Slashdot Mirror


Girl Seeks Help On Facebook During Assault

A 12-year-old girl who was being assaulted by her mother's ex-boyfriend used some quick thinking by sending a message on her iPod to a friend's Facebook account for help. The friend was able to contact the girl's mother who then contacted the police. 42-year-old Raymond Ernest Cesmat was arrested and charged with two counts of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree. He is being held at the Dakota County Jail on $175,000 bail.

417 comments

  1. Why's this on Slashdot? by Evro · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The girl was raped and the guy left the room. It's not like Facebook saved the girl from being raped. She contacted her friend and requested she contact her mother, then she escaped and called her mother herself from a payphone, then the guy was arrested. There's not much of a Facebook tie-in.

    --
    rooooar
    1. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by eln · · Score: 5, Informative

      Slashdot is just taking from the standard journalist's playbook: If you can tie a story to something that's currently very popular, especially Facebook or Twitter, you can get 10 times the page hits you would have normally gotten. If you can tie those things into a story that will generate lots of hits all on its own anyway, such as one dealing with sexual violence against children, your story might even go viral and you can just sit back and watch the ad revenue roll in.

    2. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The girl was raped and the guy left the room. It's not like Facebook saved the girl from being raped

      .38 special > Facebook as a rape prevention device......

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Children are not allowed to possess a firearm unless in the presence of an adult, and 12-year-old kids in general do not have the judgment necessary to carry one on their own.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    4. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think a 12 year old who was about to be raped would probably find a reasonably good use for a firearm.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by thijsh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because with an ordinary case the vulture-like journalists can't easily find out the address, pictures and favorite color of the little girl in question, not to do anything to remotely help or support but to get as much views as possible... The facebook part is just used to enlist crowds of geeks to track every little bit of information down... I guess they didn't know they could just scour facebook to find her profile by searching for a comment like: PLZ water my farm 4me, being raped IRL!!! BRB? :'-(

    6. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by TheLink · · Score: 3, Funny

      Another popular trick is to troll Apple fans.

      There's mention of an iPod. But I don't see anything for the Apple fans to bite...

      --
    7. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Children are not allowed to possess a firearm unless in the presence of an adult

      There are quite a few "Armed American" stories that involve children picking up legally owned firearms to defend themselves and/or their families against violent assaults.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    8. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by obarthelemy · · Score: 1

      Yep. Also much better for righting all wrongs: more playstation time, less spinach, marbles thiefs, bath-time enforcers. Thankfully 12 year old kids are in full control of their emotions (like all adults, too), and gun possession would never cause a shouting match or fistfight to graduate to gun murder/

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    9. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by obarthelemy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      and how many extra gun deaths do you think letting 12 yo have guns would cause ?

      hint: http://www.gun-control-network.org/International.gif

      (and that chart is only for INTENTIONAL deaths, you can add accidents to that, not that there are ver any accidents with guns...)

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    10. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by gwayne · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nonsense! I learned firearm safety around age 6 and have been using/carrying firearms on my own for over 30 years. Children who learn to hunt know very well the consequences using a firearm. I am not advocating that 12-year olds should carry weapons, but had she known how to use one, she certainly would have been justified in defending herself.

    11. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by BitZtream · · Score: 2

      Its not slashdot, just a particular 3 editors slashdot has that I like to refer to as the 3 stooges. timothy, kdawson, and samzenpus.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    12. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by nbauman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are quite a few "Armed American" stories that involve children picking up legally owned firearms to defend themselves and/or their families against violent assaults.

      And there are quite a few more stories that involve family members picking up legally owned firearms in a moment of anger to kill another family member, or in a moment of distress to commit suicide.

    13. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by hitmark · · Score: 1

      except that with apple, one is just as likely to get attention from the other side.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    14. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by AdamTrace · · Score: 4, Funny

      "PLZ water my farm 4me, being raped IRL!!! BRB? :'-("

      I'm so ashamed that I find this as funny as I do...

      *shame*

    15. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I am not advocating that 12-year olds should carry weapons, but had she known how to use one, she certainly would have been justified in defending herself.

      This.

      I knew a kid growing up that picked up a target rifle when someone broke into his house and attempted to rape his mother. Thankfully he didn't have to shoot the scumbag (guess he lost his nerve when he was looking at the business end of a firearm) but there's no way that you can say his actions weren't justified.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    16. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ages where a person can possess firearms varies from state to state and can depend on the type of firearm. In Nevada, North Dakota, and South Carolina, there is no age restriction on the possession of long guns. Why, oh why, do people mod baseless assertions like this so high?

      (I've also met twelve year olds who were more responsible than some people are at the age of majority.)

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    17. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Informative

      Spare me the talking points Mayor Bloomberg.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    18. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by mcvos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Children are not allowed to possess a firearm unless in the presence of an adult,

      Haven't you read the story? There was an adult right there!

    19. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by 5KVGhost · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, not really.

    20. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I knew how to hunt, whittle, clean fish and still pulled a knife on someone in anger at age 13. I mean, looking back, I was being bullied relentlessly over a significant period of time, but for some reason that wasn't considered justification for attempting to gut an adult. People don't want 12 year olds to defend themselves, because being 12 sucks and we don't want to expend the resources to make sure it doesn't.

    21. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      People don't want 12 year olds to defend themselves

      Speak for yourself. My parents taught me never to meekly submit to someone that was trying to do me harm. I will teach my kids the same thing. You seriously think it's a good idea to teach your kids not to resist if someone is attempting to harm them?

      Regarding bullies, my Mom had a saying: Never start a fight but always finish it.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    22. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 5, Informative

      The great bulk of underage gun deaths are either suicide or gangbangers. 12 year old girls are almost completely absent from that count, save as random victims. In addition, the number of accidental shootings (the stereotypical 'hey look, it's dad's gun' scenario) runs about 100/year. In the grand scheme of things, it's a nonfactor.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    23. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Xest · · Score: 1

      To be fair when someone gets murdered and the guy 5 doors down owned an 18 rated computer game or whatever then computer games get blamed so I see these kinds of stories as balancing it all out!

      No seriously though, both types of stories are equally retarded.

    24. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately even Taco has succumbed to this kind of shit.

    25. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But... If she backs down, slips, gets over powered, gets distracted, does not actually intent to use it etc... It could have been taken and used against her.

      I have a pistol, a shotgun, and a rifle and my kids use them under supervision. You can train them how to use and care for them but you can not impress the fact or predict what that kid will do when actually faced possibly having to shooting someone, specially someone she kind of knows who has a face and she has identified with in the past (different from a random bugler or rapist).

    26. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Oddly enough, at one time 12 was considered old enough, particularly in emergencies. Of course, at that time, one of the prizes in cracker jacks was a "match shooter"; you insert a match, pull back the hammer and release and it strikes the match and propels it a short distance away.

    27. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by waives · · Score: 1

      No, we're saying it's a good thing that children not have deadly force available to them, because they often lack the judgement and perspective to employ it properly.

    28. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      I don't know about the law where you are from - but where I live, kids can own their own weapons with parental approval. The parent is ultimately responsible, of course, but the weapon belongs to the kid. I bought my first rifle when I was twelve, bought my first NEW rifle when I was 16. The salesman only asked that I bring an adult to the store, so that he knew I was allowed to buy the rifle. He might have raised an eyebrow, had I been purchasing a pistol - or not.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    29. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by thijsh · · Score: 1

      I tried to joke about the journalists, and tried to come up with a possible post... and it occurred to me: 'what the fuck *would* you write on Facebook when you're being raped?', it's far too ridiculous to think of anything less shameful (but funny)...
      If watching years of stand-up comedy (and South Park) taught us anything it's that nothing is exempt from being funny in some strange way.

    30. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PLZ water my farm 4me, being raped IRL!!! BRB? :'-(

      Nice form!

      *golf clap*

    31. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      If you leave your car keys and kitchen knives accessible as 99.9% of the population does then your kids already have access to deadly force.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    32. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The girl was raped and the guy left the room.
      A shame the guy isn't an award winning director living in France, the he could have Whoopi Goldberg explain why this wasn't, "Rape, rape."

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    33. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by kungfugleek · · Score: 1

      She was in the presence of an adult.

    34. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, the stories are out there. But, like yourself, most liberals, and even some moderates, discount all the accounts of self defense. "Oh, big deal, granny killed a rapist. Some moron killed his son last month!" Like - you're keeping score, and one accidental death negates 100 successful self defenses.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    35. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      good thing she didn't post a pic of the rape. then she'd be arrested for distributing and possessing kiddy porn.

    36. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Herkum01 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      More like 1 act of self-defense does not negate the 100 murder's, robberies and suicides.

      But don't let facts stop you now!

    37. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      The girl was raped and the guy left the room. It's not like Facebook saved the girl from being raped. She contacted her friend and requested she contact her mother, then she escaped and called her mother herself from a payphone, then the guy was arrested. There's not much of a Facebook tie-in.

      From the article:
      He later walked in naked and tried to pull off her pants, she said, but she kicked him away and screamed, according to the complaint. When he left, she got out her iPod and found an acquaintance on the social Advertisement networking website Facebook.com. She begged her friend to contact her mother and tell her to come pick her up.

      As she was sending the message, Cesmat went back to her room and sexually assaulted the girl, the complaint said.

      So no Facebook didn't "save her from being raped", but she did send out the message before the actual assault happened.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    38. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by xaxa · · Score: 1

      My parents always taught me to give away as many material things as needed (money, phone, whatever) and/or run away screaming. That will work in 99.9% of cases. Is it worth the risk of the child being hurt in those 99.9% of cases by arming the child?

    39. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by sarhjinian · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Arming everyone is a very American solution to the problem. Somehow, the whole rest of the western world manages to not only have less violent crime, but also less private gun ownership, much like the rest of the world manages to spend less on health care and get better quality of service, or spend less on education but score better.

      Perhaps the Open Carry folk could try and think a little bit harder and try to address the epidemic poverty, horrible education and nonsensical drug policy instead of pouring more gasoline on the fire?

      I'm reminded of the "cheese theory" of American socialism. In France, the government has significant regulations about how, where and under what label cheese can be made. As a result, French cheese is very good and not at all expensive. In the US, this kind of thing wouldn't fly, and the market would do better anyway, and socialism is teh evilz, but we do need something for the absolute poor, and thus we have Government Cheese, which is vile.

      --
      --srj/mmv
    40. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by fatcat535 · · Score: 1

      we can only hope that all rapists and murderers will only attack those who promote gun control.

    41. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Every soldier that survives in afganastan posts on facebook therefore facebook saves soldiers lives...

      Facebook is better than body armor...

      Facebook stops bullets!

      I remember my marketing and journalism classes from college, Can I be a marketing executive? I'll take low 7 figures.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    42. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Not many. I had my first firearm at 10. I had a 22/410 and went hunting on my own a lot when 12 on my parents property.

      Kids that are trained in the use of firearms and their danger are more capable than a 40 year old uneducated moron that leaves a loaded pistol on the table.

      In fact MANY farmer kids from 8-13 have and own a firearm of their own.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    43. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      What facts? The only facts in this entire thread are from O.P. and Martin Blank. Everything else -- including your comment -- are merely opinions. You might be able to argue that Shakrai's comment (which, interestingly enough, was modded "troll" as of the time I type this) that a .38 special is a more effective means of preventing a rape than Facebook is also a fact, but [Citation Needed].

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    44. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone's got sand in their vagina.

    45. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Nef · · Score: 1

      Please mod this troll down! He or She knows nothing of what they speak. Firearm possession/ownership laws very greatly by state/municipality.
      I owned my first rifle at age 6 (registered in MY NAME) and my first pistol at age 12.

      Yes guns are dangerous, yes they can kill, that is in fact their primary use. No sane person can argue against that fact.

      However, there are quite a few more people (more than most think at least) that are responsible enough to teach their children well to NEVER point ANY WEAPON, loaded or otherwise, at ANYTHING they DON'T intend to KILL!!

      It really is this simple:

      1. Never point a weapon at something you don't intend to kill
      2. Never hand a loaded weapon to anyone, always verify the chamber is open and no rounds are in the mag/clip/butt
      3. When you do find something (non-human in all but self-defense/war situations) to point your gun at, know what lies at least 2 miles beyond your intended target, as you may in fact miss

    46. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If they did not have a gun, then it would have been a knife. Dont even dare to try and make it sound like that the gun perpetuated the violence.. It was the unstable person that did it.

      Unstable wackjobs will do what ever it takes... Ohh look, a wine bottle, that will kill someone nicely.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    47. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And yet liberals plug their ears and scream "I CANT HEAR YOU" when you present the solid and provenfact that gun laws DO NOT STOP gun violence as criminals, suprisingly, do not care what gun laws say... Criminals have no problems getting guns even in places like the UK.

      Gun laws simply disarm honest people. That is it. there is no other use.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    48. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Actually My solution is to give everyone 3 hand grenades. It would stop a lot of violence. I'd suggest bazookas, but they are useless close range.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    49. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if a guy breaks into my house and I shoot him intentionally, that's counted in this chart?
      Plus 10 in 100,000 isn't that bad.

    50. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Yes, the stories are out there. But, like yourself, most liberals, and even some moderates, discount all the accounts of self defense. "Oh, big deal, granny killed a rapist. Some moron killed his son last month!" Like - you're keeping score, and one accidental death negates 100 successful self defenses.

      Yeah, we're keeping score. Actually, Journal of the American Medical Association and the American Journal of Public Health are keeping score.

      There are about 75,000 gun deaths a year, or about 1/4,000 Americans. That outnumbers the cases of self-defense by about 10 to 1. For every granny that defended herself from rape with a gun, there are 10 grannies who were raped by an assailant with a gun.

      If you want to reduce those deaths by a substantial amount, reduce the number of guns in circulation.

      Of course we can't easily do that any more, after the Supreme Court illegally appointed George W. Bush President, and he packed the court with gun nuts. (Notice the Supreme Court didn't give you a right to carry a gun in their courtroom.)

      So we'll just have to suffer 75,000 murders, suicides, and accidental deaths a year.

    51. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by nbauman · · Score: 1

      But don't let facts stop you now!

      It never did.

      In Politics, Sometimes The Facts Don't Matter
      http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128490874

      CONAN: Well, Brendan Nyhan is a health policy researcher at the University of Michigan. He recently published "When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions." That was in the June issue of the Journal of Political Behavior, and he joins us now from the studios of WUOM, Michigan Radio, our member station in Ann Arbor. Nice to have you with us today.

    52. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I lived in chicago for a long time... the best is to keep your money on a money clip and seperate from your wallet. when robbed, take out the money clip and drop it and walk away fast, their eyes will be on the cash not you.

      works great. Works best when it's a thick wad of 1's covered with a 20 dollar bill and a pocket full of change.. I drop it at their feet and yell "TAKE IT" as I walk away... they always grab the cash and run. Most of the time it's a crackhead looking for dope money.. so $30.00 in $1.00 bills and a 20 looks like a fortune to them. you are long gone by the time they realize you joe' jobbed them.

      works good for bums too... Asking for change, grab some out of the pocket and drop it, keep walking. They stop to grab the change.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    53. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by horigath · · Score: 1

      You don't suppose this could have something to do with the fact that "Children are not allowed to possess a firearm unless in the presence of an adult" as the GGP put it?

    54. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by cawpin · · Score: 1

      Correct. In Indiana, for example, it is legal for a 7 year old to carry a firearm in a very particular situation. Indiana's law has a clause that allows property owners to carry a firearm on their own property without hinderance. The youngest you can be and legally own property in Indiana is 7. Hence, the allowance.

      As said by others, firearms deaths of children (mostly published by anti-gun groups) include gang deaths and therefor are really not applicable to the situation. Including somebody who is already breaking the law doesn't give reason for another law.

    55. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      If she was at home then she'd have access to it regardless.

      And 12 years old not having the judgement necessary? Hardly. By the time I was 8 I knew the location of the loaded guns in our home and had already been specifically instructed to use them in the case of a break in or intrusion.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    56. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Where did I advocate arming children? All I said was that they should be taught not to meekly submit to those that would do them harm. If they can hand over the money and avoid a confrontation then great -- it's what I'd do even if I was armed -- but if the situation is such that they are in harms way regardless then they need to be willing to defend themselves.

      Would you rather have a kid that climbed into the proverbial black van without a whimper or one that goes kicking and screaming and hopefully attracts some attention to themselves?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    57. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by MBGMorden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      (the stereotypical 'hey look, it's dad's gun' scenario)

      If that can be reduced to a near zero factor through education. When you get the gun, don't hide it in a drawer. The kids WILL find it. Kids love to plunder and find stuff. Instead, let the kids know when you get the gun (if it's an "event" like that - in many gun-friendly households the kids are just born into it). Afterwards, take them out to the range shooting. Show them how to use it effectively, and safely. Tell them WHERE it's at in case they need it. Then, they're not going to run across it on accident, and they're not going to find the "magical" gun lying around there. They're going to know the location of a tool that's as interesting to them as a socket wrench or a drill.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    58. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by stewbacca · · Score: 0, Troll

      I'm an Apple fan and thought your post was pretty funny and shouldn't be modded troll.

    59. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Better still is to keep your money on the opposite side of your body from your concealed weapon. They will focus on the hand that comes out with the money and ignore the one that's reaching for a defensive weapon.

      Oh wait, you said Chicago, never mind, only the criminals are allowed to have weapons there ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    60. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      Could be worse, they could always bring back Jon Katz. Worst. Editor. Ever.

    61. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by obarthelemy · · Score: 1

      I've got accidental gun deaths at 10% of homicides, not 1% ? And suicide above homicides, by widely varying margins (+50 to 1000%)

      Do suicides and ganbangers not count as gun deaths ? or do you consider them lesser deaths ? or do you have another point ? BTW, gun suicides are more effective, and do raise the death count of suicide attempts.

      Source: http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    62. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by nbauman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If they did not have a gun, then it would have been a knife. Dont even dare to try and make it sound like that the gun perpetuated the violence.. It was the unstable person that did it.

      Unstable wackjobs will do what ever it takes... Ohh look, a wine bottle, that will kill someone nicely.

      Doctors who try to fix these victims up, and cops who investigate murders to prosecute them in court, say that's not true.

      It's a lot easier to kill somebody on impulse with a gun -- guns are designed to be easy to kill people. If you hit them with a wine bottle, you won't necessarily kill them, and they can defend themselves or run away. If you shoot them from close range, they're most likely to be dead.

      Take a fight. Somebody might get hurt. Add a gun. Somebody gets killed.

      I remember a cop describing a typical murder: because there was a gun handy, the guy shot his wife. If he didn't have a gun, he would have slugged her. The next day they would have made up, and gone on with their lives. Now he's lost his wife, going to prison for a long term, and two lives are ruined.

      If you can kill somebody with a wine bottle if you really want to, then why do you need a gun? Why don't you carry a wine bottle around for protection?

