Teenager Mistakes Little Brother for Intruder, Shoots Him

[baldguy]

Source: ABC news via Yahoo

A teenager shot and killed his 12-year-old brother because he mistook him for an intruder in their Florida home, police said today.

According to police the 16-year-old was home alone on Friday when his younger brother came home.

"He heard some noises and he called out for his brother and he didn't answer and then his brother startled him," Orlando Police Department Detective Mike Moreschi told ABCNews.com affiliate WFTV.

Scared that there was an intruder in the home, the older boy grabbed a gun and shot his brother, according to police. Once the teen realized what had happened, he immediately called 911.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/teenager-mistakes-little-brother-intruder-shoots-him-155306542--abc-news-topstories.html;_ylt=AmNHJbgue93ZlnBYILJfz7is0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTUyN3VoYTQ1BGNjb2RlA2dtcHRvcDEwMDBwb29sd2lraXVwcmVzdARtaXQDTmV3cyBGb3IgWW91IDUgU3RvcmllcwRwa2cDM2EyYTJmMzgtZjczNS0zNDc4LTk1N2MtNTVmYWQwNzY1NzYwBHBvcwMyBHNlYwNuZXdzX2Zvcl95b3UEdmVyA2MwZWQ0N2MxLTkzZDEtMTFlMi1iZGJmLTljNmRmYzNkNDA5Zg--;_ylg=X3oDMTIzcXZhbGx0BGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25zBHRlc3QDTjRVX2NvcmVhcGk-;_ylv=3

---

How many more Americans will be sacrificed to the gun Gods?

To all you people who oppose any type of national gun control: Go home and hug your damn guns this evening.

[COLGATE4]

1. Well, if the 12 year old brother had only

had a gun he could have returned fire. Thanks, NRA.

[busterbrown]

16. His parents probably put the fear of God into him.

Warned him about hoards of people ready to invade house.

[COLGATE4]

18. Hordes of 'dam' furriners' you mean... nt

[ybbor]

21. That is my new response to all shootings

including that of toddlers and infants. Such a stupid effing talking point! I hate guns and their coddlers so much. Yes I said hate.

[McCamy Taylor]

24. My first thought, too. The NRA should be declared a public health emergency.

[Purveyor]

2. God damn. nt

[Divernan]

3. Immediately going on my FB page

with the heading: "To all you people who oppose any type of national gun control: Go home and hug your damn guns this evening." How much of an "accident" in the sense that it was unforeseeable was this. Paranoid gun-lovin' dad & or Mom leaves 16 year old home alone with a readily accessible loaded gun. What are the chances their 12 year old was wearing earbuds for some gadget and didn't hear his older brother call out? Like that would never happen, right!

(Remeber to rec this folks)

[alcibiades_mystery]

4. Gun culture + Fear culture = Shit like this

Shoot at every bump in the night. We're training a generation of shooting lunatics.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

42. Guns go well with chattering teeth.

[struggle4progress]

130. +

[Submariner]

5. That's quite an emotional load for this teenager to carry around for the rest of his life

Sixty or 70 years of thinking EVERY FUCKING DAY that "I KILLED my brother."

I'm sure Wayne pissypants La Pierre will provide free counseling.

[thucythucy]

43. That was my first thought--that this teenager

will spend the rest of his life in the shadow of this horrible event.

From here on his life will be divided into two times: before, and after.

Poor kid.

Let's hope his parents get rid of their gun(s), as this kid has now become a prime candidate for suicide.

[markiv]

6. guns usually kill family members or are used in suicides when used on a person

doesnt mean they are never used sucessfully in self defense, it just means those incidents are outnumbered by undesirable outcomes

[Blanks]

23. One in twenty two...

Was the last statistic that I saw.

For every successful home invasion averted by a gun, twenty one people are killed in their home by a suicide, shooting a family member, or accidentally shooting themselves.

Hardly seems worth the risk of having one around.

[markiv]

30. depends on where you are

i could see if you were out in a place like the sand hills of nebreaska, where there's NOTHING out there, and the nearest police could be 45 minutes away - IF everyone in your family fully understood the risks AND the guns were flawlessly secured from those unable to handle the risks

but for most people? not worth it, in pure safety calculation, anyway

[Blanks]

34. I live on earth.

I don't think people should be encouraged to shoot home invaders on this planet.

I might feel different if I lived on Mars for example. If people want to have guns because they like to go to the shooting range or worry about bears, but protecting against home invaders - there has to be a better way. If this kid had been armed with pepper spray, his brother would still be alive.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

45. Did it ever occur to anyone to get out of the house?

No? Maybe because someone WANTS an excuse to use the gun?

After all, stealing a $40 DVD player from Walmart would get the death sentence before a judge.

Right?

That'll teach em.

[Blanks]

65. I don't understand why anyone would want to shoot an intruder...

It wouldn't be as devastating (psychologically) as killing a family member, but dealing with killing someone in your house wouldn't be a picnic either.

[alp227]

67. What if the intruder had a GUN??????

or started beating you on sight? Or had other weapons? Or put up a fight?

[adieu]

71. What if no one had a gun?

If you want to make wild imaginations, let's go with one that would be nice to have.

[alp227]

78. Do you include cops in your scenario? N/t

[adieu]

81. What part of "no one has a gun"

do you not get?

[alp227]

83. Face it. In the REAL WORLD, guns are sometimes NECESSARY.

Like the military or self defense.

[mimi85]

94. Bullshit. nt

[adieu]

103. Name me a war in the past 40 years

that was truly fought for the defense of a country, state or the peoples of such a region. The only wars are fought for the convenience of the leaders to plunder. If you want to end wars, end corporate greed.

[primavera]

122. Citizens of most of the world's developed nations do not have guns

Yet, incredibly, they somehow manage to survive without them. And, stranger still, they do so with far, far fewer per capita gun deaths than we here who appreciate the necessity of guns have. How can that possibly be? I guess the rest of the world just isn't REAL; only we are the REAL world.

[pipoman]

129. How far back are you looking?

If your history stops 30 years ago I suppose you may be right...better not look much farther than that or you might see something which is diametrically opposed to this statement..

[primavera]

131. Sure, gun control is a relatively modern step in world history

So are airplanes, automobiles, antibiotics, computers, and a host of other modern developments that have had profoundly positive impacts upon the modern world.

[pipoman]

139. Yeah and 80 years ago, when they needed them, they needed them immediately..n/t

[Flatulo]

192. If no one had a gun, a strong man could still assault or violate a weaker person.

There's the rub - a gun can give a weaker person an advantage over a stronger one. Statistics be damned, if I was being beaten to death, I'd want something that could help me to stop the attack, or prevent it from starting in the first place.

Killing did not start with the invention of the firearm. Throughout history the strong have always preyed on the weak.

[Blanks]

164. Get a grip.

One in twenty-two, statistically you and your family are safer without a gun.

You do understand; that means I am 22 times (not 22%), 22 times more likely to lose a family member (to a firearm incident) because I have a firearm than I am to stop an intruder with a firearm.

If someone breaks into my house and decides they're gonna beat me or shoot me or steal all my shit, the outcome isn't going to change (not for the better anyway) because I have a gun.

I do improve my family's chances of survival by not having a gun around. I'm a veteran. I've spent time around rifles and pistols. I don't begrudge people owning them, but thinking that you're gonna shoot someone that has broken into your house, and get on with your life is delusional.

