Family mourns man killed trying to stop shooting spree

[Spoonman]

In the US, we have more guns per capita than any country on Earth, nearly twice as many per capita as Yemen or Serbia. Doesn't that say anything to anyone? Don't the right wing gun enthusiasts get it at all? This is a very, very violent country. For private citizens to own so many guns is sick; it's a sickness.

Guns per 100 people: US = 97, Serbia = 58.2, and Yemen = 54.8

actually with all those guns and only .00003 of them ever killing someone it tells me we are a very nonviolent country. the number of guns that actually ever kills someone is an incredibly small percentage. in fact with that percentage, any other item would be labeled as no risk. imagine a medication that only had a negative impact on .00003 of the people who took it. it would be a total homerun.

another fact is, while the number of guns continues to increase rapidly, 66,000,000 more in the last 5 years, the number of deaths continues to decrease. more guns = less deaths.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

More fiction.

You really should stop digging.

Ok, let's deal in the facts, and only the facts.

Fact: He tried to stop the assailants.
Fact: He got killed
Fact: He had a gun

that's all the facts. We don't know if he would have died if he didn't have a gun. We don't know what would have happened to anyone there if he didn't have a gun.

There, that's the end of the debate. All the facts are now known.

No where near "all the facts".

Here's a couple more facts:

His family has suffered a needless loss that cannot be understood unless you suffer the same loss. His family cannot afford to bury him.

I really wish the nutters would think about what comes after. You write as though you think killing a "bad guy" makes you some kind of hero, that it makes you special and that you get to celebrate that and others celebrate it.

You just could not be more wrong.

Families suffer needless losses every single day. In fact, statistically speaking, families suffer needless losses every single minute of every day. How is this family's loss any worse than that of someone who dies in an automobile accident or dying of cancer? Is it worse than families that have to deal with Alzheimer's or any other degenerative diereses? If you really care about them why aren't you helping them instead of whinging about guns?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And even well trained people get shot or even shoot themselves.

The nutters live in LaLaLand. They think that any discussion about guns is all black or white. Its more guns everywhere or ban all guns. They can't think in terms of safety, of keeping people safe. All they care about is swaggering around, pretending to be what they are not and never will be.

The only people in this thread that think the issues are black and white are the anti gun nuts. The rest of us understand that things go wrong, even when the guy with the gun is highly trained.

Like I said -

I really wish the nutters would think about what comes after. You write as though you think killing a "bad guy" makes you some kind of hero, that it makes you special and that you get to celebrate that and others celebrate it.

You just could not be more wrong.

Yet you routinely label cops as heroes because they kill bad guys.

Interesting.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

READ the LINKS.

His family cannot afford to bury him.

Duh.

They can ask for help, I am sure hundreds of people would contribute for ti cover the funeral expenses.

Or, just a thought, you could tell the government to cut down on funeral regulations to make it less expensive to bury people. Never mind, I know you will never blame the government for that.

And there he goes, wandering off on another tangent ...................

There are times I hate being right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As usual, you're making stuff up to fit your own agenda. Quit lying and read the links.

The man is dead.
His family cannot afford to bury him.
If he had been insured, they might have enough to $ to bury him.
There's a link if you want put your money where your big mouth is.

What I said has nothing to do with the links you posted, it was a comment on your personal opinion. Learn to tell the difference.

Then you don't know what my opinion is.

That's it.

I give up.

You go right on making it up as you go. If you run out of lies, ask Samson for some of his.

You stated that gun nutters are wrong, was that not your opinion?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The only people in this thread that think the issues are black and white are the anti gun nuts. The rest of us understand that things go wrong, even when the guy with the gun is highly trained.

Like I said -

I really wish the nutters would think about what comes after. You write as though you think killing a "bad guy" makes you some kind of hero, that it makes you special and that you get to celebrate that and others celebrate it.

You just could not be more wrong.

Yet you routinely label cops as heroes because they kill bad guys.

Interesting.

Another tangent.

You're not reading what I write. Here it is again:

I really wish the nutters would think about what comes after. You write as though you think killing a "bad guy" makes you some kind of hero, that it makes you special and that you get to celebrate that and others celebrate it.

You just could not be more wrong.

 

[Papageorgio]

He shouldn't have tried to play the hero. The safest thing to do is to protect yourself.

He may not have been trying to 'play the hero.' His only thought may have been to stop the shooting. However, it didn't work, and, to me, this is a salient point. The pro-gun people are always saying that if people were armed, they could stop things like mass shootings. Obviously, as we can see from this incident, that isn't true.

