MORGANTOWN, W.Va. — A person was hospitalized Friday after a shooting in Monongalia County. It happened at about 10:30 at a residence on Pixler Hill Road.

Monongalia County sheriff’s deputies questioned a man at the scene.

bubble graphic

43

bubble graphic

Comments

  • Thecrow2123

    So your saying you did not call yourself a "progressive" and were called on it as it is the same thing as "socialist" and then admitted to being so? I sure do remember that as being the case. Besides, even if I have confused you with someone else on this point, the rest of what I said is true as your posts prove.

    Also, I don't have another name on here so you can drop all that.

    • The bookman

      Crow,

      I've had many, many lengthy debates with Jason412. We seldom agree on all points, but usually can find some common ground if the debate can stay above board, absent labels. Approach the debate willing to consider the other opinion, and you can learn/teach something. He's no Gary Karstens, and has a complex belief system, but provides an intelligent debate, which is what a good debate should be.

    • Jason412

      Hell no I've never labeled myself a progressive. I'll make you a deal, if you can find a post of me saying that I'll never post again.

      • Thecrow2123

        Ok then Jason, I have confused you with someone else then. I stand corrected. My appology's!

    • Thecrow2123

      This was in reply to jason412 and somehow got here

  • JustaFan

    I live in a county where there are more guns than people--hand guns, shot guns, rifles, "assault" weapons. My home county has also been one of the hardest hit by prescription drug abuse and the down turn in the coal industry. Poverty is high, employment is low. But I go to bed every night with my door unlocked. We have no "home invasions" here. The only time houses are broken into is when no one is home. Why? Because the bad guys know that almost everyone owns and knows how to use a gun. And you know what else? We don't have shootings or armed robberies here either.

    The fact of the matter is gun violence has dropped SIGNIFICANTLY since the 1990's. The majority of gun deaths are suicides. The next highest category is use by the police while in the line of duty.

    The media and gun control advocates would like to tell you otherwise, but we do not have a "gun" problem in America.

    http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

    • Jason412

      The drop in gun violence has been attributed to the crack epidemic diminishing, not gun ownership.

      Do you have a link stating the second highest category of gun deaths, after suicide, is police in the line of duty?

      • JustaFan

        Yea, agreed, that's why I posted it. It's in the report. It's several "chapters," you have to keep clicking through all of the pages. I don't remember exactly where it's at in there, but that's where I read it.

        • JustaFan

          It just occurred to me that you probably didn't see the link I posted at the bottom of my comment. It's not a live link, you'll have to copy and paste

          • Jason412

            I stand corrected on gang violence being the second leading cause of homicide. At least the way it is classified by the FBI.

            This chart is called "Murder Circumstances by Weapon" and lists all 2010 homicides.

            www .fbi .gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl11.xls (take spaces out of link when copying)

            Of 8,775 firearm homicides in 2010 "unknown" is the leading cause at 3,380 while "other arguments"(not money or property) is second at 1,937. Gangland and juvenile gang killings are pretty far behind at 985 combined. I would think a percentage of the "unknown" homicides are committed by gang members, but that is anecdotal.

          • Jason412

            Maybe it wasn't deleted and it was just waiting moderation. My old post popped up when I just clicked submit. Sorry if it posts twice or more.

          • Jason412

            I typed a long response, apparently Metronews saw fit to delete it. I would like to think it was because of the links, but there are other links on this same page. Good thing my response was still on my clipboard.


            JustAFan,

            I did miss the link at first, but I've now read the entire report, I didn't see anything saying the police were the second cause of firearm deaths. I did see where your link made the same point that the crack epidemic was to blame for the 90's violence.

            As far as police being the second leading cause of firearm related deaths, here is some information on that.

            "Law enforcement reported 665 justifiable homicides in 2010. Of those, law enforcement officers justifiably killed 387 felons, and private citizens justifiably killed 278 people during the commission of a crime."

            I would provide a link, but I wont in case that is why my last post was deleted. It is on the FBI website, "Expanded Homicide Data". It can be Google'd.

            387 police justifiable homicides, since 387 of the 665 were committed by police, can not be anywhere close to the second leading cause of firearm deaths. Out of over 10,000 gun homicides 387 is a drop in the bucket.

            There is also a chart on the FBI site, showing between 2006-2010 the highest number of police justifiable homicides was 414.

            Using 11,000 as an average of firearm homicide's and 414 as highest number of justifiable homicides that would mean justifiable homicides account for less than 4% of firearm deaths.

