Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Salad order prompts chef to pull gun on waitress

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 05:32 PM
Original message
Salad order prompts chef to pull gun on waitress
Edited on Fri Oct-16-09 05:40 PM by jgraz
Another Second Amendment Hero(tm), making the world safe for boutique mozzarella...

Enraged Boca Raton chef: 'I swear to God I'll shoot you in the forehead,' he reportedly tells waitress after too many salad orders

BOCA RATON One too many orders for mozzarella caprese was apparently the breaking point for a Boca Raton chef who threatened to shoot the waitress who placed the order, according to police.

While waiting tables at Pizza Time restaurant on Southwest Second Avenue on Wednesday afternoon, Cathy Vultaggio hung a ticket for the popular salad of the fresh cheese and tomatoes drizzled with olive oil and basil.

Chef and manager Mark DeCraepeo got upset and said if he received one more ticket for mozzarella caprese, "I swear to God I'll shoot you in the forehead," according to a Boca Raton police report. Vultaggio and co-worker Kristee Como told police that DeCraepeo then slammed a black gun inside a holster on the counter top.

"Now you see I'm (expletive) serious. I'll put a bullet right in your forehead," he hollered, according to the women.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_ne...



ETA: Notice that, though he was charged with aggravated assault, he was NOT charged with carrying a concealed weapon without a permit. Hmm...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
louis-t Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 05:34 PM
Response to Original message
1. I love mozzarella caprese.
I'll make sure if I'm ever in Rat's Mouth, I don't order it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoopla Phil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #1
49. Never had it. Sounds good though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 06:30 AM
Response to Reply #1
133. I do a pasta salad based (loosely) on caprese
bowtie pasta, fresh mozzarella (julean cut), grape tomatoes cut in 1/2, fresh basil, olive oil, salt. Medium chop 1/4 c. basil and place it in 1/2 c. olive oil. Cook the pasta to al dente, drain and place in ice water, drain again. Mix pasta, cheese, and tomatoes carefully. Then add the olive oil mixture slowly until all of the pasta is well coated. Salt and pepper to taste. Let the salad sit refrigerated for around an hour before serving. If the oil is pooled in the bottom of the bowl, stir the salad and then drain excess if needed. Like caprese this salad is mild flavors but is cool and refreshing. I make this a few times a year at the restaurant and people always comment that they like it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JustABozoOnThisBus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-18-09 07:15 AM
Response to Reply #1
185. I love it too. It's to die for.
Well, maybe not that good.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snagglepuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 05:40 PM
Response to Original message
2. But an abusive freak. My heart goes out to the wait staff. I can't think of anything
worse than having to deal with a freakoid chef who is also the manager. I hope the wait staff is safe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoopla Phil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #2
50. Posted: Open job opportunity for experienced salad chef.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #50
91. He is the owner of the place. N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoopla Phil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #91
157. Posted: Restaurant for sale. Must sell quick to cover legal expenses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #157
163. LOL. Great comeback. N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 06:42 AM
Response to Reply #2
134. I am the chef and manager of a restaurant
chef's are a different breed. I am not classically trained but have hired a few classically trained chefs, I don't hire them any longer because everyone I have hired had anger issues, were abusive to other staff, and wouldn't do what I told them if it was different in any way from their education. I now hire food network junkies and train them myself..life is so much easier this way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snagglepuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #134
174. Have you noticed a drop in salad orders?
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-18-09 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #174
182. I am serving caprese to 260 next saturday evening.
and I am neither angry or homicidal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snagglepuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-18-09 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #182
188. You may not be the best judge of that. People aren't the best judge of their own sanity.
Edited on Sun Oct-18-09 10:15 AM by snagglepuss
The bigger question is how your staff are dealing with that news. Maybe your okay with preparing 260 caprese but what happens if someone orders another one. That's the quetion. :scared:










:evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-19-09 04:03 AM
Response to Reply #188
197. It is stressful sometimes for sure
we serve this group every year. It is a $125 per plate, off site fund raiser. This year the promoters requested family style Italian. It is a lot of work and imperative that all of the food come off at the right time, be served hot, and served flawlessly. I understand the stress, I just don't understand the abusiveness some chefs deal out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ecstatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-18-09 02:51 AM
Response to Reply #134
183. So Hell's Kitchen isn't that farfetched?
Wow
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-19-09 04:07 AM
Response to Reply #183
198. No, unfortunately it isn't
It is disappointing to see Ramsey act the way he does sometimes, it is almost like giving these other chefs permission to be abusive. When Ramsey is critiquing the food or service, I understand the need to be firm. There is seldom in life when verbal abuse and name calling is acceptable behavior by anyone, especially a boss..For this I dislike Ramsey.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 05:41 PM
Response to Original message
3. Another one of them "responsable gun owners" we hear so much about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. He was a law-abiding citizen right up to the point where he wasn't.
Ain't that always the case...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Which proves that no one whatsoever should be trusted with guns...
As that applies to every human being who has ever committed a crime.

Either that disqualifies every human being, or it is a useless truism. Pick one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Or... we've once again exceeded your capacity for logical reasoning.
I pick that one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #8
56. You might not be smart enough to know what you said,
but I understand it perfectly.

Your "logic" applies universally. It's not my fault you don't know what you're saying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #56
58. Or... it just proves that we need better screening and training for gun owners
See? Grey areas... nuance... use of the mammalian neocortex...

Or would you prefer it if we just kept the discussion to inflexible binary propositions? So much easier to hold in your head...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #58
60. Oh, no. We can't have that.
We can't ask the brave cooks of our nation face threat of salad without being properly armed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #60
71. So the point of better screening and training is to disarmed people? n/t
Edited on Fri Oct-16-09 07:20 PM by TPaine7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #71
73. If they're triggerhappy morons who look at their fellow citizens as targets?
Yeah.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #73
81. If there is solid evidence that someone looks at their fellow citizens as targets...
that they

1) plan to shoot at them without justification -- that they are planning criminal activity

or

2) they cannot see the moral difference between people and range targets -- they are criminally insane

Then we are 100% agreed; they should be barred from possessing guns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #81
115. And if no licensing, registration or background checks are required?
How do we do that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #115
129. Well, it seems to work well enough in Vermont.
How many other rights do you want to place more restrictions on due to the rare case of abuse? Voting fraud is probably at least as common as murder, with long-range consequenses just as dire. (Elected officials can get people killed in job-lots. Bush II ring any bells?) Perhaps we should start screening/testing voters more strictly...?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #115
132. Trials, involuntary commitment records, substance abuse records, convictions. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HALO141 Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-19-09 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #115
202. I guess you'll just have to take care of your own
safety/security then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #58
66. Lack of substance =|= nuance. Really.
Edited on Fri Oct-16-09 07:16 PM by TPaine7
"He was a law-abiding citizen right up to the point where he wasn't" is a statement without substance. It imparts as much knowledge as "up is up" or "that which is, is."

It has the appearance of significant content, but if you boil it down, there's nothing left. If you attempt to force it to have an actual meaning, it means that NO HUMAN BEING can be trusted with guns. I simply operated under the assumption that you actually had a point and showed were your "logic" led.

Or... it just proves that we need better screening and training for gun owners

No, it doesn't. There is nothing in the original statement--"He was a law-abiding citizen right up to the point where he wasn't"--that even hints at screening or training. That is a separate point altogether. You are adding that separate point after the fact to prop up your vacuous statement.

Furthermore, jgraz, the logic of your initial statement REFUTES what you are saying now. After we improve screening, after we improve training it will still be true that "He was a law-abiding citizen right up to the point where he wasn't." That problem will remain until human nature is transformed. It is untouched by your "solution."

And that is precisely why your original statement has no meaningful content. That which proves too much proves nothing.

Please be man enough to admit what you must see clearly by now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #66
80. Substance is as substance does
The fact that my remarks go over your head does not mean they lack substance. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Since you seem to have trouble teasing out the meaning of my posts, I'll try to give you a little help.

He was a law-abiding citizen right up to the point where he wasn't

This is a key point which continues to elude you. Legally-owned guns are far more likely to be used on the owner, a family member or acquaintance than they are on any alleged "criminal". Every time this happens, the pro-gun crowd runs to the rescue with statements about how the unfortunate gun owner was either stupid or doing something illegal. In other words, the guy had it coming.

The sad fact is that in every one of these suicides, family-on-family shootings or assaults, the gun owners on this group would be raging against any restriction that kept those citizens from purchasing their weapons. Once they have these weapons, they have a much higher capacity for tragedy should they ever stop being law-abiding citizens.

If we have better training and/or screening, we have a better chance of keeping dangerous people from having access to deadly weapons. Of course, they pro-gun crowd will never allow that because anyone without a felony record is a "law-abiding citizen" -- right up to the point where they use their weapon illegally.


Now... most people were able to understand this from the original post, but you apparently need three paragraphs of explanatory text (assuming you aren't still sans clue). Why is that?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #80
86. Why is that? LOL. Because you are FOS
He was a law-abiding citizen right up to the point where he wasn't

1) Says nothing about training by any rules of English interpretation
2) Says nothing about screening by any rules of English interpretation
3) Is a vacuous truism that will remain true after any conceivable training or screening

No one would understand "He was a law-abiding citizen right up to the point where he wasn't" to mean the song and dance you have made up after the fact and tried to shoehorn into that statement.

Man up. Everyone is law abiding until they commit a crime. No one is a murderer until their first murder. That is as true of police officers who kill their wives as it is of plumbers who kill their wives. Even if the police get extra training and screening, they are still innocent until they make themselves guilty. Training and screening do not affect the truth of your vacuous, empty, substance-free statement.

You can't be too dumb to see that, but I feel as if I'm losing IQ points explaining it to you.

Respect yourself enough to admit the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #86
89. At this point, I'm going to assume Asperger's
I can think of no other reason for you to be so deficient in comprehending context and meaning. Unless, of course, you're doing it on purpose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #89
121. What context makes that statement have meaning.. other than truism / tautology?
Bullshit backpedalling aside, TPaine's right, and you took one right between the eyes over a nonsensical statement without any logical value.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #80
141. Ah, nothing like quasi-profundity supported by unstated premises
I love the smell of bad rhetoric in the morning.

Yes, every person who commits his or her first offense was a law-abiding citizen up to the point that they committed that offense. As TPaine7 rightly points out, that's a truism. What you're leaving unstated in your premise there, jgraz, is the assumption that the first offense necessarily involved a firearm. In actual fact, the criminological evidence indicates that the majority of offenders who commit a crime using a firearm ceased to be law-abiding citizens well before they took up a gun for criminal purposes.

