Shooting at UAHuntsville

[Mantibama]

The 9mm pistol used by Dr. Bishop in the incident was not registered. Here's what's even crazier; In 1987 (I think that's right) in Braintree, MA 19-year-old Amy Bishop got into a dispute with her 18-year-old brother where she took aim with a shotgun and fatally wounded her brother. She then took to the streets and attempted to stop a vehicle by hailing them with the shotgun. She was unsuccessful and cops later arrested her. No charges were brought forth, the shooting was deemed an accident, and Dr. Bishop was released that day. Now, in light of the recent shooting, Braintree authorities have attempted to dredge up the old report on the shooting and....... it's missing..... Her mother was a city council member at the time and something is not right about this.

 

[neps]

You cite guns stats which mean nothing.

No, I think you choose to interpret them in a particular way. You're entitled to your opinion, but if you really believe this, back it up. You can write anything you want, but it's your opinion, nothing more, and in that sense, I assert that it is your statement that is pretty meaningless.

Do you realize most of those crimes committed with guns were done so by criminals, and ILLEGAL firearms.

Really? How do you know this? Where is your proof? Have you read the reports published by the people who compiled these statistics? If so, please provide the reference(s) to support your claim. Again, as far as I can tell, this is your opinion, at least until you back it up. Furthermore, does that change the cost to society? I try to base my opinions on hard data, whenever possible.

Additionally, regardless of cause, does it change these costs:

$2.8 Million per firearm fatality; $249,000 per hospitalization for gunshot victim.

$73,000 per emergency room visit for released gunshot victims.

Just because you choose not to accept something does not mean it is not relevant or real. Consider the creationists who will tell you that there is no evidence for Darwinian evolution. Well, they choose to believe that, regardless of the available evidence. Same goes for the flat-earthers, who are still around. No amount of evidence will ever change their minds, for they don't care about such things. They believe only what they want to believe. Evidence is irrelevant; their minds are tightly closed.

I don't mind an honest debate, but simply saying something is meaningless or untrue because you disagree with it, is, in my humble opinion, not honest.

Ultimately, and I'm sure you'd agree, whether or not you consider these statistics meaningful, they are nonetheless pretty sad, for the cost in human lives and money which they represent is pretty high....

Finally, please don't take what I've written personally. I'm not trying to be unkind, rude, or disrespectful to anyone. (Unfortunately, it's hard to get that across in an email.)

 

[Rick]

The anti gun folks always use the same stats to try and argue for more gun control. Gun control does not work, period. We need to focus on the criminals behind the trigger instead of the gun in their hand. We have enough gun laws as it is. Guns laws that are intended to prevent such crimes are proven to not work. Do you disagree with that? If you think they are effective then why do we continue to have such incidents? The only thing most anti's can come up with for a solution is more gun laws that won't work. Bottom line is criminals will always have guns regardless of the law. Why should law abiding citizens not be allowed to protect themselves with equal force? Some schools tell their students to throw a book at a perpetrator with a gun. Yeah ok. Only thing I am going to throw is bullets. You can only fight gunfire with more gunfire. Firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens is a good thing. You will never convince me otherwise.

 

[neps]

Rick,

I'm not as anti-gun as you think. I own guns. We don't know one another at all, and my impression is that you are jumping to a lot of conclusions. It's easy to do, and I understand. However, all I'm trying to say is that we have a problem in this country, and that problem is costing us a great deal in lives and dollars. It's that simple. For that reason, I believe that we need to consider something other than the status quo. Simply dismissing information because it is not what one wishes to believe is probably not a very pragmatic way to address these problems. It is easy to understand why people do that, but in the end, it's not terribly useful.

Personally, I don't think that the matter is at all clear. Additionally, it seems that the problems we have in the US regarding multiple homicides are not getting better. I'm older than you, and I can tell you for a fact that this sort of thing was not always commonplace, as it is now. I live in an area that has seen some of the worst juvenile-on-juvenile multiple homicides in the country, and while I understand your concern that only criminals will have guns if gun laws are passed, I would remind you that under the present circumstances, we are awash in guns. Lots of them. The current situation is not working, because even though lots of "law-abiding" citizens are armed, the massacres are still happening.... And, having more people shooting at each other probably won't help.