    63. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I suspect unintentional gun deaths are a small minority of total gun deaths. I'm not necessarily advocating gun-toting 12 year olds, but I am saying that in one's own home having all members of the household know where it is, how to load it and who to use it on wouldn't be such a bad thing. People have done this with firearms for a several centuries now. Certainly growing up, I was taught how to load, aim, shoot, check and clean are rifle. The key here, as always, is education. I was taught when I was a kid that you never ever point a gun at anyone under any circumstances, whether you're sure it's loaded or not, unless you intend on shooting them. My grandfather told me the story of how his old man beat the living hell out of his older brother when the two were playing were there hunting rifles (yes, kids back in the 1920s in rural settings often had their own guns) and the brother pointed his unloaded gun at my grandfather, on the principals that a. you might be mistaken about whether the gun is loaded and b. you point guns at things to bullets in them, and not for any other reason.

      The only case of an accidental death by one kid killing someone that I have personal knowledge of was a six year old killing his baby sister while playing with a gun, and that was because the father improperly stored the guns and ammo, and left them in a place where a child could get their paws on it. But hell, that applies not only to guns, but to pesticides, knives, gasoline and any number of household objects that in the hands of the young or foolish could lead to death.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    64. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Tetsujin · · Score: 4, Funny

      I am not advocating that 12-year olds should carry weapons, but had she known how to use one, she certainly would have been justified in defending herself.

      I knew a kid growing up that picked up a target rifle when someone broke into his house and attempted to rape his mother.

      You know, I can't condone rape under any circumstance, but raping your mother while someone's breaking into the house just seems particularly unwise.

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    65. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Draek · · Score: 1

      Unless you have solid evidence that absence of gun laws DO stop sexual assaults, I can't see how your post would be in any way relevant.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    66. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Same here. I first shot a gun at 5. Got my first one when I was 7 (an NEF Pardner 20ga single-shot - still have it), and was allowed to hunt on my own with it at 8 (at which age I also got my first deer with that gun - unattended as well, though I did have to get adult help drag it out).

      Kids are only incompetent and irresponsible when you let them remain that way.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    67. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Informative

      You don't suppose this could have something to do with the fact that "Children are not allowed to possess a firearm unless in the presence of an adult" as the GGP put it?

      No, because the GGP is wrong. In my state (New York, hardly a bastion of gun rights) it's perfectly legal for 13+ year olds to plink in the backyard without adult supervision. It's perfectly legal for older kids (I want to say 15+ but I'd have to double check) to hunt without adult supervision.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    68. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      Nothing like exploiting rape and child abuse to pimp a social networking website.

      Real integrity slashdot. Way to go.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    69. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Children are not allowed to possess a firearm unless in the presence of an adult, and 12-year-old kids in general do not have the judgment necessary to carry one on their own.

      Wasn't the guy raping her an adult? That would make her possessing a firearm okay then - right?

    70. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      And yet urban liberals plug their ears and scream "I CANT HEAR YOU" when you present the solid and provenfact that gun laws DO NOT STOP gun violence as criminals

      Fixed that for you. Lots of rural liberals are pro-gun.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    71. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by dissy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Oddly enough, at one time 12 was considered old enough, particularly in emergencies

      At one time, 12 was the age to get married, because in another year you will be ready to have children of your own to continue the family line.

      I guess the only thing one can take from these facts are, times change.

    72. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not if you shoot straight up...

    73. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by horigath · · Score: 1

      This story is about 12 year olds. Even if they are allowed in the state where they took place, I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that 12-year old girls are generally underrepresented in gun ownership as well as in accidental gun deaths and that perhaps these could be related.

    74. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      I am not a troll. I am, in fact, a supporter of gun rights, own a Glock that I keep for self-defense, and go to the range and clean and oil the gun on a regular basis. I also go shooting on occassion with friends who own shotguns, bolt-action rifles, and assault rifles.

      I was pointing out that legally, the minimum age for possession (let alone ownership) is at least 18 under federal law, and several states have laws that mandate higher ages. Title 18 Section 922(x) states

      (1) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer to a person who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe is a juvenile—
        - (A) a handgun; or
        - (B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun.
      (2) It shall be unlawful for any person who is a juvenile to knowingly possess—
        - (A) a handgun; or
        - (B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun.

      A juvenile (defined in Section 922 as anyone under 18) cannot possess or own a handgun, with a few exceptions such as in ranching, target practice, safety courses, and self-defense, and some of these exceptions require that written permission be obtained and carried.

      Furthermore, Minnesota statute 97B.021 Subdivision 1 states

      Restrictions.
      (a) Except as provided in this subdivision, a person under the age of 16 may not possess a firearm, unless accompanied by a parent or guardian.
      (b) A person under age 16 may possess a firearm without being accompanied by a parent or guardian:
        - (1) on land owned by, or occupied as the principal residence of, the person or the person's parent or guardian;
        - (2) while participating in an organized target shooting program with adult supervision;
        - (3) while the person is participating in a firearms safety program or traveling to and from class; or
        - (4) if the person is age 14 or 15 and has a firearms safety certificate.

      In short, a child of age 12 cannot possess a firearm without a parent or guardian being around or giving explicit permission.

      I have a suspicion that gun laws have changed markedly since you were a child.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    75. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by AshtangiMan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem with your analysis seems to be a misuse of logic. You state your assumption (reducing the number of guns in circulation will lead to fewer crimes with guns) as if it is some kind of given truth. It's just like saying that criminalizing marijuana (for instance) will lead to reduced usage of marijuana. You will really need to do some work to back that claim up, beyond just looking it up in your gut.

      I am not a gun owner, nor do I plan to be one, and feel that if I end up needing a gun for self defense, probably I have done something wrong. But, I will never vote against gun rights because: the dude who is intent on committing a crime (nice example, granny getting raped by assailant with a gun) will do so with or without the gun. Furthermore, if a criminal needs a gun, there will always be a way to get one regardless of the legality.

      This of course is my opinion, but a casual survey of prohibitive laws in the modern world can provide a pretty quick sanity check on that opinion. There are a number of illegal things (most really) that I can acquire without much effort at all. Most of those things should probably not be illegal on the grounds that it costs more to have them illegal than it does to simply ignore them.

    76. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      For some reason my brain mentally combined this with an earlier post's suggestion of giving everyone hand grenades. A 20 wrapped around a few 1s and a grenade in the middle sounds like a good anti-mugging device. Drop it and walk away. They pick it up, and the number of muggers decreases by one. For best results, you could use the same kind of sensor that they use in antipersonnel landmines, so it's not armed until after you've dropped it on the ground, then it detonates when someone picks it up. Alternatively, with a radio controller so it detonates when it gets a certain distance from you...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    77. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Funny

      different from a random bugler or rapist

      I, for one, live in fear of random buglers.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    78. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The great bulk of underage gun deaths are either suicide or gangbangers.

      The trouble with having guns is that (1) sooner or later you're going to be tempted to use it on someone, which will result in you ending up in jail, or (2) someone else will use it on you, which will result in you being dead.

    79. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are about 75,000 gun deaths a year

      Your number is nearly three times higher than reality but then the gun-grabbers never have let the facts get in the way of a bad argument. If you are wondering, they show 12,632 firearm homicides in 2007 along with 17,352 suicides. I'll let you perform the addition operation -- you'll note it's substantially less than 75,000.

      That outnumbers the cases of self-defense by about 10 to 1

      Where you'd pull the 7,500 cases of self-defense from? The same void that you pulled the number of deaths from?

      Notice the Supreme Court didn't give you a right to carry a gun in their courtroom.

      Of course they didn't. All they said was that outright gun bans aren't compatible with the 2nd amendment. Sorry if that notion bothers you.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    80. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by rossdee · · Score: 1

      "I've got accidental gun deaths at 10% of homicides, not 1% ? "
      If its accidental, shouldn't it be manslaughter?

    81. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      I suspect unintentional gun deaths are a small minority of total gun deaths

      You have a greater chance of drowning than you do of dying in a gun accident.

      Don't let the gun grabbers find that out though, they'll be trying to outlaw swimming pools next ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    82. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's best not to make bad jokes based on grammar when English is not you r first language. There was nothing wrong with the GP's sentence and your "joke" is disgusting and not funny.

    83. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by BLKMGK · · Score: 1

      Since when has a law ever stopped someone determined to break it? If it weren't guns it would be knives which is why the UK has laws that allow officers to shake down people on the street looking for knives. If you somehow manage to stop knives it will be phillips head screwdrivers. If someone wants to hurt someone else they WILL find a way to threaten, intimidate, and yes kill.

      I'm not a gun nut, I don't own one and have only shot one once or twice. But I'm not stupid either and thinking that laws will somehow stop people from buying or building something as simple as a gun is silly. Laws stopped drug use right? I don't do that either but I see pretty clearly that that didn't work either. I mean really how are you going to lower the circulation of illegally owned weapons exactly? That's a serious question - if people want one and are willing to break laws anyway they will get one. Then what? UK has some pretty decent gun laws you might like - and yet people are shot fairly frequently and even more of them are stabbed. From what I have read and from what I have heard listening to the BBC it's not quite the panacea you might think it is.

      Perhaps what we need instead of fewer guns is MORE guns. Perhaps if the chances of encountering a trained gun armed homeowner was say 90% instead of say 10% thieves would think twice? What's the rate of home robbery in a place like say Israel like?

      --
      Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
    84. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by gknoy · · Score: 1

      The trouble with having guns is that (1) sooner or later you're going to be tempted to use it on someone, which will result in you ending up in jail, or (2) someone else will use it on you, which will result in you being dead.

      Similarly, there are people who are very grateful they survived an assault to be in situation 1, rather than dead because they were unarmed.

    85. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Lavene · · Score: 1

      Just undoing an accidental trollmod :)

    86. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      He had planned far enough ahead to have taken away her cell phone; she was still able to get on Facebook from her iPod. That is the real story here.

      Her mom was actually already on the way by the time she called because she’d already gotten the message via Facebook.

      Finally, since the guy had threatened to “use” her whenever he wanted, time was of prime importance to prevent a possible second attack.

      On an unrelated note... sexually assaulting a 12-year-old girl only gets you a $175,000 bail? That’s all?

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    87. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by sarhjinian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As opposed to the total freedom you enjoy in the US, provided you stick to free speech zones, don't mind having your phone lines wiretapped and/or be subject to laws written for the benefit of corporations, rather than people.

      Many of those "socialistic governments" actually manage to be more "free" than the US. Fascinating, isn't it, how the world doesn't fit into neat little ideological boxes.

      As for health care, you forgot the proviso "if you have money". As in, the American system is the best in the world if you have money. Rich Canadians can go to the US to get an MRI in a day; where to poor and middle-class Americans go? Canada?

      --
      --srj/mmv
    88. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Tanktalus · · Score: 1

      Don't let the gun grabbers find that out though, they'll be trying to outlaw swimming pools next ;)

      No they won't. They have swimming pools, and would kill anyone who tried to take that from them.

    89. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      A number of states (Minnesota among them, as I note below) allow a minor to possess a firearm when on the property of parents or guardians. That counts as their parents being in proximity. Most states (and the federal government) also have exemptions for agricultural activities.

      But for general carry? It's pretty rare, if it exists at all.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    90. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      I don't see how you can say "12 year olds carrying loaded guns and shooting themselves" will be in any way predicted by "12 year olds crawling around in dad's closet, finding the box, opening it, taking out the gun, loading it, and accidentally shooting themselves."

    91. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by JonStewartMill · · Score: 1

      I love that guy!. I never knew he used to be a /. editor though.

    92. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by xmousex · · Score: 1

      this is actually a very good point, modding for troll/offtopic was dumb

    93. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by babblefrog · · Score: 1

      Your numbers are bogus. It appears that you only are counting cases of self-defense where somebody died. Actual self-defense numbers appear to be at least 100 times your number. See for example: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

    94. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by BrokenHalo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If they did not have a gun, then it would have been a knife.

      That, IMO is a healthier way of going about self-defence. If you want to kill (or even maim) someone, standing at any distance with a gun is a comparatively uninvolved way of going about it. But if you're using a knife, you have to be serious about it, and be prepared for all that blood and mess. If you seriously want someone dead, a knife is at least a more "honest" way of going about it.

      I have never in my near-half-century lifetime held, let alone fired a gun, and I intend to keep it that way. However, that doesn't mean I have to be a shrinking violet when it comes to defending myself.

    95. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by clone53421 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your argument is a slippery slope. Owning a gun does not inevitably mean that you’ll be tempted to use it to murder someone (much less actually use it to murder someone), nor does it inevitably mean that it’ll be used on you eventually.

      You could replace “guns” with butcher knives, baseball bats, crowbars, or just about any other weapon and your statement would be just as fallacious.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    96. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      I can at least somewhat fight someone who has a knife. He certainly won't be able to go on a mass killing spree or kill me from a mile away. But since I don't have a big S on my red-and-blue tights, I can't fight bullets. And the "everybody should have guns" argument doesn't hold water, it hardly stopped shootouts in the Wild West and it wouldn't do any better today.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    97. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      How? Fucking magic?

      The only people who are going to voluntarily come and hand over their guns are the grannies, and then you’ll just have 10 grannies who were raped by an assailant with a gun and one granny who was raped by an assailant with a knife.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    98. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      As in, the American system is the best in the world if you have money

      No, it's the best in the world period. The only difference is that the people with money and/or insurance don't generally have to file bankruptcy after getting sick.

      I've been through bankruptcy before and it seems preferable to dying or ceding more power to the Government -- but maybe that's just me.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    99. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Informative

      Somehow, the whole rest of the western world manages to not only have less violent crime, but also less private gun ownership

      Crime and gun ownership do not correlate. Finland has a lot of guns and a low crime rate. Russia has next to no guns (in civilian hands) and a high crime rate.

      Perhaps the Open Carry folk could try and think a little bit harder and try to address the epidemic poverty, horrible education and nonsensical drug policy instead of pouring more gasoline on the fire?

      That's funny, you tacitly admit that guns don't cause crime yet continue to condemn them. Interesting.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    100. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by dr_dank · · Score: 1

      PLZ water my farm 4me, being raped IRL!!! BRB? :'-(

      +Roman Polansky likes this.

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    101. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that 12-year old girls are generally underrepresented in gun ownership as well as in accidental gun deaths and that perhaps these could be related.

      Actually that's quite the stretch. 12 year old girls are generally underrepresented in automobile ownership yet they die almost every day in automobile crashes. Figure that one out.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    102. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      In short, a child of age 12 cannot possess a firearm without a parent or guardian being around or giving explicit permission.

      Unless done for target practice or in self-defense, or on land owned by or occupied as the principle residence of the parent or guardian of the child. According to your own words and quotations. Just saying.

      In other words, your kid can know that you have a handgun, be trained in its proper and safe use, and even use it in self-defense if they are ever threatened in their own home while you’re not there.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    103. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      If you shoot them from close range, they're most likely to be dead.

      Learn something about guns before you go making these pronouncements. 80% of people shot by handguns survive.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    104. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Cwix · · Score: 1

      To start with Im a liberal.. I just have one question..

      What makes you think outlawing guns will make a noticeable impact on criminals with guns? They will get their guns the same way they get anything illegal, either make it themselves or have it smuggled in.

      All outlawing does is take the guns out of the hands of people that the government has vetted with a background check. It will do nothing to take the guns out of the hands of the people who dont give a fuck what the law says.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    105. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      If you want to kill (or even maim) someone, standing at any distance with a gun is a comparatively uninvolved way of going about it.

      Only if you are a sociopath. Well adjusted people do not snap and commit murder just because it's "easy" If they did I suspect we'd hear a lot more stories about people being run over.....

      If you seriously want someone dead, a knife is at least a more "honest" way of going about it.

      I don't want anybody to be dead. I want to defend myself. Guns are more effective than knives for this application. They also come with less legal hassles in most of the United States.

      However, that doesn't mean I have to be a shrinking violet when it comes to defending myself.

      Have fun defending yourself with that knife if you get attacked by more than one aggressor or run into a scumbag with a 9mm.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    106. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Cwix · · Score: 1

      You consider close range hand grenades useful?

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    107. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      I've got accidental gun deaths at 10% of homicides, not 1% ?

      And I've got it at about 100/year for the past decade or more. Really not a problem.

      Do suicides and ganbangers not count as gun deaths ?

      Of course they do. How are they relevant to the situation?

      Anyway, my overall point (aside from this being irrelevant to the discussion on the whole) is that the murder rate is something like 3k/year for the whole country if you manage to stay out of the ghetto, so gun violence isn't particularly common around here. I'm just tired of the stereotype.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    108. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      And there are quite a few more stories that involve family members picking up legally owned firearms in a moment of anger to kill another family member, or in a moment of distress to commit suicide.

      If this were the reason for gun control, why don't they also institute knife control?

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    109. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by sarhjinian · · Score: 1

      Crime and gun ownership, in most western nations (Russia is not in this category) work the way I noted. Finland is an exception for obvious reasons, not the rule.

      Everyone else (Canada, the UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Portugal, etc, etc) all have lower rates of violent crime and yet less gun ownership.

      I'm not condemning guns, I'm condemning the short-sighted viewpoint that views gun ownership as a solution to violent crime. Crime is not a symptom of a lack of gun ownership, it's a symptom of poor social support. Whenever someone brings up gun ownership in Slashdot, posters from the whole rest of the world sit back in horror while Americans discuss the virtue of blowing people away and never, ever discuss the actual cause of the problem.

      It's simply an interesting correlation that the same kind of reactionary, testosterone-fueled idiots or hypocrites (take your pick) are for gun proliferation as well as against doing anything proactively to solve the real cause of violent crime.

      --
      --srj/mmv
    110. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by xaxa · · Score: 1

      Is it that much of a concern that you need to be prepared?

      I'm 24. I went to school in the centre of a medium-sized city for seven years, and I've lived in London for six. I've never even been approached by muggers.

      I don't often carry more than £60 ($100?) in cash, since there are cashpoints everywhere, but when I do I'm much more concerned about dropping the money than having it stolen from me.

    111. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I can at least somewhat fight someone who has a knife

      You don't know much about self-defense. I've had training in defending against attacks with both firearms and knives. Knives are the tougher proposition by far. You can disable a firearm by pushing it out of battery (automatic) or locking up the cylinder (revolver). You can render it impotent by grabbing onto it and pointing it away from you. Grabbing onto a knife is generally not advised.

      He certainly won't be able to go on a mass killing spree

      You've never heard of the Osaka school massacre have you?

      or kill me from a mile away

      You could probably count on one hand the number of people in the world that could kill you from a mile away with a small arm.

      it hardly stopped shootouts in the Wild West

      The "Wild West" is largely a myth that was created by Hollywood.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    112. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by xaxa · · Score: 1

      Where did I advocate arming children?

      By disagreeing with the AC, who doesn't seem to think 12 year olds with knives is a good idea.

      Would you rather have a kid that climbed into the proverbial black van without a whimper or one that goes kicking and screaming and hopefully attracts some attention to themselves?

      I think that should be clear from my comment. I said "and/or run away screaming ".

    113. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by sarhjinian · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's just you. The rest of us in the developed world actually have less government nonsense to deal with (and the added bonus of less corporate nonsense atop that), while at the same time getting better quality of care.

