? And what percentage of the population owned a fire arm in the US at the same time period?
              My grandfather owned a gun and had the relevant licences up to his death in 1984, as it happens he never went out and killed anyone.
              As I said its the people not the guns.

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                How many people not in possession of a gun have shot and killed anybody?

                1. Silverspeeder profile image59
                  Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Good point.
                  Now how would you collect 300 million guns from those who legally owned them and see it as their right to own them and how do you collect them from the criminals and nutters who take no notice of the law anyway?

      3. Mark Lees profile image86
        Mark Leesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Our gun laws are effective. In 2010 we had 39 gun related deaths. The US, with a population only 5 times larger, had over 30,000 gun related deaths. If our laws were only equally effective that would be 195 gun related deaths, so it is clear that gun controls are the way to reduce gun related deaths.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          What country are you in?

          1. Mark Lees profile image86
            Mark Leesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The Uk.

            1. 84
              Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Both countries have similarities and differences.  You've been able to exclude every factor and verify that gun control is the only reason there are fewer homicides in Britain? 

              You believe that you can totally eliminate these factors which seem to be more prevalent in America?

              drugs
              illegal aliens
              gangs
              a culture of violence

              1. Mark Lees profile image86
                Mark Leesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Did I say the only reason? It is a major reason though- There are other countries with a culture of violence, drugs and gangs with lower fun crime rates than the US.

                1. 84
                  Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You omitted any other reason, so it was and still is clearly implied.

                  1. Mark Lees profile image86
                    Mark Leesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Not at all, but I would counter that gang culture and the culture of violence are intrinsically connected to gun culture. Illegal drug use is connected to gang culture and illegal aliens are trying to protect themselves using the internal cultures- so it still comes down to gun culture.

                    Sustained education and gradual restrictions will lead to a long term solution- immediate prohibition will likely make things worse , at least in the short term.

                    But if guns, illegal or legal, we're harder to get hold of there would be a lot less gun related deaths.

            2. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Of all developed countries, the UK is about middle for homicide rates.  Not, mind you, gun homicide rates, but homicide rates in general.  After all, how many murdered people have complained about the tool used to murder them?

              http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/116046#post2464923

              In addition, the UK has a horrible record of homicide rates compared to gun ownership.  Facts and figures prove beyond a doubt that the UK needs far more guns in the hands of it's citizens and, given those guns, that the homicide rate will go down.

              http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/116046#post2465535

              1. Mark Lees profile image86
                Mark Leesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Facts and figures prove beyond a doubt that give people guns and people get shot. Opinion pieces with selected statistics certainly don't show that more guns  lead to less homicides.

                http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/09/17/b … ed-deaths/

                http://screen.yahoo.com/study-shows-bet … 00468.html

                The US homocide rate is also 4.8 per 100,000 people compared to UK 1.2. Remember that accidental gun death, state gun death and gun death ruled as self defence won't appear on this statistic.

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  No argument - the correlation is a little weak but it is there.  Give people guns and people die by guns.  Unspoken by the anti gun crowd is that take the guns away and people still die, just not by guns.  Which is why I insist on homicide rates, not the gun homicide rates your links talk about. If removal of guns merely means a different tool will be used (homicide rate does not drop) there is no reason to even discuss gun controls, let away take away a freedom guaranteed by our constitution.

                  Yes.  US homicide rate is about 3 times that of the UK, with a gun ownership rate of nearly 15 times that of the UK (interesting difference, isn't it?).  Is it your contention then that the guns are the cause of the higher homicide rate?  Remember that 1) facts say otherwise and 2) equating correlation to a causal effect is one of the biggest fallacies around.  Even if more guns equaled more homicides (it doesn't) that does NOT mean that guns cause the homicide rate to be high.

                  1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
                    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    How do the figures compare if suicides and accidental shootings were included? There are a lot of gun suicides in this country, and quite a few accidental shootings.

                  2. Mark Lees profile image86
                    Mark Leesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Guns mean deaths. Full stop. You get angry and lash out with a frying pan 9/10 it is a bruised head. With a gun it is likely to be fatal.

                    If you are being robbed and you do nothing insurance pays out. If you pull a gun somebody is going to get hurt.

                    Of course, it is still people who cause the deaths, but guns make it more likely.

                    There is also what I call the machismo effect. People with guns feel bigger, stronger and are therefor more likely to be aggressive.

                    Gun culture is the problem and reducing gun ownership is one part of reducing gun culture.

        2. Silverspeeder profile image59
          Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          195 gun related deaths are quite a lot when you consider there were 619 murders in 2010 in the UK, a country with some of the strictest gun controls in the world yet over a quarter of its murders are gun related!
          2010 murders
          USA 14772
          South Africa 15940
          Mexico  24374

  2. 84
    Education Answerposted 3 years ago

    You ambiguously claim to be a "good gun owner," yet you seem to be for gun control.  What is your clear stance on the issue?

    1. LauraGT profile image88
      LauraGTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It sounds like you're suggesting that "good gun owners" can't be for gun control.  Lots of gun owners favor stricter gun control measures.  In fact, it is in their own interest to do so.

      1. 84
        Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I agree that gun owners can be for greater control.  I disagree about it being in their best interest.

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Maybe not in their best individual interest but as a group definitely in their best interest.

          As there is one on this thread who likes to equate guns with cars let's take the equation a step further.
          Most of us accept controls on our use of cars, why not guns?

          1. 84
            Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            When I took my test to get a license to drive, I was asked to show that I knew information about how to drive.  I was also asked to prove that I knew how to drive.  NOTHING on the test asked me to prove that I should be driving, only that I understood the laws and that I could drive. 

            What you are asking for is different.  You want people to prove that they are sane and thus safe to own a gun.  Trust me, there are plenty of people who have driving licenses but don't belong on the roads.  How is a driving test the same?  Hint - The answer is they are not the same.

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Before you took your test did you not have to do something first?

              1. 84
                Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Nope.

                There were no tests to determine whether or not I should be driving, only a test to determine if I could drive.

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  How strange! In the UK before you can take your drivers test you have to obtain a provisional license.
                  I take it then in the US that anybody can drive as long as they don't apply for a test!

        2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
          Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          "I agree that gun owners can be for greater control.  I disagree about it being in their best interest."

          The common interest should control in making public policy, not the interests of the gun manufacturers lobby nor the paranoid militias running around in the woods with assault type weapons or the nut cases with big magazines killing little school children or Sikh worshipers in their temple or a Congresswoman meeting in a shopping center with constituents, or an abortion doctor in his church. These atrocities can be reduced without infringing anyone's rights under the 2nd Amendment.

  3. SpanStar profile image60
    SpanStarposted 3 years ago

    I don't believe I have a clear stand on the issue because we have polluted this country with too many guns already therefore we have force people to become gunowners in order to protect themselves the problem however is there are too many people who are not mature enough to be owning guns.

    So we screamed to the top of our lungs about not taking away our guns when the majority of murders in this country is by guns.

    The idea of being a great nation When We Consistently allow these senseless gun murders to go on generation after generation says to the world "Great Nation We Are Not!"

    1. 84
      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I believe we need to address:

      cultural violence
      drugs
      gangs
      illegal aliens
      unemployment


      If we address these, and other issues, we'll get to the heart of our violence problem.  In addition, we need to look at societal decay and a lack of moral values that so many Americans seem to have now days. 

      We can argue all day about how many guns there should or shouldn't be.  We'll likely never agree.  We can agree on a lot about the topics mentioned above and the fact that doing nothing results in a greater loss of life.  Why doesn't our country start here?  Instead, we waste so much time arguing about guns.

      1. Zelkiiro profile image86
        Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        That's cute, but 1 out of 5 is not a good score.

        The real issues behind the amount of violent crime in our country are the War on Drugs and, as you mentioned, gang violence. But really, you only need to end the wasteful War on Drugs and you'll see the number of gangs (and by correlation, incidences of gang violence) drop like a rock.

        1. 84
          Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          What's cute? 

          Here is one PARTIAL solution, and I am not saying it is the most important solution (mentioned in response to your drug statement):

          We never have gotten serious about controlling our border porosity.  Drugs and illegal aliens come across the border daily.  The drugs often result in crime.  Many, not all, of the illegal aliens commit crimes too.  There's a reason Phoenix is the second most likely place, in the world, to get kidnapped.  If we were to get serious about border security, we'd save lives.  Liberals aren't willing to do that, because they feel that the "American dream" must be preserved for immigrants at any cost.  The cost is pretty high. 

          Google illegal aliens and gangs, and you'll get an interesting picture of how many illegal aliens are in our gangs.

          Google illegal aliens and gangs, and you'll get an interesting picture of how many Americans are killed each day by an illegal alien. 

          Google illegal aliens and drugs, and you'll get an interesting picture of how many drugs enter our country through the hands of illegal aliens.

          If America dealt with this one issue, how many Americans would we save?  Who knows?  I can say that it is a real solution, one that solves part of the problem.  Blaming our homicide issue on guns is ridiculous; it's a problem with people.  Let's start solving the problem by making sure our uninvited visitors are behaving.  We should know who is in our country and for what purpose.  Allowing anybody in our country, because we have lax security, is a joke, one that results in more loss of lives.

    2. EncephaloiDead profile image61
      EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      But, guns are not the cause of the majority of deaths in this country, or any other. If a one year old dies because of bullet meant for someone else does not change the death of a one year old involved in a traffic fatality. For example, instead of a gun, the assailant could have run them both over with a car. I can do a search on that and find all kinds of stories of folks using cars as a weapon.

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        How many people have been fatally run down by cars in their own homes?

        1. EncephaloiDead profile image61
          EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          If I could produce such incidents, which is not difficult considering internet search functions, would that provide sufficient reason to ban cars?

          If I could produce more of them than can be produced the shooting of one year old babies, would that be enough reason to ban cars?

      2. SpanStar profile image60
        SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        EncephaloiDead

        I find it hard to accept what you're saying regarding guns not being a major issue in this country. I don't see the government agency focusing on banning vehicles even though they can be a potential threat. The country is inundated with guns, the military has stockpiled guns.

        Your comments are talking about what if-I'm not talking about what if I'm talking about What Is. Generally when someone says they are going to kill you the first thought in your mind isn't that they're going  home and get their car and drive up into your home to run you over with it. To watch a subject them go into the glove compartment of their vehicle or into the trunk of their vehicle there is usually is an assumption they're going for a Gun.

