Three generations of one family found shot to death...

[zanne]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/27/AR2008052701058.html

Gee, it's a good thing the father of that family exercised his Second Amendment rights and bought a gun to defend his family. :sarcasm:

[krispos42]

1. Thank god the guns were registered!

:crazy:


Is this another attempt to convince people that if there were no guns, all the people killed with guns would still be alive?

[Schema Thing]

2. huh?

obviously not "all", but the vast majority of them would be.

[krispos42]

3. What makes you say that?

16,000 times a year in this country a person has the means, motive, and opportunity to commit murder and does so. How will trying to take away guns significantly change things?

Keep in mind that our non-gun homicide rate is as high as Western European countries' TOTAL homicide rates.

[zanne]

7. Keep in mind that our gun homicide rate is over 11,000 people a year. nt

[slackmaster]

9. Would you feeel better if we had fewer gun homicides and more knife homicides

?

[bossy22]

10. doesnt mean we couldnt have

11,000 knife deaths, or 11,000 bomb deaths, or 11,000 poisening deaths

correlation does not equal causation

[krispos42]

11. I know that

The eternal question is "will reducing GUN homicides reduce TOTAL homicides?"

[zanne]

15. Cowards use guns to kill people...

Now you tell me; Are most killers cowards?

[rdenney]

21. I call it the "click and pull" mentality. I know for myself that many people cant knife a person to.

death, but pull out a gun and its as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. :mad:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

49. Are you speaking from personal experience?

[krispos42]

23. They are dishonorable

But considering their chosen profession, that is not particularly surprising.


"Coward" is described as a lack of courage. "Courage" is defined thusly by Wiktionary:

1. the quality of a confident character not to be afraid or intimidated easily but without being incautious or inconsiderate
   
2. the ability to do things which one finds frightening

It does take "balls" to be a violent criminal. Arrogance and self-confidence, though, so I don't think they can properly be called cowards. However, "courage" has a connotation of goodness and right. Since they are violent criminals, that connotation obviously does not fit.

[zanne]

25. Guns kill from a safe distance to the gun carrier...

Instead of getting up close and actually inflicting the mortal wound, the shooter remains apart and simply shoots the gun. I call that cowardly in anybody's dictionary.

[rdenney]

26. Which is why the military uses guns not edged weapons, unless they run out of ammo.

[krispos42]

30. If you say so

:shrug:

I for one do not want fairness if and when I'm defending myself from an attacker. I don't want even odds of victory, I want the odds tilted as far in my favor as practical. You are of course free to engage any people that attack you however you wish.

We don't have honor duels anymore, and going outside and settling things "man to man" is both rare and frowned upon. And those are the only two cases that I can think of where direct combat should be "fair".

And speaking of distance, I take it you'll be moving to DC and directly confronting our elected representatives, then? Rather than through the distant and anonymous means of an internet discussion board?

[maxidivine]

32. If you find yourself in a fair fight

your tactics suck

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

33. Calling cops and soldiers cowards on a message board is kind of cowardly too.

Since we are labeling.

David

[iverglas]

53. you need to clean up your act

Really. You do.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

57. Or maybe people just need to watch what they say.

If you say people who carry guns are cowards without qualification then you are calling cops and soldiers cowards. Once you guys clean up your act then I won't need to point out the idiocy of some of these statements.

David

[SteveM]

5. But we know how prohibition works. Or doesn't.

Why is D.C.'s murder rate so high, year-in and year-out after 30 years of gun prohibition?

[Tejas]

64. gungrabbers love to think it's working so well in merry old England too n/t

[zanne]

6. I was wondering what the excuse would be this time...

I thought it'd be something like..."Oh, the guy was a terrorist" or "They came from a different culture". Leave it to you to come up with something as lame as the gun being registered! :rofl: Now confess; you'd find an excuse for any type of gun massacre possible.

[krispos42]

13. Gun registration is not my lame idea

So who's lame idea is it? And who supports the lame idea?

[zanne]

14. Anything to avoid the fact that this man shot his entire family, huh Krispos?

You must have the dodges, false analogies and excuses written on note cards.

[Indy Lurker]

16. Are you using another source of information?

At this point, I do not see any evidence that "this man shot his entire family"


Spokeswoman for the Orange County sheriff. did say "neither homicide nor suicide had been ruled out, but she stressed that the community was not in danger and no suspects were being sought. Autopsies are not yet complete and toxicology results could take up to eight weeks, she said."

I did not see anything that said "this man shot his entire family"

[iverglas]

17. I know! I know!

There were five guns, and the people all stood in a circle and aimed at the person on their right, and all pulled their triggers at once, and then crawled off to different rooms on different floors of the house to die.

It wasn't a tramp, because the cop "stressed that the community was not in danger and no suspects were being sought".

If no suspects are being sought ... well, a moderately thinking person would conclude that the "suspect(s)" is(are) dead. Otherwise, he/she/they would be being sought.

Wouldn't it just be the funniest coincidence it if had been a tramp, and s/he shot and killed all those people and then got hit by a bus while crossing the road on the way back to the bridge s/he lived under?

Imagine the surprise of the bus driver: leaping out to see what had happened, and finding s/he had run down a tramp with pockets full of loot. Oh, what, nothing was looted? Huh. Silly tramp.