I lived in the inner city and I was broken into (I wasn't there) and quite a bit of my stuff was taken. It was a bunch of neighborhood kids. I couldn't live with myself after having shot some kid. I'd rather they beat the hell out of me and took everything I owned.

The whole idea of shooting burglars is just wrong. If someone wants to break in and do worse things; we have locks on our doors and phones nearby. Let the cops do their job.

[alp227]

182. Really? Let me break your points down

"If someone breaks into my house and decides they're gonna beat me or shoot me or steal all my shit, the outcome isn't going to change (not for the better anyway) because I have a gun."

I see all sorts of anecdotal evidence (local news stories, specifically) about burglars running away because they saw armed homeowners, in a web search of burglars scared off guns (keywords). You may be right about an armed homeowner making things worse. Let's say an armed robber broke in your home. If the robber wanted to avoid leaving evidence behind or cause a ruckus the robber would just use the weapon as intimidation rather than murder tool. However, if the homeowner were armed, then a firefight would happen both ways. Generally, shopkeepers, bank tellers, etc. are trained to just give up property or money to armed robbers. Arguably the same could apply to homeowners.

But do you not believe you would no-questions-asked use deadly force against a robber if the robber started harming you or your family members/co-habitants? Do you not believe in fighting back after getting punched or self-defense in general? What would you say about this local story of an elderly couple TIED UP by knife-wielding robbers?

[Blanks]

185. Twenty-two to one.

There isn't anything confusing about that. I'm not sure what part of 22 to 1 you don't understand.

Yes, there are stories where it worked out that someone had a gun. For every story where it worked out for someone having a gun - there are twenty-two stories where someone needlessly died because they had a gun.

Simply ignoring the statistics and sharing a delightful story might be persuasive at the local watering hole, or even among a group of like minded folks - it is not persuasive enough to overcome the overwhelming statistics that indicate that it is not safe for a family to have guns laying around.

Of course I'd fight back, it might even kill me (I might die of a heart attack), I don't need a gun to fight back. I've been punched and not felt the need to use deadly force, or I know if I'd been punched and angry enough to use deadly force; I recognize that when things calmed down, I would have regretted using deadly force.

It doesn't really support your argument to suggest that if an intruder were armed, he might use it for intimidation, but if I had a gun - we'd all be dead. That's kind of making my point for me.

Twenty-two to one, think about it.

[alp227]

186. That 22x figure has been disputed elsewhere on DU.

Like here http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x261656

But you are right, s___ happens with guns. Like kids accidentally discharging weapons, mistaken identity cases like this one and another from North Georgia where the victim (Rodrigo Diaz) ACCIDENTALLY drive on ryde wrong driveway and was TRYING TO LEAVE!

thank you though for getting me to re think. When I was in training for a retail job, the supervisors taught us to surrender any property/money if an armed robber comes rather than fight back and risk worse events. If you recommend similar response to home robbery victims, I would agree. Now putting myself in the mind of a criminal, I ask: would a strategic criminal want to risk additional assault charges over robbery charges if the robber succeeded but knew he would get caught later?

I think gun rights defenders need to realize...without defending the tactics of armed robbers..."self defense" happens BOTH ways, and is it really worth it risking your life trying to be your own cop?

[Blanks]

187. I feel the way I do because of my own situation.

I don't expect it's always a bad idea to have guns in the home. There are probably situations where it makes sense for people to have guns in their home. Trained people who have a real possibility of threats to their life - no kids etc. Thats not me.

I don't really care if the 22 to 1 statistic has been refuted. If you tally up the firearm deaths since Christmas, I'll bet it comes up pretty close to that. Any statistic that has judgement calls can be interpreted differently. In my own personal experience, I've known of, or heard about firearm accident after firearm accident, I know of no instance in my personal life where a home invasion was stopped because the homeowner had a firearm. I see accidents, homicides, and suicides on the nightly news, I never see stories where a home invasion was stopped (granted, I don't watch the news very often). I have no problem believing its 20 to 1 or so.

The biggest factor in this to me is that I don't want people to believe that they will be hailed as a hero if they shoot a home invader. I just don't think that's the reality and even if it were, it isn't worth the risk of losing a family member.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

68. It's blood sport. The home version.

[Mojorabbit]

121. A good friend of mine

was shot dead by an armed burgler in his own home. I miss him every day.

[Flatulo]

119. It's not always possible, or even desirable. Are there children sleeping upstairs?

Do you abandon your wife in the bedroom while you go out a window in the den? What if you're disabled? Even with my cane I can only walk about .001 MPH. I can't run even one step or I'll crumble like a cheap suit.

How do you know what an intruder's intentions are, especially given that they've taken the really extraordinary step of entering your home while its occupied? I doubt very many burglars do this - it's far safer - for them - to burgle an unoccupied dwelling.

It's not about $40 DVD players. It's about violating your personhood in one of the most offensive ways imaginable. I can only put rape higher on the list of things that should get a perpetrator shot. If you can be violated in your own home with relative impunity, then where on earth can one feel safe?

[Mojorabbit]

120. +100 nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

140. I believe there are rape victims that will disagree that a burglary is the same thing.

[Flatulo]

142. Who said they're the same thing? I believe I said that having ones home invaded is a

truly frightening and horrible experience. People are often unable to live a normal life after. Just because rape may be more traumatic doesn't make home invasion a big joke.

You seem rather unsympathetic. I feel empathy for the person who's been violated in this way. I feel nothing for the perpetrators. If they get shot, that's fine with me. They should choose a less dangerous occupation.

Rapists should also be shot during the commission of their crimes. If more of them were, maybe it would act as a deterrent to would-be peeps.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

143. "They should choose a less dangerous occupation."

You just inspired a great Monty Python type sketch of the job interview.

[defacto7]

147. I choose to live my life... not live in fear of pain or death.

Why live in fear of something that isn't? Why live for the retribution of something that isn't happening?

Guns do not make you safe, they only make you dangerous to yourself and everyone else good or bad. They do not relieve your fear either, they only accentuate it. Guns magnify the fear by focusing on it.

I don't see that you are as interested in protecting yourself as you are in getting back at something you fear... and it doesn't exist. Now that is dangerous.

[Flatulo]

175. Oh, I assure you I don't live in fear.

It's not like I sit there watching the door with a shotgun in my lap. I see firearms as an insurance policy, like my fire extinguisher or first aid kit or spare batteries. Sure, they're more dangerous, but I've been handling firearms for over 40 years without incident. I believe in safe storage and safety training if a person chooses to own them.

I take Lipitor, but I don't live in fear of a cardiac event. I value my life and don't burden others with responsibility for it.

Guns were just not a big deal where I grew up. Everyone had a .22 rifle by age 18 for hunting squirrel and rabbit.

I'm sure some people obsess over their guns, but I really don't. I have one rifle, a shotgun and a Glock pistol. I don't understand people who amass a large arsenal.

Anyway, I guess it all depends on the culture in which one was raised. I grew up in a rural area with woods everywhere. We went out plinking almost every day in tHe summers. It was just what we did.

I'm OK with an AWB, even though I think it wouldn't affect the overall firearm death rates very much.

[defacto7]

178. short reply...

I grew up in a rural area with woods everywhere. We went out plinking almost every day in tHe summers. It was just what we did.

Me too.