        1. EncephaloiDead profile image61
          EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The country is far more inundated with vehicles than guns, which includes the amount of deaths as a result of vehicles over guns.



          "What is" occurring are more deaths due to traffic fatalities than guns, that is certainly not a "What if".



          Considering no one has ever said to me or anyone else I've ever known in my life makes it kind of irrelevant. Of course, if they don't own a gun, they'll use whatever means is available because the point is not so much the weapon as it is the intent.



          Really? I usually see them grabbing for a road map or a suitcase. Going for a gun is one of least assumptions I would make.

          I suspect that your neighborhood must be right in the middle of a war zone?

          1. SpanStar profile image60
            SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            EncephaloiDead

            I can't be certain what reality you are living in but it clearly at least to me seems bizarre that you are comparing a vehicle where when an accident occurs a death may happen while completely ignoring all the intentional murdering and killing by a gun as an issue we should not be concerning ourselves with like I said I don't know what reality you're living in but it is certainly is not the one this world is experiencing.

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
              Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Not to mention accidental shootings and gun suicides.

              1. SpanStar profile image60
                SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Absolutely Ralph

              2. EncephaloiDead profile image61
                EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Not to mention vehicle accidents and vehicle suicides.

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I've been driving for close to half a century now. I must have driven in close proximity to millions of people. in all that time I have never injured anybody, let alone kill them.

                  If I had spent that time shooting a gun as close to so many people I would have killed thousands.

                  Don't make such ridiculous and false comparisons.

                  1. EncephaloiDead profile image61
                    EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    There are millions of gun owners who have never shot anyone. You have no point.

                2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
                  Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Motor vehicles have absolutely nothing to do with the need for effective gun control. However, contrary to gun control deniers, just about everybody accepts the need for speed limits, stop signs, etc., which REDUCE the number of needless accidents and deaths. Gun owners would do well to support reasonable regulations consistent with the Second Amendment.

                  1. EncephaloiDead profile image61
                    EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    True, it has to do with the need for effective motor vehicle control.



                    But, the average gun owner does indeed follow rules and doesn't use guns to kill people.



                    It isn't the average and responsible gun owner that is the problem, it is the intent to kill people that is the problem. The weapon of choice is somewhat irrelevant.

            2. EncephaloiDead profile image61
              EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              It is you who is ignoring the intentional murder by other means, which means you are ignoring the fact that it is the intent of killing someone that is the problem much more so than the weapons involved. You are focusing one single type of weapon.

              I'm living in the same reality as you. You must live in war zone, yes?

              1. SpanStar profile image60
                SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                E-Dead,

                Listening to your ramblings lease me to believe that you don't deal with reality very well I am recommending that you schedule an appointment with a psychiatrist-seriously.

  4. SpanStar profile image60
    SpanStarposted 3 years ago

    Education Answer

    Clearly you make a number of good points as to the proliferation of guns in this country.

    The study of cultural violence has been and is an ongoing process which apparently hasn't achieved much success. We have the psychiatrist, the profilers yet violence in America continues to reach an all time low as killers brutalize, torture victims before killing them. Once again your point is apropos when it comes to lack of moral values.

    How does one change the mindset of a country, a nation that idolizes violence? Are these cage fights not popular? Stand your ground law apparently does not mean just defending yourself. When some parents get upset with Little League coaches they like to get things straight with their fist! We as Americans undoubtably have a propensity for violence since we can see it on the roadways, in neighborhoods etc. the fact is we need to solve this problem the question is are we willing to?

  5. SpanStar profile image60
    SpanStarposted 3 years ago

    Here is a scenario to consider:

    Your driving to a motel because your wife says she's leaving you. You've got a less than favorable evaluation from your employer who tells you they are going to have to let you go. Some teenagers driving recklessly in front of you and giving you a hard time while cutting you off as you're driving. You suddenly remember there is a gun in the glove compartment of your car. Are you inclined to use it because all the right buttons have been pushed on you?

  6. SpanStar profile image60
    SpanStarposted 3 years ago

    I could actually spend hours looking up and writing down these violents act utilized by guns. If vehicles were in fact such a threat I wonder why they don't have the same fear factor is when someone pulls a gun?

    Maryland man wounds daughter before killing wife

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa … -1.1435950

    Husband shoots himself to death.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … -dead.html

    Police charged with shooting spouse

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … -dead.html

    Wife of Belleville chef asks why police shot her husband 24 times

    http://www.nj.com/essex/index.ssf/2013/ … times.html

    1. EncephaloiDead profile image61
      EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      So, what you're saying there is more of a fear factor when someone pulls a gun on you as opposed to the fear of them trying to run you over?

      What is your point with that?

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        If somebody tries to run you over you can dodge, jump up on a low wall, stand behind a lamp post and if the worst comes to the worst most cars these days are (unlike guns) designed to minimise damage to pedestrians.

        What is your point?

        1. EncephaloiDead profile image61
          EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The point is that people use cars to kill other people. What is your point?

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            How many people use cars compared with guns?

            1. EncephaloiDead profile image61
              EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              What is your point? Can you not research your own questions?

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Because, unlike you, I have a good idea of the answer.

                1. EncephaloiDead profile image61
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You must be very proud. Do you have a point?

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, that you introducing cars as deadly weapons is a red herring.

  7. MelissaBarrett profile image60
    MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago

    To the pro-gun people: If that man didn't have a gun, that child would still be alive. You can try and worm your way around it and throw up every statistic you want, but there is the obvious undeniable truth. Cope. In this case, your precious guns are responsible for the death of a child. Soak it up, roll around in it. Live with it however you choose.

    To the anti-gun people: Not every child that is killed will be killed by a gun. Plenty of children, though, will eat because of one. Rarely, a child is even saved by a gun...albeit usually when someone ELSE has a gun too... but I digress. This gunman, however, is not every gun owner on the planet. This gun is not responsible for every death of a child on the planet either. Let's try and put things in perspective.

    To both types of people arguing in the thread: All you are really doing is being contrary. Both sides on this thread are so deeply entrenched in their own viewpoints that neither is going to change. If you want to make a difference, then lobby. Write letters. Join a group. Hold a demonstration. Do something.

    Cause right now all you all are doing is trolling each other for your own useless self-gratification.

    1. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I think Ralph Deeds said it all when he said (and I paraphrase)  car drivers accept controls on their behaviour, why shouldn't gun owners?

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
        MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Did you even read what I just posted?

        You do realize in the time you spent not replying at all to what I said, you could have signed an online petition or joined a gun-control lobby site? Hell you could have even shared a facebook post by a group like mom's against guns, just to spread awareness.

        Instead you posted a largely useless comment that will either be preaching to the choir or a song that falls on deaf ears.

        SMH.

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, I read what you posted which is obviously more than you did for me!

          What I was saying to you was that I fitted into neither of the camps you mentioned.

          We have good (not perfect) gun control in the UK.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
            Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I also read what you posted Melissa, and I don't agree, except that it's true that we are repeating ourselves without convincing anybody to change their mind. However, public policy facts and logic support trying a bit harder to control guns more effectively. Big gun money interests have thusfar triumphed over sane public policy. Many things can and will eventually be done to reduce gun mayhem in this country without interfering with any necessary and appropriate use of guns.

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
              MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You don't agree with what? I never said a word about which side of the fence I was on. I never gave my views either agreeing or disagreeing with any specific gun control laws or gun control laws in general.

              You disagree that the gun man wasn't every gun owner? You disagree that a gun killed the child? You disagree that this gun wasn't every gun in America? 

              What exactly are you disagreeing with? Because I didn't say anything that wasn't a pretty obvious fact.

              See... that's what I meant about arguing just for the sake of arguing.

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
                Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                My, aren't you pugnacious? You're comment struck me as saying that there are equally good arguments on both sides of the issue. If you have an opinion on what public policy is in the public interest why not share it with us rather than criticizing those of us who are willing to take a reasoned position?

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                  MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  There are equally good arguments on each side of the fence. Most issues are like that.

                  I'm pro-gun control, because those arguments appeal to me more. That doesn't mean that the other arguments are any less because they appeal to someone else more.

                  To ignore points just because the overall conclusion is different than what you personally believe, however, is short sighted and unproductive.

                  And to me, it would seem that you were at least equally pugnacious... if not moreso. After all, you DID choose to assume a viewpoint different than yours and then proceed to disagree with that assumption.

                  1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
                    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    "There are equally good arguments on each side of the fence. Most issues are like that."
                    Most arguments are NOT like that. Ridiculous.

                    The arguments are not equal unless you attach importance to the profits of gun manufacturers and WalMart which is the largest retailer of rifles in the country and probably the world, and also to the nut cases who are running around in the woods in camo outfits with assault type weapons preparing to resist a tyrannical government. (BTW, I've been a gun owner since age 12 when I got my first shotgun.)

                    If you're just saying that we're wasting time beating a dead horse, I agree.

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
        Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Excellent point, if I don['t mind saying so myself! Ha!

        It's should be pretty obvious that the United States is behind the parade of nearly all civilized nations on gun control. I'm tired of reading in my morning paper about drug shootings, drive-by shootings, suicides, accidental shootings, mass killings, accidental shootings and so forth. Citing accidental and intentional car wrecks is a totally absurd argument. You may as well cite measles deaths due to un-vaccinated babies or hospital-acquired staph infections as a reason for not adopting sensible gun control regulations consistent with the Second Amendment, i.e, the needs of hunters, target shooters and self-protection, when prudent.

  8. lifelovemystery profile image89
    lifelovemysteryposted 3 years ago

    Responsible gun owners aren't the people that we need to worry about. If people in Chicago could legally own and carry guns, the gun crimes would drop quickly. In 2012 more than 400 people were killed by gunfire. Killed by bad guys with guns.
    Imagine living in a city where only the bad guys have guns and more than one person per day is murdered.
    Gunowners.org has the statistics you are looking for.

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
      MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Don't think I'm on your side. The truth is sites like gunowners.org etc. are simply making an agreement impossible.

      They are essentially protecting the bad guys by stopping the laws that would take the guns out of the bad guys hands.

      It's the dead-lock that is getting people killed. Both sides OWN that.

      If the solution is just to arm everybody so they are on the same playing field, everybody deserves exactly what they get... which is everybody dies equally.

      This isn't Dodge City.

