Blood-drenched kids unhurt as young mom slain

[JayS]

Just a reminder that people are killed in other ways. Too bad we focus on objects and not actions.




May 5, 2004, 6:43AM
Blood-drenched kids unhurt as young mom slain
By PEGGY O'HARE
Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/2549888



A young mother was found stabbed to death in a Gulfton-area apartment Tuesday morning with her two young children covered in blood nearby, police said.

The older child, a 2-year-old girl, was on top of her mother kissing her on the face and asking her to wake up when the victim's sister discovered the scene around 11:30 a.m. in the 6000 block of Bissonnet, said Houston Police Department homicide Sgt. Jim Ramsey.

*SNIP*

[rumguy]

1. that is really, really sad

poor kids, poor mother...

:(

[jobycom]

2. Yeah like that time

A guy drove his pickup through a window into a Luby's in Texas and killed twenty-three people with a butterknife?

"If men were angels, we wouldn't need laws." Alexander Hamilton

[TexasProgresive]

3. Is that butterknife irony?

I think it was a 9MM Glock.

[JayS]

4. Yup, and all the while that law abiding young lady was in that...

...restaurant without the gun she left in the car because a former governor refused to let the people vote on concealed carry. Her ouster got us Bush as a governor and we had to send him to Washington to get rid of him.

[jobycom]

5. Yeah, but if pro-gun assholes hadn't made it so easy to get guns

even for clear nutcases, then she would have had no need. The old "There just ain't enough guns out there for us to be safe" argument overlooks the fact that if only criminals had guns, it would be a lot easier to do something about the criminals with guns.

Besides, your timeline is as messed up as your logic. That was way before the concealed carry/murder justification bill was passed. I'm quite stunned to find someone so blatantly supporting Bush and his "logic" on this board.

[RoeBear]

6. That's some messed up thinking!

" the fact that if only criminals had guns, it would be a lot easier to do something about the criminals with guns."

GREAT PLAN! Let's get the guns out of the law abiding citizens hands so it'll be easier to get them from the criminals. Great plan.

[OpSomBlood]

7. Please link to some posts....

...where pro-gun people here have spoken out against background checks and harsh penalties for gun use in crime. Show us where we have stood in favor of gun availability to "nutcases."

By the way, I concur that your "if only criminals had guns, it would be easier to sort them out" is pretty fucked up logic. But then again, you followed it up by lumping us all with Bush, so I guess it's not surprising.

[jobycom]

24. A complete attempt at misdirection on your part

I never said any of that. Stick to the arguments at hand, don't try diverting them off into a field of straw.

[iverglas]

8. being stunned

Yeah, but if pro-gun assholes hadn't made it so easy to get guns
even for clear nutcases, then she would have had no need.

One never ceases to be amazed, does one?

The solution to the problem of people committing mass murder with firearms is to have other people with firearms handy to take them out before they kill as many people as they might have done, but after they have already killed a few.

Messed up timelines indeed.

Obviously, everything that happened up to the moment when Mr./Ms. CCW opened fire on the Mr./Ms. Mass Murderer-in-progress was just pre-ordained. All we can do is sit around in restaurants saying god's will be done and hoping nobody starts shooting at us ... and that if somebody does, s/he kills somebody else first, so we get a chance to shoot him/her before *we* get shot.

Or hoping that if we do get shot, somebody else shoots the mass murderer, 'cause that'll fix him/her, and of course make up for the fact that we're dead.

Noooo, there's absolutely nothing we could do to prevent Mr./Ms. Would-Be-Mass-Murderer from starting to shoot in the first place. It's god's will. It's just god's big game of Russian Roulette, you see; making us all sit in restaurants waiting to see who gets shot first, and then, like in the Parable of the Talents, seeing who has properly prepared for such events by tucking a gun in his/her pocket or purse and is clear-headed and quick-fingered and steady-handed enough to take out the mass murderer, and not the kid eating burgers at the next table.

This god obviously just creates some people to be mass murderers, with which to test the rest of us. There ain't a damned thing thing we can do about it; they're gonna kill somebody no matter what we do to try to prevent it, so there's no point in us bothering. I mean, it would probably be blasphemous even to consider it.

.

