Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Friday January 02 2015, @11:49PM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]
from the peace-of-mind dept.

The Guardian reports that the woman who was accidentally shot dead by her two-year-old son in an Idaho Walmart is described by those who knew her as a gun lover, a motivated academic and a successful nuclear research scientist who worked for Battelle’s Idaho National Laboratory and wrote several papers there including one on using glass ceramic to store nuclear waste (PDF). Rutledge was raised in north-east Idaho and always excelled at school, former high school classmate Kathleen Phelps said, recalling her as “extremely smart. … valedictorian of our class, very motivated and the smartest person I know. … Getting good grades was always very important to her.”

Veronica Rutledge and her husband loved everything about guns. They practiced at shooting ranges. They hunted. And both of them, relatives and friends say, had permits to carry concealed firearms. “They are painting Veronica as irresponsible, and that is not the case,” says Terry Rutledge, her husband’s father. “… I brought my son up around guns, and he has extensive experience shooting it. And Veronica had had hand gun classes; they’re both licensed to carry, and this wasn’t just some purse she had thrown her gun into.” Many locals don't discern anything odd with a 29-year-old woman carrying a loaded gun into a Wal-Mart during the holiday season. “It’s pretty common around here,” says Stu Miller. “A lot of people carry loaded guns.” More than 85,000 people, 7 percent of Idaho's population, are licensed to carry concealed weapons (PDF), “In Idaho, we don’t have to worry about a lot of crime and things like that,” says Sheri Sandow. “And to see someone with a gun isn’t bizarre. [Veronica] wasn’t carrying a gun because she felt unsafe. She was carrying a gun because she was raised around guns. This was just a horrible accident.”

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @12:01AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @12:01AM (#131119)

    Saw just "Idaho Mother Shot Dead by Two-Year-Old Son" in my feed, wondered why soylent picked up this thrilling flamebait. Nuclear scientist, huh? Get ready for the nuclear launch of another depleted round of explosive gun control debate.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by lars on Saturday January 03 2015, @12:34AM

      by lars (4376) on Saturday January 03 2015, @12:34AM (#131125)

      I guess it just goes to show that just because someone is "smart" in one area does not mean that they act with intelligence in other areas of their life. Leaving a gun unlocked around a two year old is pretty stupid.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @12:51AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @12:51AM (#131131)

        Has the stereotype of the absentminded professor been forgotten already? I mean sure it's been over 2500 years since Thales of Miletus fell down a well, but come on.

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday January 03 2015, @07:34AM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 03 2015, @07:34AM (#131245) Journal

          I mean sure it's been over 2500 years since Thales of Miletus fell down a well

          Already?!? How the time flies by, it seems like yesterday to me.

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
      • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday January 05 2015, @09:26PM

        by Freeman (732) on Monday January 05 2015, @09:26PM (#131975) Journal

        I would say the upside to the story is that it wasn't the kid who got shot. Most parents would "do anything" to protect their kids. I'm sure the Mom would rather it have turned out this way than the other way around. Seriously though, Be Careful with your Guns.

        --
        Forced Microsoft Account for Windows Login → Switch to Linux.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @01:13AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @01:13AM (#131136)

      I suspect the original was rejected as it wasn't geek news. The "nuclear scientist" bit was a poor attempt to get it posted. Sigh.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @12:26AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @12:26AM (#131120)

    Are the anti-gun nuts winning, bro?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @02:35AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @02:35AM (#131161)

      I have nothing against guns. People that like or are enthusiastic about guns on the other hand...

      They say that it's just a tool and people kill people. But frankly, liking guns is like liking nooses. What kind of people is enthusiastic about nooses? And who would carry them around just in case they need to hang someone?

      Who teaches their two year old how to tie one and who let them play with them?

      Nuclear Scientists do!

      I'll say, ban handguns completely. If people want to carry concealed firearms they can stick shotguns or rifles down their pants. "You can have any color you want as long it's black." You can have any firearm you want as long as it's a shotgun or a rifle. You are allowed to bear arms as long as they aren't nuclear, handguns or something else insane.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @06:26AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @06:26AM (#131208)

        So, yes then. Insane anti-gun nuts *like you* are winning.

        Better suck up to the police, boy. They have the guns and you don't, and they'll kill your ass because hauling you to jail is too much trouble. But don't worry, the men with guns are totally trustworthy as long as you don't piss them off. And when you do, you're fucking dead.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @06:29AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @06:29AM (#131211)

          they'll kill your ass because hauling you to jail is too much trouble.

          You suggest shooting police officers instead?

        • (Score: 2) by pe1rxq on Saturday January 03 2015, @04:01PM

          by pe1rxq (844) on Saturday January 03 2015, @04:01PM (#131344) Homepage

          To me as an outsider looking at the riots and protests over the last year it seems that guns have become so pervasive in the US that the police just shoot suspects to be on the safe side (especially if their skin color is not pale white). It pretty much proves the point that having guns everywhere does nothing to stop the police from killing you.

          • (Score: 1) by tftp on Saturday January 03 2015, @08:11PM

            by tftp (806) on Saturday January 03 2015, @08:11PM (#131397) Homepage

            It pretty much proves the point that having guns everywhere does nothing to stop the police from killing you.

            The police are not a significant danger. They don't need to shoot you, as long as you are not thought to attack them. (There are exceptions, but they are rare enough, and the police does not deny their guilt in those cases.) Most of the danger comes from gangs and worst drug users - they can shoot you just for fun, or for no reason at all, in the street or inside your home.

        • (Score: 1) by archfeld on Saturday January 03 2015, @11:50PM

          by archfeld (4650) <treboreel@live.com> on Saturday January 03 2015, @11:50PM (#131453) Journal

          Cites on that ? Talk about a sexist comment....But I guess sexism only applies to men, just like racial discrimination can only apply to whites. I have a pet peeve when people refer to reverse discrimination or devolution, both concepts I don't believe exist.

          --
          For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday January 03 2015, @07:42AM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 03 2015, @07:42AM (#131247) Journal

        I have nothing against guns.

        Well, you should. Especially if you live in US

        I'd recommend you at least a Kevlar vest, if not a popemobil or a stronger armoured car

        (grin)

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by tftp on Saturday January 03 2015, @12:29AM

    by tftp (806) on Saturday January 03 2015, @12:29AM (#131121) Homepage

    I do not know how people with guns and small children should live. In this case no gun training was possible due to age - and the child did not even know what it was that he grabbed in the bag. As a guess, parents should always keep their guns on themselves, in holsters with level 3 and above retention features, like Safariland SLS [lapolicegear.com]. And, perhaps, a round in the chamber can be omitted for extra safety. Or, perhaps, the whole magazine should be worn in a magazine pouch, detached from the firearm. Those are, of course, undesirable steps - George Zimmerman would be dead if he used these arrangements - but it's up to each person to decide what he wants at any given time.

    And... nuclear scientist - what does it have to do with anything? A far better question to ask is why people feel compelled to carry a pound or two of metal on their belts and in their bags. It's clearly not because they need exercise, and not because they are all paranoid.

    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday January 03 2015, @12:32AM

      by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 03 2015, @12:32AM (#131123) Journal

      Just a hook to get the story into SN and /., as best as I can tell. Otherwise, every street shooting would appear here.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 5, Informative) by n1 on Saturday January 03 2015, @12:54AM

        by n1 (993) on Saturday January 03 2015, @12:54AM (#131134) Journal

        Editor here, thought this would come up.

        Yes the 'nuclear scientist' was the hook that made me decide that this story does belong on the site. The main reason for that is the woman in question is more 'like us' than the average type of person involved in one of these tragic accidents. On from that, there is usually the position that the people involved in these incidents were not properly trained or respectful of their guns and such things do not happen to people with common sense, people 'like us'.

        I thought this was an interesting example of that it can and does happen to anyone, even if they're more intelligent than the average and have had all the training, the appropriate and responsible exposure to firearms you would hope.

        For me, this is not clickbait or incitement to start a flame war... Personally, I am interested in the perspectives people have on this incident with this additional insight and want to see a reasonable and interesting discussion on it.

        My own 'anti' or 'pro' gun position is... I am not an American but have travelled the world and been in all sorts of dangerous places, including within the US, and never felt that a gun on my person (concealed or otherwise) would have made me any safer. However, if I was a US resident I would most likely go through the process to obtain a firearm. To me the US government 'want to take our guns away' opinion is shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted; there are so many guns already they're not going away, no matter what the law says or what the government tries to do... So yeah I would probably feel safer there with a gun if I lived there. The other few dozen countries i've visited? Not at all.

        So as much as I respect, understand and generally agree with the right to bear arms position of many Americans, that doesn't mean we can't have a discussion on the topic.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @01:34AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @01:34AM (#131143)

          > So yeah I would probably feel safer there with a gun if I lived there.