    2. lifelovemystery profile image89
      lifelovemysteryposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I doubt that the people of Chicago think that losing  their loved ones to murder is dying equally, when they cannot defend themselves. Bad guys don't turn in their guns just because their are gun-control laws.

      Legal gun owners are not responsible for the choices that criminals make, so I disagree that "Both sides OWN that."

      Here is a link to Forbes with additional statistics for the successful use of home and personal defense by gun owners.
      http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2 … rol-lobby/

  9. SpanStar profile image60
    SpanStarposted 3 years ago

    EncephaloiDead

    John Holden got the point when he asked you how many deaths by cars in comparison to guns?

    Below you made the following statement:

    "But, the average gun owner does indeed follow rules and doesn't use guns to kill people."

    The examples I gave regarding shootings these were not hardened criminals using guns to kill. There a number of cases where people in a fit of rage and grabs a gun and kills.

    When someone grabs a gun there is usually an immediate reaction unlike when someone gets into a car every day.

    1. EncephaloiDead profile image61
      EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You're still missing the point entirely, as is John. People will use whatever means at their disposal to kill someone if that is their intent, which is the point.

      1. SpanStar profile image60
        SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Apparently they are not using whatever is at the disposal since whenever people especially a group of people feels threatened they don't rush out and buy a box of forts, knives, Lexuses, Buicks but they consistently buy guns.

        1. EncephaloiDead profile image61
          EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          That is just pure denial in light of the facts.

      2. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Very true, but irrelevant.  To the anit-gun nuts, a gun is not a tool than can be used or abused; it is an instrument of the devil, designed and constructed for the sole purpose of murdering helpless human beings. 

        The proven fact that murderers will use a different tool when a gun is not available just doesn't enter the equation.  As it does not promote the removal of guns from society it will always be ignored.

        1. Zelkiiro profile image86
          Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The fine folks who live in Denmark, Sweden, Japan, The Netherlands, Finland, and Norway didn't seem to search for other implements once guns were out of the picture...

          1. psycheskinner profile image81
            psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            And they have a far lower rate of murder.  A crime that, contrary to crime dramas, is generally committed on impulse by young and/or drunken idiots.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              "And they have a far lower rate of murder"

              Lower than what?  For every country that you might point to with a low murder rate I can point to a country with a higher gun ownership rate coupled to a lower murder rate (or vice versa; lower gun rate with a higher murder rate).

              Comparing those two throughout the world pretty plainly shows there is no connection and thus no causal effect.

              1. Zelkiiro profile image86
                Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                There is only one such country, and that is Switzerland. Switzerland is the wacky exception that proves the rule.

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  ??  Sorry, I'm not following you.  Are you saying that Switzerland has both the lowest gun ownership rate AND the lowest murder rate in the world?

                  1. Zelkiiro profile image86
                    Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    No. Switzerland is the only country that has more guns but lower rate of violent crime.

        2. lifelovemystery profile image89
          lifelovemysteryposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          When governments control the guns, they control the people. The link is to evidence of what happens when only government has guns. 56 million people have been slaughtered after they gave up their guns.

          http://www.mercyseat.net/gun_genocide.html

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            There is a world of difference between the government controlling guns and the only guns being in the hands of government.

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
              Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I think you may be afflicted by the "Tea Party Syndrome."
              http://hubpages.com/search/Tea+Party+Syndrome

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                ??? Please explain!

                1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
                  Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I think it's self-explanatory. Did you click on the link?

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes I clicked on the link, hence my puzzlement. You seemed to be accusing me of being aligned to the tea party!

        3. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Well although you obviously aren't addressing me as I am no anti gun nut nor do I argue for the complete removal of guns from society but still I feel the need to respond.

          Let's leave murderers out of the equation for now and discuss the small children who get their hands on their parents loaded gun and kill their playmate or sibling.

          Consider this -

          "In 2010, unintentional firearm injuries caused the deaths of 606 people.
          From 2005-2010, almost 3,800 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings.
          Over 1,300 victims of unintentional shootings for the period 2005–2010 were under 25 years of age.

          People of all age groups are significantly more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns. On average, states with the highest gun levels had nine times the rate of unintentional firearms deaths compared to states with the lowest gun levels.

          A federal government study of unintentional shootings found that 8% of such shooting deaths resulted from shots fired by children under the age of six.
          The U.S. General Accounting Office has estimated that 31% of unintentional deaths caused by firearms might be prevented by the addition of two devices: a child-proof safety lock (8%) and a loading indicator (23%)."

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            OK, for the moment you aren't an anit-gun nut. 

            According to you, the US saw 48 deaths in 2010 from children under 6 using guns.  The stats for people under 25 are meaningless; they present data that is of no value.

            So, 50 deaths per year to protect the rights given by the constitution.  Considering that the death toll from automobiles is many, many times that and quite well accepted, I would think that is a reasonable figure.

            Not to say it can't be lowered, and not by removing guns.  I support trigger locks (not sure what a loading indicator is) and potentially an owner recognition device.  Just not removal of guns.

            And you?  Do you support removal of guns from mentally healthy individuals without a criminal record?  Keep in mind that removing guns won't affect the murder rate one iota...

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Of course not. But I don't see anything wrong with would be owners having to prove that they are mentally healthy either.

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Maybe.  The problem I see is that few people would accept taking mental health tests to own a gun, particularly when the anti-gun crew is designing the acceptable answers.

                Do we need a mental health test for a bow and arrow?  A car?  A nail gun?  Obviously not, and the only reason can be that either there aren't enough deaths OR that society won't accept it (the car).  So why a gun?

                And there is one other wee problem; in the US we're innocent until proven guilty.  If you want to deny mentally ill people the right to carry, it is up to society to prove they are unstable, not the other way around.

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Why should a responsible person object to proving they are responsible? They have to do that to drive a car.
                  And why assume that any test should be administered by the anti gun lobby?
                  Not being a gun owner I'm not too sure but I think in the UK obtaining a gun license involves your Doctor saying that he thinks you're a fit person.

                  In the UK  we are innocent until proved guilty, who do you think administers gun laws in the UK if not society?

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    They certainly do NOT have to prove sanity to drive a car.  At least not in the US - just take a written and driving test about how to drive safely.

                    Assume the test will be administered by the lobby because it will.  Just as the anti abortion people continue to push wherever and however they can to totally ban abortions, that group will continue to push wherever and however they can to limit gun ownership.  Writing the test is an obvious method of limiting guns.

                    If you are assumed innocent (of insanity) then you don't need to prove it in order to buy a gun.  But you're not assumed sane at all - you have to have a Dr. tell society that as proof you are not insane.

      3. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        No, the point is that it is a lot easier to kill with a gun without intent.

        Which is the more likely - you get into an argument and feel that you might come off worse so you reach into your pocket, pull out your gun and shoot the other person dead.

        Or, you get into an argument and feel that you might come off worse so you go to your car, get in and drive to where the person was and run them down?

        1. EncephaloiDead profile image61
          EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Whether I personally had a gun in my pocket or not, I certainly wouldn't pull it out and kill someone over an argument. That is absurd.

          Perhaps yes, if I was a drug dealer going into an argument, I would carry a gun and have the "intent" to use it.

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            It might be absurd but absurd things happen every day.

            1. EncephaloiDead profile image61
              EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Like folks using cars to run over people?

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Or shooting people dead in a temper.

                1. EncephaloiDead profile image61
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Look like we agree, then. smile

  10. Ralph Deeds profile image69
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    The gun nuts in this forum must have watched too many episodes of "All in the Family."

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLjNJI54GMM

    1. lifelovemystery profile image89
      lifelovemysteryposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Why must people resort to name calling when they disagree with someone?

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Fear.  And in most cases, ignorance, but most fear.

        At least that's all I could come up with...

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
        Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Do you prefer gun "enthusiasts?"

        By the way, I've listed a number of quite good arguments in favor of more effective gun laws and enforcement which no one has bothered to respond to. Feel free:

        1. What is the justification for high capacity magazines?
        2. Why does anybody need armor piercing bullets?
        3. Why not close the gun show loophole?
        4. What useful or necessary purpose do military style semi-automatic assault weapons serve.
        5. Why should people be allowed to bring weapons into bars, restaurants, schools, fairs, etc.?
        6. What is the rational basis for people thinking they need to have arsenals to protect themselves from the government?

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          1.  People want them
          2.  Less damage to game, people want them.
          3.  People want to sell guns themselves to friends and strangers.
          4.  People want them.
          5.  People want to.
          6.  People want them.

          The question is not why people should have/do these things, the question is why they should be prohibited from having/doing them.  Until that question is fairly answered (and not with a handful of negative examples scattered over a decade and 300,000,000 people) then the answer that "people want to" is sufficient.

          But that's a difference in philosophy, isn't it?  When the basic reason to control someone, to remove rights, is "It scares me." some find it enough.  Others do not.

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            People want hard drugs.
            People want to have sex with minors.
            People want to drive their cars at dangerous speeds.
            People want to be drunk all the time.
            People want to take that which is not theirs.

            Get it?

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              All but #4 have immediate negative consequences to others in a high percentage of even 100% of cases.  Carrying a weapon to a fair, owning armor piercing ammunition or a semi-automatic weapon does not.

              So, the fear from a pedophile or a thief is very real, the fear from someone with a semi-automatic weapon is primarily in the viewers mind.

              Get it?

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Tell that to the victims.

                1. EncephaloiDead profile image61
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Here are 12 victims of the Venice Beach car rampage. Would you like to tell them your denial of cars being used as weapons?

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Who's ever denied the use of cars a s weapons?

                    I only asked how many people had been killed by cars in their own homes, a question you have refused to address.

                    ETA, the vast majority of people accept controls on their use of cars.

              2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
                Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                No, I don't get it. Try and tell that to Gabby Gifford, to the military men slaughtered at Ft. Hood, the abortion doctor shot in his church, the little children and teachers killed at Sandy Hook by the son unfortunate to have a gun nut for a mother,  etc, etc, etc. ad nauseum.

            2. EncephaloiDead profile image61
              EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I certainly wouldn't want to live anywhere near that neighborhood. Are those the kind of folks you're acquainted with, John? Is that normal where you live?

          2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
            Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            "the question is why they should be prohibited from having/doing them."

