Moriah Wilson murder: Colin Strickland ‘in hiding’ until suspect Kaitlin Armstrong found

Rendel Harris wrote:

No he wasn't, he was talking about what happens now, not what might happen in the future. Your grasp of grammar and language is as tenuous as your grip on reality, clearly.

The previous commenter was referring to the required equipment for trips that have not yet happened -- since at least in the reality most of us inhabit, we cannot retroactively change trips that already occurred. 

That's prognosticating -- and much more to the point, the comment was dead wrong whether it refers to past or present.

So die on this hill if you like, but I bet even you could find a less wrong comment to obsessively defend.

dh700 wrote:

The previous commenter was referring to the required equipment for trips that have not yet happened -- since at least in the reality most of us inhabit, we cannot retroactively change trips that already occurred. 

Quote:

 chrisonatrike wrote: Plenty people in the US live or pass through bear territory, most are not armed with guns.

I've highlighted the three instances of the present tense, just to make it easy for you.

I must congratulate you though on your splendid work regarding gun control in the USA: I don't think any reasonable person reading your many comments could fail to reach the conclusion that any measures that prevented someone as aggressive, obsessive, arrogant, wrong-headed, ignorant and frankly downright stupid as yourself from obtaining firearms would be fully justified.

Cheerio!

Rendel Harris wrote:

Quote:

 chrisonatrike wrote: Plenty people in the US live or pass through bear territory, most are not armed with guns.

I've highlighted the three instances of the present tense, just to make it easy for you.

You missed half the statement -- just to make it easy for you.

And it's still factually wrong -- because a majority, or very close to it, of those people who live and pass through bear territory are precisely armed with guns.  Which is, to a large degree, the entire point of this discussion.

How, exactly, do you think Americans shoot so many animals?  They take around 200M annual hunting trips -- and those are just the offically-counted ones.

Rendel Harris wrote:

I must congratulate you though on your splendid work regarding gun control in the USA: I don't think any reasonable person reading your many comments could fail to reach the conclusion that any measures that prevented someone as aggressive, obsessive, arrogant, wrong-headed, ignorant and frankly downright stupid as yourself from obtaining firearms would be fully justified.

Cheerio!

And again, the last refuge of those with no remaining position to defend -- the ad hominem attack.

Better luck next time.

Nope.  However you seem to be starting from the axiom of "we must have guns" - or maybe just "we have guns and there seems no easy way of changing that" (which I'll readily conceed in the case of the US).  Most people work this way after all e.g. the arguments come afterwards.  So the arguments - because "bears" or "subsistence hunting" or "they're essential tools, like knives" or "OK guns aren't essential tools but so what - what right have we to ban anything" or "but people kill each other (and themselves) with other things too" or "deterrence" (again - strongly debated - more than one US study) or simply "gun laws don't work" (?) because "people will get what they want anyway" (you misread me on Mexico - the issue is for the Mexicans, who have lots of US arms coming across their border or so says the US government...) - I'll not waste further time on.

I believe you said you're in the US - whereas I'm in Scotland.  If you're in the US then it's not my country!  (I've enjoyed visiting - neither the bears nor the bullets got me yet). I don't think our respective rules will change significantly in the foreseeable future.  Despite gun rights concerns in the US - which sometimes appear fairly paranoid from here.  That's an outsider perspective of course; it's clear that the US government (or agencies within it) - like most - has a strong record of doing what the heck it likes and stuff the people.  Which is concerning when you live in the country.

Oh yes - ban cars?  Well you could be on to something there... but actually I prefer to look abroad for better examples and favour a "safety / danger control" paradigm rather than a more individualist / legalistic (old testament?) one.  I think it's more... complex.  So I'd like to see a comprehensive set of principles to reduce harm but keep - or improve on - the benefits.

So on guns, neither of us has cause to worry as we're both happy that the status quo "works" where we are.

chrisonatrike wrote:

Nope.  However you seem to be starting from the axiom of "we must have guns" - or maybe just "we have guns and there seems no easy way of changing that" (which I'll readily conceed in the case of the US). 