So you use one example and it is now the standard?

So policemen get killed in the line of duty, should we disarm them?


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

 

[Esmeralda]

In the US, we have more guns per capita than any country on Earth, nearly twice as many per capita as Yemen or Serbia. Doesn't that say anything to anyone? Don't the right wing gun enthusiasts get it at all? This is a very, very violent country. For private citizens to own so many guns is sick; it's a sickness.

Guns per 100 people: US = 97, Serbia = 58.2, and Yemen = 54.8

actually with all those guns and only .00003 of them ever killing someone it tells me we are a very nonviolent country. the number of guns that actually ever kills someone is an incredibly small percentage. in fact with that percentage, any other item would be labeled as no risk. imagine a medication that only had a negative impact on .00003 of the people who took it. it would be a total homerun.

another fact is, while the number of guns continues to increase rapidly, 66,000,000 more in the last 5 years, the number of deaths continues to decrease. more guns = less deaths.

High gun ownership makes countries less safe, US study finds

American journal expedites publication of study in wake of navy yard shooting that debunks belief guns make a nation safer

The US, with the most guns per head in the world, has the highest rate of deaths from firearms.

Guns do not make a nation safer, say US doctors who have compared the rate of firearms-related deaths in countries where many people own guns with the death rate in countries where gun ownership is rare.

Their findings, published Wednesday in the prestigious American Journal of Medicine, debunk the historic belief among many people in the United States that guns make a country safer, they say. On the contrary, the US, with the most guns per head in the world, has the highest rate of deaths from firearms, while Japan, which has the lowest rate of gun ownership, has the least.

The journal has fast-tracked publication of the study because of the shootings at the Washington navy yard. It was originally scheduled for later this week.

It follows an emotional appeal from a doctor at the trauma center in Washington where the victims of Aaron Alexis' random violence were taken. "I would like you to put my trauma center out of business," Janis Orlowski, chief medical officer at MedStar Washington Hospital Center, told reporters in the aftermath of the massacre. "I would like to not be an expert on gunshots. Let's get rid of this. This is not America."

The fraught question of whether gun ownership protects populations from crime or makes them less likely to be killed has been debated for 200 years, say the authors, Sripal Bangalore of NYU Langone Medical Center, and Franz H Messerli of St Luke's Roosevelt hospital, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York. They say the arguments began as soon as the second amendment stating "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" was passed in 1791.

At one end is the argument that gun control laws are an infringement on the right to self-defense and on constitutional rights, and that there is no evidence that banning assault weapons would reduce crime. At the other end is the view that fewer firearms would reduce crime rates and overall lead to greater safety, they say.

In some of the recent mass shootings – for instance those in Aurora, Tucson, Oak Creek, Virginia Tech – it has been suggested that the killer was mentally ill and that lack of treatment was a bigger issue than gun ownership. With this in mind, the New York-based doctors looked in their study not only at the relationship of gun ownership to firearms deaths but also mental illness.

They examined data from 27 developed countries, using gun ownership figures from the Small Arms Survey and deaths from the World Health Organisation, the National Center for Health Statistics and others. They also looked at crime rates compiled by the United Nations for an indication of the safety of each country.

More guns meant more deaths, they found. "The gun ownership rate was a strong and independent predictor of firearm-related death," says Bangalore. "Private gun ownership was highest in the US. Japan, on the other end, had an extremely low gun ownership rate. Similarly, South Africa (9.4 per 100,000) and the US (10.2 per 100,000) had extremely high firearm-related deaths, whereas the United Kingdom (0.25 per 100,000) had an extremely low rate of firearm-related deaths.

"There was a significant correlation between guns per head per country and the rate of firearm-related deaths with Japan being on one end of the spectrum and the US being on the other. This argues against the notion of more guns translating into less crime. South Africa was the only outlier in that the observed firearms-related death rate was several times higher than expected from gun ownership."

High rates of mental illness in any country, on the other hand, did not predict more gun deaths.

"Although correlation is not the same as causation, it seems conceivable that abundant gun availability facilitates firearm-related deaths. Conversely, high crime rates may instigate widespread anxiety and fear, thereby motivating people to arm themselves and give rise to increased gun ownership, which, in turn, increases availability. The resulting vicious cycle could, bit by bit, lead to the polarized status that is now the case with the US," the doctors write.