            The answer is obvious to most people--because we are tired of all the unnecessary gun mayhem in our country. Sensible public policy should outweigh the gun lobby and the paranoid lunatics running around with guns.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I think that's what I said, isn't it?  Irrational fear that everyone with a gun becomes a murderer.  And the irrational feeling that, as guns kill, removing guns will limit murders.  And always tied to the irrational opinion that any controls required for "the good of the people" are right and proper.  Because simple control of a tool is the "sensible public policy".  After all, there are so many murders carried out with armor piercing slugs and if we can call a semi-automatic rifle an "assault" weapon, used only to assault fortified enemy positions, it will help raise consciousness of what such guns are actually designed and used for.  Especially if they're black and scary looking (there's that fear factor again, too).

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Who's talking about removing guns?

                The car you drive is subject to controls without it impinging on your ability to own one.

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  John, John.  Just as in the abortion issue, the ultimate aim of the gun haters is to remove all guns from society.  We all know that, even as it is vehemently denied (while pushing efforts to remove some guns). 

                  This fight isn't going to die any time soon.  To a great many people, there are NO guns that should be allowed to remain; it will just take time to get them all, just as it will take time to get rid of all abortions.  It's how modern day politics works; pick at the problem a tiny bit at a time, all the while claiming a "compromise" is necessary.  A "compromise" that will be extended the next year with more "compromise".

                  And I don't see anything in the US Constitution about the right to own and use a car.  Just guns.

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Strangely cars weren't around when the constitution was drawn up, and neither were guns as we now know them.

                    We've had gun control in the UK for around a hundred years - nobody has tried to ban them completely.

  11. SpanStar profile image60
    SpanStarposted 3 years ago

    When people talk about stopping the violence the focus is almost never on picnic tables, cooking utensils and what ever ridiculous idea some so-called, self absorbed mental giant seems to think is comparable to a gun.

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      No, it is the tool we call a gun that the so-called self absorbed mental giant chooses to pick on.  Unreasonable, unrelated to reality, but there you have it - they choose guns rather than the people that murder.  Easier, I suppose, and more PC.

  12. John Holden profile image61
    John Holdenposted 3 years ago
  13. Ralph Deeds profile image69
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    A libertarian's view of gun control and the law:

    The Limits of Nullification
    By ROBERT A. LEVY
    Published: September 3, 2013 1 Comment

        BILTMORE LAKE, N.C. — ON Sept. 11, anti-gun-control legislators in the Missouri General Assembly are likely to pass a bill, over the governor’s veto, that renders almost all federal gun laws void in the state, and even makes it a crime for federal agents to enforce them.
    Related

    Missouri is only the latest state to push back against federal gun laws. In Montana, the Firearms Freedom Act, passed in 2009, purports to exempt any gun manufactured and kept within the state from federal regulations; despite a federal appellate court decision last month invalidating the statute, it has served as a model for new or pending laws in more than a half-dozen states.

    But while states are not powerless in the face of federal law, there are limits to what they can do to prevent enforcement of constitutionally valid regulation.

    The bills are based on the theory of nullification, which has its roots in the late 18th and early 19th centuries and holds that the federal government exists by the will of the states, and that states therefore have the right to decide which federal laws are constitutionally valid within their borders.

    When it comes to gun control, the claims of nullification advocates are threefold: no state is required to enforce federal gun regulations, states may prevent federal officials from enforcing laws declared by the state to be unconstitutional, and some federal gun restrictions are in fact unconstitutional — either because they violate the Second Amendment (says Missouri) or are outside the scope of the federal government’s power to regulate commerce (says Montana).

    On the first point, the nullifiers are correct: in a 1997 decision, Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court held that “the Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.” That case involved the Brady Act of 1993, which established a national system for background checks and commanded state law enforcement officials to conduct them.

    Of course, background checks are still required in every state. That’s because federal officials are authorized to enforce their own laws, even if they cannot compel the states to do so. Thus, on the second point, the nullifiers are wrong: states cannot impede federal enforcement of a federal law merely because the state deems it unconstitutional. That is up to the federal courts.

    Yes, state legislatures or governors can assert that a federal law offends the Constitution. But as James Madison wrote in his Report of 1800, such declarations are “expressions of opinion” for “exciting reflection. The expositions of the judiciary, on the other hand, are carried into immediate effect.” In assessing constitutionality, our system of governance recognizes one Supreme Court, not 50 individual states.

    Strangely, if nullification proponents had their way, Chicago’s gun ban, which the Supreme Court invalidated in 2010, might still be in effect. Moreover, if the court had not held in 1960 that nullification “is illegal defiance of constitutional authority,” many public schools might have remained segregated.

    That brings us to the third point: whether the Constitution holds that federal gun laws are unconstitutional. If it does, then states would be justified in preventing enforcement. But despite pleas from the gun rights community, the Supreme Court has not gone that far.

    Indeed, when the Court overturned Washington’s handgun ban in its 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller — in which I was co-counsel to the plaintiff, Dick Heller — Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion, was careful to note that the right to keep and bear arms is not absolute.

    He wrote that his opinion did not “cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications” — like background checks — “on the commercial sale of arms.”

    Subsequent cases will determine which regulations are allowable. But until the courts say otherwise, federal gun laws are presumptively consistent with Second Amendment rights.

    What about Montana’s argument that federal restrictions on guns made and transported entirely within the state exceed Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce? Over protests from some libertarian activists, myself included, the Supreme Court has consistently expanded the federal government’s power to regulate commerce to cover any economic act that, in the aggregate, could have a substantial effect on interstate commerce — even if the act is not strictly commercial and is wholly within one state.

    Meanwhile, nullification battles extend beyond gun laws. Nearly two dozen states have condoned medical marijuana use in defiance of federal restrictions. Washington and Colorado have even legalized recreational marijuana use. At least 23 states have considered bills that nullify the Affordable Care Act of 2010.

    I fully support those who see risks in the expansion of federal power, particularly when it comes to intrusions on basic rights like gun ownership. However, to defend those rights, we can’t begin by flouting the very document that inspires that fight in the first place: the Constitution.

    Robert A. Levy is the chairman of the Cato Institute.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/04/opini … n&_r=0

  14. Ralph Deeds profile image69
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    The fruit of NRA, Florida Redneck stand your ground law:

    By Nicole Fllatow on September 5, 2013 at 12:53 pm
    man gun

    CREDIT: Shutterstock

    William T. Woodward is facing murder charges for the alleged shooting of three people on Labor Day, two of whom have now died. In his defense, his lawyer is not only making a novel legal argument that Florida’s Stand Your Ground law applies, saying he was protecting himself against “imminent death” because of an ongoing dispute between him and the men he shot.  HE ALSO INVOKED THE "BUSH DOCTRINE," THE FOREIGN POLICY BUSH USED TO JUSTIFY AGGRESSIVE MILITARY INTERVENTION, TO ARGUE THAT THAT PREEMPTIVE ATTACK CAN BE A FORM OF SELF-DEFENSE,  Florida Today reports.

    According to police, Woodward stealthily approached a Labor Day barbecue around 12:30 p.m. and fired 31 rounds. When police arrived, three men had been shot. Two died, while a third who was hit 11 times, survived. In the weeks leading up to the shooting, the neighbors had unsuccessfully tried to get “repeat violence” injunctions against one another. Woodward, a veteran who says he is being treated for psychiatric problems that prevent him from controlling his anger, was caught on surveillance video crawling on his belly toward the neighbor’s house. He told police afterward he considered himself on a “mission” and that he was in a “war zone,” according to WFTV.

    In his motion seeking immunity from murder charges, Woodward’s lawyer cites a recent Florida court decision that interprets “imminent” criminal activity in another context to mean “not only impending or ready to take place, but also expected, likely to occur, or hanging threateningly over one’s head.” He reasons that one can likewise use deadly force to prevent “imminent death” under the Stand Your Ground when a threat of death hangs over one’s head.

    As broad as Florida’s Stand Your Ground law is in authorizing deadly force, a judge would be hard-pressed to infer that the Florida legislature intended to authorize shootings in which “imminent” effectively means “preemptive.” But the legal motion demonstrates the mindset of at least some of the state’s lawyers, who apparently feel comfortable citing a doctrine of war in the context of a self-defense killing. That mindset also seems to be infecting those individuals who, citing expansive self-defense laws, choose vigilante justice over calling the police.

    http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/0 … -barbecue/

  15. Ralph Deeds profile image69
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    Sarah Silverman--Arm all the black people!

    http://thebigslice.org/sarah-silverman- … ple-video/

  16. Ralph Deeds profile image69
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    Another lunatic with a gun goes postal in the DC Navy Yard:

    "WASHINGTON — The police were searching Monday morning for an armed individual who fatally shot one person and wounded several others, including one police officer, at a naval office building here not far from Capitol Hill and the White House."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/us/sh … a_20130916

    When will we ever learn???

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Sadly, not anytime in the near future.  Instead we will keep poking helplessly at cold pieces of iron while the people responsible for murder keep right on going.  It's easier, it's the PC thing to do and it calms the masses if idiots that think guns kill people.

      Article in my local newspaper; seems the furor over SandyHook has died down and there isn't much being said anymore.  The demands to take the guns away are mostly gone now.  As there never WAS any real effort to address the roots of the problem we can all sit back and wait.  Wait until it happens again or until someone else "goes postal", whereupon we'll spring up shouting "GET THE GUNS" all over again.  While the killing goes on...

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Perhaps you'll explain to this idiot what actually killed these people if guns didn't.
        Perhaps the gun man had a lethal force field, like in Marvel Comics!

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          But I can't - I don't know.  Mental illness, social acceptance of violence, a desire for violence?  I don't know and our wonderful government would rather play around with banning tools than with find what actually killed them.  Partially, I'm sure, because they have so many idiots demanding they ban those nasty, scary guns rather than work on the real cause.

          Wait - you meant the immediate tool rather then what actually did the deed?  That would be the lead slug capping a brass tube filled with gunpowder.

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            OK, just ban the ammunition then.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Well, that's what I said, isn't it?  Play make believe that we're doing something of value while the carnage goes on and on and on and...

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                So you don't believe that making guns harder to obtain, making ammunition harder to obtain and making the carrying of guns harder would make any difference at all!

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  If you take the guns away (the ultimate control) it doesn't make any difference -  Why would you think a lesser control (make getting ammunition harder to get) would?

                  I'm not quite following your logic here, John...

