Montana Man's Suicide Bullet Kills Girl (grrrrrrrrr

Mods AP just posted this.. :shrug:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-BRF-Suicide-Accidental-Death.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

June 27, 2006
Montana Man's Suicide Bullet Kills Girl
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 3:06 p.m. ET

EUREKA, Mont. (AP) -- A man who committed suicide at a party also killed a 16-year-old girl when the bullet traveled through his head and struck her in the chest, authorities said.

Jacob R. Lee, 19, and Lorena Mocko, 16, were found shot to death at around 1 a.m. Saturday, Lincoln County authorities said.

..little more at link..

I thought those kept everyone safe! :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

is just another choice people make that affects no one but themselves, so plainly access to the tools for it should be unrestricted ...

But not neccessarily at the micro level. At the macro level, however, the widespread proliferation of guns help keep big buisness, big crime and big government from going too far too fast.

At the macro level, however, the widespread proliferation of guns help keep big buisness, big crime and big government from going too far too fast.

How's that working out for you down there?

This country has plenty of guns and we are not safe.

Guns make you(specifically) think you are safe.

>_>

people kill people. :sarcasm:

Yeah, yeah, yeah.... but without that gun, neither of those young people would be dead right now.

Makes me wanna scream.

TC

I must say your statement is seriously flawed. True, the girl, an innocent bystander according to the article, would probably be alive. But men who commit suicide, who've made that decision, choose very final and very fatal means to do so. If the gun wasn't available, statistics and research show he most likely would have chosen another method just as lethal.

Very, very few suicides are rash acts. Most are well planned and thoroughly thought out. Gun laws that restrict the ownership of guns would have very little effect on suicide rates. When it comes to suicide, people do kill people. A gun is just another tool.

... I must point out that the data are nowhere near as one-sided as you suggest:

Gun laws that restrict the ownership of guns would have very little effect on suicide rates.

There are different studies, making comparisons on different bases, that show different things.

Of course, gun *laws* may not be the factor in studies showing something different from what you say -- it is actually access to firearms that is the important factor, and some studies I have seen have shown is a factor -- *a* factor.

And then we would get to have the whole discussion about whether laws affect access ... and the ensuing battle against the straw monsters that inevitably get dredged up ...

that is not really the point. Someone is determined to kill themself will find a way. the issue (to me anyway) is trying to prevent them taking others along with them quite so easily.

that is not really the point. Someone (who) is determined to kill themself will find a way.

Maybe you can find a way of showing me your credentials -- or some other reason I might assign any weight at all to what you have said.

We can all say such an infinite variety of fun things, can't we? There are faeries at the bottom of the garden, the moon is made of green cheese ...

And yet there really are people who have studied many of these things, and who know that some of the things said about them are utter bullshit.

In any event -- who is talking only about "Someone (who) is determined to kill themself"? That would be a bit of a straw thingy, I'm afraid.

I'm no more taking our colleague's word about suicides being overwhelmingly planned out and carefully executed than I would take anyone's word about anything else. Suicide -- especially in children and young people -- is not uncommonly an impulsive act.

And, as many such people knowledgeable have noted, access to firearms increases the likelihood of acting on the impulse, and certainly increases the likelihood of the impulsive act actually causing death or serious injury, as compared to many other methods that could be chosen.

the issue (to me anyway) is trying to prevent them taking others along with them quite so easily.

Well ... the use of a firearm would seem to increase that risk, if there are other people in the vicinity. It's also interesting to note how commonly firearms are the means used in murder-suicides, and what a high proportion of those incidents involve men killing their intimate partners and/or children, of course. People planning to commit murder and then suicide may well plan and execute their acts carefully -- but it would be somewhat more difficult to carry them out successfully without firearms.

Anyhow -- making access to firearms more difficult would presumably be a reasonable thing to do, to achieve the goal you state -- and at the same time could be expected to have the possibly unintended, but positive, effect of reducing the number of impulsive suicides, especially among children and young people. One stone, two birds.

Just a couple of data points to consider.

