Man shoots teen who hit him with a snowball.

[zanne]

Pa. Man Shoots Teen During Snowball Fight
PHILADELPHIA (CBS) ― A Philadelphia teenager celebrating his 16th birthday is fighting for his life after being shot over an errant snowball.

Authorities said the teen, identified as Tavin Rutledge, of Feltonville, was shot in the head at point-blank range while playing with neighborhood friends. Feltonville is about 20 miles southwest of Philadelphia.

Witnesses say the shooting was sparked from a casual snowball fight amongst children.

A friend of Rutledge's, who was also involved in the playful snowball fight, said the shooting happened after a wayward snowball accidentally struck a nearby neighbor.

Police said the adult male became enraged and left the scene, returning moments later with a gun.

Witnesses say Rutledge's effort to apologize to the man went unnoticed and the man pulled out a gun and began firing.

Family and friends celebrating Rutledge's birthday heard gunshots and found him bleeding on the front porch.

"We ran outside and saw Tavin laying on the step," said the victim's friend Mercedes Lebron. "When I picked him up, smoke started coming out of his head.… He still was breathing and we told him keep breathing, calm down."

Rutledge was rushed to Temple University hospital where he was listed in critical condition on life-support.

Everyone who knows Rutledge - described as a nice, well-liked boy - is trying to cope with the senseless shooting.

"It was just a snowball fight," said neighbor Catherine Briggs.

"They were outside having fun with snowballs and instead of hitting him back with a snowball, he came back and shot him with a gun," said neighbor Monica Albelo.

Philadelphia police detectives said they are actively searching for the gunman who they believe is lives on the same block as Rutledge.
(© MMVIII, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

[Perry Logan]

1. Sweet dreams, gun guys.

[Raskolnik]

16. Classy.

Could you please point out how any "gun guys" would be please by something as terrible as this?

Frankly, I consider it rather ghoulish to try and shoehorn a tragedy like this into making a fairly trite political point, but maybe that's just me.

[depakid]

33. This is the inevitable result of proliferation and easy access to firearms

Every single person who supports policies that create these conditions needs to accept responsibility for damage that they do to society. That's the trade off that they make- and that's what they condemn their children to.

[zanne]

37. Yes. But they'll argue that the gun didn't shoot anyone...

A person shot someone. I know, I know... It'd be pretty hard to shoot someone without a gun, but that's the argument.

[KG]

39. it's amazing how guns never have anything to do with someone dying with a bullet in them

:eyes:

[zanne]

45. It's a miracle. nt

[superkia]

250. I would guess that you would also like pitbulls, rottweilers,...

doberman pinschers and german shepards all banned as well by the comment? The problem with all of these things is the erosion of our society, you can blame all of these things and ban them but horrible people will still commit horrible acts. I guess if a person goes out and steals an elderly persons oxygen tank and they die because of it, we should do what...cut their hands off like some societies? For some reason the media has us all taking no blame for our own actions or how we raise our children, its always something else that is the problem and it needs to be taken away. Jeffery Dahmer lured children to his house, killed them without a gun, stored them in refrigerators and ate them. Maybe we should do away with refrigerators too, that way if someone was doing that, they couldn't kill allot of people at once and store them, they could only do one at a time and maybe the police would catch them?

The drug companies are trying to get a law passed so Americans cant sue them when their drugs kill people, maybe we should ban medicine too. Whats next, when you deal with problems in this way, the problem is never addressed and we as a people just have THINGS taken away as we solve absolutely nothing.

The government wants us to give up our second amendment right so we cant defend ourselves from what they have in store. When they use martial law, thats the first line of business, take everyones weapons.


First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

[depakid]

288. Interestingly enough, several Australian states have put serious restrictions on the pitbull breed

After one too many maulings, people had finally had enough that shit, too.

http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/domino/Web_Notes/MediaRelArc02.nsf/d025c300601da9dc4a25688e00143d49/51b00420e9b031ee4a256af50082ed95!OpenDocument&Click=

[superkia]

290. I went overboard trying to make a point but you missed it.

When I was younger, german shepards were the dogs that people abused and turned into mauling machines, then years after it turned to doberman pinschers, then rottweilers and on to pitbulls. Back in the slavery days when my ancestors were abused, if they all turned out to be angry people and started attacking people, is it there fault and would we be banned to solve the problem? The japanese Tosa can be a great family dog but in the wrong hands they are almost unstoppable machines, luckily they are very expensive unlike the other dogs named so many idiots and morons cant get a hold of them and turn them into vicious machines to destroy.

I no people that own pitbulls that are the nicest kindest dogs in the world, its all about how you raise and treat them. I dont think banning items instead of addressing a problem is a fix to anything, it just makes those ignorant people find new ways to do what they are going to do.

[depakid]

293. Not to threadjack, but it's the breed

Same is true to some extent with Rots.

Some dogs are bred to retrieve, some to herd -and some to fight and be aggressive.

Having one of those breeds of dogs in the family can be like a ticking time bomb- just like guns, households who have them are at a much greater risk of having a tragedy occur as a consequence.

As happened recently to this poor couple:

Newborn baby girl mauled to death by rottweiler

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22980651-2,00.html

[eridani]

294. We've already had habeas corpus destroyed with nary a whimper from gun owners

What do you think it will take?

[liberal4truth]

295. Gun owners only about thier guns. They hide behind the 2nd amendment but the "Heller" case in DC..

will put an end to that nonsense for good!

Guns are good for one thing: killing people!!

[Indy Lurker]

309. Is that why police officers carry them? n/t

[depakid]

In order to appreciate the impact of so many guns, you have to live somewhere abroad

for awhile- like Australia, where people (even the conservatives) finally had enough and did something about it.

Makes all the difference.

[Raskolnik]

46. Let me guess -- did *you* spend a little time in Australia?

And how does a life-changing semester abroad change our Constitution?

[depakid]

56. Fortunately, I'm here right now!

and it's a much freer- and far safer country than America has been for quite a while. Frankly, the Aussies don't understand why America condemns itself to mass shootings every month or so- if not every week or several days.

When headlines like this turn up:

Murder-suicide leaves 5 dead, 1 wounded

Police found the body of a woman on the doorstep. Inside, they found the bodies of a 5-year-old boy and two girls, ages 8 and 9. Officers also found the body of a man with a shotgun beneath him.

Police did not immediately know the motive for the shootings or the relationship of the victims.

http://news.smh.com.au/murdersuicide-leaves-5-dead-1-wounded/20080225-1ufq.html

We're pretty damn sure they're coming from America- and the conclusion is (as with healthcare) that the society's gone insane.

[Raskolnik]

58. You didn't answer the question.

How does living in the culturally advanced progressive paradise of Australia change the U.S. Constitution?

[depakid]

65. No need to be sarcastic

Every country has its upsides- and its problems.

One of Americas (likely unsolvable) problems is tghat you think the Bill of Rights protects an individuals right to keep most any kind of gun. Fact is- it's a conditional statement based on an anachronistic notion of a well regulated militia. Sensible folks can see that- just as they can see how utterly stupid the consequences are.

Reminds me of the Buckely v. Valeo decision that's condemned America to unending politcal corruption by equating free speech under the 1st Amendment with money spent in politcal campaigns (and initiatives on the ballot)...

That little "constitutional right" will prevent you all from EVER having single payer universal healthcare or any responsible regulation on the corporate media- to name just a few.

[Raskolnik]

84. You mean Australia isn't a progressive paradise?

One of Americas (likely unsolvable) problems is tghat you think the Bill of Rights protects an individuals right to keep most any kind of gun. Fact is- it's a conditional statement based on an anachronistic notion of a well regulated militia. Sensible folks can see that- just as they can see how utterly stupid the consequences are.

Fact is, I believe your interpretation of the Second Amendment leaves a lot to be desired. While I understand that an argument can be made justifying the collective right (or sophisticated collective right) position, the amount of semantic wrangling necessary to reach that conclusion puts me firmly on the side of the individual right. Any time one seeks to curtail portions of the Bill of Rights, sensible folks should get their hackles in a bunch.

At the most basic level, I don't like people limiting Constitutional rights while dangling the promise of a little additional safety. I don't like it when Dick Cheney does it with the 4th Amendment, and I don't like it when others do it with the 2nd.

[depakid]

267. FACTS are that you're willing to subject your countrymen to increasing carnage

for your interpretation- which isn't even a literalist one.

Outside the National Guard, America doesn't need a "well regulated militia," for its security as a free state (although the "minutemen" may disagree). It's anachonistic- meant for another time, right alongside the worry with quartering soldiers.

Quartering convicts- that's another matter. American does that very well, having created the world's largest and most expensive prison system to house its many gun offenders gun offenders- like the one in the OP.

[jmg257]

278. Your kidding right? What part of "the right of the people...shall not be infringed" is confusing?

While the traditional effective Militia of the several States has for the most part been usurped into obsolesence, it doesn't change the fact that the PEOPLE have unalienable rights - one of which is to keep and bear arms.

While the militia was/is an important reason for securing that right, it isn't the only one.

Not only is this right secured explicitly in the 2nd, but also in the 5th, the 9th, the 10th, and most recently in US federal law.

There is NO misunderstanding any longer that the right exists, and that it is an individual right of the people.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

"No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"


Public Law 109-92
109th Congress
An Act
...
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms
Act''.

SEC. 2. <<NOTE: 15 USC 7901.>> FINDINGS; PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed.
(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not
members of a militia or engaged in military service or training,
to keep and bear arms.

[depakid]

285. Lawyers call that "the shotgun approach"

It's often used when the case is weak.

Come back and talk to me when you've gone to law school and passed a bar exam.

[sepulveda]

205. utter rubbish

"Fact is- it's a conditional statement "

no, it's not

it's an (if yer into latin and grammar)...

an ablative absolute construction

as prof volokh points out in one of his papers...

look at the RI 1842constitution for a similar example.

"The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty . . . . 4"

that does not mean one needs to be a member of the press in order to publish ones sentiments. its ablative absolute, NOT conditional. its says "any person"

similarly, the 2nd says "the people" retain the right NOT the militia.

try reading for comprehension next time you read the constitution.

Compare this to the Second Amendment's
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. 5"

The 1784 New Hampshire Constitution says
"In criminal prosecutions, the trial of facts in the vicinity where they happen, is so essential to the security of the life, liberty and estate of the citizen, that no crime or offence ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed . . . . 6"

[Tesha]

90. Look, rights in the Constitution are obviously subject to judicial interpretation.

We used tothink we had a right against unreasonable search
and seizure but lately, courts are curtailing that right
to a very large degree.

You think you have a right to bear *SOME* arms (guns
but for some reason, not hand-grenades, Claymores,
or nuclear weapons) but a court could easily move the
dividing line between "okay" weapons and "not-okay"
weapons. It's an NRA-induced fantasy that you have
an absolute right to weapons; you clearly don't as
restrictions already exist.

Tesha

[Raskolnik]

98. I suggest you direct that post to someone making an "unlimited right" argument

I'm not making that argument, and I don't see anyone in this thread doing so.

If you have a problem with the douche-bag leadership of the NRA, take it up with them--I am not my brother's keeper.

The NRA's positions on the 2nd Amendment don't inspire me to curtail the Bill of Rights any more than Fred Phelps' position on the 1st Amendment.

[whopis01]

208. Tesha is making a significant point, you should not blow it off so casually.

The second amendment states that the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't say that the People have the right to bear minor arms or small caliber arms, or anything of the sort. It says that the right of the People to bear arms shall not be infringed.

As you pointed out, no one in this thread is making an "unlimited right" argument. For all practical purposes, no one in society is making that argument. (I realize a very small minority might be making that argument, but they are such a small percentage that it doesn't really make any difference.)

So we have established that as a society, we do not wish to adhere to the letter of the law when it comes to the second amendment. We have accepted that the rights denoted in the second amendment are subject to judicial interpretation. Since that amendment does not confer an absolute right, the argument is no longer about should the right to bear arms be limited, but rather how much should the right to bear arms be limited.

You asked the question to another poster of how does living in Australia change the US Constitution. Clearly, living in Australia has no power to change the US Constitution. However, since we as a nation have already established that the rights conferred by the second amendment are subject to interpretation, one's life experiences are bound to effect how one feels that amendment should be interpreted.

I am not saying this as an argument for getting rid of guns or anything of the sort. Just pointing out that it is impossible to discuss the second amendment in black and white terms as we, as a society, have already gone far down the road of getting into the gray areas.