I also disagree with what I read in your post as false equivalences. The safety measures you mention only affect you and are not dangerous to you or others. And what I read in your earlier post still sounds like retribution not safety measures. Using the word "insurance" implies "watching the door" for the intruder that isn't there, and insurance policies do not kill.

On edit: No offence. I just disagree with your premise and I'm always concerned when someone writes with undertones of retribution.

[Flatulo]

179. I appreciate your civility, which is in short supply when the topic turns to guns.

I guess it would be accurate to say that I don't carry a lot of sympathy for people who would violate others. Sure, it's certainly not worth killing or getting killed over stuff. But violating the sanctity of ones home (or worse, their person in the case of assault or rape) just crosses a line for me. There are very few circumstances under which I can excuse it. I probably have a decidedly ill-liberal attitude towards it.

I've been robbed, burgled and assaulted, and it steals something from you every time and leaves anger in its place. I never lost anything that couldn't be replaced, but I was furious at the response of the system, which was - fuck it, nothing can be done about it. They even caught the guys who burgled my car and destroyed it in the process, and there was no penalty other than probation. These guys were caught with thousands of dollars worth of radar detectors and car stereos. They went to court and got - nothing. So much for property rights.

I know that having your car stereo stolen is absolutely nothing compared to being violently assaulted, but I still felt helpless and violated. And there's absolutely nothing you can do about it. The same was true when my apartment was robbed.

So yeah, I do harbor a lot of anger that people can pretty much fuck with you in any way they like and always get away with it.

[defacto7]

189. You're an honest person...

and that is also in short supply these days.

I'm sorry for your misfortune; I've had some of my own. Stay safe.

[Flatulo]

191. You too, friend. Peace.

[samsingh]

168. what exactly is a secure gun?

a locked gun would be useless in a real emergency.

the gun used in this tragedy could have been locked but would have been unlocked when the teenager became afraid.

the answer is to ban guns and EDUCATE people that they should NOT be used.

[Flatulo]

180. Guns could be made safer if the manufacturers chose to do so.

Guns should not be able to fire if the magazine clip is ejected (currently, they will fire that one remaining round in the chamber). And most pistols have no indicator of a live round chambered.

Biometrics should also be pursued. A cop loses control of his pistol during a scuffle and the bad guy gets it - wouldn't it be better if it couldn't fire? It's just a matter of engineering these things into guns and dealing with the cost.

And to reiterate, a gun should not be accessible to a sixteen year old who is home alone.

As far as not being able to get to a locked up gun, as long as you have a stout door with a deadbolt, you should have a few minutes to retrieve your weapon while calling 911.

Guns can't be made perfectly safe, and we can't ban ignorance, and criminals are not going to turn in their weapons, so we should do those things that are most likely to be at least more effective than nothing.

[samsingh]

193. the nra supports, encourages guns for children and youth

[llmart]

108. Go away, troll.

And take your NRA talking points with you.

[markiv]

125. how, exactly, is 'guns are most often kill family members or are used in suicides'

an NRA talking point?!

[samsingh]

169. yes, i was confused by the other posters comment

you seem to be advocating sensible gun control unless i'm reading incorrectly.

[Zoeisright]

136. "Outnumbered"???

There's the fucking understatement of the year. Christ on a crutch, I am sick to death of gun humpers defending their indefensible Precious.

[markiv]

160. all I said was that a gun bought for safety LOWERS the safety of the home

is there something wrong with saying that?

[timdog44]

7. How incredibly traumatic and heartbreaking for this family.

Mental health services will definitely be in order. Will the blame acceptance ever end? Accessible guns in a house with only a teenager home. Will the gun culture ever get corrected?

[harmonicon]

8. Not everyone who thinks "gun control" is misguided loves or owns guns.

I don't think anyone should have guns. I'd be very pleased if they only existed in museums, for the most part.

However, I think most of the proposed gun control legislation is terribly misguided and will do little to nothing to fix the current problem. We need to change the culture.

[alp227]

54. Face it, guns are an evil that will always exist.

If no one you think should have guns, how will people defend themselves from criminals/armed robbers who smuggle guns? I have yet to hear a definitive answer.

[harmonicon]

72. How would a criminal have guns if no one had guns?

If no one had guns, then criminals wouldn't have guns. It's simple logic. I don't think people should have guns. That's all. I didn't say I think they should be outlawed. That's my whole point. Making guns illegal isn't the problem. The problem is that there are criminals who would use them to further their enterprise, and really fucking stupid schmucks who would use them to endanger themselves and others for a false sense of security that a gun provides for them because of a fictitious narrative sold to them by an industrial lobby. It's the culture that has to change, not the laws.

I think a first step would be for people to acknowledge that having a gun isn't going to defend them from an armed robber. Someone who chooses to have a gun in their house is far more likely to be killed by that gun than a gun carried by a criminal.

[alp227]

80. You still haven't acknowledged a black market.

And won't those criminals still target the unarmed? http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/1149540.guns_out_of_control_as_robberies_soar/

[harmonicon]

84. Umm... I don't know what you're not getting here.

Go re-read my posts? I don't know what to tell you.

[mimi85]

95. I agree.

Someone isn't on the same page apparently.

[sir pball]

102. It's completely logically correct...but logic is just theory.

Iff (not a misspelling, look it up) there were no guns then no, criminals wouldn't get guns. Unfortunately there's a third of a billion guns in America today - so there's no logically perfect way to keep criminals from having guns. I do think we need to have a dialog on the issue and especially that gun owners need to realize that "with great power comes great responsibility", and said responsibility needs to be accountable...but realistically, there's a huge pool of of guns out there and we need to look at ways to stop criminals from getting them besides "if nobody had guns, bad guys wouldn't have guns!"

[Jenoch]

128. The problem with

"a gun in the home is more likely to kill the homeowner" blanket statements is that the data from which those statistics are drawn is often faulty.

The data includes situations where the fact that a gun victim has a gun of their own somewhere in their home and is irrelevant to the crime. For example, someone is shot in their home by someone who does not live in that home with a weapon brought into the home. The fact that the victim has a gun somewhere in the home, and it was not used in the crime, is not relevant but is included in the statistics. That is just one example.

[AtheistCrusader]

145. Will we have middle school metal shops?

Because that's all you need.

That said, I agree guns are a risk to keep in the home. A lot of people fail to grasp that, and the end result is tragic.
On the flipside, your comparison isn't complete. People with guns in the home are not constrained to only defend themselves against intruders with guns. The use of deadly force in self defense isn't predicated on that. After all, you can be killed with nothing more offensive than human fists and feet.

In the end though, I agree, even if I accept the presence of firearms, something is not quite copacetic with our culture.

[sir pball]

98. Or...not everyone who owns guns thinks "gun control" is misguided.

I own guns and I quite like them - in the same way I love my bike, and my cars when I have them (NYC is as bad for cars as guns..). As mechanical items that I can tinker with endlessly in search of a bit more performance, be it accuracy or speed. But I digress.

I also support a lot of pretty strong gun control, just not the kind of regulations that play to the masses. I don't support an AWB because practically, it's a silly feel-good law that frankly does ban guns on looks (Patton called the M1 Garand "the greatest battle implement ever devised" and it's not by any definition an "assault weapon&quot and pragmatically is a piss-poor way to spend political capital; ~350 murders with rifles of *all kinds* vs. 6,500+ with handguns is a telling statistic to where we should be focusing our efforts.