Not really sure what you are "Noping" there, but the latter part is absolutely true.  Banning private gun ownership in the US is largely moot, for a whole raft of reasons.  The logistics of forcibly confiscating hundreds of millions of firearms from hundreds of millions of households are just not possible.  Even if you could somehow repeal the 2nd Amendment, you'd need to repeal the 4th as well -- in order to search every household and many of the businesses in the entire country.  The US has around 2 officers for every 500 households, but you'd need much larger teams than 2 officers to have a hope of pulling this off 'safely'.  And by 'safely', I mean without tens of thousands of casualties.  And most of those officers would quit before accepting this duty anyway.  The bottom line is that you could never confiscate the weapons faster than they could be replaced by manufacture and import -- and there's little chance of shutting down either of those ( cf Prohibition and the War on Drugs ).  And how long would the political will to confiscate last in the face of thousands of deaths?

chrisonatrike wrote:

Most people work this way after all e.g. the arguments come afterwards.  So the arguments - because "bears" or "subsistence hunting" or "they're essential tools, like knives" or "OK guns aren't essential tools but so what - what right have we to ban anything" or "but people kill each other (and themselves) with other things too" or "deterrence" (again - strongly debated - more than one US study) or simply "gun laws don't work" (?) because "people will get what they want anyway" (you misread me on Mexico - the issue is for the Mexicans, who have lots of US arms coming across their border or so says the US government...) - I'll not waste further time on.

Seems like you are relatively familiar with some of the many reasons why private ownership is legal in this country, so I guess this has been educational for you.  By the way, your latest "study" is almost as questionable as the last one -- it amounts to imagining what might have happened in some fictional states that don't exist.  I can imagine many things as well, but I don't call those "studies".

chrisonatrike wrote:

I believe you said you're in the US - whereas I'm in Scotland.  If you're in the US then it's not my country!

Yes, I am in the US -- but when I say "this country" here, I am clearly referring to the subject of the discussion.

chrisonatrike wrote:

it's clear that the US government (or agencies within it) - like most - has a strong record of doing what the heck it likes and stuff the people.  Which is concerning when you live in the country.

That is generally the state of affairs in this country, but it is important to note that on the topic of gun ownership, our government is generally aligned with the will of the people.  Gun laws are largely written on the state level -- except of course for the overarching 2nd Amendment, and a few others -- and they differ widely across the country exactly because the attitudes towards gun ownership differ between Boston and Bozeman.

And again, I stress, those gun laws have no measurable effect, and there's no correlation to the strength of a state's gun restrictions and its homicide rate.  Maryland has some of the toughest gun laws, and one of the highest homicide rates.  North Dakota is the opposite.  

chrisonatrike wrote:

Oh yes - ban cars?  Well you could be on to something there... 

And again, an idea that might seem attractive on the surface to some, winds up being tremendously complex.  Banning cars in the US would immediately plunge the entire world into another Great Depression.  ( The US GDP is about 1/4th of the world's total, and banning cars would virtually shutter its economy. )

chrisonatrike wrote:

So on guns, neither of us has cause to worry as we're both happy that the status quo "works" where we are.

I never said I was happy.  I cannot see any logic or defense, for example, in allowing a kid who cannot buy a beer to buy a firearm.  I'm just trying to explain to people why the status quo exists, and encourage them to acquire and use better data, and to think harder about that data and their conclusions.  And my whole original point here was that this murder was allegedly committed with the perfect stereotypical example of a weapon that a young woman might own for her protection -- a Sig Sauer P365 "micro-compact" 9mm.  That's exactly the type of weapon that few jurisdictions globally would prohibit a woman with no (known) criminal record from possessing.  The people here who would deny her that right, need to think very carefully about the repercussions of doing so.