And just so you don't think I am in total disagreement with you - I think that the argument you were making later in the thread regarding the introductory phrase to the amendment (the well regulated militia) is spot on. It is the justification (or maybe more correctly, a justification) for the right , but not the limitation to the right. If the founders intended for us to have the right to well regulated militias, then that is what would have been given, not simply the right to bear arms.

[mrbluto]

164. What was the purpose of the right?

Was it for entertainment?

No.

Arms are the last resort versus a tyrant.

That's the purpose of a right to bear arms.

So I'd venture that citizens (or groups of them) should be allowed whatever they'd need to have a reasonable chance of collectively facing-down a tyrant who had the US military (including the "Blackwater" bits) at his disposal, or at least making it dicey. (i.e. Have a negative expected value for the Tyrant to fight the citizens).

The amendment also says "well regulated". I'm not sure how you'd do it, but we're a smart determined people, if we're serious we should be able form safeguards against undue violence without sacrificing the purpose of the right.

Any thoughts on this people?

[jmg257]

279. Yea "well regulated" has little to do with govt regulations, but with training and effective arms.

Which also broadens the arms the people have the right to so it includes military arms. Arms for self-defense include yet another, but overlapping group of arms.

[mrbluto]

296. Yep. We're essentially on the same page. I think.

I came around to my opinion when I found out that encryption is considered a munition. That and the equipment and materials for certain industrial processes. Once you look into that you realize that there is a strain of thought that desires citizens to exist on their knees and only makes exceptions so they can wring production out of us.

I abhor the needless injury that a gun culture cultivates, I actually think love of guns themselves is a bit sick, but when you stack it up against all the rational reasonable people who want to exercise certain capacities and have certain capabilities at the ready and what their existence keeps in check, then it's impossible to so stridently push for their activities being rendered illegal.

I think the NRA goes to too far in some ways and not far enough in others, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.

[SteveM]

277. I recommend reading the briefs submitted on behalf of Heller (SCOTUS)

[leftofthedial]

103. to what well-regulated militia do you belong?

[Raskolnik]

116. None. Except for the statutory defintition.

Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

[leftofthedial]

121. wouldn't you have to be "organized" in order to be "well-regulated"?

If so, your answer is, "I belong to no well-regulated militia."

[Raskolnik]

125. I don't see that requirement in either the Constitution or the statute.

And given that the drafters of the statute were (presumably) well aware of the language of the Constitution, I don't see any necessity to read that limitation in.

I hope that clears up your confusion.

[leftofthedial]

132. the statute distinguishes between the National Guard and such (organized)

and everyone else in the entire of-age male population (unorganized)

If the right to own a killing machine is granted to those who belong to a "well-regulated" militia, wouldn't that apply only to the "organized" militias (National Guard and such)?

[Raskolnik]

137. I see no reason to substitute "organized" for "well-regulated"

The 2nd Amendment uses the latter term. The drafters of the statute were aware of that language, and chose to make a distinction between "organized" and "unorganized." rather than between "well-regulated" and "un-regulated."

[leftofthedial]

142. regardless, it is self-evident that the "unorganized" category

can not, by definition, be "well-regulated." No one, not even the federal government, even knows who these people are or where they live, or if they own a gun, or what gun. They have never met, never been issued identity cards for the purpose, never trained, never belonged to a militia in any real sense. They clearly are not "well-regulated." Therefore, only members of the National Guard and such are granted the constitutional and statutory right to own killing machines.

[Raskolnik]

145. Your definition of "self-evident" is somewhat different than mine.

I stand by my interpretation of the statute.

[leftofthedial]

148. isn't yours more correctly characterized as a "non-interpretation"?

Assuming you are not in the National Guard and you are between the ages of 17 and 44, in what way is your membership in the militia "regulated" at all, much less "well-regulated"? And if you are not between the ages of 17 and 44, if you own a gun, you are by statute NOT a member of any militia and are therefore in violation of The Constitution.

[Raskolnik]

149. No, I simply don't think you should (much less must) equate "well-regulated"

with "organized", primarily because the drafters of the statute specifically chose not to use the former phrase.

[leftofthedial]

150. I'm not equating anything with anything, beyond what you've already done

the statute is the legal definition of "militia." The Constitution specifically grants the right to own a gun to those in who do so for the purpose of providing a "well-regulated militia." If you are not in the National Guard or another such organization, please explain to me how, specifically, you are "well-regulated."

[Raskolnik]

151. First of all, I don't agree with your premise

The Constitution specifically grants the right to own a gun to those in who do so for the purpose of providing a "well-regulated militia."

If I understand you correctly, I think your premise is that *only* those in the militia have the right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment. I do not agree with that.

And to answer your question, I think the statutory definition of what constitutes the militia is a form of control.

[leftofthedial]

156. what purpose does the phrase,

"a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State," serve in the amendment, if, as you claim, it has no meaning?



and how does the notion that frontiersmen need to band together to kill Indians with muskets apply in, say, modern suburban Kansas City?

[Raskolnik]

159. You posted a strawman and a non-sequitur.

I never claimed the phrase has no meaning. I wholeheartedly agree the Amendment could have been more clearly drafted for modern ears, but I believe the introductory clause is just that, an introductory clause that explains the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. It does not set its limits.

I don't know who brought up frontiersmen and Indians, but it wasn't me. I don't think any of the Bill of Rights is dependent on Indian-killing as a prerequisite.

[leftofthedial]

172. the purpose of the Second Amendment, at the time it was written,

was to reassure American men, primarily rural American men, that the government would not prohibit them from banding together with their muskets to defend themselves from Indian attack. In years prior to the Revolution, the British, fearing the growing unrest in the colonies, had outlawed the militias that were necessary to protect farms and frontier settlements from Indian attack. In some cases, they also seized the militias' stores of weapons. Several waves of massacres ensued. The Second Amendment was conceived, in part, to assure the people that these militias would be allowed to exist.

Also, the framers did not envision a strong federal government and, in fact, did not believe there should be a standing federal army, certainly not a large one. Therefore, the defense of the nation would rest primarily on these militias.

THAT is why The Constitution guarantees that militia members would be allowed to keep and bear arms.

It does not specify that all people could own guns for whatever purpose they wish--hobbies, hunting or whatever. Your interpretation of the "well-regulated militia" clause is absurd and self-serving, as is your insistence on not interpreting the clear meaning of words like "organized" and "unorganized." It's as though you were to read "thou shalt not kill" and conclude that the word "not" does not limit the act of killing in any way.

Something has to change. We are a barbaric nation, where people murder one another at a rate not seen since the Mongols crossed Europe.

:shrug:

[Raskolnik]

185. I think we have some fundamental differences in a couple of areas.

1) I think you minimize (if not ignore) the philosophical underpinnings that led to including the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights. I think you maximize the Indian-fighting and ignore the desire to prevent the state from having a monopoly on the use of force.

2) I think your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment's text and the text of the Militia statute is strained, and I would hope none of the other portions of the Bill of Rights would be interpreted in such a manner.

I know it sounds crazy, but I don't think we're going to convince each other on an internet message board. I understand where you're coming from in the desire to limit gun violence, but I disagree about the best method to accomplish that goal.

[leftofthedial]

189. what do you suggest?

to address the problem.

[Raskolnik]

191. I suggest addressing the underlying causes of the violence.

I think the far more effective tactic would be to enforce the existing gun laws, address economic issues, and structurally redesign our drug laws. No fussing with the Constitutional required.

And just to be clear, I am quite aware that there is a cost to private citizens having guns. There will inevitably be tragedy, and there will inevitably be an innocent party paying the price for another's misuse of firearms. Just as I am willing to accept the increased risk of terrorism that may accompany strict adherence to the 4th Amendment, and just as I am willing to accept a whole bunch of knuckleheads abusing their 1st Amendment rights, I am frankly willing to pay a price as a society for this right.

[leftofthedial]

194. what about regulations to close the gun show loophole

and other gaps that allow pretty much anyone to buy pretty much anything?



I salute your dedication to civil liberties. :toast:

[Raskolnik]

197. I think those loopholes make a hand scapegoat, but don't amount to much at all in the real world

[leftofthedial]

201. here in the real world of metro Denver Colorado,

guns bought at a gun show by minors killed some kids and wounded a bunch of other ones at Columbine.

Another gun bought at a gun show killed a girl at a high school up in Bailey, a nearby mountain town.

Another one was used for the suicide of a guy driving a homemade tank with which he destroyed part of the town of Granby.



:shrug:

Current gun laws ARE enforced, in the same way traffic laws or drug laws are enforced--the way ALL laws are enforced--imperfectly. It isn't working. Something has to change.

[Raskolnik]

213. I don't know enough about the specifics of the case to argue whether those incidents were the result

of "loopholes" or whether the purchases would have been allowed under sensible laws.

(and, while I usually find animated smiley faces quite convincing, you don't really need to add one to the end of your posts)

[leftofthedial]

217. adios.

[Raskolnik]

223. Fuck you! You're worse than Hitler's mustache!

(oh wait, we're not doing that?--isn't that how all gun disussions are supposed to end on DU?)

Take care.

[leftofthedial]

224. I resemble that remark.

[michreject]

252. Some of the guns used in Columbine were bought legally

at a gun show. The later transfer was illegal but it had nothing to do with the original purchase.

[krispos42]

192. Oh, for god's sake...

:banghead:

We're 24th in homicide rate of reporting worldwide nations. Care to dial down the hyperbole a little?




The "unorganized militia" is as well-regulated as federal law requires. It's not my fault, nor anybody else's fault on this message board, that federal law does not require us to actually *do* anything to be part of the unorganized milita.

People that propose mandatory national service, military or otherwise, would be increasing the requirements to be "well-regulated". But until and unless that happens, me being part of the well-regulated, unorganized militia solely requires me to register with the Selective Service. And I've done that.

[leftofthedial]

195. happy shooting!

[leftofthedial]

199. I think we're actually 27th, but no quibble there

EVERY nation above us is either in the midst of a current ongoing armed revolution, is a third-world drug kleptocracy, or is among the 10 poorest nations on earth. NONE is a western democracy. Interestingly, the western democracy closest to us in the slaughter is Switzerland, which has probably the best-regulated militia on the planet, next, perhaps to Israel.

[krispos42]

206. So then the problem isn't guns?

It's things like poverty and drug gangs and shitty social services???????

Imagine that!

[leftofthedial]

212. I've never said anything BUT that guns are part of a bigger problem

but they are part of the problem

the major distinguishing factors between us and other western democracies with MUCH lower murder rates is the availablity of guns. not the ONLY difference, but the most obvious related difference.

[krispos42]

226. Yet when those other western democracies ban guns....

the murder rate either doesn't move, or moves up. :shrug: The Aussies and the Brits have done that.

But what's truly interesting about the Brit and Aussie gun bans is that when they were passed, they wre not marketed as a "crime-control" measure, but as a "mass-shooting" control measure. The UK had two bad incidents, one in 1988 and another in 1997, and the Aussies had one in the '90s. I guess that, as a "mass shooting" control measure you could argue that it has worked. But as a crime-control measure, which is what people in the States argue that heavy gun restricitons will be, it hasn't worked.


I posted some graphs from the Aussie government further up in this thread, and the UK's Home Office report on homicides and such show that armed robberies with firearms went UP after the 1998 handgun confiscation and 1989 "assault weapon" confiscation.

[leftofthedial]

231. let's get the US murder rate anywhere near the ballpark of the other countries

and then debate banning.

I haven't advocated banning here. I just asked some questions and suggested specific areas that require stricter regulation (and got into an interesting discussion of militias).

[krispos42]

240. There are institutional problems preventing us from doing that

The biggest IMO is the useless "War on Drugs" and our incredibly Puritannical attitudes about it. And I say this as a non-drug user. I don't want drugs legalized because I want to take them, I want the gangs destroyed and the prisons and courtrooms full of REAL criminals, not potheads.

I want the single-income working-class and lower-middle-class to dominate, and for that to happen we need protectionist laws and tariffs, universal single-payer health care, stronger unions, and manufacturing brought back here from China.

I want the economy to be boosted by shifting the income tax burden to the upper-middle-class and wealthy. I want corporate income taxes to be based on both total annual revenue and profits as a percentage of annual revenue, so that small, high-profit companies are encouraged but large, high-profit companies get discouraged. I want corporations to be able to deduct from their profits bonuses to the line workers, but not their CEOs. I want to see a surge in small innovative upstart business, which not having universal single-payer health care surpresses because people are chained to their company's health-care plan.