I did not see anything that said "this man shot his entire family"

Well, you can try "watch this space".

[Indy Lurker]

19. How do you know who did the shooting?

If you knew who did the shooting you would have a fact, otherwise it is speculation.

It is possible that someone other than the man did the shooting.

[iverglas]

20. it is indeed

I specifically pondered the possibility that the two younger woman and the older woman were poisoned. The problem seems to be that the state of decomposition was such that the presence of bullet holes, if such there were, was not immediately apparent. Autopsies are being done.

So the three women could have been poisoned and died in their beds, fully clothed, and the couple could have shut themselves in the closet downstairs and executed a suicide pact with the two firearms found near their bodies.

Or the two daughters could have forced the parents into the closet at gunpoint, shot them in unison with the two handguns, then shot their grandmother and lain down and shot themselves. Oh, except no firearms seem to have been found near them. Drank from the same poisoned chalice and then lay down to die. Twins, you know, strange creatures.

Many scenarios are possible, aren't they? Even without a tramp. Their plausibility is a matter of opinion, and plausibility will not be in issue once a determination is made, implausible though it might turn out to be.

The thing just is that me, I always feel pretty foolish making up weird scenarios when the obvious one is staring me in the face.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

48. Why speculate on anything?

Why not wait for the facts to be determined then weigh in? Oh wait I remember you think that basing public policy on fact is utter nonsense. So the facts are really immaterial to you.


David

[iverglas]

54. you may remember something

but it evidently passed all your understanding.

This is not a matter of public policy. This is an event about which some but not all of the facts are known.

My hypothesis about what happened, should I have one, is of the most complete and utter irrelevance to anything. Expressing it might be seen as analogous to gossiping. I'm not the police, I'm not the prosecution, and I'm neither judge nor juror. Nothing I might say would have an iota of effect on the outcome of anything.

The only effect that anything I might say about this situation might have would be to make me look like a fool if I were wrong, in that I chose to make allegations that turned out to be non-fact-based, or to make me look insightful and clever if I were right. Neither of those is anyone's concern but my own.

On the other hand, someone who argues for or against a public policy is very specifically attempting to influence outcomes, in ways that affect people other than him/herself. People who do that have a duty, if they wish to be regarded as something other than demagogues, to acknowledge a wide range of facts, and also to acknowledge both common values and his/her own values, and the various interests in play, including his/her own.

I have no dog in the race in question in this thread: the deaths of five people unknown to me. I have no influence on the outcome of the investigation. I have no responsibility to anyone at all in this instance, other than the general responsibility in pubic discourse not to actually lie. If I happen to feel like pointing out that someone else's hypothesis is ridiculous, or that someone else's reasons for rejecting an apparently reasonable hypothesis are suspect, I can go right ahead and do that.

So what problem you have, I dunno.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

59. No problem, you know I adore you.

Just seems prudent to wait on the facts but like you said it's your choice. All I did was ask the question don't know why you thought I had a problem.

David

[krispos42]

24. I fail to see what you want me to do about it

Except note that the police do not know exactly what happened in the house. However, it's pretty likely its a murder-suicide. Exactly what are you trying to prove here?

[rdenney]

22. Its always the anti-depressants blamed on the school-shooting massacres, not the firearms. n/t

[slackmaster]

27. Yes, also poor parenting skills

Parents of school massacre perpetrators have usually failed to act on obvious warning signs.

For example, one of the Columbine High School shooters was doing things like sawing down shotgun barrels to lengths that are not legal without NFA paperwork (for which he was too young to qualify anyway).

[Tejas]

70. Seen many firearms on drugs have you? n/.t

[bossy22]

4. strange

but if what you were elluding to was the "fact" that if the gun wasnt there they would still be alive you would be wrong

Correlation does not equal causation- just because a gun was used in this event doesnt mean a gun was most effective means to carry out this tragedy

[Tejas]

66. Correct, gungrabbers refuse to accept any other possibility n/t

[slackmaster]

8. Would you feeel better if they had been beaten, stabbed, burned, or poisoned to death?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

12. Since the gun was registered to his wife maybe you don't know what happened.

Unless you were a witness you need to stop speculating and exploiting tragedies to push your agenda.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

18. zanne the gun grabbers don't like these meaningless anecdotes.

[rdenney]

28. Once again we see that handguns are the bane on this nations families. Once Obama gets in we can....

start to change that. This is a nationwide tragedy that has to be halted.

[slackmaster]

29. If the party adopted your position as its official stance,

Not only would Obama not get elected, we'd lose control of Congress.

[rdenney]

36. Your translation is "shut up about gun control" then? They used to that about Gays, but here we are

winning with the Gays still with us.

Handguns need to be controlled, period, and Americans are fed up with all the
gun violence.

It'll happen too, just like the Gays have won out, despite all the poor odds people gave them.

[bossy22]

39. the american people in polls

reject a ban on handguns....i dont know about there feelings on stricter controls but all the survey's i have seen show that the american public still believe in legally allowing civilians to own handguns by a margin of about 2:1

i guess the air in this shit ass state is getting to yah...god i hate New York

[maxidivine]

74. We really should just make a safety class

A mandatory item before high school graduation, maybe with a precursor class in middle school. Would ensure that at least most people would have enough basic knowledge to not injure themselves or others in the unlikely event they find a gun lying around where it shouldn't.