Montana does not prohibit people under 21 from possessing handguns.

Funny how those laws and rules don't stop people from getting and using firearms ... kinda like how laws don't stop people from killing other people and rules don't stop people from misusing commas.

Whatever the laws are -- if there are ways of getting around them, some people who want to will. If only the people who don't want them to would consider doing something that might actually reduce their ability to do it ...

And suicide. People would live longer, happier lives and we wouldn't have to worry about restricting their ability to do evil or violent things. Trying to restrict means flies in the face of our nature as makers and users of tools.

Sounds like it'll work great. It's just like how back in the day people were killing themselves doing drugs, but then we launched a War on Drugs (tm) so now you can't buy drugs anymore!

I mean, some people think it'll create a huge black market that promotes an increase in criminal activity rather than a decline, but there's no way that could happen, right?

not to mention your ability to misinterpret things you read.

Yeah, let's make laws so people have less access to guns.
Sounds like it'll work great. It's just like how back in the day people were killing themselves doing drugs, but then we launched a War on Drugs (tm) so now you can't buy drugs anymore!

I dunno. Has much of anything actually been done to reduce ACCESS TO DRUGS? Are you talking about what I was talking about? I don't thiiiink so.

Here are a couple of things that might be expected to reduce access to firearms by people we don't want to have access to them.

Impose a legal requirement that people in lawful possession of firearms store them securely. These people are supposedly "law-abiding gun owners", whom one might expect to want to obey a law that is enacted for the protection of the public. If they started storing their firearms in secure, locked locations when they were off the premises -- instead of in their bedside table drawers -- just think how many of the thousands and thousands of firearms stolen from homes and businesses (gee, I wonder what for?) might not end up in the hands of people who should not have them.

Require all persons who wish to acquire and possess firearms to have a licence for the purpose.

Require ownership of firearms to be registered, and require that all transfers of firearms to licensed individuals be registered, and prohibit all transfers of firearms other than through the registry.


All of those measures are directed at presumably law-abiding people in lawful possession of firearms. People who should have no motive for breaking a law that they are subject to in the public interest. And they would all address the ways that people who should not have firearms gain ACCESS TO FIREARMS: theft, straw purchases, private purchases.

Firearms are not like drugs, you see; in a whole lot of ways (one of which is that no one really requires a daily fix of firearms, so the extent of the black market you posit may be just a tad exaggerated ... not to mention that it already exists). But the particular way that is relevant here is: ALL firearms start out being legally owned. Keeping firearms that are legally owned by people who, for the most part, will not use them to cause harm or commit crimes out of the hands of people who quite likely will seems to be a reasonable way of attempting to reduce the harm caused with firearms in a society.

And oddly enough, NONE of those measures relies on criminals obeying the law, that being the usual refrain heard when firearms control measures are discussed. And none is particularly likely to have serious perverse effects, in my own informed opinion.

to not only grasp a point, but to address it.

My information comes from the Center for Disease Control and other government websites as well as informational websites sponsored by suicide awareness groups. And from a very unfortunate first-hand experience that has my sister-in-law leading a suicide support group that has provided loads of information to my family and countless others in the area as they try to cope with the suicide of a loved one.

I'd like to share your studies with her.

I thought we were just to rely on your self-pronounced expertise or something. I actually hadn't seen you producing anything in support of your own assertion.

My information comes from the Center for Disease Control and other government websites as well as informational websites sponsored by suicide awareness groups

So, shall I quote you some more? --

What ... studies? Links?

My point was that there are inconsistent findings among the studies that have been done -- which is to be expected when it is impossible to control for factors other than firearms laws / access to firearms.

My point was not that there were no studies that show what you assert. I would point out, though, that studies focusing entirely on the US would hardly be the be-all and end-all when it comes to investigating whether firearms laws / access to firearms have an incidence on suicide rates or outcomes.

And from a very unfortunate first-hand experience that has my sister-in-law leading a suicide support group that has provided loads of information to my family and countless others in the area as they try to cope with the suicide of a loved one. I'd like to share your studies with her.