[OpSomBlood]

9. If I had a choice...

To put my life in the hands of a crazed mass murderer or a trained CCW holder, I'm betting on the CCW every single time.

I'd love for the world to be peace and flowers and bunnies, too. But unfortunately that is not reality. There are bad people who do make evil plans and sometimes they need to be dealt with before their plans come to full fruition. Sometimes the police aren't there to do it.

[iverglas]

10. well, you've made it, I guess

If I had a choice...
To put my life in the hands of a crazed mass murderer or a trained CCW holder, I'm betting on the CCW every single time.

Because in a world of your ordering, the mass murderer gets the first draw. So I guess it's like I said: you just sit there in the restaurant saying to yourself "please, god, let the next mass murderer who walks in shoot those people over there first ...".

Somehow, given the total unpredictability of mass murderers and one's complete inability to know who will get shot first and whether it will be one's self, I just have some doubts about how relevant this little scenario is to people's desire to tote guns around. I'm pretty sure that they know as well as the rest of us do that having that gun in their pocket/purse is just not a guarantee that they won't be the ones shot first.

I mean, if they don't realize this, then they're really dreadfully dim. Now, if they do realize it and continue to propound the little scenario in question as the basis for their desire to tote guns around, I'd have to conclude that they're really dreadfully disingenuous.


There are bad people who do make evil plans and sometimes they need to be dealt with before their plans come to full fruition.

Like I wuz saying: god forbid that anyone should attempt to interfere in their plans before they come to ANY fruition. I need to wash that blasphemous thought out of my head.

I can plan to fly to the moon all I like, but unless and until I have a moon rocket, I'm not likely to be doing it.

.

[OpSomBlood]

11. There's no such thing as pre-emptive crime control.

Your analogy between guns and "moon rockets" is pretty suspect, especially considering there aren't 80 million moon rockets in the United States.

The guns are here. They always will be. They've been here for 200 years, but the "shooting spree" is a very recent phenomenon. I have difficulty blaming the gun when the gun has been around much longer than the crime.

[iverglas]

12. what a reasonable fellow

I have difficulty blaming the gun when the gun has been around much longer than the crime.

If only you weren't so patently arguing with a fellow created by yourself ... out of whole straw.

There was a day when inanimate objects were tried and sentenced for wrongdoing. I haven't actually noticed anyone proposing to start doing it again.

.

[OpSomBlood]

13. How is it a straw man argument?

I can plan to fly to the moon all I like, but unless and until I have a moon rocket, I'm not likely to be doing it.

You are clearly implying that access to firearms is the reason that shooting sprees occur. That in the absence of guns, the shooting spree would cease to exist.

My counter to that is, the shooting spree is a very recent phenomenon, whereas modern handguns have been around for almost 100 years.

[iverglas]

14. what's clear to some

You are clearly implying that access to firearms is the reason that shooting sprees occur.

(a) What you actually said was "blaming the gun", as I recall; oddly enough, I was actually addressing what you actually said.

(b) Sorry, you don't get to reduce my position to this simplistic nonsense. I implied no such thing.


My counter to that is, the shooting spree is a very recent phenomenon, whereas modern handguns have been around for almost 100 years.

(a) The "shooting spree" was being used as an example of a somewhat broader and more complex set of problems.

(b) The horseless carriage has been around for longer than 100 years. Odd how there are so many more deaths in automobile accidents now than there were back then. I wonder ... could it have something to do with how many more of them there are in circulation, and who is driving them and for what purpose, and how and where and how often?

(c) If there are other changes and factors contributing to the phenomena in question (as there obviously are), then the (vastly more) handguns in circulation are themselves different; remember, nobody is blaming the guns. How many guns and who has them and why they acquired them, just f'r instance, are just a teensy bit relevant, some of us think.

Anthrax in a government laboratory presents no great risk for me. Anthrax in my neighbours' hands presents a considerable risk for me. Same amount of anthrax, totally different situation.

In the circumstances of the 1950s, the handguns in circulation were apparently not a significant risk factor. In the circumstances of today, the (vastly more) handguns in circulation very obviously are a risk factor.

It really isn't that difficult to understand.

.