      This fear of government involvement is mystifying, considering the counterexamples of every other western democracy. But then, the same people who are against government involvement in health care seem to have no problem with the government employing, training and equipping a military force, which in truth is far more frightening.

      But perhaps that's because the rest of the developed world hasn't been so badly hoodwinked by the corporations in the US who make very good money off of poor healthcare and a well-equipped military.

      --
      --srj/mmv
    114. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Then, they're not going to run across it on accident, and they're not going to find the "magical" gun lying around there.

      That to me is the most important thing, to demystify guns. They are tools, highly dangerous tools to be sure, but tools nonetheless. The first step is to demythologize them, or more to the point to de-Hollywoodize them.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    115. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by zx-15 · · Score: 1

      And yet conservatives plug their ears and scream "I CANT HEAR YOU" when you present the solid and provenfact that gun laws STOP gun violence as criminals, unsuprisingly, have to jump through extra hoops to get a weapon and could be arrested for mere posession of a firearm. Most of the crimes in states that enforce gun laws are comitted with firearms legally purchased in the states with more relaxed gun laws.

      The absense of gun laws simply arms the criminals. That is it. There is no other use.

    116. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by BBTaeKwonDo · · Score: 1

      I'm neither a gun owner or gun demonizer, and I agree with your points about educating the kids. If I kept a gun, I would keep it locked up anyway. Kids have friends who come over to play, babysitters can get curious, etc. A loaded firearm is not something I would want easy access to.

    117. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Do you actually have any evidence for point 1? Guns have been around for several centuries now, and what I would consider modern firearms for, what, 150 to 160 years? Lots of people have owned guns during that time, in some places it was and still is almost a necessity. I don't know too many livestock farmers out there that don't at least have a shotgun. You're seriously saying that somehow the mere ownership of a gun is going to tempt you into using it?

      This is what I mean about the mystification of the gun, and it's a peculiarity I find in both the anti-gun lobby and the extreme gun-ownership types, both tend to practically deify these devices, the chief difference is that the anti-gun types view it as a dark malevolent god that twists peoples minds (you seem to be in this camp), whereas the loony-tunes at the other end seem to think that it is the granter of liberty and virtue and all good things.

      It's a device capable of killing, yes, but in the hands of a sensible, reasonable person it is no more dangerous than a car, an ax or a bottle of Liquid Drain-O. Most of the gun owners I know have never aimed a gun at another person, let alone shot someone. But if I was a 12 year old kid who was about to be raped by some 40-odd-year-old sicko, and I knew where the revolver and ammo was, I don't think anyone could fault me for putting a hole in the bastard's chest.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    118. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      While I don't care for the analogies between owning a gun and owning a car (they deal with two different rights and most people use their cars far more than they use their guns), it would be more appropriate to match up the number of deaths due to children owning/driving a car when talking about children owning/possessing a firearm.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    119. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by nbauman · · Score: 1

      So we'll just have to suffer 75,000 murders, suicides, and accidental deaths a year.

      Correction. I read Wikipedia too quickly. That's 75,000 injuries a year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Homicides

      The correct numbers (which vary somewhat every year) are 9,000 homicides, 17,000 suicides.

      The estimate of 10 gun deaths for every life saved in defensive use (which can't be determined accurately) is from Am J Public Health. 1994 December; 84(12):1982–1984. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615397/?tool=pmcentrez

      At least the right wing wackos on Slashdot aren't as crazy as the right wing wackos on the Wall Street Journal comments pages.

    120. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      And, I have to emphasize the "make it themselves" part.

      Gangs in New York City were making their own guns, albeit, cheap, shoddy pieces of shit that were as likely to kill the guy shooting it, as the target, back in the '80's. (wow - what a sentence - but someone has to feed the grammar nazis)

      I've given a little thought to what it would take to make a good, solid revolver. I could do it with my own tools, in a few days. With the tools available at work, I could even produce a pretty high quality revolver. I work with men who could probably produce a Colt .45 in a couple days, as good as anything that Colt produced themselves. If the twelve men at work were to set up shop, and produce handguns, we could probably ship a hundred weapons every week. More, once we ironed out the kinks, and got things automated.

      Firearms aren't hard to produce, in case anyone was wondering. Quality is a bit tough, unless you have strict quality control. But, crooks have never been concerned about quality.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    121. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by obarthelemy · · Score: 1

      2 points:

      1- you mean you have a greater chance of drowning yourself than of getting killed by someone else in a gun accident ? Spot the difference ?

      2- Baths, pools and rivers are not designed to kill. guns are. Spot the difference ?

      the GP source says accidental deaths = 10% of voluntary homicides. I don't know if that qualifies as "small".

      BTW, it says here 1,500 accidental gun deaths per year, not 100 ? http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/toptens/accidents/accidentsfull.html

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    122. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by alexo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And yet conservatives plug their ears and scream "I CANT HEAR YOU" when you present the solid and provenfact that gun laws STOP gun violence

      I assume you have some statistics to back your claims. Do you mind sharing them with us?

    123. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by otopico · · Score: 1

      "Best health care" - technically true, but you ignore that our access to this wonderful healthcare is a lot less than "best". Just our infant mortality rate alone should be enough to show that not only is our health care not the best, but that it lags behind those horrid evil socialized medicine having countries like Canada, the UK, and France. You can argue your point, but you can't deny the evidence that the healthcare in the US has severe quality and access issues.

      So, why is it that when someone says anything that questions the superiority of the US v the World, people like you tell them to leave? People like you think that the US leads the world in all things good, regardless of any pesky facts. You are uninformed, or misinformed, so you ignore any criticism rather than listen and ask if maybe, just maybe, you could be wrong and we, as Americans, can do something to fix it.

      You need to wake up and see that your "land of the free" is just as controlled as any other country, you just ignore that because it might get in the way of your rose colored view of the US.

      The US has a huge amount of socialist system in place, you just pretend to not see it. But unlike you, I don't require you to shut up or leave.

    124. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by otopico · · Score: 1

      No AC, it is funny. The OP's post was understandable by context, and the reply funny because of grammar misuse in the OP.

    125. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Idarubicin · · Score: 1

      They're going to know the location of a tool that's as interesting to them as a socket wrench or a drill.

      I would like to know where you're getting your socket wrenches.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    126. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That guy you spoke of is free, because the us-gov could not or would not provide the swiss authorities, with the material they needed to verify or deverify a claim made by that guys defense. I don't know what whoever said in your television, but i do know that his(the guy you probably meant) is free again, because your government declares every shit as top secret and think they don't need to provide it to other country courts. Yeah they (your government) said so and because of that what they said must be true? Wrong it was a court and they needed to prove it! And i say the swiss court made the right decision to let him go.

    127. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if she had known how to use one? Why wouldn a 12 year old, have a loaded weapon in her bedroom? Why would a 12 year old girl expect her mother's boyfriend to suddenly rape her? You are about a billion times more likely to have an accidental discharge of a weapon than ever need it for self defense. End of story.

    128. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by loufoque · · Score: 1

      Attempted rape or even rape itself is not a good reason to murder someone.

    129. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      BTW, gun suicides are more effective, and do raise the death count of suicide attempts.

      Rubbish. Suicide attempts are of two types: people who are serious about dying, and people who on some level want to be stopped. Shooting yourself in the head puts you in the first category. If those people didn't have access to guns, they would choose some other highly effective method. And really, suicide is already illegal; you think that gun control laws are going to deter someone who's planning on killing themself from buying a black market gun? (Which will never be any more difficult than buying black market heroin -- i.e., not significantly.) "Oh, I was going to shoot myself, but I don't want to get a criminal record! Better not buy a gun."

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    130. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Since then, it has become financially impossible to support oneself (much less a family) at age 12 due to labor laws and the general requirement for education.

      So what changed about using a gun?

      If, indeed we're simply raising children to be less capable than before, that's a real problem.

    131. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      They can mod me troll, but it's the truth as I see it. At least one person is using that method to get hits:
      http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/06/06/10/1529257.shtml

      So with this story they have Facebook, the young girl, rape and so on, but they didn't manage to exploit the Apple angle much :).

      --
    132. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by zx-15 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Actually I do mind, as you completely missed my point. I just was poking fun at the parent by using exactly the same broad generalizing statements as the parent only flipping ideological side of the argument.

      About crimes committed with legally purchased guns out of the state -- I heard about a study being sited on some news program, I don't think can find it right now.

    133. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by GungaDan · · Score: 1

      WTF? It's not murder, it's self defense, and defending one's self from attempted rape is a PERFECT use for it.

      Moron.

      --
      Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
    134. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Cyberllama · · Score: 1

      Sure, kids can use guns safely under parental supervision, but that's a pretty far stretch allowing them to carry loaded weapons for self-defense at all times.

    135. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      The trouble with having guns is that (1) sooner or later you're going to be tempted to use it on someone

      Uh, no, not any more than I'm tempted to stab, bludgeon, strangle, immolate, or otherwise kill or assault people.

      (2) someone else will use it on you, which will result in you being dead.

      Again, no. IWhen they are not at hand, my guns are locked away; when they are at hand, I have a highly effective means of preventing an attacker from getting close enough to me to take them away.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    136. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by lowrydr310 · · Score: 1

      Who cares about page hits? Please don't tell me there Slashdot users who don't use an ad blocker, or don't check the "Ads Disabled" box...

    137. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Flea+of+Pain · · Score: 1

      I don't think anyone could fault me for putting a hole in the bastard's chest.

      Rule #2: Double tap.

      --
      Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
    138. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by g8oz · · Score: 1

      You mean spare me the talking points from the side of the argument I'm not on.

    139. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by itsthesmell · · Score: 1

      Your chart is irrelevant to your argument as some number of those deaths are legally justifiable. Or is it your position that no killing is ever justifiable?

    140. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by lowrydr310 · · Score: 1

      Thanks a lot, now I can't get taps out of my head.

    141. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by kalirion · · Score: 1

      And that will keep the kid from showing of to his/her friends when they come over?

    142. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Al+Al+Cool+J · · Score: 1

      Gun laws simply disarm honest people. That is it. there is no other use.

      So, basically you're saying that people are better off being shot accidentally or by a first-time offender, than by a career criminal.

    143. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      They'd probably shoot them.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    144. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Crime and gun ownership, in most western nations (Russia is not in this category) work the way I noted.

      Except that it doesn't. Switzerland, Sweden, France, Finland, Germany and Norway all have higher rates of ownership than the UK yet have less violent crime. Perhaps you should just throw in the towel and admit that you can't prove a linkage between gun ownership rates and crime?

      I'm condemning the short-sighted viewpoint that views gun ownership as a solution to violent crime.

      Nobody has suggested it's a "solution" to violent crime. Guns are just a means for people to defend themselves against violent crime. Self defense is an inalienable right of all human beings.

      Americans discuss the virtue of blowing people away and never

      Point out the post in this discussion where somebody said it was virtuous to blow someone away. Or STFU and stop repeating stereotypes. Your choice.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    145. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by w0mprat · · Score: 1

      Much like the facebook movie?

      --
      After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
    146. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      2- Baths, pools and rivers are not designed to kill. guns are. Spot the difference ?

      No, guns are designed to throw a piece of lead downrange. What that piece of lead does is entirely up to the owner of the firearm.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    147. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Attempted rape or even rape itself is not a good reason to murder someone.

      The law disagrees with you. Rape and kidnapping are crimes that one is entitled to respond to with deadly force in the overwhelming majority of American jurisdictions.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    148. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Yes. I grew up with guns in the house (my dad had a dozen or so of them), and I would have been as likely to go "showing them off" to my friends when they came over as I would have been to go outside and show them dad's lawnmower. I know it's hard to fathom, but when you hold an item up as a mystical taboo, a kid's curiosity shoots through the roof. Remove the mystery, and you remove the curiosity - or at a minimum, teach them how to safely express it (as curiosity about guns needn't be detrimental, ie, taking a gun out to field strip and clean it properly isn't bad - playing cowboy with it is).

      Understand that having grown up in a very rural area, things weren't like the nanny state we have today. My dad's guns weren't tightly locked up in some gun safe. They typically were on the open gun rack in the living room, or if he'd been hunting recently (so essentially, throughout most of the fall and winter months) they might well just be leaning in a corner. They might or might not be loaded, and so you assume that they're all loaded and act accordingly. Everyone I knew was basically the same situation back then. It was like that as far back as I can remember. You'd think based on that that it would have been a blood bath with children shooting themselves left and right, yet no one EVER had a problem there. Luck? Not really. Every kid in those homes was taught by the time they could walk how to use those guns, and when they should use them.

      As they say, would you rather try to avoid you kid ever going around water, or would you rather teach them how to swim?

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    149. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by spiritgreywolf · · Score: 1

      My god I would mod this +90 if I could.

      Education is the key to firearm safety. Period.

      --
      Never have a philosophy which supports a lack of courage
    150. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by lgw · · Score: 1

      A large percentage of "accidental gun deaths" were actually suicide - life insurance doesn't generally pay if the death is ruled a suicide, and often the investigator is willing to let it go as "accidentally killed while clening his gun".

      The right to take your own life is quite fundamental, but that has little to do with gun safety.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    151. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by lgw · · Score: 1

      Children are not allowed to possess a firearm unless in the presence of an adult, and 12-year-old kids in general do not have the judgment necessary to carry one on their own.

      But she was in the presence of an adult when she needed the gun ...

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    152. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Hollywood itself is starting to get a little better at it. While sounds are still often overstated, a 9mm no longer sounds like a .44 Magnum, and trigger discipline is definitely improving in general. Whenever I watch movies or TV and a gun comes out, my eye immediately goes to the trigger finger. It's becoming much more common to see a finger above the trigger than on it, though by no means is it universal.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    153. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. And keep the bullets and gun separate. Most accidental deaths by children is because the gun remains mysterious. Gun control means education, too.

    154. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      His point is still valid, and thats 20% dead people.

      also:
      [citation needed]

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    155. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      ".. 12 year old girls are almost completely absent from that count, ..."

      maybe thats because minors aren't allow to use guns without an adult?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    156. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Its not a talking point, it's a fact. You can choose to ignore it, but you would be stupid to do so.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    157. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      Ooh, I have a hypothesis!

      12 year old girls are in and around cars on a daily basis.

      12 year old girls are not around guns as frequently.

      Yeah, that almost seems too simple.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    158. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "Well adjusted people do not snap and commit murder just because it's "easy""

      what is well adjusted? There are plenty of people that aren't well adjusted.
      There isn't anything stopping them from getting a gun.

      And yes, people do suddenly decide to kill someone with a gun and they are sociapaths.

      "Have fun defending yourself with that knife if you get attacked by more than one aggressor or run into a scumbag with a 9mm."

      what makes you think owning a gun with make any difference. If they jump you, your dead. If the shoot you, your dead.

      I don't know what experience you have, but in those situation, you are not going to magically draw your gun and defeat them. In the real world, it doesn't work like that.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    159. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by scot4875 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The only difference is that the people with money and/or insurance don't generally have to file bankruptcy after getting sick.

      WRONG. A significant percentage of medical bankruptcies in this country are people that *have* health insurance.

      No, I'm not going to provide a citation or look it up for you. You should have been able to educate yourself about this by now, as it is *not* uncommon knowledge.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    160. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Kymermosst · · Score: 1

      Every soldier that survives in afganastan posts on facebook therefore facebook saves soldiers lives...

      Facebook is better than body armor...

      Facebook stops bullets!

      OMG!!!! Facebook is Chuck Norris!!!!!

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    161. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      So what changed about using a gun?

      Oh, I don't know, maybe there's less space for most kids to practice with guns safely? It's one thing when you're out shooting on your family's farm; it's an entirely different thing when you're living on a densely populated city block.

      I'm not even anti-gun. I grew up in southern Idaho; I had a BB gun that I used when I was a kid. I decided it wasn't something that interested me. My family hunts. I don't care about guns -- let people own as many as they want. I think greater economic equality will do far more to reducing crime than any reduction or increase in the number of guns people own.

      That said, I really can't stand gun advocates; you have to be willfully stupid to not understand *why* people have issues with guns. Do you *really* not understand that things were different than they are now, and letting kids have guns in cities isn't a good idea?

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    162. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by masmullin · · Score: 1

      no. it isn't.
      you should fear Chucks anger.
      Repent, and your death with be swift.

    163. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      According to the CDC Mortality database, in 2006, there were 30,986 deaths by firearm. Of these:

      • 642 were listed as unintentional
        • 107 by handgun
        • 73 by rifle, shotgun, or other larger firearm discharge
        • 462 unspecified)
      • 16,883 were listed as suicide
        • 3,655 by handgun
        • 2758 by rifle, shotgun, or other larger firearm discharge
        • 10,470 unspecified
      • 12,791 were listed as homicide
        • 997 by handgun
        • 768 by rifle, shotgun, or other larger firearm discharge
        • 11,026 unspecified
      • 361 were listed as legal intervention/operations of war (not broken down by type)
      • 220 were listed as undetermined
        • 26 by handgun
        • 23 by rifle, shotgun, or other larger firearm discharge
        • 171 unspecified

        It's not as thorough as we'd like, as these are based on people more concerned with saving a life, and bullet trauma is, for the most part, the same from wound to wound, just varying with degree of damage. Someone killed by a .22 Long and someone else killed by a .50AE will both end up listed as handgun, if anything. But the purposes are fairly clear, and roughly in line with what one would expect. I included the breakdown only because someone would likely ask about it.

        Anyone that would like to take issue with the suicide numbers should look at Japan, where firearms are essentially forbidden, and where firearm homicide rates are extremely low. The suicide rate is still roughly 2.5 times more than that of the United States. Lacking firearms, they turn to hanging, gas, and especially stepping in front of trains.

        For anyone else that would like to look them up, I sorted by Injury Intent, Cause of death, and Age Group, and used the following ICD-10 codes:

        U01.4 (Terrorism involving firearms), W32 (Handgun discharge), W33 (Rifle, shotgun and larger firearm discharge), W34 (Discharge from other and unspecified firearms), X72 (Intentional self-harm by handgun discharge), X73 (Intentional self-harm by rifle, shotgun and larger firearm discharge), X74 (Intentional self-harm by other and unspecified firearm discharge), X93 (Assault by handgun discharge), X94 (Assault by rifle, shotgun and larger firearm discharge), X95 (Assault by other and unspecified firearm discharge), Y22 (Handgun discharge, undetermined intent), Y23 (Rifle, shotgun and larger firearm discharge, undetermined intent), Y24 (Other and unspecified firearm discharge, undetermined intent), Y35.0 (Legal intervention involving firearm discharge), Y36.4 (War operations involving firearm discharge and other forms of conventional warfare)

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    164. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by sjames · · Score: 1

      I certainly don't advocate having the kids strap them on western style or go shooting in the park!

      I am saying that if we have degenerated as a society enough that a 12 year old can no longer handle a gun (something that not so long ago was nearly mandatory), we really need to look at what went wrong before we have to move the age of majority to 31.

