Can't we just say "murdered" and not something this disingenuous?

Governor: Woman is 'alleged perpetrator' in 4 slayings
Lisa Rathke and Dave Gram, Associated Press
Updated 10:36 pm, Saturday, August 8, 2015

BARRE, Vt. (AP) — The woman charged in the slaying of a Vermont social worker is also "the alleged perpetrator" of the deaths of three relatives whose bodies were found Saturday, Gov. Peter Shumlin said.

The three women found dead at a Berlin home Saturday morning were an aunt and two cousins of 40-year-old Jody Herring, the governor said at a news conference Saturday night after returning from vacation in Nova Scotia upon hearing of the deaths. Herring was arrested on a murder charge in the death of Lara Sobel.

Sobel was gunned down after work Friday outside a state office building in Barre. She handled a case for the state Department for Children and Families in which Herring lost custody of her 9-year-old daughter, authorities said.

Herring was in custody, pending an arraignment Monday. It wasn't clear if she had a lawyer who could comment on her behalf.

More:
http://www.chron.com/news/crime/article/3-bodies-found-inside-Vermont-home-authorities-6432659.php

Of course, the gun-worshipers will declare that the victims should have been packing heat.

child welfare workers be armed. Maybe all home health nurses, firefighters, paramedics, cleaning service people......hell they think everyone should be armed as if "they" know who is competent to be armed. You just never know what you might walk in on.

They want the Wild West. Didn't many of those western towns outlaw guns in town after too many gunfights???

Who draws his weapon first, the criminal with foreknowledge that a crime is to be committed, or the victim(s)?
And your gun won't do you much good when it's still in the holster as you die.

http://www.kare11.com/story/news/crime/2015/08/03/3-arrested-teen-fatally-shot-by-victim-in-attempted-robbery/31065945/

... but rather than merely provide a mere single instance of where a defensive gun use saved the day, do provide instead much more meaningful information -- that guns prevent more crimes than they cause.

You can do that, can't you?

From PRIORITIES FOR RESEARCH TO REDUCE THE THREAT OF FIREARM-RELATED VIOLENCE

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=R1

the "defensive gun use" actually thwarted the crime. Moreover, when one reads "500,000 to 3 million," well, forgive one if he or she concludes "they truly don't have a clue."
Let's use logic. The criminal has foreknowledge that a crime is to be committed. The victim lacks this foreknowledge. Consequently, the criminal will draw his gun first. IS THAT SO HARD TO COMPREHEND? Now you may get some situations where a foolish criminal makes no effort to consider that his/her victim may too have a concealed gun; on the other hand, you get other situations where the criminal not only realizes that this might be the case, but using his drawn weapon demands that the victim keep his or her hands up. (Or, what the heck, the criminal can simply shoot the victim dead, and then grab the wallet off of the dead victim's body).
A simple question for you, why do you suppose it is that one is much, much, MUCH more likely to find newspaper headlines like "Six shot dead in the Southside," rather than "defensive gun use saves X amount of people"? Could it be that the alleged "defensive gun uses" are for trivial situations?
Moreover, if your "evidence" is relying on survey data, it supposes that people are going to be honest on any questionnaire, and these people are not go out of the way to justify spending money on guns and bullets that they possess.
Finally, instead of unreliable survey data let us look at what actually is going on in certain regions. There truly isn't much defensive gun use in the United Kingdom (significantly more similar to the U.S. than say the much smaller Switzerland), is there? Of course, the rate of gun ownership is much smaller in the U.K. Yet there are NOT more murders per capita there, but instead there are far, far, far fewer murders. Now why do you suppose that is?
Something that is so hard for the gun-worshipers to understand -- if no one has a gun, no one gets killed by the gun.

"defensive gun use" if it is not to thwart a crime? Also consider that not every DGU is gun vs. gun. The 85 yro grandma who points an old .38 at the two teens that just broke into her house is a DGU. They may not have had guns but the crime is thwarted and likely no one gets shot.

As to the question

- if you read the report, it indicates the vast majority of DGUs do not involve shots being fired. That is not as interesting to news services as bloody outcomes. {Listen to Don Henley's "Dirty Laundry". Not a fan but I must admit he is right}

As for and unreliable survey data, that report comes from the CDC, published in 2013 at the order of President Obama for the purpose “…develop a proposed public health research agenda to improve knowledge of the causes of gun violence, the interventions that prevent gun violence, and strategies to minimize the public health burden of gun violence.”

You should actually try reading it. It is quite good and has some rather scathing refutations to favorite arguments on both sides of the issue.

I provided a link ^^

I have several projects I intend to work on outside today. Summer is far too nice to waste.

I wonder why the aunt was killed.

but, it's over the same thing that drives so many men to commit familycide - the loss of custody. "if I can't have them no one will".

firearms facilitate implusive emotions. absent access, the impulse is much less likely to kill.

yes, she could have used a knife or a fertilizer bomb. but she didn't.