I want the 12 million or so illegal aliens in this country to a) be legalized, b) pay a reasonable fine over the course of the next several years, and c) to start paying taxes, saving for their retirements, getting morgages, and generally integrating themselves into our society as law-abiding Americans. Then I want to shift immigration from Latin America to places where truly need to be saved, like Darfur and Ethiopia and Somolia and Palestine and Afghanistan and Iraq and the former Yugoslavia.

That is what I think will make this country strong, safe, and vibrant.

[leftofthedial]

243. it's a sticky wicket, no?

I only wish we still had a candidate in the race who advocated that agenda . . .

[krispos42]

246. Yes, it is...

The Republicans keep pulling the Democrats to the right by being subborn, obstinate bastards, owning the media, and using wedge issues and hysteria.

The only issue, it seems, that Democrats are being stubborn, obstinate bastards on is gun control, which is a) preventing anything else from getting done, and b) performing the fascist, authoritarian Republican's civilian-disarmament agenda.

[jmg257]

280. It doesn't guarantee "the militia men" - it guarantees "the people" - HUGE difference.

It also does not limit AT ALL the purpose for which the people can keep and bear those arms; just like all private property, they can be used for any purpose that does not inflict on the rights of others.

[beevul]

258. Christ on a crutch...

"The Constitution specifically grants the right to own a gun to those in who do so for the purpose of providing a "well-regulated militia."

Get it right will you?

The constitution and bill of rights GRANT NOTHING.

They simply protect through enumeration of restrictions on governmental power, rights which already exist.

[sergeiAK]

154. Why would the government protect their own right to bear arms?

Is there a nation in existence where the army has been denied their weapons?

[leftofthedial]

160. who said anything about the Army?

this discussion is about the militia--militarized private citizens.


Although the creation of and regulation of a nation's military is always an important part of any constitution. Ours has been changed recently in this regard, to allow the deployment of our military within the borders of the US and to allow the military to engage in operations within our borders. The Constitution prohibits this, but king george has other plans.

[Raskolnik]

163. Ok, I know this will make me sound like a kook to the more delicate sensibilities on this thread

but doesn't your post demonstrate why private gun ownership could be beneficial?

[sergeiAK]

165. The National Guard is a Federal group

Not a milita. Federally funded, federal bases, federal pay. They're equivalent to the army.

[Raskolnik]

169. "They're equivalent to the army."

No, they really aren't. You need to do a little research on this.

[sergeiAK]

198. Federal funding = federal control

You need to do more research. If the feds can kill their funding, they're not a state militia, now are they?

[leftofthedial]

178. The National guard has been federalized, most recently (legally) in the Korean War

I believe.

It has been in effect federalized by king george to provide the cannon fodder for his illegal "conquest" of Iraq.

But, unless nationalized by the President in time of war, the National Guard is a STATE entity, controlled by the governor of each state. It is, by statute, a militia. (see Post 116 above, where Raskolnik has thoughtfully posted the federal statute).

[sergeiAK]

207. By statute, yes. In practice, no

You're right, by law they belong to the state. But still, why would we protect the right of the Government troops to have guns. Have they ever been denied guns?

The amendment is clear: "the people" have the right to keep and bear arms. The militia is the reason that the people have this right. Militia membership is not a prerequisite, were it, it would say "militia members right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". But it doesn't, it says "the people", meaning all of us. Nobody thinks the government will deny the troops (Guard or otherwise) weapons. That's an asinine argument to make.

[leftofthedial]

215. yes. as I discuss above in post 172, when the Second Amendment was written

many Americans were fearful of government regulation because they were frequently threatened by Indian attack. The British, prior to the revolution had disbanded colonial militias and in several cases had seized the militia's weapons. This resulted in waves of massacres at the hands of Native Americans. The necessity of the Amendment was to establish the right of the states to form militias made up of private citizens who were allowed to own their own muskets for that purpose. There was, at the time, only a very small federal army and navy, so the militias were the primary defense of the nation.

[jmg257]

276. Not just threats from native americans- the people had VERY vital roles in protecting their

liberties..."suppress insurrections. repel invasion, execute the laws".

Self-defense was also important of course, but as the 2nd observes, an effective militia is necessary for freedom - otherwise we would need a large standing army - not good. It was also determined that militias made up of the body of the people, armed by themselves and typically under state control and state-appointed officers, organized & trained to federal guidleines, was the best compromise.

By also giving the new Congress the power to set guidelines for the militia's arms in the Constitution, it was seen by many that a usurption could be used to DISarm the people too, and so the 2nd explicitly securing that right.

[leftofthedial]

283. which also was a reaction to the very same gun bans by the British

government totalitarian rule


but in those days, a musket was pretty much it. Maybe a small cannon.

Nowadays, it would be hard to use private weapons to effectively resist a totalitarian government with a modern military.

Even in Iraq, for example, it is military explosives (thoughtfully provided by king george's negligence), military assault weapons (ditto), SAMs, RPGs, mortars and the like that are the mainstays of the insurgency.

[jmg257]

284. Agreed - now we have no real recourse but to trust our leaders, and our military to do the right

thing. I don't count on that 100% by the way...too many examples throughout history of tragic people who had such faith.

BTW, I later saw your previous post about what I had said just above - you had already covered mosy of my point! :)

[northzax]

155. so women have to actually be members of the National Guard

to posess firearms? that's what this bill seems to say.

[Raskolnik]

162. No, because the Constitution is not a ceiling, but a floor.

The Bill of Rights doesn't express the limits of individual rights, but places limits on the government curtailing those rights.

[skater314159]

87. Well, many factors make Australia better than here...

... the first being WHO founded their country - they got the criminals and debtors, we got the religious flakes. Two hundred years still hasn't fixed what we started with.

[FloridaJudy]

140. Obviously Australia got first choice. N/T

[marions ghost]

300. absolutely true

Americans are always amazed when they go to Australia. You can feel the effects of living without the threat of gun violence everywhere. It affects the whole society there in positive ways.

When Australians come here and really see what Americans put up with--students gunned down at schools and universities, murders of shop owners and others for a few bucks, random violence in neighborhoods,
domestic violence ending in death--when they see all this, they cannot understand why Americans agree to just look the other way and live (or die) with it. They are mystified at our willingness to be held hostage to the NRA.

[leftofthedial]

"The Constitution" is a living document. The Second Amendment itself

was part of a change to what was originally "The Constitution." Over the years, many such changes have been necessary--to abolish slavery, or grant voting rights to women, for example.

Something is horribly wrong in this country. Mass murders, school shootings, murder-suicides, rage killings . . . all are daily occurrences in the US. Many murders that would be screaming national headlines anywhere else in the world don't even make the news in the US. The common denominator in this epidemic of carnage is guns. Are guns the only factor? No. Guns are part of a culture of violence that has evolved here over a long time. But removing guns (or at least easy access to them) would be an important start to cleaning up our problem. Close the gun show loophole and other loopholes. Require recurring licensing more like cars. Impose much harsher penalties for gun crimes. Like it or not, something needs to change, probably starting with the absurd gun-nut libertarian interpretation of the Second Amendment.

[Raskolnik]

115. What other parts of the Bill of Rights need to be pruned to fit the modern world?

I know a few people in the current administration that would wholeheartedly agree to your approach for the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments, just to get you started.

[leftofthedial]

131. they all are fair game to be debated if a compelling problem exists

Even though your examples have *nothing* to do with this discussion, they do not disprove my point.

All other western democracies guarantee the right of habeas corpus and varying degrees of privacy protection. Globally, there is no evidence that police states (or proto police states like ours) are any safer from "terrorism" than are freer countries. We stand alone among democracies in having abdicated these basic rights.

We also stand alone in allowing, in effect, absolutely free, unregulated ownership of weapons designed to kill. Any weekend I want, I can go to a gun show and buy anything or everything there. I can buy guns by mail. Guns are *easy* to obtain. We have millions of unregistered, unregulated guns in private hands; we have more gun murders than any country on earth. We have an anachronistic clause that, when written, guaranteed male citizens the right to keep and own a musket so they could protect themselves from native americans on the frontiers of our budding empire. Something has to change.

[sergeiAK]

157. You can buy guns by mail?

Do you have an FFL? If you don't, you can't. Stop posting bullshit.

[leftofthedial]

179. not true,

my ex-FIL sells several hundred thousand dollars of shotguns by mail every year, all to private buyers.

[sergeiAK]

200. If he's in the US, and those are modern shotguns,

He's in for some jailtime.

To conduct interstate commerce in firearms (modern guns, made post 1898), you must send them to FFL holders. FFL holders can be private citizens (for certain classes of guns), but most are not. I can buy a gun mail order, if it's shipped to my local dealer, who then does the background check, as if I was buying it from him.

How is what he's doing legal? Be specific.

[leftofthedial]

210. how the hell would I know? I'm not a gun dealer.

He is a gun dealer, has been for several decades and he is not "underground" in any sense. He is nationally prominent in shotgun circles. He has models of shotguns named after him. He speaks and exhibits at the Shot show and advertises in gun rags on on the Internet.

Dick Cheney or some other gun nut decides they need a ten thousand dollar shotgun so they can kill a few hundred captive quail or blow the face off a friend or whatever, so they call my ex-FIL and buy one. To my knowledge, the ex-FIL doesn't resell through dealers. He IS the dealer. Maybe there is some legal sleight of hand for the buyer to take delivery. I don't know and I don't care. But I could order a gun from him right now (if I had any money and if I was a gun nut).

[sergeiAK]

216. Then he's not selling directly to customers.

What he (if he likes staying out of jail) does, is to sell to a citizen (for example, me, I'd love a nice shotgun). I pay him, and with my check, send a copy of my dealer's FFL. He sends the gun to my dealer, who processes the background check (as if I'd bought whatever he had in inventory), and (assuming I'm clean), gives me the gun. For my dealer's trouble in doing this, he gets $20. The purchase was direct from someone like your ex-FIL, but still went through my dealer because of the background check requirement.

The same requirements for a background check exist whether the purchase was of something in my dealer's inventory, or something I buy from your ex-FIL. I have to fill out the papers, the dealer calls the FBI, they say "ok", I get my gun. That's how it works, how it has worked since 1968.

In conclusion, learn the damned law before spouting bullshit about "I can order a gun by mail!".

[leftofthedial]

218. in what way did you not order a gun by mail in this scenario?

idiot.

[sergeiAK]

219. It wasn't delivered to me, now was it?

Idiot.

[leftofthedial]

222. so you didn't get the gun?

then *you* are the idiot. LOL

[sergeiAK]

229. You implied I can order one and get it dropped off by UPS.

I said that wasn't true. I explained the law. You have posted half-truths and insults.

I also said directly. I would get it eventually, but the result is: I have to go to my local dealer to do the paperwork. Does it matter who got the check, if I had to go down to the dealer to get it?

You're being obtuse here, nobody (sans FFL holders) can order weapons and get them directly. Citizens must get them from dealers, whether the dealer is the seller or just doing the paperwork.

[leftofthedial]

230. what possible difference does any of that make

in the substance of the discussion here?

UPS, your local dealer, the gangsta at the crack house, the bicycle messenger, the USPS, the frigging Pope . . . I don't care who delivered the damned thing, the kid in the OP still got shot in the head for throwing a snowball.

All I said was one could buy a gun by mail. I think the scenario you laid out would qualify as "buying a gun by mail."

[sergeiAK]

233. My local dealer does background checks, as required *by law*

That's a pretty big difference, no?

UPS, the crack dealer, everyone else you mention, doesn't.

If it makes no difference, do you support repeal of the background check requirement?

I don't.

[leftofthedial]

235. yes.

but in this particular thread, so what?

assuming your dealer and you abide strictly by the law, the background check is a good thing. It didn't stop the NIU shooter though, or a number of other school shooters, snipers and spree killers.

Do you think the US murder rate is a problem we should try to solve? If so, how would you propose we solve it?

[sergeiAK]

238. Yes, proposal within.

99% of dealers do abide by the law. As do 99% of owners. They're not the problem, in fact they're your ally, if you choose to recognize them as such. If you denigrate them, hate them, try to violate their rights, you become their enemy; they vote and they will block you at every chance. Democrats have been hugely hurt by their refusal to let gun control (in its own right, a racist, classist, idea) die. Half of gun owners are Dems/independents, and we turn them away.