    165. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Bazookas arm at a range greater than most people can throw a grenade, IIRC. They don't work nearly as well when trying to deal with the guy next door, as your attempt may be seen by said guy next door, and he can shoot you with his bazooka before you can shoot him with yours.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    166. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      That last part depends very much on the state's view on locking up guns. In many states, they have to have trigger locks or be in a safe to which the kids don't have the keys. I doubt the parents would be criminally prosecuted for their child exercising self-defense, but they could be sued over the violation by the attacker or the attacker's estate.

      Nef's assertion was that I didn't know the law and that possession and ownership was legal for people much younger than 18. My response is simply that the law is not as simple as it was when he was ages 6 and 12.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    167. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Kris_J · · Score: 1
      That's not entirely fair.

      The girl told police that Cesmat had taken away her cell phone away when she went to bed, telling her he did not want her texting all night.

      So the girl had no phone, just her iPod, which I assume was an iPod touch. She wasn't able to make a call from it, or an SMS, but she could send a Facebook message (or an email, or with the right software an IM to pretty much any service).

      This is a story about how important communication can now be made by devices other than a phone. Or how children now not only have a mobile phone, but often a second gadget capable of keeping them connected.

      And it's not like she didn't use Facebook and an iPod.

    168. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      You (and several others in this thread) are the exception. I learned how to use and respect firearms from age 5. My dad was very serious about it when he taught me, and also when growing up. Somewhere along the line, guns just became cool to him, and he lost many of the understandings that he taught me.

      I have showed a number of friends the basics of firearms. I have made a point of the most basic of rules regarding loaded status, pointing, trigger control, etc. Muzzle control is so ingrained that even when disassembled, it feels wrong to look down the barrel from the muzzle end to inspect for cleanliness and damage or to point it at open windows or in the direction of another person.

      I have some experience from the other side of the barrel, BTW. A classmate from high school carries a scar on his upper cheek from a bullet fired his way. In addition, I have had a gun pointed at me, safety unlocked and finger on the trigger, and I have talked someone down from a suicide where the gun was pointed at the temple. These have only reinforced my views on maturity and training, but have not changed my view of the right to self-defense using firearms.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    169. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by retchdog · · Score: 1

      Homicide is the most generic term for one person being directly involved in the death of another. Manslaughter is homicide.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    170. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by obarthelemy · · Score: 1

      1- citation needed
      2- we could discuss if making killing oneself harder and/or less often successful is not a worthy goal.

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    171. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by obarthelemy · · Score: 1

      1- citation needed. any stats on suicide success rate in countries with lotsa guns vs countries with fewer guns ?

      2- someone with with a sudden yearning to die and a gun will probably shoot themselves. Same personn with only pills will probably take pills. Guess the survival rates. BTW, this applies for homicidal rage, too.

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    172. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by obarthelemy · · Score: 1

      lol

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    173. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Cwix · · Score: 1

      I wasn't making a comment on the bazooka, just questioning how close you'd really want to use that grenade.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    174. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita

    175. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by KillerLoop · · Score: 1

      I do. Don't mind the ads, and if /. gets some credit or whatever I'm ok with it.

    176. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by sarhjinian · · Score: 1

      I'm not trying prove a solution, I'm trying to highlight that gun ownership is unnecessary for personal safety. Heck, I wasn't the one who brought it up: you used the example of Russia and Finland as a pro-gun counterexample, ignoring that Finland's lack of crime has everything to do with effective social programs.

      You're missing the point: never mind that the all of those countries are less "armed" than the United States, and all have lower violent crime rates; they all have social programs that prevent violent crime from becoming epidemic.

      Most Slashdot threads, and many pro-gun anecdotes, use the personal safety angle. The debate is raging on this very issue, and yet guns are, at best, a band-aid solution.

      You're ignoring my core point entirely because I've dared criticize that fallacy. I don't care if you arm yourself to the teeth or not, but it's hypocritical in the extreme for gun advocates to use the personal safety angle and completely ignore, or worse, scorn, social programs in the first place.

      It's a sick society that won't spend a dime to address the causes of crime but gleefully encourages, if not glorifies, defensive murder.

      --
      --srj/mmv
    177. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by kramulous · · Score: 1

      I believe the number in that graph are phony.

      There is absolutely no way almost 10% of Australian households posses a gun.

      Some may have gun license but definitely not a gun ... they are effectively outlawed.

      --
      .
    178. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by kramulous · · Score: 1

      I learned firearm safety around age 6 and have been using/carrying firearms on my own for over 30 years

      Wow! What are you scared of?

      --
      .
    179. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by __aaxtnf2500 · · Score: 1

      Thank god most legal jurisdictions in the country I live in do not agree. In every state I have lived in, 5 so far, it is legal to prevent or terminate a rape via deadly force. Rape is generally considered a 'forcible felony', along with burglary, kidnapping, carjacking, aggravated assault, attempted murder...

    180. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Or none of the above.

      Said troll is far less accurate than the "you've either had a misfire with a gun, or are going to" binary FUD.

      There can be no third state? I'm "NEVER" going to have a misfire?

      And by misfire I mean pointing the gun somewhere it shouldn't be and it "accidently" goes off scaring the piss out of you, and or injuring or destroying something.

    181. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Ownership of easily used loaded handguns turns that angry fistfight among honest people into a shootout.
      Unloaded single shot longarms with the ammo stored elsewhere require a bit more than spur of the moment rage to use so that's why less people die from them despite their higher accuracy and often calibre.
      We're getting off topic here anyway, if a gun was involved in this story the kid wouldn't have had it and most likely would have been at the wrong end of it.

    182. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by TouchAndGo · · Score: 1

      And then the corresponding suicide rates via firearms rise. See Switzerland

    183. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could easily feel you need a gun for many legitimate reasons. In such circumstances there will not be time to get one. I recommend everyone at least go learn to shoot. Go to a range, take a class and rent a gun for the occasion. I feel everyone should at least understand the realities of the device in person.

      That aside, I thank you for such a rational opinion from the non "pro-gun" side.

    184. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by cronius · · Score: 1

      And yet liberals plug their ears and scream "I CANT HEAR YOU" when you present the solid and provenfact that gun laws DO NOT STOP gun violence as criminals, suprisingly, do not care what gun laws say... Criminals have no problems getting guns even in places like the UK.

      Well, by definition, everyone who commits a crime using a gun is a criminal, so of course gun laws doesn't stop criminals from getting a hold of one (that would be self-contradicting). It probably doesn't stop hardcore criminals from getting (more) guns, but not every criminal is hardcore.

      Gun laws simply disarm honest people. That is it. there is no other use.

      More to the point would be asking: Would limiting the possession of guns to honest people also reduce the number of gun violence? Would person X kill person Y if X didn't have a gun? Or in other words: Does guns make criminals out of honest people?

      So let's say that reducing guns "from honest people" (as you put it) does reduce gun violence. We're then left with a situation where the criminals have all the guns and the honest people doesn't. But criminals always had the guns, so no change there. And if that actually reduces the gun violence, then isn't it a better situation to be in?

      --
      Life is Reality
    185. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Thiez · · Score: 1

      I take it where you live, nobody ever gets drunk, right?

    186. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Thiez · · Score: 1

      Because people would totally not throw money-wrapped grenades at people they don't like and claim self-defense later.

    187. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Monchanger · · Score: 1

      Cars and knives are not equivalent to firearms.

      Advocating that a child escalate a minor conflict to a knife fight is just a very strange from my point of view. It's stupid because the isn't likely to know how to use that knife and is likely to drop it and have it turned back on him. Likewise in a car, if they can even reach the peddles, they're just as likely to crash or hurt innocents than hit their target.

      Nobody is arguing that you don't have the right to self defense. We are questioning the insanity of turning children into walking time bombs.

    188. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      The only thing that's stupid is taking away liberty because some people do bad things with it.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    189. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Z8 · · Score: 1

      They're going to know the location of a tool that's as interesting to them as a socket wrench or a drill.

      Yep, kids find guns boring. That's why in all the computer games now you run around in first-person mode with a socket wrench.

    190. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Computer games which are largely played by kids who have never fired a gun in real life. The post doesn't say that guns are inherently demystified - quite the opposite. TV and the very video games you reference serve to prop up the gun as a mystical item that has magical "coolness" powers. That attitude will persist until you as a parent dispel it. A great way to do that is to take them out shooting. Show them what "the big deal" is. Satisfy their curiosity in a safe environment. That might be a bit too much work for the witty one-liner crowd though . . .

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    191. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Z8 · · Score: 1

      Hah, you can be witty and right at the same time. Do you really think that firing guns is no more interesting than using a socket wrench? I know plenty of people (including myself) who have fired a gun in real life and still enjoy first person shooters. Plenty of people also go shooting for fun. No one uses a socket wrench for fun.

      I don't have any strong feelings pro- or con- about gun control, but your whole guns = socket wrench position is ridiculous and must be motivated by politics.

    192. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Attempted rape or even rape itself is not a good reason to murder someone.

      Murder is the unjustified killing of another human being. Killing a rapist or attempted rapist in self-defense is entirely justified and thus it is, by definition, not murder. Your statement was correct, although probably not in the sense that you meant it.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    193. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by HopefulIntern · · Score: 1

      Whenever I watch movies or TV and a gun comes out, my eye immediately goes to the trigger finger.

      I do this too. It has been engrained in me for many years, so I almost cringe when I see someone holding a gun with the finger resting on the trigger.

    194. Re:Why's this on Slashdot? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      any stats on suicide success rate in countries with lotsa guns vs countries with fewer guns ?

      Suicide rates per 100,000, averaging male and female rates: UK 7.55, U.S. 10.55, India 10.65, China 13.9, Switzerland 18.25, Japan 25.3.

      Guns per 100 residents: China 3.5, India 4.0, UK 5.6, Switzerland 46.0, U.S. 90.0. Japan's rate of firearms ownership is nearly nil.

      (The numbers given are numbers of guns, not gun ownership rates; the U.S. number is distorted by ownership of multiple guns being common. 38% of households and 26% of individuals own at least one firearm.)

      So, no, we do not have a higher suicide rate than countries with few guns. Try again.

      someone with with a sudden yearning to die and a gun will probably shoot themselves.

      You do not understand the nature of suicide. One does not take one's own life on a passing whim.

      In Japan, despite the absence of guns, people manage to kill themselves highly effectively by jumping off high places or in front of trains.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
  2. How? by RivenAleem · · Score: 0, Redundant

    How did she manage to pull this off while being assaulted at the same time? What did he think she was doing, updating her status?

    1. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Current mood: Violated

    2. Re:How? by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      Come on, he's 42 and she's a young hipster. He probably thought it was a bar of soap, not an iPod.

    3. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm 42 and probably more hip than you. Sent from my iPad sitting in Starbucks listening to Passion Pit.

      I think the word you were searching for is "tool". iPads in Starbucks come under the heading "tool" rather than "hip". Although calling one's self "hip" is a qualification for "tool" designation as well.

    4. Re:How? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Don't break your hip!

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    5. Re:How? by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      I'm in the 18 - 24 Demographic and ultimately have more hipness than anyone over 40 could ever possibly achieve.

      It's not something thats up for debate or competition, thats just the way it is.

      It's kind of like ketchup on eggs you know?

      Yeah, I'm sure, you get it now, that was a great analogy.

    6. Re:How? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      He probably thought it was a bar of soap

      I'm sure he'll have enough of those to worry about where he's going.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    7. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mine is bigger than yours an that's more than you could ever possibly achieve.

    8. Re:How? by drc003 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not even trying to get the point. I just want to make it clear that ketchup on eggs is for losers no matter your age or perceived amount of "hipness". These are the same people who would put Heinz 57 on a Filet or Porterhouse.

    9. Re:How? by The+Yuckinator · · Score: 1

      "You guys are so unhip it's a wonder your bums don't fall off."
      -Zaphod Beeblebrox

    10. Re:How? by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 1

      I didn't think this was required, but /sarcasm. Starbucks sucks. I'm actually sitting here in sweats, drinking crappy chock full o' nuts coffee, currently listening to 2112, writing code. BTW hipness (lame term, BTW) has nothing to do with age - you either have it or not, and if you have to tell people that you have it - you don't.

      --
      I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
    11. Re:How? by natehoy · · Score: 1

      The article has a pretty clear timeline.

      He confiscated her cell phone earlier in the evening, and was probably unaware that her iPod gave her any ability to communicate. He wanted her isolated.

      Later, he walked into her room, naked, and attempted to remove her pants. She screamed. He left the room briefly. She sent a message on Facebook asking a friend to contact her mother and ask Mom to come and take her home. I don't know what was going through her head at the time, leaving might have been a better option, but she's 12 years old and asking for help was probably not a terribly bad option.

      He walked back into the room very shortly thereafter and raped her, after which she escaped the house, got to a payphone, and called her mother who was already enroute.

      Maybe she could have handled it better, such as leaving immediately, but if she only had enough time to fire off an IM over Facebook to a friend, it's unlikely in the extreme that she could have escaped or secured the room in the time she had available, and any attempt to do so might have made the situation worse. She might have thought he wouldn't come back in since he left after a scream.

      As it is, she used her only communications media to make sure people knew she was in trouble and who was a threat to her, which would have been very useful if this whole thing had turned even more tragic and Cesmat had actually killed her. She called for help using the only method she knew would reach someone she knew.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    12. Re:How? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      I was taught that steak sauce was invented to disguise the bad taste of a 30 year old bull. I wouldn't know, because I avoid 30 year old bull meat.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    13. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lucky dog. I wish I were writing code right now...

  3. good example by SemperUbi · · Score: 1

    So glad the girl had the courage and skills to fight back and draw blood in what must've been a totally scary situation. Way to go!

    Guy is a serious asshole. Prison inmates aren't kind to guys who go after kids.

    1. Re:good example by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Prison inmates aren't kind to guys who go after kids."

      Citation needed. It would be fine if rapists and pedos got the Father Geoghan treatment, (too bad it didn't last longer, but ++ to his killer for planning and execution!)
      but we'd hear a bit more about it if they did.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    2. Re:good example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I was in prison and my I got wind my cell mate raped a child, I'd ensure he took his last breath in short order.

    3. Re:good example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Example from the next town over from mine: http://www.montereyherald.com/ci_15383878

      "Patrick Alan Fousek, 38, and Samantha Tomasini, 20, are being held in segregated, lockdown cells at the Monterey County Jail, Fousek after an attack by inmates Thursday night.

      Sheriff's Cmdr. Mike Richards said inmates in the open dorm where Fousek had been housed jumped him at 10:15p.m. after the details of his charges were reported on television news.

      Richards said Fousek was transported to Natividad Medical Center, where he was treated for multiple injuries to his face, and two cracked ribs before being returned to the jail."

      Coincidentally, this happened not long after different inmates at the same jail beat up a rapist.

  4. Mother... by Dan+East · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Cesmat, who has a sizable criminal history,"

    The girl's mother is an idiot.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Mother... by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      You will probably get slammed for that, but it is the truth. Letting the career criminal you no longer date live at your house with unrestricted access to your under age daughter? Durrrr....

    2. Re:Mother... by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Some women have the worst taste in men. I had an aunt who would climb a tree to find the worst possible guy when she could have stood on the ground and dated a nice guy. She dated a string of guys literally coming right out of prison. Needless to say, she took a string of beatings, was stabbed a couple of times, her kids were beaten. The family finally just cut her off and told her that they weren't going to help her anymore until she started making smarter decisions. AFAIK, she never did (her kids cut off contact with her long ago too).

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    3. Re:Mother... by pak9rabid · · Score: 0, Troll

      The girl's mother is an idiot.

      No shit..not to mention the guy totally looks like a pedophile/rapist. Way to ignore all red flags...

    4. Re:Mother... by Kleiba · · Score: 4, Informative

      It gets better:

      "The mom was no longer dating Cesmat but he continued to live with them."

    5. Re:Mother... by cparker15 · · Score: 1

      The girl's mother is an idiot.

      No shit..not to mention the guy totally looks like a pedophile/rapist. Way to ignore all red flags...

      What do pedophiles and/or rapists look like? Are they a race unto their own? Do they have some soft of discriminating mark on them? If so, why aren't we just rounding people up based on this one trait alone?

      Oh... You mean I'm just feeding a troll? Sorry! :-(

      --
      Have you driven a fnord... lately?

      You must wait a little bit before using this resource; please try again later.

    6. Re:Mother... by srealm · · Score: 4, Informative

      While I agree, none of the criminal's prior offenses included either violent crimes or crimes of a sexual nature.

      His priors were for fraud and such. I'm not saying the mother was not an idiot, but it's not like she left her with a known pedophile or rapist.

    7. Re:Mother... by Nyder · · Score: 0

      "Cesmat, who has a sizable criminal history,"

      The girl's mother is an idiot.

      While I'm not defending the guy (he's a loser), his listed "crimes" were no big deal. He didn't have a history of physical or sexual violence. It was some theft & some bad checks.

      Not a big deal, all in all.

      Of course, that is what he's been caught for, and now, he has sexual assault on a minor & probably rape, so he's graduated to the big time dickwad.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    8. Re:Mother... by antibryce · · Score: 0

      not really trying to defend the mom, but the guy's criminal record doesn't seem to contain any sexual crimes. just because someone has a DUI doesn't mean they can't be trusted with kids.

      For all we know his convictions are from a long time ago and he's been clean since the mom has known him.

    9. Re:Mother... by Shakrai · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      It was some theft & some bad checks.

      Ah, so Mom left her 12 year old daughter with a scam artist and thief. That's so much better.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    10. Re:Mother... by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Well, she was dating a rapist, for a start...

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    11. Re:Mother... by MoriT · · Score: 1

      Right, because blaming people other than the rapist has worked so well at preventing rape thus far.

    12. Re:Mother... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 3, Funny

      there's the pedosmile - once you recognize it, you can't not see it.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    13. Re:Mother... by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      "But, he told me he was through with that..." "But he only beats me when he gets drunk..."

      Some people are idiots, who will believe anything.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    14. Re:Mother... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do pedophiles and/or rapists look like? Are they a race unto their own? Do they have some soft of discriminating mark on them? If so, why aren't we just rounding people up based on this one trait alone?

      Yes, and they are not particularly thrilled with your blatant racism, thank you very much. When are we going to respect the cultural beliefs and traditions of this put-upon race of people?

      Wait, I forgot, am I feeding a troll or defusing one? Dang, I'm expecting complex trolls and I get simple minds regurgitating image board "wisdom", like the GP, so it throws me off a bit.

    15. Re:Mother... by pak9rabid · · Score: 1

      It's called intuition. Some people have it more than others apparently...

    16. Re:Mother... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chicks don't care about that, they want a man. Even if that may wants to have sex with their 12 year-old daughter.

      I think a clear message could be sent to all child molesters if a conviction resulted in a prompt and public execution.

    17. Re:Mother... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You said,

      No shit..not to mention the guy totally looks like a pedophile/rapist. Way to ignore all red flags...

      And then you said,

      It's called intuition. Some people have it more than others apparently...

      Nope. You're just too stupid to realize how stupid you are. You are the type of person who votes in bad politicians because of the suits they wear and the confidence in their voice, and who convicts innocent people of murder (if on a jury) because you see "evil in their eyes". People like you also let guilty people go free because they don't look evil.