          You should consider the fact that gun suicides outnumber gun homicides nearly 2-to-1. [vocativ.com] It is easy to say, "I would never get that depressed" but (a) mental disease is not voluntary and (b) it is even more difficult to be sure of the mental health of the people we live with.

          Also, the violent crime rate is way, way, way down over the last 20 years. [chicagotribune.com]

          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by n1 on Saturday January 03 2015, @02:01AM

            by n1 (993) on Saturday January 03 2015, @02:01AM (#131152) Journal

            No arguments at all, especially about depression. It has affected me and several members of my family, if I had easy access to guns a few years ago I probably would have taken the 'easy way out'.

            The statistics say violent crime is down, I don't have an opinion on it really. The crime fearing population say those statistics are lies and manipulated, I put this down to the media fear mongers. Additionally, the government of the day also has a strong incentive to make sure those figures head downward during their term in office.

            Also I would like to put emphasis on the "feel" part of my statement, being safer is almost irrelevant to ones own perception. Same as with the above violent crime statistics, there being much lower rates of violent crime than there was 20 years ago does not stop large numbers of people being more scared now than they were then.

            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by tftp on Saturday January 03 2015, @02:54AM

              by tftp (806) on Saturday January 03 2015, @02:54AM (#131165) Homepage

              No arguments at all, especially about depression. It has affected me and several members of my family, if I had easy access to guns a few years ago I probably would have taken the 'easy way out'.

              Don't know how it is in other countries, but the US Constitution does not task the Government with protecting citizens from self-inflicted harm. It would be incompatible with the notion of personal freedom. Part of that freedom is the freedom of exit on your own terms.

              Same as with the above violent crime statistics, there being much lower rates of violent crime than there was 20 years ago does not stop large numbers of people being more scared now than they were then.

              It all depends on how you count. Many assaults are not reported, as it is obvious to everyone involved that the guilty won't be found; and even if found, there won't be enough evidence to convict. I can agree that mafia with their Tommy guns is history, and that was time of violent crimes. But those were crimes against other mafia groups, not against an innocent citizen. Now we have bored teenagers who entertain themselves with knocking you out - and that directly impacts, so to say, the innocent citizen. Numerically the count of dead bodies may be lower, but the count of broken bones and cerebral contusions and humiliation is growing. Note also that for each pedestrian assaulted we have 1,000 pedestrians that are in fear of becoming a victim.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @04:32AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @04:32AM (#131180)

                > US Constitution does not task the Government with protecting citizens from self-inflicted harm.

                How is that relevant to the question of whether or not it is a good idea to keep a gun in the house?

                > Now we have bored teenagers who entertain themselves with knocking you out

                A couple of incidents that may or may not have a lot more context to them is statistical noise shouldn't be very compelling.

                I recently read an article postulating that conservatives value mythos (stories) while liberals value logos (facts) and that's why neither finds the other group sensible. While nothing about people is ever 100% I see your post as an excellent example of that principle - in your mind anecdotal stories about kids playing the "knockout game" are more credible than 30+ years of reasonably consistent collection of nationwide crime statistics.

                • (Score: 2, Insightful) by tftp on Saturday January 03 2015, @04:58AM

                  by tftp (806) on Saturday January 03 2015, @04:58AM (#131187) Homepage

                  in your mind anecdotal stories about kids playing the "knockout game" are more credible than 30+ years of reasonably consistent collection of nationwide crime statistics

                  Stories about crime that is unfolding here and now and that you can see with your own eyes are always more pertinent than 30+ years of statistical data that is interpreted for you by people unknown by, for example, averaging crime across densely populated inner cities and large, lightly populated rural properties. Even if statisticians tell you that the street in front of your house is perfectly safe, on average, you should be wary if a bunch of very suspicious people are gathering up there right now.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @05:20AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @05:20AM (#131193)

                    And how many cases of teenagers "playing the knock-out game" have you witnessed with your own eyes?
                    Oh yeah, none.
                    In fact, your entire knowledge of it is through an interpretation by people unknown.

                    I find your mis-characterization oddly satisfying, proof that facts indeed do not matter to your narrative, just story-telling.

                    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by tftp on Saturday January 03 2015, @05:40AM

                      by tftp (806) on Saturday January 03 2015, @05:40AM (#131197) Homepage

                      And how many cases of teenagers "playing the knock-out game" have you witnessed with your own eyes? Oh yeah, none.

                      Why none? Far more than that. And you can witness them too, on YouTube, in CCTV and personal records, and draw your own conclusions. Perhaps the trend will eventually fade, but so far "the game" is "played." It's easy to identify - it's an unprovoked, often unexpected assault that has no other purpose. Such signature - an attack just to prove your prowess - has not been seen since Japanese warriors ceased to test their new swords on live people.

                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @05:52AM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @05:52AM (#131200)

                        > And you can witness them too, on YouTube, in CCTV and personal records,

                        What's a "personal record?"

                        And how do you know the videos on youtube aren't "interpreted by people unknown?" That they aren't staged? All I found was fakes and local news segments long on hype and low on analysis.

                        Its oddly satisfying that your scepticism is reserved for people who are part of a system of accountability as imperfect as it may be, but not for random anons posting to youtube.

                        • (Score: 1) by tftp on Saturday January 03 2015, @06:52PM

                          by tftp (806) on Saturday January 03 2015, @06:52PM (#131378) Homepage

                          What's a "personal record?"

                          Perhaps I should have been clearer. I meant privately performed video recording, as opposed to CCTV that is usually operated by businesses and governments.

                          All I found was fakes

                          I take what I see for what I see. If I see an assault, I think it is an assault - not a staged performance. Especially in CCTV records, where "the actors" would have no way to know what is recorded and how to get to it. Combine it with words of witnesses and with police reports, and the picture becomes pretty consistent. It is certainly more believable than a country-wide practical joke that includes the actors, the victims, the doctors, the police, and the media.

                • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday January 03 2015, @07:53AM

                  by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 03 2015, @07:53AM (#131250) Journal

                  in your mind anecdotal stories about kids playing the "knockout game" are more credible than 30+ years of reasonably consistent collection of nationwide crime statistics.

                  Tell about those statistics to Christopher Lane [abc.net.au]
                  Maybe you don't believe it was about "playing a game"? Well? [abc.net.au]

                  --
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04 2015, @01:00PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04 2015, @01:00PM (#131551)

                    (1) Shooting people isn't part of the "knockout game."
                    (2) Why is that anecdote more meaningful than the anecdote about this woman?

                    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday January 04 2015, @10:35PM

                      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 04 2015, @10:35PM (#131687) Journal

                      Anecdote [wikipedia.org] - an anecdote is a short and amusing but serious account, which may depict a real/fake incident or character.
                      (I fail to see where's the "amusing" bit in the two cases, to consider them a proper Wikipedia anecdote)

                      anecdote [merriam-webster.com] - a brief account of something interesting that happened especially to one personally
                      (well, at least the two stories qualify as "interesting". But, whatever floats your boat, if you prefer statistics to real life incidents which may tell you something)

                      --
                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @04:44AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @04:44AM (#131184)

                the count of dead bodies may be lower, but the count of broken bones and cerebral contusions and humiliation is growing.

                Those crimes stats aren't just for murders. They are about all forms of violent crime, rates of assault are down even more than the murder rate.

              • (Score: 1) by DNied on Saturday January 03 2015, @04:24PM

                by DNied (3409) on Saturday January 03 2015, @04:24PM (#131349)

                Don't know how it is in other countries, but the US Constitution does not task the Government with protecting citizens from self-inflicted harm. It would be incompatible with the notion of personal freedom.

                And that's why the US Government never declared any silly "War on drugs". Hmm...

                • (Score: 2) by tathra on Saturday January 03 2015, @05:25PM

                  by tathra (3367) on Saturday January 03 2015, @05:25PM (#131362)

                  whenever i see somebody who's pro-gun but anti-drug, i always use their exact same, word-for-word pro-gun arguments back to them as pro-drug arguments. its fun to watch them quickly tear apart their own points as to why guns should be legal. they never, ever have a justification as to why guns should be ok but not drugs, except for bullshit like, "oh well that's different", meaning it always boils down to the bullshit, "guns are ok because I say so".

                • (Score: 1) by tftp on Saturday January 03 2015, @08:31PM

                  by tftp (806) on Saturday January 03 2015, @08:31PM (#131408) Homepage

                  And that's why the US Government never declared any silly "War on drugs". Hmm...

                  I would have set up street kiosks with heroin-loaded syringes. Anyone who hears a short lecture about suicide by drugs and signs on a dotted line will be given a dose for free. Darwin will take care of the rest.

                  Elsewhere on SN I also proposed setting up a secure area (a city block, or a small town) for use of drugs. Anyone can come in, but he can leave only after the drugs' effect wears off. Drugs are available inside, along with modern "opium houses" for their use.