[MrBenchley]

17. Well, there goes the big gun rights argument, op...

The whole point of those idiotic CCW laws is supposed to be pre-emptive crime control....handing out pistol permits to loonies and dimwits on the idea that they'd wander across some crime being committed and not perforate bystanders or the victim...

[OpSomBlood]

19. Learn the difference between "pre-emptive" and "reactive"

Then get back to me.

[MrBenchley]

21. Learn the difference between tax and regulation first, op...

The whole point of the CCW law is that it's supposed to pre-empt crime....hidden popguns are supposed to terrify criminals on the street the way Batman's costume does in the comic books.

And of course, the argument is silly and childish. Which is why Mary Rosh's fraudulent pseudo-science was needed.

[OpSomBlood]

23. The primary argument for CCW is NOT to scare criminals.

It is to offer law-abiding citizens the ability to defend themselves in the face of a violent criminal. Whatever apprehension the criminal has over the possibility of an armed victim is secondary.

[MrBenchley]

26. The primary argument is that neurotics want to tote guns around

and any rationale, no matter how desperate or dishonest, will do....

But it's funny as hell to hear you admit that the "More Guns/Less Crime" argument is horseshit.

[OpSomBlood]

27. Gun in my pocket/less crime committed against me.

I can't speak for anyone else.

[MrBenchley]

28. In magical gun nut fairyland

where gun toting "enthusiasts" always get the jump on attackers, and the phrases "innocent bystander" or "workplace shooting" or "crime of passion" are never ever ever heard.

Isn't that special...

[OpSomBlood]

29. I've been trained to check background before firing a shot.

And to assess areas for threatening situations before getting myself into them. And that the gun only comes out when there's no other option available to escape the situation alive.

Like I said, I can't speak for other people who carry a gun, only myself.

[MrBenchley]

30. Only one two-hour class required in Florida

I'm not reassured at all....

[OpSomBlood]

31. If you think that more training is required...

...then support your argument with statistics. Tell me how many gun crimes and accidental shootings are committed by CCW holders.

[MrBenchley]

33. Gee, op, I think a lot more training is required

than two hours. And I don't give a crap about how you think I should make the argument.

[OpSomBlood]

34. Where is the reasoning?

So you think more training is required, but you don't think you need to provide reasons? Can you at least describe why you feel this is not enough training time? Can you demonstrate with evidence that CCW holders are a danger to society?

[MrBenchley]

35. The reasoning is that more than two hours training should be

required before letting some pinhead prowl the streets with a pistol in his pocket.

Now as far as I'm concerned, that's all that needs to be said.

[OpSomBlood]

37. So the reasoning is "Because I say so"?

Far be it from me to help you along, but you really don't present a very compelling argument.

Really, if you can demonstrate that there is an epidemic of gun crimes and accidents caused by CCW holders, present the facts.

[MrBenchley]

38. Two hours is not enough time for training...

And the second what YOU think makes for a compelling argument is of the slightest interest to me, I'll set off a flare. Hold your breath till then.

[OpSomBlood]

39. I'm not attacking you.

But I know I'm not the only one who likes a little factual support with their debating.

If you think that two hours (my own CCW training was about five hours, but we'll call it two) is not enough, then you should at least be able to explain why. If there was a rash of crime and accidents committed by people with these licenses, I'd buy it. But the statistics prove over and over that CCW holders are the safest and most law-abiding subset of all gun owners (including police officers).

[MrBenchley]

42. Gee, op

I wouldn't trust somebody to dispense ice cream with only two hours training....whyh the hell should I trust a bunch of dimwits and neurotics with dangerous weapons...

"But the statistics prove over and over that CCW holders are the safest and most law-abiding subset of all gun owners"
As long as you don't look at the actual statistics...

"The study cites Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) information showing that from January 1, 1996 to October 9, 1997 Texas concealed handgun license holders were arrested for 946 crimes. Of these, 263 were felony arrests, including: six charges of murder or attempted murder involving at least four deaths; two charges of kidnapping; 18 charges of sexual assault; 66 charges of assault, including 48 cases of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon; and, 42 weapon-related charges. Six-hundred eighty-three were misdemeanor arrests, including: 194 weapon-related charges and 215 instances of driving while intoxicated. "Texas concealed handgun license holders don't stop crimes, but all too many of them commit them," states VPC Health Policy Analyst and study author Susan Glick, MHS.