[bossy22]

40. must not have taken an college level stat classes have we?

CORRELATION DOES NOT MEAN CAUSATION...just because handguns are used doesnt mean handguns are the best weapon for crime....

so would you rather have criminals using rifles that are 10 times more powerful than handguns? I sure do not want that?

you sound like you are from NYC

[rdenney]

42. Nope. CNY here. If you hate New York, whats stopping you from leaving?

[bossy22]

45. Dental School

don't got the money to go out of state

Central New York eh?- i just feel bad for you now

[rdenney]

50. What issues do you have with living in CNY?

[bossy22]

83. too many

this is neither the time nor place to discuss my feelings on the "upstate" regions of this "great" state.

i spent 4 years of my life on the southern tier- constantly driving to and from syracuse....

[krispos42]

31. And that would lower deaths due to handguns

in the same fashion that outlawing silver-painted automobiles would lower deaths to do silver-painted automobiles. The UK's ongoing attempts to make firearm ownership difficult, expensive, and socially unacceptable has suceeded in lowering their GUN homicide rates. Their TOTAL homicide rates are a different story, however, hovering near 40-year highs.



We can do far more to lower crime and murder by simply advocating for and advancing traditional liberal values: fighting poverty, better education, fair trade, universal single-payer healthcare, prison reform, returning manufacturing to this country, strenghening labor unions, and a truly progressive income tax. Things which, as good liberals, we're suppose to be doing anyway.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rdenney]

43. No nationwide handgun ban but we can improve on the background check system to make sure

that the mentally ill, the depressed anti-depressant users, drug abusers and alcoholics can no longer be allowed easy access to guns and particularly, handguns. We can also crack down on gun-show loopholes and garage-sale gun purchases.

[bossy22]

46. ahh i see your knowledge on the gun issue is soundbite deep

the gun show loophole? what is this animal you speak of? Last time i checked all federal and state laws apply at a gun show. Private person transfers are not illegal according to federal law and happen in many other places other than a gun show. So you ban private transfers at gun shows- so they happen in the parking lot next door- you can't ban private person to person transfers effectively because you would need to create a full national registry which would violate the provisions of the FOPA of 1986.

Garage sale gun purchases?- must be that same mystical animal as the gun show loophole- stop being redundant!!!!!

btw i am all for improving NICS

[rdenney]

52. Of course you DO realise that if the NICS firearms checks are improved it will disqualify millions..

of people from obtaning legal firearms, since the stats show that one third to one half of all Americans have mental heath issues, drug & alcohol problems, domestic violence and other disqualifing issues that will impare their ability to legally buy a firearm, correct?

[Tejas]

69. "1/3 - 1/2 of all Americans have mental heath issues"

Time to chain the knives to the kitchen counter, eh?

[bossy22]

71. if there mental health issues

prevent them from reasonably safely handling a firearm then i believe they should be barred from ownership

if you think im one of those types that wants a gun in every hand then you are surly mistaken.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

73. Improving the background checks won't disqualify millions.

Changing the law to prohibit people the people with mental health issues and drug and alcohol problems that you want to include in the prohibited category would disqualify a lot of people, but since that isn't the law now you are out of luck. Domestic violence offenders with convictions are already caught quite well under the NCIS. You realize you'll also have to change HIPAA and about a dozen other federal laws to get this passed right?

David

[rdenney]

85. Yes, when we get universal health care, HIPPA will no longer apply so we can use data from MD's to

ban the use of firearms from mentally unstable people.

Oh, and just in case you don't know about it, if you disclose that you intend to harm yourself or others your doctor is *REQUIRED* by law to submit this information to the authorities _ASAP_.

Failure to do so will result in criminal and civil penalties against the provider, if the doctor chooses not to do so.

[DrCory]

90. Huh????

Do I detect glee at the thought of gutting HIPPA and giving government greater access to mental health records? It appears you will resort to just about any policy, no matter how contrary to individual liberty, to implement your belief system, but have you thought this through? For example, I'm sure you are aware that in other times and places, political dissidence has been suppressed by declaring folk mentally unstable and confining them in institutions. Folk declared unstable by DOCTORS you seem to think should be given greater authority in the process to limit liberties.

Tread carefully, do not let your zeal in eliminating firearms cause you become the very thing DEMOCRATS are opposed to. It need not be said, you know my meaning.

Oh, and just in case you don't know about it, if you disclose that you intend to harm yourself or others your doctor is *REQUIRED* by law to submit this information to the authorities _ASAP_.

Out of curiosity, I have heard this but not read the text. Can you provide me with a link? TIA.

[rdenney]

102. Its called a 72 hour hold or a 5150. Wikipedia it. Its common knowledge..

except for on the gungeon, apparently, where lack of the facts seem to be very shortcoming.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

110. Since you referred us there.

From wiki

Section 5150 is a section of California's Welfare and Institutions Code (specifically, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act or "LPS") which allows a qualified officer or clinician to involuntarily confine a person deemed to have a mental disorder that makes them a danger to his or her self, and/or others<1> and/or gravely disabled.


You'll notice the word allows and not the word requires.