Final one from me.  This reminds me of a conversation with a Texan chap in a crowded bank in York - we were waiting ages because lots of people there.  A security guard arrived to drop of or collect cash.  My new friend expressed surprise that the guy wasn't armed.  I explained that this being the UK only the military and a small subset of the police carried weapons.  The chap thought this was crazy - how would the security guard stop an armed robber taking the cash?  Having a (very) basic knowledge of these things I suggested that having two armed people in a room crowded with people might risk much worse outcomes than chasing the money.  The would-be-thief would now have good motivation to use his gun.  And even if he didn't shoot the guard and no bystanders were hit in crossfire you still might lose the cash.  We also had a very low rate of armed robberies in the UK etc.

From his perspective though he couldn't see past "but the guy with the gun will get the cash".  "Stop the bad guy" was the first concern.  I'd have given more consideration to his view had we been in Texas ... but we weren't in Texas.

chrisonatrike wrote:

Final one from me.  This reminds me of a conversation with a Texan chap in a crowded bank in York - we were waiting ages because lots of people there.  A security guard arrived to drop of or collect cash.  My new friend expressed surprise that the guy wasn't armed.  I explained that this being the UK only the military and a small subset of the police carried weapons.  The chap thought this was crazy - how would the security guard stop an armed robber taking the cash?  Having a (very) basic knowledge of these things I suggested that having two armed people in a room crowded with people might risk much worse outcomes than chasing the money.  The would-be-thief would now have good motivation to use his gun.  And even if he didn't shoot the guard and no bystanders were hit in crossfire you still might lose the cash.  We also had a very low rate of armed robberies in the UK etc.

From his perspective though he couldn't see past "but the guy with the gun will get the cash".  "Stop the bad guy" was the first concern.  I'd have given more consideration to his view had we been in Texas ... but we weren't in Texas.

Sure why not, I'll address this one too.  The security guard with the cash wasn't constantly in that crowded room.  He had to enter and leave the building, and travel between buildings.  Those would be opportune times for an armed robber to make their move.

So it isn't completely crazy to expect such a courier to be armed.  They would be in most of the world, I think.

Ironically, the father of a childhood friend of mine was a bankrobber -- and he hailed from your neck of the global woods.  Of course, no one knew he was a bankrobber at the time.  I received a call from my parents years later informing me that he'd been arrested.  Turns out, about once a year or so, he walked into an American bank unarmed, handed the teller a threatening note, and walked out with his loot.  You see, American banks do not actually operate like those you might see in the movies.  Their priority is to not die, so they will let a bankrobber in and out quickly and if they aren't too greedy, they can be quite successful.  He was eventually nabbed only due to his accent, when he said too much during one robbery.

By the way, the robbery rate in the UK is ~20% higher than in the US.

Even if occasionally a "good guy" gets one of the "bad guys", the "bad guys" and the incompetent and the stupid and the suicidal and those with mental issues, grudges, who are on the wrong end of domestic breakdowns or too young to understand that messing with Daddy's gun is potentially lethal are ahead on the scoreboard by several thousand every single year.

Mungecrundle wrote:

Even if occasionally a "good guy" gets one of the "bad guys", the "bad guys" and the incompetent and the stupid and the suicidal and those with mental issues, grudges, who are on the wrong end of domestic breakdowns or too young to understand that messing with Daddy's gun is potentially lethal are ahead on the scoreboard by several thousand every single year.

You are profoundly misreading that "scoreboard".  As previously noted, even the lowest estimates for defensive uses of firearms in the US are around triple firearm deaths ( not including suicides, again, for previously-discussed reasons ).  The highest estimates for defensive uses are about 125 times more than firearm deaths.

Reality is somewhere in the middle, but you almost could not possibly be more wrong.

Quote:

For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9715182/

Rendel Harris wrote:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9715182/

What is your attempted point?

One does not have to fire a weapon in order to use it defensively.  Merely possessing it is often sufficient.  In other words, the ratio implied by that study is meaningless.