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Nowhere do I mention taking guns away.

                  2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
                    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Who do you think is proposing to take guns away? There are no serious proposals to take guns away.

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
        Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        It will be interesting to see where and how this mentally ill individual got the rifle and what kind it was. (None of the gun control proposals I saw advocated "coming for the guns.") As I recall Connecticut and New York passed laws on tighter background checks, magazine size and so-called (semi-automatic) assault weapons. None of the laws or proposals I've seen called for taking guns away from anybody.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Of course they did, Ralph - you just don't want to talk about it.  Nearly half the proposals, and all of the radical ones, are about removing guns from people's homes.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
            Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Where can I find one of the proposals to confiscate guns? Please provide documentation.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              http://washingtonexaminer.com/sen.-fein … le/2516648

              "Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said that she and other gun control advocates are considering a law that would create a program to purchase weapons from gun owners, a proposal that could be compulsory."

              "Gov. Andrew Cuomo, D-N.Y., already discussed the possibility of a buy-back law for his state, but he made clear it would be a forced buyback."

              "Confiscation could be an option,” Cuomo told The New York Times yesterday when discussing semiautomatic weapons. “Mandatory sale to the state could be an option."

              "Some liberal activists want the policy [Australian forced gun buyback] imitated here. “That would be like destroying 50 million guns in America today,” the Center for American Progress’ Matt Miller wrote after noting that Australia eliminated 20 percent of the weapons in the country."

              Need some more?

          2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
            Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            There have been a few radical proposals, but none of the serious ones and none of the ones passed at the state level involved confiscation of weapons owned lawfully prior to the effective date of the law.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              "none of the serious ones" - Highly disagree, for the proponents are completely serious.  Not that they can pass such a thing now, but in getting the word out, in "testing the waters" and in sloowly changing public opinion into something that will be accepted in a few years.  First step is to introduce the concept, after all, just like introducing the concept that people can't smoke in a restaurant.  Now it's up to a personal, private car and an open 500 acre public park.  That's how we work it now, Ralph; a little chip here and a little chip there, all in the name of "compromise".

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
                Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Well, okay, but I don't believe any such bills were actually introduced and none were passed so far as I know. I'm not impressed by slippery slope arguments. It's pretty obvious that stricter gun control is needed and can be passed without infringing anybody's 2nd Amendment rights.

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  "It's pretty obvious that stricter gun control is needed " 

                  You just ignore any facts that don't fit what you want to hear, don't you?  You and I have been over this and over it - you have been presented with irrefutable truth that gun controls will not affect homicide rates.  Why do you ignore it?  Is it just an innate desire for control?  A fear of guns?  Why?

                2. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  As far as I know there have been none introduced that actually stood a chance in hell of passing.

                  But they will - that is a foregone decision.  Let another couple of school shootings occur.  Or worse, another Gifford, where the victim is a congressperson.  It will happen.

                  1. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
                    Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Not in this country. We associate sensible background checks and other security measures as akin to taking your guns outright.

                    Consider that in states such as West Virginia, Arkansas and Alabama, only 8 in 10 kids get their high school diploma. Almost 8 in 10 residents of that state don't even go to college.

                    Its gonna be real easy for the NRA to dupe them for years to come.

              2. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
                Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                People don't have the right to be smoking in public places....

                Don't see how that is an issue

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Not legally, no.  Not anymore, anyway.

                  Ethically?  A cigarette in a 500 acre park, 100 yards from anyone that cares, is a different matter.  Except to those that wish to control others...

                  1. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
                    Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    No, same deal.

                    The only time I see smoking around others is OK is if you are in your own home.

                    And even then, you're still being a jerk for subjecting others to your cancer-filed smoke.

          3. Ralph Deeds profile image69
            Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            New NY State Gun Control Law:
            "BRIAN MANN, BYLINE: The Safe Act banned the sale of assault rifles and high capacity ammunition clips and closed loopholes on sales at gun shows. Those restrictions were approved on a bipartisan vote and made it through the state's Republican-controlled Senate. The law is still popular in urban parts of New York. But in upstate counties, the Safe Act sparked a ferocious backlash."

            http://www.npr.org/2013/09/10/220932979 … troversial

            New Connecticut Gun Control Law Revised to Clarify It

            "The new bill allows individuals to possess and register assault weapons they purchased or placed on consignment prior to or on April 4, the day the gun control law was passed, but did not receive until after that date."  (AS I SAID, NOTHING ABOUT CONFISCATION.)

            Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06 … z2f5oz0JUB



            http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06 … confusion/

  17. Ralph Deeds profile image69
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    Washington Navy Yard Shooting: Live Updates
    Sep 16, 2013 10:52 AM EDT
    At least seven people are dead after a shooting at Washington D.C.’s Navy Yard on Monday. Follow the latest developments here.

    The latest count is 12 fatalities.


    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 … at%20Sheet

  18. Ralph Deeds profile image69
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    Aaron Alexis, 34, contractor at Navy Yard, formerly of Ft. Worth has been identified as the shooter. He was apparently killed by the police according to this source:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/1 … 35770.html

    Aaron Alexis has been identified by police as the dead Washington Navy Yard shooter, NBC News reports.

    Alexis, 34, originally of Fort Worth, Texas, recently began working at the Navy yard as a civilian contractor, the station reported. USA Today and CBS News also report that an unnamed source identified Alexis as the shooter, who was confirmed dead by police earlier today.

    At least 13 people were killed -- including Alexis -- and more were wounded at the Naval Sea Systems Command Headquarters building after at least one gunman opened fire after 8:20 a.m. Monday, a Defense Department official said.

    Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy Lanier said at a press conference that a Metropolitan Police officer is among those who have been shot, among other "multiple victims inside who are deceased." There were other reports that a naval security guard was reportedly among the wounded.

    The suspect was reportedly killed at that location, but few details about the death were immediately available. One other person of interest is still on the loose. He's described as a black male, 50, with an olive military-style uniform who may be in possession of a long gun.

    A third person of interest was cleared.

    The FBI released a photo and description of Alexis, asking the public for any information about the deceased suspect:

    Alexis was formerly a Navy Reservist.

  19. Ralph Deeds profile image69
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    MORE ABOUT AARON ALEXIS, THE NAVY YARD SHOOTER:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ … story.html

    The dead gunman in Monday’s shooting at the Washington Navy Yard is Aaron Alexis, 34, a Navy veteran and native of Brooklyn, an FBI official said Monday afternoon.

    Police say it is unclear if Alexis acted alone. Authorities are still searching for another possible suspect: a black man in his 40s with gray sideburns, wearing an olive-drab military-style uniform.

    (Courtesy of FBI) - Aaron Alexis, who has been identified as the dead gunman in the shooting at Washington Navy Yard.

    LiveNavy Yard shooting

        5:21 PMThe trail of blood
        5:18 PMBoehner: ‘This has been a dark day’
        5:08 PMVideo: Dead suspect identified as Aaron Alexis
        5:06 PM‘The Navy family…suffered a horrific attack’
        5:02 PMStreet closures, bus detours remain
        4:42 PMGraphic: Deadliest U.S. shootings

    Aaron Alexis, identified as dead gunman in Navy Yard shooting
    Aaron Alexis, identified as dead gunman in Navy Yard shooting

    Carol D. Leonnig, Theresa Vargas and David A. Fahrenthold 4:46 PM ET

    Police say it is unclear if Alexis acted alone.
    Video: Suspect ID’d as Aaron Alexis
    Video: Suspect ID’d as Aaron Alexis

    WATCH | The FBI confirms the dead Navy Yard shooting suspect is Aaron Alexis in a news conference.

        Gray says death toll rises to 13
        Witnesses: Navy Yard shooter aimed at us
        Navy Yard employee: ‘Hard’ to enter without ID
        Obama on Navy Yard shooting

    Navy Yard shooting

    Twitter and Instagram updates from news outlets, witnesses and others.

    "There's 13 people who are dead, and probably a dozen or more who are wounded," D.C. Mayor Gray said

    Mark Berman

    @themarkberman

        via Twitter about 53m ago

    Witnesses recount gunshots, confusion at Navy Yard
    Witnesses recount gunshots, confusion at Navy Yard

    Susan Svrluga, Jenna Johnson and Steve Hendrix 3:57 PM ET

    Navy officer who escaped says a civilian worker he was talking to was fatally shot right next to him.
    Navy Yard is home to several major Navy commands
    Navy Yard is home to several major Navy commands

    About 16,000 military and civilian employees work in the complex’s 2.2 million square feet of offices.
    Another mass shooting. And this one hits very close to home.
    Another mass shooting. And this one hits very close to home.

    Petula Dvorak 2:35 PM ET

    At least 12 are dead at the Navy Yard, and again we wonder if this is the rampage that will change things.

    Alexis died at the scene of Monday’s shooting, in which at least 12 other people died. D.C. Mayor Vincent C. Gray said no motive is known.

    FBI Assistant Director Valerie Parlave asked the public to call 1-800-CALL-FBI with any information about him: “No piece of information is too small. We are looking to learn everything we can about his recent movements.”

    By Monday afternoon, a portrait of Alexis had begun to emerge. He left the Navy in 2011, and until recently was a regular—if unusual—figure at a Buddhist temple....

  20. Ralph Deeds profile image69
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    Predictable:

    "Three weapons were found on the (Navy Yard) gunman: an AR-15 assault rifle, a shotgun and a semiautomatic pistol, an official said. "

    1. 84
      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Let's wait and see what the investigation yields.  As it stands right now, there is some doubt as to whether or not he owned all three guns.

    2. 84
      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      "Police said Alexis also had an assault rifle inside the building, but it was unclear whether he had brought it with him. "

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/nav … story.html

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
        Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        It's likely that fewer people would have been killed if he had only a pistol or only a shotgun.

        1. A Troubled Man profile image61
          A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          What if he had a sack of grenades?

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
            Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Obviously that would be worst. Are grenades legal? If they are they shouldn't be.

        2. Silverspeeder profile image59
          Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Its likely he was an insane criminal who would have obtained the weapons whether they were controlled or not.
          Criminals (especially insane ones) don't care about laws.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
            Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Turns out he only came into the Navy yard with a shotgun according to a report I heard just now on the radio. There has been quite a bit of misinformation floating around.