Oh, I'll bet you would. I haven't a clue what your sister's experience has to do with the point in issue here, or how such studies might assist her, but whatever.

"I thought we were just to rely on your self-pronounced expertise or something. I actually hadn't seen you producing anything in support of your own assertion."

ummm...YOU haven't produced anything in support of YOUR assertions either...

but I was not the one making assertions. I was challenging the assertions made by someone else. You know how that goes, right? Onus on the person making the claim, and all that?

And one more time: what I SAID was that there are many studies with often conflicting results. My point was not that what the other poster stated was false, but that it was not an accurate representation of the whole of the known facts.

The posters comments weren't about suicide; it was about the potential of 'collateral damage' and 'unforseen consequences' when a gun is employed in anything. The point would still be the SAME, if the posted story was about a '2nd admendment enthusiast' who decides to rob a store by firing a warning shot into the ceiling that then riccohets and kills a customer.

It's a bit disingenious to suggest that a gun is no different than a bottle of pills or a highway overpass, when the whole idea of the establishing the '2nd amendment' to protect 'bearing ARMS' has always been intrepreted to mean 'guns'. Why would the Founding Fathers put it in if it was NO DIFFERENT than anything else?

When it comes to suicide, someone who wants to kill themself will, no gun required. This isn't a 2nd amendment issue. A gun is just another means to the same end for someone who wants to die. To suggest that without access to guns we would have no suicides or even a correspondingly reduced incidence of suicide is patently uneducated about the facts of suicide. The "guns kill people" mantra simply doesn't apply here.

To suggest that without access to guns we would have no suicides ...

Did someone really SAY that?!? Show me the fool, and I'll give 'em what for.

... or even a correspondingly reduced incidence of suicide ...

Did anybody even say THAT??

What's all this straw I'm gagging on?

The "guns kill people" mantra simply doesn't apply here.

Sez you!

(from an anthropological and epidemiological perspective) I agree... people use whatever means are at their disposal. In Sweden and Denmark, for example, folks just walk out into the sea. But although generally planned, easier access to the means may facilitate it. People do change their minds, and easier access means less delay and therefore less chance of having time smooth things over...

It's unknown how many car accidents are actually suicides, but it's interesting that both spike during full moons. I found it a fascinating topic of study.

The girl would still be alive had the gun not been present. You do not know for sure that the guy would have tried another method. Guns can be used impulsively for suicide. Not all suicides are well thought out.

and landed on her as she walked by.:sarcasm:

His death wasn't about the gun. His death was imminent. He was going to kill himself regardless of the method. Suicide is not an impulse action.

Had some "scumbag" tried to steal his wallet before the suicide, he would have been able to defend himself!:crazy: :crazy:

And they''ll sey it's in everyone's best interest to pack some heat. This is exactly why guns have gotta go! 2 precious live snuffed out before even getting started.

that with the people who are in power today there are still actually Democrats who don't get the need and rights bestowed by the constitution to be able to take up arms against the govt.

That people think they can take up arms against the goernment and hold off the modern U.S. military for more than .3 seconds.

the citizens of Afghanistan succeeded in getting Russia to leave their country?

They got the Soviets addicted to opium and heroin, then armed themselves by trading drugs for weapons.

please...

They are banking on you to do nothing other than roll over and play dead. Thats your choice, but don't try to make my choices for me.

I mean really... how do you think you'll get my guns without first arming yourself?

I used to work with an Afghan who was a teenager in Afghanistan during the war of occupation by the Soviets.

He told me the going barter rate was something like an ounce of opium or a gram of heroin for a Kalashnikov rifle. That's how a lot of Afghans armed themselves - By trading narcotics for firearms and ammunition. Once you have a few people armed with effective weapons like selective-fire rifles, you can leverage that to get more and better weapons.

You can't be serious if you think your handgun or riffle will help you in any way in such a circumstance. Your only hope is becoming a suicider (sorry, homicider), or learning about the IED business real quick.

even watching the news?

There is this thing going on in Iraq where the citizens are fighting back, and by most accounts here they doing a pretty dandy job of it.

You might look into it. It's on the news pretty much every day.

You won't be able to beat them with a pistol or a rifle, but you could fire a few shots and make them keep their heads down long enough to make an escape. And if such a scenario did come to pass in the U.S., you can bet that the morale of military personnel would be extremely low as they were being commanded to attack Americans. With a vigorous armed resistance, it would be quite likely that a rebellion incorporating discontented military elements could succeed. If something like that happened in, say, Britain, the likelihood of effective resistance would be much lower. The populace would be armed only with crowbars and shovels, and in the particular case of Britain, that populace has already cravenly accepted widespread public surveillance and laws that make it illegal to attack a burglar who had broken into your home.

That it's in everyone's best interest to pack some heat?

That's about the most mis-informed, unsubstantiated comment I've heard on here yet. Just because some idiot does something stupid with a gun and hurts someone else that means all guns must go?

I guess by your reasoning that all automobiles must go because some stupid kid stole one, took it joyriding and wound up dead, along with his little friends riding along with him. We might as well include motorcycles, since some untrained, inexperienced at riding idiot stole one, ran from the police, and wound up dead against a guardrail (this just happened in my town 2 weeks ago).

Should all responsible car or motorcycle owners be punished because of a few stupid people? No? Then why should responsible gun owners be punished, denied their right to own a gun, just because of a few stupid people?

It's those tiny little bullets that kill people.

What we need is bullet control.

If we get rid of the bullets, the 'necks won't be able to blast at bambi. They'll have to find some other way to compensate for their "shortcomings"

Let's see... my dad has a rifle that's been in his closet for 45 years... it's never killed anything. The same with his pistol that he carries in his truck along with a concealed carry permit.

On the other hand, my uncle killed himself with a razor blade. Should razor blades be outlawed or regulated?

"Suicide Facts and StatisticsSuicide Deaths, U.S., 2001*
Suicide was the 11th leading cause of death in the United States.
It was the eighth leading cause of death for males, and 19th leading cause of death for females.
The total number of suicide deaths was 30,622.
The 2001 age-adjusted rate** was 10.7/100,000 or 0.01 percent.
1.3 percent of total deaths were from suicide. By contrast, 29 percent were from diseases of the heart, 23 percent were from malignant neoplasms (cancer), and 6.8 percent were from cerebrovascular disease (stroke)?the three leading causes.
Suicides outnumbered homicides (20,308) by three to two.
There were twice as many deaths due to suicide than deaths due to HIV/AIDS (14,175)."

Emphasis mine. More http://www.nimh.nih.gov/suicideprevention/suifact.cfm

As far as stating "Yeah, yeah, yeah.... but without that gun, neither of those young people would be dead right now.", that can't be proven either. If the guy was determined to kill himself he would have done it one way or another. Ask my cousins... they took their dad's gun out of the house.

Bullets kill people. When guns are manufactured,
they are made with all kinds of gizmos to help
the shooter kill. Mostly animals, but humans
are on the receiving end too.

The law-abiding citizens or the criminals? I totally agree, society today would be MUCH better IF you could get rid of ALL guns. However, that Isn’t Possible. Guns are too much a part of American Society and there are WAY to many guns for that. If you pass a law that outlaws guns, all you will do is disarming law abiding citizens and the criminals will have an easier time.

Be sure of your target and backdrop.

Dumbass.

?

how "rules" don't stop people from doing things like this?

Kinda like how laws don't stop murder ...

It would be a task more difficult. Outlaw the ammunition, and he'd have to either make his own, or choose another method. But at least that innocent girl would probably be alive.

My message was a little cryptic. My point was that it is utterly pointless to talk about the "rules" of firearms safety, and point to how someone has violated them, when the rules are nought but puffs of hot air in the first place. (I realized that my interlocutor was being amusing, but there was still a point.)

People will break rules -- and laws -- if they have the means to do so (and also, obviously, the desire to do so).

Many clever people -- yourself included, perhaps -- think that measures to reduce access to such means are the way to go.

Many others like to pretend that "gun control" means more laws prohibiting criminals from having firearms and punishing them if they do.

I was just pointing out how the rules of firearms safety, and any laws that might have applied, obviously didn't stop this tragedy -- but one just never knows whether some effective measures to actually make it, if not impossible -- something that is probably impossible -- at least considerably more difficult for this individual to acquire a firearm might have meant two people still living who are now dead.

Of course I agree, no laws/bans will stop the most determined criminal/suicidee (don't think that's an actual word) but they would have to go through tremendous efforts to circumvent said laws/bans. That in itself would probably be a deterrernt.

Maybe he could have found a less destructive way of dealing with the reasons he offed himself.

Shurely not.

And yet ... there are actually some people who need mental health care (in thy and my opinion) who don't want it!

And some of 'em do want guns.

Probably most people who could benefit from mental health care don't seek it either by choice, or because they can't afford it. Not much can be done about the former.

i.e. people who could benefit from mental health care (and) don't seek it ... by choice

So ya may as well let 'em have guns, eh?

Of course they should have the choice to own a gun.

Being in need of mental health care does not equate to being not worthy of being trusted with a firearm. Being in need of counseling or psychiatric outpatient care does not, nor should it, disqualify a person from owning one.

guess, what, chenster. i blame this on you. you're the one with the bad gun safety record. you make everyone think it's okay to shoot people by accident.

by passing out in her car in a townhouse garage. Killed herself too.

CO killed all occupants in interconnected property.

guns can be a lot of fun. It's just that there are some kooks who shouldn't have them. You know who you are. If this post offends you, than that is you, you shouldn't have a gun.

I lived in poor Chicago neighborhoods during the worst part of the crack epidemic. There was gunfire all night all summer. It was like living in a war zone.

Like most of my terrorized neighbors I would have been very happy to get the guns off the street by ANY means necessary. I was a nervous wreck and my opinion of how to deal with people in the drug trade was to the right of satin.

Any local politician wanting to get elected would need to respond to that sentiment.

----

I grew up with guns and I have always owned a few. I don't think that Montana a place where much gun control is needed.

People in places Montana do not have any business telling drug and gang infested inner cities how to manage their gun laws. Spend a year living across the street from Robert Taylor or Cabrini Green (I know that they are gone now.) and I'll be more interested in your arguments. The NRA is a bunch of clueless, suburban, white, middle-class, males.

so things are all better now.

There is no single magic bullet. Gun control is just another tool.

Adding hand guns to an ultra high density environment infested with poverty, drugs and gangs is a bad idea.

This is NOT some grand Liberal conspiracy. The people living there were fed up and demanding action. A 10% reduction in the prevalence of handguns would have been very agreeable to the residents.

Chicago once had a gun club along the lake. People used to shoot skeet into the lake. Anyone could have easily turned around and shot at cars. I don't remember anyone expressing concern about that. I think it was closed because of concerns about the tons of lead shot going into the lake. The wads also tended to wash ashore everywhere.

People in places Montana do not have any business telling drug and gang infested inner cities how to manage their gun laws. Spend a year living across the street from Robert Taylor or Cabrini Green (I know that they are gone now.) and I'll be more interested in your arguments. The NRA is a bunch of clueless, suburban, white, middle-class, males.

nor should the drug infested inner cities have any business in telling montana or other rural areas how to manage their gun laws. the rest is stereotyping. and lessen the argument. Is local gun regulation the answer??? Who really knows. But, places with strong gun laws and high crime will continue to blame their problems on places with less control. (ex. NYC blaming other areas for the influx of guns in nyc. ) BTW haven't handguns been banned in chicago for many years already? Even during the crack epidemic?

out of mid-air.

Yeah! She could have defended herself!

Damned gun laws.

Not everyone is going to kill themselves or others with their guns. Some people like to simply shoot at a firing range, hunt (not me), or even collect guns like baseball cards. Its when guns fall into the wrong hands that they become bad.