The study also reveals that in the first six months of 1997 (the most recent complete data set available), the weapon-related arrest rate among Texas concealed handgun license holders was more than twice as high as that of the general population of Texas aged 21 years and older. Commenting on this statistic, Glick states, "The plain fact is that most Texans have more sense than to run around with a gun stuffed in their pants. But those who do carry concealed get into trouble involving weapons more often than other Texans." In addition, family violence was involved in 42 of the arrests of Texas concealed handgun license holders, including: one arrest for murder; one arrest for attempted murder; and, seven arrests for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. "This shows once again the direct link between guns and domestic violence," says Glick. "

http://www.vpc.org/press/9801tex.htm

No wonder the latest tactic from the gun lobby has been to try to conceal information on permit holders from the public.

[OpSomBlood]

44. Why doesn't this report look at convictions?

If you use a gun to defend yourself against a criminal, you will probably be arrested.

Is this the same report that says that CCW holders are more likely to own a gun, too? Why doesn't it cover CCW statistics from Florida or Oregon, states that produce very detailed statistics on CCW holders? Since when is Texas the gold standard?

But yeah, the VPC never lies.

[MrBenchley]

52. In other words, CCW holders ain't so law abiding

and you'll notice none of those folks arrested were defending themselves in any way.

"Why doesn't it cover CCW statistics from Florida or Oregon"
Because it covers Texas, op.

"the VPC never lies."
Gun nuts, on the other hand, seem patholoigically unable to keep from doing so.

[JayS]

47. They must have forgotten to check their data against the...

...Texas Department of Public Safety.


http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm

[slackmaster]

49. Thank you for referring to hard information

Rather than the VPC's ridiculous propaganda.

The VPC knows damn well that Texas DPS data is available. They haven't revised their article (or even linked to the DPS site AFAIK) because it would dampen the hysteria their absurd statistics are intended to create.

[MrBenchley]

53. Congratulations, Jay! That's exactly how

Faux Noise "proved" it was "safer" to be a soldier in Iraq that a civilian in California. If you wanted to teach a course on "How to lie with numbers" you could hardly find a better example.

[JayS]

54. Que? Do you not understand that these numbers are from...

...the Texas Department of Public Safety? They are the ones that are actually RESPONSIBLE FOR AND ADMINISTER the CHL program here in Texas. You are not going to get a better authority than them.

Why not admit that your little lobby group is in no way truthful? To not do so makes you look foolish...which is okay if you are into that sort of thing.

[MrBenchley]

55. Gee, Jay...I saw the source...and I know it's bullshit...

Faux Noise pulled much the same trick earlier this year...

http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/03/08/29_fox.html

The real question is how many tens of thousands of permit holders in Texas, and what percentage of them were arrested...versus the general population.

[JayS]

56. Sorry, I don't watch Fox. All the information you are avoiding...

...is on the DPS webpage. You can even have it broken down by age, sex, race, class, etc. If you cannot take them as an authoritative source then you really have a problem.

[MrBenchley]

57. Not avoiding anything at all...

And yeah, I DO have a problem with people who lie with numbers...

[JayS]

58. Then let's hear about this lie. Since you say you have such...

...great data that it surpasses that of the Texas Department of Public Safety you should have plenty to write about.

Since you don't sound all that knowledgeable about police functions, the Texas Department of Public Safety is a department in Texas that deals with issues affecting the safety of the public. That help?

[MrBenchley]

59. Gee, Jay, I posted it twice already

"ince you don't sound all that knowledgeable"
Gee, Jay, I know bullshit when I see it. And that's the same bullshit Faux Noise used to "prove" Iraq was safe...

http://www.lies.com/blog/archives/001198.html

[JayS]

62. So your telling me that data used by the Brady Bunch...

...that came from DPS is accurate but that data from DPS is not accurate? That is bizarre even from you.

[OpSomBlood]

63. Use a gun in self-defense and you'll get arrested.

Arrest rates are invalid. Talk convictions.