Things we need to do:

1. Enhance the NICS mental health reporting system. Due to lazy police, the VT killer's mental illness wasn't reported to NICS, which would have prevented him from buying the pistols. The NICS improvement bill was a good start (with support from both sides of the aisle and the NRA).
1a. The BATFE needs to be reformed. See my comments in the Guns forum to address that.
2. Enhance mental health care in this country. It's piss-poor.
3. Actually lock up the criminals. We keep hearing of robbers and rapists getting light sentences/probation. Violent criminals need to be locked up.
4. CCW permit holders are proven to be law abiding. Stop attacking them.

5. Here's one that the law can't solve: We need to reform US culture. Especially the glorification of violence in popular media, the lack of educating children about conflict resolution, and the reluctance to lose "face" that leads to events like this one. That's the only thing that will ever truly change the US violence issue.

[leftofthedial]

242. I don't disagree with a single proposal in your list

it's non-trivial getting it done though and I imagine many from inside the gun lobby will oppose some of your list.

[sergeiAK]

262. Easier than you'd think.

The NRA is on my side, which helps immensely. If we could get Democrats to stop pushing crap like http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1022">this we might be able to actually accomplish something, with bipartisan support. The NRA has supported Democrats, but tends to default Republican due to the actions of Feinstein, Schumer, et al. I know several people at my local range and local matches who support many platforms of the Democratic party, who would vote Democratic if we actually supported the Second Amendment, instead of our backhanded platform statement.

To accomplish much of this, we will need to overhaul the BATFE. The BATFE is one of the worst government agencies as far as abuses of power (though under Bush, some others have given it a run for its money). They are arbitrary in rulings, issue semi-binding letters of approval, and often reverse a position they took earlier. They've also been absolutely not interested in helping FFLs stop straw purchases.

Gun laws in this nation also need to be rationalized, badly.
Example: I have a rifle, semi-automatic, legal in its current configuration. If I swap the US made plywood stock on it for a nicer one made in Romania (which it was originally built with), I now have a piece of contraband, worth 10 years in jail and a $250k fine. It's still semi-auto, it's still functionally the same. But now it's a felony to possess. WTF?

Glad we could find some common ground. If you want more info, I suggest you start a thread in the guns forum, as that's, IMO, a more appropriate place to discuss gun laws and proposed changes.

[leftofthedial]

263. thanks for the info

[krispos42]

247. Spree killings

There are slightly more than a dozen K-12 students killed on school grounds in any given year. Even with the Columbine shooting back in 1999, there were only about three dozen students killed on school grounds nationwide.

There was one (1) sniper homicide in 2006.


The vast majority of murders have one victim, killed at close range by somebody known to the victim.

[leftofthedial]

249. . . . with a gun legally purchased by either the murderer, the victim,

or one of their family members

[krispos42]

298. Yup. n/t

[krispos42]

176. And you're relying on the "if it leads, it bleeds" MSM?

[leftofthedial]

244. I don't rely on the corporate media for much of anything

I just find it a bit jarring to travel in a foreign country and see that a gun being used in a crime--any crime, even if the gun wasn't fired--anywhere in the country--is BIG news.

[jmg257]

281. SO pass an amendment changing the constitution - until then the right of the people is secure.

[krispos42]

186. Really?

Murder and manslaughter, rate per 100,000 persons, 1993-2006

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics 2007. Recorded crime, victims, Australia {various issues}. ABS cat. no. 4510.0. Canberra: ABS


Trend in assaults, by month, 1995-2005

Source: Australian Institute of Criminology 2007. Australian crime : facts and figures 2006. Canberra: AIC. http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2006/



Violent crime: armed and unarmed robbery, rate per 100,000 persons, 1993-2005

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006. Recorded crime, victims, Australia . ABS cat. no. 4510.0. Canberra: ABS



Recorded victims of sexual assault, rate per 100,000 population, 1993-2003

Source: Australian Institute of Criminology 2005. Trends in recorded sexual assault. Crime facts info no. 105, 30 August. http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi105.html



http://www.aic.gov.au/stats/



So, where's the difference?

<edit: added titles and sources that were not imbedded in graphics files>

[Raskolnik]

38. You know, the text of your post is almost the verbatim argument

that Republicans use to try and justify infringing Constitutional rights in the War on Terror(tm).

Tell me, are you willing to trade other Constitutional rights for the promise of some increased safety?

[penguin7]

112. Did Moses come down from the mountain and give us the bill of rights?

How come the Bill of Rights is being held so damn sacred anyway?

The damn thing is loaded with flaws. The right to a free press does not give us a free press. The rights in criminal cases clearly are not working as we are putting way too many people in jail.

The only liberal notion about protecting the bill of rights is the right wing nutcases may come up with something worse which would be pretty stinking hard to do in this day and age.

And actually the right wing defends the bill of rights just as hard as the left wing.

[Raskolnik]

114. "How come the Bill of Rights is being held so damn sacred anyway?"

Wow.

[LanternWaste]

255. Was it sacred when blacks were counted as only 3/5th's of a person?

Was it sacred when blacks were counted as only 3/5th's of a person? Was it sacred when women were denied the right to vote...?

Or maybe, just maybe-- the guys who wrote the tings in the first place weren't the end-all and be-all of political philosophy. Just possibly, they too were human just as we are-- prone to error, prone to mistakes, prone to the social and cultural mores of their times.

Maybe... just maybe, the human race is still evolving in both critical thought and communal awareness and the documents from the past simply do not reflect this.

It's certainly not sacred, either-- at least not if one uses the classical definition of the word 'sacred'.

If you stick around here long enough, you'll see that we rarely buy into black-and-white, either-or thinking

[Raskolnik]

265. Sure the Constitution is imperfect, but I don't think pruning the Bill or Rights addresses

those imperfections. All of the problems you (and the previous poster) point to are essentially that the Constitution doesn't/didn't sufficiently protect the rights of certain groups of people. You'll get no argument from me on that point, but I fail to see how trimming an individual right protected by the Bill of Rights does anything to undo those past wrongs.

[LanternWaste]

303. Aren't all individual rights constantly and consistently...

Aren't all individual rights constantly and consistently both trimmed from and added to in the judicial process? E.g., the fist amendment is consistently and constantly litigated in court as our culture seeks and finds new ways of communication and expression. I see this constant reinterpretation as a good thing-- as opposed to a stagnant perception, willfully denying changes in technologies, cultures and interpretations of freedoms.

[Occulus]

147. !!!

edited to add: :wow:

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

63. Congradulations on your conversion to RW logic

Someone die during an abortion: Its the fault of all pro choice peopl
Someone gets an std: Its the fault of those who want to hand out condoms and teach kids about sex
....
....

[depakid]

69. Where do those non-sequiters come from?

Projection?

Fact is, in other nations where handguns and shotguns aren't allowed to proliferate- and there's no easy access, there are FAR LESS murders and shootings (accidental, kids and adolescent and suicides included).

QED.

Ergo, your support (which collectively, and through lobbyists- becomes national or regional support) is responsible for the ever increasing number of tragedies that might otherwise have been prevented, had Americans abandoned their pathological (and sometimes paranoid) obsession with firearms.

I suppose to many, that must be an acceptible cost for their indulgence- and if so, people should be honest and just admit it. "cause it's only going to get worse.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

74. Dont get upset because youre using their logic..

Fact, Trading liberty for security is *exactly* the fear mongering that * does on a daily basis and its the same reasoning anti second amendment people use..

I dont own a Gun, never have and probably never will I just dont think its wise to keep them in the house with kids too young to be responsible but the right to bear arms is as important as the right to free speech..

[Occulus]

76. Nice try, but there's a huge difference between the two.

You're making a false comparison. "Fearmongering" is only a valid charge when there's nothing of substance to be afraid of.

"Fact, Trading liberty for security is *exactly* the fear mongering that * does on a daily basis"

The difference is that while "the terrorists over there are a-comin' to git us" has very little basis in reality, the idea that gun violence is increased by the widespread availability of guns- specifically, guns designed solely to kill people and not other animals- is a very real and very obvious conclusion.

[sergeiAK]

221. How does one design a gun to kill people not animals?

Seems I recall, most guns will kill what you aim them at. People, animals, tin cans, paper targets, etc.

[depakid]

264. Yep- I've seen all those hordes of people in the fall hunting deer with Glocks

AK 47's.

[sergeiAK]

266. Such a wonderfully idiotic statement

I asked, how do you design a gun to not kill animals, only people. You gave an irrelevant answer. So, I shall ask again, how does one make a weapon that won't kill an animal, only a person?

PS: AK-47 pattern rifles are becoming rather popular hunting weapons. Their ergonomics, reliability, and light recoil are all ideal for a brush hunting area. Not very good for long-range shots due to the relatively weak cartridge though.

[Occulus]

272. I would say, hunting traditions dictate what types of guns are primarily used when hunting

and I mean that for both those who hunt animals and those who 'hunt people'. Both groups have their preferred weapon. I've certainly never heard of people out in the woods hunting with the handguns they carry in their <xyz_firearm_storage_facility>. I won't be so obtuse as to say it doesn't happen, but I think most people will agree that the vast majority of 'guns designed to kill people' are in fact often called 'handguns'; I also think most people would agree that guns used in hunting animals other than other people are generally called 'rifles' and 'shotguns'.

Eliminating those weapons primarily used to hunt people would honestly in no way interfere with hunting other animals or personal protection. A bit of proof of this is here; in this case, the invaders were armed with an assault rifle, and the homeowner killed one of them with his shotgun.

We just simply don't need as many handguns loose as we have now. I'll not touch the issue of rifles and shotguns because to me it's just not an issue- they're useful tools to help you feed yourself and your family and stay alive- but handguns serve that purpose primarily and often specifically against other people, and that's where I personally see a serious problem.

"All gunz ur baaad" is not my mantra. That said, some guns just shouldn't be as widely available as they are, and that includes pretty much all handguns.

[sergeiAK]

274. Handguns were primarily designed as . .

Defensive weapons. If you expect trouble, you carry a rifle or a shotgun. As far as personal protection, rifles/shotguns are a bit unwieldy to carry, no? And really hard to conceal.

Police carry handguns for a reason. They're the obvious personal protection choice when one is not going into an active warzone.

What restrictions do you propose? And how do you justify taking the rights of several million people?

Hunting use is a non-sequitur as to whether a firearm should be allowed. The Second Amendment says "arms" for a reason, and covered the handguns of the day when written.

[depakid]

286. What a load of crap!

Handguns were desgined as weapons of warfare to shoot through 16th Century armour!

(Of course, I'm never surprised at rationalizations of the obsessed- they'll say anything to justify aberrant behavior).

[sergeiAK]

289. I speak of modern handguns.

Also, rifles were developed as weapons to shoot through armor, something they excel at, as compared to handguns. Most handgun rounds are defeated by most modern armor. On the other hand, it's the 21st century, not the 16th. Are you going to reply to any of the rest of my post, or just make snide comments while not addressing anything I say?

You have refuted nothing I said, sans your historical comment (which I disagree with, most sources I've seen say that they were developed around the late 17th century, to provide a handy alternative to the musket/blunderbuss). Then again, I'm an engineer, not an historian.

Your editorial comments are unrelated to the topic at hand, and your "aberrant behavior" comment borders on slanderous, given that you have no knowledge of my behavior. I've been the subject of several similar statements, but nobody has provided evidence of any supposed "aberrant", "psychotic", or "sociopathic" behavior. So, assuming you have proof of such, kindly provide it.

If you have nothing relevant, useful, or decent, to say, do us a favor and say it somewhere else.

[LanternWaste]

256. Security on one hand. Freedom on the other.

Security on one hand. Freedom on the other. Is there a nation which wholly subscribes to one or the other? Absolute freedom? In what country? Absolute security? In what country?

If we realize that one or the other isn't going to happen within the human race, we begin to realize that the issue of regulation vs. regulation (or "gun grabbers vs. gun nuts") is an issue only of degrees of regulation; and at this point, I don't see anyone arguing these most relevant and telling details--- only arguing bumper sticker slogans.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

259. Youre not looking hard enough..

The 'gun nuts' here on DU have no issue with background checks (regulation) the gun grabbers go so far as to say that *nobody* outside of law enforcement should own a fire arm..