                  The modern society is obsessed with value of human life - but that is valid only if the human in question also values his own life and life of others. If he does not - well, humans are nowhere close to extinction. The society will probably manage without drug users. Treatment has to be offered, of course. But the decision has to belong to the person in question. We may lose a few geniuses this way, but the society will be far healthier.

                  • (Score: 1) by DNied on Sunday January 04 2015, @09:38AM

                    by DNied (3409) on Sunday January 04 2015, @09:38AM (#131508)

                    I would have set up street kiosks with heroin-loaded syringes. Anyone who hears a short lecture about suicide by drugs and signs on a dotted line will be given a dose for free. Darwin will take care of the rest.

                    Elsewhere on SN I also proposed setting up a secure area (a city block, or a small town) for use of drugs.

                    That's almost all kind of fine and dandy, but - back to the point - my counterexample was meant to show you how "not being tasked by the constitution" and "being against personal freedom" are two factors that never prevented the US gov't from doing things.

                    Sooo... You probably can't use those factors as convincing arguments for why the gov't never restricted weapons. There must be something else...

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04 2015, @01:02PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04 2015, @01:02PM (#131552)

                      Its a version of the no true scotsman fallacy.

                    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by tftp on Sunday January 04 2015, @04:55PM

                      by tftp (806) on Sunday January 04 2015, @04:55PM (#131604) Homepage

                      You probably can't use those factors as convincing arguments for why the gov't never restricted weapons. There must be something else...

                      Yes, there is. It's called physical inability, so far, to violate 2A without massive repercussions. Not to say that they aren't trying.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @04:50AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @04:50AM (#131185)

              > Also I would like to put emphasis on the "feel" part of my statement, being safer is almost irrelevant to ones own perception.

              That's true, but it is not a good way to make decisions. The same mechanism is behind all kinds of other bad decisions like anti-vaxxers.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @02:04AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @02:04AM (#131154)

            suicides are irrelevant; if someone wants to kill themselves they will use whatever tool is available

            the drop in violent crime stats likely correlates more closely with the increase in police powers and government overreach, and are probably fudged in any case

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @04:37AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @04:37AM (#131181)

              > suicides are irrelevant; if someone wants to kill themselves they will use whatever tool is available

              No, that has been proven to be a false characterization. They may indeed try to kill themselves, but literally all other forms of suicide take much more preparation and are much less final. A gunshot is one and done. Pills, hanging, co2 suffocation, jumping off a building, suicide-by-cop, they all have higher survival rates and give the person more opportunity to change their mind.

              They've also found that suicide survivors tend not to try again in for at least the following six months. If it were a case of being determined to kill themselves, that would not be true.

          • (Score: 1) by Buck Feta on Saturday January 03 2015, @02:18AM

            by Buck Feta (958) on Saturday January 03 2015, @02:18AM (#131159) Journal

            Leaving the gun stuff aside, I'd like to point out that not all people who kill themselves are depressed. Many are making a logical choice based on medical issues, pain, or expected loss of faculties.

            --
            - fractious political commentary goes here -
            • (Score: 2) by fnj on Saturday January 03 2015, @03:49AM

              by fnj (1654) on Saturday January 03 2015, @03:49AM (#131173)

              These particular individuals ending their lives due to medical issues are not actually "killing themselves". They are choosing the manner and time of their death, which is altogether different. And by extension, choosing not to undergo loss of faculties is much the same. A life which has descended into profound dementia is not really a life at all. I'm not talking about when you forget where your car keys are. I'm talking about you don't have the faintest idea who that person is who says they are your spouse or child.

              • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Magic Oddball on Saturday January 03 2015, @06:46PM

                by Magic Oddball (3847) on Saturday January 03 2015, @06:46PM (#131377) Journal

                That's the case if their disorder/disease is terminal and they're entering the end-stage where medicine's ability to alleviate suffering tends to fail.

                The problem is, that's very rarely the case for suicidal people with serious medical problems. Speaking both from a lot of research and experience**, the vast majority of cases involve a person with traits like these:
                -- disability that is likely permanent
                -- frequently disabling pain levels that are undertreated
                -- currently or recently being abused
                -- social isolation
                -- very poor with no reason to think it will improve
                -- feelings of guilt for needing assistance

                Unfortunately, 'normal' people see a major medical condition, and assume it's automatically "logical" to be suicidal -- but when the same patient doesn't have those other factors in place, the depression invariably either is absent or becomes fully treatable. It makes sense, too: if you remove the "disability" line, all of the others are well-known factors for depression in anybody.

                If you stop and think about it, it's really saying something that out of all the countries that have considered legalizing euthanasia, none of them had the support of their country's disability rights movement. With very rare exceptions, the people in favor of it have invariably been healthy individuals that assume living with serious medical conditions (including dementia) is a living nightmare, when the people that are actually in that situation (like me) rarely become depressed without the same external causes that affect 'normal' people.

                As a side note about dementia: the vast majority of them continue enjoying life and doing as much as they can as long as they're living somewhere that they're well cared-for. A lot of our impression of dementia/Alzheimer's is based on what it looks like when the person has been 'warehoused' in a nursing home with little-to-no interaction aside from family visiting. It's the family that 'suffers' from watching the person change as their memory & cognitive abilities fade; committing suicide when they have their full faculties, though, would mean dying long before the 'good times' would end and traumatizing the hell out of their loved ones anyway.

                **I'm the sort of person you likely figure should be "logically" suicidal: internal defects galore [wikipedia.org], a herniated brain [wikipedia.org], and oldschool autism. None of that made me suicidal; what did was suddenly finding myself in constant intolerable body/head pain that were undertreated, social isolation, and being convinced I was a worthless burden on others by my then-boyfriend. Once I got on an antidepressant, dumped his ass, and was given proper pain management, I was OK again.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @08:28PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @08:28PM (#131407)

                > individuals ending their lives... are not actually "killing themselves"

                ???

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @04:41AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @04:41AM (#131182)

              Sure, but that's in the noise. Especially with gunshots. Most people who kevorkian do it with pills because they've spent a long time coming to the decision and then planning it out and aren't so selfish as not to care about the trauma suffered by the people who find their body.

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @02:01AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @02:01AM (#131153)

          I live in the US, I walk around a lot at night, and I don't own a gun. I don't feel unsafe. People don't go around randomly shooting each other*. You can be robbed just as easily with a knife as a gun. Personally, I'd be more afraid of a person with a knife rather than a gun.

          If someone tries to rob you, you won't have your gun in hand. Grabbing for it will get you shot/knifed. If you saw the robbery coming, couldn't get away, and pulled first, then the other guy is going to claim you attacked him and you're going to rot in jail. If you're in a random ranged gun fight then you were probably shot before you noticed the gun pointed at you. At close range, the person with martial art skills is more likely to win or at least not get their gun turned against them. If you threaten someone with a gun then you're going to jail and/or seen as the attacker. You shouldn't pull a lethal weapon just to threaten and you should never be the one to escalate a conflict. You can pull on the robber, but now you made the situation worse. Before the robber had three choices: complete the robbery, give up and run away, or shoot the person. Most robbers pick one of the first two options. When you try to help, now he has two choices: Kill both of you or go to jail.

          I don't have a problem with people carrying weapons, but I don't see how they're ever useful in public other than creating the mental fear that anyone around you might shoot you. Wearing a bullet proof vest might be better.

          *The very few times that did happen it would have been very dangerous to pull your own gun out and start shooting. The risk of hitting a bystander was high and the risk of other people thinking you're the shooter would also be high. Again, martial arts (jumping the gunman at a choke point/blind spot) or wearing body armor would have been more helpful than having a gun. You should assume you'll always lose a shootout because the other guy already has you targeted before you draw.

          • (Score: 1) by tftp on Saturday January 03 2015, @03:24AM

            by tftp (806) on Saturday January 03 2015, @03:24AM (#131169) Homepage

            People don't go around randomly shooting each other

            You are happily living in a safe community. There are still plenty of those, and I am living in a similar environment. I wouldn't be carrying a gun even if I could, simply because there is no need to do so here. I'd hate to live in a place where I am threatened so much as to prompt me to go armed.

            However there are plenty of places (like large cities) where it is dangerous. Chicago comes to mind, with their unconventional pastime habits [heyjackass.com]. For 2014:

            Shot & Killed: 388
            Shot & Wounded: 2231
            Total Shot: 2619

            That's about 7 people shot every single day. I am not sure that your assurances that "people don't go around randomly shooting each other" is true there. As it appears, in some places people do exactly that. This undermines your entire proof.

            At the same time I can agree that in many circumstances you cannot defend yourself, with a gun or with your martial arts, against a small group of prepared robbers. You cannot attack them first; often you cannot even prevent them from coming close. The robbers are not afraid to draw a gun and point it at you, whereas you, a law-abiding citizen, cannot do that until the threat becomes justifiable in the court of law. The situation is stacked against you, and is basically unwinnable. Your only helpful actions could be staying away from the suspects and unzipping your jacket. Chances are that the attackers will leave you alone, as their business model does not favor robbing armed people.