  21. Ralph Deeds profile image69
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    Here's an interesting bit of information. Alexis tried to buy an AR15 in Virginia but was refused because he was from out of state. Instead he bought a semi-automatic shotgun which he brought into the yard disassembled and put it together in a men's room. It's true that all guns, even hunting guns, are lethal weapons. However, hunting guns don't have huge magazines.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/us/st … ay.html?hp

  22. 84
    Education Answerposted 3 years ago

    Do violent video games promote violence in real life?  Yes.  We've had this discussion before.  What we have is a culture of violence; our video games, movies, television, and culture bombard our children with sex and violence, and then we wonder why our kids act like they do?  Our problem with violence largely stems from cultural rotting, a vacuous sense of morality and parental irresponsibility.  Further gun control won't do a thing to correct the real issue(s) that we have in America.

    I'm waiting to hear about Alexis's childhood and whether or not he had parents who showed responsibility.  How was he raised?  Was this particular tragedy related to his upbringing or not?  Only time will tell.

    We do know that, as an adult, he had a "checkered past."  "Aaron Alexis, the suspected gunman in the U.S. Navy Yard shooting episode that left 13 people dead, had a checkered past that included run-ins with gun charges, violent video games and alcoholism."  We've also talked about illegal drugs.  Maybe we need to change that discussion from illegal drugs to substance abuse.  Further gun control won't do a thing to address that issue either though.

    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8655 … -past.html

  23. Mark Lees profile image86
    Mark Leesposted 3 years ago

    We had 39 guns deaths- read the post again.

    1. Silverspeeder profile image59
      Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Sorry read your post wrong.

      The official figures were 41 but we wont split hairs about 2 extra deaths will we.

      However my point is that in a country where we have tight firearms restrictions we still have gun crime.
      In England and wales there were over 11000 reported incidents of gun crime (excluding air weapons) in 2010.

      1. Mark Lees profile image86
        Mark Leesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        A high percentage of that 11,000 are likely imitation or air weapons. They are classified as full weapons unless they are 100% sure they are imitation or air weapons- the majority that didn't lead to arrests will not be real weapons so the actual stat is much lower.

        It is also worth remembering that if we had American style gun laws a lot of the remaining offences would not be illegal and therefore not crimes.

        1. Silverspeeder profile image59
          Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Number of offences
          • In England and Wales firearms were reportedly used in 11,227 offences, 0.3% of all
          recorded crimes.
          • There were 7,024 offences in England and Wales in which firearms, excluding air
          weapons, were reportedly used, a 13% decrease on the previous year, continuing the
          general decline since 2005/06.
          • There were 4,203 recorded crimes in which air weapons were reportedly used during
          2010/11, a fall of 15% compared with the previous year and 70% below the peak
          recorded in 2002/03.
          • In Scotland the police recorded 643 offences which involved the alleged use of a firearm,
          a 24% decrease on 2009/10. The number of offences has fallen in each of the last four
          years.
          • A non-air weapon was alleged to have been used in 410 offences, marginally lower than
          in 2009/10, while there were 233 alleged air-weapon offences, 45% lower than the
          previous year.
          Type of offence
          • In England and Wales violence against the person (37%) and robbery offences (26%)
          accounted for almost two-thirds of all firearm offences recorded by the police in 2010/11.
          Criminal damage offences represented 29% of all firearm offences recorded.
          • Due to the different legal system in Scotland it is not possible to provide directly
          comparable data. ‘Reckless conduct with firearms’ accounted for 21% of alleged firearm
          offences in 2010/11, minor assault for 17% and robbery for 14%.
          • 9.3% of all homicides committed during 2010/11in England and Wales involved the use
          of a firearm, the highest proportion since 2001/02. By contrast 2.2% of Scottish
          homicides involved the use of a firearm.

          House of commons report

          1. Mark Lees profile image86
            Mark Leesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, and if they don't know if it is real, replica or an air weapon it is classified as real for the purpose of these reports.

          2. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            What are you trying to prove with these figures?

            1. Silverspeeder profile image59
              Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              That in a country with some of the strictest gun controls in the world we still have gun crime.

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Who was denying that?

                1. Silverspeeder profile image59
                  Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Some seem to think that gun control will remove gun crime.

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Then they are fools!

                    However comparing life in the UK with life in the US give me gun control any day.

                    I've heard it said that the reason why Americans are so polite is because they are afraid that if they aren't they'll be shot!

  24. Mark Lees profile image86
    Mark Leesposted 3 years ago

    Total number of gun deaths over 30,000 per year: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
    Total number of gun homicides: around 10,000 per year. (I apologise, the source I previously used had this at 8,000 so that is why my estimates were out) http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
    Of course the 20,000 might not all be accidents but they are gun related deaths.
    The Crimes of passion this is purely logical- crimes of passion are not premeditated so people will use whatever is at hand. If you have a gun you will use that, if not you will use a knife or bludgeon. A gun is more effective at killing so the victim has more chance of surviving if you don't have a gun. Probably not a huge amount but it will shave a few of the fatalities number.

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      In round numbers, 30,000 gun deaths, of which 10,000 are homicides.  Of the remaining 20,000 gun deaths, 16,000 are suicides.  That's about 1/2 of the total suicides; do you have any real data showing that removing guns will drop that 1/2 to 1/10 or 1/100th?  Or will taking guns away accomplish nothing at all?

      The link also indicates about 800 non-intentional gun deaths per year.  Accidents, and of those accidents, some 700 of them are from handguns.  Handguns that no one is seriously proposing to regulate any more than they are now.  Only 100 accidental deaths per year from the long guns that are the thrust of current legislation for more controls.  Certainly not something we need to concern ourselves with when there are 30,000 murders to worry about.

      Next is Undetermined gun deaths (whatever that means) and "Other" Undetermined gun deaths.  Plus a handful of Justifiable gun homicides (sounds like an oxymoron to me) - total of all these other things is fairly small.  So removing guns from society may reduce suicide figures - we don't know.  Why then is the push to further regulate "assault weapons"?  Do people really think that suicides prefer the a "assault weapon" to kill themselves with?

      Didn't ask for an opinion and theory that crimes of passion will be more deadly with guns; I asked for proof.  Facts and figures.  Do you have any, or merely making up unsubstantiated theories in the hopes they will be accepted as truth?

  25. 84
    Education Answerposted 3 years ago

    "A study which was recently published by Harvard took a look at firearm ownership, gun laws and violent crime, and suicide rates around the world. The authors sought to answer the question would banning firearms reduce murder and suicide?

    The study, which was conducted by Don B. Kates, an American criminologist and constitutional lawyer, and Gary Mauser, a Canadian criminologist and university professor, offered a stark truth: More guns does not equal more deaths and less guns does not equal less deaths."

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/09/jenn … %E2%80%A8/

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      As I've said before, homicide rates don't tell the entire story. Neither does a single study from Harvard or anywhere else. All gun deaths and injuries should be included--accidents, suicides, murders, deaths and injuries, etc. I wonder who paid for the Harvard study??

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Doesn't really matter, does it now?  After all, whether the problem is guns or not, we still have to get rid of them.

      2. 84
        Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Harvard is not known for its conservative ideals.  Are you really saying that the professors were paid off by conservatives to come to the conclusion that gun control doesn't work?  Please provide evidence that this occurred.

        The FBI largely came to the same conclusion recently.  Do you think conservatives paid the FBI to come to the same conclusion? 

        Do two studies start to tell the "story" that you mention?


        By the way, the Joyce Foundation largely funds Harvard studies on gun control.  Their mission is:

        "The Joyce Foundation supports the development of policies that both improve the quality of life for people in the Great Lakes region and serve as models for the rest of the country. The Joyce Foundation's grant making supports research into Great Lakes protection and restoration, energy efficiency, teacher quality and early reading, workforce development, gun violence prevention, diverse art for diverse audiences, and a strong, thriving democracy. The Foundation encourages innovative and collaborative approaches with a regional focus and the potential for a national reach."

        Do you still want to claim that the funding of this study skewed the conclusion?

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
          Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Who funded the study you cited. Harvard is actually quite a conservative place. For example, W. Bush's economic adviser, Greg Mankiw, is a professor at Harvard. So is that jackass right wing historian, Niall Ferguson.

          1. 84
            Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Claiming Harvard is conservative because you can mention two right-leaning professors who work there would be like saying Fox News is left-leaning because of two or three token liberals they have employed.  You're too funny!  Harvard is LIBERAL!  Fox News is conservative.  Let's call it like it is, and stop playing spin games to "win" a debate.  Everybody knows that Harvard is liberal, everybody!  Harvard is not a conservative place, and if you want to pursue absurd views about Harvard's general political ideology, we can certainly look at studies, demographics, geopolitical realities, and many other statistics to show how wrong your are.  Yes, I know that you want to explain away Harvard's gun control study by saying that Harvard showed political bias, but your true intent is transparent.  It's okay to concede a point from time to time, even if it means admitting a loss.

            You avoid talking about the FBI study.  Do you consider the FBI to be conservative too?

  26. Ralph Deeds profile image69
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    CHICAGO — A gunman who shot and wounded 13 people at a South Side park on Thursday night was armed with an assault-style rifle equipped with a high-capacity magazine, the police said on Friday.

    “A military-grade weapon on the streets of Chicago is simply unacceptable,” Garry McCarthy, the Chicago police superintendent, said at a news conference, where he issued another of his frequent calls for tighter state and federal gun laws.

    Among the wounded was a 3-year-old boy, who was struck in the face and is expected to survive. The boy and two other victims were hospitalized in critical condition. Mr. McCarthy said it was a miracle that no one was killed.

    The police said that no arrests had been made and that investigators were uncertain about the intended target, the motive, or even the number of people who fired weapons. There may have been one gunman, Mr. McCarthy said, or as many as three. 


    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/21/us/ch … p&_r=0

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      As Chicago has some of the most stringent gun laws in the country I have to wonder how someone got a fully automatic "military grade assault weapon" into operation there.

      It seems that gun controls aren't particularly effective in preventing shootings, doesn't it?  Maybe Chicago, with 80 more homicides last year than NYC (with 3X the people) needs to look at something else besides gun controls...

      Of course I also have to question that only 16 shots (the reported number) were fired from that automatic weapon.  Perhaps it was set on burst or single shot.  Maybe they passed it around the 3 possible shooters, each taking one shot.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
        Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        "As Chicago has some of the most stringent gun laws in the country I have to wonder how someone got a fully automatic "military grade assault weapon" into operation there.