      You also remind me of some people who said that Heinrich Himmler (the Nazi in charge of the Final Solution) has a pleasant, school teachers face. And of the victims who don't put up their guard when dealing with handsome and polite serial killers and wife beaters.

      You can judge people with your intuition, but I prefer to judge people based on my intelligence and logic skills. I don't need to know what you look like in order to judge you, I can tell merely by the type of arguments and reasoning you use.

      Martin Luther King once said,

      I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

      It's too bad that based on your "intuition" (what the rest of us call prejudice), so many people will be continue to be demonized, bullied, ostracized, under-employed, glass-ceiling-ed at work, and generally marginalized.

      In reality, it should be how people are on the inside that counts, not on the outside.

      Mr. Rogers said that looks don't matter:,

      It's not the things you wear,
      It's not the way you do your hair--
      But it's you I like.
      The way you are right now,
      The way down deep inside you--
      Not the things that hide you,
      Not your toys--
      They're just beside you.

      So you can live inside of your fantasy world where pedophiles and rapists are ugly, white, unemployed men who generally have goatees; and good people are handsome, suit wearing businessmen who are successful at sales. I'd rather live in reality.

    18. Re:Mother... by amohat · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's called making the rent.

      aka: i dont want to be homeless

    19. Re:Mother... by Cwix · · Score: 1

      Id rather have a 12 year old scammed out of her piggy bank then raped.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    20. Re:Mother... by clone53421 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You can judge people with your intuition, but I prefer to judge people based on my intelligence and logic skills. I don't need to know what you look like in order to judge you, I can tell merely by the type of arguments and reasoning you use.

      Precisely why Lady Liberty is often shown wearing a blindfold.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    21. Re:Mother... by elrous0 · · Score: 0, Troll

      It may not be very PC to say it, but "Don't blame the victim!" still doesn't excuse stupid behavior. If I walk down the street of the worst neighborhood in town waving a big wad of cash and screaming "Hey look at all this money!" it doesn't excuse someone to rob me. But it would still be fair to call me very stupid for doing so. Reasonable behavior and common sense are expected out of any parent. And using a habitual convict as your babysitter ranks pretty high on the piss-poor parenting checklist.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    22. Re:Mother... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Very much so. I see stories in the various newspapers, about a mother who leaves her kids with a husband, or a new boyfreind, sometimes even a casual acquaintance. Total idiots.

      I'm a guy, with all of a guy's insensitivities - but I NEVER left my kids with anyone, unless BOTH the wife and I knew them well, and trusted them. When you've lost your kids, all that's left is bullshit.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    23. Re:Mother... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      No, too many of them don't want just any man. They want a dangerous bad-boy. Unfortunately, real-life bad-boys aren't anything like the bad-boys in chick-flicks and romance novels. A RL bad-boy is less likely to take you on an exciting adventure and much more likely to sit around getting drunk and beating the crap out of you for mouthing off.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    24. Re:Mother... by Idarubicin · · Score: 1

      I had an aunt who would climb a tree to find the worst possible guy when she could have stood on the ground and dated a nice guy.

      Truly, one should never date guys who live in trees.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    25. Re:Mother... by otopico · · Score: 1

      AC wins. Too bad you are an AC, this needs mod points.

    26. Re:Mother... by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hey, wookies need love too.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    27. Re:Mother... by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      Wow -- that's cruel.

      Steal her savings then rape her? Talk about rubbing salt in the wound.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    28. Re:Mother... by Cwix · · Score: 1

      Back under your bridge grammar troll.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    29. Re:Mother... by cronius · · Score: 1

      Needless to say, she took a string of beatings, was stabbed a couple of times, her kids were beaten. The family finally just cut her off and told her that they weren't going to help her anymore until she started making smarter decisions.

      Probably all people are naive in their early lives, but learn the hard way that life's different and grow it off. Some people (I guess like the woman you're describing) simply doesn't.

      But that makes me think that it might be something sociologically involved. Like she had a bad childhood, that for example she was beaten as a child and somehow become locked into that "safe" or at least familiar situation, causing her to seek it in adulthood.

      I am not a psychologist, but I find it strange that some people seem to fail so miserably in learning from experience.

      --
      Life is Reality
    30. Re:Mother... by Thiez · · Score: 1

      Indeed, this would barely motivate them to kill their victims at all!

    31. Re:Mother... by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "He didn't have a history of physical or sexual violence. It was some theft & some bad checks."

      That still indicates he is a worthless untrustworthy piece of shit. "Not a big deal" in cracktown maybe, but I'd never tolerate anyone like that in my home.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    32. Re:Mother... by couchslug · · Score: 1

      How is that a troll?
      "Not fucking up" means "not fucking up", not "fucking up sometimes"!
      Have strict rules that make sense, and obey them. It's better to read about shit happening to stupid people than volunteering by negligence to have it happen to you. Don't hang out with losers, don't trust without verification, and be good parent or don't breed. If those ideas hurt your tender feelings, pull your head out of your arse so you can see better.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  5. Uh. okay. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Glad he got caught but it's hardly mind boggling that a young girl use facebook to send a plea for help. When stressed you tend to use what you know, and with how often folks check their facebook page it’s almost as good as texting.

    1. Re:Uh. okay. by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      More significant IMHO was the fact that although he had confiscated her cell phone he failed to realise that she had an iPod and/or that it was internet-connected.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  6. Good for something by maclizard · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This easily the best application that Facebook has ever been used for.

    1. Re:Good for something by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      This easily the best application that Facebook has ever been used for.

      I don't know, I think "Farmville" is pretty good, too.

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    2. Re:Good for something by maclizard · · Score: 1

      Farmville has nothing in Harvest Moon (SNES).

  7. Sad. by DWMorse · · Score: 1

    Yes, this isn't a Slashdot story, and no, this had nothing to do with Facebook as it could've been a text message instead for all it was.

    But a kid was raped, and that's not so awesome that everyone should be hopping on the "lol rape jokes" bandwagon.

    Let's just chalk this up to bad story moderation per editor, do our internal-pity-thing for the girl for a sec, and move on.

    --
    There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
  8. wait, this is slashdot by circletimessquare · · Score: 0, Troll

    where pedophilia isn't real, its just a propagandistic fearmongering tool to control people and remove their freedoms

    you can't possibly be suggesting that pedophilia actually happens and that pedophiles must be caught and punished, are you?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:wait, this is slashdot by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Rape by force is real.

    2. Re:wait, this is slashdot by tibit · · Score: 1

      This was rape, yes, but not pedophilia. Doesn't make it any more or less abhorrent. Pedophilia is by definition a sexual interest in prepubescents. The guy is not a pedophile simply due to raping a 12 y.o., as she was likely sexually mature. On top of being a rapist, he may be a pedophile, too, but we can't tell just by what he did now. In my mind pedophiles deserve lifetime prison sentences with no possibility of a parole. This guy deserves a couple decades in jail for sure, but it's really not pedophilia. It's the rape of a minor. Let's call things the way they should be called.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    3. Re:wait, this is slashdot by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      In my mind pedophiles deserve lifetime prison sentences with no possibility of a parole. This guy deserves a couple decades in jail for sure, but it's really not pedophilia. It's the rape of a minor.

      So you think someone with an attraction to underage persons who never acts on that impulse should serve more time than someone who uses violence to satisfy his needs? Your kidding, right?

      Rape should be a capital crime, IMHO.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    4. Re:wait, this is slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh. He's busy raping young girls, and not jerking off to pictures of them.

      So far is there a high correlation to people jerking off to humans/animals/etc in pictures, and them actually having sex with those entities (or raping them)?

      I'm sure there are lots of people who jerk off to centerfolds but are never ever going to fuck/rape one.

      Just because you fantasize having sex with someone doesn't mean you will force them to have sex with you.

      It may even be a turn-off for many people - to me if the other person doesn't enjoy it, what's the point? I'm not that much of a sadist.

      And even if that superhot MILF next door actually wants it, you may not go through with it, because you think it's immoral (adultery). Or because her husband is a good shot... ;)

    5. Re:wait, this is slashdot by rfelsburg · · Score: 2

      In my mind pedophiles deserve lifetime prison sentences with no possibility of a parole. This guy deserves a couple decades in jail for sure, but it's really not pedophilia.

      Are you implying rape of a minor doesn't deserve life in prison without parole, or even rape in itself. In my book they are both equal, and very much deserve the same punishment.

    6. Re:wait, this is slashdot by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      Heh, but notice how this is not the fearsome predator that lurks on Facebook or other places on the very, very scary Internet.

      This guy was actually invited by her own mother there.

      In other words, the people to fear are not the scary strangers on the net, but the ones we have right near.

    7. Re:wait, this is slashdot by thijsh · · Score: 0, Redundant

      In my mind pedophiles deserve lifetime prison sentences with no possibility of a parole. This guy deserves a couple decades in jail for sure, but it's really not pedophilia. It's the rape of a minor.

      A pedophile deserves absolutely no jail time, who the fuck cares that you get turned on by men, women, horses, hentai, shoes or children. It's only the practicing pedophiles you need to worry about... But we already have laws against those sick fucks. Anyone who rapes a minor deserves lifetime in prison with no possibility of a parole, furthermore anyone who has sex with a minor under 16 can never claim this was consensual since someone twice the age can put an amount of pressure on a child that is not to be underestimated... If you ignore this last part all the pedophiles keep claiming the children want it too. They want the children to want it too, and pretend it works that way, but as long as we'll never let a piss-poor defense like that fly that too counts as rape (since the child did not consent legally).

      Rape is a terrible thing, when it's a minor it's far worse... But that does not mean we should fuel the whole witch-hunt for pedophiles... It will only lead to kids being charger for photographing themselves and crazy shit like that.

    8. Re:wait, this is slashdot by xaxa · · Score: 1

      A term (if you want one) is hebephile.

      In my opinion, paedophilia is worse, and the word should be used accurately. I don't see much/any difference between raping a 15yo or a 16yo (or a 60yo), but I do see a difference between raping a 15yo and a 5yo.

    9. Re:wait, this is slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about an 18 year old and a 17 year old, and the girl changes her mind after the fact and cries rape? Still in favor of that life without parole sentence?

    10. Re:wait, this is slashdot by poptones · · Score: 1

      Yeah OK. It's not like 14 year olds never go looking for sex, or approach older partners for sex, or get pregnant because they jumped in the lap of the only partner available to them because mommy and daddy don't let a sexually mature young person have friends or dates or any life outside of home and school.

      Amazing how you can take on rational sentence and detroy any potential of credibility you may have garnered in the very next sentence.

      Rape is rape. Molestation is not implicitly rape no matter how you try to rationalize it. What this fellow did sure looks and smells like rape, which is exactly what someone who committed such an act deserves to have commmitted upon them.

      "Ha ha! They gonna anally rape you, that's what's gonna happen..."

    11. Re:wait, this is slashdot by Kjella · · Score: 1

      The words aren't very meaningful anyway. They only apply if they are your true sexual desire, and the child isn't simply the easiest way to have sex or satisfy some control/domination/other fetish as children are much less independant than adults. I suppose you could say that no matter what she was in the range of possible victims, but that's a weak conclusion.

      Secondly, they deal with the bodily development which causes the attraction, which varies quite wildly between early and late bloomers while laws deal with age in years. What he did is clear, he raped a 12 year old. Answering why and which, if any, of the *phile categories he goes into is not. Personally I think anyone who rapes people have serious issues with their sexuality above and beyond what features they're attracted to.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    12. Re:wait, this is slashdot by tibit · · Score: 2, Interesting

      OK, I wasn't clear: I meant to imply pedophiles who act on their urges. Mere mental issue that somehow never gets a pedophile into abusing a child is not what I was after. I wonder how may of those are out there -- it's a genuine question. Do all pedophiles end up hurting a child? Are there any studies on that out there?

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    13. Re:wait, this is slashdot by tibit · · Score: 1

      I think a one-time rapist has some chance at rehabilitation; it'd have to be shown and evaluated by the parole board. A pedophile who hurt a kid -- I don't think there's much you can do to help those out. If you go too far, it's too far to turn back IMHO.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    14. Re:wait, this is slashdot by tibit · · Score: 1

      Putting aside physchological scars: I think that the main issue with pedophiliac rape is that there's irreparable damage done to the victim's body. It's just as well you had cut the kid's limb off. The psychological scars are a whole another story and I wouldn't wish that on anyone, really.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    15. Re:wait, this is slashdot by otopico · · Score: 1

      Sorry, the word 'pedophilia' does in fact have a meaning. Because you are too busy with your indignant rage to accept that doesn't make the word's meaning change.
      Yes, the man raped the 12 year old, but that does not make it pedophilia.

      And bravo to insulting people that provided you with the meaning of the word. After all, why should we let dictionaries tell us what a word mean?

    16. Re:wait, this is slashdot by schwit1 · · Score: 2

      Please, raping a 12-year old? The trauma inflicted is staggering.

      He should get a first class trial with a first class appeal and if found guilty on both cases he should get tossed into a wood chipper.

    17. Re:wait, this is slashdot by poptones · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, it's very easy to conduct such studies - because in an era when pedophile means "witch to be burned forever in hell or at the stake whichever we can get to first" people are completely willing to admit to being a pedophile...

      It's impossible to take such a measure, because our society has made it virtually impossible to discuss the issue in a rational manner. Imagine if someone WAS able to make such an assessment - "in an anonymous survey of one million self professed pedophiles such and such a percentage had actually been accused or convicted of crimes against children" and that percentage was anything less than 99% - imagine the reaction it would meet with in public forums. The author would probably be burned at the stake, at least professionally.

    18. Re:wait, this is slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      where pedophilia isn't real, its just a propagandistic fearmongering tool to control people and remove their freedoms

      you can't possibly be suggesting that pedophilia actually happens and that pedophiles must be caught and punished, are you?

      I've remember reading your posts before, and you distinguish yourself as a right wing extremist in many of your beliefs and opinions, so it doesn't surprise me by this troll post.

      Of course normal, intelligent people realize that sex isn't harmful, whether it is accomplished by adults or children. The only difference is that most people are afraid to admit to this rational instinct that sex is normal because right wing people like you always pervert the issue by implying that sex is naturally associated with violence, disease and mental illness.

    19. Re:wait, this is slashdot by tibit · · Score: 1

      I was afraid of hearing precisely that. I only wanted to have a rational discussion, but apparently when one discusses sexual crimes people switch into mace-wielding caveman mode.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    20. Re:wait, this is slashdot by Thiez · · Score: 1

      > What this fellow did sure looks and smells like rape, which is exactly what someone who committed such an act deserves to have commmitted upon them.

      An eye for an eye, really? How barbaric. Also I'm quite sure that rape qualifies as cruel and unusual punishment.

    21. Re:wait, this is slashdot by poptones · · Score: 1

      Good thing it's not the state doin' the raping...

    22. Re:wait, this is slashdot by Thiez · · Score: 1

      If the state puts someone in a situation where such a thing is very likely to happen, they might as well be. If I threw you in a cage full of rabid dogs I would still be responsible for your horrible injuries and/or death even though I did none of the biting.

    23. Re:wait, this is slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, normal, intelligent people realise that sex causes permanent physical damage to children who are literally not big enough to be doing it with adults.

    24. Re:wait, this is slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, normal, intelligent people realise that sex causes permanent physical damage to children who are literally not big enough to be doing it with adults.

      That really depends on the size of the children and the size of the adults, and on what type of "sex" is involved (i.e. not all sexual activity is considered to be vaginal, but even so the vagina can stretch). In regards to the topic at hand, the "child" is 12 years old, which certainly isn't in the 2 year old range that you are implying.

      You are also ignoring the fact that children can also be considered to be pedophiles if they are sexually interested in other children (this is certainly legally the case, even when the children are not really children but teenagers). I should also point out that my point-of-view is U.S.-centric in regards to laws, customs and beliefs, etc (even though I live outside the U.S.).

  9. Facebook saves young girl from assault by predator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    ... Isn't that the opposite of how it usually works?

  10. "911" it isn't that hard to do. by Spectre · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Teach your kids this. If there is an emergency, you can dial "911" on any phone.

    At least in the neighborhoods around where I am this will get police to your (approximate) location even if all you do is dial it and hang up.

    Works from nearly any phone, best from a landline, but any modern cel phone with location services EVEN one that does NOT have a current provider contract.

    Naturally, if you can give your address to the 911 operator it will speed things up if you are using a cel phone (no wait while police knock on doors in the neighborhood to find you).

    --
    "Flame away, I wear asbestos underwear"
    1. Re:"911" it isn't that hard to do. by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 5, Informative

      While that's a great thing to teach and learn, in this case the girl had no cell phone, but was able to ask for help on an iPod Touch.

    2. Re:"911" it isn't that hard to do. by ekgringo · · Score: 2, Informative

      I know, I must be new here, but I read the article. He took away her cell phone before she went to bed (possibly making this a premeditated assualt), but she was able to use her iPod to post her plea for help on Facebook (presumably over a wifi connection).

    3. Re:"911" it isn't that hard to do. by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      911: When seconds count help is only minutes away.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    4. Re:"911" it isn't that hard to do. by Spectre · · Score: 1

      Good point, I suppose her home could be rather like my current one ... no landline.

      When I was a kid, nearly every phone in the house had a POTS phone, so I made a bad assumption.

      But then again, I'm ancient!

      --
      "Flame away, I wear asbestos underwear"
    5. Re:"911" it isn't that hard to do. by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      And alot of landlines are cable modem phones, they don't do address lookup either.

    6. Re:"911" it isn't that hard to do. by Abfinz · · Score: 1

      A better thing to teach would be to run to a safe place and call 911. It seems that she had the opportunity to get away after the initial assault, but she wasted her time trying to get help on Facebook. Also, where was the mother?

    7. Re:"911" it isn't that hard to do. by natehoy · · Score: 1

      Given the fact that Cesmat took away her cell phone earlier in the evening, as mentioned in TFA, if there had been a landline he probably would have made sure that didn't worth either.

      His excuse to her was that "he didn't want her texting all night". Obviously, his real intention was to make sure she had no way of calling for help. Thank goodness he didn't know her iPod had Internet access. She at least had a way to ask for help.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    8. Re:"911" it isn't that hard to do. by natehoy · · Score: 1

      It seems that she had the opportunity to get away after the initial assault, but she wasted her time trying to get help on Facebook.

      Of course, she had no way of knowing he was coming back. So it's quite possible she was just asking for Mom to come pick her up, as the article stated. Plus, he wasn't gone long. Even if she had tried to escape, it might not have been successful.

      While hardly ideal (since the rape actually did occur), at least she was resourceful enough to let someone know she might have been (and as it turned out was) in trouble and needed help. The mother was enroute

      Also, where was the mother?

      Out of the house. No further information is available. But since she and Cesmat had been dating and he was still living there, it was probably not unusual for him to be left alone with her. Dating someone with a criminal record isn't exactly a sign of brilliance, but on the other hand he had no prior record of anything violent.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    9. Re:"911" it isn't that hard to do. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Teach your kids this. If there is an emergency, you can dial "911" on any phone.