"Regardless of exact cause and effect, the current study debunks the widely quoted hypothesis that countries with higher gun ownership are safer than those with low gun ownership."

High gun ownership makes countries less safe, US study finds | World news | theguardian.com

Yeah, I know, I know. The people doing the study have an agenda. They are doctors. Their agenda is to keep people healthy and alive.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

In the US, we have more guns per capita than any country on Earth, nearly twice as many per capita as Yemen or Serbia. Doesn't that say anything to anyone? Don't the right wing gun enthusiasts get it at all? This is a very, very violent country. For private citizens to own so many guns is sick; it's a sickness.

Guns per 100 people: US = 97, Serbia = 58.2, and Yemen = 54.8

actually with all those guns and only .00003 of them ever killing someone it tells me we are a very nonviolent country. the number of guns that actually ever kills someone is an incredibly small percentage. in fact with that percentage, any other item would be labeled as no risk. imagine a medication that only had a negative impact on .00003 of the people who took it. it would be a total homerun.

another fact is, while the number of guns continues to increase rapidly, 66,000,000 more in the last 5 years, the number of deaths continues to decrease. more guns = less deaths.

On the face of it, I agree.

But, unless and until you suffer a loss like this, you just can't know how bad it is. Really, you just can't.

Saying that relatively few die of guns is no comfort at all.

And the other side of that same coin is that more than 30 a day is just too damn many.

 

[dilloduck]

Like I said -

I really wish the nutters would think about what comes after. You write as though you think killing a "bad guy" makes you some kind of hero, that it makes you special and that you get to celebrate that and others celebrate it.

You just could not be more wrong.

Yet you routinely label cops as heroes because they kill bad guys.

Interesting.

Another tangent.

You're not reading what I write. Here it is again:

I really wish the nutters would think about what comes after. You write as though you think killing a "bad guy" makes you some kind of hero, that it makes you special and that you get to celebrate that and others celebrate it.

You just could not be more wrong.

Killing a bad guy who has the intent to kill more people is indeed worth celebrating. It is behavior that should be rewarded.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Yet you routinely label cops as heroes because they kill bad guys.

Interesting.

Another tangent.

You're not reading what I write. Here it is again:

I really wish the nutters would think about what comes after. You write as though you think killing a "bad guy" makes you some kind of hero, that it makes you special and that you get to celebrate that and others celebrate it.

You just could not be more wrong.

Killing a bad guy who has the intent to kill more people is indeed worth celebrating. It is behavior that should be rewarded.

Where did I say its not?

Instead of reading what you want read, read what is actually written.

 

[Esmeralda]

He shouldn't have tried to play the hero. The safest thing to do is to protect yourself.

He may not have been trying to 'play the hero.' His only thought may have been to stop the shooting. However, it didn't work, and, to me, this is a salient point. The pro-gun people are always saying that if people were armed, they could stop things like mass shootings. Obviously, as we can see from this incident, that isn't true.

So you use one example and it is now the standard?

So policemen get killed in the line of duty, should we disarm them?


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

And you choose to overlook the obvious fact that it is far more common and far more likely for an untrained, private citizen to be injured or killed when using a firearm.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

In the US, we have more guns per capita than any country on Earth, nearly twice as many per capita as Yemen or Serbia. Doesn't that say anything to anyone? Don't the right wing gun enthusiasts get it at all? This is a very, very violent country. For private citizens to own so many guns is sick; it's a sickness.

Guns per 100 people: US = 97, Serbia = 58.2, and Yemen = 54.8

actually with all those guns and only .00003 of them ever killing someone it tells me we are a very nonviolent country. the number of guns that actually ever kills someone is an incredibly small percentage. in fact with that percentage, any other item would be labeled as no risk. imagine a medication that only had a negative impact on .00003 of the people who took it. it would be a total homerun.

another fact is, while the number of guns continues to increase rapidly, 66,000,000 more in the last 5 years, the number of deaths continues to decrease. more guns = less deaths.

High gun ownership makes countries less safe, US study finds

American journal expedites publication of study in wake of navy yard shooting that debunks belief guns make a nation safer

The US, with the most guns per head in the world, has the highest rate of deaths from firearms.

Guns do not make a nation safer, say US doctors who have compared the rate of firearms-related deaths in countries where many people own guns with the death rate in countries where gun ownership is rare.