            But this is not the only situation where you may use a gun for self-defense (or to defend others.) For example, take robbery of a store, like a drug store. You and a few other customers are there. Then a junkie barges in, gun in hand, points it at the clerk and demands drugs. You are personally threatened, as you are a witness. If you can safely defend yourself in this situation, it could be a wise thing to do. A similar situation had occurred in a mall, where an active shooter was planning to kill as many as he could. He was shot and killed by an armed citizen before he could do much harm. You can say that those people are insane, and probably they are. But that's not a solution. Even availability of firearms is not a major factor here. In China an insane man stabbed about 30 people; in Norway a nationalist blew up a car bomb in the street, killing 8 and injuring 209 people; in Boston fanatics blew up an IED that killed 3 people and injured 264. And those injuries are far from being clean bullet wounds.

            Another scenario could involve protection of your own home and family from a group of tall and strong "unarmed teenagers" who are intent on doing you harm. It may be unreasonable for them to do so, but logic will not help you when they have already kicked your door in. Leave it to the pathologist to figure out what drugs they were on. Within your home or on your property you are free to carry weapons and defend yourself against deadly threats.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @03:53AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @03:53AM (#131175)

            You're reminding me of the incident where NYPD cops (supposedly trained in use of firearms and required to periodically re-qualify) fired 16 shots in a crowded area.
            2012 Empire State Building shooting [wikipedia.org]

            7 rounds hit the target; 9 bystanders were wounded. [google.com]

            -- gewg_

          • (Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Saturday January 03 2015, @07:02AM

            by LoRdTAW (3755) on Saturday January 03 2015, @07:02AM (#131227) Journal

            Personally, I'd be more afraid of a person with a knife rather than a gun.

            I take it you never had a gun shoved in your face then? I have and it is scary because even a 98 pound wheelchair bound heroine addict on chemo can pull the trigger and end your life. It makes the most timid feel powerful and you can't outrun a bullet.

            I'd rather deal with a knife than a gun. Only two types of people are going to rob you: drug addicts and gang members. Both of those people are from the streets or are very intimate with them. They are around a lot of people who carry guns. They know this and many of them are scared that others might be carrying as well (because many of them are). They really aren't tough guys so they just carry a gun. The last thing you want is some junkie strung out, jonesing for a hit carrying a gun. All they need is for something to startle them and bam, your dead. I remember a story where a few years back some pill head junkie executed four people during a drug store robbery, customers and workers because he thought they were witnesses. Meanwhile the security cameras caught the whole thing. That is how far gone they are. Gang members usually rob for initiation or to up their street cred. I was robbed at gun point along with a friend because we were in a rough neighborhood and they were looking for some dough on a Friday night. So here comes a white boy and his Indian looking friend. Before we knew it six dudes were on us and one pulls a gun. We were not assaulted but told were were in the wrong hood and to give up our cash. We just gave them our money, they laughed at us, threw our wallets in our faces and ran off. I am not going to lie, it was terrifying looking down the barrel of a gun. At any moment that dope could have pulled the trigger and ended it. We were shaking. After that we never took the train to his house because it was a scary five block walk through the ghetto to his home. I have had a few other incidents with guns but none of them were pointed at me. But they were also equally terrifying. Especially if your friend is hunched over on the ground with the barrel to his head while some low life is screaming "I'm gonna smoke this white boy" while you are standing there helpless thinking you are going to watch your friend die as you are surrounded by another five thugs. I even thought I was also going to die. We got lucky that day when they decided to just punch my friend in the face instead of blowing his brains out and just rob us. More gang bullshit.

            A knife is an unarmed or hand to hand weapon and it takes far more balls for someone to really try to use it. You can outrun a knife. And you can fight a knife if you know how. Though, yea they can be just as intimidating. And I was also robbed with a friend by some gangbangers near my home many years ago. They were behind a van pretending to look busy. We didn't pay them mind until one of them grabs my friend and throws him against the van and puts a utility knife to his throat. The other demands money from me and I hand over the few bucks I had. We were high school freshman and they were probably just a few years older. After they got my money I saw a third older kid come out from an alleyway, yell to them and they all took off. Cops said it was a gang initiation for those two shit heads and the third was a gang member overseeing their robbery. Seeing a blade to my friends throat was very scary. The expression on his face was that of fear for his life. BUT that wasn't the first time I was assaulted with a knife. A few years earlier another friend and I were assaulted by these kids who were our age, maybe 12 or 13. They just started following and taunting us as we were walking back from a store. We told them to go fuck themselves and one runs up to me, pulls out a knife and lunges at me. I don't know how but I think he was a scared as I was and was sloppy in his attack. I quickly grabbed his arm, twisted it away and flung him to the floor. My other friend took karate classes and started hitting the other kid who was now startled by my scuffle. I kicked the knife wielding kid in the face and the third kid with them, a little boy, just began crying. The other kid started pleading with my friend to stop hitting him and I grabbed my friend and we ran. I think they were two wimpy kids looking to feel tough and happened upon what they thought were two wimpy white boys. But they got their asses kicked. So like I said, you can fight a knife. If that were a gun and that kid wouldn't have to run up on me and instead, just squeeze a trigger. Bang. That is all it takes.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @07:51AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @07:51AM (#131249)

              U need to stop walking the ghettos.

              • (Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Saturday January 03 2015, @09:20AM

                by LoRdTAW (3755) on Saturday January 03 2015, @09:20AM (#131265) Journal

                Well that isn't always an option. My friend lived in Far Rockaway and we went to high school in Jamaica, both rough neighborhoods in Queens. I also live right near the Brooklyn border next to Brownsville and it's notorious Pink Houses, the most dangerous housing project in the city. I know a friend who was stabbed just a few minutes away over the border by pink house thugs a few years back. Again, gang bullshit. We just deal with it and stay alert when we walk around, day or night.

                People who insist that they feel safe at night clearly live in better neighborhoods. They just don't know any better, or more properly, any worse.

                • (Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Saturday January 03 2015, @09:23AM

                  by LoRdTAW (3755) on Saturday January 03 2015, @09:23AM (#131266) Journal

                  Oops. I just realized that I said Brownsville when I should have said East New York. Though, they border each other and are both as bad.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 05 2015, @10:30PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 05 2015, @10:30PM (#131995)

            Not sure anyone will even read this, but to answer your question, sometimes people are in fear of a particular person. An abusive husband for example. They know WHO they are afraid of and thus carry a gun for that particular reason.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @01:02PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @01:02PM (#131308)

          Luckily, in my state, we buy and sell firearms privately without the need to involve government. We need only have a good faith belief that the other party is qualified to sell or buy firearms. And we havd less crime, violent or otherwise, than practically any place on earth.

        • (Score: 2) by darkfeline on Sunday January 04 2015, @12:03AM

          by darkfeline (1030) on Sunday January 04 2015, @12:03AM (#131458) Homepage

          >there is usually the position that the people involved in these incidents were not properly trained or respectful of their guns and such things do not happen to people with common sense, people 'like us'.
          >I thought this was an interesting example of that it can and does happen to anyone, even if they're more intelligent than the average and have had all the training, the appropriate and responsible exposure to firearms you would hope.
          Err, no. Keeping a handgun in your purse is irresponsible, period. What if a purse-snatcher grabbed your purse, then used your gun to shoot you? What if the gun were to randomly discharge, and the purse was positioned so that the gun was pointing toward you or someone else?

          I don't even own or have had training in firearms, but it seems clear to me that you should carry a firearm with a discrete safety, the safety should be activated, and the gun carried in a proper holster directly on your person in a position such that it is extremely hard for someone other than yourself to draw it, impossible for someone else to reach it without you being 100% aware that they are doing so, and pointing down toward the ground at all times in case of accidental discharge.

          --
          Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
          • (Score: 1) by tftp on Sunday January 04 2015, @06:47PM

            by tftp (806) on Sunday January 04 2015, @06:47PM (#131634) Homepage

            Err, no. Keeping a handgun in your purse is irresponsible, period. What if a purse-snatcher grabbed your purse, then used your gun to shoot you?

            As I understand, purses with gun compartment were invented simply because women often have no pockets and can't carry a regular holster on a hip without it being too obvious. (That is a requirement for concealed carry.) Men have far more freedom in their choice of clothes.

            What if the gun were to randomly discharge, and the purse was positioned so that the gun was pointing toward you or someone else?

            Just like it happened in this very case? Sure, a child interfered with the gun, but for all practical purposes it was a random event. Next time around the purse could be hit by a corner of a shopping cart, for example, right inside the trigger guard... I don't know how much protection is there. Most holsters (leather and plastic) completely enclose the trigger area, so that it cannot be touched prior to drawing the gun.

            it seems clear to me that you should carry a firearm with a discrete safety, the safety should be activated, and the gun carried in a proper holster directly on your person in a position such that it is extremely hard for someone other than yourself to draw it, impossible for someone else to reach it without you being 100% aware that they are doing so, and pointing down toward the ground at all times in case of accidental discharge.