      Teaching people to not report getting raped simply because the rapist took their cell phone away is retarded. Stop it.
      Seriously, fuck you.

      If you are being raped, first try to stop it in any way available to you.
      Then, report it in any way available to you.

      Do not limit yourself to only the Spectre officially approved methods.

    10. Re:"911" it isn't that hard to do. by ougouferay · · Score: 1

      ...this will get police to your (approximate) location even if all you do is dial it and hang up

      Unfortunately not here in the UK

    11. Re:"911" it isn't that hard to do. by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      At least in the neighborhoods around where I am this will get police to your (approximate) location even if all you do is dial it and hang up.

      Probably within a half-hour to a few hours, depending on how busy they are. Maybe even the next day.

      Since he was quite possibly right outside her door she probably didn’t want to be making any noise, so talking to a 911 operator would’ve also been less desirable than sending a silent text-message.

      Of course, as others have already pointed out, she didn’t have the cell phone anyway – but her assailant hadn’t realised she could get on the internet using her iPod.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    12. Re:"911" it isn't that hard to do. by Abfinz · · Score: 1

      Of course, she had no way of knowing he was coming back.

      True, but I would think after he "came into her room naked and tried to take her pants off", she would have known the situation was more serious. I guess no one believes it can actually happen to them until it does.

      While hardly ideal (since the rape actually did occur), at least she was resourceful enough to let someone know she might have been (and as it turned out was) in trouble and needed help.

      Good point. She was resourceful, and I have to give her props for that. I only hope my daughters are a little more resourceful if they find themselves in a similar situation.

      ...it was probably not unusual for him to be left alone with her.

      Which, as a father, I find to be appalling.

      Dating someone with a criminal record isn't exactly a sign of brilliance, but on the other hand he had no prior record of anything violent.

      Actually, I think it likely that the mom knew nothing of his criminal record. Not many people are honest about their shady past, either because they're trying to put it behind them or for other reasons.

    13. Re:"911" it isn't that hard to do. by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Of course, she had no way of knowing he was coming back.

      According to the report, she stated that she knew he would come back.

      He was in her room 2 different times on that night and he had previously been known to come into her room while she slept: “she had woken up to find him standing in her room before, and felt that it was about to happen again”.

      He also told her to leave her door “open”. I am not sure if this means wide open or only unlocked... my inclination would be to expect that it means unlocked, but in that case I don’t know why she wouldn’t have at least tried to lock her door after fighting him off the first time. Now I wonder if she might not have had a lock on her door at all, and leaving the door open might have been so that he could check up on her more easily (making sure she was still in bed?).

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    14. Re:"911" it isn't that hard to do. by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      You try calling 911 when you are 12 years old, just been attacked, are scared, in shock and the guy that just hurt you said he will kill you if you try to call for help.

      How do you even know there was a phone she could safely get to? Were you there?

      On second thought, you are an idiot.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    15. Re:"911" it isn't that hard to do. by j2bryson · · Score: 1

      This girl is an absolute hero. Most children that age (and much older) are too terrified to report an assault, so the crime goes on. The people criticizing her here are sick.

  11. Why is this on Idle? by djKing · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A 12-year-old girl, victim of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree. Hilarious.

    --
    Free as in "the Truth shall set you..."
    1. Re:Why is this on Idle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. I couldn't stop laughing at what her rapeface must have looked like.

    2. Re:Why is this on Idle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it's not really tech news. Or news for nerds. The only reason to include it in Idle is the Facebook link.

  12. Why do women live with such abusive criminals? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    Especially when they have 12 year old daughters? Cant understand it.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Why do women live with such abusive criminals? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Because he loves me!

      One of the most pathetic things I ever witnessed was a woman out at some diner at 2am with two black eyes. She's talking on the payphone to god knows who explaining why it was her fault that her boyfriend had to hit her.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:Why do women live with such abusive criminals? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It took me many years to learn not to be a "nice guy" if I wanted to get dates with women.

      Be attentive and caring = get rejected. Be a prick = get laid.

      Women are naturally wired to want abusive jerks for some reason. Then they complain that there are no nice guys out there...

    3. Re:Why do women live with such abusive criminals? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It took my mother 16 years to build up the courage to leave my father. That is after he took the dull side of an axe to my older brother and strangled my older sister half to death, in addition to regular beatings and broken bones.

      Not because he loved her. Because she loved him, he wasn't always that way. And she loved God. Their religion said that divorce was an unforgivable sin, that beating your children was just and good deed, and that the husband/father is always right. Her grandparents would always try to convince her that she must be doing something wrong to bring out that kind of rage. The church actively supported my father in his actions.

      It is pathetic. But that is what happens when your mind is broken as a child by the brainwashing of the christian church.

    4. Re:Why do women live with such abusive criminals? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read your Bible. Divorce is permitted in extreme circumstances (such as this), and beating your children (separate from disciplining your children; this was not disciplining) is not acceptable.

      The greatest commandment is love God with all your heart. The second greatest is love your neighbor as yourself, for really that is the same as the first.

      Just because some Christians are stupid and misguided doesn't mean that's what Christianity teaches.

    5. Re:Why do women live with such abusive criminals? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because some Christians are not stupid and misguided doesn't mean that it isn't what some of Christianity teaches.

      The bible is completely self contradictory and can be used to brainwash people in just about any direction you desire.

      Some groups brainwash their members to be sheep.

      Others brainwash their members to be wolves.

      In my case, it was a lot of both.

    6. Re:Why do women live with such abusive criminals? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because women in general are selfish sadistic cunts. They will chase the herpes ridden asshole till their feet fall off, they are only interested in being treated like dirt by some jerkwad. Women therefore are dirt. God was right, thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

    7. Re:Why do women live with such abusive criminals? by otopico · · Score: 1

      Maybe because he wasn't abusive to the mother and wasn't abusive to the daughter until this incident?
      All we know is that he attacked and raped this girl. We don't know if he was ever violent or threatening before. We don't know if there was ever anything to indicate that maybe he couldn't be trusted with the care of a child.

      Society sure is quick to condemn the mother, even though there is nothing that we know of that would have alerted the mother to this man's danger until after the rape.

    8. Re:Why do women live with such abusive criminals? by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Society sure is quick to condemn the mother, even though there is nothing that we know of that would have alerted the mother to this man's danger until after the rape."

      His criminal record should have been instant reason never to associate with him.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    9. Re:Why do women live with such abusive criminals? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      According to TFA, he had been known to come into her room for no apparent reason while she was sleeping. She said she had awoken to him standing over her bed in the past.

      The warning signs were likely there, but nobody was paying enough attention.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  13. Something that everyone seems to be ignoring: by Azuaron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The girl grabbed her iPod. Not her iPhone. Not her cellphone, the home phone, the anything-phone, her iPod. Her cellphone was taken away. So everyone who's going, "Why didn't she call 911?" or "This could have easily been a text message," it couldn't. iPod. Had that been me, I'd probably have searched frantically for a phone, even venturing outside my room, and ultimately running to the payphone. It shows incredible presence of mind for her to realize she could get a message out from her iPod (via Facebook, but it could easily have been email or pretty much any other internet communication).

    I think that puts it firmly in the realm of Slashdot, and the debate should be something more along the lines of, "Should police departments have Facebook/other social networking accounts for the purpose of getting crime reports similar to 911." Probably not (too much spam), but it's something to consider. Sometimes it's easier to get on the internet than to a phone.

    --
    I'm a psychologist (amongst other things).
    1. Re:Something that everyone seems to be ignoring: by Azuaron · · Score: 3, Informative

      iPOD. Not a phone. NOT A PHONE. Pay attention.

      --
      I'm a psychologist (amongst other things).
    2. Re:Something that everyone seems to be ignoring: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes I understand that it is an iPOD, that is the first thing I would pick up in an emergency!

      The entire cast of people are just fucking retarded, mom leaves her convicted fellon boyfriend with her DUH preteen daughter, Stuff starts to go down, so she grabs a MP3 player, messages 1 friend (not even thinking to put out a big ass broadcast message) to call her MOM?

      are you fucking kidding me, find a telephone, bang 3 buttons and your connected to the police, even after when she DID finally figure out what the hell a phone does, she STILL didnt call the cops, she calls her MOM wtf

      what if MOM, who is obviously a retard anyway decided she liked the dick a little bit more than the brat and said oh well?

    3. Re:Something that everyone seems to be ignoring: by Abfinz · · Score: 1

      It's too bad she wasn't in the UK. She could have emailed police@01189998819991197253.co.uk

    4. Re:Something that everyone seems to be ignoring: by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      Yes I understand that it is an iPOD, that is the first thing I would pick up in an emergency!

      If it's all you've got, sure! Why not? It worked, didn't it?

      are you fucking kidding me, find a telephone, bang 3 buttons and you're connected to the police, even after when she DID finally figure out what the hell a phone does, she STILL didnt call the cops, she calls her MOM wtf

      When someone is raped, they don't necessarily want the police. They want the support of someone they trust implicitly. They want comfort and a feeling of safety. They may feel too ashamed to share the story with strangers. Talking to the police, doing a rape kit, having somebody picking spooge samples out of you - these are difficult steps on the path to revenge-via-police, and revenge may not be high on the rape victim's list of priorities, you know?

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    5. Re:Something that everyone seems to be ignoring: by PPH · · Score: 1

      "Should police departments have Facebook/other social networking accounts for the purpose of getting crime reports similar to 911." Probably not (too much spam), but it's something to consider. Sometimes it's easier to get on the internet than to a phone.

      Facebook, e-mail, etc are probably out of the question due to the spam issue and anonymity. SMS text capability might be OK, if the E911 services can provide location data and the cops can kick the ass of people screwing with the system. Just like with voice calls.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    6. Re:Something that everyone seems to be ignoring: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I found it funny she didn't run out of the room the first time.

      When he left, she got out her iPod and found an acquaintance on the social networking website Facebook.com. She begged her friend to contact her mother and tell her to come pick her up.

      So she had time to:
      1) find the device
      2) find where the facebook app was.
      3) find her mother
      4) start typing a coherent message for help

      Instead of doing this first:

      she then pushed her dresser in front of her door, climbed out a window and ran to a payphone to call her mother, who had received the message from the girl's Facebook friend and was already on her way.

      I'm not condoning his actions, but come on... She's really got to get her priorities straight? Not only that, she didn't call 911 first, which might have had a unit just down the street to guarantee her safety?

      I'm also surprised I'm pretty much the first one to point this out...

    7. Re:Something that everyone seems to be ignoring: by OnB · · Score: 1

      I think this is an important point. You could use the internet as a media for instant communication for a long time, but only recently has it been integrated significantly into mobile devices. Which is why social media (and also Instant Messaging, for that matter) has become a simple way to call for help in emergency situations. This makes an online emergency service a good idea (cut out the middleman). It also means parents will have to start teaching their kids how to call for help through the internet.

    8. Re:Something that everyone seems to be ignoring: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      apparently you DID NOT READ THE ARTICLE

      it did not work, she was rapped and then LATER found a payphone

      updating her facebook did not do jack squat

    9. Re:Something that everyone seems to be ignoring: by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      apparently you DID NOT READ THE ARTICLE

      it did not work, she was rapped and then LATER found a payphone

      updating her facebook did not do jack squat

      Would you have bet money that I hadn't read the article?

      If so... well, you would have won. However - since you're acting like you know it all, here is the relevant quote from the article.

      The complaint states she then pushed her dresser in front of her door, climbed out a window and ran to a payphone to call her mother, who had received the message from the girl's Facebook friend and was already on her way.

      The girl's mother had already received the message from the girl's Facebook friend and was already on her way. So the damn message did work. Suck it, AC.

      Even if it didn't work - again, if it's all you've got, you use it!

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    10. Re:Something that everyone seems to be ignoring: by six11 · · Score: 1

      and the debate should be something more along the lines of, "Should police departments have Facebook/other social networking accounts for the purpose of getting crime reports similar to 911."

      Agreed.

      I'd say yes for two reasons: First, communication methods will always evolve, and people like this girl will use them. Though it seems it worked out pretty well even without a formal direct channel. Second, it would allow people to report non-critical things in a public, transparent manner. E.g. "pothole at 5th and Main is getting bigger", or "somebody is double parked at X location".

      I'd say no for a couple reasons: We might end up formalizing on a proprietary communication channel that is controlled by somebody like Mark Zoidberg, and that can only end in tears if the public relies on it. Second, it might lead to harrasment in new ways, e.g. reporting that your neighbor did something when he really didn't, just because you don't like what he did with his lawn.

  14. Re:Why not just dial 911? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    RTFA - she didn't have a phone.

  15. who lived with who by rfelsburg · · Score: 1
    This is screwed up regardless and cutting some parts off with a dull knife is def. in order, but

    She begged her friend to contact her mother and tell her to come pick her up.

    who was living with who? There seems to be more here than is being reported.

    1. Re:who lived with who by Azuaron · · Score: 1

      It says the mother was out of the house, but it doesn't say why. New boyfriend, perhaps?

      --
      I'm a psychologist (amongst other things).
    2. Re:who lived with who by rfelsburg · · Score: 1
      I was actually more interested in why it was worded that particular way. To me

      tell her to come pick her up.

      implies she was at another persons house and not her own.

    3. Re:who lived with who by Gi0 · · Score: 1

      Her 12 year old daughter was raped by her ex boyfriend who was still leaving with them.Is another boyfriend sound like the worst part of the story,regarding her judgement?

      --
      There's no patch for stupidity
    4. Re:who lived with who by rfelsburg · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? I was merely asking why the girl would need to be 'picked up by her mom' if she was at her own house. The wording implies she was not at her house, it has no bearing on the guy raping her, or the fact that this is an atrocious act. I was asking whether there were some details that were not being disclosed. Simple, not that hard to grasp.

    5. Re:who lived with who by Azuaron · · Score: 1

      Actually, it implies that the mother was not at her house (because she wasn't). The daughter was. The mother (not at home) needed to come pick up the daughter (at home).

      Did you not read the article?

      --
      I'm a psychologist (amongst other things).
    6. Re:who lived with who by rfelsburg · · Score: 1

      I read the article, hence the quote from the article. Why would the mother pick up the daughter from their own house, and not simply call the cops, or boot the guy out. If it was the mother's house I would assume, she would just call the cops to come get the guy. This is also why I stated that it implies TO ME. It was a simple question, that I was curious about the wording in the article.

    7. Re:who lived with who by Azuaron · · Score: 1

      So, let me get this straight:

      You're out of the house (possibly with a new boyfriend) when your ex-boyfriend (who lives in your house) rapes your daughter. Your daughter gets a message to you, and your solution is to call the police and wait for them to deal with it. You're not going to pick her up?

      Or, wait, this one's better: you're going to boot out the violent felon yourself. Yes, that's obviously the solution that won't get you killed.

      Why the Hell wouldn't she pick up her daughter? When something like this happens, you don't stick around and wait for the cops to show up. You GTFO and wait for the cops to tell you the coast is clear.

      --
      I'm a psychologist (amongst other things).
    8. Re:who lived with who by klynb · · Score: 1

      More likely, job.

  16. Re:Why not just dial 911? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    iPod, not iPhone. Plus she might be left handed.

  17. Re:Why not just dial 911? by Gi0 · · Score: 1

    Cause dialing 911 on an iPod Touch will do nothing.

    --
    There's no patch for stupidity
  18. Re:Why not just dial 911? by geekoid · · Score: 1, Redundant

    A better question is: Why the fuck you din't read the article? Was it so hard to click on the link.

    Dumbass.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  19. Re:Why not just dial 911? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why didn't this chick just dial 911? Was it so hard to find the digits 9-1-1 on the keypad?

    She had a IPod Touch, not an IPhone, she couldn't dial 911 because the Touch can't make phone calls.

  20. What stinks about this is by al0ha · · Score: 1

    The mother is 100% to blame, from the story.

    "Cesmat, who has a sizable criminal history,"

    No caring mother would put their kid in harms way, good to see the child can take care of business, she should have gouged the a**holes eyes out.

    --
    Did you ever wake up in the morning, with a Zombie Woof behind your eyes? -- FZ
    1. Re:What stinks about this is by Azuaron · · Score: 1

      I think you are somewhat confused about percentages, criminals, psychology, parents, and/or children, probably a combination of all of them, but especially the first two.

      The CRIMINAL who ACTUAL DID THE CRIMINAL ACTS is definitely highly to blame, more than anyone else. Certainly, the mother is to blame, somewhat, for letting this guy into the house, and even the girl is to blame, slightly, for not barricading her door and getting out of there after the first (failed) attack, but neither of those excuses the guy who's actually the pedophile/rapist. The majority of the blame, and thus the future punishment, resides with him.

      --
      I'm a psychologist (amongst other things).
    2. Re:What stinks about this is by SargentDU · · Score: 1

      No blame on the dude? You are a sick person!

    3. Re:What stinks about this is by MoriT · · Score: 1

      No one but the rapist is to blame for rape.

      His criminal history was for fraud. Even if the mother had run a background check, if she had assumed he was likely to rape her daughter she'd be accused of being a man-hating harpy. He, being a horrible human being, raped a 12 year old girl, for which hopefully they will succeed in prosecuting him for (though the odds of conviction if it goes to trial are about 40%; the best hope is a plea bargain), but the mother is not responsible for his monstrous actions.

    4. Re:What stinks about this is by sjames · · Score: 1

      To be fair, his sizable record was for check fraud, not violent crime. The mother might not have shown the best judgment in men, but it's not like he was a serial rapist.

    5. Re:What stinks about this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the girl is not to blame at all, you piece of shit.

    6. Re:What stinks about this is by Azuaron · · Score: 1

      No one but the rapist is to blame for rape.

      Stepping out of this specific instance for a minute, "no one but the rapist is to blame for rape," is a nice slogan to chant and everything, but if you believe that you're wearing blinders. Rapists aren't born, they're made. Whatever events are responsible for turning this guy into a rapist (and the people who caused those events, and the people who caused those people to cause those events, etc. etc.) are partially to blame for the rape.

      Or, bad video game plot time: a guy captures some other guy's wife and holds her hostage. Evil guy then tells the husband he'll let everyone go if the husband goes and rapes some other random woman. Husband goes. Now, after the fact, everyone's caught by the police. You're the prosecutor. Who do you prosecute? And, even if you prosecuted that person, who would the jury convict?

      We can also assign "blame" based on ways the rape could have been prevented: mother not letting the guy live there; daughter leaving the room after the first assault; police not letting scumbags like that not be in prison; scientists not developing mind-reading/future-predicting devices so we could arrest people for future-rape; government not enforcing a total police state where everyone spends the night in their own individual locked pods; etc. etc. Obviously, the amount of blame that can be spread around that doesn't fall on the perpetrator is quite small, but it's still there.

      Think of it this way: if you walk down a dark alley in a sketchy neighborhood in a big city, you're an idiot, plane and simple. Sure, the guy who mugs and assaults you is a "bad person" and all that, but that doesn't make you any less idiot, and a simple choice to not go down that alley would have prevented the crime.