Domestic killings, for example, are almost always the culmination of an escalating pattern of violence. Or, in more plain language, a guy who shoots his wife had almost certainly been beating her for some time previously. Cases in which the perp went straight from never having so much as raised a hand at his wife to shooting her to death are vanishingly rare.

As another example, members of drug gangs don't rise to the level where they're provided with a firearm and tasked with killing people (competitors, informers, witnesses) until they've spent some time in the organization in minor roles (lookout, runner, what have you).

The sad fact is that in every one of these suicides, family-on-family shootings or assaults, the gun owners on this group would be raging against any restriction that kept those citizens from purchasing their weapons.

That's for the most part a fabrication. I'd call it an outright lie, but the forum rules won't let me, so I won't.

I myself have on more than one occasion expressed my support for the Lautenberg Amendment to the Gun Control Act; that's the piece of legislation that (in broad terms) prohibited anyone with a misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence, or who was subject to a retraining order on grounds of domestic abuse, from possessing a firearm (and made it illegal to grant control of a firearm to someone known to be such). And I do not believe any such expression on my part has ever been met with overt disagreement on this forum.

But one thing I do insist on, and I suspect this applies to the other proponents of private firearms ownership rights on this forum as well, is that any measure to strip a person of his firearm ownership rights, and indeed any firearms he already possesses, must involve a judicial finding through due process. An arrest, even a prosecution, without a conviction in a court of law, is not sufficient grounds; similarly, a restraining order granted ex parte is insufficient, as the subject of the order has not had the opportunity to defend himself. Where mental disorders are concerned, a court will have to sign off on the finding that a person constitutes a threat to himself or others.

The thing to understand about the protections codified in the Bill of Rights that restrain the power of the criminal justice system over citizens (such as due process) is that they weren't written to protect the guilty; they were written to protect the innocent. Notionally, the American criminal justice system is designed to avoid false positives, even if that means accepting that some false negatives will slip through. We can't accept restrictions on human rights on the basis of mere suspicion on the part of the executive branch; that's why the judiciary has to sign off on it. After all, if you're going to argue that it doesn't really hurt anyone to have their guns taken away, then what basis do we have for arguing that the government has no right to read our mail or tap our phones? Something bad might happen if they don't, and those with nothing to hide will have nothing to fear, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #80
148. You cannot say that Mark DeCraepeo does not have a felony record
Job opportunities are few and far between for people who do have felony records. Restaurants (at least some restaurants) are among the few places that will hire them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #4
47. We don't know that he owned that gun legally
So your statement is premature.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoopla Phil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #4
52. No mention of any prior criminal activity. Very short article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #4
97. Likely he passed that point a long time ago.
He likely has a criminal record already.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aikoaiko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #4
165. No, not always.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. No, just a hot-head with anger management problems
Only anti-gun moonbats refer to such individuals as "responsible gun owners".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Yesterday, you would have called him a "responsible gun owner" too.
Edited on Fri Oct-16-09 06:02 PM by baldguy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #12
24. Out of curiosity, how do you respond to drunk drivers killing
many tens of thousands of people every year?

Snide comments about "just another responsible car owner"? Calls to ban all automobiles?

I know the standard reply, guns are evil because they were made evil, cars are not because they were made to be nice and friendly. That people killed by guns are far more dead than those killed by cars. But isn't the common element in all those situations a person who has made a poor choice? Why not cut to the root of it and ban people from making poor choices? If it's a law then they will certainly follow it, as they would happily follow a gun ban.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #24
42. Out of curiosity, how do you respond to sensible comments on handgun policy
Oh right: with non sequiturs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #42
94. I don't know
I've yet to hear a sensible comment on handgun policy from the resident grabbers. If they were to give it a shot then we'll see how I respond.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #24
54. What makes you think drunk driving has anything to do with the car?
The relevant factors are the individual & the alcohol. But you'll notice we don't have national manufactures & consumer groups spending billions of dollars lobbying for the rights of people to drive drunk. They don't deny the effects alcohol abuse has on a person's judgment.

Ya know what? IT'S JUST THE OPPOSITE! The American beverage producers - beer, wine & hard liquor - all spend a large part of the lobbying & advertising budgets to prevent & curtail drunk driving.

The NRA could learn a few things from the alcohol industry - the least of which is a little compassion & humanity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Merchant Marine Donating Member (650 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #54
67. The NRA
operates the most extensive network of gun safety training and certification in the country, you twit. Part of those courses is "Who not to threaten with your gun."

I'd bet good money that the NRA's safety programs have saved more lives than any of your feel good laws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #67
69. And yet they've spent millions of dollars on the federal and state level
to ensure guys like this can defend themselves against an order for salad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Merchant Marine Donating Member (650 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #69
76. They spend millions
to ensure everyone who can pass a NICS check (which the NRA helped get enacted) has the right to choose whether or not to defend their lives with an effective tool. Your attempt to cheapen the issue is shallow and pedantic. Self defense is a right. SCOTUS agrees.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #76
77. And when would the NICS check been done for this guy?
In Florida, no permit is required to possess or purchase a rifle, shotgun or handgun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Merchant Marine Donating Member (650 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #77
79. NICS is a Federal background check
That all licensed firearms sellers must perform under pain of BATFE buttrape. Look out, your ignorance is showing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #79
82. That requirment dosn't apply to "private sellers."
But then, you DID know that. Right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Merchant Marine Donating Member (650 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #82
83. Sure
Because they have a right to sell their private property as they see fit. Glad you conceded that NICS is worthless. Lets scrap it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #83
84. As enacted it was DESIGNED to be useless.
Let's improve it to cover all sales, instead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #84
101. Most of the gunnies on this forum support exactly that. Myself included. N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #101
113. But when someone actually promotes fixing the law to require a background check
(Like Mayor Bloomburg's recent investigation & report about the lax standards at gun shows), they're attacked & ridiculed in this forum - with absolutely nothing said about the dealers & so-called "private sellers" who intentionally circumvent the law & support criminals for profit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 07:16 AM
Response to Reply #113
137. Ahh the gun control issue
the only issue on DU where posters often love, idolize, and support republican politicians.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #137
145. And thus you display your ignorance of NY politics.
The simple fact is, anywhere else Republicans would lynch Bloomberg - and most other NY Republicans - for being a RINO. Bloomberg has a mountain of money, though. That allows him to distract the most rabid members of the pack from his moderate & liberal policies.

Bloomberg wanted to be mayor, but the Dems had pretty much had their candidate selected. The GOP literally had their nomination up for sale, so in 2001 he switched from being a Dem to the GOP. Remember the national dementia after 9/11? Bloomberg was able to campaign with Ghouliani & Bush when they had approval ratings in the high 90s. That, combined with him spending twice as much money than Mark Green, pretty much handed Bloomberg the election on a silver platter.




Now what about that RW front group that called the NRA?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #145
156. The same NRA
which donated more to Democrats during the last election cycle than all of the gun control groups combined? The same one which shockingly doesn't donate money to candidates who oppose the principles of their organization? I mean really, they should help elect people who are adversarial to their cause like choice groups support pro abortion candidates or GLBT groups support marriage amendment advocates, huh? *sarcasm*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #113
153. Only the states have the authority to require a background check on private, intrastate transactions
The federal Constitution does not give that power to the federal government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Merchant Marine Donating Member (650 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #84
103. NICS contains alot of private data
Opening that to the general public would be the greatest identity theft in history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #103
114. Don't be
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Merchant Marine Donating Member (650 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #114
117. NICS has social security numbers in it
Edited on Fri Oct-16-09 09:36 PM by Merchant Marine
" The ``NICS Index'' is the only database maintained by the FBI which
was created specifically for the NICS. The NICS Index contains records
obtained by the Attorney General from Federal agencies or States on
individuals who fall into the categories of individuals listed above
under the hearing ``CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM,''
C through G. These records contain an individual's name; sex; race;
complete date of birth; state of residence; sometimes a unique
identifying number, such as a Social Security number (but NICS does not
require it to be furnished), a military number, or a number assigned by
Federal, State, or local law enforcement authorities.
The ``NICS Audit Log'' is a chronological record of system
(computer) activities that enables the reconstruction and examination
of a sequence of events and/or changes in an event related to the NICS.
With regard to a specific NICS transaction, the audit log will include:
the name and other identifying information about the prospective
purchaser; the type of transaction (inquiry or response); line number;
time; date of inquiry; header; message key; Originating Agency
Identifier; and inquiry/response data, such as a NICS Transaction
Number (a unique number assigned to each valid background request
inquiry) and information found by the NICS search."

By all means, open it to the public. Privacy be damned.

Then all a criminal has to do is search the name of whoevers home they're raiding to find out how many guns they can steal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #117
119. Just like when someone buys your car you get access your states entire DMV database, right?
moron
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Merchant Marine Donating Member (650 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #119
128. I'm glad
We're no the only ones who compare guns to cars around here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoopla Phil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #128
159. It's rather selective. The anti's compare public car registration to private gun sales.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoopla Phil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #119
158. Only if the car is driven on public roads, not on private property. What was that
word you used? It started Mo. . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #103
151. It's not open even for the people who are authorized to use it
Gun dealers query it with one name and Social Security Number at a time. The answer they get back is either a go or a no-go. The reason for denial is not given to the dealer. It is given only to a person who has been denied and appealed the denial.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #84
150. I have always supported making NICS available for private sellers
Right now the law doesn't allow anyone other than dealers to use it. The federal government does not have the authority to make its use mandatory, but at least it could be made available with a few safeguards its prevent misuse. I have advocated that for many years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-20-09 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #82
221. Many of us are pushing to change that.
But then you DID know that, right?

Why do you put "private sellers" in quotes? You know that the 'private sellers' in the sting video that sell hundreds of firearms a year are breaking federal law, and are probably having their rectal cavities examined by the BATFE right now, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #77
100. It would have been done at the time of purchase of the gun, IF he bought it from an FFL dealer.
If he bought it from a private person, then no NICS check.

As already explained to you, NICS is Federal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blu_Statr Donating Member (31 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-21-09 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #69
236. Not true
You just want it to be viewed that way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #54
72. "The relevant factors are the individual & the alcohol."
LOL.

The relevant factor is the individual. The alcohol and the car are objects that the individual abused in his or her criminal behavior.

The alcohol and the car are means, just like the gun. It is telling how you reason differently to arrive at your predetermined destination in each case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #72
75. And yet alcohol manufacturers still use thier political clout & advertising dollars
to get federal, state & local govts to promote responsible alcohol use - including going so far as to restrict it's availability to certain people and certain times of the day.

Like I said - the NRA could learn a few things from them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 07:43 AM
Response to Reply #75
138. In your state there are
restrictions on "it's availability to certain people and certain times of the day."??? Aside from an age requirement?? Do they do a background check to be sure that the person doesn't have a dui or domestic violence issue? Really?? And "certain times of day", you must mean that 1, 2, or 3 a.m. closing times for bars are designed to effect people's safety?? And only someone who knows not one single thing about the NRA or who has an agenda would act as though the NRA hasn't advocated for every single safety regulation I can think of and has trained more people (police and the public alike) safe gun use than any other .org on the planet for over 100 years.

As for the whole 'private sales should be subject to NICS' canard, this can be remedied by simply repealing the commerce clause and replacing it with an amendment giving the federal government dominion over the states on all matters...should be easy enough huh? 'Till then (that is, when hell freezes and jeeezus returns as a goldfish) it is a state issue and will require those who are most concerned, to get off their computer key board, put down the Cheetos, and effectively lobby their state to make NICS a requirement of private sales.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #72
102. No no, in the case of drunk driving
an individual made a bad decision and used an object to harm another person.

In the case of an unlawful shooting the gun emitted evil g-rays, which penetrated the poor individuals consciousness and forced him/her to commit acts of violence against his/her will.

G-rays are just another thing the gun lobby (ie NRA) has been trying to cover up for years. They also manipulate the data to make it appear that all stats gun-control enthusiasts use are made up when in fact they were handed down from heaven.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #54
96. Oh this is fun
what lobbyist group supports the rights of people to use guns criminally?

The fact that you believe the NRA is anything like that shows only your willful ignorance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #12
28. I didn't have an opinion of him yesterday, because I had never heard of him
From what I know, my opinion of him is very negative.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #28
57. What? The guy was exercizing his rights in a state which allows him to carry.
He would've been a stellar poster boy for the gun worshipers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #57
61. Your statement assumes facts not in evidence
Edited on Fri Oct-16-09 06:58 PM by slackmaster
Does he have a felony record?

Was he discharged dishonorably from the military?

Is he in the country legally?

Is he under a restraining order for domestic violence?

Is he an unlawful drug user?

Has he been involuntarily committed or been adjudicated as mentally incompetent?

We don't know that he legally owned the gun that he misused.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #61
68. Absence of evidence is evidence of guilt.
Unlike you, I'm not going to assume he wasn't any different than any other gun owner.

And of course you know that opponents of reasonable & rational gun control have - at one time or another - advocated gun ownership for each of the groups you've listed. Remember: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" has no limitations.

Other than that pesky first clause.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #68
104. USSC has already ruled on that first clause. It isn't pesky at all.
Your side lost. Get used to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #68
122. "have ... advocated gun ownership for each of the groups you've listed"
Find one poster saying that. Just one. I'll hold my breath. (not)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #68
131. "Absence of evidence is evidence of guilt."
Wow. I'm glad the courts don't work that way. Well, at least not in theory...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #68
144. Take the gun out of the situation being discussed here, and run the scene over
You still have an angry fruitcake with "easy access" to a plethora of deadly weapons, within arm's reach.

The problem in this case isn't lax gun laws. The problem is a man who can't control his anger.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoopla Phil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #144
160. Good distinction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Katya Mullethov Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #160
173. The NRA can train people how to handle firearms safely
But they cant train them not to be assholes . A large majority of the time ,this has to beaten into them .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Katya Mullethov Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #57
65.  He didn't draw down OR blade her at a 45
Is that grounds for them to excommunicate him ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #65
70. What sort of sacraments does a gun worshiping cult have?
Maybe this is one of them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #70
105. Not really sacraments but here goes:
1. Treat every firearm as if it were loaded.


2. Never allow the muzzle to point at anything you are not willing to see destroyed.


3. Be sure of your target and know what lies behind it.


4. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are aligned on target.


5. Be sure your guns are never accessible to unauthorized or untrained individuals.


At the very least he broke 2, 3, possibly 4.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #105
106. Those would be the Holy Commandments. N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #105
130. That's reasonable.
Let's enact these principles into law with penalties for those that violate them.

I would also extent #5 to include taking reasonable steps to ensure the people you sell you guns to are trained and have passed a background check.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #130
154. Isn't pointing a gun at a nother person
without good cause already illegal (ie, this case)? And I would imagine having it loaded with your finger on the trigger would amount to a greater crime than unloaded and without your finger on the trigger.

So these are already covered by existing laws.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 07:51 AM
Response to Reply #57
139. I do believe nearly every single state
Edited on Sat Oct-17-09 07:52 AM by pipoman
allows people to possess and carry a gun in their home or place of business with absolutely no carry permit of any kind..the only people prohibited would be those prohibited from gun ownership, as this guy soon will be if convicted (that is assuming he isn't already prohibited).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #12
78. I probably would have called him a responsible gun owner...
especially if I knew he had a CCW (which I don't know now).

I give you that, but that's the status quo. If I see a man sitting on a park bench near a playground, I assume he is a law abiding citizen. So should the police, sans evidence to the contrary.

Now in some cases, both I and the police will be wrong. The person sitting near the playground may be a practicing pedophile--one who hasn't been caught. But we can't assume that any given man is a pedophile and act accordingly--not without evidence.

The default societal assumption is innocence. We must assume innocence. If not, you are subject to be treated as a pedophile, a drunk driver, a rapist, a murderer, an embezzler, an arsonist...

I, for one, am glad that we are all assumed innocent until contrary evidence is produced.

So yes, I probably would have called him a law abiding gun owner or the like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #12
95. Objection. Speculation.
What we gunnies here would have said about him would have depended upon what we knew about him.

It is strongly likely that he has a criminal record. With that kind of temper, it is bound to have gotten him into trouble with the law before. I seriously doubt that he had the gun legally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #95
168. Good of you to object to your own post.
Or do you have some concrete evidence that the guy has a criminal record or had the gun illegally?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoopla Phil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #168
172. Hey bright guy. Look up thread to what he was objecting to. LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #168
175. I was objecting to post 12.
He makes a statement that is speculative as if it were a fact. At this point, we have no evidence on whether or not the guy had the gun legally or not. I speculate that it was illegal for him to have a gun, but I am honest enough to label my speculation as that. I don't present my speculations as facts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. and easy access to firearms.
Let's not forget the critical point.

Yesterday, you would have been jumping up and down if this guy had been prevented from bringing his gun to work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. "easy access to firearms" is gun ban enthusiast code for "firearms are available"
There doesn't seem to be any middle ground between something that you would call "easy access" and what I would call "no access".

Of course, jgraz has never said what changes he'd like to see in the law to address the supposed problem of "easy access".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. Of course, you don't know what you're talking about
You would call any restriction "no access", but I'm the one with no middle ground. :eyes:

I've often said what changes I'd like to see in the law. And when I do, a few of your pro-gun buddies agree with me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. How about sharing one or two changes that you believe would have prevented this incident?
Edited on Fri Oct-16-09 06:08 PM by slackmaster
Put your money where your mouth is.

Do you think you can handle that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #20
30. Oh, c'mon. They're really not that hard to suss out
For example, if Florida had reasonable training requirements for carry permits, that would be a start.

Next you're going to ask me, "what exactly are reasonable training requirements." I'll say the same thing I always say: requirements that stop idiots from carrying handguns. If you find out that too many idiots are carrying guns, you increase the requirements.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. You don't need a carry permit to carry a concealed weapon at home or at work in Florida
Or in California.

Concealed carry permits are not the issue.

BTW, do you know what kind of training is required to get a CCW permit in Florida?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #33
37. Seriously. Are you just playing dumb?
Allowing people to carry unlicensed concealed weapons into work is a recipe for disaster. Require some training at least and a license to carry before you allow guns in the workplace.

Or, even better, just don't allow guns in the workplace. If your place of work is so dangerous that you need to carry, find a safer job or hire a security guard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #37
44. Workplaces are generally private property
Edited on Fri Oct-16-09 06:27 PM by slackmaster
Again, good luck getting that passed especially in a conservative state like Florida. We don't even have that restriction in California. It's up to business owners to set policy on what people can and cannot bring to work.

We don't know that the hot-head cook was not in violation of a company policy. He may already have a criminal record (as do many people who do that kind of work, not to cast asparagus on all food preparers).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #44
53. One article called the waitresses his "employees".
In which case, I still think he should be prohibited from bringing a firearm to the workplace without a license.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #53
126. Licenses are for carrying in public, not private property.
Edited on Fri Oct-16-09 10:03 PM by X_Digger
Certainly, if he was the owner, he has every right to carry there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #53
146. That man would have still been a serious problem without a gun
He'd still have been an angry man about to boil over, in a hot room filled with deadly weapons.

Rather than threatening to shoot the waitress in the head, I believe he would have threatened to cut it off with a knife or run it through a cheese grater.

The real problem was the man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #30
123. You missed the question, I think..
Slack's question was: "How about sharing one or two changes that you believe would have prevented this incident?"

You replied: "For example, if Florida had reasonable training requirements for carry permits, that would be a start."

How exactly would training have prevented this incident? (Assuming of course, that this guy actually had a permit.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-20-09 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #30
222. Funny, that's how conservatives tried keeping minorities from voting, with poll taxes and reading re
quirements.

Funny you should see benefit in the same tactic, on another civil rights issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #13
107. He owned the place. He had the right ot have a gun on his own property...
if it was legal for him to have a gun at all. I seriously doubt that it was legal for him to have a gun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #107
147. I'm willing to bet a small amount of money the guy was a member of a prohibited class
Anyone who behaves that way at age 51 is very likely to have done something worse in the past.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #147
176. I'll take part of the action if you need a backer.
That is almost a sure bet. With that kind of anger problem and the testosterone of a young man, he would very likely have gotten into some serious trouble in his early years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #3
17. I he was carrying a concealed weapon without a license
then no, he wasn't a "responsable" gun owner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #17
22. He was at work
He wasn't violating any laws by having the gun there. He may have been in violation of company policy, but not the law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #17
23. He was until he decided to threaten his co-worker
Over a salad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. Yep, and now he's going to jail
What's the problem?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #27
40. The difference is that a sane person
would think he's irresponsible BEFORE he started pointing guns at waitresses - simply because a cook usually has no need to arm himself in the course of his duties. Ya see, knowing that a salad isn't a threat to you is part of what "responsible" means.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #40
93. But one can carry a gun and be responsible
to equate all gun owners with this guy would be the equivalent of equating all car owners with drunk drivers.

You don't assume before hand that a driver is irresponsible simply because he may one day drink and drive. Typically you wait for them to commit a crime.

And self defense comes up everywhere. Shootings occur in gun free, family friendly zones as well as other places. So yeah, you can get shot as a cook.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #40
127. "he was sane.. until he wasn't".. he was legal.. until he wasn't..
Truism troll trolls with truisms!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 06:43 AM
Response to Reply #40
135. Where does it say he pointed a gun at anyone?
The article says he "slammed a black gun inside a holster on the counter top."

Note that I'm not trying to excuse his behavior--making lethal threats accompanied by the display of a firearm (even in a condition in which it cannot yet be used to shoot anyone) is definitely beyond the bounds of civilized behavior--but it doesn't aid the discussion, or signal your willingness to achieve some kind of mutually agreeable position, when you start to make references to things that didn't actually happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #40
149. Perhaps the business has had a problem with robberies, and he was carrying the gun for self-defense
Did that ever occur to you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #17
29. He wasn't charged with carrying without a license
What does that tell you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. It tells me he wasn't charged with carrying without a license
Because there is no law against carrying a concealed weapon without a license at one's workplace in Florida.

Just like it is here in California.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #31
35. And clearly there should be
There's no need for untrained people to carry concealed weapons at work. What's the problem with a simple training and licensing process?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. Good luck getting that passed
Especially in a conservative state like Florida.

There's no need for untrained people to carry concealed weapons at work.

There's no need for you to be dictating what other people need or do not need.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. I notice you didn't refute it
Inability to get something passed is not a comment on its value as a policy. Or have you missed the healthcare debate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #38
46. I don't have a strong opinion on that idea, I'm just noting that it would be very difficult to sell
Edited on Fri Oct-16-09 06:22 PM by slackmaster
It makes some sense in some ways, OTOH I'm not sure I want government taking that level of control over what people do on private property.

If I owned a restaurant I probably wouldn't allow my employees to carry concealed weapons at work, and I would fire someone who violated my policy, but I would very likely keep one handy for myself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #46
51. I agree it would be hard to pass. That's because the Dems have ceded this debate
Nothing is more indicative of Democratic weakness than their spineless approach to gun policy. I have no problem with sincere pro-gun Democrats. What I can't stand is the pro-gun-control Dems who won't stand up for their convictions.

Imagine what the abortion debate would have been like if Democrats treated it the way they do gun policy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #51
161. Dems ceded the debate after the "assault weapons" ban fraud became obvious and cost votes
The debate should be about identifying people who are not trustworthy with firearms and enforcing the laws we already have.

Some mental health care might have prevented the caprese salad rage incident. That man should not be in such a pressure cooker of a job if he can't stand the heat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 07:12 AM
Response to Reply #35
136. Leaving aside the "untrained" part...
There can definitely be a legitimate need for people to carry at work if the workplace in question is one that is a potential target for robberies and/or other violent crimes. That includes food service establishments, especially towards closing time, and we have the example of the Brown's Chicken massacre (Palatine, IL, 1993) and the Wisconsin Ave Starbucks murders (DC, 1997) as examples of how armed robbers may decide to eliminate the witnesses. I don't know what kind of profit margins Pizza Time operates on, but for all I know Mr. DeCraepeo cannot afford to lose a single night's income, or maybe he doesn't want to get herded into the walk-in refrigerator along with several of his employees to be murdered.

As for whether DeCraepeo is untrained, well, who knows? Just because he doesn't necessarily have a concealed carry permit doesn't mean he hasn't taken any training courses other than the one required to get a CCW permit in Florida. But firearms training courses typically do not include a segment on anger management; if you have such issues (as DeCraepeo evidently has), that's something for you to sort out, not your firearms instructor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #29
109. He was on his own property. No CCW needed. N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-20-09 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #29
223. That like most states, you don't need a license to carry a gun in your own home or business.
Employees may need a permit, but the owner does not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blu_Statr Donating Member (31 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-21-09 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #3
235. You don't hear about the responsible ones, we're too boring
Sociopaths, whack-jobs and fools are far more entertaining, and tend to make the nooz.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 05:42 PM
Response to Original message
5. "The right of the people to make criminal threats shall not be infringed?"
Wrong universe, jgraz. That's not how the amendment is worded here on earth.

I know things sometimes get confusing for you reality surfers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Do you think he bought his gun for the express purpose of threatening waitresses?
Or did he just get pissed off and use a deadly weapon because he had one?

For some reason, you maintain that "criminals" will ignore any sensible gun control, but you seem to think that laws are a perfectly acceptable barrier to criminal activity from legal gun owners. So... are legal prohibitions effective or not? You can't have it both ways.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. It doesn't matter
He broke the law. He will be punished. He may even get a felony conviction and become ineligible to keep the weapon at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. I'm sure it matters to the waitresses he threatened
I'm guessing they'd prefer he didn't have such an easy time committing aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Wow, the victims are multiplying
First there was just one, now there are multiple waitresses involved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. Reading is fundamental
At least two women made the complaint.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #21
26. Cool, so tell us what changes would you make in the law to make the gun less "accessible"
Edited on Fri Oct-16-09 06:08 PM by slackmaster
Something that would have actually prevented this incident but leaves handguns generally "available" to people who want them and haven't proved that they can't be trusted with one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #26
32. Answered above
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. Your answer above is meaningless because no permit is required to carry at home or at work
In most states.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #34
39. So require a permit for weapons at work
Really, how hard is that to figure out?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 08:25 AM
Response to Reply #21
143. Reading is one thing; knowledge of the topic is another
You don't have to be a victim to submit a criminal complaint; you can also be a witness. From the article, it appears Ms Como was a witness rather than a victim.

For someone who gets off on berating other people for their supposed intellectual failings, you're not all that bright yourself, are you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #7
48. Not really.
Do you think he bought his gun for the express purpose of threatening waitresses?

No.

Or did he just get pissed off and use a deadly weapon because he had one?

Yes.

For some reason, you maintain that "criminals" will ignore any sensible gun control,...

No I don't. You are putting words in my mouth. I see the appeal--it makes debate easier--but I call BS. Cite me saying that and you will have my apology and retraction.

...but you seem to think that laws are a perfectly acceptable barrier to criminal activity from legal gun owners.

Yes I do, as a general rule.

So... are legal prohibitions effective or not? You can't have it both ways.

They are effective, but not perfectly effective. They don't stop LEOs from shooting their wives as we have recently seen. The "it's not perfect" objection is self-refuting for anyone who will apply a little clear thinking to the issue.

And I'm not trying to have it both ways--you made up one of the ways for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #48
55. So you agree that some legal restrictions on gun ownership would be effective.
Glad to see we're in agreement on this point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #55
59. Once again, that's not what I said.
For some reason, you maintain that "criminals" will ignore any sensible gun control,...--jgraz


So... are legal prohibitions effective or not? You can't have it both ways.--jgraz

They are effective, but not perfectly effective. They don't stop LEOs from shooting their wives as we have recently seen. The "it's not perfect" objection is self-refuting for anyone who will apply a little clear thinking to the issue.

And I'm not trying to have it both ways--you made up one of the ways for me.


That's the history. In the context of your comment on "any sensible gun control," I was not talking about restrictions specifically on ownership. You should try not to put words in people's mouths.

It just so happens that I do agree that some prohibitions on ownership are effective, however--even though I haven't said anything to that effect in this thread. Violent criminals, the insane and toddlers are prohibited from possessing guns. That is good. That is effective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #59
63. You might not be smart enough to know what you said,
but I understand it perfectly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #63
74. I could say that because I could back it up. Indeed, I did.
Those too stupid to see through your childish repetition of my words deserve to believe you.

No refutation required.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 05:52 PM
Response to Original message
9. In most states, including Florida IIRC, no permit is needed to carry a concealed weapon at work
With the owner's permission.

In response to the story: The guy obviously has anger management issues. He should neither work in food service nor carry a firearm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 06:02 PM
Response to Original message
19. So no one was hurt
the man is going to jail most likely and everything was taken care of using existing gun laws.

Clearly we need more gun laws to prevent further innocent . . . erm, people from being made to feel uncomfortable prior to the cops showing up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #19
25. Are you seriously in favor of allowing gun owners to threaten their coworkers?
You seem to think this is not a problem because -- this time -- the enraged gun owner decided not to pull the trigger.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ManiacJoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #25
41. How did you reach that interpretation of JonQ's statement?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. Are you unfamiliar with sarcasm?
Read his last line. See if you can grasp the "subtle" subtext there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #25
99. Yes that's clearly what I said
that's why I was lamenting his going to jail for this crime. Oh that poor man, just defending himself from a salad!

I stand in awe of your reading comprehension skills.

Here's another way for you to show off your awesome reading ability: if a man stabs another man to death and then goes to jail for life (or gets the death penalty) and you say "good, the law did it's job, he broke it and was punished" does that in fact mean you are in favor of people stabbing other people to death?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoopla Phil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 06:20 PM
Response to Original message
45. I wonder if he has any other criminal records. The article does not say. . .
Edited on Fri Oct-16-09 06:27 PM by Hoopla Phil
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheCowsCameHome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 07:02 PM
Response to Original message
62. There are two common threads running thru this article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rrneck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 07:04 PM
Response to Original message
64. Unrec.
Good news article. Unfortunately, the OP has turned it into a juvenile pissing contest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #64
85. New to the gun group?
They could accurately rename the entire forum "Juvenile Pissing Contests".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rrneck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 08:37 PM
Response to Reply #85
92. You're a smart guy
and you could do a lot to improve it. If you would.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #92
110. You're probably right
And then I see responses like western's below. There's very little interest in having a civil discussion here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rrneck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #110
124. I do it all the time. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
westerm Donating Member (24 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-20-09 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #110
214. lol
Seriously, are you kidding? You don't have "discussions" in these threads. Every. Single. Post. says the same thing in a different way. "Guns bad!" "Guns make people bad" "guns kill" "guns look scary" "I don't like guns" "too many guns!". Your posts have no subtleties and your opinions might as well be copy pasted from bradycampaign.org. Maybe I should start calling you Paul? I've called you out on being a no-content, white-noise poster like 3 times now and every single time you've dodged it with a whiny "baw he hurt my feelings this is supposed to be a nice forum, how dare he point out that all I ever do is post disingenuous, soccer-mom quality crap, the exact same thing, in every single thread!" Maybe I should just copy paste this mini-rant over and over into every thread you post.