            I don't have any information that says so, but if I had to bet I would say the second leading cause of firearm deaths after suicide is gang-related violence, with justifiable homicide probably being among the last of leading causes.

            TheCrow,

            Although I've never said any of those things and they couldn't be further from the truth, except that I use online data to further my argument because I believe in facts and information that is more than anecdotal, at least I consistently use the same online moniker and stand behind the things I have said.

          • Thecrow2123

            No point arguing with 412. He's publicly admitted he's a anti-constitution socialist bleeding heart liberal in past posts on this site.

            He will just keep going to propaganda pages and copy and past everything he can to attempt to counter anyone he disagrees with.

            He's just a young un with little to no real world experience who's entire opinion is formed from MSNBC and socialist ideals procured from the internet.

      • Jason412

        Oh, I read your entire link, I see they too credit the drop to the crack epidemic dwindling.

        As far as police being the second leading cause of firearm related deaths, which I did not see in the link you mentioned.

        "Law enforcement reported 665 justifiable homicides in 2010. Of those, law enforcement officers justifiably killed 387 felons, and private citizens justifiably killed 278 people during the commission of a crime."
        http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expandhomicidemain

        I would love to know how 387 justifiable homicides, since only 387 of the 665 were police in the line of duty, accounts for the second highest category of firearms deaths after suicide. Out of over 10,000 gun homicides 387 is a drop in the bucket.

        Here is a chart showing 2006-2010, with justifiable homicides hitting 414 at the highest.
        http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl14.xls

        Using 11,000 as an average of firearm deaths and the 414 highest number of justifiable homicides that would mean justifiable homicides account for less than 4% of firearm deaths.

        I can't find a government site saying it in the few minutes I've looked, but I would bet the farm the second leading cause of firearm deaths after suicide is gang-related violence, with justifiable homicide probably being among the last of leading causes.

        • Jason412

          Oh, I read your entire link, I see they too credit the drop to the crack epidemic dwindling.

          As far as police being the second leading cause of firearm related deaths, which I did not see in the link you mentioned.

          "Law enforcement reported 665 justifiable homicides in 2010. Of those, law enforcement officers justifiably killed 387 felons, and private citizens justifiably killed 278 people during the commission of a crime."
          www .fbi .gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expandhomicidemain (take spaces out)

          I would love to know how 387 justifiable homicides, since only 387 of the 665 were police in the line of duty, accounts for the second highest category of firearms deaths after suicide. Out of over 10,000 gun homicides 387 is a drop in the bucket.

          Here is a chart showing 2006-2010, with justifiable homicides hitting 414 at the highest.
          www .fbi .gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl14.xls (take spaces out)

          Using 11,000 as an average of firearm deaths and the 414 highest number of justifiable homicides that would mean justifiable homicides account for less than 4% of firearm deaths.

          I can't find a government site saying it in the few minutes I've looked, but I would bet the farm the second leading cause of firearm deaths after suicide is gang-related violence, with justifiable homicide probably being among the last of leading causes.

          Sorry if this posts twice, it was moderated.

          • Bob

            Google How many deaths from guns and how many deaths from hospital errors, Dr errors or wrong meds.
            Should we outlaw Drs, Hospitals etc?
            Check the ratio.

  • lee

    Sherald Hill ????????????????????????????

  • David

    Another idiot making another idiot post..
    We should ban idiots from having computers.

  • Sherald Hill

    Gary just expressed an opinion and at least he was man enough to attach his name to it unlike the cowards who hide behind a city name or a nickname.

    I also believe that people kill people but guns make the process too easy. Automobiles are used at a rate of 12000% more than guns and are a necessity for modern life so that argument is sophomoric. Knives are used in .01% as many homicides are guns... Again sophomoric and lazy argument. The idea of comparing 18th century guns to todays weaponry is also a lazy argument. By your reckoning all people should be allowed to own nuclear weapons to protect their constitutional rights to bear arms against the tyranny of the government. Really?

    People are the problem. But that doesn't stop us from placing limits on the speed we can drive or the amount of times we can break sensible laws before their are consequences.

    Eliminating handguns and not rifles would knock out 99% of shooting deaths. And help people be a little less stupid. And would allow the insecure abusers of our constitution who believe that a weapon is what makes them comfortable the opportunity to still own a rifle or 100 rifles. It's not a perfect fix but a step in the direction of less murder and who wouldn't want that? It's been proven to succeed in other countries.