      For children, the people responsible for idiocy are the parents.

      I got sidetracked from my original point, but it's this: the parent's primary responsibility is to provide a safe environment for their children. Back to this specific instance, this mom failed that. If she's got a record showing she provided a persistent unsafe environment, this could cause her to have her daughter taken by the state. So, even legally, partial blame falls on the mother.

      His criminal history was for fraud. Even if the mother had run a background check, if she had assumed he was likely to rape her daughter she'd be accused of being a man-hating harpy. He, being a horrible human being, raped a 12 year old girl...

      The first person the daughter wanted here was her mother, which implies the daughter trusted her mother more than anyone else (after a rape, women will only go to people they trust, and, specifically, the person they trust the most. There have been many cases where only the woman's best friend is told about the rape, and not: parents, husband, police, etc.). Since the daughter had previously woken up to find the ex-boyfriend standing in her room watching her, we know this guy had a history of unacceptable, creepy behavior. Given that we've already established the daughter trusts her mother more than anyone else, there's a high probability that the mother knew about this unacceptable, creepy behavior.

      ...for which hopefully they will succeed in prosecuting him for (though the odds of conviction if it goes to trial are about 40%; the best hope is a plea bargain)...

      You're seriously off-base. First, trial results are skewed to begin with, since cases only go to trial when a plea bargain cannot be reached, and plea bargains are more often reached in cases where the suspect is obviously guilty than when the suspect is not (given the weight of evidence against this guy, he'll be an idiot not to take whatever plea bargain he gets). Second, I'm willing to bet your 40% figure is skewed further by rapes of adult women who did not fight back, which are notoriously difficult to prosecute, particularly in cases where the woman was drunk

      --
      I'm a psychologist (amongst other things).
    7. Re:What stinks about this is by al0ha · · Score: 0, Troll

      Actually no, I am not a sick person. My opinion comes from an in-depth knowledge of child welfare. This kind of thing happens all the time, but in many cases the child ends up dead. The mother is to blame because she chose to be with a loser and criminal, a person of obviously low moral character whose history shows he is capable of anything. Mothers choose to ignore these signs all the time due to putting their needs before the welfare of their children. It is a sad, sad story too often repeated for my taste, so lets put the blame where the blame lies. The man is a scumbag and will be held responsible for his actions which are of his nature, but the mother is 100% responsible for the welfare of her child, thus 100% responsible for the outcome when she puts that child in harms way.

      --
      Did you ever wake up in the morning, with a Zombie Woof behind your eyes? -- FZ
    8. Re:What stinks about this is by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      The man is 100% to blame for his actions.

      The mom is 100% to blame for having her daughter where the scumbag could get his hands on her.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    9. Re:What stinks about this is by otopico · · Score: 1

      You seem like a wonderful human being. A child is raped and you blame the mother.
      You assume that a criminal record equals a child rapist.

      From the article:
      "His criminal history includes multiple convictions for theft and issuing worthless checks, as well as driving under the influence of alcohol and driving with a canceled driver's license, according to court records."
      So, if you ever steal something, write a bad check, drive drunk and have a canceled driver license you are also going to rape someone's kid. Gotcha, good to know.

    10. Re:What stinks about this is by kalirion · · Score: 1

      No, the rapist is 100% to blame. The mother is 85% to blame, tops.

      Hey, blame overlaps.

    11. Re:What stinks about this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, if you ever steal something, write a bad check, drive drunk and have a canceled driver license you are also going to rape someone's kid.

      No, most people with multiple convictions (theft, bad checks = theft, DUI = reckless endangerment potentially resulting in murder, then driving w/o license after it was suspended = unwillingness to recognise the consequences of foolish/reckless actions) are not going to try to rape kids.

      You would still be an idiot to have that sort of person living with you.

      Someone who has shown blatant disregard for other people’s safety and for the law, who has shown repeatedly that they will take things that don’t belong to them even after being caught, who clearly does not understand that their actions have unavoidable consequences – despite having faced such consequences multiple times in the past – will not be near my home, my stuff, or my kids if I can help it.

      It’s a sad coincidence that a guy who clearly exhibited no respect for people’s property or rights also had a thing for his girlfriend’s 12-year-old daughter, but that doesn’t make it at all a coincidence that he had complete access by being left alone in the house with her – or any number of less valuable things he could have stolen.

  21. Re:Not very smart by Gi0 · · Score: 1

    Do you know how to read?Ipod touch.

    --
    There's no patch for stupidity
  22. Re:Not very smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    rtfa, fuckwad

  23. At least it's a pro-internet story by Artifice_Eternity · · Score: 1

    A story like this demonstrates to people that Facebook, and the internet in general, can be useful, even life-saving.

    In that way, it may do something to counteract the typical "internets are corrupting your children!!1!" moral-panic type stories that propagate so widely across the news media. (E.g., see the current hysteria about kids listening to binaural beats on YouTube.)

    1. Re:At least it's a pro-internet story by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      A story like this demonstrates to people that Facebook, and the internet in general, can be useful, even life-saving.

      A phone call saying "Help!" would have had an equal effect.

    2. Re:At least it's a pro-internet story by Artifice_Eternity · · Score: 1

      Obviously. You're missing my point, which was not about facts, but about perceptions.

    3. Re:At least it's a pro-internet story by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 2, Informative

      Read the story. The guy took the girl's phone beforehand. She used her iPod to send the message via Facebook becasue she had no other means of communication available.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    4. Re:At least it's a pro-internet story by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Oh, in Massachusetts, as of this week, she'd probably face a jail term for describing obscene situations online in places where minors could view them.

  24. Re:Screw 911 - Update Status! by natehoy · · Score: 4, Informative

    Please, please, please read TFA. Especially before you accuse a girl of being stupid because she was raped and had no way of calling for help. It really makes you look stupid when you make up facts to support a viewpoint that accuses the victim of stupidity.

    First, she made the communication BEFORE being assaulted.

      - Cesmat had confiscated her cell phone earlier in the evening. She had no telephone. Hence no ability to make calls.

      - Cesmat had briefly left her room after attempting to remove her pants and her fighting him off. She had no way of knowing she was ABOUT to be raped (get the timeline right), so she used her only communications media to get a friend to have her mom come home and get her away from Cesmat ASAP. Little did she know he was about to re-enter the room and rape her.

      - After the rape, Cesmat left. She then blocked the room off and escaped through the window, found a payphone, and called her mother (who was enroute already).

    Could leaving the room immediately have prevented the rape? Maybe. Or maybe he was just outside the room at the time and her attempt at escape could have turned this deadly.

    --
    "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
  25. Re:Not very smart by witherstaff · · Score: 1

    She should learn about Voip - but still, smart thinking on her part.

  26. No skype app.. by MarbleMunkey · · Score: 1

    This is why there should be a skype app for the iPod Touch.. won't someone think of the children!?!

  27. The Mom should be in prison by goffster · · Score: 1

    Leaving a minor alone with any non-relative man is dubious at best.

    A 12 year old girl and a known criminal ?

    1. Re:The Mom should be in prison by otopico · · Score: 1

      So mothers shouldn't leave children with 'any' non-relative man? Please define what actions relate a man to the mother? What about a police officer, or a teacher? What if the mother was divorced and had a new husband, would that trip the magical 'he is related now' trigger and make the mother actions non-dubious?

      People that live in constant fear of the rest of humanity are mocked, but when anything bad happens, people that didn't live in constant fear are mocked. You have to find some way to blame someone other than the rapist.

      You sure seem keen on deeming out justice onto people.

    2. Re:The Mom should be in prison by goffster · · Score: 0, Troll

      I am talking about protecting your children.
      Your children should not be left alone with
      any man who is not invested in a lifelong relationship with the family. Yes, I am talking doctors, police, etc.

      The percentage of men who are pedophiles is shockingly high.

  28. Hey Mom! by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    "...Cesmat, who has a sizable criminal history..."

    NICE CHOICE OF BOYFRIEND! Really, really a great idea to let him stay at home and take care of your pubescent daughter.

    Mom, you're awesome.

    On another note, I understand that some people will find this distasteful, but I'd argue that this level of criminal sexual conduct - if proven in a court of law - would justify sterilization of both the boyfriend and mom.

    But that's just too cruel for some people, I guess.

    --
    -Styopa
  29. A small tidbit most people are missing... by Preacher+X · · Score: 1

    It is highly likely the mother knew nothing of this man's criminal history. Last time I checked people didn't just go around background checking thier dates. Hell I dated a woman for 2 months before I even knew her last name, much less SSI # that is required to do a proper background check. Get a clue folks. The press is supplied by the cops and public record. Of course THEY know about this guys history. The woman was likely totally clueless to it. Not to mention, since when was check fraud (something easily committed on accident) grounds to suspect a violent nature?

    --
    "And the heathens with their ways of trickery and deceit shall not prevail over the will of the righteous"
  30. Confusing convention with brilliance by RomulusNR · · Score: 0, Troll

    Is it really "quick thinking" or is it just "utilizing the only way she knows how to communicate?"

    > LOL OMG MOMS BF HIT ME WTF
    > OMG RLY?
    > YA HE HIT ME
    > OMG DAT SUX

    Next time I'm assaulted and don't know how to get help, I'll try forcing lots of air through my tightened vocal chords. Who would think of that?

    --
    Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
    1. Re:Confusing convention with brilliance by kalirion · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Next time I'm assaulted and don't know how to get help, I'll try forcing lots of air through my tightened vocal chords. Who would think of that?

      Yes, keep doing that, and maybe some good samaritan will help you in the middle of the night. Hey, worked for Kitty Genovese, right?

      And for the record, the girl in TFA did scream.

    2. Re:Confusing convention with brilliance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Next time I'm assaulted and don't know how to get help, I'll try forcing lots of air through my tightened vocal chords. Who would think of that?

      That's ok, I'll just hit you in the face until you stop screaming. I'll settle for muffled crying, and so will you, after enough of a beating.

      I'm not sure you understand how this "rape" thing works.

  31. Re:Not very smart by natehoy · · Score: 1

    "911" would be a logical choice if she knew she was in imminent danger. She was contacting Mom to come pick her up, probably because she thought she had scared him off with her initial kick and scream. She was, unfortunately, wrong. But I don't know her true motivations, of course. I wasn't there, I'm not 12, and I'm not female. She got the word out that she needed help. She did something. Maybe not the optimal thing, but she's a 12-year old in a potentially dangerous situation that she may or may not be fully aware of.

    Assuming she wanted to use "911", VoIP on the iPod Touch cannot do location, so at best it would have been a central dispatch office that covers the entire US. So, assuming Cesmat was within earshot, he'd know she was trying to talk to someone before she could get a location out. If she even got the call connected, it's very likely the call would have ended before she could scream an address with city and state to the dispatcher.

    On the other hand, her Facebook friend already knew where she was, and she knew the friend was there and had a way to contact her mother.

    Overall, though, agreed - she at least did something that got help on the way and became part of the evidence chain that helped nail the bastard for what he did. Tragically, it didn't prevent the rape, but I'm not sure anything she could possibly have done would have. If she had attempted to escape or tried to communicate in a more obvious way, Cesmat might have killed her, and no one would have known she needed help and it might never have been linked to him.

    --
    "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
  32. "Assault"? by Tetsujin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's called "Rape"...

    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
  33. Been there done that by g33korama · · Score: 2, Interesting

    True Story: I remember back a decade and a half ago when my father was hot tempered and would get drunk that I had a friend on chat contact the police for me (this was back in the big AOL days) when he went crazy and started throwing shit around the house and breaking things. The internet can be a life saver.

  34. Suicide numbers are irrelevant and dishonest by Quila · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Japan has one of the highest suicide rates in the world, but almost no guns. The US has less than half their suicide rate, with guns freely available.

    People who want to commit suicide will use whatever means handy. The availability of one method, guns, has no impact on that.

    1. Re:Suicide numbers are irrelevant and dishonest by Idarubicin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Japan has one of the highest suicide rates in the world, but almost no guns. The US has less than half their suicide rate, with guns freely available.

      And, clearly, the availability of firearms is certainly the only social, political, cultural, or economic difference between those two countries.

      People who want to commit suicide will use whatever means handy. The availability of one method, guns, has no impact on that.

      Not having a gun handy very likely doesn't affect the number of suicide attempts, but it may reduce the number of successes. Not all methods of suicide are equally effective.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    2. Re:Suicide numbers are irrelevant and dishonest by slashqwerty · · Score: 1

      On a related note, the suspect in this case appears to have killed himself. A deputy found him hanging in his cell at 4:23 PM yesterday.

    3. Re:Suicide numbers are irrelevant and dishonest by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Not having a gun handy very likely doesn't affect the number of suicide attempts, but it may reduce the number of successes. Not all methods of suicide are equally effective.

      So you are going to take away my gun lest someone else find an effective means of offing themselves?

      I've never understood why suicide numbers are even a legitimate topic of conversation with regards to gun rights. Why would you take away the liberty of all because of the self-harmful actions of an extremely small minority?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  35. Come on, buddy by copponex · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A drill or a socket wrench cannot kill you if you drop it, or if you think it's unloaded, or if you get angry with your pregnant stepmother and decide to kill her while she sleeps.

    Guns are designed to destroy life. They make it too easy to turn short term emotion into permanent tragedy. Throw in accidents, carelessness, sociopaths, and the primate violence found in all human societies, and there's no reason not to regulate it just like we regulate explosives or dangerous chemicals.

    Having said that, I am aware that it's far more dangerous to own a pool than it is to own a gun, if you're worried about kids dying. And driving is probably up there in a similar risk pool. But the reason that guns should be regulated is because they make it very easy to take someone else's life by choice as well as by accident.

    1. Re:Come on, buddy by a+whoabot · · Score: 0

      It would be about as easy to kill a pregnant stepmother while she sleeps with an axe as it would be with a gun. In fact, it might be harder to do it with the gun for me because I wouldn't know where the safety is nor how to load the weapon though I'm sure I could figure it out.

    2. Re:Come on, buddy by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Actually the drill or the socket wrench could get used to kill that stepmother, or any other of many tools, such as an axe.

      Guns are designed to chunk a piece of lead out of a tube at a high velocity. That's a trait that's useful in destroying life, but that's not their sole purpose. For example, it's be hard to argue that this contraption is designed to "destroy life". It's a target rifle, plain and simple, which is, unfathomably to most anti's, a very common use and not some fringe case that is dismissible as something that never happens. For example - I own 38 guns (-ish. it's been a while since I counted but I know it's more than 35 and probably less than 40). Of those 1 is used for self defense. 4 others I use for various types of hunting. The other 30+ of them? Target shooting only. Every other shooter I know of typically target shoots far more often than then expend rounds hunting. And no, that isn't "practice" for killing. My self defense gun is a .38 Special revolver and I can guarantee you shooting my .375 H&H at the range isn't practice for any situation I might encounter with the .38. It's just a recreational activity.

      Besides that, it also ignores the fact that "destroying life" is a job and sometimes needs to be done (as was the case in this girl's situation), and by Jove, when that need arises it's useful to have a tool that works well. I live under no delusions that when the situation arises that myself or a member of my family is in danger, I'm perfectly willing to end the life of the person introducing that danger. Come to grips with that, or be willing to watch while it happen.

      You want kids to be safe? Get a gun and teach them how to use it. Knowledge of the gun keeps them safe from it, and presence of the gun keeps them safe from attackers.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    3. Re:Come on, buddy by wurble · · Score: 1

      A modern firearm cannot kill you if you drop it. Unless of course it has a bayonet attached and it was dropped from a ladder or something. Then you were technically killed by a bayonet and not a gun. Modern semi autos have firing pin safeties and modern revolvers have transfer bar safeties. The firing pin can only be engaged by pulling the trigger, even with the hammer down.

      The only guns that go off when you drop them are for the most part curios are relics and those aren't seen as tools they are collector items. I just don't see someone using a vintage Colt Single Action Army revolver as a personal defense weapon. Or even something more recent like a Tokarev TT33 for that matter.

      Heck, even the old 1911 has a grip safety; it cannot fire unless the grip safety is depressed. That means someone has to be holding in their hand. Some firearms have trigger safeties; the trigger can't be pulled unless the center of the trigger is depressed. Some firearms also have manual safeties that lock the trigger and the firing pin when engaged.

      As for the issue of "if you think it's unloaded", the very first rule of firearm safety is "treat all guns as if they are loaded." Even if you don't follow that rule, if you follow the others you'll be fine. Rule 2 is never point a gun at something you are not willing to shoot. Rule 3 is keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire. Rule 4 is be aware of your target and what is behind it.

      As for the "kill your pregnant stepmother" bit, you can do that a lot more silently with a socket wrench than you can with a gun. If you're arguments held any weight we would see record deaths because firearm ownership is at an all time high. Firearm sales have been through the roof lately yet somehow people are NOT magically deciding to turn into murderers just because they own a gun or 2 or 10. Guns ARE tools. They do not inherently alter your psyche. They do not change your personality any more than a utility knife does. If you are not a murderer, buying a gun isn't going to change that. You are not going to shoot someone in a heated argument any more than you would beat them to death with a wrench or stab them to death with a kitchen knife or even strangle them with your bare hands.

      Interestingly enough though, defensive uses of firearms ARE increasing and crime rates are down in areas where gun ownership is increasing.
      On a side note, I have a Ramset and a nailgun that very much could kill me if I dropped either one. Both are intended as construction tools and certainly not meant for killing. They are not as safe as modern firearms.

    4. Re:Come on, buddy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A drill or a socket wrench cannot kill you if you drop it,

      Neither can any gun, unless it's loaded and was made 50 years ago. Most modern handguns (with the exception of a few crappy models) have protections in place that prevent them firing if accidentally dropped.

      Guns are designed to destroy life

      Typical left-wing gun control nonsense... I own several firearms, and I didn't purchase them with the intent to destroy life. There's this little hobby of mine I call target shooting, and it's quite enjoyable.

      They make it too easy to turn short term emotion into permanent tragedy

      By that logic, we better outlaw knives, baseball bats, corkscrews, bricks, hockey sticks, heck we might as well ban every physical object since they make it way too easy to turn short term emotion into permanent tragedy.

      I have loaded guns in my house, and there have been some emotional outbursts among my family, and not once has anyone reached for the gun. There have been broken items, and even a hole in the wall, but guns are serious $hit and we know to stay away from them no matter how emotional we get.

      and there's no reason not to regulate it just like we regulate explosives or dangerous chemicals

      By that logic, kitchen knives and cars should be regulated as well; we don't want any criminals or emotionally unstable individuals possessing those since they may harm someone.

      Take a look at some real unbiased statistics and you may be shocked to find that most gun related crimes are NOT committed by law abiding gun owners. It's the same deal with explosives; do you think criminals who use explosives or dangerous chemicals to cause harm obtain them legally?

      But the reason that guns should be regulated is because they make it very easy to take someone else's life by choice as well as by accident.

      Knives and cars... and baseball bats... way too easy.

