fayfreethinkers.com

Guns don't kill people, but they sure help.

***
Indian Groom Killed At Wedding By Celebratory Gunshot

"Pankaj Kishore Karotia, a 21-year-old Indian groom, was shot and killed by his uncle at his own wedding celebration, after a "revelry shot" went horribly wrong.

Karotia's bride had been waiting for him in the car as the wedding party drew to a close in Noida, India. His uncle, Rajkumar Karotia, drew a licensed pistol to shoot a celebratory shot in the air. As the pistol was loaded, a shot accidentally went out, hitting the groom in the head.

"He was eager and excited about the wedding and was attempting to fire in the air to mark the end of the wedding," said the groom's father, Kishore Karotia. "The bullet hit my son on his head."

The groom was taken to hospital but soon died. His uncle has been arrested for culpable murder.

'Revelry shots' had been banned in the area two years ago, but continue to be a problem."

Link

In all fairness...poop happens. However I must say that I wish people would treat these instruments with more care/respect. Still, assuming alcohol was not involved or anything to that effect, this would be no different than the groom dying in a fatal car accident after speeding away recklessly from the reception. These things happen... particularly when minor acts of irresponsibility get mixed with just a drop of unfortunate luck. If you want to find an anti-gun antic dote, there are plenty out there, but you will have to do better than this.

kwlyon wrote:this would be no different than the groom dying in a fatal car accident after speeding away...

Cars aren't made to kill. Guns are. They are not made for celebration. Let's not pretend that there's no difference.

kwlyon wrote: If you want to find an anti-gun antic dote, there are plenty out there, but you will have to do better than this.

DAR
No I don't think so. I have a handgun, and it's loaded. This guy's mistake is easy to do. Because of the inherent danger, guns make people (and especially kids) act weird and people get nervous when they fiddle with them. They shouldn't be fiddling with them in public like this. That's stupid. What this guy was doing was against the law and for a good reason.

KEV
...this would be no different than the groom dying in a fatal car accident after speeding away recklessly

DAR
It would be different in several ways. Having a gun at this wedding, loading it in public, shooting it in the air, is entirely 100% unnecessary and foolish.

D.

Yes I do hope I made it clear this was stupid and irresponsible. It is on the same level of irresponsible as reckless driving. I would argue that, though cars were not "made" to kill people, they seem a rather proficient means to this end. Hanguns, on the other hand, have a rather poor track record of actually killing their targets. I am not actually aware of the statistics however I would not be surprised if the death toll is on the same order of magnitude. Firearms are certainly dangerous and should be treated with the upmost respect. Certainly, due to their intended purpose, I would prefer them to not land in the hands of foolish uncles. I still maintain, however, that this is not a very effective anti-gun antic dote...it is a much more effective anti-stupid antic dote.

P.S. Here is the best coverage of this event I have come across: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVNGctMZmaM&feature=sub

Kevin

kwlyon wrote: ...this is not a very effective anti-gun antic dote...it is a much more effective anti-stupid antic dote.

DAR
The idea that it was an "anti-gun" anecdote is an interpretation you brought. When you have guns in inappropriate unnecessary situations your are going to get accidents like this. You don't even need the stupid, just odds.

KEV
Hanguns, on the other hand, have a rather poor track record of actually killing their targets. I am not actually aware of the statistics...

DAR
Apparently not!

D.
-----------------
"Firearms are the second-leading cause of death (after motor vehicle accidents) for young people ages 1-19 in the U.S."
--WISQARS, Leading Causes of Death Reports, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control, 2005 data,
Link

Guns cause the death of over 30,000 per year:

"In 2005, 30,694 people in the United States died from firearm-related deaths – 12,352 were murdered; 17,002 killed themselves; 789 were accidents; 330 died by police intervention, and in 221, the intent was unknown."

--WISQARS, Injury Mortality Reports, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control, 2005 data, http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html (hereafter Injury Mortality Reports).