I think every firearms transaction, be it from a dealer, at a gun show, through the classifieds in the local paper, or from your best friend, should go through an FFL (licensed dealer) and be recorded on a 4473 (the ATF form that records any gun sold via a dealer); I don't like registration but I'm very much in favor of traceability and I think the difference needs to be clarified and promoted. I'm entirely OK with magazine limits - my preferred handgun carries 8, and my single magazine-fed rifle can't handle more than five without starting to damage the $700 barrel. Licensing, fine with me - I routinely have a concealed-carry permit, which is advertising to the government that I own guns, so making it mandatory? No problem. Hell, I've openly said I would be fine with bringing all guns in America under the same very strict laws that regulate machine guns in exchange for some realistically minor concessions. And that's just off the top of my head - probably 85% of gun control I support but the polarized nature of the debate and especially the weird fixation on the fucking AWB makes it a hard if not impossible discussion to have.

I know that simply saying "I own guns" makes people here recoil in disgust and fear, and tends to cut off a lot of constructive dialogue - but I own guns, and I am more your friend than you may think.

[harmonicon]

104. Well, I put "gun control" in quotes for a reason.

It seems like you and I are basically in agreement.

While I don't think people should have guns, I'm happy to say that's my feeling. There are a lot of things I'm into that the vast majority of the population would never understand. I think I'm reasonably frightened when someone owns something designed for killing humans, but I wouldn't take away their right to do so.

I imagine you're familiar (probably more than I am) with recent developments with 3D printed guns. If we make gun type-x illegal, what about the person who makes one at home? Is the digital file used to print it now also illegal? That's getting pretty close to thought crimes. Really, I don't think ideas, thoughts, or physical objects should be illegal by themselves. For these same reasons, I just don't understand the preoccupation with magazine limits. What's the point? It seems arbitrary to me.

I think the distinction between registration and traceability is an interesting one which I haven't seen framed so clearly. It's traceability that I care about. I honestly cannot imagine any (sane and/or not criminal) reason someone would be against being able to trace the path from manufacture to current location if a gun is lost, stolen, or used in a crime. Along with that, I think we need to repeal the crazy preemptive laws that shield gun sellers and manufacturers from liability when their products are used criminally, or as in the case of this story, accidentally. If every gun's route could be traced, these people should have nothing to fear if they're acting within the law and in good faith. There is no other industry we give this kind of preemptive protection to.

I'm fine philosophically with you owning guns, but if I had kids and you were my neighbour, I'd rather you didn't; just look at this story for one reason why.

[sir pball]

114. The whole protection thing is a real bother to me from both sides.

I don't really like the current shield laws for manufacturers; I think they're too broad and loose - but at the same time I think this is a possibility as to what could happen if unlimited lawsuits were allowed.

Manufacturers, despise the popular perception, are extraordinarily scrupulous about how their products are initially distributed, due to the really bad consequences if they're found to be playing fast and loose (despite even the immunity laws). And of course, after they wholesale the guns they lose control; that can get dicey too, if there's a very good operation diverting the guns at that level but making it all look legitimate. I'd be totally OK with trashing the shield laws given a strong (every gun sold goes on a 4473) traceability framework and then only allowing suits when there's question as to said traceability, with a loser-pays rider to boot.

I'm not a particular friend of the gun industry, don't own any stock in them, but I do admit there's a good possibility for an avalanche of knowingly-unwinnable lawsuits against them with the express purpose of killing them.

[harmonicon]

154. If lawsuits truly are frivolous, they can be thrown out.

We have an entire branch of government set up to deal with this. It's not as if there wasn't a massive lobbying organization around that could fund the defense. I really don't worry about the poor, massive, profitable corporations. Further, if manufacturers and sellers really are so confident that litigation against them would be frivolous, let them get insurance for it. We certainly have a robust insurance industry ready to make a policy for just about anything. If the lawsuits - should they come - were groundless, I'm sure the premiums would be very low.

I'm really no worried about the industry. What I am worried about is the legal impossibility of exposing possible criminal enterprise and civil liability when real wrongs are done.

[Politicub]

173. We can do both

Gun control now to give us some breathing room while we address the culture of violence.

It doesn't need to be a sequence. Contrary to what some believe it's possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.

[harmonicon]

176. I wouldn't vote against someone because they'd voted for gun control legislation...

or anything like that, but I really think they're not seeing the forest for the trees at best, and using this as a distraction from real changes that would make a difference at worst.

[elleng]

9. GOD DAMN!

Purveyor, I'm with you.

[AgingAmerican]

10. Probably gun nut parents

n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. A good friend of mine watched his dad accidentally shoot his mom when he was 12

He's never gotten over it.

His dad eventually killed himself.

[mimi85]

97. How horribly sad...

and how unnecessary. How old is your friend now? I can't even begin to imagine the thoughts in the middle of the night. Ugh.

My grandfather and his son (my uncle) both killed themselves back in the 50s. My gf had "financial problems" and my uncle was gay. Not even close to acceptable back then. He shot himself two years after my grandfather.

I was super young and only found this out much later as my parents told me some story that I can't even remember now. My grandmother was the strongest, sweetest, kindest woman I have ever known. She found both of there bodies. Never complained or bitched or anything negative that I can remember. I miss her still and can hear her voice to this day even though it was 21 years ago. She died when she was 92 from "natural causes" aka being old. Had 6 brothers and she was the first one to pass away.

I didn't even let my daughter play with toy guns when she was little. Extreme perhaps, but it certainly hasn't affected her negatively in any way.

My best to your friend. Hopefully he has some kind of peace, sure would be tough though.

[proud2BlibKansan]

105. He's in his late 40s early 50s

Haven't seen him in years. He really struggled with drug abuse.

[mbperrin]

12. I just had an uncivil discussion with a gun nut elsewhere, and he thinks all kids 11 and up

ought to have unlimited access to any kind of firearms.

I showed him this article. His response? "Mistakes happen. This family would have been overjoyed if he had killed an armed murderer."

Totally.Delusional.Gun.Nuts

[Hippo_Tron]

13. Call me an out of touch liberal, but I don't understand this mentality of shooting an intruder

If someone breaks into my house armed with a weapon, I will quietly sit there while they take anything that they want to. Even if I did own a gun and knew how to use it, nothing I own is even close to valuable enough that it's worth risking my life or their life by getting into a confrontation.

[LisaL]

32. And if they see you sitting quietly, what do you think they are going to do?

I don't have any problems with someone shooting an intruder in self-defense. However, they really should make sure they are shooting an intruder and not their family members.

[Dash87]

155. If you're alone, you could probably just get out of the house.

Most of these issues arise from someone getting a gun and seeking the intruder out - some people even leave their house and go outside when the burglar is hitting their car.

It's not smart. It's better to just a avoid a confrontation and try to hide, if necessary, or slip past the burglar and leave the house.

[Flatulo]

44. How can you possibly value the life of someone who would violently force their way into your

domicile, where your wife amd children may be sleeping, as being equal to your own? Are you absolutely certain they're not after your wife or child?

I'm not encouraging you to shoot an intruder, but really, this is one of the worst violations of one's personhood that I can think of. It's up there with rape, in my book.

I think home invaders should get life in prison. And when one does get shot, I do a little happy dance.

[baldguy]

49. How can you possibly value your X-box or your TV over your own life?

Or anyone else's?

[Flatulo]

70. I don't. Anyone can have my X-box, TV or anything else I have.

All they have to do is make sure I'm not home when they come to get it. In fact, if I pulled into my driveway while someone was cleaning me out, I'd back right out again and call 911. In general, people are obligated to avoid confrontation with a burglar if it can safely be done.

