Yeah, but it’s hard to put into words. Maybe it’s just because of the soapbox she got. Maybe it’s the relative quickness with which her life went to hell. If she got killed by a bullet 15 years down the road, it wouldn’t be as ironic. Maybe it’s because it was her husband who killed her with a family gun, and the inability of people to see that’s exactly what ‘we’ are talking about when ‘you guys’ pooh-pooh away those statistics.
From: Concealed Carry Legal Question (SDMB General Questions)
This tragic Soccer Mom case is 100 carats of irony, a veritable black diamond of pure soul etching irony, when juxtaposed against that thread. MMMM… I can practically taste the irony! And it makes me want to puke.
I find it ironic that this statement got me suspended when you were all arguing for your deadly toys (handguns) and apparently nitpicking legal carry a few months after her highly publicized legal case, and as it turns out, I was the only one on this woman’s side. (Was the Soccer Mom reversal your impetus and inspiration for that thread, Una Persson?)
I find it ironic that 10 people were shot dead in an Alabama shooting spree the day after I made that post, screaming in frustration for the madness to stop. I find it ironic that truth is silenced with bullshit gunnuttery, around here.
Isn’t it ironic… doncha think?
Um – I’m not with her.
Hentor, I’m really not wanting to be in here any more after being told I’m irrational, but I think you’ve laid out your position up pretty well. The common theme from your studies you cite appears to be much more that in suicide cases the presence of a firearm has a strong positive correlation, but I’m not sure that it’s proving that the firearm has a statistically significant chance of creating the suicide attempt. I mean, the way I could read it would be:
- People considering suicide are likely to have a firearm on the premises.
- Suicide attempts with firearms are much more likely to be successful than with other weapons.
- Reducing gun availability could reduce successful suicides, therefore reducing gun availability could reduce deaths.
I think the homicide figures are much more problematic, though, and likely to be subject to much more bias depending upon the community. For example, my city, which has essentially no gun laws other than the State and Federal ones, and which allows CCW licenses, licensed fully-automatic weapons, etc. has a murder rate which is incredibly low, lower than many cities of similar size in countries with near-complete gun bans (I had an argument with someone on this Board about that a while ago). Clearly something in my city of 100,000+ people works, and guns are not the problem. Now take Chicago, Gary, Indiana, Washington D.C., or other cities, and clearly something is not working. I’m concerned that some of the studies may be too localized or limited, but then that does not necessarily invalidate their premises, nor their findings.
Really though, I said earlier I was a bit swamped, although I do appreciate very much your legwork in grabbing the citations, as it will allow me to grab them from the University tomorrow (or con one of my assistants into getting them…hmm…).
Oh honestly, that’s being a little too delicate. How should I have described your non sequitur in a means that didn’t offend you?
All humans can be irrational. I’m irrational, you are, the Queen of Sheba was. It’s not something to take offence at, it’s simply something to bear in mind.
Check them out, because they include case controls which address essentially all of your concerns as I read them. The comparisons in those studies are not between dissimilar people who have guns, but matched controls who differ on having a gun in the house.
Yes, crime is concentrated in certain areas. Many times those areas would like to have more control over gun ownership, but lax laws in other states make it hard to stop the in-flow of guns. I know that a large number of the guns seized in Chicago come from one area in the south. That is why some people want national gun control laws rather than a hodge-podge of local laws.
There are areas of the country which have low incidences of crack use, but crack is still as illegal there as it is everywhere else.
I must confess to chuckling darkly at the horrible stupidity of it all and about certain lines in the article, particularly the one about the dog and
(because it suggests that the gun was an integral part of her babysitting technique).
Really, I’m laughing because the other option is to cry. The sheer tragedy of it, and the thought of what those kids have gone and will go through, is overwhelming.
It pisses me off when a few cranks from flyover country hijack the whole fucking country with their belligerent backwards bullshit. See January 20, 2001-January 20, 2009.
I think that people should be free to own guns, but let’s cut the Foghorn Leghorn crap about it.
BTW, IW, that comment’s not directed at you, per se, just certain elements of the “gun culture”. People on the fence about this stuff are not going to get warm fuzzies about leaving gun rights intact when you’ve got people being very menacing and hostile as the face of that argument, is all.
That wouldn’t be ironic. However, if someone were given fatal injuries by that seatbelt, **that **would be ironic.
Either you really don’t understand irony, or your hardon for guns has pushed you to willfully twist both the situation and people’s explanation of the irony here such that you can ignore it. Have fun playing in your little strawman sandbox; I’m sick of pointing out the same things to you over and over while you repeatedly mischaracterize your opponents’ arguments to fit your own retarded views.
By your definition, it is ironic and giggle-worthy every time a husband murders his wife.
Certainly it is far more accurate to characterize getting married as “trusting your partner to protect you, not to harm you” than it is to characterize owning a gun as “believing you are invulnerable to guns.”
The former probably has wedding vows to back it up. The latter is entirely a product of your delusional mind.