[LanternWaste]

260. Many people think that the only reasonable arguments

Many people think that the only reasonable arguments come from their side of the aisle... gun debates on DU solidify my opinion of that-- and that's precisely because I have looked 'hard enough'

I've seen the moderates and the extremes of both sides of the arguments with raised fist and righteous voice, will preach as to how the other side is unfair, the other side is too extreme and unreasonable, playing on fear, using bumper-stickers rather than arguments.

Not that you'd ever do that...

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

268. Show me someone on DU who says

We should not be doing background checks, that we should not have a waiting period..

And Ill show you ten people who think only the police and government should even be allowed to own a firearm..

[truth2power]

143. This is the ONE REASON I always point to..

in terms of the gun controversy:

If a person, in the heat of anger, couldn't reach into a dresser drawer and curl their fingers around a gun, we'd all be much better off.

The moment of anger will pass. But the addition of a gun into the mix makes it a forever decision.

In my own community a year or so ago, a man shot and killed a teen-ager who was cutting across his lawn. From the news reports I gather that this had been an ongoing problem between the property owner and several young people. That being said, the teen-ager is dead and the man is now serving life in prison.

Two lives ruined (not counting family and friends of both parties). What was gained?

[krispos42]

167. When will anti-gun people take responsibility for the damage they do to society?

Attempts to ban or otherwise severely restrict guns invariably result in armed criminals and unarmed victims. Are anti-gun people going to accept responsibility for all the people murdered, raped, robbed, and assaulted in cities where their policies were put in place? Cities like New York and Washingtion DC?

I don't see the anti-gun people in the UK stepping up for the increase in homicides after they banned "assault weapons" in 1989 or handguns in 1998.

But the anti-gun people sure are happy to take credit for no more mass shootings in the UK, aren't they?

[fascisthunter]

174. lol.... oh brother

[krispos42]

182. I thought so

Anti-gun people are never held accountable for the failure of their policies. It's Reaganomics... no matter how much it fails, it still "just needs more time", or "it's partisan politics" or some shit.

[fascisthunter]

204. You Have the Most Convoluted Arguments

you know why? Because you are losing on the issue, BADLY.

[krispos42]

211. Says the people trying to define the meaning of "the people"

And anti-gun Democrats are WINNING on the issue? Like we did in 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004?

[fascisthunter]

214. Have Fun Down That Rabbit Hole

Hope someday you decide to surface and join the rest of the World..

[fascisthunter]

173. Very Well Said (nt)

[Raskolnik]

177. What other rights are you willing to trade for the promise of safety?

If Bush promises us that torture and warrantless wiretapping will provide some extra safety for U.S. citizens, should we happily jump on board?

[fascisthunter]

202. You Assume I am Against Guns Completely

you are wrong.... nice straw man though.

PS - you lost the argument above.

[Raskolnik]

220. I don't assume anything, I go by the substance of your posts

in which you appear to be more than eager to trade a Constitutional right for the promise of increased safety. I haven't seen much that dissuades me from that evaluation, but if you have another point to make, please to so.

ps--civilized people can agree to disagree, and it is possible to do so without accusations of troll-hood or Nazi party mambership. Thanks for your input, though.

[kristopher]

261. And if he had come back with an ax or a hammer or a knife?

[zanne]

35. "Trite"?

Just let somebody shoot your kid because of an errant snowball and see if you still think it's "trite".

[Raskolnik]

41. I think the poster's attempt to use a horrible tragedy to make a lazy rhetorical point is trite.

Not the tragedy itself.

[zanne]

47. Yeah, yeah.

:boring:

[Raskolnik]

50. Touche. Your clever use of a cartoon face has carried the day!

Do you have anything to offer a discussion of this issue beyond accusing gun owners of being amoral monsters?

*edit typo*

[zanne]

71. It's jus the same old, same old with you guys.

No matter how many times I post a reply on this matter, it's ignored anyway and you just post the same drivel over and over again. You have your talking points, supplied free of charge from the NRA and guncite. I don't want to waste my time with that B.S.

[Raskolnik]

80. I call baloney on you.

What "talking points" have been thrown at you in this thread?

[Tesha]

94. You can call "baloney" all you like, but the truth is that you're acting as an un-paid lobbyist

You can call "baloney" all you like, but the truth is
that you're acting as an un-paid lobbyist for an industry:
the gun industry. They support the NRA, their captive
lobbyibg arm, and by spreading appropriate fear, they
maintain their marketplace.

Tesha

[Raskolnik]

101. Guilt by association doesn't cut it with me.

Some real assholes can be found in the NRA and the gun industry, there can be no doubt. There are some real assholes, however, advocating for free speech rights as well, and I don't feel like throwing away the Bill of Rights to spite them.

[leftofthedial]

135. not all gun owners are amoral monsters

but they are part of a culture that breeds amoral monsters


and at an accelerating rate

[Tesha]

49. Yes, we should never use any of the 30,000+ annual gun deaths to make this point. It would be tacky.

[Raskolnik]

52. What point!?

Please tell me what your point is.

[Tesha]

53. Don;t be stupid; you know precisely what the point is. (NT)

[Raskolnik]

55. No, I honestly don't. You don't like guns, I understand that much.

And you clearly don't care for people that own guns. Beyond that, I'm not at all sure what you're actually proposing.

Do you think the Constitution should be amended? Do you think that all firearms should be confiscated by the government? Do you think firearms and/or the people that own them should be removed from your personal space? Help me out here.

[Dr. Strange]

64. I think the answer is clear:

snowball control.

And don't try to suggest that the Constitution protects your right to make snowballs.

[Tesha]

70. I think firearms should be within the purvue of a "well regulated militia".

Clearly, in this country, far too many unstable people have
far too many guns.

Tesha

[zanne]

75. And most people are considered "stable" before they shoot someone. nt

[slackmaster]

79. Given that there are a lot more guns than there are unstable people

How about addressing the people problem?

[Tesha]

95. Data? Got any to support that claim? (NT)

[slackmaster]

106. Do you think there are anywhere 200 million unstable people in this country?

I'd say 19% of the population, max.

[Tesha]

108. The interesting statistic, of course, would be...

The interesting statistic, of course, would be "How many of
the unstable are armed" bersus "how many of the stable are
armed". The absolute numbers of guns per nut isn't interesting
since the absolute magnitude of any number >0 is relatively
meaningless.

Tesha

[Raskolnik]

82. You're mixing up two distinct arguments.

If your point is that mental health restrictions on firearm ownership should be tightened and/or more strictly enforced, that is one argument.

If your point is that the Second Amendment does not protect in individual right, that is another.

[aikoaiko]

60. You are correct. It amazes me how rarely some of the anti-gun folks in this thread express little

concern for the actual victims and instead go straight to attempting to make politically gain.

[zanne]

72. And you didn't comment on the "your kid" question.

Painful, huh? You might actually have to admit something that goes against your rightwing view of gun ownership.

[Raskolnik]

81. If it was my kid? I would be utterly heartbroken and inconsolable.

Fortunately for the entire society, we don't let heartbroken and inconsolable people set the limits of Constitutional rights for the rest of us.

I know there are a lot of heartbroken and inconsolable family members of 9/11 victims who would have approved (and do approve) of warrantless wiretapping and the use of torture on suspected terrorists. I feel sympathy for them, but I don't think their views should carry the day simply because they are victims.

[zanne]

136. I don't believe for one minute that you wouldn't change your mind. nt

[Raskolnik]

144. I never said I wouldn't. That's why we don't let people in those situations define everyone else's

rights. We don't let the family members of a rape victim set the standards for cruel and unusual punishment, we don't let the victims of terrorism set the standards wiretapping and torture, and we don't let the victims of gun violence define everyone else's right to bear arms.

[Perry Logan]

42. Of course they wouldn't be pleased. But I think they have a way of ignoring reality.

[Raskolnik]

43. Who are "they"?

People that believe the Bill of Rights protects the right to bear arms?

[Voice for Peace]

188. I thought Michael more made a pretty powerful point in Bowling for Columbine

when comparing gun ownership in the US & Canada.
It's not the guns, it's the fear and the anger.

[Forrest Greene]

190. I've Heard A Lot Of Gun Guys

...say "An armed society is a polite society."

Well, the gun guy in this story seems to have felt he had been treated impolitely, & so, expressed himself in a manner which pleased him & which presumably would also please those who prefer politeness over allowing neighbors to survive.

Sounds like that kid won't ever treat any gun guys ...or anyone else, for that matter... impolitely again. There's an accomplishment!

Maybe if it was a relative of yours, you wouldn't think the political point was so goddamned trite.

But then statistics show that if it was a relative of yours, presuming you're a gun guy, it would most likely have been you that shot them.

Frankly, I find gun guys rather contemptible.

[Raskolnik]

196. Well, "A Lot of Gun Guys" that choose to use Heinlen as political philisophy are idiots

But that doesn't really change my position.

Maybe if it was a relative of yours, you wouldn't think the political point was so goddamned trite.

As I explained to another poster, I expect that I would be devastated if the victim were a relative of mine, but that's not the standard we use to measure our Constitutional rights.

Frankly, I find gun guys rather contemptible.

And I don't care much for people that are eager to trade Constitutional rights for the promise of some safety. Does that make us even?

[roguevalley]

209. this shames us all. guns are our shame, the number who are killed

by people with guns and there are no control laws to make it harder. nothing is worse than a child dying.

[BoneDaddy]

62. Don't turn this into your political/ personal football

That is disgusting.

[Tesha]

97. Why not? Because it gores *YOUR* ox?

Sooner or later, somebody ought to turn the thirty thousand
lives lost annually to guns (and hundreds of thousands of
injuries) into *SOME SORT OF POLITICS*. Heaven knows the
NRA tries all the time!

Tesha

[BoneDaddy]

109. No, because it is the over emotional irrationality

that does not make sense. Of course this is a horrible story, but the issue is the scumbag who did it and not a gun. This lunatic could have easily shoved a knife into his heart or clubbed him with a bat.

Did you get nothing from "Bowling for Columbine"? The problem is our American violent attitude and not gun ownership. Overwhelmingly, legitimate gun owners are incredibly responsible for their weapons.

This disarmament idea is for the lunatic fringe left.

[Tesha]

110. I suspect my "snowthrower" guy *WAS* a legitimate gun owner.

Everybody is a "legitimate gun owner" until they get their
gun stolen or commit a crime using their gun.

Hell, since the charges got dismised (at least for now),
"snowthrower guy" is probably *STILL* a "legitimate gun
owner" even though he took out his gun and the neighbor
ended up shot. And someday, we'll probably get to read
about this "legitimate gun owner" shooting somebody else.
Maybe the wife and kids as so often happens. Or maybe
the neighbor's dog. Or maybe, if we're lucky, just himself.

Tesha

[BoneDaddy]

111. There again with the overblowing of your argument

Statistically, the incidents are very very low. But I will bet you that the killer was not a legit gun owner. My guess was that he was a thug or gang member who did not get his gun legally.

[Tesha]

113. Bullshit.

> Statistically, the incidents are very very low.

Bullshit. Not a week goes by that the local paper in my
rather white very small city reports on several people
being shot.

The rate of incidents is only "very low" if you don't
care much about human life.

Tesha

[BoneDaddy]

134. Still compared to the population, statistically low

Look, I am not ignoring the problem, but the answer is not the confiscation of guns. I know you think that is the answer but it isn't. I am not a gun nut, I do not own a gun, but I am not against gun ownership. The problem isn't the tool, the problem is the mentality of the person weilding it and here in America we have some serious problems.

And it is tiring to hear the hysterical cry of "you don't care much about human life" crap simply because I do not agree with you.

[skater314159]

85. What the hell do you mean? What are you trying to accomplish?

Your smug schadenfreude over a dying child and mourning friends and family just to make a point about your particular social issue is sickening.

And you think the "gun guys" are the ones without morals or ethics? Look in a mirror.

[spoony]

126. You lot really get off on these stories don't you?

I imagine the OP searches Google News daily for these stories, hoping he'll find a nice juicy one to post here. You don't give a shit about the victim, just about scoring points.

[havocmom]

138. Notr: Man shoots teen; not gun shoots teen

behind every gun that is fired into a person, there is another person pulling the trigger*

* with the ocassional exception where hunters get careless and let their dogs shoot them.

There are laws against shooting people. There are laws against driving drunk. We don't need more car control or gun control, we need enforcement of existing laws AND more mental health care for people who need it.

[orleans]

141. he died

"A Philadelphia teenager who was shot over a snowball fight this weekend died Monday.