The definition of home invasion is someone forcibly entering a domicile without permission, while lawful residents are present. It's a pretty ballsy crime, and I would never assume that someone crazy enough to do such a thing has no intentions of harming myself or my loved ones. In fact, my default position would be to assume that they have every intention of assaulting myself, my family, or my guests.

You can read the definition here...

http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/home-invasion/

Given the opportunity to attack, I would do so with knife, bat, gun, ice cube tray, or any other available object that would seem to be effective at repelling the intruder.

The last time i checked, all fifty states recognized the right of lethal self-defense in the home. Mssachusetts used to require the homeowner to flee, but that was reversed in the 90s. It just doesn't get any more clear cut. The resident is not required to wait to ascertain the intruder's intentions, because doing so could prove fatal. In other words, the resident is presumed to have used force justifiably within the home.

Some southern states have gone much further (too far, IMO), allowing homeowners to use deadly force outside of the dwelling.

But no, I would not shoot some kid running away with my X-box. Fuck it, the new generation models will be out soon anyway.

[magical thyme]

101. um, a couple armed teenagers just shot a year-old baby in the face

after shooting his mother in the leg and grabbing her purse. The baby was in his stroller. He wasn't interfering and wasn't going to rat them out on the witness stand.

Just because somebody breaks into your house to rob you doesn't mean they aren't also going to take advantage of your passivity and torture, rape or murder you and/or your loved ones.

[baldguy]

106. So, you're saying the baby should have been carrying a weapon?

The solution is FEWER guns, not more.

[Flatulo]

107. Anyone broken enough to shoot a baby in the face is almost certainly on a path to wreak

chaos and destruction in the world with or without a gun, wouldn't you think?

A knife would have been just as effective on such easy victims.

I'm not suggesting that she should have been armed. I am suggesting that we need to understand why we're creating a generation of sociopaths and take some corrective action.

And I agree that we need fewer guns, at least in the wrong hands. I understand that most guns start out as legal and then make their way into dangerous hands. But here in MA we have a mandatory one-year prison sentence for illegal firearm possession, but the sentence is rarely if ever imposed. No one wants to send a 17 y/o kid to prison for a year where they will no doubt emerge even more damaged. But why pass gun laws and then fail to enforce them?

[Neoma]

115. Usually find out who was "the wrong hands" after the fact.

I think that's the main problem.

[Flatulo]

116. Unfortunately that's true in many cases, but isn't it the case that many times the

family or friends or neighbors come forward after a tragedy and say "Well, everyone knew that that guy wasn't right."

The problem is how do we intervene without violating people's privacy, as well as prior restraint (punishing people before they do something).

If you could wave a wand and make all the guns disappear, there would surely be fewer gun deaths. But the crooks and gangsters will simply not turn them in. They're already usually prohibited from owning even a single bullet for life if they have even one felony conviction. As I mentioned up thread, Massachusetts has very strict gun laws, and no one under 21 may own a pistol under any circumstances. But every night the Boston police round up gang-bangers who have guns. They take the guns away and turn them loose again.

[Neoma]

118. I think neighbors sometimes say that to rationalize it.

[magical thyme]

109. no. You claimed it's mean to shoot burglars over an x-box

I explained it's not over an x-box. It's your life or theirs. If that baby's mother had been armed, her baby might still be alive today.

A couple years ago, a neighbor of mine held a burglar at gunpoint for half an hour or so in the middle of the night while waiting for the police to arrive.

I don't have a gun myself, but that experience alone makes me think that as a single woman living alone, I certainly should consider it. I may not bother to get any bullets, but any would-be burglars would be guessing.

Personally, I think all gun-owners should be required to have training in safety and handling, and be licensed for each of their guns. But that's just me.

[AtheistCrusader]

159. For starters, teenagers cannot lawfully carry a pistol in that context.

In some states they could have had a long gun without breaking any laws, but not a pistol.

So a good first step would be universal background checks, and then registration so we can start to address the problem where guns make that jump from a lawful owner to the black or grey markets.

[mimi85]

93. So....

are you saying we should have guns in our homes "just in case?"

[Flatulo]

96. It's a highly personal decision. If the decision is made to keep firearms, there should be

a robust training regimen that accompanies the licensing process, along with education about the rights and responsibilities that go along with possessing a deadly weapon. And there should be safe storage of the weapon(s) if there is any chance that minors could gain access.

We have these laws in place in Massachusetts, and we're among the lowest in the nation for gun fatalities.

[alp227]

56. Remember Michael Dukakis being asked about the death penalty

for someone who raped his wife? And you wonder why so many middle class people in the heartland vote republican. You also never know if the robbers may want to harm YOU in addition to stealing your stuff. I have read about robbery victims who got TIED UP in their homes! What you posted just lost our party several votes in 2014. Better delete this embarrassment fast!

[Hippo_Tron]

112. This is a post on an internet message board, not a strategy session for the Democratic Party

I can almost guarantee you that nobody will decide to vote Republican because of what I have said here.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

66. a little old lady's body was found dumped at a park near me last month

She lived alone and had been killed by a home intruder.

She was 73. She had been a professor at the Rochester Institute of Technology.

Just because you sit quietly and let them have what they want doesn't guarantee safety.

Having a gun doesn't either, but states and countries with strict gun restrictions have lower gun violence. (I'm sure this isn't news to you. I'm just repeating the fact.)

[Hippo_Tron]

113. There are substantially more thieves than murderers

Yes, tragically, people do actually break into others' homes to murder or rape someone. But the vast majority of the time, they do it to steal peoples' stuff. So long as they conceal their faces, it makes no sense for them to harm me, because I can't identify them and the worst case scenario is that they are caught face is armed robbery charges. If they kill me, they can get caught and face murder charges.

[Flatulo]

123. I always makes me feel, I dunno, proud, I guess, when I read about an elderly woman

chasing off an intruder with a gun or a bat.

A lot of these old gals will take no bullshit from some punk. The weapon doesn't matter - it's the statement that they will not be taken advantage of by someone physically stronger.

I have to even laugh a bit when I see on the news some quickie-mart owner beating down some punk robber with a broom handle.

[Straw Man]

146. I won't call you anything bad ...

.. but will just ask you to reconsider the wisdom of entrusting your safety to someone who has just broken into your home:

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-09-15/justice/connecticut.murder.trial_1_jennifer-hawke-petit-hayes-and-komisarjevsky-home-invasion?_s=PM:CRIME

And these guys (the killers) only had a pellet gun.

[Hippo_Tron]

165. In 2011 Roughly 5 per 100k people are murdered in the US

About 116 per 100k were robbed. Yes, there is no guarantee of surviving if you just let them take your stuff. But your odds of being a robbery victim are over 20 times the odds of being a homicide victim.

Engage them with a weapon and it's one person with a gun vs another, your odds of being a homicide victim are roughly 50 percent depending on the exact scenario.

Yes I realize that it defies human nature to put your fate in untrustworthy hands, but mathematically it's by far the best chance of survival.

[Straw Man]

170. It's definitely a judgment call.

Engage them with a weapon and it's one person with a gun vs another, your odds of being a homicide victim are roughly 50 percent depending on the exact scenario.