Furthermore, the study's inclusion of suicide lays bare their prejudice and calls their motive and accuracy into question.  There is absolutely no way to prevent a free person from taking their own life, and depriving them of a firearm absolutely does not work at all.

dh700 wrote:

Rendel Harris wrote:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9715182/

What is your attempted point?

One does not have to fire a weapon in order to use it defensively.  Merely possessing it is often sufficient.

So if you banned ammunition, that would help.

dh700 wrote:

Furthermore, the study's inclusion of suicide lays bare their prejudice and calls their motive and accuracy into question.  There is absolutely no way to prevent a free person from taking their own life, and depriving them of a firearm absolutely does not work at all.

Except that there's plenty of evidence that making suicide attempts more difficult, or less likely to succeed, does help reduce the rate. Somewhere there's a stat for the percentage of people caught in anti-suicide nets under the Golden Gate bridge who are glad to have been saved. Indeed, the one person I have met who survived his own attempt (at jumping from a tall building) was very, very grateful to have survived as his attempt was made during a single episode of psychosis.

TheBillder wrote:

Except that there's plenty of evidence that making suicide attempts more difficult, or less likely to succeed, does help reduce the rate. Somewhere there's a stat for the percentage of people caught in anti-suicide nets under the Golden Gate bridge who are glad to have been saved. Indeed, the one person I have met who survived his own attempt (at jumping from a tall building) was very, very grateful to have survived as his attempt was made during a single episode of psychosis.

Indeed, Voltaire had this worked out more than two centuries ago: “The man who, in a fit of melancholy, kills himself today, would have wished to live had he waited a week.” Not true in all cases of course, there are many poor souls who are set on the terrible course and will not stop until they have succeeded, but many others, as you say, make the attempt under the influence of psychotic episodes or extreme emotional trauma, often exacerbated by drink or drugs. In such circumstances the availability of a quick, clean and certain means of suicide is inevitably a temptation.

This was proved some years ago in Switzerland: between 1995 and 2003, 39% of all suicides among men ages 18–43 in Switzerland were carried out using a gun. Guns were readily available because every militia soldier had to store his weapon at home during the week, and every soldier who completed his militia service was given the opportunity to purchase his service weapon at a nominal cost, which he could keep with no licensing requirements. In 2003 it was decided to halve the size of the Swiss Army from 400,000 to 200,000 and at the same time the charge levied for retaining one's service weapon was greatly increased and a strict licence system was also introduced for anyone who wished to do so. This had the effect of significantly decreasing the number of available firearms in the country, and the very next year suicide by firearm rates dropped by 5% and have continued to fall ever since so that they are now around 15% below their previous level; most importantly, this was mirrored by a drop in the overall suicide rate, proving that it was not simply a matter of those who no longer had guns available choosing a different means.

Rendel Harris wrote:

This was proved some years ago in Switzerland:

Or, they proved that military service is a factor driving suicide rates.  A claim for which there is plenty of supporting evidence from around the globe.

Also, counting suicides at all is notoriously tricky.  It is very difficult to ask a suicide victim if their act was intentional.  The bottom line is that Switzerland's overall death rate continued its downward trend largely uneffected by this change in firearm availability.  That trend was fairly consistent from the Early 1980s until the Pandemic.

TheBillder wrote:

So if you banned ammunition, that would help. 

Please list the items successfully banned by a country.  They are extremely few and far between, and I don't believe any were banned by a country of the US' size with many thousands of miles of border, and a basically lawless Southern neighbor.

Countries around the world struggle to stop human trafficking, and that's a lot easier to spot than a 9mm cartridge.

TheBillder wrote:

Except that there's plenty of evidence that making suicide attempts more difficult, or less likely to succeed, does help reduce the rate. Somewhere there's a stat for the percentage of people caught in anti-suicide nets under the Golden Gate bridge who are glad to have been saved. Indeed, the one person I have met who survived his own attempt (at jumping from a tall building) was very, very grateful to have survived as his attempt was made during a single episode of psychosis.