Their findings, published Wednesday in the prestigious American Journal of Medicine, debunk the historic belief among many people in the United States that guns make a country safer, they say. On the contrary, the US, with the most guns per head in the world, has the highest rate of deaths from firearms, while Japan, which has the lowest rate of gun ownership, has the least.

The journal has fast-tracked publication of the study because of the shootings at the Washington navy yard. It was originally scheduled for later this week.

It follows an emotional appeal from a doctor at the trauma center in Washington where the victims of Aaron Alexis' random violence were taken. "I would like you to put my trauma center out of business," Janis Orlowski, chief medical officer at MedStar Washington Hospital Center, told reporters in the aftermath of the massacre. "I would like to not be an expert on gunshots. Let's get rid of this. This is not America."

The fraught question of whether gun ownership protects populations from crime or makes them less likely to be killed has been debated for 200 years, say the authors, Sripal Bangalore of NYU Langone Medical Center, and Franz H Messerli of St Luke's Roosevelt hospital, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York. They say the arguments began as soon as the second amendment stating "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" was passed in 1791.

At one end is the argument that gun control laws are an infringement on the right to self-defense and on constitutional rights, and that there is no evidence that banning assault weapons would reduce crime. At the other end is the view that fewer firearms would reduce crime rates and overall lead to greater safety, they say.

In some of the recent mass shootings – for instance those in Aurora, Tucson, Oak Creek, Virginia Tech – it has been suggested that the killer was mentally ill and that lack of treatment was a bigger issue than gun ownership. With this in mind, the New York-based doctors looked in their study not only at the relationship of gun ownership to firearms deaths but also mental illness.

They examined data from 27 developed countries, using gun ownership figures from the Small Arms Survey and deaths from the World Health Organisation, the National Center for Health Statistics and others. They also looked at crime rates compiled by the United Nations for an indication of the safety of each country.

More guns meant more deaths, they found. "The gun ownership rate was a strong and independent predictor of firearm-related death," says Bangalore. "Private gun ownership was highest in the US. Japan, on the other end, had an extremely low gun ownership rate. Similarly, South Africa (9.4 per 100,000) and the US (10.2 per 100,000) had extremely high firearm-related deaths, whereas the United Kingdom (0.25 per 100,000) had an extremely low rate of firearm-related deaths.

"There was a significant correlation between guns per head per country and the rate of firearm-related deaths with Japan being on one end of the spectrum and the US being on the other. This argues against the notion of more guns translating into less crime. South Africa was the only outlier in that the observed firearms-related death rate was several times higher than expected from gun ownership."

High rates of mental illness in any country, on the other hand, did not predict more gun deaths.

"Although correlation is not the same as causation, it seems conceivable that abundant gun availability facilitates firearm-related deaths. Conversely, high crime rates may instigate widespread anxiety and fear, thereby motivating people to arm themselves and give rise to increased gun ownership, which, in turn, increases availability. The resulting vicious cycle could, bit by bit, lead to the polarized status that is now the case with the US," the doctors write.

"Regardless of exact cause and effect, the current study debunks the widely quoted hypothesis that countries with higher gun ownership are safer than those with low gun ownership."

High gun ownership makes countries less safe, US study finds | World news | theguardian.com

Yeah, I know, I know. The people doing the study have an agenda. They are doctors. Their agenda is to keep people healthy and alive.

 

[dilloduck]

Another tangent.

You're not reading what I write. Here it is again:

I really wish the nutters would think about what comes after. You write as though you think killing a "bad guy" makes you some kind of hero, that it makes you special and that you get to celebrate that and others celebrate it.

You just could not be more wrong.

Killing a bad guy who has the intent to kill more people is indeed worth celebrating. It is behavior that should be rewarded.

Where did I say its not?

Instead of reading what you want read, read what is actually written.

You didn't--It was a declarative and truthful statement made by myself.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Killing a bad guy who has the intent to kill more people is indeed worth celebrating. It is behavior that should be rewarded.

Where did I say its not?

Instead of reading what you want read, read what is actually written.

You didn't--It was a declarative and truthful statement made by myself.

Since it was in reply to what I wrote, you were implying that's what I meant.

In this thread, you and others have said I want a ban on guns, that I'm afraid of guns. Its just one lie after another and its tiresome.

Esmeralda has posted real-life facts. So have I.

The nutters have made up all sorts of scenarios that always come down to the same thing - the ridiculous "good guy with a gun" crap that has nothing in common with real life.

I'll say it again -

I really wish the nutters would think about what comes after. You write as though you think killing a "bad guy" makes you some kind of hero, that it makes you special and that you get to celebrate that and others celebrate it.