That's in the aggregate. Every situation is different. I think once shots have been fired, as in the case of the woman whose baby was shot, then certainly it makes sense to resist with deadly force. And in the case in Connecticut that I cited above, the assailants only had a pellet gun. The victims may not have known that it wasn't real, of course, but any attempt to fight back with a real firearm would have had a very good chance of success.

[Hippo_Tron]

188. In the real world there isn't sufficient time to assess the scenario

And so going by the aggregate is the best chance of survival. Yes, murder is absolutely horrendous and terrifying, but it's also extremely rare. The vast vast majority of people who break into other peoples' homes want to take their stuff, and nothing more.

[Straw Man]

190. Sometimes there is, and sometimes there isn't.

There are patterns and probabilities that can be learned in advance. For example, if several armed robbers are holding a group of people at gunpoint and start to lead individual victims to another location, this often presages execution. At this point, reaction is indicated, whether if be attempted flight or attempted resistance with deadly force.

In the case of the woman and her child, the moment her assailant broke off his attack on her and turned his attention to the child would have been the time to resist. She didn't have much time, but possibly enough. Certainly at that point there was nothing to lose. He had repeatedly threatened to kill her child. And sometimes assaults stretch out over many hours, with many opportunities for resistance.

Someone who breaks into homes when the residents aren't there may be interested in stuff and nothing more. People who break into homes when the residents are there are playing a much different and far more dangerous game. Violence is virtually guaranteed in home invasions.

[BlueStreak]

14. Florida again. I guess the kid was just standing his ground. It is his right, you know.

[Blanks]

27. Yeah, that's how I feel about it too.

[Divernan]

15. Significantly different facts in Fox news report.

A Florida boy who was accidentally shot in the head by his teen brother with a BB gun last week died Wednesday night from his injuries, MyFoxOrlando.com reported.

Investigators told the station that the boys were recently given Daisy Powerline 880S BB guns. They were firing at targets when Skyler Richardson's 13-year-old brother accidentally shot him at close range.

The BB hit Richardson above the right ear and penetrated his skull, Polk County Sheriff office told FoxNews.com. He was unconscious when he arrived at the hospital.

NewsChief.com reported that Heather Richardson, the mother and her boyfriend were at the house when the shooting occurred and was checking on the two while cooking dinner. The older son told investigators that he pumped the gun several times and pointed it at his brother, the report said. The more pumps the faster the shot.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/03/21/florida-boy-10-dies-after-brother-accidentally-shoots-him-with-bb-gun/#ixzz2OU4MCTMk

This report has a different day of the week, a different age for the shooter.

[busterbrown]

20. Well, which story is correct?

I hate fucking guns.. but which story is true..?

[ybbor]

25. Yeah, the fox story is another story completely

Unfortunately, two boys were shot dead by their brothers. If you read both one victim is 10 the other in the OP is 12.

[riderinthestorm]

26. Are you sure you have the same story?

The ABC story doesn't give any names at all and says the boy was taken to Arnold Palmer Hospital where he died.

The Fox news story lists names and says the boy was airlifted to St Joseph's Hospital in Tampa Bay...

These sound like two different stories to me.

[Divernan]

29. Both reported in the Orlando area/Orange county.

How horrifying if two such similar incidents happened within days of each other.

[riderinthestorm]

40. Yup, just tragic. nt

[ZombieHorde]

35. Obviously I don't know for certain, but this seems like a different incident. nt

[Thor_MN]

36. Sounds like two dead children to me.

None of the details match, so it sounds like separate incidents. Different counties, different hospitals, one with a BB gun, one with an unnamed gun. There was also a 4 year old that shot himself in the head with a handgun, in critical condition as of the 20th.

Three children, all near Orlando, within a week.


Apparently, there are not enough good children with guns in Florida.

[Brickbat]

38. This is a completely different incident.

[Hoyt]

87. With so many gun tragedies, hard to keep em straight.

[struggle4progress]

132. One happened in Polk County, the other Orange County

The BB hit Richardson above the right ear and penetrated his skull, Polk County Sheriff office told FoxNews.com

Francis Ikwueme, who also lives near the family in the Orange County subdivision, found the shooting devastating

[onehandle]

17. Another Wonderful Tale Of Home Invasion Defense!

Mission Accomplished!

[wtmusic]

19. Waiting for NRA/gun nut response...

Not holding breath.

[Hoyt]

60. They've been laying low recently, but buying more guns and conniving with their gun buddies.

[2ndAmForComputers]

126. You would have to hold your breath for one hour, 56 minutes if my calculations are correct.

See further down.

[WillyT]

22. Are We Safer Yet ???

& Rec !!!

[valerief]

28. If only it had been raining guns that day, this never would have happened. nt

[markiv]

31. NRA jumped the shark on Sandy Hook

from a raw PR calculation perspective, wait till all the bodies are in the ground before you mourn the gun rights

was as clueless as callous

[ZombieHorde]

33. So sad. nt

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

37. When I was a teenager I shot a hole in the wall

just above my best friends head, I thought the gun was "unloaded", that's when I got rid of my guns.
Now I live in a wild area with mountain lions and bears and I still don't own a firearm.

[Hoyt]

61. That happens a lot, glad you were OK then and now.

[dotymed]

86. I was 12 and on a frequent quail hunt

with my best friend.
We flushed a covey and I was aiming... just before I shot, Donny's head came into view.
I have not hunted since..
I was traumatized, I still occasionally (involuntarily) run that scene through my brain..
If I had shot Donny, my life would have been unbearable. This poor kid will probably have a very sad (possibly short) life.
Dick Cheney I am not, thankfully.

[Mika]

39. WOW. The parents left a 16 year old in charge of the gun in the house?

I'm pretty sure I'll be called out for "blaming the victim" for asking that question.

[Flatulo]

46. I think the parents should be held criminally liable. A 16 year-old, more often than not,

just can't exercise reliable judgement with a tool of life or death.

There are exceptions, but I'd never let a person that age near a gun. Not even an air rifle.

[Ghost in the Machine]

110. I guess it all depends on where, and how, you were raised..

At 16, out in the backwoods of Tennessee, I had an 8mm Mauser, a 30-06, a 12 ga shotgun and two .22 rifles, one of which was my first gun I got when I was 7 years old. Of course I wasn't allowed to even touch it without my dad present, and always, Always, ALWAYS! had safety drilled into my head~~~ "There is NO SUCH THING as an UNLOADED GUN! The deadliest gun in the world is an "unloaded gun", so treat every gun as if it was loaded until YOU check it, double check it, then triple check it, then *still* treat it as if it were loaded. ALWAYS be clear and certain of your target, as well as what is BEHIND the target. NEVER shoot at 'a noise in the bushes' (it *could* be a turkey hunter in a makeshift blind, using a turkey call). ALWAYS keep your muzzle pointed toward the ground, away from anyone else, and ALWAYS keep your safety on, until you are ready to shoot".

Bear in mind though, I lived in Miami, Fla until I was 13, then we moved to Tenn. When I turned 14, I was able to take my .22 out whenever I wanted, after school & on weekends, as I had proven myself responsible enough by that time. When we lived in Miami, we only got to go target shooting on the weekends (we never hunted) at a place on the Tamiami Trail, at the fringe of the Everglades.

Also, where we lived in Tenn., our county line was the Tennessee River. Every year, from the time I started 8th grade here, we had a Game Warden who came to the school twice a year and taught both Hunters Safety and Boaters Safety.