Even if that "evidence" were reliable, and little of it is more than wishful thinking ( because, among other reasons, a person can walk in front of a train or a bus, or OD, and not even be counted as a suicide ), this is not necessarily even a good thing.

We consider it cruel to force a non-human animal that is suffering to endure that pain.  For no logical reason, however, we demand that suffering humans continue to bear that pain.  Look, if you are helping people escape their pain, that's great -- but forcing people to live through it makes you a psychopath.

If you could magically prevent all suicides, you would prevent some people from making a mistake -- but you would also condemn many people to unbearable suffering.  I would like to know from where you think you derive that authority.

There is no stat for the people who took their own life and don't regret it, but pretending that no one fits that criteria is naive.

dh700 wrote:

Capercaillie wrote:

It's the sort of murder that may not have happened if it were not for America's non-existent gun control.

If a crazy person wants to kill you, they are probably going to figure out a way to do it -- especially if you are a cyclist who spends considerable time vulnerable in public.

 

More to the point, Armstrong was young woman herself.  Are you prepared to tell all young women that they cannot possess a handgun for their own safety?  Are you prepared to take responsibility for their safety?  Even the lowest estimates for incidences of defensive gun-use far exceed firearm deaths in the United States.  The highest estimates for defensive uses are orders of magnitude higher than deaths.  A person in the United States is far more likely to use a gun to protect themself than they are to be killed by one -- and that doesn't account for the many young women who are killed by other means, generally by bigger, stronger men, who might've been able to protect themself with a gun.

[...]

That one is debated strongly as you might imagine e.g.:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/07/guns-handguns-safety-homicide-killing-study

As is becoming increasingly known for women and children "stranger danger" is overall less of a risk than "abusive within a relationship / by friends and relations".  That alone might suggest being "careful what you wish for" with the idea that having a gun at home is insurance against badness.

Too much on this already but for anyone interested in the multi-factor problem with guns (once you have lots available) and ways to help (short of removing them):

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2019/jun/03/gun-violence-bay-area-drop-30-percent-why-investigation

chrisonatrike wrote:

 

That one is debated strongly as you might imagine e.g.:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/07/guns-handguns-safety-homicide-killing-study

The quoted study is irrelevant.  It only examines the rate of people being shot, and ignores all other fatalities. Does it somehow matter to a dead person if they were shot due to a gun being available, or strangled due to one not being available?  No, it doesn't.

it also fails to account for societal factors -- it is entirely likely, for example, that many of the guns in those homes are there because those homes are in dangerous neighborhoods.

Quoting junk studies does not further your position.

Why actual evidence is there that Strickland had any culpability?

.

Evidence? Evidence?!

.

How DARE you, Sir?!!

.

All we know is that both Strickland (definitely) and Armstrong (probably) were at the scene of the crime about the time of the murder, that both had guns, and that both have since fled. As to who did it, that is pure conjecture at this stage.

He purchased the gun. He was hiding his (purely platonic and professional) relationship with Wilson from Armstrong, knowing that Armstrong had expressed a wanting to cause injury/death to Wilson. Armstrong may not have had such a strong urge we're it not for Strickland's on-going "relationship" with Wilson.

If he was as clean as can be then his sponsors wouldn't be dumping him like radioactive poo. 

Not seeing that in any of the stories I read. Definitely her bike and not early leads that went nowhere?

As for the door, she probably let her in to talk. Probably either to alleviate her concerns or to show Srickland wasn't there not realising she was armed. 

The bit about the bike is in the Police report
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22026476-d-1-dc-22-301129

Most people would not invite a stalker into the house; Wilson would realise Armstrong had no other plausible means of being on her doorstep. But possibly she just left the door unlocked?

It's entirely plausible she let her in.  Even in hun happy America the majority of disagreements are resolved without violence. 

The bike could have been a rushed attempt to make it look like a burglary.  But without more details of what went on inside the house, its really hard to say.