Number killed by auto accidents in the US in 2007: 41,059 --wiki

ThinkProgress caught up with Rep. Steve King (R-IA) at CPAC to talk about the attack in Texas. Asked if the right-wing anti-tax rhetoric might have motivated the attack, King implicitly agreed, noting that he had been a leading opponent of the IRS for some time...

TP: Do you think this attack, this terrorist attack, was motivated at all by a lot of the anti-tax rhetoric that’s popular in America right now?

KING: I think if we’d abolished the IRS back when I first advocated it, he wouldn’t have a target for his airplane. And I’m still for abolishing the IRS, I’ve been for it for thirty years and I’m for a national sales tax. [...] It’s sad the incident in Texas happened, but by the same token, it’s an agency that is unnecessary and when the day comes when that is over and we abolish the IRS, it’s going to be a happy day for America.

TP: So some of his grievances were legitimate?

KING: I don’t know if his grievances were legitimate, I’ve read part of the material. I can tell you I’ve been audited by the IRS and I’ve had the sense of ‘why is the IRS in my kitchen.’ Why do they have their thumb in the middle of my back. … It is intrusive and we can do a better job without them entirely.

See here.

Darrel wrote: DAR
The idea that it was an "anti-gun" anecdote is an interpretation you brought. When you have guns in inappropriate unnecessary situations your are going to get accidents like this. You don't even need the stupid, just odds.

Touché...You are correct sir. I tip my hat:) I MAY BE INCORRECT as I cannot find a reputable source so assume it to be hearsay, however I have heard that hangun wounds have approx. an 80% survival rate. This may be made up but it seems reasonable. Of course I am in no way saying that this is an argument AGAINST the danger these weapons represent. And it certainly would depend on what one was shot with...a desert eagle will certainly have a lower survival rate than a .25 pistol. And getting shot in the head is quite a bit more lethal than getting shot in the pecker (baring suicide of course...not sure I would want to live without my pecker). However across the board, I would believe 80% survival rate.

This is just a curiosity...I don't really have a point. I would be interested in knowing what the relative death tolls are between car accidents and gun related accidents. Of course the catch is more people drive cars than own guns so one would expect more deaths from car accidents. I'm really not sure how to obtain a number that would properly weight the risk of owning a car and owning a gun.

kwlyon wrote:This is just a curiosity...I don't really have a point. I would be interested in knowing what the relative death tolls are between car accidents and gun related accidents.

DOUG
A lot of people are killed by someone cleaning their gun.
Few people killed by someone cleaning their car.

Stats for 2009 aren't out yet on gun deaths. But I found some for 2004:
"In 2004, there were 29,569 gun-related deaths in the United States..."
Here.

"Overall, 42,636 people died in car crashes in the U.S. [in 2004]." Here.

Measure on illegal abortions heads to governor
Health » Opponents fear 'reckless' clause could haunt domestic violence victims who stay with their abusers.
By Brandon Loomis
The Salt Lake Tribune
Updated: 02/18/2010 06:20:08 PM MST

