Missouri man fatally shoots his mother at home after mistaking her for intruder
Missouri man fatally shoots his mother at home after mistaking her for intruder
Jaylen Johnson charged with manslaughter after shooting death of his mother at their home’s back door in St Louis suburb
A 25-year-old Missouri man says he mistook his mother for an intruder before shooting her to death at their home’s back door.
Prosecutors have charged Jaylen Johnson with manslaughter and armed criminal action in connection with the shooting death on Thursday of his mother, Monica McNichols-Johnson.
McNichols-Johnson’s shooting death came less than a year after another shooting in Missouri saw Ralph Yarl, then 16, get shot on 13 April by 84-year-old Andrew Lester after ringing the wrong doorbell while picking up his siblings.
You're viewing a single thread.
Living with a handgun owner particularly increased the risk of being shot to death in a domestic violence incident, and it did not provide any protection against being killed at home by a stranger, the researchers found. - Guardian Article April 7, '22
The relationship of Americans and our guns is such a weird, religious-level issue. Just bizarre people. And some of them are friends of mine. The people, not the guns.
The relationship of Americans and our guns is such a weird, religious-level issue
Well can he stop?
We tried stopping him. Once.
What assault rifle would Baby Jeebus use?
I'm far away from Georgia (although I lived in Atlanta for a spell) so I have no "skin in the game" - but I'm quite upset about the misalignment in the first bullet star alignment of "Jesus." I'm not sure what the solution is, aside from not having a dumb as fuck billboard proclaiming one's stupidity.
The more you try to ban guns, the harder they fight back.
How are people living on farms supposed to defend themselves against robbers if they don't own guns?
This is what you city people don't understand because you think city life is the only life that matters.
No one's trying to ban guns you fucking twat.
Under the current laws on the books, federal funds can't even be used to be study gun violence. These are the laws people are talking about changing when we call for gun policy reform. When this country talks about gun reform and idiots like you who understand exactly nothing about the laws currently on the books have a conniption, these are the kinds of laws that end up not getting changed.
Guns make every environment they are a part of less safe. You only need a gun to defend yourself if you're a huge pussy, or you want the opportunity to accidently shoot your own family members. You don't need a gun in the city or the country to defend yourself.
Lots of people are trying to ban guns. Plenty of campaigns and bills come up all the time.
It's unrealistic to believe they'll have a significant amount of support, even in the most liberal of states, but saying that nobody wants to ban guns is false.Also, saying that there's never a need for a gun in modern society is false. There are absolutely cases where people have legally defending themselves in situations where few people would disagree with the usage. Those cases are also very rare and the availability of guns in society is a net negative, you are significantly more likely to be harmed by a firearm if you own one.
All that being said, blanket falsehoods do not help these arguments. We do need to study firearm deaths, and amend the constitution to allow for better laws around firearms, but we don't need to exaggerate to make that point, the facts are enough.
How are people living on farms supposed to defend themselves against robbers if they don't own guns?
Why is this only a problem in the US? You don’t think other countries have farmers? Or maybe that problem only exists in your head.
Its not only a problem in the US. Read some foreign interior news
I don’t live in the US. I live in a rural area in Europe. It’s not at all a problem here. Probably only a problem in shithole countries like the US.
You know how I know you're lying? I'm not American, for a start.
There are other shithole countries other than the US.
If you need guns just to be safe, you by definition live in a shithole.
calling the US a shithole country is the most privleged thing ive ever heard
LOLWUT
How is that privileged?
i am sure someone in a war torn country is saying "gee it sucks my family is getting killed, but at least im not in a shithole like the united states"
calling the united states a shithole is an insult to actual countries that suck to live in, it just shows you probably dont know much about how bad it can get. there is a reason millions immigrate to the US
What are you gonna tell me next, no ones ever broke into a rural property late at night in your country?
You think lethal violence is an appropriate response to a burglary? If you responded like that over here you’d be going to prison for far, far longer than the burglar would.
You don’t need a gun, you need a shrink.
If you need guns in order to feel safe at home, you must admit you live in a shithole country
virgin "guns make my country safer" versus the chad "my country is so fucked i need a gun to make me feel safe"
Think. About. The farmers.