Peace,

Ghost

[Flatulo]

117. Yup, rural areas have a tradition of hunting to put protein on the table. I had a Ruger 10-22

when I was 18, and got a LTC later that year. I took all the NRA safety courses and I've never had an accidental discharge by drilling into my thick skull that every gun is loaded. Always always always. Even after I just cleared the chamber, it's still loaded. Even when I've removed the bolt and firing pin, it's still loaded.

But so many kids today just lack the outdoor experience. My kid, I had to drag him outdoors kicking and screaming. He always preferred to be on the computer or the game console. Maybe I'm a softer parent than my parents' generation, but I never would have felt comfortable handing him a weapon. He's 23 now and has still never touched one, and has no interest in it, even though I've offered to take him to the range many times.

[AAO]

111. The parents aren't victims, but both boys are

[TheCowsCameHome]

41. Stand by for the official NRA statement on this tragedy.

Be prepared to stand by for eternity, because those scumbags won't say a word, today or ever.

(Fuck the NRA, btw).

[mike dub]

47. Another tragedy

I wonder if the parents will be charged with anything. The articles says authorities "will review the case for possible negligence".

I recently bought a new handgun here in my state of North Carolina, and while filling out the paperwork, I was given a print-out to sign, and take the top/non signature line part home with me. It mentioned a state law or statute about 'Protecting minors from access to firearms' --- essentially; keep your guns out of reach of your children. We don't have kids, so I didn't read the print-out word for word.

But I wonder if Florida even has any kind of law like that on the books -- liability towards the parents for giving a teen (if not the 12 year old, also) access to firearms. At the least, the parents (and brother) will surely get 'time served/hell for the rest of their lives'.

[SCVDem]

48. Rather than the fantasy of shooting an intruder,

Why not install a heavy door on one room and have a phone in there.

Now everyone can run and lock the door with the bad guys outside the room and the police on the way.

Add a panic switch which turns on revolving red lights and I doubt anyone would hang around.

Be creative, not deadly.

[KamaAina]

62. "Rape doors" are commonplace in South Africa

a series of heavy doors that can compartmentalize a house.

I read about this in the wake of the Oscar Pistorius case, which, if Pistorius is to be believed, was quite similar.
edit: But do we as a society really want to go there?

[Fumesucker]

91. I suspect the family in the OP may wish they had gone that option n/t

[avebury]

50. I am sorry but I just don't have a lot of sympathy for

gun owners. Anybody that owns guns has to be willing to face the consequences, good and bad, for that decision. Gun ownership is not a guarantee that you are protecting your family members. In this instance, the parent that bought that gun will have to live with the fact that he/she turned one son into the murderer of the other son.

That decision worked out really well for that family.

[Historic NY]

51. Shoot first then call 911.....

there were lots of other choices & options unfortunately none now will bring the 12yr old back.

[AndyA]

52. Life in America: Another day, another senseless shooting

Thank goodness that family was safer because they had a gun in the house!

I guess the gun was responsibly stored on the coffee table?



Wonder if that family has changed its mind now about guns making them safer.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

53. Police: Pa. Man Kills Son, Wounds Wife; Kills Self

A central Pennsylvania father shot and killed his 2-year-old son and wounded his estranged wife during a custody exchange before killing himself, authorities said.

Police said Kenneth Ayers also shot at his mother during the altercation Saturday morning at her home in a rural area about 20 miles southwest of State College.

Huntingdon County District Attorney George Zanic said Ayers, 52, was subject to a protection from abuse order filed by his wife but was permitted visits with his son, Michael.

Saturday's visit was to happen at his mother's home in Barree Township. But once at the home, Ayers got into an altercation with his estranged wife, Hollie Jo, and shot her in the legs and arm with a .40 caliber handgun before intentionally shooting his son, police said.

More: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/police-pa-man-kills-son-wounds-wife-kills-18802218#.UU9fT-XCuaE

[COLGATE4]

55. And what you've posted here gives the lie to one

of the NRA's favorite talking points. Readily having guns at hand when emotions flare makes it way too easy to go for the gun and make a really bad decision. The gunners refuse to consider the possibility of irreparable damage when a loaded gun is at hand for people in all kids of emotional situations - quarreling with s/o, divorce proceedings, custody battles (as is the case here) - and much less the impact of having one easily at hand when a person is experiencing suicidal ideation. All I ever hear in response is the patently stupid comment "well, the person could just have easily used a knife".

[ybbor]

63. Oh yeah I forgot about the knife excuse

Now how can they use that in these situations? Hmm...

[Historic NY]

57. Another case where a protection order didn't protect even with prior arrests...

State police Cpl. Daniel Sneath said investigators are trying to determine what led to the shooting and why Ayers was carrying a gun despite the protection order.

[happyslug]

181. HOW did this man obtain or retain a FIREARM??? It violates FEDERAL LAW....

Under FEDERAL LAW, if someone has a Protection Order against them, they can NO LONGER POSSESSION a Firearm. The Sheriff is to search their home and take into custody any firearm (or make sure the Firearm is in the hands of another person, who does NOT live with the person with the Protection Order against them). This is almost always done by the Sheriff as he serves the Protection Order. Given that Pennsylvania is a state where ALL SALES OF PISTOLS must go through a Firearms dealer or the local Sheriff, such weapons are easily traceable (The last time I heard was about 10 years ago, and I was told what pistols you own could be determined within 26 minutes).

Thus this man was NOT suppose to have a Pistol, and the Sheriff should have made an effort to secure any firearm that person had. There is SOMETHING wrong here, more then a Gun Control issue, for example the Sheriff asking the Defendant to turn over any Firearm to the Sheriff, or get someone else to hold the firearms.

[cosmicone]

58. Now ... only if

the little brother was carrying an uzi or something .. this could have been prevented

[ileus]

59. Always ID your target.

Sometimes good intentions have bad consequences.


While I understand hanging a torch off a rail could make you an easy target, they do allow for a positive ID before you remove the threat.


Many companies have great lights for every application...

[Hoyt]

64. Thanks for standard gun cultist advice.

Another Gungeoneer will be here in a bit pushing so-called NRA safety training in schools.

[ileus]

69. You don't recommend IDing your target?

[Hoyt]

75. I don't recommend living guns, and repeating such BS in your head like a Marine in training.

Nor do I think most gun cultists could contain blasting away in the unlikely event they thought someone is breaking in and could not be dissuaded without aiming for center mass (another gun cultist axiom).

[ileus]

79. You don't have to be a Marine to believe in firearm safety.

Pretty much any light would illuminate the whole person giving you a chance for proper ID.

It's the 2013 version of halt who goes there...

[Hoyt]

82. I don't live my life preparing to shoot someone, or preparing for the best shot.

The kid who shot probably had one of those right wing gun cultist dads who took him out on "family outings" to train for shooting someone center mass.

And daddy probably scared his kids with talk of marauding gangs and other crud. In other words, lots of Gungeoneer type talk.

[secondvariety]

73. "Sometimes good intentions have bad consequences"

That's some heartless shit there, dude. WTF.

[bitchkitty]

162. Disgusting. n/t

[Paladin]

163. That's Good Advice. Try To Keep It In Mind.....

...the next time one of your fellow DU Gun Enthusiasts starts a thread advocating firearms usage by the vision-impaired. It's happened a number of times, over the years.....

[UnrepentantLiberal]

76. Man shot in head over double-parked car

A 30-year-old man was shot in the head Sunday morning after a confrontation over a car that was double-parked, police said.