The Utah Senate has joined the House in allowing homicide charges against expectant mothers who arrange illegal abortions.
The bill responds to a case in which a Vernal woman allegedly paid a man $150 to beat her and cause miscarriage but could not be charged. The Senate on Thursday approved HB12 on a vote of 24-4, criminalizing a woman's "intentional, knowing, or reckless act" leading to a pregnancy's illegal termination. It specifies that a woman cannot be prosecuted for arranging a legal abortion.
The measure now goes to Gov. Gary Herbert for final action.
Some Senate Democrats attempted a last-minute amendment to remove the word "reckless" from the list of criminal acts leading to miscarriage. They argued that criminalizing reckless acts leaves open the possibility of prosecutions against domestic violence victims who return to their abusers only to be beaten and lose the child.
"It's part of the cycle of domestic violence," said Sen. Luz Robles, D-Salt Lake City.
"I hope none of you ever have to face that situation," she said after realizing the majority would pass the bill as is, "or have a daughter facing that situation, or a granddaughter."
But the bill's sponsor, Sen. Margaret Dayton, R-Orem, said the bill doesn't target victims at all -- only those who arrange to terminate their pregnancies illegally.
"I know it's well-intentioned," Dayton said of the attempt to lift "reckless acts" from the bill,
"but I don't think we want to go down the road of carefully defining the behavior of a woman."
Robles and Sen. Ben McAdams said they had spoken to the bill's original sponsor, Rep. Carl Wimmer, R-Herriman, just before the debate and believed he would support the change on behalf of domestic violence victims. Dayton, though, said Wimmer sent her a text message during the debate asking her to press on.
Wimmer later said he had been open to the Democrats' suggestion, but it had come too late.
"I wasn't about to hold the bill up," he said.


http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14429070

Doug wrote: DOUG
A lot of people are killed by someone cleaning their gun.
Few people killed by someone cleaning their car.

Stats for 2009 aren't out yet on gun deaths. But I found some for 2004:
"In 2004, there were 29,569 gun-related deaths in the United States..."
Here.

"Overall, 42,636 people died in car crashes in the U.S. [in 2004]." Here.

Agreed...but it looks like irresponsible handling of ether is potentially lethal. Of course these numbers do not really tell us much. what we need now are stats on who owns a gun vs. who owns a car so we can make a back of the envelope normalization. I'll see if I can't get this info cause it would be interesting to see how these ratios of gun death/gun owner and car death/car owner compare. It would be a weak analysis but perhaps telling. It would also be necessary to remove the crime related gun deaths from this stat as we are not interested in intentional death via firearm.

Just remember to drive safely...and that owning a gun does not necessarily make you safer...in fact the opposite may be true if you intend on shooting it in celebration at a friends wedding. Thanks for the stats Doug. See you at the meeting.

Kevin

kwlyon wrote: It would also be necessary to remove the crime related gun deaths from this stat as we are not interested in intentional death via firearm.

DOUG
Why aren't we interested in this? I'm not clear about what kind of comparison you are interesting in seeing.

Doug wrote:

kwlyon wrote: It would also be necessary to remove the crime related gun deaths from this stat as we are not interested in intentional death via firearm.

DOUG
Why aren't we interested in this? I'm not clear about what kind of comparison you are interesting in seeing.

I am more curious about the general danger that firearms pose to those who own them as opposed to the hazard their presence introduces into society at large. In other words... accidents. I think it would be interesting to see how many firearm related accidental deaths, normalized to how many americans own a firearm, compare to fatal car accidents normalized accordingly. The underlying question is simply: Does owning a firearm pose a greater inherent risk than an automobile? This would be a cheap and possibly misleading back of the envelope investigation but I think it would be interesting. I am placing my bets on firearms being the most "hazardous" by this criteria, however I lean toward this hypothesis primarily because I believe this statistic will be inherently skewed. Think about the demographics of gun owners relative to that of car owners. I would bet that if you create an IQ distribution plot of gun owners and do likewise for car owners you will find a statistically significant deviation between the means. (granted this would not be a very well posed study either). The point is, that though many intelligent people own guns...and many average people own guns (here here!), there are a whole lot of REALLY stupid people with guns.<==This may not be true...just and impression. Really stupid people + dangerous instrument intended to kill things = lots of accidental deaths.

kwlyon wrote:I am more curious about the general danger that firearms pose to those who own them as opposed to the hazard their presence introduces into society at large.

DAR
Maybe start a gun thread and I'll post some pertinent stats for ya. Actually, I'll start one. See: Dar's Handy Dandy Gun Stat thread.

kwlyon wrote:I am more curious about the general danger that firearms pose to those who own them as opposed to the hazard their presence introduces into society at large. In other words... accidents. I think it would be interesting to see how many firearm related accidental deaths, normalized to how many americans own a firearm, compare to fatal car accidents normalized accordingly. The underlying question is simply: Does owning a firearm pose a greater inherent risk than an automobile?