But even by your permissive definition, this situation is still not ironic. It would have been ironic if she accidentally shot herself, or if her gun was taken in public by an unarmed attacker and used to kill her. Neither is what actually happened.
Again, it is only your delusion that her wearing a gun meant anything like “I can’t be murdered using a gun” or “wearing a gun in public makes me less likely to be murdered at home by my husband.”
“Ironic” does not mean the same thing as “funny.” If you think “gun toting soccer mom dead” is inherently funny because gun owners and soccer moms are bizarre and contemptible creatures in your world, that’s awesome. But misusing the word “irony” is not awesome.
The woman didn’t make national news by declaring her marriage to be the most rock-solidest of all time. She made national news by being a gun-nut. Carrying a loaded weapon to a five-year-old’s soccer game, qualifies her.
Then she was killed by a gun. This is ironic.
Shot from Guns is right. You don’t want it to be ironic, because that would somehow be a black mark on the Second Amendment or something.
By the way, it’s also ironic that Shot from Guns gets the irony and you don’t. It’s just irony-a-palooza around here today.
While we’re at it, you might want to claim that I also hate niggers, spics, and kikes. And perhaps suggest that I think all pregnant women should be forcibly aborted by wire hangars.
Here’s a helpful hint, retard: I’ve said repeatedly that the situation is ironic, not that it’s funny. Go peddle your personal crusade to people who have the same level of reading comprehension as you do.
…
Precisely my point. Measuring gun crime in cities and counties with populations in the millions doesn’t provide valid conclusions for rural America, and places where guns are appropriate tools should have their laws determined by what’s right for New York City.
I don’t even know how to start addressing this. Congratulations, though, on finding the most offensive and ignorant way possible to leap into the conversation.
Let’s start with your first sentence:
-
Using the term “flyover country” shows immediately that you’re doing your best to insult and demean the places that provide you with your food, oil, and more. With that one phrase, you’re saying that people who don’t like dirty crime-ridden crowded cities aren’t as good as you are; people who enjoy the wild places in our country don’t deserve the same consideration that you do. It also reeks of “red state/blue state” ignorance and overgeneralization (as your next sentence implies).
-
This area ain’t “backwards.” We have all the amenities of civilization out here in flyover country, from symphony orchestras to Internet tech hubs. We also happen to have millions of acres of beautiful smog-free wilderness.
-
I, for one, am not attempting to “hijack the whole fucking country.” As I think I’ve clearly communicated, I don’t want to be told I can’t carry a gun when I’m hiking in grizzly bear country just because you don’t think it’s appropriate to have one in an apartment in Arlington, Virginia.
-
I don’t think I, or the other “cranks” out here, are the belligerent ones. You are the one being insulting and obnoxious at the moment.
As for the second sentence, don’t try to make this a Republican/Democrat issue or a George Bush issue. The Democrats out here carry guns, too, my friend, and have for a long time.
And what on Earth are you talking about with Foghorn Leghorn? I don’t remember anything about the rooster being a champion of gun rights. For that matter, I’m not trying to be a champion of gun rights, either. I just don’t want whatever laws might be right for your state crammed down the throats of the people living in my state.
I also feel that “giggling” at the woman in the OP isn’t appropriate, and it isn’t the irony that people see it as. If she’d accidentally shot herself, that would be ironic. If someone had taken her gun and shot her with it, that would be ironic. But being murdered by her husband? I don’t see it.
- I grew up in flyover country; I know exactly what I’m talking about.
- It’s the preponderance of backward people, not the amenities, to which I refer. See #1.
- Strawman. I stated clearly that I think people should be free to own guns. Plus, I live in a single-family house.
- Y’all started it with your Foghorn Leghorn bullshit, so right back at you.
Weak. :rolleyes:
I don’t know of many people who would want to prohibit you from carrying a gun in grizzly country. At the same time, we don’t want gangs in inner cities to traffic in guns acquired in states with laxer gun laws.
And while you are at it you can thank the dirty, crime ridden cities for providing the money that provides your part of the country enough money to have the amenities you describe. MT get’s $1.58 back in federal spending for each dollar paid in taxes, ID gets $1.73, WY $1.11, and AK $1.78.
Two things: How do you know this to be true? You’ve made an assertion, but what is it based on?
Secondly, the material you elided included findings from studies that used state-wide or nation-wide data, and not just cities and counties. It may be the case that rural areas are different, and it would be interesting to see what would happen if one were to examine rural settings apart from urban settings in terms of the increased risk of homicide associated with owning a gun. Until someone does, all we can do is speculate with no foundation.
Anyway, IW, I’m sorry about cranking up the pejoratives, but my point was that while (again) I believe that people should be free to own guns, I am utterly unimpressed by the demeanor of the people who are on the forefront of the pro-gun side. They come off as mean, hostile, unfriendly. Surely, the NRA could use some of the bajillions of dollars they bilked out of their contributors to do something about improving the image of gun ownership, but they instead just use what little they don’t keep for themselves to buy off or intimidate politicians. This does not inspire confidence in people who do not believe in their cause with eye-bulging credulity.