Stupidest reason a pro gun person ever brought up on lemmy. You know there are more convincing ones that you can make yours so at least people can take you seriously?
I don't know why don't you try begging for more government money to not grow?
459 comments in 9 days, all trolling in news subs.
This is satire right?
Look at the guys post history, it's all troll comments and all within the past week or so. 459 comments
Clearly something that needs an investigation and lots more data
…. But this “city person” believes people in rough parts of cities are most likely demographic to be victim of gun crimes, and most of us are in more danger from guns kept as defense than in a criminal’s hands. Also, guns used for hunting are different than guns typically used in crimes or for defense. You may disagree, but that’s why better data is important
I've heard this claim before and haven't really been able to dig into it. One question that came up through that article related to this paragraph:
The study focused only on homicide risk and did not examine how living with a handgun owner might increase or decrease the risk of being victimized in other ways, including by nonfatal assault, home invasion, or property theft.
This sounds like something like a home invasion that would have ended in a homicide but didn't (due to a gun or other reasons) wouldn't be counted. The cases that are due to a gun would seem especially important.
My friends around the world who aren't Americans,
The above is what it's like trying to talk about gun control with people here. Most of my experience isn't crazy gun nuts strutting around strapped because of some fucked up interpretation of the thought behind the 2A. It's people giving reasonable, at least superficially, arguments about why their guns aren't part of the problem. I say it's religious because it's all faith in the face of facts. Or fear in front of facts really.
Meco did literally the opposite of what you're accusing them of: rather than take a claim on faith, they questioned. That's the polar opposite of religion.
Sounds like the issue could use more research. It's too bad there's a law prohibiting federal funds being used to study gun violence
I dont understand what you are questioning, the stat is about invaders with weapons. Having a weapon does not decrease risk in those instances.
The part you quoted is talking about how handguns may decrease risk in other non fatal home invasions. Maybe I'm reading what you're saying wrong, but the gun encounters are the ones being counted for comparison between those with or without handguns.
One caveat. The study claimed to follow people living with handgun owners. Unless I missed something, it seems to indicate, without explicitly stating, that it is not following actual gun owners.
As for the question there are a few examples I'd proffer that would not appear in this study but would be a positive indicator for "living with a gun owner". A home invasion or attempted theft that gets repelled due to having a gun. Incidents where injuries occur but no one dies.
It was also unclear if they would count a homicide of the suspect should the "person living with a gun owner" prevail.
Long story short, I still have lots of questions.
That was about an unlinked study of exclusively Californians, which skews things sufficiently so as to be almost wholly unapplicable to the rest of the country.
Ah, yeah. You got me. Gun violence is not a problem at all in the rest of the country. Typical elite coastal thinking, amiright?
Out here in the midwest we aint no fruity city boys. We tell that bullet to fuck off like a man and it don't go trying to go into us.
What.
jesus.
Jesus, penetrate my soul. Come into me and fill me with your hot white spirit. Find my holes and fill them with your power. Make my limber body bend over to your will so I may avoid these bullets. Let the only thing that go so deep inside me be your passionate love. Pull my hair a little and spit on me, Jesus.
Turn this into a country song.
I didn't say that, I said your citation was worthless from a national perspective. You want to complain that the gun lobby and/or red states prevent useful studies like the reported one, go for it, but please don't act like a news article about a study which can't even bother citing its source is good data just because they come to the same conclusion that we do.
The article provided the study's author and university, so a very easy search leads right to the study. The article also specifically mentions that the study followed Californians. I don't see how posting this article takes away or misrepresents the study or that the article presents a conclusion different from the conclusion. People who live in California really aren't all that different from people who live in Iowa.
It's hard to get a national perspective when our laws prohibit using federal funds to study gun violence
The biggest state, bigger than many countries. How different can it be from other parts of the same country?
I'd love to hear your explanation for how it skews things sufficiently. I'm going to take a stab in the dark and guess you've never been to California or if you have never outside of LA/SF/SD
I'm an American and have lived here all my life, in more than one state, and I will never understand why people think you're a different kind of person if you come from Vermont than if you come from Oklahoma.
Haha, yeah man, some times I use big words to give myself more credibility too.
The article pointed out shortcomings in the data, but did not consider the state to be one of them