            That is exactly how most recreational gun users carry the weapons. Aside from a few very specialized designs that intentionally have no safety latch, plenty of people carry the gun on safety and without the round in the chamber. They bias the weapon toward not firing. If necessary (say, if a rancher sees a coyote) the gun can be made ready to fire at cost of one extra second to rack the slide and move the safety latch. Soldiers and police - who may need to shoot instantly - avoid safeties and have the gun ready to fire upon a long trigger pull. CCW people are somewhere in between, as they may need to shoot quickly, but at the same time the penalty for unintentional discharge is very high.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @12:33AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @12:33AM (#131124)

      And... nuclear scientist - what does it have to do with anything?

      "Useful prestigious upstanding people own guns, too! See? See? Please don't take all our guns away, please!!"

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @01:16AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @01:16AM (#131139)

      > George Zimmerman would be dead if he used these arrangements

      That is an enormous leap in logic. Just because the guy feared for his life doesn't mean he would have ended up dead. People get into fights all the time without dying. Certainly the extent of his actual injuries wasn't even close to fatal.

      • (Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Saturday January 03 2015, @09:48AM

        by CirclesInSand (2899) on Saturday January 03 2015, @09:48AM (#131275)

        Having the back of your head slammed into a concrete sidewalk is in fact very close to fatal.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04 2015, @01:19PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04 2015, @01:19PM (#131555)

          Please don't be disingenuous. Your analysis is too binary to accurately represent the reality.
          The injury report showed two minor lacerations and no contusions.
          The amount of risk he had in this situation does not qualify as likely to be fatal.

          • (Score: 3, Informative) by CirclesInSand on Sunday January 04 2015, @06:43PM

            by CirclesInSand (2899) on Sunday January 04 2015, @06:43PM (#131631)

            Well, then let's be genuine.

            Zimmerman had a broken nose, black eyes, cuts on the back of his head, and grass stains on the back of his clothes.

            Martin had only 2 injuries: a bullet wound, and bruised knuckles. We can infer he did the second to himself, and that the first occurred after Zimmerman's injuries.

            Zimmerman, while on neighborhood watch, was watching someone in public in the neighborhood.

            The fact that Zimmerman had so many injuries after being punched is amazing. After getting punched in the face and suffering a broken nose, while armed with a loaded gun, he still yelled for neighbors for help before shooting Martin (verified by witnesses), and then says he only did so after Martin went for the gun first. How much Zimmerman must have wanted to not injure Martin completely shames the lack of mercy any other person would have had. Zimmerman should be given respect for waiting as long as he did to shoot Martin, because I doubt any of the self righteous bastards slandering him would have done the same.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 05 2015, @03:52PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 05 2015, @03:52PM (#131878)

              Especially after stalking Martin through the neighborhood, even after the police told him to stop stalking him. I really don't know why Martin would have a problem with having some creep following him through an unknown neighborhood at night, then confront him as to who he is and what his business is. When Martin told him to fuck off (which I don't know if he did nor not, but my reaction would be "first, who the fuck are you and what business is it of you if I'm walking down the street. And fuck off too."), I'm sure Zimmerman politely said "I'm sorry to have bothered you sir, it really isn't any of my business" instead of escalating the situation, perhaps by pulling a gun and demanding answers. It is funny how you use "self righteous" in the same sentence as "Zimmerman", but you don't use the first to refer to the second.

              Seriously, put all the gun rights issues aside and put yourself in Martin's shoes. You're alone at night in an unknown neighborhood being stalked by someone with a gun making demands of you. You wouldn't feel threatened?

    • (Score: 2) by el_oscuro on Saturday January 03 2015, @01:50AM

      by el_oscuro (1711) on Saturday January 03 2015, @01:50AM (#131149)

      Somehow I don't think George Zimmerman would be dead - Trayvon Martin was unarmed when he shot him.

      --
      SoylentNews is Bacon! [nueskes.com]
      • (Score: 1) by tftp on Saturday January 03 2015, @02:42AM

        by tftp (806) on Saturday January 03 2015, @02:42AM (#131162) Homepage

        Somehow I don't think George Zimmerman would be dead - Trayvon Martin was unarmed when he shot him.

        TM was armed with his own arms and fists, and he knew how to use them. Should GZ have waited until TM cracks his skull open against a concrete sidewalk? What reasonable exit strategies were open to TM after he started the beating? He was living in the same community; if GZ were to survive and point him out in a lineup, TM would have a lot of trouble. The only remaining option left open was to make sure that GZ won't talk. Nobody saw him doing it anyway - or so he thought. There is no logic in any of that confrontation, unfortunately. TM could have filed a lawsuit against GZ for profiling - and chances are that he'd win it. But he had to stay civil, no matter how incensed he might have been by GZ following him. He'd be able to frame GZ just by dropping onto the ground "in fear" as the police shows up. He could have called 911 himself. But TM chose the least advantageous continuation.

        The notion of "he was unarmed" will put a frail 90 y/o grandmother in prison for shooting a 300 lbs, 6" tall, 20 y/o attacker. "The great equalizer" was invented to give every man or woman the same ability to defend themselves. Otherwise the country could be full of marauding gangs of heavy, strong bandits who'd be untoucheable. As matter of fact, medieval knights were quite upset when a musket ball became able to punch through their armor. Until that time they were literally human battle tanks, invulnerable to weapons of commoners.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @09:02AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @09:02AM (#131263)

          If Zimmerman had heeded the advice of the police dispatcher and had NOT engaged and had instead waited for the proper authorities to handle "the situation", no one would have been injured that day.

          Zimmerman chose to disregard the instructions and to instead escalated "the situation".
          So, what was "the situation"?
          Someone with the the wrong skin color who wasn't doing anything except walking home from the store.

          The punk with bad decision-making skills bit off more than he could chew, then, having CAUSED the entire event, pulled a weapon and committed murder.

          Anyone who defends George Zimmerman has distorted the facts beyond all recognition.

          -- gewg_

          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by tftp on Saturday January 03 2015, @07:57PM

            by tftp (806) on Saturday January 03 2015, @07:57PM (#131392) Homepage

            If Zimmerman had heeded the advice of the police dispatcher and had NOT engaged and had instead waited for the proper authorities to handle "the situation", no one would have been injured that day.

            Indeed. And it would be even safer if GZ spent all his life in his bed, under the blanket. Or even better - UNDER the bed. Never venturing outside, out of fear that something bad may happen. Don't even mention active watching for criminals - it's a high risk activity no matter how you parse it.

            Zimmerman chose to disregard the instructions and to instead escalated "the situation".

            Yes, he did that. And TM did his part. What GZ and TM did, until the first blow landed, was not illegal, but it had unwelcome consequences. Every contact with anyone has potential to end up badly. Especially if you are meeting with a suspect. Even the police is attacked now and then - in last few months it became quite obvious after events in Ferguson, NYC, LA, and a few other places.

            Someone with the the wrong skin color who wasn't doing anything except walking home from the store.

            I was born and grew up in a country where everyone has white skin. Do you think we were not mindful of criminals? We did not recognize them by their skin color - we recognized them by their actions. Same here. The fact that TM was black did not help, of course, as that's supported by statistics. But the real reason for GZ becoming suspicious was recorded on 911 tapes. GZ found it very unusual that someone would be slowly walking in rain, as if casing the houses. The 911 dispatcher found his observations sufficient enough to send a police officer to his location. GZ was wrong, probably, and TM was not casing houses (let's give him the benefit of doubt - he can't defend himself now.) If only TM remained friendly or simply neutral, despite seemingly unwelcome actions of GZ, he would be perfectly alive today - and GZ would know that unfounded suspicions can offend people (and make his bank account lighter.) Unfortunately, TM decided to take justice in his own hands and transitioned himself from being a potential victim of profiling into an attacker. Why did he choose violence as the first and the only answer to injustice? Would *you* do the same in the same situation? Thinking of myself, I wouldn't. I'd be calling 911 and registering my complaint. Civilized people, even when truly offended, do not beat each other up - they call their lawyer.

            Anyone who defends George Zimmerman has distorted the facts beyond all recognition.

            I'd say that GZ, prior to confrontation, was engaged in a pretty risky behavior (looking for suspicious people) without privileges that LEOs have. That, in the end, was likely to put him into some bad situation - and it did. However once the fight between GZ and TM got underway, GZ was in no position to defend himself other than by shooting the attacker. I am willing to ignore whatever GZ is telling about TM's words and about TM's reach for GZ's gun. It may or may not happened like that. However the undeniable fact is that GZ's head was repeatedly slammed against concrete; it is enough to get a brain injury. As TM had no legal right to do that to GZ, and GZ had no other way to stop TM, he used a gun. Do you see anything else that GZ could have done, being already on the ground, to stay alive and healthy? Would *you* be comfortable giving the assaulter full control over your life and death? Would you be willing to be beaten up and end up crippled or dead for mere *words* said to someone, or for mere walking in the same area?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04 2015, @01:40AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04 2015, @01:40AM (#131468)

              I was born and grew up in a country where everyone has white skin

              I am so shocked.