        "It seems that gun controls aren't particularly effective in preventing shootings, doesn't it?  "

        Guns flow into Chicago and NY from states where gun regulations are less strict. This is hard to prevent.

        1. 84
          Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Do you know that this is the cause of the majority of homicides in Chicago because of data, or are you supposing it is true to justify your belief?  Do you have evidence, or are you assuming this is true?

          "Incidentally, in Chicago, according to FBI data, the chance of being stabbed or beaten to death is 67 times greater than being murdered with a so-called 'assault rifle.'"

          http://www.saf.org/viewoe.asp?id=107

        2. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Well, yes.  Criminals will always find a way to get a gun if they want one - we know that.  And it won't make any difference if every state in the union goes gun free, they will still get guns.

          So your point is?

  27. Ralph Deeds profile image69
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    Good column by Mitch Albom here:

    http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti … 3309220067

    The Ionia case, conversely, is like manna from heaven for the anti-gun crowd. How many times do you hear pro-gun voices claim, “People getting CCWs are responsible gun owners”?

    Pullum and Taylor had licenses to carry concealed weapons.

    “People who get CCWs respect guns because they have to learn about them.”

    Again, both men had CCWs — and Taylor knew plenty about guns, as the prosecutor told mlive.com that Taylor, apparently a collector, might have owned more than 100.

    “Regular folks aren’t the ones you have to worry about with guns — it’s the criminals.”

    So far, there is no indication Pullum or Taylor had any serious criminal past. Taylor did lose his concealed weapons permit for three years after a drunken-driving misdemeanor. But in 2010, he was able to get it back. And the prosecutor described him as “a polite, law-abiding citizen.”

    So there are your basic facts. The guns weren’t illegally obtained, this wasn’t crossfire from a drug war, and the shooters weren’t deranged lunatics walking through a defenseless workplace.

    Instead, this appears to be about tempers flaring over an everyday occurrence — traffic anger — but culminating in two deaths because, when the anger peaked, each man had a gun within reach and each used it to try to settle matters.

    Same as we did in the Wild West.

  28. 84
    Education Answerposted 3 years ago

    Ralph,

    You never have answered my question.  You said that the reason there are so many gun-related homicides in Chicago is because people get guns in other areas where there isn't gun control and bring the guns to Chicago.  Do you know that this is the cause of the majority of homicides in Chicago because of data, or are you supposing it is true to justify your belief?  Do you have evidence, or are you assuming this is true?

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Where do you think the young gang bangers get their guns? Have you read about NYC Mayor Bloomberg's efforts to interdict the pipeline of illegal guns from Virginia to New York City?  If you doubt what I say look it up and show me where I'm wrong. I'm not here to do your research for you. I'm not into 20 questions.

      On-line Internet sales are also a big source of illegal guns:

      http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2 … ecks-video

      1. 84
        Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Nope.  It's not unreasonable for somebody to ask for proof when a bold claim is made.   

        YOU made a statement that YOU have not proven.  I'm not asking you to do research for me; I'm only asking that you provide data to prove what YOU claimed.  You made the statement, so prove you're right.  Prove it, or stop making up "facts."  Prove that those "gang bangers" are getting guns in other areas and taking them to Chicago.  Prove that the majority of guns used in murders in Chicago come from outside of Chicago.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
          Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Not when you are disputing a perfectly logical and well known claim that mouth breathing redneck nutters are supplying inner city gangs with illegal guns.
          However,

          http://blog.timesunion.com/guns/the-iro … guns/2295/

          Please go to the link, read it and admit you are wrong.

          1. 84
            Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            First off, your article isn't about Chicago.  Also, it doesn't say that the majority of gun homicides come from out of the region; it only says that CONFISCATED guns were coming from other areas.  Confiscation can occur for many reasons, and it doesn't mean a homicide has taken place.

            Again, where is your evidence that the majority of guns used in homicides in Chicago come from other areas other than Chicago?

            It seems you're more interested in winning a debate than being accurate in your facts and statements.  I will be happy to "admit" I am wrong when you are able to provide evidence.

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
              Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Apparently you have a reading disability. The article does mention Chicago and other cities.  You have a problem admitting you are wrong. This is a dumb conversation.

              "However the latest data that Commissioner Kelly provided gives the fullest picture yet of the ”Iron Pipeline,” in which guns are transported from Southern states to states throughout the country, particularly the North East and as far away as Chicago and Los Angeles. “The iron pipeline is one of the biggest factors in thwarting New York’s efforts to keep guns off the streets and out of the hands of criminals” Commissioner Kelley stated ”

              Apparently Indiana is a significant source of illegal guns in Chicago:

              http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013 … trafficker

              But the biggest source is a single local dealer who skirts the law with straw purchaser sales and dealers outside the Chicago city limits.

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Whether it be booze or guns, do you think the liberals wanting guns gone are smart enough to eventually figure out that making laws limiting the freedom of law abiding people doesn't have much affect on the criminals?  Or that such laws won't limit the killings? 

                I do begin to see some hope as I'm finding more and more articles being written with just that information; that removing guns doesn't stop the killing.

              2. 84
                Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Ralph,

                Why are you getting so emotional and personal?  Let's keep our eyes on the facts.

                My reading comprehension is fine; I just don't believe that your article describes gun homicides in Chicago. It mentions Chicago but is about New York.  It is not about guns that were used in homicides in Chicago. 

                Your second article broaches the topic by saying, "The scheme exposed by law enforcement illustrates the tidal wave of illegal guns confronting Chicago police as they battle surging numbers of homicides and shootings."  It does not, however, provide data.  We keep hearing gun-control advocates, such as yourself,  claim that the only reason gun control isn't working in Chicago is because of guns coming in from other regions.  We all know that guns do in fact come from other areas where there is less gun control.  There are plenty of resources that confirm that.  Are the majority of gun homicides in Chicago committed with guns that were purchased outside of Chicago and imported there?  This is something many gun-control advocates claim.  I merely want to see if this is true or not.

                Again, please provide evidence that the majority of homicides in Chicago involve guns that were purchased outside of Chicago.  Further, are most of these weapons that would have been banned for purchase in Chicago?

                1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
                  Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  The point is, they don't make guns in Chicago. They are coming in from somewhere else, from multiple sources. My point was that its very hard or impossible to keep guns out of the cities when they are coming in from other states or outside the city via various methods including Internet sales. It's not accurate to say that strict gun laws, now declared unconstitutional, in Chicago haven't prevented gun mayhem. I could post one or more articles every day from shootings in Detroit--car jackings, drug gang shootings, drive by shootings, bar parking lot shootings, accidental shootings, road rage shootings, spouses killing mates and girl friends, grandmothers shooting grandsons, etc.

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I confess I have a hard time understanding the uproar over guns from other states.  After all, isn't everyone saying they don't want to take away guns, just military weapons, steel ammo, and other gun accessories they don't like? 

                    What do people selling guns in other states have to do with it when nobody wants to take guns away?

                  2. 84
                    Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    You appear to be saying that the reason gun control isn't working in Chicago is because of a flood of illegal guns coming from other areas.  May I remind you that not all guns are banned in Chicago.  What percentage of gun homicides in Chicago are committed with a "controlled" gun that was imported, perhaps a weapon that you might call an assault weapon?  The FBI has an answer:

                    The FBI states that you would be 67 times more likely to be stabbed or strangled to death in Chicago versus being killed with an "assault weapon."

                  3. 84
                    Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Let me ask my question a different way.  What percentage of the guns used in homicides in Chicago were purchased legally and in accordance with the Chicago regulations? 

                    I have seen little evidence that Chicago's gun control measures have worked or that they haven't worked, because people are importing guns that are considered illegal in Chicago.  Where is a single shred of evidence?

  29. Ralph Deeds profile image69
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    Three killed and 5 injured at Elks Club shootout in Muskegon, Michigan.

    MUSKEGON — Western Michigan authorities say a shootout outside a social club has killed two men and a woman and has left five others with gunshot wounds.

    MLive.com says Muskegon police authorities got a call about 2 a.m. Sunday saying there was gunfire at the Elks Charity Lodge.

    Police say they found two men dead outside the club. They say a 20-year-old woman was shot and then was run over by a driver trying to flee police.

    Police say the woman died at a hospital.

    MLive.com reports that there have been arrests, but no other details were immediately available.

    Muskegon Public Safety Director Jeffrey Lewis says investigators are trying to sort out what happened.

    He says they have “a lot of stories” and think they have evidence that will help investigators.

    http://www.freep.com/article/20130922/N … e-shooting

  30. Ralph Deeds profile image69
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    Another one from my Sunday paper:

    At 4 a.m. Tuesday, a man and woman were stopped at an intersection near Conant and Outer Drive when two armed men approached the car, according to Detroit police. The men forced the pair out of the car, robbing the man. They then took the woman between two houses and sexually assaulted her before fleeing in the vehicle, which was later found abandoned near Ryan and Nevada.

    The attackers were both in their 20s and about 6 feet tall, wearing dark sweatshirts with hoods.

    One more:

    Also on Monday, Detroit Police found the stolen vehicle abandoned on the city’s west side. Bloomfield Township Police detectives found evidence inside indicating the men were involved in an armed robbery in Detroit where one of the victims was stabbed.

    The men, all in their 20s and from Chicago; Memphis, Tenn.; Shreveport, La.; and Birmingham, Ala., said they’d been in metro Detroit selling magazines for the past two months, according to police.  [Beware of door-to-door magazine salesmen. Bible salesmen can be worse!]]

    They are being held by Detroit Police pending charges in Detroit and Bloomfield Township.

    Another from today's paper:

    Bruce Butler, a General Motors retiree who played the lottery for 40 years, didn’t gun down a Southfield party store employee because he was angry he’d left a winning ticket on the counter months earlier, his attorney says.

    If Butler had won a $1-million prize, he would have known better than to try to cash it at a party store, attorney Joe Niskar said in his opening statement today, rejecting what he said were the stories circulating about the case.

    But while Niskar contends police got the wrong man, prosecutors say they have evidence to prove Butler, 60, of Southfield fatally shot Mike Khmoro, 48, in the parking lot of Cronin’s Liquor Store on Northwestern Highway near 12 Mile Road on Oct. 6, 2010.

    Butler is now on trial, charged with first-degree murder, in Oakland County Circuit Court.