    If hearing about a murder doesn't make you question your moral code because of fear then you are doomed to being scared for the rest of your life.

    • Randy NIEZGODA

      You are braver than Gary Karstens. You shared your name to give that idiot the first +1 I've ever seen. Get rid of handguns and none of those 99% would ever resort to a rifle. You DOLT. Yes you expressed an opinion and I called you names. Rude? Childish? Maybe so. I have my opinions. You and everyone else have theirs. I see you as a dolt and I believe with all my being that Gary Karstens is such a major Freak and total idiot that he is too stupid to even be in almost every conversation he has posted comments on. But maybe I suffer from my own diminished mental capacity. Let's face it-I've bothered to even argue with both of you.

    • Thecrow2123

      Hill,

      The problem is not the guns or even access to them. The problem in this country is morality, respect for human life, respect for the rule of law and self respect. All of these things use to be learned by children from their parents, schools and messages delivered in books, games, various media sources etc.

      We have regulated God and country out of classrooms and homes and create excuses for bad behavour rather than repremand or otherwise punish. Everything is ok, it's not your fault, you were born that way and on and on is what their told. Tell on your parents if they correct you and we will have them arrested. These are the messages we give our children now rather than the message of personal responsibility and morality.

      If you want to reduce gun violence you have to change the culture that created it not attack our personal rights and libertys. Doing the latter only further enslaves a people and makes them more desperate which only serves to breed more violence.

    • DWM

      Hill,

      So the government passes a law and says you can keep your rifles and shotguns but it bans handguns. All the law abiding citizens, grumble, then comply and turn in their handguns.

      How many criminals do you think would comply?

      Why punish the law abiding for the sins of the criminals? I would be in favor of greater punishment for crimes committed with a gun, which would get to the issue more effectively.

      • Sherald Hill

        I think it would keep the guns from funneling down to the criminals if they were off the market. They wouldn't comply but their supply would dry up if us law abiding citizens would comply.

        • Marion

          Sherald you have got to be kidding!

    • The bookman

      Mr. Hill,

      A careful analysis of the Second Amendment by the Supreme Court indicated the reference to militias was a specific reference to the types of weapons protected. Any weapon that could be carried on your person, and would be customary of that time period to be found on the persons who would participate in a well regulated militia would be protected. So yes it is absurd to assume the Second
      Amendment protects the possession of nuclear weapons, or any other weapon not found on your typical member of the Army National Guard when deployed for combat.

      It is equally absurd to assume that any restriction of the types of weapons protected under the Second Amendment would stop many of the violent crimes perpetrated against citizens. Criminals by definition have little regard for the law.

      • Jason412

        Bookman,

        "Any weapon that could be carried on your person, and would be customary of that time period to be found on the persons who would participate in a well regulated militia would be protected. "

        A standard weapon for a current deployment would be an M-16 or M4A1 with automatic capabilities, but there are very tight restrictions on automatic rifles for a US citizen. It's not a coincidence that automatic rifles are very rarely, if ever, used in street crimes.

        While I agree Sherman's nuclear weapon theory is a bit of a stretch, a typical member of the National Guard is more and more frequently carrying an M203 grenade launcher on top of their automatic capable M-16's.

        Some restrictions make sense and are far from giving up rights.

        • The bookman

          I agree, and interestingly enough the language was used to restrict the ability of someone to carry concealed a shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches. The point is the the language limits both sides of the argument, which I believe is acceptable. But those limitations should never include a handgun due to what a criminal may do with it.

      • Sherald Hill

        The clarification that a weapon may not indiscriminately harm bystanders because of aiming ability has been argued in front of the Supreme Court but a true test of weather a targeted advanced nuclear weapon would be the only way an individual or militia could and would protect themselves from tyranny has never been argued. Therefore 2nd amendment zealots do not understand the Pandora's box that they are trying to open. One day all 3 branches will be conservative and a ruling will come down that will give an innocent freedom(complete arms freedom) that will have destructive ramifications if acted upon by the fringe.

        And to your last statement..criminals are lawless so therefore they should have access to tools and implementation of destruction? Just because they will break the law doesn't mean we should impose laws against them that would inhibit their ability to break the law more severely. IE if there are no handguns or they are made to be unlawful then those carrying them can be sought out by the law easier and dealt with before they break other laws.