The shooting happened about 3:30 a.m. in the 7100 block of South Maplewood Avenue in the Marquette Park neighborhood, police said, one of three shootings overnight that left three people wounded.

Police said the 30-year-old man was shot in the head after an argument, ran west and fell in an alley where an ambulance picked him up and took him to Advocate Christ Medical Center. He was "walking, talking, breathing, living," according to police.

According to a witness, the confrontation started when a car with two men inside tried to slide past the parked car on Maplewood Avenue. The eventual victim was on the sidewalk next to the parked car.

More: http://WWW.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-chicago-gun-violence-shooting-marquette-park-parking-spot-20130324,0,5585307.story

[JI7]

77. Isn't it common for Siblings to scare each other sometimes ?

just part of being young and having fun ?

i guess families with guns in the homes should teach their kids that they shouldn't do that type of stuff. don't even play hide and seek because you don't want confusion about whether the noise or movement you see somewhere is an intruder or the person you are playing with.

[Skittles]

85. aw HECK YES

but that's not allowed with the gun paranoia and delusion culture

[HockeyMom]

88. I get up in the middle of the night

Is my HUSBAND going to shoot me hearing the noice I am making? For a PARANOID gun owner, maybe he will. This is what it is like being a "gun grabber" living in a gun household. If I fear anyting at all, I fear HIM more than an ARMED INTRUDER.

[kestrel91316]

89. The solution is obviously MOAR GUNZ!!

[Not Me]

90. I am still shaking my head at this one...

I live about 5 miles from where this happened. It is a fairly exclusive, up and coming GATED area. Crime is almost non-existent there, yet these careless gun mongering parents felt the need to have loaded weapons not only in the house, but unlocked and within reach of their children.
They deserve to be in prison.

[Doctor_J]

92. What was needed here was a good guy with a gun

[markpkessinger]

99. Ain't that Second Amendment grand!

[sir pball]

100. Negligent homicide.

My house gun has a really bright light on it for exactly that reason. The drill is light and holosight on, identify the person WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, tell them to put their hands up and lay down. If they comply, best outcome. If they run away, even with my TV, good riddance to bad trash - no honorable man will shoot another man in the back. Ever. Period. Laws aside, that's...no. 武士道.

If they turn, or reach for a pocket, or don't do anything clearly non-threatening, then and only then will I open fire.

[Ed Suspicious]

137. You must be one cool calm and collected son of a gun. Got it all figured out, huh?

[sir pball]

144. It's a kata, nothing more.

And no, I don't pretend it would definitely work out that way - but I do know, with absolute certitude, that if the situation didn't go relatively close to plan, that I would not shoot randomly. I know you don't believe that, maybe it's because you have a lack of faith in training or maybe because you personally would shoot blindly, but I've practiced and drilled enough to know that I wouldn't shoot my goddamned brother.

[olddots]

156. Rambo was a movie

[sir pball]

157. Yep

That's why he emptied belts of ammunition at anything that moved.

In my legally-mandated handgun safety classes we covered all this, my drill is nothing more than what they taught me in CT.

[Nye Bevan]

124. Seems like this kind of thing happens at least ten times more frequently

tham an actual intruder, who is an actual threat, being shot.

[2ndAmForComputers]

127. I practice the ultimate gun safety tip.

There are no guns in my home.

That makes it a safer home.

[Ed Suspicious]

138. I'm with you. nt

[tblue37]

133. I wonder whether he had heard about the girl who

hid in a closet and shot an intruder through the door when he tried to open it. Maybe his parents had even called his attention to that story. The fact that they left the kids with access to a loaded gun while they were alone at home suggests to me that they might be the sort of folks who imagine such scenarios and believe them to be much more common than they actually are.

If so, then the kid was primed to interpret as threatening--nay, terrifying--the sound of someone moving around in the house when he assumed he was alone at home. As someone suggested on this thread, the younger boy might have had earbuds in so he didn't hear his brother call out. A lot of kids these days have their earbuds in with the volume cranked loud pretty much all the time, so that certainly seems possible.

A gun in the home is far more likely to be used to shoot a friend or family member, either accidentally or deliberately, or to accidentally shoot oneself, or to be used in a suicide than to be used defending oneself against an intruder.

Since the older boy is going to be seriously miserable for a long time, I sure hope his foolish parents realize that they should not have guns in the house any more, because if he gets depressed enough, he could act out that other most common scenario that takes place when guns are in the home.

[baldguy]

134. For every intruder shot in the home 22 residents of the home are shot.

That means if you have a gun at home, you or one of your family members are TWENTY-TWO TIMES more likely to be shot with that gun than anyone who may break in.

[Exultant Democracy]

135. Guns guns guns, it isn't like this in most modern states, it doesn't have to be this way here

but assholes with tiny dicks need their guns so they can pretend to be men.

[rks306]

141. Gun Nuts on the Loose

I guess the brother was not liked. These people do not need any gun restrictions. When you have a gun in the house tragedy is more likely. More guns is not the answer.

[Cali_Democrat]

148. The gun nut parents should be thrown in jail.

[Sunlei]

149. a pet house dog, house exit plans and how to call 911 first can change the dynamics of a kid alone.

I depend a lot on my dogs, never had a sucessfull breakin. Dogs are great that way. If this family had a pet the boy could have seen by the dogs attitude it was the family member.

We may not have the whole story yet on what actually happened.

[Franker65]

150. More education is needed

Just hiding in a dark corner and firing when you hear a news is of course going to result in trouble. As fightening as it might be, the kid should have had some courage, turned on the light and seen what he was shooting at.

[ReRe]

152. One child is physically dead...

... and the other one is probably emotionally dead. I don't know if counseling will help the 16-yr old or not. Whoever owned the gun should be held accountable. And the NRA needs to be abolished from the earth.

[Exultant Democracy]

161. To loosing a little brother will haunt you forever, but killing him yourself...

If I were in his shoes I'm not sure I could carry on. I hope he is stronger then I would be.

[ReRe]

184. I have a friend who lost his brother...

...when a teenager (drowning accident), and when he grew up, he did not want to have children because he was afraid if he lost a child, it would drive him crazy or worse. Thank God he came out of that and did have a son who is grown now, out of college, doing fine and family is intact.

[Heidi]

153. Kick!

[tabasco]

158. Revoke his "well-regulated militia" ID card! n/t

[samsingh]

167. kick

[samsingh]

166. gun lovers don't care.

[Blue_Tires]

171. I still believe this was a tragic accident, but

I'm not buying a single word of that "intruder" story...

I think the kids were just fooling around with the gun, and there was an unintended discharge...

[Politicub]

172. Did the 12yo have a concealed carry permit?

If no, it's his own damn fault. How can he defend himself from his brother unless he's armed?

[RoccoRyg]

174. Why does it have to be...

deadly force? Really, why?

Can't people use stun guns? How about a rubber bullet? Or rock salt in a shotgun? The loved one you accidentally shoot will be pissed, but at least he'll/she'll be alive!

[SunSeeker]

177. So unbelievably sad, senseless and preventable...but for gun manufacturer lobbying. nt

[LanternWaste]

183. I think one of our well-meaning gun-owning DUers should send this young man a Greeting Card

I think one of our well-meaning gun-owning DUers should send this young man a Greeting Card that reads, "sorry you shot your little brother to death, but gun violence is at a twenty year low. Better?"