              TM decided to take justice in his own hands

              You certainly can twist words.
              A kid who was stalked and aggressively confronted then defended himself.

              GZ was in no position to defend himself other than by shooting the attacker

              Attacker??
              It was Zimmerman who started every step of this.
              Again, you certainly can twist words.

              A great number of people have asked why Trayvon didn't run away.
              Why isn't anyone asking why the white guy didn't run?
              He had other choices.
              The choice he made was murder.

              Someone who starts a confrontation then pulls a weapon is a pussy. Full stop.

              -- gewg_

              • (Score: 2, Interesting) by tftp on Sunday January 04 2015, @06:36AM

                by tftp (806) on Sunday January 04 2015, @06:36AM (#131499) Homepage

                I am so shocked.

                Did you note that people from such countries have no built-in racial bias?

                A kid who was stalked and aggressively confronted then defended himself.

                Could you please elaborate what was it that TM so actively defended himself from? He was afraid that GZ, a small man, will talk to him? What was the threat?

                Attacker? It was Zimmerman who started every step of this.

                During a confrontation participants can change places (become victims and aggressors) more than once. For example: A verbally offends B. B hits A in the eye. A pulls out a knife. B pulls out a gun, shoots and kills A. How many role reversals can you count here? Was B justified to shoot A "just for a few words"? One common practical example: a robber attacks someone. That someone pulls a gun. Robber runs away, but gets shot. The victim just became an aggressor, and the aggressor (the robber) is now a victim.

                A great number of people have asked why Trayvon didn't run away. Why isn't anyone asking why the white guy didn't run?

                Maybe because GZ was already on the ground, trying to protect himself from a physically stronger opponent? TM got no injuries from GZ, except the bullet wound. GZ was beaten up pretty good, if you saw the photos.

                Someone who starts a confrontation then pulls a weapon is a pussy. Full stop.

                Police officers often find themselves in exactly such a situation. Are they pussies? Note that we, the society, hired the police specifically to confront suspects. GZ acted in an informal, unprivileged role of a police officer. His intents and actions were analogous to those of LEOs. Perhaps he shouldn't have done that, and the police should not have supported him in this role - but this is a separate topic that relates to policing in general.

                Again, you certainly can twist words.

                You can untwist them easy enough - just prove me wrong using the legal norms of this country. In this particular round of discussion you only need to show that TM was facing a well defined deadly threat. Courts do not look lightly at a mere fear or suspicion, let alone disrespect - one has to be certain that his life is in danger. Usually that happens when attackers are armed, or when they begin the attack. If you are in the street and 10 teens are surrounding you, you are NOT entitled to shoot at them. As matter of fact, you may never reach that point, so high is the scrutiny. In GZ's words, he reached that state when he was about to pass out from repeated blows. Please demonstrate what danger TM was in that made his actions into a legally justifiable defense.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @01:52AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @01:52AM (#131150)

      George Zimmerman would be dead if he used these arrangements

      ...assuming he also had
      1) decided to stalk a kid who was just walking down the street
      2) then confronted that kid who was doing nothing illegal or even suspicious
      3) then pulled a weapon on the kid who had a pack of candy in one hand and a can of iced tea in the other
      ...and here's the big one--which radically deviates from the facts
      4) the kid drops his treats and pulls a weapon of equal or greater capacity out of his ass.

      Killing someone with a firearm in an incident that -you- started is murder.
      Anyone who defends George Zimmerman has distorted the facts beyond all recognition.
      Each of us should hope that we never gain the attention of a George Zimmerman.
      ...especially in Florida or any of the other shoot-first states.

      -- gewg_

    • (Score: 2) by nitehawk214 on Saturday January 03 2015, @04:54AM

      by nitehawk214 (1304) on Saturday January 03 2015, @04:54AM (#131186)

      "I do not know how people with guns and small children should live."

      Easy, you keep the guns locked up and you never let kids touch or play with guns, even toy ones.

      I like guns, but I don't consider myself a gun nut, and I have no need for a concealed carry license and advocate for reasonable gun laws (blasphemy, I know). I do love how the hardcore gun nuts have to come out in support of this woman and claim she could never have made a mistake. I don't know, carrying a squirmy 2 year old and a loaded gun at the same time might just be a mistake.

      --
      "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @06:43AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @06:43AM (#131219)

        I, for one, am against drivers licenses.

        If everyone was allowed to drive a car, there would be fewer pedestrians run over in traffic.

    • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Saturday January 03 2015, @10:28AM

      by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Saturday January 03 2015, @10:28AM (#131282) Journal

      I wanna know why the safety wasn't on (or if it was why it was so trivial to switch off a 2 year old could do it) and what the heck she was doing with a gun with such a feather light pull a 2 year old could squeeze the trigger!

      I've been around guns my whole life, fired everything from .22 to AK47, and I an honestly say I've never encountered a gun with that weak a pull except for guns owned by a few yo-yos that thought they were Billy The Kid and had purposely screwed up the pull to make it go off if you looked at it funny.

      --
      ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
      • (Score: 2) by tathra on Saturday January 03 2015, @05:32PM

        by tathra (3367) on Saturday January 03 2015, @05:32PM (#131363)

        an even better question is why a round was left in the chamber. the only time a round should be chambered is if you intend to use it (or expect the imminent need to use it, meaning you intend to use it).

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04 2015, @02:22AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04 2015, @02:22AM (#131471)

          Please sit down and only speak on things you know anything about.

          Carrying Condition 3 (Empty Chamber) is all around recognized to be a universally bad idea and is never recommended except in very narrow circumstances and situations. A BG is not going to call you up and let you know they are coming. Racking the slides requires both time and two hands. Something you often do not have in a SD situation.

          • (Score: 2) by tathra on Sunday January 04 2015, @03:38AM

            by tathra (3367) on Sunday January 04 2015, @03:38AM (#131478)

            unlike you, i do know what i'm talking about. a round should never be chambered unless you intend to use it. so long as morons like yourself think its just fine to leave rounds chambered with 2 year olds in the same room, those same morons will continue getting murdered by their children.

            • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Wednesday January 07 2015, @12:05PM

              by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Wednesday January 07 2015, @12:05PM (#132527) Journal

              Thanks, nice to see somebody besides me smacking down a fool! But this is one of the reasons I like a good old fashioned .38 revolver, you leave it on an empty cylinder and its not gonna go off by accident and while it can still be operated one handed its a single action and not gonna be easy for a kid to just grab and fire especially with the safety on. And lets face it if you are looking at a gun for personal defense? You don't need some hand cannon, a .38 is gonna do plenty of damage to mister bad guy without going 20 blocks after hitting him and hitting some kid.

              --
              ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
      • (Score: 1) by tftp on Saturday January 03 2015, @06:41PM

        by tftp (806) on Saturday January 03 2015, @06:41PM (#131374) Homepage

        I wanna know why the safety wasn't on

        The articles don't say, but what if it was the infamous gun with "trigger safety"? I, personally, wouldn't want to touch a Glock, except on a battlefield. It is too much biased for firing - not an ideal configuration for recreational shooting, where "not firing" is the safe, default mode of operation.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @09:49PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @09:49PM (#131424)

      Zimmerman is a bad example. He believed that he saw someone dangerous then got out of his car and chased that person. Zimmerman would have had time to load his weapon prior to entering a dangerous situation.

    • (Score: 2) by mojo chan on Sunday January 04 2015, @11:06AM

      by mojo chan (266) on Sunday January 04 2015, @11:06AM (#131512)

      Do you really need a gun to go to Walmart? It's a public place with lots of other people around, how dangerous can it be?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      • (Score: 1) by tftp on Sunday January 04 2015, @05:03PM

        by tftp (806) on Sunday January 04 2015, @05:03PM (#131607) Homepage

        Do you really need a gun to go to Walmart? It's a public place with lots of other people around, how dangerous can it be?

        Surely you must [click2houston.com] be joking [myfoxmemphis.com]. One would be much safer all alone in a forest than in a crowd. A mall parking lot is one of the most dangerous places [blogspot.com] that people have to visit.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by frojack on Saturday January 03 2015, @12:29AM

    by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 03 2015, @12:29AM (#131122) Journal

    Still trying to figure out how a two year old manages a trigger pull on a purse sized handgun. Most of these small double action guns have a trigger pull in excess of 10 pounds, sometimes as high as 15 pounds.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @02:16AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @02:16AM (#131158)

      Kids have surprisingly strong grips. There was an article here or on Slashdot about how this likely evolved so that babies could hold onto their mother as she climbed a tree or something similar. The average birth weight is between 5.5 and 10 pounds, so any kid should be able to grip at least that much.