[TX-RAT]

40. Let me try

I find it strange that after 2 hrs training CCW holders think they are qualified to carry a gun. Yet we demand months of training of our rookie officers before we allow them to carry. Funny even after months of training and months of riding with training officers, we still have a problem with officer mistakes. Would you trust an officer that only 2 hrs training with a weapon?

[OpSomBlood]

41. No, I wouldn't.

And believe it or not, I am not opposed to more stringent training for CCW licensure. I just wanted to hear a comeplling argument for it.

I'm willing to listen to anyone's opinion, so long as they are willing to back it up.

[TX-RAT]

45. Heres an opinion

I think to carry concealed you must meet the minimum requirements of LE training. I would also require a psychological evaluation along with standard background checks.

[slackmaster]

48. I share some of your concern but you are comparing apples and oranges

- Police officers seek trouble. It's their job. They are FAR more likely to have to deploy a weapon in self-defense or as a pursuader to capture a dangerous suspect than a civilian permit-holder is to ever have to actually deploy a weapon. Most of the training cops receive for dealing with bad guys has no applicability for a citizen carrying a gun for self-defense.

- Non-cops with CCW permits do not have any special privileges regarding use of their firearms. The laws concerning brandishing, use of deadly force, etc. are exactly the same for a permit-holder as for a citizen without a permit. In practical terms the permit should be viewed by the holder as a definitive legal defense against a criminal charge of carrying a weapon illegally. That's how instructors have explained it to me. Cops have badges and the power of arrest. A citizen with a concealed weapons permit does not have any special authority.

I think the most important things a CCW course can teach are how to avoid trouble in the first place, and the grave importance of complying with the law at all times when you are carrying a potentially dangerous weapon.

Most citizens who carry guns for self-defense never have occasion to use them because they understand the implications of any kind of questionable use. I'm sure there are a few wannabe vigilantes out there who have permits and probably should not, but I think the vast majority of people with gun permits want to avoid trouble.

[MrBenchley]

43. Good point...

And remember, an officer gets constant daily reinforcement and supervision...

[minavasht]

61. Some people never give crap...

That’s a lot of crap accumulating…

[TX-RAT]

32. And your training came from where?

If I've asked this before,please disregard, I'm old and forget things.

[OpSomBlood]

36. From childhood to today...

I've attended at least ten different gun safety and tactical shooting courses taught by certified instructors.

[JayS]

15. Your argument overlooks the fact that we could do something...

...about criminals with guns now. We do not need to wait for some feel good legislation.

And concealed carry was an issue long before Governor Richards was elected. I am not saying that the CHL issue was the only reason she was not reelected, but it was a factor. Something about telling the general public that they will not be allowed to even vote on something does not sit well, whether they are interested in the issue or not.

You are welcome to label this pro or anti-Bush; that is your business. Either way it is a good case study for one political party "reading the winds" and using it to their advantage.




From: http://www.txchia.org/history.htm

In most ways Texas was typical. The push started with proposed laws in 1985, 1987 and 1989 (the Texas Legislature meeting only on odd numbered years). The 1991 attempt came closer to passing, but failed to gain enough support in the legislature, and was amended to death.
In 1993 CHL was back again, and this time the big state media let loose with the typical "blood in the streets" predictions, both in quotes of anti-gunners and echoed on the opinion pages. They called for the people to contact their legislators.

We did. I really think the popular support for the law caught the media by surprise. Then the Governor, Ann Richards, weighed in with the news that she would veto any CHL law the legislature passed. Politically, that should have been the end, but popular support would not let the bill die. Trying to find something the governor would sign, the Legislature ended up passing a law that only called for a statewide referendum on CHL, not authorizing anyone to actually set up any program. Governor Richards vetoed it anyway, saying that the people of Texas didn't need to vote on something like CHL.

Two years and a new Governor later George W. Bush signed the 1995 Texas concealed carry bill.

[iverglas]

16. jeezus h fucking christ on a bicycle

Your argument overlooks the fact that we could do something...
...about criminals with guns now. We do not need to wait for some feel good legislation.

Let's try looking at what was actually said, that your post purports to be a response to:

Yeah, but if pro-gun assholes hadn't made it so easy to get guns
even for clear nutcases, then she would have had no need. The old "There just ain't enough guns out there for us to be safe" argument overlooks the fact that if only criminals had guns, it would be a lot easier to do something about the criminals with guns.