    Note: Not all of these incidents occurred yesterday or even last week but they were all in today's paper.

    One more:
    The initial call made to 911 reported a fight involving five or six people, including one with a gun, but police said that the four suspects who left as police arrived had attempted an armed robbery there.

    Police said the officer fired three shots at the vehicle that hit him, but nobody was hit by those bullets.

    The suspect vehicle went on to hit a stop sign and parked car. The driver ran from the accident but was caught by police near the area.

  31. Ralph Deeds profile image69
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    Here's one I might put on the list--a dinosaur gun:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rKHXTsDcc

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Video isn't there, but here's one for you:
      7 year old suspended for one year from school for shooting an airsoft pellet gun in his own yard

      http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa … -1.1465745

      Think the school is over reaching it's bounds just a little here?

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
        Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        "voted to suspend Larkspur Middle School student Khalid Caraballo for one year,"

        Yes. I agree the school over-reached. That's the trouble with zero tolerance policies. They tend to come up with conclusions that defy common sense.

        Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa … z2frLxD59t

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          "They tend to come up with conclusions that defy common sense. "  Much like taking away guns that are painted black, have a hand grip or a barrel shroud, right?  Completely defying common sense (at least unless the unstated goal is simply to get all guns away from the citizenry...).

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
            Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Wrong! These pseudo military weapons might be okay without big magazines and if every buyer had to have a psychiatric exam!

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              We must have a very different mother/grandmother giving us our "common sense" then.  Because for sure a barrel shroud does NOT make any gun more deadly.  Nor does painting it black.

            2. 84
              Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              We would have to have a psychiatric exam to purchase a gun?  That's your solution?  Seriously?  Does this exam take place in any other nation?  Is there any data to suggest that it would be a good idea? 

              Who would pay for  the exam?  In education, a psychiatric exam typically costs our district a minimum of $500.  Are you simply trying to make an "assault weapon" cost so much that the average person can't purchase one?

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
                Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                My mention of a psychiatric exam was tongue in cheek.

                1. 84
                  Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Oh, I'm glad to hear that.  We often hear so many gun-control proposals that are similar to this that I thought you might be serious.

  32. Ralph Deeds profile image69
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    "Children and Guns, the Hidden Toll"

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us/ch … p&_r=0

  33. Ralph Deeds profile image69
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    A Detroit man has been charged in the fatal shooting of a man who yelled at him to slow down while driving because children were nearby, according to the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office.

    Thyrone Evans, 32, was arraigned today in 36th District Court on first-degree premeditated murder and felony firearm charges, the prosecutor’s office said in a news release.

    Evans is scheduled for a preliminary examination on Tuesday.

    Evans is accused of shooting Cleveland Dunklin, 23, on Sept. 30 in front of a house on Detroit’s west side. Dunklin had seen Evans driving an SUV at a high rate of speed in the 13900 block of Braile Street about 7 p.m. and shouted at him to slow down because children were playing in the area, the release said.

    The prosecutor’s office said Evans returned to the same block about 50 minutes later and shot Dunklin.

    Dunklin was taken to a local hospital and pronounced dead.

    Contact Eric D. Lawrence: elawrence@freepress.com

    http://www.freep.com/article/20131004/N … t-shooting

  34. Ralph Deeds profile image69
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    How many more of these suicidal nutjob shootings have to occur before our politicians have the guts to do something about them?

    "...Ciancia had at least five full 30-round magazines with him, police said..."

    "The gunman who opened fire inside Los Angeles International Airport, killing a security agent and injuring several others, was carrying a note describing himself as a "pissed off patriot" who wanted to shoot "pigs", it has been reported.

    'In the hours after Friday's deadly attack, suggestions began to emerge that the shooter - identified as Paul Ciancia, 23 - was motivated by extremist anti-government views as well as emotional problems that had pushed him towards thoughts of suicide.

    "Authorities have declined to address his motivation publicly but a law enforcement official told the Los Angeles Times that a note was found on Ciancia expressing "disappointment in the government" and claiming he had no interest in harming "innocent people".

    'Instead, he wanted to "kill TSA", the note reportedly stated, a reference to the Transport Security Administration created in the wake of the September 11 attacks to increase safety on US transportation. The written rant was said to detail Ciancia's belief that his constitutional rights were being violated by TSA searches and his anger at former Department of Homleand Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

    "As he embarked on his shooting spree, dressed in fatigues and carrying a high-powered rifle, Ciancia asked several cowering members of the public if they were TSA, witnesses claimed. He found his target, shooting dead 39-year-old agent Gerardo Hernandez, the first TSA officer to be killed in the line of duty since the agency's creation.

    "The deadly attack threw one of the world's busiest airports into chaos as terrified passengers fled Terminal 3, some gathering on the airside tarmac under the wings of waiting planes. Others locked themselves in bathrooms as security officers sought to fell the shooter, ultimately engaging him in gunfire which resulted in shots to his mouth and leg, and taking him into custody..."

    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/lax-shoo … z2jcno2hKm


    http://www.businessinsider.com/lax-shoo … emailshare

  35. Ralph Deeds profile image69
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    Another depressed, mentally ill young man brings a gun designed to look like a military assault weapon into a shopping mall. Fortunately, he was the only one killed. These weapons that look like AK47s apparently appeal to mentally ill individuals.

    "A man who walked through a large northern New Jersey mall on Monday night firing a weapon and sending thousands of people running shot and killed himself early Tuesday morning, the authorities said.

    "The man, identified as Richard Shoop, 20, of Teaneck, N.J., entered the Garden State Plaza in Paramus around 9 p.m. Monday, shortly before the mall was scheduled to close, and roamed the hallways before taking his own life, according to the Bergen County prosecutor, John Molinelli.

    "No customers or employees were injured.

    "It is unclear when Mr. Shoop shot himself, but his body was found by the authorities at 3:20 a.m, “very, very deep in an area that was under construction” in the mall, Mr. Molinelli said.

    "Mr. Shoop was found with a firearm that was meant to look like an AK-47 assault rifle, Mr. Molinelli said.

    “It was a lawful weapon that was owned by his brother,” he said. The authorities said they believed Mr. Shoop stole the gun before heading to the mall..."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/06/nyreg … ey.html?hp

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Ralph, do you think our nation will ever grow up enough to take on the problem of mental illness and violence? 

      Or will we forever remain in the "Get rid of guns!" thing because it's PC and we're more interested in keeping a congressional seat or in pretending we're doing something rather than actually taking on the problem to find a solution?

      What's wrong with our people that they will pay lip service to ending violence and death, but refuse to make any real effort?  Why do we become fixated on the tool rather than the problem?  Are we afraid to look inside ourselves for answers (because that's where they are, not in a chunk of steel)?

      1. 84
        Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I believe the answer is simple, just like the proposed solution.  It's a "quick" fix, a shortcut to actually dealing with the problem.

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
        Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I don't know whether we will ever be able to take on the issue of mental illness and violence. We are capable of doing a better job of providing mental health care for those in need. And we are capable of doing a better job of keeping guns out of their hands although that won't be easy for a variety of reasons.

        As I've said before, I've owned several guns ever since I was 12 or so. I'm not in favor of "getting rid of guns." However, there are a number of practical steps that could be taken that would be helpful without infringing anbody's 2nd Amendment rights to guns for hunting, target shooting or self-protection. I've enumerated them previously and won't bother to repeat them here, except to point out that the airport shooter was equipped with three or four 30 round magazines.. There may be a copy cat feature motivating some of these recent (past several years) mass shootings. Those appear to becoming more frequent. However, there are still plenty of regular old, murders, armed robberies, road rage shootings, jealous boyfriend shootings, drug gang drive by shootings, accidental shootings, suicides, etc. which we could be doing a better job of preventing.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yeah.  That'll work great, I bet.  You go ahead and tell the operator of a 6,000 pound weapon that you're going to take away his gun 'cause he has road rage.  That'll take care of everything!

          You can say you don't want the guns gone, but when you continue to post dozens of reports about gun violence while ignoring the underlying causes and pretending that taking guns will fix everything, I have to doubt.  Sorry about that.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
            Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I'm not "pretending that taking away guns will fix everything."  I haven't even proposed taking away any gun that was purchased and owned legally. However, every once in a while I read about a road rage incident that ends in one of the drivers pulling a pistol and shooting at the other driver. Similar incidents are common in parking lots outside bars.

            And I'm not ignoring the underlying causes of these incidents. I support improvements in mental health care.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              And as you confiscate the handgun of the road rage maniac, we will ignore that 6,000# weapon he is piloting.  Until, at least, it hits us...

              Personally, I'd rather be shot at.  But I understand - any excuse to get a gun out of the hands of the citizenry.  I'm sorry, Ralph, but your protestations to the contrary every time you post another report about gun violence it reinforces that you find those chunks of steel to be the problem, not the madman behind it.  Were it otherwise, we'd be seeing a barrage about violence of the mentally ill, including non-gun violence.

  36. Ralph Deeds profile image69
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    Another killing from my morning paper:

    "Police are investigating the Detroit shooting death of the brother-in-law of Greater Grace Temple's Bishop Charles Ellis III Monday afternoon.

    “We have to bring an end to gun violence and violence period,” Ellis said today,. “Really we are just disheartened. And hopefully we will understand why this happened and who’s responsible. And hopefully they’ll be brought to justice.”

    "Dwayne Green, 48, the brother of Ellis’ wife, Crisette Ellis, was shot twice in the head, said Ellis.

    "Two cousins had planned to visit Green Monday at the two-flat home in the 6600 block of Barlum, near Livernois and West Warren. Instead, he was found bleeding from a head wound at 4:10 p.m., Detroit Police Sgt. Michael Woody said. Police are investigating the case as a homicide, Woody added.

    “They found the door ajar and him lying on the dining room floor apparently already dead from a gun shot wound,” Ellis said.

    "Investigators are still trying to determine if anything was taken.

    “He lived alone, so that’s difficult, as to what he had and what’s not there,” Ellis said.

    "Green led the maintenance staff at the mega church at 23500 Seven Mile, near Telegraph on the city’s west side, for more than 10 years. He supervised about eight people, Ellis said.

    'Ellis said Green, an accomplished chef who has never been married, is survived by a son who’s a freshman at Jackson Community College and a daughter who lives in Atlanta."

    http://www.freep.com/article/20131105/N … law-killed

 
working