      Unfortunately since you're one of those self-entitled assholes who pollute the discussion comments with signatures, especially with one saying you ignore posts that haven't been vetted by better users who take the time to moderate, you're never going to learn that. Some of us practice what we preach about security, profiling, and tracking and thus don't create accounts whenever possible.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @02:42AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @02:42AM (#131163)

        It's all about the leverage. Their fingers is just that much shorter.

      • (Score: 2) by Daiv on Saturday January 03 2015, @03:38AM

        by Daiv (3940) on Saturday January 03 2015, @03:38AM (#131172)

        I wanted to support your reply after reading your first sentence, then I kept reading and really wanted to support your reply. Now I'm sad because the second part is really true and makes me feel like replying to anyone, ever, is worthless...

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @03:52AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @03:52AM (#131174)

          So do you agree or disagree with his second part, the meta-comment?

          - different AC

          • (Score: 2) by Daiv on Saturday January 03 2015, @03:26PM

            by Daiv (3940) on Saturday January 03 2015, @03:26PM (#131338)

            Yes. Confusing, right? Sometimes, I envy people who can choose to see the world as black and white, that this OR that can be "right."

      • (Score: 1) by tftp on Saturday January 03 2015, @05:14AM

        by tftp (806) on Saturday January 03 2015, @05:14AM (#131192) Homepage

        Kids have surprisingly strong grips. There was an article here or on Slashdot about how this likely evolved so that babies could hold onto their mother as she climbed a tree or something similar. The average birth weight is between 5.5 and 10 pounds, so any kid should be able to grip at least that much.

        With both hands - sure. With one or two fingers? That is harder to accept. Merely pulling the gun out by the trigger won't fire it, as the bag itself will move. Still, somehow it did happen. The child should have never had access to the weapon. Perhaps familiarity breeds contempt?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @12:42AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @12:42AM (#131127)

    Look where she was shopping.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @12:54AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @12:54AM (#131133)

      Clearly, nuclear scientists aren't paid enough, if they're so poor that they need to shop at Walmart.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @01:33AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @01:33AM (#131142)

      Look at what the other options are in the area. If you lived there, you might find yourself at Walmart too.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @05:02AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @05:02AM (#131189)

        I'm rich. Like millionaire (but well less than 2 million) and I shop at walmart. For one thing they don't do loyalty cards so I am not forced to defend my desire for anonymity with every purchase. Frankly that shit gets old. Like I want to punch somebody old. When I lived in Boston and Los Angeles I had enough non-loyalty card stores to choose from (Market Basket (loved those guys), Trader Joes, Whole Foods, Sprouts) that walmart was a rarity. But I moved to a small town and every single grocery tries to loyalty-card me, except for the walmart super-centers (and the ultra-low budget places like Aldi). I doubt this lady was particularly pro-privacy, but walmart is even starting to carry organic fruits and vegetables, so not totally underclass.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @06:49AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @06:49AM (#131222)

          Do they somehow ensure that you give them legit data?
          A neat trick is to swap loyalty cards with friends at random intervals--or even with strangers.

          -- gewg_

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04 2015, @01:10PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04 2015, @01:10PM (#131553)

            Yes, they check your driver's license. Swapping cards helps but isn't perfect. Plus the point is to not reward a store for making stalking an official policy. In particular, I believe it is not right that stores make people choose between selling their privacy or paying extra. I believe it is a race to the bottom scenario where the people least able to protect themselves are made the most vulnerable. So, despite all of walmart's other flaws, particularly with rest to labor practices, I wish to reward them for not disrespecting people in this particular way.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by TrumpetPower! on Saturday January 03 2015, @12:45AM

    by TrumpetPower! (590) <ben@trumpetpower.com> on Saturday January 03 2015, @12:45AM (#131128) Homepage

    They are painting Veronica as irresponsible, and that is not the case.

    I'm sorry, but, if your two-year-old son shoots you to death with your own gun, you are, by definition, the very epitome of irresponsible.

    Intentions don't matter. Drunks don't intend to kill anybody when they drive themselves home from the bar.

    One way or another, she was incapable of securing her own weapon. That could be because she was particularly inept at the task, or it could be because the task is impossible, or it could lie anywhere along the spectrum. If the former, that's the exact type of irresponsibility the husband is referring to; if the latter, that just means she was irresponsible by possessing the gun in the first place.

    But the blame here is hers, first and foremost, with perhaps an honorable mention for her spouse who participated in the insanity and did nothing to prevent the tragedy. And possibly the State of Idaho for granting a license to somebody so incompetent in the first place.

    b&

    --
    All but God can prove this sentence true.
    • (Score: 2, Flamebait) by SpockLogic on Saturday January 03 2015, @01:41AM

      by SpockLogic (2762) on Saturday January 03 2015, @01:41AM (#131145)

      They are painting Veronica as irresponsible, and that is not the case.

      I'm sorry, but, if your two-year-old son shoots you to death with your own gun, you are, by definition, the very epitome of irresponsible.

      Yes, this family is the epitome of irresponsibility. No child deserves the opportunity, intentional or not, to kill his mother.

      The father and grandfather, one of who will eventually have to explain to the kid what happened, are currently in denial. I trust that one day they will realize the part they played in this terrible tragedy and when and if they do they are to be pitied rather than scorned. I fear that given the aberrant gun culture here in the US they will live out their lives in either contentious ignorance or self-serving denial.

      --
      Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @01:50AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @01:50AM (#131148)

        > The father and grandfather, one of who will eventually have to explain to the kid what happened, are currently in denial.

        I believe it is true that they are in denial. I expect that will result in the kid finding out on their own because of google. That mother has damaged her child in a way that is going to be irreversible and will weigh on him his entire life. If there were ever a case for "the right to be forgotten" this is it.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @02:20AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @02:20AM (#131160)

          Removing a link to a 7 year old news story (when the kid gets old enough to look up his mom), will have no effect on him having killed his mom. How does "the right to be forgotten" have any bearing on any of this?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @05:07AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @05:07AM (#131190)

            It will stop him from finding out about it in uncontrolled circumstances. How is that not obvious?

            Hell, without being able to search for info about her death, his family could simply never tell him what part he played. They could tell him she had an accident or a disease or something and he would be able to grow up and live his life without that burden.

      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday January 03 2015, @11:40PM

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Saturday January 03 2015, @11:40PM (#131450) Homepage
        They'll say it was "a terrible terrible accident". Therefore there was no blame to be apportioned. And life can go on as normal. They, however, may not realise that their "normal" might be considered Sweet Home Gunnutistan by others living in more civilised societies.

        Mods - I've got maxed-out kevlar^H^H^H^H^Harma - flamebait me too, I can take it.
        --
        I know I'm God, because every time I pray to him, I find I'm talking to myself.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @03:37AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @03:37AM (#131171)

      Just because something was possibly foreseeable, however unlikely, does not mean that not taking action to prevent it makes one the "epitome of irresponsible".

      An illustrative example:
      If your house was destroyed by a meteorite, then you must be the epitome of irresponsibility right? You could have seen it coming and moved, you could have bought meteorite insurance, but you did neither. Irresponsible plain and simple.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @05:09AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @05:09AM (#131191)

        Because putting a loaded pistol within easy reach of a 2-year old is exactly the same level of risk as living in a house.

    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday January 03 2015, @11:46PM

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Saturday January 03 2015, @11:46PM (#131451) Homepage
      Did nothing to prevent it? He may have been the single biggest reason it happened!

      """
      Veronica typically left her Blackfoot home with her gun nestled at her side. So on Christmas morning last week, her husband gave her a present he hoped would make her life more comfortable: a purse with a special pocket for a concealed weapon.
      ...
      "It was designed for that purpose — to carry a concealed firearm," Rutledge said in an interview late Tuesday night. "And you had to unzip a compartment to find the handgun."
      """"

      Before xmas - 2-year-old needs to wrestle the gun off his mother's hip. After xmas - rummage, rummage, bang.
      --
      I know I'm God, because every time I pray to him, I find I'm talking to myself.
  • (Score: 2, Flamebait) by bzipitidoo on Saturday January 03 2015, @12:53AM

    by bzipitidoo (4388) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 03 2015, @12:53AM (#131132) Journal

    A gun is such a dangerous tool to lug around. And except for hunters, soldiers, police, and criminals, a gun is useless. What is the gun for? If it's for "safety" then that person is a coward. More like, they're more interested in strutting around enjoying the feeling of power and dangerousness a gun gives them, feel like they can confront problems better. There are few problems that can be solved with a gun. How do you handle something like a speeding ticket with a gun? Shoot all the cops? Shoot the entire city? Obviously not. The gun is useless for most problems.

    Odds are, you'll never need a gun. If you're ever in a situation where you might need one, then the odds are it won't do you any good. You may be shot first, even before you know you need it. It may take you too long to get it out and prepare it.