You wrote, "Oh, and just in case you don't know about it, if you disclose that you intend to harm yourself or others your doctor is *REQUIRED* by law to submit this information to the authorities _ASAP_.

Failure to do so will result in criminal and civil penalties against the provider, if the doctor chooses not to do so."

So Dr Cory ask you for a link to the specific law or rule. To which you responded with a link that contradicts, in the 1st sentence, what you wrote. Maybe you meant to refer us somewhere else.


David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

106. People with depression are not prohibited from possessing a firearm.

So no it won't disqualify millions even if you do get rid of HIPAA. You will have to get the law changed to disclude people with depression and the other disqualifiers in your scenario. Healthcare providers are not required to report patients unless they tell you explicitly that they intend to harm themself or someone else. It is extremely rare for them to do so unless they want help. Involuntary committment or being adjudicated mentally imcompetent is the standard now. We have had the discussion here many times about whether or not that should change, but at this time you would have a lot of laws to change to disqualify millions.

David

[maxidivine]

79. Not all mental health problems are equal

someone who suffers from insomnia or an eating disorder is not quite in the same boat as a paranoid schizophrenic. It would not be appropriate to deny people ownership because of common minor afflictions.

[rdenney]

86. I agree with you. I was speaking about psychotics and depressives who kill others before they kill

themselves. Minor mental illnesses that you outlined, are of no concern to me at all.

We have years of proven data that antidepressants cause people to commit acts of homicide and suicide, however.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

95. You have years of data that proves antidepressants cause people to commit homicide.

A lot of people would be very interested in that data. Got a link, a study, anything to verify the crap you are spewing?


David

[bossy22]

96. statistics did me well

"We have years of proven data that antidepressants cause people to commit acts of homicide and suicide, however."

NO, what we have are years of evidence showing a CORRELATION between SOME antidepressant medication and rates of homicide and suicide

CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION

[maxidivine]

99. Anti depressants

really do seem to have an opposite of desired effect quite often, don't they?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

100. Seems to me most of the time we hear about a depressed shooter they are off their meds.

We often hear about shooters having a history of depression but we get no information about the treatment. Did they actually get diagnosed with depression? Were they compliant with their treatment? Did they have another associated mental illness in addition to depression? Depression is an overused statement, when the media says someone had a history of depression they should base it on a reasonable medical standard instead of stories from the family and friends. Just my 2 cents.

David

[rdenney]

103. Indeed so, but doctors still hand them out like candy, with little follow up..

unfortunately many of these new psychotropic drugs have many side-effects including loss of self control. This is what finally mandated the new "black box" warnings that no one reads anyhow.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

105. Overdiagnosed and Overprescribed

I agree. The simple fact is though if these drugs impair your ability to possess a gun then they also impair your ability to drive an automobile and take care of children. It is exceedingly rare for the person, whose only mental illness is clinical depression, to injure anyone other than themselves. And if they are compliant with treatment it is rare for them to even do that.


David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

109. Black Box Warnings and Loss of Self Control?

The FDA required that black box warnings be placed on all antidepressant medications warning they may result in increased risk of suicidal tendencies in children and adolescents.

No mention of increased risk of homicide or violence or loss of self control.

Heres a list of side effects from Wiki: Side effects of SSRIs: Nausea, diarrhea, headaches. Sexual side effects are also common with SSRIs, such as loss of libido, failure to reach orgasm and erectile problems. Serotonin syndrome is also a worrying condition associated with the use of SSRIs. The Food and Drug Administration has included Black Box warnings on all SSRIs stating how they double suicidality (from 2 in 1,000 to 4 in 1,000) in children and adolescents who are prescribed these drugs.

David

[DrCory]

104. If that is indeed the case...

"We have years of proven data that antidepressants cause people to commit acts of homicide and suicide, however."

Then shouldn't people who take antidepressants be incarcerated for the sake of public safety(Oh, and let's see some of that data by the way)? After, one can kill with a multitude of objects and devices other than firearms, or do you dispute that?

Case in point: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24943229/

[benEzra]

107. "Depressives who kill others before they kill themselves"

doesn't really describe depression, but conflates it with other disorders. It is a myth that people with depression are prone to violence. At somewhat higher risk of suicide, certainly; at risk of murder-suicide, no.

If you manage to stigmatize depression to the degree you apparently wish to, you will have a whole lot of people with depression who will avoid treatment.

[iverglas]

108. you sound like quite the expert

If you manage to stigmatize depression to the degree you apparently wish to, you will have a whole lot of people with depression who will avoid treatment.

Ah. So controlling access to firearms is "stigmatizing". Wah, wah.

I guess the same applies to people addicted to prohibited substances. Stigmatize them by denying them legal access to firearms, and they will be less likely to seek treatment.


What a load of total fucking codswallop. "Stigmatize". If being denied access to firearms were the worst thing that happened to people in need of mental health services, the world would be a wonderful place.


It is a myth that people with depression are prone to violence. At somewhat higher risk of suicide, certainly; at risk of murder-suicide, no.

Perhaps you would offer your credentials and/or cite your sources on that one.

Perhaps I can be of assistance.

http://www.helpstartshere.org/Default.aspx?PageID=1248

No standard risk assessment of people who are likely to kill their intimate partners is available. However, we can filter out from the literature on domestic homicide certain key variables. Primary among the risk factors are an abuser’s lack of employment compounded by a lack of education. Significant relationship variables are plans by the wife or partner to separate from her abuser and having a child in the home who is not the partner’s biological child.

Other factors that can help predict homicide are an abuser’s heavy use of alcohol and illicit drugs, a history of sexual jealousy, growing up in a violent home, violence and verbal abuse, an age disparity with the husband being significantly older, a threat of separation by the woman, and antisocial personality and/or an overly dependent personality, stalking and access to firearms. Threats of use of a weapon were common in these cases.

Risks for murder-suicide, specifically, are: the man being white and older than the woman, being married, a pattern of pathological jealousy, a history of battering, depression and suicidal ideation, and a threat of separation. The key distinguishing factor between this and the more usual form of domestic homicide is the presence of depression and suicidal ideation.

Guns are by far the most common weapon used in these crimes (Violence Policy Center, 2006). One could speculate that if you shoot someone, it is relatively easy to then turn the gun on yourself. If you stab or strangle someone, however, suicide becomes much more difficult.

Florida has a high rate of murder-suicide, most of which involve very elderly people. Cases of elderly murder-suicide are often defined by ambivalence related to caretaking requirements and a sense of helplessness in dealing with the ravages of old age. These cases can be considered altruistic because of the couple’s belief that the world is better off without them. The typical scenario is that the wife with late stage Alzheimer’s is cared for by a devoted but increasingly frail husband who can no longer handle the situation. So instead of calling on family, or going to a nursing home, he takes their lives in his own hands.

Of course, I'm sure that author is just a man-hating harpy.


What body cavities do you pull your pronouncements from?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

111. Interesting that you ignore the first 2 and a 1/2 paragraphs,

to get to the point that you want to make. Since your own link says that No standard risk assessment of people who are likely to kill their intimate partners is available, how much stock should we put in it? But lets break it down anyway.

According to your link if a woman marries or becomes involved with an unemployed, uneducated white man older than her who is pathologically jealous, heavily uses alcohol and illicit drugs, has a history violence and verbal abuse and an antisocial personality. Then she may be killed by her significant other and stands more of a risk of that than people who make wiser choices on who they spend time with. If though that man is also depressed he will likely kill himself after he kills her.


So depression doesn't cause more domestic homicides, it causes more people who commit domestic homicides to kill themselves afterwards. I think that sums it up. If I ever have a daughter I will discourage her from dating an unemployed, uneducated white man older than her who is pathologically jealous, heavily uses alcohol and illicit drugs, has a history violence and verbal abuse and an antisocial personality. So thanks for the advice.


David

[iverglas]

112. attention span of a gnat, or

diversionary grooming?

Let's review.

benEzra said (and I emphasize for your assistance):

It is a myth that people with depression are prone to violence.
At somewhat higher risk of suicide, certainly; at risk of murder-suicide, no.

I produce an expert opinion that depressed men are at elevated risk for committing murder-suicide.

You squawk that I "ignore" material that IS NOT ABOUT MURDER-SUICIDE, which is the SUBJECT of this discussion.

One despairs.


According to your link if a woman marries or becomes involved with an unemployed, uneducated white man older than her who is pathologically jealous, heavily uses alcohol and illicit drugs, has a history violence and verbal abuse and an antisocial personality. Then she may be killed by her significant other and stands more of a risk of that than people who make wiser choices on who they spend time with. If though that man is also depressed he will likely kill himself after he kills her.

No, actually THAT IS NOT what the material states. Quite apart from your misogynist characterization of abused women. It was very clear and I don't know how you missed it:

Risks for murder-suicide, specifically, are: the man being white and older than the woman, being married, a pattern of pathological jealousy, a history of battering, depression and suicidal ideation, and a threat of separation. The key distinguishing factor between this and the more usual form of domestic homicide is the presence of depression and suicidal ideation.

No mention of alcohol or drugs, no mention of antisocial personality. Mention, however, of being married, and of having DEPRESSION AND SUICIDAL IDEATION. That is what is commonly PRESENT in domestic murder-suicides and NOT PRESENT in domestic murders not accompanied by suicide.


So depression doesn't cause more domestic homicides, it causes more people who commit domestic homicides to kill themselves afterwards. I think that sums it up.

If you thought that, you'd be a moron. I don't know whether you think it, so I can't say.

If you don't think it, I can't be sure why you would say it, either, but that's one of life's little mysteries.

What sums it up is: a man makes a plan that involves killing his wife/partner and then himself, and then carries out the plan. Depression is a contributing factor in the decision to carry out that series of acts. The event is not a homicide followed by a decision to commit suicide. It is a murder-suicide, according to a plan to commit murder and suicide.

And access to a firearm is of considerable importance to the success of the plan, and thus to it being implemented.


If you actually expect someone to take your claim to be an emergency services worker seriously while you demonstrate this degree of either

(a) ignorance about social phenomena you should be familar with, or

(b) utter insouciance about the well-being of the people whose interests one would expect you to take an interest in

well, good luck. I'm not really buying it, myself.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

113. Did you read your own post?

You wrote, "No mention of alcohol or drugs, no mention of antisocial personality."


Then this from your link:

Other factors that can help predict homicide are an abuser’s heavy use of alcohol and illicit drugs, a history of sexual jealousy, growing up in a violent home, violence and verbal abuse, an age disparity with the husband being significantly older, a threat of separation by the woman, and antisocial personality and/or an overly dependent personality, stalking and access to firearms. Threats of use of a weapon were common in these cases.

Risks for murder-suicide, specifically, are: the man being white and older than the woman, being married, a pattern of pathological jealousy, a history of battering, depression and suicidal ideation, and a threat of separation. The key distinguishing factor between this and the more usual form of domestic homicide is the presence of depression and suicidal ideation.

Your own link says the key difference in domestic homicides and domestic murder/suicides is depression. Since suicide ideation is often a symptom of severe clinical depression it's not really material to say that it's a factor. It's ridiculous that you would say this post is only about murder-suicide. Why did you include the above information about domestic homicide in your post if the discussion was so narrowly focused?

You do realize this discussion has been about people who are using anti-depressants right? Those would be people being treated for depression. It is unlikely that people with the above characteristics are very compliant with treatment. I would like to know what other rights you and rdenney are willing to strip from the depressed?

You do realize that your search of a few seconds on google followed by a posting here doesn't make, the link you provided or you, the sole authority on this subject. It is difficult to get accurate diagnoses of people involved in murder/suicides after the fact (dead people rarely provide accurate interviews). I would think that would be obvious. It should also be obvious to anyone with half a brain that people, who heavily use alcohol and illicit drugs, have a history of sexual jealousy, grew up in a violent home, have a history of violence and verbal abuse and anti-social personalities, make poor clinical subjects for study. These factors should lead rational people to be skeptical about definitive research into this topic.

As to your characterizations of me, I consider people with depression to be just as valuable as other members of society. If you and rdenney don't feel that way ,that's your business, but to say that somehow shows an utter insouciance about the well being of the people on my part is an asinine statement. Your lack of concern about the safety of women and their ability to defend themselves often leaves me questioning whether or not you have been a victim, but I don't think it's polite to cast dispersions based on pure speculation, since you are a member of DU I choose to take you at your word. The simple fact is I deal with far more people suffering from depression than I deal with murder/suicides or attempted murder/suicide. I know how to take care of those people it's called trauma care. To be blunt when someone is bleeding to death, I could care less about their specific domestic situation, they need to have their bleeding stopped. I try to be sensitive to those issues but they are far from my top concern. If that causes you to question my line of work then you don't know many emergency workers in any field.


David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

47. How do those loopholes work exactly?

And how are you going to crack down on the anti-depressant users, drug abusers and alcoholics? Are you going to drug test before each purchase? Are you going to force potential purchasers to turn over their medical records? Do you have any evidence that depressed people and alcoholics commit a lot of gun crime specifically crime with handguns?

David

[rdenney]

55. A: License gun-owners. Pilots, ship captains & truckers cant operate using Prozac-type medications..

so its a simple matter to regulate firearms owners by licensing them as we do almost every other profession. After all the second amendment allows for regulating the militia, correct?

For example, the ship captain of that freighter that hit the Bay Bridge out in California, spilling thousands of gallons of fuel into the water was illegally operating by using anti-depressants and lying to the coast guard about it, and it looks like he is going to prison for breaking the law.

The captain of the Exxon Valdez, who was a known drunkard, has since passed away, but the precedent is set for marine vessel operators to be regulated, as well.

The same principle would operate to keep guns out of the hands of drug users and alcoholics. License and testing for drugs and have them sign a document that they are not impaired in any way under penalty of perjury and mandatory jail-time.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

58. I don't know where you got your information.

John Cota the Pilot of the freighter that hit the bay bridge was charged with violating the Clean Water Act and the Federal Migratory Bird Act. He had received waivers for the medical conditions that he disclosed including depression, sleep apnea and a huge list of others. Truck drivers can't take anti-depressants? I know several Master Firefighters who are assigned as drivers and take anti-depressants. I would think driving an emergency vehicle would be held to the same scrutiny. Would you do the same thing for car drivers? Make the depressed choose between taking medication and driving. Test them for drugs and make them sign a document that they are not impaired in any way under penalty of perjury and mandatory jail time. I have been drug tested at work and tested positive for opiates when I was prescribed Vicodin and Oxycontin, it is illegal for that positive drug test to be reported to my employer if I have a prescription for the drug. Sounds like 1984 to me but whatever you want to propose.

David

[rdenney]

61. I was NOT speaking to firefighters as they come under a whole nother set of rules then truck drivers

..who have to meet DOT, NHTSA and other federal and state regulations, more so then any firefighters do.

Remember, some of these drivers put up to 100,000 miles per year driving a rig all over this nation under all manner of conditions, having to pass into 49 states and Canada hauling who knows what freight, including hazardous materials.

Can firefighters claim the same things? Nope!

Why is it that I read about the captain of that ship _LYING_ about his antidepressant use to the coast guard in the newspapers if he had waivers for them? Why is he going to be prosecuted?

Better do your homework before you come back here, or I will hand you your head on a silver platter, fire medic david.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

62. Back it up then skippy.

The pilot, Capt. John Cota, had regularly received waivers allowing him to hold on to his federal mariner’s license despite illnesses including glaucoma, depression, kidney stones, migraines, pancreatitis and, most recently, sleep apnea, according to testimony at a hearing of the National Transportation Safety Board.

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/washington/10spill.html

Cosco Busan pilot charged with pair of crimes

The veteran pilot who was navigating the container ship Cosco Busan when it crashed into the Bay Bridge in November, spilling more than 50,000 gallons of fuel oil into the bay and killing thousands of birds, was charged in federal court in San Francisco Monday with violating two environmental laws.
Prosecutors accused Capt. John J. Cota of Petaluma of violating the Clean Water Act through criminal negligence and of killing or wounding migratory birds, a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. If convicted of the charges, both of which are misdemeanors, Cota could be sentenced to a maximum of 18 months in federal prison and $115,000 in fines.

snip

The charges allege that Cota acted in a negligent manner by a whole series of actions, including sailing in the fog, failing to proceed at a safe speed, not reviewing the proposed course with the Cosco Busan's captain and officers, failing to check the navigation equipment with the ship's officers, and not using the ship's radar while making an approach to the Bay Bridge.

Link: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/17/BASOVLD49.DTL


That's the homework that I had done before I made the last post. I'll be anxiously awaiting you to hand me my head on a silver platter. Let's see if you can back it up.


David

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

78. you have time to edit

Rules permit quoting only 4 or 5 paragraphs of copyright material such as that article.

I'd advise deleting the material after "according to the U.S. Attorney's office", for simplicity, and letting readers click the link to read the rest. Otherwise, the post might get deleted.


Interesting read.

[rdenney]

80. Thanks but it says its too late to edit. I will repost a smaller post if its deleted.

no way FM Dave is getting off the hook that easy. :evilgrin:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

91. Contradictory News Stories

That's my head on a platter. That's what you got. Let me get this straight you write a post about something you heard. I follow up with reports from news articles. You threaten me, I back up what I posted, with the links. You finally back up what you heard and you somehow think you won a prize. The courts will decide if he either had the waivers for the drugs he had taken or if he misled the Coast Guard that is as it should be. Any reports of what happened on the 5th? It is an interesting case especially since he passed a drug test after the incident. Any luck on those links on the rules forbidding truck drivers from using anti-depressants?

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

63. Do you have a link to the laws or rules prohibiting CDL holders from taking anti-depressants?

The only thing I can find is that CDL holders have to take a physical every 3 years and that the doctor has to decide if they are fit to drive. Certain things obviously make you unfit cardiac dysrhythmias, epilepsy, etc. It was the doctors discretion if they felt the medication you use made you unfit to drive. Also understand I'm not denigrating semi drivers, I wouldn't want their job. I was simply stating that I would find it strange to have regulations for semi drivers and then let someone drive a fire truck that weighs as much as a semi on an emergency run and let them disregard traffic laws without similar rules or laws. I realize they aren't the same thing, I just hadn't ever heard of semi drivers not being able to take medication for depression and I can't find anything online to that effect.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

94. Still waiting on these too.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

114. The crickets they just keep on a chirping.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

75. Still waiting.

You are probably busy and all but it's nice when people back up their threats.

David

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bossy22]

82. wow

have to resort to attacks now? Guess your arguement must be really down the toilet...better get that plunger

[rdenney]

84. What part of "two felony counts of lying to Coast Guard officials about his prescription drug use."

do you not understand?

"Fire Medic Dave" said that Pilot Cota disclosed all of those facts, which as we can plainly see here is a bald-faced <<GASP>> _LIE_!

What attack are you talking about, bossy22?

Oh, yeah, when you gun-owners get caught LYING, its' now considered an "attack", right? :eyes:

[beevul]

87. Don't play dumb.

From the DU rules which you have apparently not read:


Do not post broad-brush, bigoted statements.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html


"Sounds like Pilot Cota has something to hide....just like most of you "law-abiding" gun owners do."

In these parts anyway, that there is a broad brush smear. Otherwise known as an attack, on a group of people.

You stand corrected.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beevul]

89. Actually...

Theres quite a difference between a gun grabber, and someone that supports existing firearm controls. And theres also Pro-control, versus pro-confiscation.

For someone to be a gun grabber, one actually has advocate or support the banning and/or confiscation of legally owned firearms. One who does not support or advocate such things, clearly would not be a gun grabber. Thats a descriptive term applied to those whom it fits. Are you one of them? I bet a quick search of your posts would yeild a positive answer.

You said "...has something to hide....just like most of you "law-abiding" gun owners do."

Thats quite a different thing from calling us "law abiding gun owners".

If you proved someone wrong about something, well, good for you. I don't know that poster, so I am at a loss to why you would think it should ruffle my feathers any. But whatever turns your crank...

"You gunners are a bunch of hypocrites, IMO."

The opinion of someone that willfully describes most law abiding gun owners as a group that has "something to hide" should matter to anyone at all why exactly?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

92. Did you just call me a liar? Look in the mirror.

I didn't say he disclosed the facts the NY Times said he had received medical waivers for a variety of illnesses. I posted the links. To say otherwise is a bald faced lie.


David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

93. Let's see that logic at work

Again here is the part of the story and the link

The pilot, Capt. John Cota, had regularly received waivers allowing him to hold on to his federal mariner’s license despite illnesses including glaucoma, depression, kidney stones, migraines, pancreatitis and, most recently, sleep apnea, according to testimony at a hearing of the National Transportation Safety Board.

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/washington/10spill.ht...


and here is my previous statement from the previous post.

He had received waivers for the medical conditions that he disclosed including depression, sleep apnea and a huge list of others.


Let's see the wonderful bit of logic you use to call me a liar when presented with these facts. Pray tell what did I lie about, I simply posted what was testified to at an NTSB hearing. Should be simple enough to back up, I'm guessing you'll fail again skippy.


David

[bossy22]

97. I would have copied and pasted it

but the moderators removed it...which kind of gives support that the comment was not one that had much merit to it

i believe the comment was though that you equated us with criminals...don't play stupid

[bossy22]

98. interesting

your messages are being deleted at the speed of light. Could it possibly be that you ARE breaking DU rules

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

115. Your silence is deafening.

I guess we'll just take that as an sign of defeat.

David

[bossy22]

35. or heller might get in the way

who knows...but what happens if private handgun ownership is constitutionally protected?

guess president Obama is shit-outa-luck in that department

[rdenney]

37. Cant wait for Heller myself. The gun-owners are gonna lose big-time on that one!

[bossy22]

38. what is your proof

it was almost unanamously reported that the justices seemed to embrace the idea of an individual right to bear arms- with one of the swing justices- kennedy- practically proclaiming that the 2A is an individual right....but i guess you never listened to the case

Justice kennedy: ..."And in my view it supplemented it by saying there's a general right to bear arms quite without reference to the militia either way."

if my math skills are correct i count atleast 5 on our side....and 5 is the majority of justices...

I don't see very little evidence saying that the court is leaning against gun rights....in fact i have not read or seen one single article that says the court is leaning towards supporting a collective rights

though only time will tell....the odds are in our favor...

[rdenney]

41. DC is a virtual city-state. As such they have a right to pass their own gun laws.

But you gunners can dream on about all the guns you can buy after "Heller" defeats all of those nasty gun laws that you hate.

Ain't gonna happen. Count on it.

[bossy22]

44. so does that mean since it is virtual city/state

it can pass laws against the first amendment? Do police powers are outway constitutional rights? So the patriot act and real ID are a-okay because its well within the right of the federal government to pass laws regarding safety of United States Citizens

laws can only go so far- the constitution limits them.

The Court will find that D.C. does have the right to pass gun laws- but they can only go so far.

And i dont know where you get this idea that it will get rid of all of those "gun laws we don't like"...the decision is only regarding whether a handgun ban and a functional firearm ban violates the second amendment- so it only applies to like situations. The court might find licensing and registration of handguns to be considered constitutional while saying that an outright ban cannot

Again what you have responded with is not proof of anything other than your stated oppinion.

It sounds like to me that you havent read the briefs, havent read the transcripts, and really only get the information on this case from soundbites. If you actually did take the time to study it you would find that it isnt black and white and that is quite fascinating.

[rdenney]

51. It would seem that it is you gunners who didnt read Heller, else why all the posts about owning NFA

banned machine guns and the rollback of the gun control act of 1968? Even if HELLER passes in toto, no way are those acts going to be repealed, ever.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

65. Nice sweeping generalization.

[Tejas]

67. Yep, typical ignorance of the NFA

I'd suggest antis need to at least get a clue as to what the NFA is before spouting off.

[bossy22]

72. i dont think many us have a problem with the

GCA of 1968- all it did was set up a prohibited persons list which makes.

I can see the 86 machine gun ban going away since there was little problems with legally registered machine guns in the first place.

We all know Heller isnt going to say "all gun control is unconstitutional". Heller will most likely affirm what the lower court said- the 2nd amendment like any amendment is subject to restrictions.

thats what your side doesnt realize- well actually helmke realizes it, but he is playing to make it look like he isnt going to lose big.

[Duke Newcombe]

56. Errr...not so fast.

Manas and Margrit Ucar were found in a downstairs closet, with two handguns near the bodies. One of the handguns was registered to Margrit Ucar and both husband and wife were shot, Giudice said. The daughters and grandmother were found in the attached bedroom and the twins were in the bed, she said.

Their bodies were too decomposed to identify any gunshot wounds, Giudice said.

I don't see anywhere in there that the weapon registered to Margrit was the murder weapon. And that other gun. If they were able to find out the ownership of one, who owned the other one?

So, from these incomplete details, we get the natural conclusion that the BigBadGunOwners(tm) caused their own demise?

I'm not convinced you're right about this one--unless there is more information you're not either (a) telling us, or (b) aware of.

Duke

[ogsbee]

60. How does this tragedy affect my inalienable right to self defense?

nt

[Tejas]

68. They are simply that desperate

For lack of honest discussion, some gungrabbers will use any means necessary to hawk their wares, no matter the deceptiveness of their rhetoric.

[iverglas]

81. why honeybun, it doesn't!

It doesn't affect you at all!

Nothing to see here; click on by.

Those dead people haven't affected you in the slightest.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

101. You've made that point a lot.

That US gun policy doesn't affect you in the slightest. I'm jealous too about the honeybun reference.


David