Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Friday January 02 2015, @11:49PM   Printer-friendly
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This discussion has been archived.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: 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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Underrated=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (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 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (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 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (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.