    5. Re:Come on, buddy by minion · · Score: 1

      A drill or a socket wrench cannot kill you if you drop it

      Nor does a modern gun. A very rarely does an old gun. Its not like Barney on The Andy Griffin Show - they don't just go off when they get dropped or smacked.

      or if you get angry with your pregnant stepmother and decide to kill her while she sleeps.

      A knife, a baseball bat, a crowbar all accomplish the same thing when she's asleep. The tool used has no bearing on intent. The gun, however, is an easy scapegoat for a more serious problem in society that would lead a young child to kill their parental figures.

      Guns are designed to destroy life.

      Correction - guns are designed to move a projectile. Their use can be either to destroy life, or protect life. The choice rests with the individual.

      They make it too easy to turn short term emotion into permanent tragedy.

      So does a hammer, a baseball bat, or a knife. Again, I think this is a societal problem. The tool used isn't the problem - the problem is the person wielding said tool.

      and there's no reason not to regulate it just like we regulate explosives or dangerous chemicals.

      The problem with regulation, is that only law abiding citizens obey. Marijuana, cocaine, and many other drugs are all regulated. Doesn't stop their spread.

      So knowing that, why would you suggest we regulate a tool that is the most effective device known to man to protect life? I would not want to defend myself with merely a kitchen knife if my assailant was wielding a gun. Regardless of the fact that its illegal in every state to commit a crime while carrying a gun. Obviously my attacker didn't read that law, otherwise he would have not carried a gun while he was attacking me in my kitchen.

      --

      -- If we don't stand up for our rights, now, there will be no right to stand up for them later.
    6. Re:Come on, buddy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, guns are designed to destroy life. But that doesn't mean they're all that much more effective at it than a plethora of other things in your home. Those steak knives in the kitchen, for example. Or the rat poison in the garage. Or the axe in the shed. Or the baseball bat in your son's room. Or the rope. Or the bleach and ammonia. Or the couch pillows. Or the fire poker.

      Any of the above are very capable of turning "short term emotion into permanent tragedy," as you say. If so many people are so unhinged that they can't stop themselves from shooting someone at the drop of a hat, what's stopping them from stabbing/poisoning/beating/smothering/etc people to death all the time? I've fairly sure that isn't a terribly common problem.

      Guns are an excellent defensive tool, but they are not the cause of violence any more than a baseball bat or a steak knife. If someone is in a murderous rage, the lack of a gun isn't going to stop them killing someone. But the PRESENCE of a gun (in their victim's hands) just might.

    7. Re:Come on, buddy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...there's no reason not to regulate it just like we regulate explosives or dangerous chemicals.

      I agree! Firearms should be regulated at least as stringently as gasoline.

      After all, it's impossible to get even a one-gallon tank filled without lots of paperwork, a special competency test, and a 14-day waiting period. Imagine if anyone could just go up and fill a 15 gallon tank just by showing up and paying cash, no questions asked? There'd be arson everywhere!

      Oh, sure, the gas nuts would SAY it's just pyromaniacs and gangsters and insurance fraudsters, but let's face it, gasoline makes it just too easy to turn the desire to light something on fire into the ability to do so.

      Think of the Buddhist monks!

    8. Re:Come on, buddy by quintesse · · Score: 1

      Actually it is not, especially if you're still young. You would need to know where and how to hit and have the physical strength to do so. Besides that a lot of people will stop at the first sign of blood or pain/anguish from their victim. Statistically you are much more likely to survive multiple stab wounds than one single bullet. The fact that a gun just needs you to point and pull the trigger makes it so simple that it seems unreal until you realize that you've just killed someone.

    9. Re:Come on, buddy by copponex · · Score: 1

      they don't just go off when they get dropped or smacked.

      Yes they do. But I agree, it is extremely rare. More importantly, if you point a socket wrench at someone, or accidentally touch the trigger of a drill, there's virtually no chance that you or someone you love can immediately die.

      A knife, a baseball bat, a crowbar all accomplish the same thing when she's asleep. The tool used has no bearing on intent.

      http://www.psychwiki.com/wiki/300979125-Weapons

      The presence of weapons are known to increase the danger of aggressive behavior. I thought I had read an article, but I can't find it, so just call this a hunch: it takes a hell of a lot more commitment to pick up a crowbar and beat someone to death with it than it takes to pull a trigger.

      The gun, however, is an easy scapegoat for a more serious problem in society that would lead a young child to kill their parental figures.

      The gun, the handgun especially, is probably the only tool that would allow a child to kill their parents. They can try to set a fire, or stab them, but a gun is far more likely to get the job done.

      Correction - guns are designed to move a projectile. Their use can be either to destroy life, or protect life. The choice rests with the individual.

      Most guns, especially handguns, have no other purpose than to kill human beings.

      The problem with regulation, is that only law abiding citizens obey. Marijuana, cocaine, and many other drugs are all regulated. Doesn't stop their spread.

      Oh really?

      America's level of gun violence cannot be attributed to urbanization alone as international comparisons show. Singapore has the second highest population density in the world (almost 6,814 people per square kilometer, or about 50% more densely populated than Chicago, Illinois) but has the lowest level of gun violence of all the countries in the table above. Its rate of gun violence is 99 times lower than that of the United States which is 200 times less densely populated. The only way for a civilian to own a firearm in Singapore is to acquire an Arm & Explosives license.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence

      So knowing that,

      Which is false...

      why would you suggest we regulate a tool that is the most effective device known to man to protect life? I would not want to defend myself with merely a kitchen knife if my assailant was wielding a gun. Regardless of the fact that its illegal in every state to commit a crime while carrying a gun. Obviously my attacker didn't read that law, otherwise he would have not carried a gun while he was attacking me in my kitchen.

      It's probably too late to ban handguns in America - there are tens of millions of them by now. But the easier you make it to obtain a handgun, the more likely someone is going to shoot you. If living in the wild west where everyone is armed to the teeth, constantly pulling out their handguns, and in the process, killin each other and anyone unfortunate enough to be nearby, might I recommend taking up residence in Venezuela or Colombia? They're just as fanatical about their guns as you seem to be.

      The real issue I have with the NRA is that no one is suggesting that we legalize driving for twelve year olds. The practical difference between that and pushing for youth gun ownership is no different. We have licensing restrictions, learning permits, and DUI laws because cars are extremely dangerous, even though they are not designed for the purpose of killing someone.

    10. Re:Come on, buddy by izomiac · · Score: 1

      if you think it's unloaded

      Well, there's your problem. It's kinda obvious why you shouldn't assume that, and you shouldn't be treating an unloaded gun any differently unless you're doing maintenance on it. A half century ago farmboys used guns all the time, and it's not like it was a major cause of injury.

      Besides, if guns were designed to kill people, then they're one of the worst designed pieces of equipment in existence. Literally tons of ammunition are used per human death. Each year, in the US, about 5 million guns are made/imported, and 30,000 people die from shooting deaths, working out to a gun having a 0.6% chance of killing someone. For perspective, that is practically identical to the chance a vehicle will kill someone (40,000 deaths per year / 8,000,000 cars sold per year). That should give you a hint that killing humans isn't their intended purpose at all. Most people use them as a tool (a farmer shooting a coyote), a deterrent (like nuclear weapons), or as entertainment (target shooting and hunting).

      As for drills and socket wrenches, people get hurt with them all the time, and you can easily use them for murder just as quickly as a gun. IMHO, the problem is that guns are a symbol, and people can't really wrap their heads around the fact that guns are a tangible object with intrinsic properties independent of the intangible human nonsense we associate them with.

    11. Re:Come on, buddy by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      A drill or a socket wrench cannot kill you if you drop it

      I own a 3/4 Horsepower power drill. left to me by my father in law upon his death, that weighs over 40 lbs., and among my socket wrench sets are 3/4 inch drive metric and English ones, where the drive bars are about two feet long and the largest sockets over 4" diameter. I assure anyone who is that worried about guns discharging when dropped that there are drills and socket wrenches that can easily kill somebody if dropped under normal working conditions. It would be a bit more challenging to drop them on yourself with enough force to make your own death likely, but easily possible to cause someone else's.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    12. Re:Come on, buddy by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Yes they do. [ksl.com] But I agree, it is extremely rare. More importantly, if you point a socket wrench at someone, or accidentally touch the trigger of a drill, there's virtually no chance that you or someone you love can immediately die.

      The linked article specifically states that this was likely an old gun, which the poster mentioned can rarely go off.

      Most guns, especially handguns, have no other purpose than to kill human beings.

      Really? I own just under 40 guns, 7 of which are handguns. I've fired all of them, and most of them quite a bit. I've never killed a human. I wonder what I could have possibly been doing with them given that that's apparently their only purpose . . . (I'll give you a hint: quite a few deer, a lot of ducks, and countless sheets of paper have felt my sting).

      Oh really?

      America's level of gun violence cannot be attributed to urbanization alone as international comparisons show. Singapore has the second highest population density in the world (almost 6,814 people per square kilometer, or about 50% more densely populated than Chicago, Illinois) but has the lowest level of gun violence of all the countries in the table above. Its rate of gun violence is 99 times lower than that of the United States which is 200 times less densely populated. The only way for a civilian to own a firearm in Singapore is to acquire an Arm & Explosives license.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence [wikipedia.org]

      America's level of gun violence also cannot be blamed solely on the presence of guns, as culture in general plays a huge role. While we - as a country - have a fairly high rate of gun violence, WITHIN the country, areas with higher gun ownership rates, and with concealed carry available, typically has LOWER crime rates than areas of the country with the strictest gun laws. Indeed, virtually every location that has passed concealed carry laws has witness a corresponding drop in crime. Also, countries that have passed strict gun laws, have typically seen a rise in violent crime follow. For instance, England all but completely banned the private ownership of firearms (yes it's still technically possible but it's a mountain or red tape), but gun crime still has managed to nearly DOUBLE in the last decade http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html. Now go to http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/StatebyState.cfm?NoVariables=Y&CFID=9212893&CFTOKEN=77729842 and run the violent crime rates for the US from 1961 to 2008. We've been trending downwards ever since a peak in the 1970's. From 1998 to 2008 our violent crime rate has seen a roughly 20% reduction. Our homicide rate is at it's lowest point since 1965. We're buying guns at record rates. You'd think that if guns were the problem we'd be seeing crime rates soar, but that's not the case. Simply comparing our crime rates directly to other countries isn't comparing apples to apples.

      If living in the wild west where everyone is armed to the teeth, constantly pulling out their handguns, and in the process, killin each other and anyone unfortunate enough to be nearby, might I recommend taking up residence in Venezuela or Colombia?

      Might I recommend that given that guns are a rich part of the history and culture of this country, to the point that the right to possess them is coded into our highest law, that YOU move your butt somewhere else if you don't like it?

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  36. It's true, your mom is disgusting and not funny. by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

    It's best not to make bad jokes based on grammar when English is not you r first language. There was nothing wrong with the GP's sentence and your "joke" is disgusting and not funny.

    If you don't think my jokes are funny, that's cool. Sometimes I'm actually not funny.

    And I'd tend to agree, there was actually nothing wrong with the phrase I was intentionally misinterpreting. If things had gone down the way I'd suggested, the original sentence would have been more naturally phrased as "my friend got his rifle and tried to rape his mother while someone was breaking into the house".

    But the joke wasn't based on grammar, it was based on misinterpreting grammar... Like a lot of the Police Squad gags or half the stuff from Airplane.

    "Cigarette?"
    "Yes, it is."

    "I live a pretty solitary life, just me, the open road, and my bike."
    "A loner?"
    "No, I own it."

    "Surely, you must be joking."

    And so on... The simple fact that, under normal circumstances, these phrases would not be misinterpreted is the whole basis of the joke.

    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
  37. Re:Dumb mom by otopico · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hate to feed AC trolls, but please prove proof of your "Every crime ever committed against children comes from the current or ex boyfriend of some mother." claim.

    I know you can't but I'm sick of the crap some people are willing to spit out. I would encourage you to also "use your freakin' brain" you moron.

  38. Stop it by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Stop turning this into a "liberal" issue

    Many liberals own guns. Most liberals think there is nothing wrong with owing a gun.

    There are some anti-gun people. Calling them liberal is a republican trick to make people think liberal want to take everyones gun away. "oohh scary liberal going to get you.."

    It's bullshit, and I sincerely hope you are better then that.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  39. Cherry picking Stats! by meburke · · Score: 0

    That graph you linked to is obviously designed to skew opinion without scientific fact. The data have been cherry-picked: Wheres Mexico? Brazil? Afghanistan? Pakistan? Iraq? Georgia? Somalia?

    Statistics that arent complete are useless. Also, consider that this chart doesnt compare gun deaths as a subset of all deaths by violence. Your post does not reflect any counter-arguments reflecting the possible number of lives saved by firearms. BAD argumentation! Shame! Shame!

    On the other hand, it is unlikely and unreasonable to think a 12-year old girl should carry a gun. I strongly suggest any women over the age of 10 take the Model Mugging Course. http://modelmugging.org/

    --
    "The mind works quicker than you think!"
    1. Re:Cherry picking Stats! by obarthelemy · · Score: 1

      please do feel free to offer your better, more complete stats. And please remark that, as opposed to other participants in the discussion, I do offer some stats, and debunk the only number "they" had giben (100 accidents with guns / yr, when in reality it's 1,500)

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    2. Re:Cherry picking Stats! by meburke · · Score: 1

      I am not arguing the numbers; I'm saying the argumentation was LAME! This whole subject requires more research and data than one little, incomplete chart. You might want to start with TSAOUS http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/births_deaths_marriages_divorces.html and look at the various categories from 106-124. Any almanac has better statistics than what you have shown. We do not have to be experts in order to see that you have a bone to pick and that your argument does not hold water.

      No statistics are better than corrupted statistics.

      --
      "The mind works quicker than you think!"
    3. Re:Cherry picking Stats! by obarthelemy · · Score: 1

      How are my stats corrupted ? Is all data that does not fit your convictions automatically "not good enough" ?

      If you want to disprove that more guns = more guns deaths and more guns accidents and more deths in total, you'll have to do the work, and it's gonna be a bit more work than "I don't like your data".

      You obviously like ad hominem attacks and arguments better than data. Most of the truth is in the data, though.

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
  40. Payphone? by yosquire · · Score: 1

    The real story here is that she actually found a payphone in this day & age.

  41. not true. by geekoid · · Score: 1

    First off:
    Dont compare Japan and American suicides. There are signigfican cultral differences.

    It seems that most suicides are spur of the moment events . Alaos, they mostly happen on swednesday.

    I was listening to some discussing research into why suicide. there was a period where about 500 people were stopped from committing suicide by jumping off the golden gate bridge. aster 10 years, only 4% when on to actually kill themselves.

    So having an immediate way to die does seem in increase suicides.

    I'm not advocating getting rid of guns here, just thought you should be aware it isn't as intuitive as you may think.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  42. backstory of Father Geoghan by Shakrai · · Score: 1

    On August 23, 2003, while in protective custody at the Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center in Shirley, Massachusetts, Geoghan was strangled and stomped to death in his cell by Joseph Druce, a self-described white supremacist and inmate serving a sentence of life without possibility of parole for killing a man who allegedly made a sexual pass after picking Druce up hitchhiking. An autopsy revealed the cause of death to be "ligature strangulation and blunt chest trauma."[citation needed] There have been questions raised about the wisdom and propriety of placing these two men in the same unit, since prison officials had been warned by another inmate that Druce had something planned.[3]

    A Worcester, Massachusetts jury found Druce guilty of first-degree murder on January 25, 2006, after the jury rejected his insanity defense. The next day, Druce was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for a second time.

    Interesting that the guy who killed him try to claim insanity. What's the point when you are already serving a life sentence? I would have stood in open court, confessed to the crime and asked the Judge for a medal. What more can they do to you?

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  43. You support what I was saying by Quila · · Score: 1

    Suicide does rely on a lot of factors, as you mention for example culture, which I believe is a dominant factor.

    But I have never seen anything that points to guns being a factor.

  44. All that just for a lie? by copponex · · Score: 1

    United States homicide rate: 2.97 per 100,000
    England homicide rate: 0.12 per 100,000

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence

    1. Re:All that just for a lie? by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      You didn't read my post did you? I specifically stated that culture plays a role in the rate. HOWEVER, if you'd read my post, you'd notice that the CHANGE in rate has not followed the "guns are evil" pattern. Specifically, the US has been seeing a constant decrease in homicide rate for the last 40 years despite having lax firearms laws, whilst England has seen it's rate INCREASING after implementing stricter firearms laws.

      Don't confuse the existing rate with the change in rate. It's like the age old question you pose to school kids: would you rather I give you $5 per day, everyday for 30 days, or would you prefer I give you 1 cent today, and then keep giving you double the amount of the previous day every day for 30 days. Sure, at the start the $5 kid is sitting nice, but when you factor in the changing rate, at the end of the month he's still getting his $5, while the kid who took the lower rate initially is now getting over $5 million per day.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  45. ... or possess a facebook account. by yadda+yoda+yadda · · Score: 1

    As I understand you are not meant to own a facebook account if you are under 13.

    We need to heavily censor the Internet to protect predators from children like this. *sigh* I'd use a winking smily but I don't think it is appropriate here.

    --
    We use GNU/SunOS. :)
  46. Charged and arrested isn't the same as 'guilty' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe he did it; maybe he didn't, but right now, it is just an allegation.

    So when you write,"The girl was raped and the guy left the room..." stop and think a bit. Just because someone says that it happened doesn't mean that it happened.

    That is, unless you are prejudiced right from the start.

  47. The guy hanged himself today by ELCouz · · Score: 2, Informative
    1. Re:The guy hanged himself today by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Sweet!
      Suicide should be facilitated for any anyone who wants it. No loss when a creep like that checks out, and no real loss except sentiment when any low-worth person ends their wastage of oxygen. I'd like to see voluntary suicide facilitated for all incarcerated persons who wish to take advantage of the opportunity.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  48. What ? by nu1x · · Score: 1

    > If he didn't have a gun, he would have slugged her. The next day they would have made up, and gone on with their lives.

    Their happy-lovely wife-slugging lives. Truly an approximation of paradise.

    > Why don't you carry a wine bottle around for protection?

    It is not handy and very slow to wield, a kitchen knife is better even. Bare fists can kill a person in less than 3 seconds if they belong to highly skilled fighter. But that is not the point - guns excel at killing OR disabling, and they are a top tier personnel weapon that you can legally buy, therefore people naturally prefer them.

    --
    I have nothing to lose but my bindings.
  49. Why not by nu1x · · Score: 1

    use counterfeit money ? Freshly minted with your laser printer ? Distance obscures, you know ...

    --
    I have nothing to lose but my bindings.
  50. The guy is dead by Mondor · · Score: 1

    http://www.twincities.com/allheadlines/ci_15540156According to this, the guy killed himself.

  51. Re:Screw 911 - Update Status! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cesmat had briefly left her room after attempting to remove her pants and her fighting him off. She had no way of knowing she was ABOUT to be raped

    Wait...what? The forceful attempted removal of pants wasn't an indicator?

  52. Suicide by bmatt17 · · Score: 1