DOUG
Sometimes people have a wreck with someone else's car. So it may not be as useful to survey for ownership per se.

I know a large proportion of teen suicides are with a parent's gun.

Olympics | Men's hockey: This U.S. team can make own history

VANCOUVER, British Columbia - The American men skated onto the ice Sunday in Canada Hockey Place with a clear sense of purpose. They wore their 1960 replica sweaters, commemorating the United States' first gold medal in Olympic hockey, won 50 years ago at Squaw Valley. They knew where they stood and what might come.

And when they skated off at the end of a gritty 5-3 victory, they had created a spot in hockey lore for themselves. The last time the Americans beat the Canadians in Olympic competition was that same year, 1960; since then they had tried six times and all they had to show for it was five losses and a tie, in 1994.

But as one Canadian opined...

Darrel wrote:But as one Canadian opined...

DOUG
Good point. No one ever died from a hockey tournament loss. We lose tens of thousands every year from lack of health care.

They kick our asses on just about everything else--including handgun deaths, longevity, crime rates, etc.

I don't know if it's more enjoyable watching America slowly catch up to the rest of the world on these issues, or watching the bigots squirm and struggle as it happens.

***
McCain's DADT Support Letter Signed By A Bunch Of Dead Guys

Excerpt:

"On the matter of "Don't Ask Don't Tell," Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) once promised that he would listen to "leaders in the military," telling people that the "day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, Senator, we ought to change the policy, then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it." But when those military leaders came to him and told him it was time to change the policy, McCain retreated from his previous pledge, because it turns out he gets to pick and choose which military leaders he gets to heed.

And in this case, McCain has chosen the signatories of a letter signed by "over a thousand retired and flag general officers," among other folks. But, as noted by Amanada Terkel, that letter turns out to be something of an exercise in ghost whispering:"

Huff Po

From Thinkprogress:

" – The average age of the officers is 74. The “oldest living signer is 98, and several signers died in the time since the document was published.” Servicemembers United Executive Director Alex Nicholson added that only “a small fraction of these officers have even served in the military during the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ period, much less in the 21st century military,” so it’s hard to believe that they “know how accepting and tolerant 18- and 21-year-olds are today.”

– “At least one signer, Gen. Louis Menetrey, was deceased when the letter was published and didn’t sign the document himself. According to a footnote on the letter, his wife signed the document for him after his death using power of attorney — six years after Alzheimer’s disease robbed him of the ability to communicate.”

– One signatory said that they “no longer want to be a part of the letter, writing to the organization, ‘I do not wish to be on any list regarding this issue.‘”

– Multiple generals said they “never agreed” to sign the letter in the first place, writing “I never agreed. To represent either side of this issue” and “I do not remember being asked about this issue.”

In June 2009, a PBS’s Ray Suarez also did a report on the letter, reporting, “The NewsHour contacted a number of four-star officers requesting an interview for this story. However, none agreed to speak to us on camera. One general expressed surprise his name was even on the list,..."

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/04/su-letter-dadt/

Gallop Poll released yesterday

"Americans remain more confident in the healthcare reform recommendations of President Obama (49%) than in the recommendations of the Democratic (37%) or Republican (32%) leaders in Congress."

Tea party candidates falling short

Excerpt:

"In Tuesday’s Texas GOP primary, tea party-inspired contenders found themselves blown out in races across the state. Gubernatorial candidate Debra Medina, who closely aligned herself with the grass-roots conservative movement, picked up just 19 percent of the vote. And while a host of House GOP incumbents faced challenges from tea party opponents, the only one who faced anything remotely close to a scare was Rep. Ralph Hall — who dispatched his nearest competitor by nearly 30 percentage points."

Politico