I'm serious about you being a worthless poster too. If you took your posts and copy pasted them into some other "idiot does dumb thing with a gun" styled thread, nobody would notice anything amiss. Maybe you're actually a bot with an unusually good grasp of syntax and sentence structure? Or maybe you're just an idiot?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
westerm Donating Member (24 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #85
98. you're just angry
that this isn't a brady campaign echo chamber. when someone actually challenges you on your views you get all whiny and basically ragequit a discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rrneck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #98
125. ragequit
New word. Thanks.

Welcome to DU :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #125
167. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 08:07 PM
Response to Original message
87. the stats don't lie
the VAST majority of people who carry guns lawfully are law abiding

SOME aren;t.

this one clearly wasn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #87
88. And the majority of household gun victims are either family members or the gun owner
Like you said, the stats don't lie.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #88
108. Actually those stats are typically lies
like the last study that found gun ownership increases your risk of being shot: they looked only at those who had already been shot in a case of self defense and only in a part of the city dominated by gang violence.

Sorry, the grabbers have lied far too often to be given the benefit of the doubt. If you're going to make that claim you have to provide facts to back it as well as the methods used to collect them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #108
111. And your example of a fraudulent study of household gun ownership would be...?
Besides Kleck's, that is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #111
112. Hmm, so it's up to me to prove you aren't lying?
For the example I gave you: polling only gun victims in a trauma ward in a very heavily crime and gang infested area is hardly representative.

Like polling people in prison to find that most people in the country have anger problems.

But let's go your route: guns have saved far more lives than they have ever taken. Now, that statement must be considered truth until you can disprove it to my satisfaction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #112
120. No, it's up to you to respect DU rules and not call your fellow members liars
But if you insist on calling someone a liar, the burden is on you to prove it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #120
155. See that's my point
you come up with a statistic that has no evidence backing it, from a source that is known to lie, and you expect everyone to take it at face value.

Sorry but if some source has lied repeatedly in the past then all future info from them is suspect. The brady campaign and other anti-2nd zealots have been well documented in their lies in the past.

So yes, I am calling your source a liar, and if you repeat their lies as facts that would also make you a liar.

So it is up to you to post info backing such claims.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #155
166. Except you made up your point out of thin air
You're the one who decided who my source was when, in fact, you are unable to name a single source for a household gun study.

Who's lying now?


Oh, and you should probably avoid quoting any stats from guncite or the NRA in the future. You wouldn't want to be accused of lying.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #166
169. You should post such studies
like I said, you just came up with a stat out of thin air and expected people to believe it.

Doesn't work that way.

Especially when others *have* presented the studies with similiar conclusions in the past, that have been thoroughly debunked.

Grabbers may have started with credibility, but they lost it years ago. So now any claims from them needs to be proven.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #169
170. feel free. You seem to know what they are.
Since you seem to know they've been debunked, I don't want to deprive you of the chance to prove you're not a liar.

Go ahead. You're obviously so well-informed on this issue you should have no problem posting the links to these obviously bogus studies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #170
171. Again, you seem to not be getting the point
if I were to make a claim about the benefits of gun ownership would it be up to you to disprove it or up to me to prove it?

Or take that for any new claim introduced that goes against common knowledge; whose job is it to validate, the person making it or the audience?

So no, I don't have to "prove I'm not a liar". I'm not sure how you could even consider someone a liar for merely asking you to cite your source. It is up to you to back your claims.

As you appear to be a gun grabber, and hence irrational and emotion based, I suspect you do not have sources, or even know where to begin in collecting a scientific, unbiased study.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #171
180. Thanks. I just wanted to establish which side of the truth you were on
And now we know: whichever side lets you cling to your guns.

As for me, I can easily source my claims.

New England Journal of Medicine (that well-known liberal, gun-grabbing rag)
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/10/989

The Harvard Injury Control Research Center
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-res...


Have fun reading. Just let me know if you need someone to explain all the big words and numbers. I'm here for ya, buddy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-18-09 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #180
189. Finally, you post a source
so I can debunk it.

The first isn't about victims at all, but about suicides. Not many innocent people are forced at gunpoint to commit suicide against their will.

And if you'll look at the data they use, they refer only to a handful of states and of those the gun data was from a 2001 phone poll conducted of a small population that merely asked if they had a gun present. This data is immediately suspect in those states with strict gun control laws where such information could wind the owner up in jail don't you think? And surprisingly enough, those states where it is illegal to own a gun had individuals reporting the lowest gun ownership rates.

They even put Washington DC, the city with the highest rate of gun violence in the country, as having the lowest rate of gun ownership by far.

Are you telling me those stats aren't suspect? Besides which, a simply correlation study would have been possible for all 50 states plus territories plotting suicides to gun ownership. They did not do this, why do you think that is? Also, if you look at the states they did include all the ones from the high suicide rate groups were in the south and midwest, areas known for higher rates of suicide in general, whereas all the low suicide rate states were in the north east (except hawaii) and all from states with a lower suicide rate in general. They failed to take this in to account.

The states for one group had an N=15, and cut off many that were virtually identical in percentages, but not in the south or midwest. Whereas the other group had an N=6 and likewise cut off many other states that were nearly identical in total numbers.

When someone with a background in statistics sees these sleight of hand tricks it becomes obvious that the researchers found a weak correlation and trimmed the data to make it significant. Any proper statistician would have given them a good slap across the face if they'd presented this data.

And your second link only provides an overview of other peoples results without linking to their actual methodology.

Remember I never doubted that studies existed which came to a conclusion that guns were evil. I doubted the methodology involved. With creative stats work you can "prove" anything. And the first one failed in that regard, the 2nd likewise will but has succeeded in hiding it's materials and methods section.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-18-09 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #189
190. What is this mental block you gunners have about suicide?
If some easily accessible product was a factor in 12,000 cancer deaths per year or 12,000 fatal heart attacks per year, you can bet we'd be talking about reasonable methods of reducing those deaths. But if it's a gun and it's a factor in death by depression -- another heritable, biochemical disorder -- you guys just shake it off as some personal failure on the part of the victim. That's an incredibly regressive attitude.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-18-09 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #190
191. Because we know that it doesn't require a gun- look at Japan
Why do the Japanese have a higher suicide rate than the US?

Can't be the availability of guns, they are rare in Japan.

It's not guns that drives suicide rates, it's the lack of mental health care.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-19-09 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #191
204. Lack of mental health care is certainly a factor, but so is access to firearms.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/10/989/T1

Men in pro-gun states are 3.7 times more likely to kill themselves with a gun, but equally likely to commit suicide by other means. Women in pro-gun states are 8 times more likely to kill themselves with a gun and only slightly more likely to kill themselves by other means.

Access to firearms is an undeniable factor in the lethality of suicide attempts. I'd also bet a study of just suicide attempts would show a higher incidence in pro-gun states. With a firearm you don't have to endure the pain of cutting your wrists or take the risk of slowly strangling from a botched hanging. You don't need access to narcotics. You just pull the trigger and out go the lights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-20-09 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #204
226. Assuming it's done properly.
It is actually harder to hit that lightswitch than you think.

Firearms have a potential benefit in this case. Cut your wrists and lie down in the tub, and they'll find you when they find you. Days. Weeks. Pull the trigger on a firearm, in an apartment, and often even inside a house in any residential area, and that firearm just cried 'help' for you.

Suicide is a complex issue. I fear you are simplifying it a bit too much for your agenda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-19-09 12:30 AM
Response to Reply #190
192. And we realize that freedoms can be misused. That's a cost of living in a (mostly) free society
The same net connections you and I use to express our political beliefs can and are used by scammers, child pornographers,
and White Power types. I don't see why we need to get a nihil obstat in order to post.

The same Fifth Amendment that is supposed to prevent cops from extracting a confession from you certainly
has and will be used by some undoubtedly guilty criminals to escape punishment. The term 'waterboarding'
ring a bell?

These are some of the costs of living in a country like ours. The Constitution is not disposable, even if
bad actors sometimes get a bye because of it.

The previous administration that thought the Constitution was disposable found out that *it* was disposable.
I hope everyone that feels the same way gets the same lesson in civics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-19-09 03:15 AM
Response to Reply #190
196. That question also cuts the other way, and more plausibly so
Opponents of gun rights are always quite willing to whip out international comparisons when it comes to homicide rates, but when it comes to suicide rates, they tend to remain conspicuously silent. Could that be because the American suicide rate is decidedly unremarkable compared to other wealthy developed countries? And is indeed lower than those of, for example, France, Germany, Sweden and (as has been noted by other posters) Japan?

I don't think that I'm incorrect in stating that homicide rates are higher in every republic of the former Soviet Union, and suicide rates in most of them (including Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, even though those have been members of NATO and the EU for several years now), than they are in the United States, but when you point that out, very frequently you get a response along the lines that the former USSR isn't comparable socio-economically to the Unites States. But if that's a valid argument, then why would socio-economic differences not also account for the difference in homicide rates between the US and other wealthy developed countries? If someone were to argue that the fact that the Japanese suicide rate is more than double that of the United States is due to differences in culture, why is that same explanation invalid when it comes to the difference in suicide rates? Or, for that matter, regional differences in suicide rates within the United States?

But if it's a gun and it's a factor in death by depression -- another heritable, biochemical disorder -- you guys just shake it off as some personal failure on the part of the victim.
Poppycock. The attitude of the pro-RKBA crowd, at least on this forum, is that gun control measures are ineffective because their proponents mistake a means of violent crime, suicide and unintentional harm for a cause. The American non-gun homicide rate is higher than the total homicide rates of most western European countries. Might that not indicate that the problem is that there are certain cultural factors that make Americans more inclined towards homicide that Europeans, and that firearms are "merely" a means? More children under 10 are killed in the U.S. by family members (mostly parents) inadvertently reversing a motor vehicle over them than die from gunshot wounds (both unintentional and intentional). So isn't it at least plausible that children being injured or killed by unintentional discharges is simply one possible effect of parents demonstrating lack of due care and attention around small children? And since people in various countries with tighter gun laws and concomitantly lower levels of gun ownership seem to be perfectly capable of offing themselves at equal or higher rates as Americans, is it not plausible--indeed, likely--that restricting access to firearms would not result in a reduction in the suicide rate, but only to "method substitution" with more Americans killing themselves by hanging, jumping, or throwing themselves in front of trains?