"The 15-year-old died a few hours after being taken off life support

http://www.nbc10.com/news/15398592/detail.html?rss=phi&psp=news

[Name removed]

273. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[zanne]

2. I forgot to add the following....

[slackmaster]

77. There's nothing more ugly or hypocritical than a "liberal" indulging in stereotyping

Other than some nutjob shooting a kid over nothing.

:argh:

[Tesha]

3. Just your average day in gun-loving America...

And this kid hasn't even died yet, but guns will kill
more than 80 people today in America.

Hell, recently up here in New Hampshire, we had
Neighbor A shoot Neighbor B because A didn't like
the way B was operating his snowblower. And the
judge dismissed the charges against Neighbor A!

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080223/NEWS01/815756650

No assault charge in shooting case

By ANDREW WOLFE Telegraph Staff

NASHUA – A Nashua District Court judge dismissed the felony assault
charge Friday in the case of a Hudson man accused of shooting his
brother-in-law after a fight at their home.

Roger Leveille Jr., 44, has been free on $25,000 bail since his
arraignment Feb. 14, the morning after Gregory Ellis, 27, was
shot in the neck.

Police had charged that Leveille purposely shot Ellis during a
fight in the driveway of their home at 46 Musquash Road, Hudson,
after an argument over snowplowing.

A judge dismissed the charge Friday, after hearing testimony
from police and a neighbor who witnessed the incident, ruling
that police lacked enough evidence to support the charge.

<more>

Just your average day in gun-loving America...

Tesha

[zanne]

12. Now they're literally getting away with murder. nt

[Tesha]

18. Amazingly enough, the Hudson guy didn't die! (NT)

[michreject]

28. For the rest of the story

Leveille got a small pistol from his truck after Ellis had beaten him up.

Nice try.

[Tesha]

32. So what was originally a fist-fight became a life-threatening situation.

Exactly why the omnipresence of guns is a bad thing
for a "civilized" society.

Tesha

[michreject]

44. People have been killed with a single blow to the head

After his brother hit him, I don't blame him for defending his life.

[Tesha]

51. Death by a single fist blow to the head is more rare than death by a single gunshot to the head. NT

On a blow-by-blow basis.

[michreject]

57. Totally irrelevant

Both can kill you. NO ONE should put up with physical abuse.

[Javaman]

99. The man could have easily ran to the telephone and called 911.

however he chose instead to run to his truck for his pistol.

gun rights are also about choices. To shoot or not to shoot. However, never let emotion rule the situation when a gun is involved.

The shooter was at fault, but apparently, the judge thought otherwise.

[michreject]

239. Yeah.... Right

Call a cop and wail 20 minutes when the solution is a few step away. No thanks.

[Javaman]

254. So your solution to a fight is to shoot?

and by your statement, you believe that guns solve problems.

And this is why people are against their use, because of people like you, eager to pull the trigger rather than letting the law do it's job.

When emotion over powers common sense, it's time to put the gun down.

[michreject]

282. The last solution

just before physical contact.

[Javaman]

304. So your ability to dial 911 is impaired I see. Have fun with the scars. nt

[michreject]

305. I'll call after the conflict is over

No distractions. In order to win, you must maintain your focus.

[Javaman]

307. Have fun there rambo.

you are not blocked for your very Neanderthal ways.

Have a truly wonderful day. :)

[opihimoimoi]

4. The gun rights peeps know and ignore the 15% crazies in our society...many posing as normal

[zanne]

6. I have a feeling it's a lot higher than 15%

And when you add a gun to that equation you get another tragedy.

[zbdent]

14. those are the ones who are caught/found and documented ...

now if you go over to freeptardia, the number jumps to 97 % ...

[malaise]

5. That is attempted murder

plain and simple.

corrected since the kid is still alive

[Bluzmann57]

7. Yep. The thread goes as planned

Another anti-gun thing. Instead of condemning the guy who did the shooting, let's hammer the guns. I have news for you people, the guy likely would have beaten the kid to a bloody pulp or stabbed him, or run him over with a car, or something else even if guns were banned, which is what people seem to want. We have to get to the root of the pschycotic behavior and attack that rather than attack guns and gun owners. And just for the record, I hope the police catch the guy and if he pulls a gun on them, shoot him.

[Tesha]

9. Howbout the brother-in-law in my reply above? Should the police have terminated him too? (NT)

[dysfunctional press]

22. you left out some important details about that brother-in-law shooting...

like the fact about it being ruled accidental, as the gun discharged while the two were wrestling and fell to the ground.

[Tesha]

24. THE GUY WENT TO HIS TRUCK AND GOT HIS GUN!

THE GUY WENT TO HIS TRUCK AND GOT HIS GUN!

How "accidental" was that???

> Leveille got a small pistol from his truck after Ellis had
> beaten him up, and threatened to shoot Ellis, Lanfair told
> police. The two men then started to wrestle Ellis, Lanfair
> told police. The two men then started to wrestle and scuffle
> again, and Lanfair told police he heard a "pop" when they
> fell to the ground.

Tesha

[dysfunctional press]

67. you did it again...left out pertinent details...

A neighbor, Albert Lanfair, told police Leveille and Ellis fought frequently, but always made up afterward. On that night, the two men came to blows after an argument over Leveille's effort to plow the driveway, Lanfair told police...

...Ellis' wife, Leveille's sister, Christine, came out of the house shortly afterward and fired a round from a larger handgun before going back inside, Lanfair told police. Police have not charged her with any offense.

Leveille told police that both his sister and brother-in-law had attacked him, but he later asserted his right to remain silent and consult his lawyer and declined to give a more detailed statement, police reported.

Lanfair told police he didn't think Leveille meant to shoot Ellis and said it appeared the gun discharged when the two men fell to the ground.

i'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that beer and/or some type of whiskey or schnapps was probably involved as well- but that ultimately no real maliciousness was meant by any of the parties involved. i wouldn't call them model gun-owners, so much as a couple(few, if you count sis)of knuckleheaded jerks- but they also aren't violent mad-dog killers.

[Bluzmann57]

117. Did either guy pull a gun on the cops?

No. Therefore, the cops shouldn't have terminated him. But, if someone pulls a gun on a police officer, the police officer not only has the right, but is trained to shoot the person who draws the weapon. That is a fact, like it or not.

[zanne]

10. Holy Crap. Now you're rationalizing shooting a kid with a snowball.

You gun people are amazing. You manage to minimize ANY gun violence. Get a conscience.

[Recursion]

13. What??? *YOU* are the one rationalizing it by blaming the gun

YOU are saying that this man isn't responsible for the attempted murder, the weapon he used is.

[zanne]

17. You're too far gone.

I suggest getting away from the guns and gun discussions for awhile. You've lost touch with reality.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

66. Actually he is spot on

The first thing you did was blame the gun, without even mentioning the perp...

[fascisthunter]

175. Which Exhibits How Extreme Some are Regarding Guns

It's why some call some gun nuts.

[Junkdrawer]

27. Nope. Pulling a trigger is a sterile event. Beating with a club...

(assuming that the creep could have caught the kid in a footrace) requires much more psychotic madness.

[slackmaster]

83. Pulling a trigger while the gun is aimed at a person is far from a "sterile event"

Unless you have no appreciation for what is going to happen when the bullet hits the victim.

[tkmorris]

133. It would seem that a LOT of Americans don't

have any appreciation for what happens when you pull that trigger. I think the point being made is that the physical act of pulling a trigger is no more complicated or violent, in itself, than stapling a stack of papers. It is the OUTCOME of the act which is violent, and often quite surprising to people.

We all know that the fault lies with the shooter of the weapon in almost all cases of firearm assaults and deaths. That misses the point. The point is rather that it is impossible (and irrational) to attempt to correct the situation by addressing the people side of it. You can't fix "the people". People are, by nature, emotional, impulsive, impetuous, and prone to acts of stupidity. That is just who we are. What's that you say? You are not any of those things? But we aren't talking about individuals here; we are speaking of the entire mass of humanity that calls itself American, and at any given moment around 10% of them are pretty unstable. In fact the odds are excellent that at some time that 10% has included you or I.

I don't have a dog in this hunt. I am not committed to either side of the debate, and do not currently own a firearm though I have been considering purchasing one. My desire is to see the issue debated and addressed using reason and logic rather than emotive self-serving rhetorical devices.

The fact is that we have rather loose controls on gun ownership in the United States, and that thousands of people are killed by them every year. This is a direct tradeoff and even the most ardent gun right activists know it, though they never seem to want to admit it. Guns are used to kill people, and allowing almost anyone to have them results in a lot of people being killed by them. No, I do NOT want to hear about how if the idiot didn't have a gun he would simply go grab a rock and beat the victim's brains out. That's nonsense and we all know it. A few would do so, yes, and a few more would grab a bat, crowbar, rat poison, bowling ball, or what have you and commit the deed. The fact remains however that if we removed the gun from every attackers hand who used them, deaths would decrease dramatically. You know and I know it so let's not waste each others time.

The question becomes, do we accept the level of gun related deaths we have as the price to pay for the level of freedom we enjoy to possess them? Let's not try to avoid responsibility for this; leaving things as they are and calling it our civil right means thousands will die, every year. If you accept that price for your freedom to own that gun, than have the guts to say so. Own that decision. Don't be a coward and attempt to muddy the water up. If you want to outlaw guns of all kinds, then accept that you will not be as free as you were before. Know that somewhere, sometime, someone will be assaulted and will be unable to defend themselves because they no longer have a gun.

What's it going to be America?

[slackmaster]

139. I think better gun safety education is needed

My stepfather, among other things in a Navy career that spanned both ends of World War II, served as a rifle instructor in Basic Training. He was an expert marksman who first became familiar with firearms while hunting for food as a young child.

He began teaching me gun safety at age 10. My brother was six at the time. Besides the basics of safe gun handling, cleaning storage, etc., he demonstrated the power of the weapons, mainly a .22 rifle and a 12-gauge shotgun. I was very clear about what happens when a projectile hits various kinds of materials, long before I was old enough to keep a gun of my own.

Neither my brother nor I have ever had an accident with a firearm. We both have the rules so thoroughly drilled into us that we find ourselves avoiding "sweeping" people when handling objects like mops and brooms. We are very clear on the power and danger of weapons of all kinds. (He's a Navy warship commander now.)

A problem I see getting worse is that as an ever-smaller portion of the adult population has any real-world training with firearms, fewer and fewer parents are competent to teach basic gun safety to their children. I've made myself a gun safety evangelist, and have taught about 100 people the basics.

I favor gun safety training in public schools. If we can teach kids about the dangers of drugs, sex, driving, rattlesnakes, etc., why not also treat guns as a potential environmental hazard that they need to know how to handle safely? I'm not talking about real guns in classrooms here, just inert ones that can be used to demonstrate and practice safe unloading procedures. Add to that videos or films depicting what happens when a bullet hits something, and some preaching about moral responsibility of weapons ownership, maybe from uniformed police officers to add some perceived authority.

ETA I doubt very much that ignorance of terminal ballistics contributed to the tragic murder under discussion here. The shooter knew what he was doing.

[aikoaiko]

8. I hope the teen recovers fully and the criminal is punished severely.

[orleans]

146. he didn't recover

http://www.nbc10.com/news/15398592/detail.html?rss=phi&psp=news

[aikoaiko]

168. RIP Teven Rutledge; I hope they find the murderer and give him life or the DP.

No justice, no peace.

[Midlodemocrat]

11. Horrific. The child is dying over a snowball.

What have we become? :cry:

[Tesha]

20. We have become a very violent nation. (NT)

[Recursion]

30. Yet you and some other posters don't seem to get that *that* is the problem

We have the highest murder rate in the first world, IIRC. We are a sickeningly violent nation, and changing that culture is the only thing that is going to stop the murders.

[Tesha]

36. Violence +Tools = Death.

Remove either element and the world becomes safer.

And there's a feed-back element here as well. More
violence begets more escalation of the responses.

Frankly, I've reached the point where I wish we
could take all the gun-toters, give them a portion
of the country, and build a really big wall around
them all, and ensure that they have a steady supply
of bullets. Then in a few decades, when they'd all
died at the hands of their favorite tools, we'd
be rid of the problem.

Tesha

[Recursion]

40. Violence without tools = death, too

More people are murdered in the US by bare hands and feet than by assault weapons.

[Tesha]

48. The odds of death in a fistfight are far lower than the odds of death in a gunfight.

But don't let facts intrude on your gun lust.