        If a drug dealer has illegal drugs on their person then they can be arrested. But if only selling the drugs were illegal the we would have to wait for the act to apprehend then. Making handguns illegal would give us another avenue to arrest the criminal and to me that's not a bad thing. Leave the hand guns to public entities like the police and national guard and army and make sure they are using them in the right way through active governance.

        • The bookman

          But the type of weapon protected by the Second Amendment has been tested, and the Supreme Court utilizes the militia language to discern the specificity of the covered weapon. You're being absurd attempting to infer that weapons of mass destruction, nuclear or otherwise, would be protected. The remainder of your argument ignores the constitutional protections we have been granted in the Bill of Rights. There is a legitimate process for this country to change the Second Amendment. It would require a high standard, as it should. You and others on the other side of this argument attempt to circumvent that process in the name of safety and the greater good. I appreciate your consideration and thoughtfulness, but no thank you sir! The right to keep and bear arms was the Second most important right the Founders bestowed on this free land and its people. Freedom to speak, worship, and assemble were the only more pressing issues on their minds. It is a basic tenet of a free people.

          • The bookman

            We have a violent culture. And it is becoming more violent everyday. We need to deal with that end of it. Restrictions on gun ownership change nothing, just makes us feel as though we are doing something to affect change or save a life. But once we go down that road of giving away our rights, it becomes easier the next time.

            Legally obtained handguns, rifles, shotguns actually reduce crime, not increase them. An armed public is a significant deterrent to violent crime, and although I understand your argument, I simply don't agree. The court has maintained that not only does the Second Amendment provide security against a tyrannical government, but that it also provides the basis for self defense from non government sources. Many men and women have given their ultimate sacrifice to maintain this and other rights bestowed by our Constitution, and we shouldn't give them away in an effort to "feel" as though we are making a difference, even though statistics prove otherwise.

          • Sherald Hill

            The 2nd amendment is still up for interpretation regardless of what precedent has set before any court. My point was that once an extreme/activist court is in place then all bets are off.

            I'm not on one side or another. I just believe that holding onto antiquated methodologies that the founding fathers knew would need reconsideration because of the amendment process is foolish.

            We have a problem in this country with gun deaths. That's the simple truth and those who aren't willing to consider ways to alleviate that problem are culpable. Just blaming guns or just blaming the people using them is the wrong tactic. An owner without a handgun and a gun without an owner have the same capability to cause a fun crime... Zero.

            Remember I'm talking about hand guns now.

        • Sherald Hill

          Wether not weather. Damn autocorrect! :-)

          • Sherald Hill

            Wow I'm that guy that can't spell or use a phone... Whether!

  • Rand McNally

    Geography is obviously not a prerequisite for employment at MetroNews.

  • Bob

    Why would the Kanawha County Sheriff 's department investigate a Monongalia County Shooting?

  • Confusing...

    Kanawha County deputies responded to a Mon County shooting?

  • Gary Karstens

    Another shooting. How much more do people want before we ban these weapons of death from our society?

    Shootings, shootings, shootings .... YEESH!!!!!

    • Thecrow2123

      So like the gun got ticked off and just snapped and shot someone then? Is that how it works? It's not the persons fault who pulled the trigger, the mean nasty gun made him do it.

      If that were the case your call to repeal my Second Amendment Rights might be valid.

      If you take weapons away from law abiding citizens the only ones left with them will be the criminals. No matter what you do you won't disarm them. That would only result in more crime and even more gun deaths.

      Stop being ignorant and so willing to give up your Constitutional Rights. If they succeed in taking one away they will take them all.

    • TB

      Automobile accidents = about 35,000 fatalities per year. Should we ban automobiles you idiot?

    • Marion

      Would it make you feel any better if they were all pushed out of windows from ten stories up ?! You are a complete idiot !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • Randy

        You forgot the Geez little goyl if you were quoting Archie Bunker.

    • Marion

      You are a complete idiot just like Obama ! People kill people not guns !!

    • Martinsburg Resident

      Another wreck. How much more do people want before we ban these vehicles of death from our society?

      Wrecks, wrecks, wrecks.... YEESH!!!!

      Another stabbing. How much more do people want before we ban these knives of death from our society?

      Stabbings, stabbings, stabbings.... YEESH!!!!

      Another drowning. How much more do people want before we ban these bodies of water of death from our society?

      Drownings, drownings, drownings.... YEESH!!!!

      Question is... Can we ban stupidity?