What it boils down to is that the gun owners here aren't willing to sacrifice our gun rights for a purpose not achievable by this means. That doesn't mean we're callous; we're interested in seeing programs that work to address the causes of violent crime, suicide, and unintentional injury.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-19-09 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #196
206. You're not making the right comparison here
Comparing our suicide rates to that of other countries tells us nothing. You guys are always making the argument that we are much too different from Japan or Europe when it comes to guns. When it comes to denying the relationship of gun ownership to suicide, you make the exact opposite argument.

The real data is a comparison of US states with high gun ownership to those with low gun ownership:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/10/989/T1

You'll note that the suicide rate for both men and women is roughly equal when it comes to all non-gun suicides. But the suicide rate in pro-gun states is 3.7 times higher for men and 7.9 times higher for women. It's pretty hard to deny that guns are a significant factor in this country's suicide rate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-19-09 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #206
208. Are you taking the mickey?
Because you're behaving like a bad parody of a stereotypical anti.

Comparing our suicide rates to that of other countries tells us nothing.
Does this also apply to comparisons of homicide rates, and if not, why not?

You guys are always making the argument that we are much too different from Japan or Europe when it comes to guns.
"Always"? Well then, you should have no trouble citing five instances of pro-RKBA types on this forum making that argument, including at least one instance of myself. Bonus points if you can cite an instance of yourself acknowledging this to be a valid argument.

Note that the claimed argument is that "we are much to different <...> when it comes to guns"; arguments to the effect that the U.S. has very different socio-economic and legal circumstances that cause differences in patterns of violent crime, and homicide in particular, are not the same thing.

When it comes to denying the relationship of gun ownership to suicide, you make the exact opposite argument.
Yeah, funny you should say that, because that pretty much sums up the anti-gun ownership position: when it comes to homicide, the fact that the U.S. has a comparatively high rate internationally is evidence that "it's the guns, stupid!" but when it comes to suicide, suddenly those international comparisons are the wrong thing to look at.

It's pretty hard to deny that guns are a significant factor in this country's suicide rate.
It's pretty hard to deny that you (and many of those who share your position re: private firearms ownership) are cherry picking data as it suits your argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-19-09 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #208
209. As usual, no real rebuttal
Just the same panicky "you're threatening my binky" reaction you gunnies always have.

Just once, try actually addressing the topic at hand. How do you explain the numbers I posted if guns are not a significant factor in suicide rates?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-20-09 03:40 AM
Response to Reply #209
213. How can I rebut what isn't there?
You claim international comparisons are "not the right comparison," you get to explain why that is. The best you've managed so far is to assert that "you guys are always making the argument that we are much too different from Japan or Europe when it comes to guns" and when I ask you to cite some examples (including at least one where I made that claim), you ignore me, instead employing a hasty distraction coupled with some denigrating statements. I can hazard a guess why you would do that, because I'm fairly certain I've never actually made such an argument. In other words, you can't cite any examples, because your claim is false; you might have deluded yourself into believing it, but that doesn't make it any less false.

Speaking of falsehoods, let's turn to your claim of "as usual, no real rebuttal." In fact, I post extensive rebuttals to your garbage with some frequency. Problem is, those rebuttals take some time to write, by which time, you've lost interest in the thread. Or possibly you've honed your sense of timing to predict with some accuracy when the rebuttals to which you have no adequate rejoinder are going to arrive, and time your exit accordingly.

Here's an example of a rebuttal of mine regarding studies on DGUs:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
I even predicted at the time, nine days ago, that you'd probably ignore that post and just repeat that same claptrap I'd gone to some effort to rebut in the next thread you showed your face in, and that's exactly what you did.

That kind of behavior on your part does not exactly motivate other posters to write extensive rebuttals. Not that anyone has any hopes that you'll ever concede you might be wrong about anything; I'm just writing for to convince any lurking fence-sitters, and I suspect that goes for many other pro-RKBA posters as well.

I might add that panic is not an emotion you incite in me, much as you might like to inflate your ego by telling yourself that. Irritation, yes; annoyance, certainly; even outrage wouldn't be too strongly put; but the only anxiety you inspire is that I won't be able to restrain myself from giving you an invective-laden piece of my mind, causing some limp-dicked moderator to delete anything substantive I might have had to say along with the rest of my post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-20-09 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #213
217. Wow, it took you five paragraphs to avoid answering my question
You're slipping. You usually only take one or two paragraphs to avoid answering the question.

I'll repeat it here: how do you explain that suicide study if, as you maintain, gun ownership is not a significant factor in US suicide rates?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-21-09 06:22 AM
Response to Reply #217
230. Your hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me
Edited on Wed Oct-21-09 06:39 AM by Euromutt
Do you really think that if you try to piss me off long enough, I'm going to lose sight of the fact that you have now twice evaded my questions? Where do you get the fucking gall to disparage me for supposedly avoiding your questions, when you excel at twisting away from questions yourself?

For the third time: Why are international comparisons of suicide rates "not the right comparison"?
For the third time: Please cite some examples of pro-RKBA posters on this forum (including myself) "making the argument that we are much too different from Japan or Europe when it comes to guns"; if it's true that we're "always" doing that, it really shouldn't be too hard to find a handful of examples.

As for the Miller/Hemenway study, what is there to say? It certainly establishes correlation between rates of firearm ownership, but doesn't present any evidence for a causal relationship beyond unsupported assertion. Terms like "assocation with" and "risk factor" are weasel phrases to give undue significance to a correlation for which no causal relationship has been established. The article is essentially one long cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, as Miller & Hemenway make no attempt to explore possible alternative explanations and then demonstrate that those don't hold water. One such possible explanation is that the states with the highest levels of firearms ownership are the ones in which the population subscribes most strongly to the mythos of "rugged individualism" and self-sufficiency; under the influence of this mythos, a major setback (financial, social) may be regarded as a personal failure, making it more likely that such a person will respond by committing suicide. Note that I'm not saying that's the explanation; I'm saying it's a possible explanation that Miller & Hemenway failed to examine.

Let me qualify your characterization of my assertion as being that "gun ownership is not a significant factor in US suicide rates." Obviously, it does influence selection of method, given that the percentage of American suicides that are committed with firearms far outstrips the percentage of suicides committed with firearms in countries where firearms laws are more restrictive. But given that those same countries tend to have suicide rates significantly higher than the US non-firearm suicide rate, I do question whether availability of firearms is a causal factor.

Another thing that bothers me about the paper is that, of the five cited references, three are Miller & Hemenway's own previous work. Whenever researchers primarily cite their own work, it should raise a big red flag to every critical thinker; it's an indication that the authors may have been unable to find any evidence that supports their pet hypothesis except material they themselves wrote. Remember, folks, replication of research findings doesn't count if you replicate your own findings.

Perhaps paradoxically, it doesn't aid your case if you fail to acknowledge contradictions between your current work and your earlier work. Specifically, I refer to "Firearm Prevalence and the Risk of Suicide: A Review" (http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~epihc/currentissue/Fall2001... ) published in the Fall 2001 issue of the Harvard Health Policy Review and written by the very same Matthew Miller and David Hemenway. An excerpt:
A problem with international studies is the difficulty in fully accounting for the disparate cultural factors that may influence the incidence and method of suicide.
So Miller & Hemenway acknowledge that there's a lot more to this questions than "it's the guns, stupid." That in turn raises a question; given that there are quite marked cultural differences between different regions within the United States--sometimes within a single state--and that these regions are often larger in terms of geographical area and (more importantly) population than rather a lot of other countries, why is it not necessary to take into account these differences when comparing suicide rates within the United States?
The few international studies that address the gun-suicide question suggest that firearm availability affects the method of suicide and may have an influence on the total level of suicides, especially among youth. The evidence, however, is far from convincing that gun ownership levels are related to overall suicide rates for all age groups. The U.S., for example, has the highest levels of gun ownership, but its overall suicide rate is only 16th out of 26 high-income countries. One study found a statistically significant relationship between gun ownership levels and suicide rate across 14 developed nations (e.g. where survey data on gun ownership levels were available), but the association lost its statistical significance when additional countries were included.
Emphases in italics mine.

Already, a hypothesis presents itself to my mind concerning the suggested association between firearms prevalence and suicide among youth. I don't think it's a controversial statement to say that gun ownership is more frequent among social conservatives; I also think it's safe to say that more authoritarian styles of parenting are also more frequent among social conservatives. Put the two together, and you might have a ready explanation why a troubled teen might decide to off himself with one of daddy's guns. But attributing the cause to the presence of the firearm in the household is eerily reminiscent of the parental hysteria (fed by a fair number of self-styled "experts") back in the 1980s and 1990s blaming teen suicides on Dungeons & Dragons and Judas Priest. Much easier to blame a thing than to take a good hard look at why your kid might want to kill himself, and try to do something about that, after all.

Another hypothesis that forms quite rapidly is that Miller & Hemenway did take something away from this review, namely that international comparisons failed to support their agenda of "proving" that Gun Are Bad. Fortunately, data within the US proved to lend itself readily to manipulation to support their predetermined conclusion, so they focused on that instead. That's colloquially known as "cherry-picking," and it's not considered kosher in science. Fortunately for Hemenway and Miller, there are all sorts of things that aren't kosher in science that are perfectly acceptable in the public health literature, as long as you toe the line that Guns Are Bad.

And to blunt, I don't care for advocating the notion that we should restrict firearms ownership because people might use them to intentionally kill themselves. My own belief is that the human right of self-determination includes the right to decide to end one's life, and it's no business of the state to try to stop people who really want to. Public health research misses the point, in my view, by focusing on the means rather than the actual causes. Instead of spewing out studies year after year about how many people kill themselves with guns, it seems to me that Miller, Hemenway and their ilk would do a lot better to examine what prompts the people who attempt to kill themselves to do so in the first place, and advocate fixing that. What's so humanitarian about keeping people alive, but miserable?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-21-09 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #230
233. The more you type, the less you say
Edited on Wed Oct-21-09 10:56 AM by jgraz
But kudos for having the balls to use a 2001 paper to argue against a 2008 study by the same authors. It's clear that the 2008 study is an attempt to control for the hypothetical cultural differences mentioned in the earlier text.