Tesha

[slackmaster]

89. Civilized people don't fight

:hi:

[sergeiAK]

68. So Gulags are the answer?

Glad to know all those republicans calling the Democratic party Stalinists were right!

Seriously, I thought we were above this kind of bullshit as a party?

Guess I was wrong.

On a different note, any plan for how you'd round up and relocate 80 million armed people? I'm guessing you aren't gonna volunteer to try.

[Tesha]

104. Not a Gulag, but gun people routinely prove that they are a hazard to everyone else around them.

Think of it as a quarantine for the purposes of public safety.

If we placed all the gun people out of shooting range of the
rest of us, thousands of women, children, and innocent by-
standers wouldn't be shot and injured or killed every year.
And eventually, the "thinning of the herd" of the gun people
would have the benificial effect of weeding a little bit of
the violence out of our society.

Tesha

[sergeiAK]

127. Sounds like a gulag to me.

You also didn't answer how you plan on moving 80m armed people against their will. Nor how you'd deal with the economic devastation that would follow 80m people leaving.

Yes, let's "quarantine" people who own a certain item for "public safety". Or people of a certain ideology, again, for public safety. Maybe people of a certain ethnic group, the undesirable one of the time.

Isn't that called a concentration camp? Or a Death Camp, since you want them to die?

[slackmaster]

158. Most gun OWNERS don't present a hazard to you or anyone else

Please don't paint us with such a broad brush.

I keep mine securely locked up in a safe.

[High Plains]

166. Who in the hell is shootin' everybody then?

[slackmaster]

180. Violent criminals

The same kind of people who beat and stabbed people before firearms were invented.

[EstimatedProphet]

184. You want to quarantine 1/4 of the country,

based only on the fact that they belong to a group you don't like, for your safety.

Sounds like you're the one that's a threat to me, not the other way around.

[SammyWinstonJack]

96. Chris Rock has an opinion on gun control. He said don't take the guns away,

just make bullets outrageously expensive, like $5000/per. :spray: Seems like a good idea. Then I guess only the rich will be shooting each other. :silly:

[Bluzmann57]

119. I posted that one time in another thread

And someone bitched at me. I heard Rock say that in a concert film and thought it was pretty funny. This poster didn't. So I just say the hell with it, sometimes a person just can't win.

[idovoodoo]

193. That sounds disturbingly similar to the "let's round up the homos and fence 'em in

before they give everyone AIDS" idea some have proposed.
:grr:

[NashVegas]

118. We Have Become a Nation With No Idea How to Cope With Emotions

Say it with me: just because you're upset, it doesn't mean there's an asshole in the room.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

251. I'm not a psychologist, but something tells me it has to do with how we live

First, I think the American style of modern living is partially to blame. American kids are often kicked out of their home by the parents when they reach 18. After that, there isn't a real closeness to the parents, unlike the closeness we see in other cultures, such as Asian cultures. Americans consider the nuclear family to be father, mother, and children. There's no room for grandparents, uncles, aunts, nieces, nephews, etc. I think the influence of grandparents on children can be very beneficial. And today, even the parents are often not around to give guidance because of either divorce or because both parents spend so much time at work. Kids raise themselves. I also think the capitalist system of high competition and frustration has to do with it. In America, you're either a winner or a loser and most people find themselves falling into the loser category. You are led to feel that others are the enemy with whom you have to compete for everything in life. I don't know how it is in other parts of the country, but in California, life can be very lonely. The style in America is for everyone to be superficially familiar with everyone else but not really intimate with anyone else. Complete strangers say hello to you on the street as though they were long-time friends of yours. Even people you meet at a bus stop will start telling you their entire life's story. But they often leave after that without even saying good-bye or even asking your name. It's as though everyone is an acquaintance but not a friend. I think all this leads to a sense of aloneness of the self in American culture, more than in others.

[krispos42]

203. Empty, meaningless rhetoric. Things taken as fact without actually thinking about them

In a six or seven year period our violent crime and homicide rates plummetted 60%, yet there was virtually no change in the number or types of guns or ammunition owned by US citizens. Sales of semi-automatic rifles based on the AK-47 and AR-15 soared during this same time.

[Snarkturian Clone]

15. I work at a school in philadelphia

and kids here will get in a big fight if someone accidentally bumps into them. When they get punished, they say "My mom told me to beat up anyone who pushes me!" Our principal is also a local minister and asks parents to teach their kids about conflict resolution without violence. The parents have repeatedly shouted him down about how embarrassing it is to be pushed and not hurt the other person in response. One parent said "If my child comes home beaten up, I'll beat him up!". Last year we had a parent come to the school with the intention of beating up a KINDERGARTNER that had stolen her son's cookie.

Now imagine these kids when grown up and in possession of guns. What do you think they're gonna do?

[slackmaster]

153. Sounds like the parents are perpetuating the problem from one generation to another

I'm very interested to know the root cause.

[Snarkturian Clone]

237. There are probably many causes.

One is that most of the kids' parents were 14-17 when they were born, another is the fact that older siblings take care of their younger siblings, another is that the parents work all day and have no time for the kids, another is that they are just plain rotten parents.

Yet another cause is the culture that teaches them that being a miscreant is the only way. I just heard a second grader yesterday yelling "I'm Tony Montana!!! Say hello to my little friend!!!" over and over again. Another second grader in the same class was asking me how to spell "Girls Gone Wild" so she could write it on her assignment. I used to complain about parent groups that wanted to censor tv and movies, thinking that kids would never be exposed to such things... but now I know that some kids are exposed to such things and it DOES effect their behavior.

Yet another cause is the massive ignorance. We have an Asian teacher who takes repeated racially-charged insults from the kids day after day. The administration of the school is full of unqualified people who happened to know the right person at their church and got the job... they don't give a shit about the abuse this one teacher gets. He is a dedicated teacher and doesn't want to give up on the kids so he doesn't complain about it... I don't know how he can take such harassment every day.

The real question is... How the fuck do we fix this mess? I've seen people on here suggest throwing more money at the schools. Our school gets extra money from a non-profit org so as to be comparable to suburban school districts. Guess what? It didn't help. All the extra equipment and supplies that was purchased with that money ended up destroyed by the students. People on here have suggested more social programs. This community has tons of social programs that are trying to help but a lot of the people here refuse them... either as a function of pride or ignorance. I have no answer as to how to fix Philadelphia's current situation. Meanwhile, our murder rate keeps climbing...

[CRF450]

297. I saw some girl in a car today with two kids, and rap music blairing through the speakers.

The kids didn't appear older than 5, and heres this dumb bitch playing rap music thats glorifying graphic language and street violence. Yeah, like listening to "poppin caps in a ni*#a's ass" is gonna help them in life. I'd love to give these nuts a piece of my mind, yet I fear one of these gangbanger wannabe's will pull his/her gun out while feeling a little disrespected.

Its something a big portion of the rap/hip hop culture glorifies, and our kids are learning it. I gave up rap music when I dropped out of highschool and I'm not listening to anymore of that shit.

[JoePhilly]

270. WOW ... I grew up in Feltonville ... and I think I lived on the same block years ago.

I lived on "D" street (4800 block, I think) until I was 8. And I lived on "A" street until I was 21.

The article above says Feltonville is in SouthWest Philly ... that's wrong ... its in the Northeast.

[JerseygirlCT]

19. Oh but see, if the kids had had guns...

Another example of our obscene culture of violence.

[Tesha]

21. Maybe next time they'll bring hand grenades to their snowball fight. (NT)

[Coexist]

23. in Florida, he would probably be given the benefit of the doubt

because he may have felt "threatened" by the teen.

[Tesha]

25. The "a man's snow fort is his castle" doctrine? (NT)

[zanne]

26. Yup. They have a license to kill. nt

[zanne]

29. License to Murder Frequently Asked Questions...

http://www.licensetomurder.com/about.htm

[aikoaiko]

59. That site is from the same group of fear mongerin folks who do the "[anti-gun-guys]

There are even worse than the NRA.

[benEzra]

130. Nope. I'll cite the actual statute (Chapter 776.012, Florida Statutes).

License to Murder Frequently Asked Questions...

http://www.licensetomurder.com/about.htm

Nope. I'll cite the actual statute. The legal standard in Florida is REASONABLE belief of an imminent threat of death, serious bodily harm, or a forcible felony, same as in every other state, including California and Massachusetts.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0776/ch0776.htm

CHAPTER 776

JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.--

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section, the term:

(a) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

(b) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

(c) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

History.--s. 1, ch. 2005-27.

776.031 Use of force in defense of others.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1189, ch. 97-102; s. 3, ch. 2005-27.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.--

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

History.--s. 4, ch. 2005-27.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.--The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

"Reasonable belief" in self-defense law means, and I quote, "The facts and circumstances prompting that belief would cause a person of ordinary firmness to believe deadly force WAS necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault."

Florida used to have a quirky "duty to retreat" statute saying that even if someone was actually trying to kill you, you could not use potentially lethal force to stop them unless you tried to run away first, and this lead to some unjust prosecutions of crime victims. Hence the change. Most states have never had a "duty to retreat from an actual lethal attack" statute, and by deleting it, Florida was merely joining California and other states without such a requirement.

There is a presumption of justification in Florida law if you shoot someone who has illegally broken into your home while you are inside it; such presumptions are collectively known as Castle Doctrine statutes and are present in the self-defense laws of a majority of states. In Florida and some other states, there is also a presumption of justification if you defend yourself against someone who is in the act of carjacking you. But there is no presumption of justification outside of those two limited scenarios--read the statute for yourself.

[benEzra]

88. Nope. The standard in Florida is "reasonable belief," i.e. the average mentally sound adult

in Florida, he would probably be given the benefit of the doubt because he may have felt "threatened" by the teen.

Nope. The standard in Florida is "reasonable belief," same as in California and most other states. i.e., the average mentally sound adult would have seen the situation as presenting an imminent danger of death, serious bodily harm, or a forcible felony.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0776/ch0776.htm

CHAPTER 776

JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.--

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section, the term:

(a) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

(b) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

(c) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

History.--s. 1, ch. 2005-27.

776.031 Use of force in defense of others.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1189, ch. 97-102; s. 3, ch. 2005-27.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.--

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

History.--s. 4, ch. 2005-27.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.--The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

"Reasonable belief" in self-defense law means, and I quote, "The facts and circumstances prompting that belief would cause a person of ordinary firmness to believe deadly force WAS necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault."

Florida used to have a quirky "duty to retreat" statute saying that even if someone was actually trying to kill you, you could not use potentially lethal force to stop them unless you tried to run away first, and this lead to some unjust prosecutions of crime victims. Hence the change. Most states have never had a "duty to retreat from an actual lethal attack" statute, and by deleting it, Florida was merely joining California and other states without such a requirement.

There is a presumption of justification in Florida law if you shoot someone who has illegally broken into your home while you are inside it; such presumptions are collectively known as Castle Doctrine statutes and are present in the self-defense laws of a majority of states. In Florida and some other states, there is also a presumption of justification if you defend yourself against someone who is in the act of carjacking you.

[slackmaster]

93. The burden of proof MIGHT be on the state if this happened in Florida

But the guy getting away with the obviously inappropriate shooting in Florida would be about as likely as a snowball fight in Florida. No reasonable person IMO would view it as a legitimate act of self-defense (especially since the guy left and came back with a gun). It will be billed as premeditated murder.

[benEzra]

122. Not unless the person shot was breaking into the shooter's home, I think.

The presumption of justification under Florida self-defense statutes applies only to defending yourself against an unlawful home invasion or a carjacking, and would not apply to someone having a snowball fight outside.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0776/ch0776.htm

[slackmaster]

124. It certainly doesn't apply to someone who leaves the scene safely, and comes back with a gun

Definitely premeditated.

[benEzra]

128. Yup. (n/t)

[DS1]

161. even with snowballs

Florida is one fucked up place

[distantearlywarning]

31. What a senseless tragedy!

If only that teenager hadn't had access to snow, this whole thing could have been avoided!

When, oh when will we think of the children and force everyone north of the Mason-Dixon line to move to Florida??? :cry:

[ProfessorGAC]

34. This Happened To Someone We Knew

No kidding. Back in 1972 a guy in MY HOMEROOM shot and killed a 10 year old boy for throwing a snowball at his car. The guy that was with him at the time was so afraid of this psychopath that he didn't tell anyone for 5 days.

So, for four days of that school week, this nutjob was sitting 5 feet away from me each morning for 15 minutes.

He's still in jail.

My dad worked with the young kids dad. That was a sad wake that we had to attend.
The Professor

[bluethruandthru]

54. Our country now has a very violent mindset.

It seems to be much more common now to use, not just violence - Extreme Violence - to deal with problems. I went to a high school that was riddled with racial tension 30 years ago. There were gang fights daily in the halls. Nighttime dances were canceled and sporting events were changed to afternoons. The fights were non-stop..but no one was ever shot. There were lots of black eyes and broken noses and the occasional knife wound (non serious)..but no deaths and no gunshots. This was in the west where guns were common because everyone hunted. So, it's not like the kids getting into the fights didn't have access to guns...but they didn't choose to use them.
It still amazes me when I think about those days. I went to class every day never fearing that I'd get shot.

[jmg257]

61. Savage cleaver murder was carefully planned; killer was 'crazy like a fox'

By ALISON GENDAR and CORKY SIEMASZKO
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS

Thursday, February 14th 2008, 3:36 AM


The meat cleaver-welding maniac who savagely murdered an upper East Side therapist planned the execution - and brought a sick bag of tools to the killing.

Knives, rope, duct tape, women's clothing and adult diapers were found in the luggage he abandoned after butchering 57-year-old Kathryn Faughey in her office, police sources said.

...



Whew...Good thing he didn't have a gun - he could have REALLY hurt someone! Guess she would have been "more dead"? In an urban environment too - hey, don't worry - there is always 911.
:sarcasm:


900,000 violent crimes occur annually that don't involve guns at all...guns are NOT the problem.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

73. Let's see, the guy was probably a "criminal" who bought the gun "illegally".

Isn't that the usual argument of the gun-nuts?

[slackmaster]

78. Statistically that is the most likely scenario

The shooter was probably someone who was legally unqualified to own a gun.

The article describes him as "a neighbor" but it's unclear that the police actually know where he lives.

Most likely a gang-banger under 24 with a criminal record a mile long. Statistically both the shooter and the victim are likely to be poor, and black.

[Judi Lynn]

86. The kid died. Found it at the bottom of this comment:

A Belt Sander is a Tool
February 25th, 2008 by Tito ()
Paraphrased from this report:

A Philadelphia teenager celebrating his 16th birthday is permanently abraded after being sanded over an errant snowball. Authorities said the Feltonville teen, identified as Tavin Rutledge, was sanded in the head at point-blank range while playing with neighborhood friends in the 4800 block of D Street.
Witnesses say the sanding was sparked from a casual snowball fight amongst children. A friend of Tavin’s, who was also involved in the playful snowball fight, said the sanding happened after a wayward snowball accidentally struck a nearby neighbor. Police said the adult male became enraged and left the scene, returning moments later with a belt sander. Witnesses say Tavin’s effort to apologize to the man went unnoticed and the pulled out a belt sander and began sanding. Family and friends celebrating Tavin’s birthday heard the sander and found him on the front porch.

Except of course, it wasn’t a belt sander. It was a gun. Tavin Rutledge was shot at point blank range, and is now on life support.

Some tools are different.

UPDATE: Life support was turned off at 11:45 am today, and Tavin Rutledge expired soon after.

http://www.thecore4.com/

[slackmaster]

91. Belt sanders can be extremely dangerous

http://www.allmax.com/milt/drill_cc.html

[ProfessorGAC]

102. Not At Long Range Though

Unless you have REALLY long arms.
The Professor

[slackmaster]

105. I guess you aren't familiar with belt-sander racing

http://www.allmax.com/milt/drill_xx.html

[ProfessorGAC]

107. Well, True. I Wasn't

But, wouldn't you need a REALLY long extension cord?
GAC

[Javaman]

92. Such senselessness.

So the guy goes to jail and answers to his jail mates question as to why his in; the answer: I was hit with a snowball.

Poor kid. red snow. :cry:

[leftofthedial]

100. snowballs don't kill people . . .

Unless you accidentally hit some gun nut with one.

We need to arm ALL SNOWBALLS IMMEDIATELY!!

If only that teenager would have had his fully automatic assault weapon with him, this tragedy could have been avoided.

[DS1]

120. The willful inanity of the pro-gun arguments in this thread makes me want to shoot shit

:eyes:

[Raskolnik]

129. Is Senator Obama guilty of "wilfull inanity" as well?

As he believes that individuals do have a right to bear arms, I expect your characterization applies to him as well?

[Occulus]

152. eeeeeewww

:silly:

[nolabels]

171. The biggest problem is not the people with the guns but the people.....

who feel a need to glamorize them for something there not. The are not an answer, they are just an end.

[uppityperson]

123. Oh the poor teen, family and friends. That is really sad. nt

[krispos42]

170. Trolling around on Fark again, are we?

Fark is full of people being killed by other people for absolutely stupid reasons. Why did this one catch your attention?

Oh, right, I forgot. You obsess with the means of murder, not the motive.

And isn't there some DU rule about a) posting entire articles, and b) posting more than 4 paragraphs of an article?

[kevinbgoode]

181. And here we go. I'll bet the perpetrator didn't have a criminal record, either. . .

Of course, now that he is accused of criminal activity through use of the gun, we'll be told once again that people who acquire firearms don't really intend to use them in a criminal manner.

After all, wasn't this just a matter of self-defense? Like he was threatened so much with a snowball that he had to meet the threat with deadly violence? Gosh...thank goodness the poor man had a gun...how ever could he have defended himself from such a violent assault?

[Raskolnik]

187. Are you under the impression that anyone is, or would, defend the guy who did this?

Perhaps you could point out anyone making the ridiculous claims to which you've alluded?

[slackmaster]

308. Thank you for making an empirically testable prediction

Statistically speaking, it's a bad bet.

[lonestarnot]

183. OMG! How horrible!

:cry:

[Swamp Rat]

225. .

:cry:

[lonestarnot]

232. guess I better edit.

:hug: :cry:

[Zookeeper]

227. That is just heartbreaking!

My sympathy to the boy's family and friends.

I hope they find the murderer soon and lock that a**hole up forever!

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

228. A man doesn't do this to a kid

I don't care if the man came back with a gun, with a sword, or with a bow and arrow. The point is that he came back to do some sort of physical violence to a minor. Whether he rendered him unconscious from a bullet or from a beating to the head with his fists, it's all the same. A grown man doesn't fight with a 16 year old boy or get vengeance. He might talk to the guy's parents, and he might call the cops if the kid did something far worse than just throwing a snowball, but a grown man doesn't fight with a boy. I remember when I was about 8 years old, there was a kid about 13 years old in the neighborhood who got into a fight on the front lawn of another kid his age over a girl. The father of the kid he beat up came out and slapped the 13 year old around. The father of the 13 year old who got punched then came and called out the other father. That other father couldn't show his face in the neighborhood again and was jeered and ridiculed for punching a boy. Anyone who calls himself a man just doesn't do that to a boy, whether with a gun or anything else.

And I'm not suggesting that violence like this is appropriate between adults, either. But the idea that a grown man would confront a kid in any manner, for any reason, even with his fists is particularly deplorable to me.

[CreekDog]

234. Think of the ending to this story had the perp not had a gun and used a rock

that's what I'm thinking.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

236. What if he just stuck a switchblade into the young man's liver?

Or if he hit him in the face with a baseball bat? Or if the grown man hit the kid in the face with his fist and broke his neck? To me, the issue isn't about the gun. Rocks can kill. Rocks can blind. It's about adults who lose control and don't seem to know better. And you find these kinds of adults out on the freeway, using a 2,000 deadly weapon to carry out their uncontrolled rages.

[CreekDog]

241. one never hears of 5 people killed because a guy was throwing rocks or had a knife

guns are too easy a way to hurt people. while we can't prevent people from harming others completely, we don't have to allow tools to make it as easy as it is in this country.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

245. Whether one or five killed, it's the loss of control and loss of life that matters

If only one person was killed in the school incidents that make the news instead of several, I wouldn't feel any better. If a kid stabbed just one fellow student instead of shooting several, I wouldn't feel any better. The problem isn't guns. It's the character of the people. Eliminate guns and you won't eliminate the problem. There are anti-gun activists who seem unconcerned about the deeper problems in our society that make us violent. Here, the guy came up to the back of the kid's head and fired at point blank range. If he didn't have a gun, he would have used a piece of twine and garroted the kid. Or just hit him in the head with a 10 pound rock and fractured his skull. Lots of people with guns don't kill anyone and hate violence. Lots of people who don't have guns kill or harm others. The problem is the sickness of our society. People kill others every day with motor vehicles and they do it intentionally or with reckless disregard for human life. Even if you remove every gun, which I absolutely do not advocate and am against, you will not remove the sickness in our society where some people do not have any sense of honor or pride and feel they are at war with their fellow man. That's the real problem, in my opinion.

[CreekDog]

248. Losing 5 lives is worse than losing 1 life, both are horrible

but guns can inflict death on many people easily and quickly.

to say guns are not the issue is just not being in touch with reality.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

253. Guns are just one instrument of violence among many

Taking away guns will not solve the deep-seated emotional problems that plague our society. I can't believe that people would be ignoring this story if a gun had not been involved but something else like a knife, a bat, a rock, bare hands or something else. If they in fact did ignore it simply because guns are a pet issue of some, that would be very sad indeed. If we had no guns, sick people would find something else; homemade bombs with nails in them, acid splashed into people's faces, driving a car into a crowd of pedestrians at school, any number of things. Taking away guns will not solve the emotional problems in our society that lead people to commit acts of senseless violence. Any anti-gun person can only be credible if they have as their number one issue the cause of why so many people in our society resort to violence. THAT is what we should be trying to understand and address.

[CreekDog]

257. They would kill as many anyway? Do they do that in England, France, Australia?

In numbers of deaths that we have here?

[benEzra]

269. No, even when guns were as available in those places as here.

Nor is their level of knife violence anywhere near ours (or in the case of the UK it wasn't until recently, anyway).

All those places have social safety nets that don't exist here, take a less militaristic approach to regulating non-approved herbs, don't have the inner-city blight that we do (though the UK may be trying hard to catch up in recent years), have fewer desperate people without health care, have far better mental health care, and have a much greater sense of community. The same is true of Canada, where guns were just as available there as here until the late '90s (and Canadians can still own some guns that Americans can't).

[beevul]

271. Since cartoons are all the rage as of late...

270,000,000 firearms in teh united states.

80,000,000 + gun owners.

12,000 +/- gun homicides.

[Bright Eyes]

292. You're disgusting.

[beevul]

299. Oh Im sure you think so, but lets discuss why...

I see 2 possible scenarios here...


One:

You were unaware that the OP is notorious for generally being a gun-death chaser, hereabouts, spewing vitriol, propping up republican-helmke-brady talking points, and posting things like these:




http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2924330#2924337


And

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2924330#2924426


In that case, I accept your apology.


Two:

You are well aware, but don't much like it when those tactics are turned on your gun hating buddies.


You'll get over it.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

306. What paper/site was this on? I'm curious. -nt

[SteveM]

275. Couldn't handle the Gun Forum? Playing tag-team in GD? Such courage.

[Paladin]

291. Take It Back To The Gun Dungeon, Brass Boy.

Either that, or do your best imitation of a decent human being while you're up here in the Real World.....

[SteveM]

302. Why do so many liberals hide hate behind prohibition? Embarrassed?

[Bright Eyes]

287. Obviously, it was in self-defense!

:sarcasm:

[raccoon]

301. Well, at least I hope the boy's family sues the bastard for anything he's got.

And I hope the a**hole spends a long time in jail.

[slackmaster]

310. Police Name Suspect In Snowball Fight Slaying

PHILADELPHIA -- Philadelphia police are searching for a 24-year-old man in connection with the shooting death of a 15-year-old boy following a neighborhood snowball fight.

Jose Mendez is accused of fatally shooting Teven Rutledge, who was celebrating his 15th birthday having a snowball fight with friends. He allegedly struck Mendez as he passed by.

Rutledge was rushed to a city hospital with a gunshot wound to the head and died on Monday after being taken off life support.

Investigators said Mendez should be considered armed and dangerous....

http://www.nbc10.com/news/15425440/detail.html

slackmaster comments: Looks like I was wrong about him being under 24, just barely.

Does anyone care to make a wager whether or not this man, also known as "Omar", has an existing criminal record that would make it illegal for him to buy or possess a firearm?

Anyone?