    In this particular case, didn't the gun have a safety? Why wasn't the safety on?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @01:05AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @01:05AM (#131135)

      "Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA. Ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State."
      - Heinrich Himmler

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @01:15AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @01:15AM (#131138)

        Although that logic extended to today leads me to think we need a national M.A.D policy with citizens with nuclear weapons and drones armed with various types of missiles, to keep the balance of power.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @01:44AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @01:44AM (#131147)

        > - Heinrich Himmler

        That's a fake quote. Don't believe me?
        Try finding the actual source, there ain't one.

        Meanwhile the whole nazi gun control meme is pretty bogus:
        The Hitler gun control lie [salon.com]

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @01:55AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @01:55AM (#131151)

          Fake or real, it's enough to Godwin.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @01:14AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @01:14AM (#131137)

      People who drive cars are lazy, people who spend money are greedy, people who save money are cheap, people who have kids are inconsiderate, people in hospital are moochers, people who don't think everything through are stupid, people who think everything through are anal, guys that like women are chauvinists, women who like men are sluts, people who like the same sex are abominations, employers are bullies, employees are traitors... blah blah blah.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @02:04AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @02:04AM (#131155)

      I had a more detailed reply, but soylentnews doesn't like my browser so I lost it.

      OK, basics: I'm a farmer. Not a hunter (except by occasional coincidental encounter with varmints, which is more in the nature of pest control), not a cop, not a criminal (at least not as far as I
      know) and definitely not a soldier.

      The US government seems to think that being a farmer is a lot more dangerous than being a police officer, and they get that opinion from occupational hazard figures. I guess the people who
      feed you just don't rate the kind of consideration which blue uniforms do.

      The fact is that I also have to deal with two-legged nasties. Some of them see me pulling in money for my products at a farmers' market and want to rip me off. Some of them want to plant pot on
      my land without my permission, or the permission of relevant authorities. Some just plain want to rip me off in the countryside because the drugs told them to do it. Yes, there is a meth problem,
      and yes, Virginia, it is a problem.

      So call me a coward. You don't do what I do, you don't deal with the risks I have. The simple fact is it's a good day when a sheriff's deputy is within half an hour, and most calls don't even
      take less than four hours to have someone show up.

      In fact, I know a few cops from various departments (state troopers, deputies, city cops) and they're all pretty happy with me carrying, and they know darned well that I have used my gun for
      targets and real killing. And they're OK with it.

      They also know that a visible large calibre handgun in a holster makes a big difference in the tenor of negotiations when some thugs show up. And they like it that way. It's a better day for them
      when I can give them a description of the twitchy-eyed squirrely folks who were showing too much interest in my house, than shipping me off in a body bag and doing paperwork.

      The only lesson I get from the story, regardless of your prejudices and strawman positions, is that a holster is more appropriate than a purse. Well, yeah. I carry my guns in holsters.

      But you sound like a smart guy, I'm sure you knew all this.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @04:29AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @04:29AM (#131179)

        This is representative of the rural vs. urban divide that is most telling on the gun rights issue, but also flairs up for many other issues including taxation, health care, public education, and mass transit. Look at any red vs. blue county map of the USA after a Presidential election, you can pick out the big cities just from the colors on the map (which is mostly red BTW).

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @06:30AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @06:30AM (#131216)

          Actually, the part you think is red is an extremely pale pink because it is so sparsely populated. [wordpress.com]

          Another representation of your "mostly" claim.
          http://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Finnigan-chart-5.png [thefederalist.com]

          Many of those states would be more accurately described as purple (split down the middle).
          http://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Finnigan-chart-11-1024x748.png [thefederalist.com]

          -- gewg_

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @07:32AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @07:32AM (#131242)

            I understand now.

            There are more people in cities so they get to decide how us country folks get to run our business.

            They don't understand the destruction caused by, for example, wolves, or the real human, animal and financial cost born, so they tell us how it will be with wolves.
            And bears.
            And cougars.

            Because they have more votes.

            They don't understand what hog farrowing crates are for, but they know they don't like them.

            They don't understand what chickens like or don't like, or what the link between chicken happiness and productivity is, so they get to tell us how they want their chickens raised.

            Because they have more votes.

            Thank you, master gewg_, sir. You've cleared that right up for us. We'll get back to putting food on your plate right after we've thrown away our guns and trucks, because guns are evil and trucks destroy the environment.

            Yup, that same environment on which our livelihood, and the functioning of our farms depends.

            Progressives had it right all along. Who knew?

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @02:07AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @02:07AM (#131156)

      hunters, soldiers, police, and criminals

      There was a time when British cops didn't routinely carry firearms.
      Is this still the case?

      ...and a petty criminal knows that getting caught carrying a weapon will compound the charges against him--so he doesn't.

      -- gewg_

      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday January 03 2015, @11:54PM

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Saturday January 03 2015, @11:54PM (#131454) Homepage
        As I understand it, guns are available to most decently-sized constabularies in the UK. However, they are only taken out for specific occasions, not routinely, and only by a limited number of specially-trained officers. There are some locations (of political importance, say), where 24/7/53-security is a specific occasion, of course, and they may have their own dedicated units.
        --
        I know I'm God, because every time I pray to him, I find I'm talking to myself.
  • (Score: 1) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Saturday January 03 2015, @05:43AM

    by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Saturday January 03 2015, @05:43AM (#131198) Homepage Journal

    OK.

    So people in Moscow, Idaho didn't have to worry about a white supremacist who shot and killed a police officer then holed up in the Presbyterian Church on 3rd Street then shot the deacon as well.

    If you're going to die of a gunshot wound, most likely the one who pulls the trigger will be someone you know, like your two-year-old son.

    --
    Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
  • (Score: 1) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Saturday January 03 2015, @05:45AM

    by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Saturday January 03 2015, @05:45AM (#131199) Homepage Journal

    While I don't actually have the Boy Scout Marksmanship Merit Badge, I did complete the gun safety class that was required before we were permitted to handle actual guns.

    My sister, who lives in Moscow, Idaho, has a concealed carry permit.

    People who carry guns in such a way that a two year old could get them and fire them, should not be permitted to possess guns, let alone have concealed carry permits.

    --
    Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
    • (Score: 1) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Saturday January 03 2015, @05:58AM

      by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Saturday January 03 2015, @05:58AM (#131202) Homepage Journal

      I had a close friend at Moscow Junior High School who helped to feed his family by hunting deer. The only shoes his family could afford to buy him were hiking boots, as those enabled him to hunt.

      But my observation is that those who shout the loudest about our right to bear arms, quite often don't have a clue how to know how often one should point a gun at someone else, or when one should shoot just to wound someone, rather than to actually kill.

      Consider that I myself am a certified scuba diver. That means I know how often I should hold my breath when breathing off a regulator. There is a certain precise frequency for that, if you don't get it just right you'll blow out your lungs.

      --
      Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
  • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday January 03 2015, @07:13AM

    by kaszz (4211) on Saturday January 03 2015, @07:13AM (#131233) Journal

    Where there's guns around the sorrow tend to follow because Murphy likes toys like this.

  • (Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Saturday January 03 2015, @10:50PM

    by FakeBeldin (3360) on Saturday January 03 2015, @10:50PM (#131440) Journal

    “In Idaho, we don’t have to worry about a lot of crime and things like that,”

    Meanwhile, in Europe, we don't worry about being shot to death. Not even by our own children.

    PS: Just so this is not misunderstood as a position in "the" gun-debate: My position is that the US clearly has a gun problem (far larger than any other country I know of). I don't know how you fix that.

    PS PS: Just a comment on the "we've got guns, so we're safe from crime" argument: I don't recall that the US is known for having such crime-free cities.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04 2015, @01:54AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04 2015, @01:54AM (#131469)

      The safest cities are the ones with a healthy economy.
      Those places don't allow any part of their city to become an armpit.
      You can walk anywhere any time of the day.
      For examples, look to northern Europe.

      ...then there are the places where the economy has been hijacked by Neoliberals.

      -- gewg_

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04 2015, @02:32AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04 2015, @02:32AM (#131473)

      Except Europe on average has a higher crime rate than the US.

      http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Total-crimes-per-1000 [nationmaster.com]

      Crimes per 1000 persons

      USA 41.29
      UK 109.96
      Finland 100.03
      France 61.03
      EU average 49.27

      • (Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Sunday January 04 2015, @11:44AM

        by FakeBeldin (3360) on Sunday January 04 2015, @11:44AM (#131518) Journal

        You got me curious!
        I checked the link, first thing it said:

        Note: Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence.

        Hmmms. That doesn't really help. Anyway, "crime" is a bit vague, so I looked to murder rates. Comparison to your list from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
        USA: 4.7 murders per 1000 persons
        UK: 1.0
        Finland: 1.6
        France: 1.0

        EU average: 3.0