I won't post further on this.

 

[PhilinYuma]

Yes, this didn't start out as a debate about gun ownership, and we have wandered away from our original intention of supporting Bryce. I have lots of friends who are seriously pro gun and many who are not. The clout of the gun lobby financed by gun manufacturers seems to have more influence with our legislators than our arguments on this forum, ably advanced both pro and con.

Most folks who carry a gun never have to use it and it affords them with a feeling of security, warranted or not. Do be aware, though, that if you carry a gun, you must want to use it, want to kill your target and be able to handle yr gun better than your intended victim. I am 72. I do not carry a gun, since I am now slower than molasses, but if I did, say a sig sauer with the 12 .40 S&W clip with hollow points and 1 up the spout, and you came up against me, fresh out of CWL school, I would kill you, which would be a nuisance for me and definitely not good for you. I recently read about a guy who keeps a 12 bore shotgun under his bed. If you hear an interloper outside your door, he says, just ###### that sucker and the sound will make his blood run cold. Not really. If I am approaching yr bedroom door, I already have my gun in my left hand so that I can open the door to my right. Even if I don't have the gun in hand yet, as soon as I hear the first half of the double click that a shotgun makes, I shall draw with my right and fire 12 rounds through the door, in a straight line four feet above the ground and 11/2" apart to cover an eighteen inch line which will incapacitate you in under two seconds and cut you in half in under nine. (I shot this pattern/time late last year to impress my son!) You will be dead without us ever having met and I will have my second clip in place for yr wife.

Hand guns are designed for one purpose, to kill people; even our targets are designed to look like our human prey. Part of our humanity tells most of us not to kill another human. Some of us had that part of our humanity trained out of us by the military and some, myself included, I suspect, never had it in the first place. It is desperately sad to me that video games should portray us walking wounded as something to be emulated, even in fun, but perhaps I miss the point. Regardless, unless you are very, very good, and a stone cold killer, don't try to confront us with a gun.

And that is my last post on this, too.

 

[ismart]

The 9mm pistol used by Dr. Bishop in the incident was not registered. Here's what's even crazier; In 1987 (I think that's right) in Braintree, MA 19-year-old Amy Bishop got into a dispute with her 18-year-old brother where she took aim with a shotgun and fatally wounded her brother. She then took to the streets and attempted to stop a vehicle by hailing them with the shotgun. She was unsuccessful and cops later arrested her. No charges were brought forth, the shooting was deemed an accident, and Dr. Bishop was released that day. Now, in light of the recent shooting, Braintree authorities have attempted to dredge up the old report on the shooting and....... it's missing..... Her mother was a city council member at the time and something is not right about this.

Wow! I cant believe this one. Her parents might have actully covered up the fact she shot her own brother. How sad! This lady should have never even had the opportunity to become a doctor/teacher. If this is true her parents are to blame. The girl clearly needed help. To have had the balls to shot a sibling over a verbal dispute, is just plan nuts!

 

[Rick]

Wow! I cant believe this one. Her parents might have actully covered up the fact she shot her own brother. How sad! This lady should have never even had the opportunity to become a doctor/teacher. If this is true her parents are to blame. The girl clearly needed help. To have had the balls to shot a sibling over a verbal dispute, is just plan nuts!

She is a wacko and has been for a very long time. How she ever got that job is beyond me.

 

[Mantibama]

Well unfortunately a background check isn't going to pull up anything you weren't charged for (as far as I know, that is). Now the media is all over her husband and her being suspects in an attempted mail bombing of a Harvard professor. I have the whole week off. My C. elegans are starving to death on the third floor where the shooting occurred and no one is allowed up there. *sigh* I'm going to catch up on some studying and attend some funerals this week.