And, of course, you FAIL again to address conclusions the 2008 study.

Like most gun lovers, your attitude toward suicide and depression is appalling. This is not a matter of choice and self-determination. It's a matter of biochemistry and genetics. You seem to want to pretend that science is completely clueless about the causes of depression and suicide. It's a pretty well-understood phenomenon, but treatment is a bit difficult when the first symptom is a bullet out the back of the head.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-22-09 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #233
237. I've rarely seen such a severe case of confirmation/assimilation bias
For the fourth time: Why are international comparisons of suicide rates "not the right comparison"?
For the fourth time: Please cite some examples of pro-RKBA posters on this forum (including myself) "making the argument that we are much too different from Japan or Europe when it comes to guns"; if it's true that we're "always" doing that, it really shouldn't be too hard to find a handful of examples.

Given your reluctance to answer either of these questions so far, I'm forced to tentatively conclude that the answer to the first question is that the data from international comparisons contradicts the conclusion you're trying to work towards, and the answer to the second is not forthcoming because your claim is a fabrication. Feel free to contradict me, but to do so in a plausible manner, you're going to have to provide a satisfactory answer to those questions. Not necessarily satisfactory to me, but certainly satisfactory to the peanut gallery.

And, of course, you FAIL again to address conclusions the 2008 study.

Hey, don't blame me for your pathological inability to process statements that don't conform to your worldview. I wrote:
It certainly establishes correlation between rates of firearm ownership, but doesn't present any evidence for a causal relationship beyond unsupported assertion.

Why don't you go back and read that paragraph again? Assuming your assimilation bias will let you.

But kudos for having the balls to use a 2001 paper to argue against a 2008 study by the same authors.
Yes, the fact that both papers were written by the same authors was part of my point. The age of the paper is immaterial: there's no statute of limitations for valid scientific findings. Moreover, Miller & Hemenway themselves cite one paper from 2001, and another from 1999, the latter their own.
It's clear that the 2008 study is an attempt to control for the hypothetical cultural differences mentioned in the earlier text.
You don't control for variables by ignoring them, or refute contradictory evidence by simply asserting that it must be wrong. Actually, come to think of it, that is exactly what public health researchers do do where firearms are concerned, but that doesn't mean it's good science; in fact, it means they're bad scientists.

Do you really want to assert that there are no cultural differences between Wyoming, Idaho, Montana and the Dakotas (Northern Rockies/Great Plains) on the one hand, and Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island (New England) on the other? Not to mention Hawaii; anyone believe there are no cultural differences between Hawaii and anywhere in the CONUS apart from the coastal regions of the west coast?

And it should pointed out that Miller & Hemenway are quite willing to invoke international figures, even in this study, when it suits them:
Yet international experts have concluded that restriction of access to lethal means is one of the few suicide-prevention policies with proven effectiveness.5
Let's take a look at the cited reference, Mann, et al. "Suicide prevention strategies: a systematic review." JAMA 2005;294:2064-2074 http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/294/16/2064?i...
Specifically, let's take a peek at the conclusions; not the conclusions from the abstract, no , the conclusions from the full text:
Substitution of method may obscure a change in overall suicide rates, as has been observed for domestic gas detoxification among men in the United Kingdom,81 in Germany,103 and in the United States104 and for banning the pesticide parathion in Finland.76 Despite unresolved questions about method substitution, these studies demonstrate the life-saving potential of restricting lethal means. Gauging the extent to which declining overall suicide rates are directly attributable to restriction in access to particular means requires consideration of long-term trends and confounding factors such as increased antidepressant use.
Italics mine.
How about that, huh? Mann et al. are even better at specious argumentation than you are, jgraz. At least they pretend to acknowledge the contradictory evidence, even while they try to hand-wave it away.

"Substitution of method may obscure a change in overall suicide rates, <... but d>espite unresolved questions about method substitution, these studies demonstrate the life-saving potential of restricting lethal means."
On an abstract level, you have to admire the breathtaking level of bullshit being committed here. Essentially, the authors are asserting that restricting access to popular means of suicide, such as firearms, saved lives even though suicide rates didn't drop (what else can it mean that "a change in overall suicide rates" is "obscured"?), or when they did drop, the drop could not be unequivocally attributed to the restriction of methods. In short, the authors acknowledge that there is no solid evidence (due to "unresolved questions" and as-yet unperformed research of "long-term trends and confounding factors") that the policies they advocate work, but they nevertheless conclude that those policies do work.

Gosh, and I thought science was supposed to be hard (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/38575 ). If I'd known it was perfectly kosher to assert that you're right even while admitting there's no evidence that you are, I could have scooped up a Ph.D. years ago!

Like most gun lovers, your attitude toward suicide and depression is appalling.
I was actually diagnosed with major depressive disorder last year, after suffering recurring bouts since my late teens. Which is probably why your humanitarianism rings rather hollow to me; from where I'm standing, it looks like the only interest you take in depressives is how you can use them to advance your own political agenda. That goes for Miller & Hemenway too, I might add.

If you genuinely want to help a depressive, or at least prevent them from committing suicide, you'd do a lot better if, instead of trying to take away some means of dying (because you'll never get every possible method, not without outlawing rope, trains, bridges and high buildings for a start), you worked on giving them a reason to live. Which is, in effect, what I said in my previous post. Of course, you missed that because your assimilation bias wouldn't let you process anything that contradicts your preconceived notions.

So you can keep your feigned compassion, and the patronizing attitude you, and the likes of Miller and Hemenway, have developed to go along with it. Depression may be a mental disorder, but it's not a disability, where we need others to speak for us and decide that we need to have our pants changed or have a family member administer our medication.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #237
239. It would appear jgraz has retreated under his rock again
As per usual. I guess he needs to let the cognitive dissonance dissipate before he starts regurgitating his spiel in some other thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
armueller2001 Donating Member (477 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-21-09 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #230
234. Hahah he ignored your questions... again
"For the third time: Why are international comparisons of suicide rates "not the right comparison"?
For the third time: Please cite some examples of pro-RKBA posters on this forum (including myself) "making the argument that we are much too different from Japan or Europe when it comes to guns"; if it's true that we're "always" doing that, it really shouldn't be too hard to find a handful of examples."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-20-09 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #209
228. Nobody said they weren't.
We're criticizing the obvious collorary to the problem: To solve so many suicides, you need to prevent people from having any access whatsoever to guns. Furthermore, we criticize the idea that suicidal people are so lacking in resourcefulness, that they won't find another way anyhow.

Clearly, firearms are effective in committing suicide. Clearly, firearms can be more final in this matter, than say a razor blade. Also, the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dashrif Donating Member (353 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-20-09 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #206
219. I don't think it's guns
Look at the the states populations "According to the Indian Health Service, 33.9 per 100,000 American-Indian youth commit suicide each year, which is 2.5 times the national rate for all youth." from http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/41/12/6...



I have had 3 high school friends all Native kill them selfs out of a graduating class of 125 it's a real problem they needed help and never got it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-20-09 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #219
220. Wait... you're blaming 4x and 8x gun suicide rates on ... Native Americans?
:rofl: This is getting fun.

OK, Evidence Boy -- where's your evidence that the additional gun suicides are all Native Americans? (Don't worry, we know you don't have any.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dashrif Donating Member (353 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-20-09 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #220
229. never said all additional was
but there is a clear culture of suicide among native youth I have seen it first hand from high school to working for IHS and rates can be documented but I have never seen the method documented

I don't appreciate the laughing avatar it comes off looking like you are an insensitive cunt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-21-09 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #229
232. Oh please
Your argument is ludicrous and the rofl smiley was well-earned.

I have first-hand experience dealing with some tragic, heartrending situations myself. And if I used them to make a silly argument with no evidence to support it, I'd expect a little laughter thrown my way.

You might want to dial down the pathos a bit. It comes off looking like you are a whiney emo drama queen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-20-09 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #206
227. Good luck proving that.
Since we don't have national firearms registration, you can't actually know which housholds/states have high or low firearms ownership rates. You have to control for whether people even answer the questions on the survey correctly. How likely is a blue state college grad to answer truthfully when asked if they own a gun? How about a government-hating red-stater in the south?

Based on stated ownership rates, I bet you'd find Chicago to be pretty low on the list right? Yet what do we hear about Chicago, day in, day out. Shootings. Lots of them.

With firearms registration, we could do a much more accurate analysis here. Unfortunately, I don't think we're going to get that anytime soon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-19-09 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #190
200. Suicide is different than homicide wouldn't you say?
And yet you lump them all together. That is misleading at best.

And as it stands alcohol is an "easily accessible product" that is a factor in well over 12,000 cancer deaths/year. You believe we should ban it, even for adults right?


As it stands children are at a greater risk from the local swimming pool than they are from guns in the house. Those are facts.

And can you show any study that finds suicide rates dropping following a gun ban?

So far you have attempted to show that guns cause suicide rates to increase (not homicide). But you used a study that was flawed in very obvious ways by hand selecting only those regions with higher suicide rates to begin with and comparing them to regions with lower suicide rates based on a variety of reasons. Of course this completely ignores the fact that the US has more guns (per capita and total numbers) than any other industrialized nation, but a lower suicide rate than average.

So to sum up: the only causal relationship you can find is between guns and suicide, but not murder, and that is weakly correlated at best (actually probably closer to outright fraud).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-19-09 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #200
207. No, I would say suicide is different *from* homicide.
Edited on Mon Oct-19-09 03:52 PM by jgraz
Would you prefer that I adopt more extreme positions so you have an easier time arguing against them? I never said anything about banning anything. Ever.

Your question about suicide rates dropping after a gun ban is similarly ridiculous since no part of this country has ever completely banned guns. But you already knew that.

If you're able to read a basic table, you'll see that guns are a huge factor in US suicides.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/10/989/T1

Of course, you already should have known that because you fully read the studies I posted. After all your whining about posting sources, I wouldn't want to think you just ignored the studies once you got them.

I can't wait to see the logical gymnastics you employ to "refute" this one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-19-09 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #207
210. Ah but other countries have banned guns no?
What have their suicide rates down following such bans? Plummet as people simply give up since they can't shoot themselves?