You just could not be more wrong.

Unless and until you suffer a loss like this, you just can't know how bad it is. Really, you just can't.

Saying that relatively few die of guns is no comfort at all.

And the other side of that same coin is that more than 30 a day is just too damn many.

 

[dilloduck]

Where did I say its not?

Instead of reading what you want read, read what is actually written.

You didn't--It was a declarative and truthful statement made by myself.

Since it was in reply to what I wrote, you were implying that's what I meant.

In this thread, you and others have said I want a ban on guns, that I'm afraid of guns. Its just one lie after another and its tiresome.

Esmeralda has posted real-life facts. So have I.

The nutters have made up all sorts of scenarios that always come down to the same thing - the ridiculous "good guy with a gun" crap that has nothing in common with real life.

I'll say it again -

I really wish the nutters would think about what comes after. You write as though you think killing a "bad guy" makes you some kind of hero, that it makes you special and that you get to celebrate that and others celebrate it.

You just could not be more wrong.

Unless and until you suffer a loss like this, you just can't know how bad it is. Really, you just can't.

Saying that relatively few die of guns is no comfort at all.

And the other side of that same coin is that more than 30 a day is just too damn many.

Dude----the grief ain't any better on the side of the victims. If it takes a gun to stop a gunman it may also stop a lot of grieving. It is YOU who needs to see the big picture.,

 

[Sallow]

In the US, we have more guns per capita than any country on Earth, nearly twice as many per capita as Yemen or Serbia. Doesn't that say anything to anyone? Don't the right wing gun enthusiasts get it at all? This is a very, very violent country. For private citizens to own so many guns is sick; it's a sickness.

Guns per 100 people: US = 97, Serbia = 58.2, and Yemen = 54.8

actually with all those guns and only .00003 of them ever killing someone it tells me we are a very nonviolent country. the number of guns that actually ever kills someone is an incredibly small percentage. in fact with that percentage, any other item would be labeled as no risk. imagine a medication that only had a negative impact on .00003 of the people who took it. it would be a total homerun.

another fact is, while the number of guns continues to increase rapidly, 66,000,000 more in the last 5 years, the number of deaths continues to decrease. more guns = less deaths.

That's patently ridiculous.

More Guns always equals more deaths by guns.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

You gun grabbing kooks may as well STFU.. you will NEVER disarm Americans without full revolt.. I can guarantee that.

 

[dilloduck]

In the US, we have more guns per capita than any country on Earth, nearly twice as many per capita as Yemen or Serbia. Doesn't that say anything to anyone? Don't the right wing gun enthusiasts get it at all? This is a very, very violent country. For private citizens to own so many guns is sick; it's a sickness.

Guns per 100 people: US = 97, Serbia = 58.2, and Yemen = 54.8

actually with all those guns and only .00003 of them ever killing someone it tells me we are a very nonviolent country. the number of guns that actually ever kills someone is an incredibly small percentage. in fact with that percentage, any other item would be labeled as no risk. imagine a medication that only had a negative impact on .00003 of the people who took it. it would be a total homerun.

another fact is, while the number of guns continues to increase rapidly, 66,000,000 more in the last 5 years, the number of deaths continues to decrease. more guns = less deaths.

That's patently ridiculous.

More Guns always equals more deaths by guns.

in any situation at any time ??? is that your claim ?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

You didn't--It was a declarative and truthful statement made by myself.

Since it was in reply to what I wrote, you were implying that's what I meant.

In this thread, you and others have said I want a ban on guns, that I'm afraid of guns. Its just one lie after another and its tiresome.

Esmeralda has posted real-life facts. So have I.

The nutters have made up all sorts of scenarios that always come down to the same thing - the ridiculous "good guy with a gun" crap that has nothing in common with real life.

I'll say it again -

I really wish the nutters would think about what comes after. You write as though you think killing a "bad guy" makes you some kind of hero, that it makes you special and that you get to celebrate that and others celebrate it.

You just could not be more wrong.

Unless and until you suffer a loss like this, you just can't know how bad it is. Really, you just can't.

Saying that relatively few die of guns is no comfort at all.

And the other side of that same coin is that more than 30 a day is just too damn many.

Dude----the grief ain't any better on the side of the victims. If it takes a gun to stop a gunman it may also stop a lot of grieving. It is YOU who needs to see the big picture.,

I've seen that up close and personal too and you're right.