The posts were in a discussion of a mass murder that apparently happened somewhere in Texas in a restaurant; forgive me, I'm not up on all the local details.

It was about guns in the hands of nutcases, not criminals. You have attempted to derail the discussion over to the "guns in the hands of criminals" track, but that is not where it was.

There were two points:

- guns are too readily available to ANYONE, including NUTCASES who use them to do things like commit mass murder

- the ready availability of guns to ANYONE makes it very difficult to keep them out of the hands of CRIMINALS

You failed to respond to either one.

As to *your* point, that "we could do something about criminals with guns now", I'm still waiting to know what that is.

Prosecuting and punishing people for firearms offences, or for offences committed using firearms, AFTER THEY ARE COMMITTED, is not "doing something about criminals with guns". Not in the sense in which the poster you were responding to had used that expression, and not in any sense that is meaningful to anyone who gives a shit about the people harmed by those uses of firearms, and not just about blaming and punishing someone for the harm done.

.

[JayS]

18. Actually his question addressed both nutcases and criminals.

I am not familiar with any "pro-gun assholes" making it easier for either nutcases or criminals to have guns so between that and the use of profanity I did not bother to respond.

The question that I ask you, given that the citizens of this country has always had easy access to firearms, is what has changed in people to make violence common, regardless of the type of weapon used. Solve this puzzle and the issue of access to guns becomes somewhat mute, does it not.

I am sure that Canadian law is similar to US law in that you cannot convict someone of a crime that has not yet occurred. Unless you wish to change this then you will have to accept that you may only be able to address an act of violence after the fact. Fortunately, there are generally plenty of opportunities to take someone, who most likely will kill in the future, off the street before he/she actually kills someone as they have already committed lesser crimes that could be HARSHLY punished, both neutralizing them and acting as a deterrent to others. That is what is being tried in my state and it has shown promise.

And yes, I care about the people harmed by violence of any sort. That is why I do not support our revolving door approach to prisons and the long sentences given for something like the simple possession of marijuana, which takes up a cell that could be put to better uses.

And for a rather bizarre writeup on the Lubys murder see:
http://www.cyberartdesign.com/arena/stock/l/lubys/links.htm

[LibLabUK]

20. Punishment before 'the crime'

"I am sure that Canadian law is similar to US law in that you cannot convict someone of a crime that has not yet occurred."

I don't know about US or Canadian law but in the UK we have laws which prohibit planning crimes (conspiracy to commit fraud for example), equipping oneself to carry-out a crime (e.g. possession of tools for breaking and entering, possession of a weapon) and attempting crimes (e.g. attempted murder). So whilst these don't allow you to prosecute a person for a murder, fraud, or burglary that they haven't committed, it does mean that at each step of the way toward the crime they have committed punishable offences, which if they are caught before committing 'the crime' they can be arrested and punished for.

[MrBenchley]

60. It's interesting

why do I suspect "we could do something...
...about criminals with guns now." doesn't include making them undergo background checks at gun shows? Or anything else that might possibly impact gun industry profits negatively in any way?

[JayS]

64. Probably because my way achieves the maximum success...

...in the minimum amount of time. Waiting around at a gun show hoping a criminal shows up does not seem like a good use of time to me.

[OpSomBlood]

65. I've bought three guns at gun shows...

...and had to undergo a background check every time.

[iverglas]

66. fling those herrings

I've bought three guns at gun shows...
and had to undergo a background check every time.

And how many of them were from private vendors?

.

[jobycom]

22. You said she refused to call it to a vote

I said that was after Killeen. Your article demonstrates my point.

[JayS]

25. Rereading what I wrote last night I see that I did not phrase...

...that statement very well at all. I did make it sound like the 1991 legislation, which I did not mention, was to be voted on by the citizens. My bad on that one.

[Liberal Classic]

46. The worst thing I hear recently

Was the car wreck in California (I think) where the little girl lived for a week in the car after her mother died. Gives me a heavy heart just thinking about it.

[slackmaster]

50. That was a horrible incident

The cops really did a slack-ass job of looking for the woman and child when they were reported missing.

[Liberal Classic]

51. Lets change the subject

:cry: