The 80-year-old victim of thugs' fatal trap: 'Bullied' woman dies after falling into manhole

actually the scrap metal motive is very possible.
scrapper crews that will take anything.
but the headline isnt as dramatic then, is it?
yep pardner- we head 'em off at the pass here in phoenix.
round them up and down to tent city you go..a camping trip
with sheriff joe " i'll put up tents and barbwire from here to mexico" arpaio.
the helicopter is called the ghetto bird..they have 2 predator drones
on the border now. welcome to the inmate state..
so, i'm pretty crippled up now, just over for some beers
sit on the porch and watch the park / playground.
it was a festive night in the hood. didnt hear any gunshots though..
didnt have to shoot anybody..good- shotgun shells are expensive.

reply to post by Essan


That really is news to me, I thought you didn't have the right there. If that's true, why are so many brits up our arses about it? I've said it before on other threads, I think brits automatically find anything we do in the states to be the wrong thing, apparently even when they do things the same way.

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by Curiousisall
You said that gun rights PREVENT those things from happening. I just asked you to prove that is even a little bit true. Even a little.

Okay, nitpicker, I'll rephrase my statement. I believe gun rights prevent those things.

Relax. No one was attacking you. I just wanted to know why you would believe that because the facts show it not to be true. That is all. Either show me up with the facts or get over it.

My reasoning for that belief, is that the person who plans to invade somebody's home would have to take into consideration that the homeowner may be armed, whereas in an area where there are no rights to bear arms, they could be fairly confident that they will not meet such resistance.

I know, that sounds good. It makes sense. Unfortunately home invasions happen all over the US all the time. Did you not know that? I can only conclude that the right to bear is NOT preventing home invasions. How do you conclude anything else?

I don't need to back up my opinion with facts, nor could there be any reliable facts to back them up. I don't see too many polls that ask if somebody planned on invading a home, but decided not to and why.

That is the oddest reasoning I have ever seen. There are facts and you can look them up. The US has the right to bear. The US has home invasions. Case closed. What is your issue still?

As for shooting rampages, the right to bear arms may not prevent them, but it can certainly stop them much faster if there's an armed citizen in the area the shooting starts. If guns were to be made illegal in the U.S., just like drugs, there would be a black market for guns in which ONLY criminals would have guns.

edit on 26-9-2010 by 27jd because: (no reason given)

So as for shooting rampages you are admitting you were maybe a bit off by claiming that the right to bear PREVENTS them? Or even that you BELIEVE it PREVENTS them? Why so angry?

Originally posted by Curiousisall
I know, that sounds good. It makes sense. Unfortunately home invasions happen all over the US all the time. Did you not know that? I can only conclude that the right to bear is NOT preventing home invasions. How do you conclude anything else?

All over the US all the time? Where are your statistics? Here's some info I was able to find, I'm sure you could have too if you were really interested in reading them, but I suspect you're not....

The potential defensive nature of guns is indicated by the different rates of so-called "hot burglaries," where residents are at home when the criminals strike (e.g., Kopel, 1992, p. 155 and Lott, 1994). Almost half the burglaries in Canada and Britain, which have tough gun control laws, are "hot burglaries." By contrast, the U.S., with laxer restrictions, has a "hot burglary" rate of only 13 percent. Consistent with this, surveys of convicted felons in America reveals that they are much more worried about armed victims than they are about running into the police. This fear of potentially armed victims causes American burglars to spend more time than their foreign counterparts "casing" a house to ensure that nobody is home. Felons frequently comment in these interviews that they avoid late-night burglaries because "that's the way to get shot."[8]

catb.org...

So as for shooting rampages you are admitting you were maybe a bit off by claiming that the right to bear PREVENTS them? Or even that you BELIEVE it PREVENTS them? Why so angry?

No, again, you're just a condescending nitpicker, which seems to be your online tactic. You're one of those trolls who pick out errors in grammar, and overblow them to make it seem that you're having such a hard time understanding the point one was trying to make because they're so far below your communication level. And I'm not angry, I capitalize as a lazy way to emphasize a word, but I know, that only serves to confuse you further. Sorry. In the case of the shooting rampages, since those people are usually suicidal, armed citizens could put an end to it faster, is what I meant to say, but was in a hurry and kinda lumped everything together. I didn't know there was a nitpicker lurking, waiting to pounce on my mistake.

Originally posted by Essan
(looks like the theft of the manhole cover may have a lot more to do with money than anything else - scrap metal is at an premium these days)

It wouldn't surprise me if that is actually the case. It was taken by a professional gang of metal theives and not kids. We get these gangs hitting our network all the time, digging up cables looking for copper.

What the mongs don't realise is that most telecoms networks these days are fibre! Never the less, it causes an otherwise quiet night to become a crap storm as we have to fix the damn thing.

Or, which is even funnier, they go diggin up live electrical cables and get blown 50ft across the street when 250k Volts flow through their pikey little bodies.

reply to post by 27jd


I think you'll find that it is condescending Americans who, upon seeing a random story about some petty crime in the UK, come marching in declaring how if we had the right to bear all things would be peaches and rainbows, which is a blatant lie as well as displaying ignorance about Guns in the UK. We have the right to bear, it's in our Bill of Rights, we just don't have (and never have) a fascination with guns.

reply to post by Curiousisall


I did a little more reading, and just for sh*ts and giggles I looked up info about right to carry laws preventing shooting rampages, and found a little bit on it....

When gun-control laws are passed, it is law-abiding citizens, not would-be criminals, who adhere to them. Police officers or armed guards cannot be stationed everywhere, so gun-control laws risk creating situations in which the good guys cannot defend themselves.

Other countries have followed a different solution. Twenty or so years ago in Israel, there were many instances of terrorists pulling out machine guns and firing away at civilians in public. However, with expanded concealed-handgun use by Israeli citizens, terrorists soon found ordinary people pulling pistols on them. Suffice it to say, terrorists in Israel no longer engage in such public shootings.

The one recent shooting of schoolchildren in the Middle East further illustrates these points. On March 13, 1997, seven Israeli girls were shot to death by a Jordanian soldier while they visited Jordan's so-called Island of Peace. The Times reported that the Israelis had "complied with Jordanian requests to leave their weapons behind when they entered the border enclave.

Otherwise, they might have been able to stop the shooting, several parents said."

Hardly mentioned in the massive news coverage of the school-related shootings during the past year is how they ended. Two of the four shootings were stopped by a citizen displaying a gun. In the October 1997 shooting spree at a high school in Pearl, Miss., which left two students dead, an assistant principal retrieved a gun from his car and physically immobilized the shooter while waiting for the police.

More recently, the school-related shooting in Edinboro, Pa., which left one teacher dead, was stopped only after a bystander pointed a shotgun at the shooter when he started to reload his gun. The police did not arrive for another 10 minutes.

Who knows how many lives were saved by these prompt responses?

www.junkscience.com...

It goes on...

Anecdotal stories are not sufficient to resolve this debate. Together with my colleague William Landes, I have compiled data on all the multiple-victim public shootings occurring in the U.S. from 1977 to 1995. Included were incidents where at least two people were killed or injured in a public place; to focus on the type of shooting seen in the Ferguson rampage, we excluded gang wars or shootings that were the byproduct of another crime, such as robbery. The U.S. averaged 21 such shootings annually, with an average of 1.8 people killed and 2.7 wounded in each one.

We examined a range of different gun laws, such as waiting periods as well as methods of deterrence, such as the death penalty. However, only one policy was found to reduce deaths and injuries from these shootings: allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns.

The effect of "shall-issue" concealed handgun laws, which give adults the right to carry concealed handguns if they do not have a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness, was dramatic. Thirty-one states now have such laws. When states passed them during the 19 years we studied, the number of multiple-victim public shootings declined by 84%. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90%, injuries by 82%. Higher arrest rates and increased use of the death penalty slightly reduced the incidence of these events, but we could not conclusively determine such an effect.

Unfortunately, much of the public policy debate is driven by lopsided coverage of gun use. Horrific events like the Colin Ferguson shooting receive massive news coverage, as they should, but the 2.5 million times each year that people use guns defensively--including cases in which public shootings are stopped before they happen--are ignored.

reply to post by stumason


Ah, the death of an old woman is a petty crime in your eyes, huh? Interesting. And yes, of course, it's always the Americans who are wrong. No matter what side of the track an American is on, it's the wrong side. I expect nothing less from a brit, looking down their noses at everybody else. Jolly good show.

reply to post by 27jd


No, the theft of the manhole cover was, which inadvertantly led to her death.

It's not just this issue though, it seems any time there is a thread on anti-social behaviour (which is petty crime), you get some Yanks pile on in how if people could carry guns, then the yobs would back off..

Let me fill you in on something. 20 or so years ago, it would be unthinkable for kids to carry knives and guns, but these days it is regular.

Why?

Because as soon as one street gang tools itself up, the rest of them do. It's an arms race.

If you start arming the citizenry as well, then these little buggers, who at the moment will not actually use their guns/knives (for the most part) during robberies or other crime, will just start shooting first and then rob you.

At least at the moment, if you're unfortunate enough to be mugged, chances are they'll just brandish the weapon and scare you into handing over your wallet/phone. If you fight back though, they will not think twice about gunning you down, so if they think your packing they will shoot you dead before you know it, then rob you.

So, tell me, how do you propose getting round that one?

EDIT: Besides, I never said Yanks were wrong, but rather stated it was Americans who get condescending about the UK and guns. You're the one who bleated about how Brits think Americans are wrong all the time. Ever stopped to think, that on this issue, you might actually be wrong?

Originally posted by stumason
So, tell me, how do you propose getting round that one?

Why don't you read the statistics on the links I provided above.

EDIT: Besides, I never said Yanks were wrong, but rather stated it was Americans who get condescending about the UK and guns. You're the one who bleated about how Brits think Americans are wrong all the time. Ever stopped to think, that on this issue, you might actually be wrong?

That wasn't how I entered the thread, go back and read. You'll see that I too was annoyed with how it always turns into a gun control debate. You'll find that I acknowledged there were pros and cons to our gun laws. I was responding to the condescending nitpicker (who I don't even think is British) that feigned confusion about the points I was making in my post. As for why I say everything we do is wrong in your eyes, just look at the peter skin thread, it's one Brit after another taking shots at our culture, saying we mutilate our children when we choose to have them circumcised. As I said there, I don't see you guys getting all over the many other cultures around the world that perform body modifications on themselves and their children. It's true, anything we do is wrong in your eyes. Next I'll really piss you off and say we saved your butts in WWII (just kidding, not trying to open that can of worms).

reply to post by 27jd


Ok, fair enough, I don't really want to get into a to and fro with you like the other guy. There are Pro's and Cons to Gun ownership, I agree. We're just not and never have been a nation of gun lovers and it is totally disproportonate to suggest low-level petty crime should be dealt with by a magnum round to the face. It doesn't solve anything, but breeds more violence.

You need to get tough on the causes of crime, not so much the criminals themselves, although their should be a punishment for crime.

Thanks by the way... You made me sound just like the demon spawn nobjockey himself, Tony Blair...Urrrrgh

Originally posted by stumason
We're just not and never have been a nation of gun lovers and it is totally disproportonate to suggest low-level petty crime should be dealt with by a magnum round to the face. It doesn't solve anything, but breeds more violence.

Well, it may or may not surprise you, but I fully agree. I would never shoot somebody if say, I walked out and found them trying to steal my car, never. Property crimes are not worthy of lethal force at all. The only time I would use my weapon on another human being would be to protect my family, or an innocent person from being harmed. And we're not a nation of gun lovers, by any means. I do like guns, and I have use for them beyond protection from humans. I spend alot of time looking for gold out in the wilderness, where there are wild animals such as mountain lions, bears, etc. I don't want to shoot them either, but sometimes you can run across one that is unreasonable and wishes to kill you. But there's a large segment of the population that does not like guns at all, usually because they have no experience with them and find them frightening.

Thanks by the way... You made me sound just like the demon spawn nobjockey himself, Tony Blair...Urrrrgh

My deepest apologies for that.

if you do not want to confront and send the threat packing -
then please go have tea and toast in the parlor..
i'll be out on the porch with a whisky and stout
resting easy with my shotgun about.
i'll be an old coot and tell you how you better get
strapped up and be quick about it. for when the
dark days come, there are no police coming to help you,
there is nobody to run crying to, and the gangs will hold sway.
it's pretty much like that here and now.. the police thugs vs.the other criminals.
narco terrorists running amuck. you go ahead and discuss crime rates and statistics.
trust your luck and sweet jesus to to save you..
i can guarantee- you mess with me, my family, my possessions,- you do so
at your own peril. i'm pullin the hammers back while you decide which way to run.
i'd run the british petroleum company back where they came from if i could.
but now having broken the gulf stream and england will freeze..
power outages. chaos..enjoy your last bit of uppercrust ..
maybe i'll watch clockwork orange..

reply to post by p51mustang


I think you may have this site confused with Twitter, this site is for debating, comparing statistics, and of course discounting the sources of those who hold an opposing view.

Where are you at exactly, that is so lawless? Are you down in Nogales, or Sonoita (on your porch with a laptop and a shotgun)? I'm up in the valley, and here things are as they have always been, the cartels operate here, but they seem to be pretty careful not to target Americans, which makes me wonder if there is an understanding between them and the authorities. They only seem to kidnap and hold other Mexicans for ransom.

reply to post by 27jd

i'm hanging just about at red devil pizza down on mcdowell- come on down. i'll take you down on grand ave which is where i had alot of adventures taking back the area, so now there's a nice arts district. - feel free to skip right over my entrees and skip lecturing me about anything- how would that debate suit you ?
we can go visit my son in chino valley where the biker gangs shot it out -5 wounded..
or visit my pal in arivaca..got pals in bisbee ..closer?- i have a home in the remote mtns of costa rica.
which is about as lawless as it gets. prime for pirates..we can leave in december .
bring your machete..and the point was/ is?
where ever you may be- whatever society you got flung into -you confront evil.
or become part of it. like any other vermin- they gotta go.
toss around stats and what all- i'm talking about what it takes to stand up and clean house.
america- uk - wherever. however.

Nevermind.

reply to post by p51mustang


Like I said, I am familiar with alot of the areas you're talking about. I grew up here in the valley, with the Hells Angels, the AB, all the tweekers, the gang bangers, etc. I've been smack in the middle of it all, I know the score. But, you're making this place out to be a warzone, it isn't. It's like any other big city. As for Costa Rica, I got a buddy that lives there as well, so I already got a place to stay there, but thanks for the invite.

reply to post by 27jd

like i said- we'll stroll down to where we had the rancho del los muertos- featured in spin magazine.
maybe over to icehouse ..up grand past van burnin up to roosevelt? fractured skull 96- boxers knuckle 02.
couple shoot-outs here and there..you can see me on american alien available on net flix.
jed clampet is a fine role model if you ask me.
come on over an set a spell- take your shoes off..
learn something afore i start whittlin on you jethro.
learn..that we all face a common enemy - and lawlessness must not prevail.
costa ricas crime rate soared- kids can rent a gun for 5 colones.
the prime ministers carjacked..they invited the us military in..
47 warships 200 helicopters 7,000 marines.
my machete is 35 years old..from the blueridge to the talamancas ..
cuttin edge out in the shed..

i actually would like to underscore the commonality of our experience.
the neglect leading to poverty and ciminality, violence -
the nwo war machine pressing on- and on -and onward to victory.
there is a globalist effort to grind us all into dust..
so we will blow away, so they can suck the planet dry ..
in reality uncle jed was killed in a hunting accident.
jethro dead in truck malfunction..
the oil ops were taken over by royal dutch shell.
mr drysdale was the pattern for george bush..?

Originally posted by p51mustang
maybe over to icehouse ..up grand past van burnin up to roosevelt? fractured skull 96- boxers knuckle 02.

Wow, the icehouse. You mean Van Buren, yes. That name brings back memories my friend. I used to play electronic music there ALL the time back when I was into the rave scene. I too got into a few scuffles with the southside bangers there, f-ing punks thought they'd come and try and jump peaceful party goers, but they were so smart they thought 20 of them could take on hundreds, and we weren't as peaceful as they thought, we sent them running for the hills.