And I already pointed out the flaws in that study. Namely the only places included in the high gun ownership group were states that already have a higher suicide rate for a variety of reasons. The fact that people who were already predetermined to kill themselves chose guns when guns were available doesn't really prove anything. You could compare the rate of suicides using pills between the states and probably "prove" that gun bans force people do OD.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-19-09 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #210
211. Name one country that's gone from our rate of gun ownership to a complete ban
Edited on Mon Oct-19-09 05:37 PM by jgraz
Then we'll talk.

Also... this?
Namely the only places included in the high gun ownership group were states that already have a higher suicide rate for a variety of reasons.

Is transparent bullshit. Which state *already* had a high suicide rate *before* they started buying guns? Was there some high-suicide state where guns were suddenly introduced? Really, I know you can make up more believable stats than that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-19-09 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #211
212. Ahem
you were comparing states with radically different gun ownership rates, now you insist that any country to compare against must have our exact rate of gun ownership prior to a ban. Ok, the rate of which state?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-20-09 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #212
218. Let's try to stay on point, shall we?
What's your explanation for the suicide numbers in that study? How do you get equal numbers of suicides by all other means, but wildly differing numbers for gun suicides?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-19-09 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #190
201. The would be suicide will simply find another way if there is no gun available.
You seem to think that if the suicide-by-gun deaths had been deprived of a gun, they would not have killed themselves. We believe that they would simply find another method.

Also, we suspect that the anti-gun-rights people don't really care about the suicides but are using them to try and push a ban on guns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-19-09 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #201
203. That assertion is not supported by the facts
It turns out that use of a gun is a virtual guarantee of suicide success.

For example, check out this table from the New England Journal of Medicine study:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/10/989/T1

In states with the highest rates of gun ownership, men committed 3.7 times as many gun suicides, while male suicides by other means were almost equal. For women, it's even worse: a woman in a pro-gun state is almost 8 times as likely to commit suicide with a gun, while she's only slightly more likely to commit suicide by other means.

Again, guns may not cause suicide attempts (though I suspect they are a factor in some), but they make any suicide attempt a lot more lethal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-20-09 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #203
215. Guns don't cause suicide.
The don't radiate a magic spell that captures people and make them kill themselves.

I will admit that a gun suicide is less likely to be a botched suicide.

But it is too messy for my tastes. If the time ever comes for me to arrange for my own exit from the stage of life, I will buy a small tank of nitrogen and hook it up to a face mask. Turn on valve, painlessly get sleepy, final forever sleep. (No, I am not suicidal. That would be a death-with-dignity type situation.) Then some idiot will try to outlaw nitrogen tanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-20-09 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #215
216. Then explain the study
Why are there so many more gun suicides in pro-gun states? It's not like they're drawing from suicides by other means, since those stats are almost identical.

There's a plausible hypothesis that guns DO cause suicide: they're available, (theoretically) painless and very, very quick. If someone is being overwhelmed by depression or suicidal ideation (e.g. a vulnerable teen having a bad reaction to medication), they can kill themselves with very little preparation.

In other words, they can complete the attempt before they calm down and/or seek help.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-20-09 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #216
225. Perception versus reality.
It's like how men and women commit suicide with firearms. Men are more likely to shoot themselves in the head. Women shoot themselves in the chest. There are social issues that you have not identified at work here.

And I can assure you, in reality, suicide by firearm is rarely painless or quick. (Granted, you appear to have acknowledged that as well)

People who apply external forces, such as gravity (hanging, falling from great heights, as one of my co-workers recently did) tend to be successful. A firearm is a prime example of external force. Suicide by overdose, or cutting of the wrists allows time for reflection, and a change of mind.

Interesting that those committing suicide by cutting, rarely if ever go for the cartoid artery, isn't it? It can take a while to bleed out from the arms, even if you go down the street, and not across the road.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-21-09 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #216
231. The difference in "availability" of guns between pro-gun states and other states is meaningless
Either you can get a gun or you can't. In all 50 states, a person who wants a gun can get one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-20-09 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #190
224. Not even a little bit.
There are other forms of suicide, some dangerous not only to the person committing suicide, but everyone around them. In Japan, currently it's mixing household chemicals, such as bleach and chlorine, which can kill everyone in the building.

I know several people who have committed suicide. It is ultimately their own decision. I do not look down upon it, and I do not think less of them for it. Each knew they were loved, and that there were options for the problems they felt made life not worth living. They chose suicide anyway. The two who did not use firearms aren't any more alive than the two who did. In fact, my childhood mentor, the neighbor who was far more of a father figure to me than my own flesh and blood father, almost survived his attempt with a firearm. Such is life. And death.


Done 'properly', suicide with a firearm allows for fewer survivors, which means fewer opportunities to change your mind. That is all. I do not begrudge, nor belittle people who opt for suicide for whatever reason. It's just about the most 'serious business' decision any human can make.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-19-09 01:48 AM
Response to Reply #111
193. Anything with the name Arthur Kellermann on it
Odd that you couldn't come up with that on your own, given that we've explained a dozen or so times what's wrong with Kellermann's 1989, 1993 and 1998 studies.

For one thing, Kellermann counted assualtive shootings (i.e. firearm assaults and homicides) that were committed with firearms that were known to not have been kept in the household in question. In fact, in the 1998 study, over 2/3 of the assaultive shootings were committed with a weapon known to have been brought in from outside. Not that you'd find that factoid in the abstract or the press release; it was buried pretty deep in the article. It's unknown how many of the assaultive shootings in the 1993 study were committed with weapons brought in from outside, because Kellermann never released his full dataset (which is... shall we say unorthodox?), but it's at least 66%, probably much more.

I notice you're still repeating your lies (yes, lies) about Kleck committing fraud, incidentally, exactly as I predicted you would in the last thread this came up, in which you were too fucking gutless (as usual) to address my rebuttal to your chickenshit distortions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-19-09 04:26 AM
Response to Reply #193
199. Let me add a link to points I made some threads ago...
What was wrong in detail about your "summary" of my arguments and your characterization of the Kleck-Gertz study:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rd_kent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #88
164. Good stats dont lie. THOSE stats were flawed
Never took into account HOW the gun got into the home, ie: intruder, family member, friend, etc, or what circumstances caused the incident.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 08:35 PM
Response to Original message
90. He was charged with the more serious crime.
Compared to that, carrying without a permit is rather trivial.

At this point, we do not know if he was legally in possession of the gun or not. You are making some assumptions because they fit your agenda.

Usually, some one with that kind of violent temper has already developed a criminal record.

The CCW would not be relevant as he was on his own property. If he was legally allowed to have a gun, then on his own property he could carry it concealed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-19-09 02:15 AM
Response to Reply #90
195. some states
allow one to carry concealed on one's own property OR place of business w/o a permit

my state does

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
juno jones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 09:30 PM
Response to Original message
116. I know it's not funny
but I can't stop laughing. :rofl:

And calling the owner-operator of a Pizza Time a chef is stretching things a bit. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #116
152. I've been craving a caprese salad since I read the OP
Edited on Sat Oct-17-09 09:59 AM by slackmaster
Mmmmmmmmmm. And I know just were to get an excellent one.

http://www.jackandgiulios.com/4.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-18-09 06:38 AM
Response to Reply #152
184. I visited
Jack and Giulios on slack's recommendation...very good 'ma and pa' style Italian.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 09:38 PM
Response to Original message
118. Didn't need a permit if he had permission from the owner.. duh. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 07:55 AM
Response to Reply #118
140. He was the owner. N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 08:20 AM
Response to Original message
142. If he'd threatened to stab the waitress, or shove her head in the pizza oven...
You can bet we would have never heard of this guy, even though the criminal charge would have been the same.

Frankly, the firearm is a bit of a non-issue. The incident took place in a restaurant kitchen; there's no end of available means of inflicting grievous bodily harm on people available, from 8-10" chef's knives, cleavers, sauciers, skillets, the aforementioned pizza oven, spoiled ingredients, you name it.

If DeCraepeo had threatened to slash Ms Vultaggio's throat, and slammed his chef's knife on the countertop, how would this story have been substantially different? But would we have jgraz and baldguy agitating for tighter controls on large knives in restaurant kitchens? Not fucking likely. In fact, this thread wouldn't even exist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #142
162. Probably happens alot more often
than this sort of thing.

And don't tempt them. The grabbers in the UK after successfully eliminating all legal guns (and leading to a higher crime rate) have starting going after knives now as well.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #162
177. Funny, the OP doesn't care about Chef Angry having one of these at hand:


Model 1148

18" Commercial Pizza Knife.
Gives you a two handed grip on cutting a large pizza. Stainless steel 2" curved blade gives you the cutting action you need to get through a thick pizza crust or wheel of cheese. Both main and helper handle are riveted to the blade.

Hanger hold near tip.

Full tang handle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #177
179. Well wouldn't you much rather be stabbed to death than shot to death?
Edited on Sat Oct-17-09 07:12 PM by JonQ
Of course you would. Being stabbed, beaten, poisoned, run over, etc all leading to your death barely even counts as manslaughter.

Whereas if you were shot, well then you'd be really dead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-17-09 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #142
178. Because "dead by gunshot wound" is deader than "dead by knife wound"
And that makes all the difference- or so we've been assured.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-18-09 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #142
181. Still waiting to hear why they trust him with a pizza knife and not a gun
Edited on Sun Oct-18-09 12:26 AM by friendly_iconoclast
a pizza knife being the functional equivalent of a machete (in the hands of a guy with serious anger issues) and all.

I guess the noise a gun makes when it goes off adds to the lethality...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneTenthofOnePercent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-19-09 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #142
205. Sounds like Chef Ramsey finally got that concealed carry permit.
I can't wait to see this particular event on the next season of Hell's Kitchen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #205
238. El Gordo doesn't need a gun
He's one of the few people who can stun an assailant with the power of his invective alone. ("You f***ing call yourself a f***ing armed robber? Are you taking the f**ing piss? Your threats are insipid, your presentation's dogs**t..." etc.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JustABozoOnThisBus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-18-09 07:25 AM
Response to Original message
186. When Salad Shooters are outlawed ...
ok, dumb joke.

Anyway, good to see the chef is charged.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
east texas lib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-18-09 10:04 AM
Response to Original message
187. Good thing nobody asked for croutons, too...
Whew! :o
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Endangered Specie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-19-09 01:59 AM
Response to Reply #187
194. Or in this case, a cretin
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Dec 14th 2019, 05:51 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC