Police: Shooter feared trick-or-treater was robber

[Clovis Sangrail]

Source: AP

An ex-convict who thought he was being robbed gunned down a 12-year-old trick-or-treater, spraying nearly 30 rounds with an assault rifle from inside his home after hearing a knock on the door, police said Saturday.

Read more: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hRQwzyLHeXFy9MJwA44-IE38aUrAD946DN2G0

---

:cry:

[frogcycle]

1. damn

I hate stories like this. Sounds like the guy was crackers. Good kid out with his family for a fun night, and the kid just walked into a buzz saw.

What in the HELL is a felon who is thought to have PTSD doing with a damned AK-47?

[PJPhreak]

22. As one of those people who

are "NEVER allowed to own a Firearm" (Not that I ever wanted one anyway) Just How Did This Idiot get an Assault Weapon?!?!?!?!

[bitchkitty]

24. Probably bought it from someone who was allowed to own one. n/t

[benEzra]

73. Or stole it. (n/t)

[Blue_Tires]

81. it's probably just a street gun

changed owners hundreds of times over its lifetime in the drug trade...

[busybl]

2. robbers knock on doors on lighted porches now?

[NJCPA]

11. That is the new method of robbery, You know on the door and

That is the new method of robbery, You know on the door and ask for candy, then pull out your Uzzi and hold up the people. Of course it only works on Halloween, but hey, one day in the year is better than none.

This is wrong in so many ways

Ex con with gun
Anyone with and assault rifle..
It's Halloween, expect people at your door.
Sounds like someone was off the meds.

[Nevernose]

12. That's actually the standard method

Knock on the door of someone you suspect is not home. If there's an answer, "Is Charlie home?" or "Would you like to buy a Bible?"

If no answer, kick open front door. FOrget all that shit you see on TV. 90% of home robberies occur by going through the front door. ANother interesting FBI statistic: 95% of home invasions are drug related, either drug dealers/users being robbed, or at the former home of a drug addict/dealer.

Yet another sommon sense reason to get rid of drug laws that don't work and find gun laws that do.

[kristopher]

16. good point nt

[GinaMaria]

28. on Halloween night?

[geckosfeet]

3. That's one nervous nelly ex con.

BTW - since when are ex-cons permitted to own firearms?

[DBoon]

21. Since some interpretations of the 2nd amendement allow them

Did the 2nd amendment specifically allow for exceptions? Well no - so ex-cons get to own guns.

No I don't really believe this - but it explains the political environment where this guy was allowed to own a firearm and an innocnet child lost his life

[DissedByBush]

25. He wasn't allowed

He was an ex-felon. He had it illegally.

And rights can be lost. First, the right to liberty, it's called jail. The Fourth goes out the window while you are a parolee, as your parole officer can search your home and possessions at any time. I think both are reasonable. As they say, don't do the crime...

I doubt even the NRA argues for letting felons have guns. Obama co-sponsored the Count Every Vote Act of 2007 which would give voting rights back to ex-felons, and the NRA is using that against him.

[geckosfeet]

39. Does it make sense, even in light of the "well regulated militia" amendment,

to allow someone out on parole for armed robbery to own weapons? Not that they would be able to get licensed and buy a weapon legally in states that require it.

The other piece of this is he had an assault rifle and he shot a number of rounds through the door, walls etc. He was either scared beyond common sense, or had none to begin with.

[benEzra]

82. No, possession by felons is illegal in every state. It's Federal law. (n/t)

[Faygo Kid]

4. So glad that deranged ex-cons can get assault rifles.

Vote Obama.

[Lorien]

9. Yep. We can't stand in the way of a trigger happy ex-cons right to

shoot deer with assault rifles, now can we?

:sarcasm: (as if it were needed).

[Endangered Specie]

15. It is already against the law... he BROKE the law.

now is the time to enforce it.

[DissedByBush]

26. "Assault rifles" aren't very good for deer

You don't want to go spraying full-auto at a deer. You may have been thinking "assault weapons" which is, honestly, a BS term loaded to get people emotional and not-thinking. A couple cosmetic tweaks can turn a regular rifle into an "assault weapon."

In any case, most aren't very good for deer since they use an intermediate round that often isn't powerful enough to take down a deer, and they are not allowed for deer hunting in many states for that reason. They are great for smaller game and varmints though, and just plain-old plinking at targets.

[geckosfeet]

40. They seem to work fine for killing 12 year olds through doors. And that

falls under my definition of assault weapon.

on edit - added WEAPON

[DissedByBush]

42. It could have been done

With a weapon not classified as an "assault weapon."

[geckosfeet]

44. It could have been done with a sharp metal pole.

But it was done with an assault weapon.

[DissedByBush]

45. SO LET'S BAN THEM!

Right?

[geckosfeet]

46. Oh you are so clever! Yes yes, ban them all. While we are at it - lets ban

12 year olds. Then they won't be killed anymore.

[fascisthunter]

49. sharp metal poles were not designed to kill human or animals

just saying. That talking point is idiotic.

[DissedByBush]

56. What do you think sharp poles were originally designed for?

They are called spears or pikes, and they were designed to kill animals and humans (the pike specifically for humans).

[bitchkitty]

75. You were there?

Your argument is silly, and so are your points.

[DissedByBush]

92. What else?

Yes, what other reason did primitive peoples have for sharpening sticks? I know, they needed to prop up the door to their hut. Why it needed to be sharp must be one of those historical unknowns. Archaeology evidence shows spears (sharp sticks) being used to hunt 400,000 years ago. We can see it now with a certain species of chimpanzee, it sharpens sticks and uses them to hunt.

Then when metallurgy came around, what do you think is the first thing we used it for in sharp pole form if not for killing?

[Downtown Hound]

60. FUCK YES! n/t

[DissedByBush]

61. While we are removing constitutional rights

of people who have committed no crime, let's move on to removing your First Amendment right to freedom of speech. You seem to have no problem violating the Second Amendment, so why not the First?

[Downtown Hound]

64. You know, I've been in too many of these types of flame wars

with you gun-loving, rugged manly man last of dying breed, self appointed defender of freedom types to really give a shit about what any of you think any more. So I'll just spell it out for you right here, and you can respond in any way you want, but I really don't consider you worthy of my time. So here it is:

Unless you believe that people should be allowed to own nuclear weapons in their own home, then you favor restrictions on the second amendment. Because the second amendment doesn't give you a right to keep and bear guns, now, does it? It gives you the right to keep and bear ARMS, and then only in the context of "a well regulated militia." It was written at a time when nuclear weapons, anti-tank missiles, surface to air missiles, and assault rifles didn't exist. It's an archaic amendment that doesn't really fit into modern society. It is not at all unreasonable to suggest that restrictions on gun ownership should apply. The constitution was written with the idea that it would need to be amended as time went on.

I really don't care how oppressed you think you are because someone takes away your assault rifle. Go ahead and whine, bitch, and moan all you want. Leave the country if you feel you must. Go ahead and secede if you want, I won't stop you. We'll set aside some land for you to go and shoot all the guns you want. If it means that the children in this country can go out trick or treating without getting their heads blown off, then I really don't consider your kind all that big of a loss.

For now, I'll just mourn the loss of this innocent child, who wanted nothing more than a piece of candy and ended up getting his short life terminated. He will never get to graduate school, make love to a woman, have children of his own, or laugh or smile again. I know that his senseless death won't be the last in this gun-loving, violence prone, fear based society, thanks in no small part to people that think like you do.

Now go ahead and respond all you want. But I'm done with you and I'm not going to waste any more time on you than I already have. Keep clinging to you guns, DissedbyBush. Just know that it doesn't make you brave in my book. Quite the opposite.

[Pavulon]

65. Worked great with that crack the shooter was selling and smoking..

crack is banned. Yet it is still around. Ban it, just like handguns in NYC if you have enough money the law does not apply.

[Poseidan]

70. correct

We devote resources eliminating inanimate objects, when those same resources could be used eliminating the real cause - problematic animate 'objects'.

[DissedByBush]

68. I'm pretty much a computer geek

Your first assumption blows up in your face.

"Unless you believe that people should be allowed to own nuclear weapons in their own home, then you favor restrictions on the second amendment."

There is a difference between arms and ordnance, was then, still is now. Arms are a right, ordnance is not. You obviously haven't done your homework on the subject.

"It's an archaic amendment that doesn't really fit into modern society."

Then try to get the Constitution amended. Otherwise, stay away from my rights. That goes for anybody, for any right. The next time you complain about Bush violating our rights, look at the constitutional right that you would like ignored and realize you then have no standing to criticize Bush.

"I really don't care how oppressed you think you are because someone takes away your assault rifle."

Second assumption. I don't own one. I also don't think I have to be homosexual in order to support the rights of homosexuals. You sound very like a right-wing Christian who would call me homosexual just for siding with them. And they have.

"Leave the country if you feel you must."

You are the one trying to take away constitutional rights. I believe that means you should be the one to love it or leave it.

I await more fear mongering by the anti-gun zealots. Yes, you guys generate a lot of fear.

[benEzra]

74. "Sporting rifle" vs. "assault weapon":

Same gun, 3 different stocks.

"Assault weapons" aren't military automatic weapons; the term is BS-speak for non-automatic civilian rifles with handgrips that stick out, and includes the most popular rifles in U.S. homes.

[fascisthunter]

78. Very Well Said...

[slackmaster]

90. We have a very good and adequate set of restrictions on the Second Amendment

Unless you believe that people should be allowed to own nuclear weapons in their own home, then you favor restrictions on the second amendment.

People who abuse hyperbole deserve to be taken out and shot.

[Downtown Hound]

91. LOL! One of the stupidest responses I've ever read.

I wasn't even going to respond to any of the gun nut fan club that I knew would come out of the woodwork for that post, but yours is just too hilarious to pass up. Who's really abusing hyperbole here? Me? Or you, who advocates shooting somebody because their opinion differs from yours? I know you're not really serious, at least I hope you're not. It's just that I've found this type of mindset very typical for gun freaks. Your first response to anything is to reach for your guns, even in an internet forum. I really hope one day this country is free from this rather pathetic mindset that you represent, but I know it's unlikely to happen anytime soon.

Do you have any other groups that you'd like to see taken out and shot? Thank God the second amendment gives you the right to own guns in order to do that. :eyes:

[slackmaster]

93. I think it's obvious to 99% of the people reading this that you are simply being obtuse

Have a nice day.

[superconnected]

88. I'm certian she was being facetious.

[Wickerman]

5. That is so sad

I used to know Sumter well; can't say I recognize it anymore.

[happyslug]

6. Duplicate subject, from earlier today.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3578148

[happyslug]

7. self delete Duplicate

Duplicate

[happyslug]

8. self delete Duplicate

n/t

[Judi Lynn]

10. Thanks for the info. I've been interested in knowing what kind of filth did this.

He'll find every way in the world to rationalize it to himself and his stupid allies.

They always do.

That's fine. Don't want to get in the way of his right to operate a weapon designed to slaughter his fellow human beings.

[Trajan]

13. This is NOT a justification ....

You CANNOT just blast through a solid door on Halloween because you think you might be robbed ....

This will be reduced to negligent homicide, and he will be convicted of that, along with being a felon in possession of a firearm and assault with intent ....

[DissedByBush]

32. Minimum manslaughter

Any DA should at least be able to stick with that. I hope that plus the pile-ons you mentioned keep him in jail for a very, very long time.

Aside from transferring a firearm to a felon, I wonder if they can stick the guy who sold him this gun with anything related to this murder.

[DissedByBush]

33. Minimum manslaughter

Any DA should at least be able to stick with that. I hope that plus the pile-ons you mentioned keep him in jail for a very, very long time.

Aside from transferring a firearm to a felon, I wonder if they can stick the guy who sold him this gun with anything related to this murder.

[madmusic]

72. felon in possession: mandatory 10 years

Plus the homicide and all the other attempted homicides, plus there could be a career criminal sentence depending on priors.

It doesn't appear he intended to kill a 12-year-old or any child, but no matter. He will probably never get out of prison.

[Endangered Specie]

14. it is ILLEGAL for an ex-convict to have guns in the first place

(no felons may own firearms for life)

[sharesunited]

17. Oh yes the 2A is SUCH a blessing! Self protection is sacred even when we're paranoid!

[jwirr]

18. An ex-con is not supposed to be able to get a gun. Whoever provided

that gun is also guilty.

[russspeakeasy]

19. WTF ?????????????

How in hell did he get an assault weapon ?????

[go west young man]

20. Throw the book at the bastard and lock him away for life.

That poor poor kid killed while out having fun with his family. Robbed of his life by a damned fool. It's a shame. Another blemish on this already ridiculous country. Rest in peace little man. May your family find peace in this strange and sad world we live in.

[DissedByBush]

23. Probable correction to the article

It states AK-47. It is highly unlikely he owned one of these fully-automatic Soviet assault rifles. "Aassault rifle" is a technical term meaning selective fire (single fire and full-auto) with a medium round.

The "assault weapon" (a vague term that usually means "it looks scary or military-like") he had illegally in his possession was probably one of the many semi-automatic rifles based on the 60 year-old Kalashnikov design. Or even not at all, since some rifles have a gas tube arrangement that looks like an AK's, but the action is different.

I hate dumb reporters.

[ElboRuum]

27. Yeah.

Dumb reporter.

Focused on the fact that he shot a 12-YEAR-OLD KID ON HALLOWEEN as a POTENTIAL THREAT. What the fuck was the reporter thinking by focusing on that rather than the obvious differences between legal and illegal ownership of firearms or their apparent origin or whether it was a real Kalashnikov or a knockoff. How DARE he do this.

[DissedByBush]

29. A long time ago

Reporters tried to get all of their facts straight before publishing. These days they rush to print without checking a single thing.

Journalism is dead. Long live Drudge-style reporting.

[ElboRuum]

34. Hey...

I remember the times you refer to.

Unfortunately, the Republicans changed all of that. Slowly and surely.

But you know what I think? I think this reporter got it right. I mean, really. What the fuck is someone doing shooting a 12-year-old trick-or-treater. I think the meat is there, and you can fight over the fat all you want to.

Do YOU have an answer/rebuttal for that?

[DissedByBush]

41. Hey, if you don't mind sloppy reporting... n/t

[ElboRuum]

52. How is that sloppy reporting?

I mean, sure, you could sit there and wait for a firearms expert to vet that it is, in fact, a real vs. knockoff... but is that really the important part of this story? If you think it is, then priorities are what I'd start to question.

[DissedByBush]

57. BIG difference

An actual AK-47 is a military fully-automatic weapon. A knock-off can also be a fully-automatic military weapon. A civilian version is not. You don't even need to be a firearms expert. Wikipedia has the facts straight.

A long time ago many places had fact checkers who would verify all the little facts. These days we see the direct unfiltered ignorance of the reporters, especially on the issue of guns, especially "assault weapons" where they very often portray them as being their fully-automatic military cousins.

[ElboRuum]

67. I see I'm not getting through here.

We're talking about irrelevance here. It is precisely and exactly irrelevant WHAT the kid was shot with, unless it was a projectile from a MARSHMALLOW gun or possibly a SUPER-SOAKER.

What part of that do you not particularly understand?

Yes, I get it. Poor fact-checking. Sloppy reporting. Yes. These are the things that keep you up nights. Not the fact that there are pretty damned disturbed people out there with lethal weapons who are apparently so skittish that they'll shoot a trick-or-treater through a door on Halloween night rather than, I dunno, maybe answer it and give out some candy. Naah. That's not really important, is it?

[DissedByBush]

71. "It is precisely and exactly irrelevant WHAT the kid was shot with"

You are correct. Yet the press always makes sure to say "assault weapon," doesn't it? Hmmmm, wonder why...

BTW, meth heads tend to be skittish. That's why it's illegal for them to buy guns.

[ElboRuum]

79. So what was it then?

A "hunting rifle with a 30 round clip?"

You are daft if you believe that the majority of the public gives one whit about the dictionary definition of an assault weapon vs. whatever the NRA wants us to believe is an assault weapon.

That distinction you care so much about COULD have very easily been made. What would it have proven? That a kid died because he was peppered with 30 rounds from a "sporting rifle" so that makes it somehow LESS tragic? Would unloading clips from a pistol somehow have changed the timbre of the conversation? That somehow the fact that it wasn't a dictionary assault weapon even though weapon and assault would be adequate descriptors in language describing the event would ameliorate your concerns?

So long as people do these things, whether they mean to or not, it WILL bring up legitimate questions as to the validity and utility of personal firearm ownership, regardless of the definitions we use. The attempt to obfuscate the true issue with quibbling over semantics and the erecting of strawmen is as obvious as it is tedious, which is to say, very.

[DissedByBush]

86. Translation

"it WILL bring up legitimate questions as to the validity and utility of personal firearm ownership"

Translation: It will be used as a rallying point for those who would shamelessly leverage a tragedy in order to further their agenda to strip us of our rights. You're no better than a right-winger who goes on an anti-immigrant tirade whenever an undocumented worker kills someone with a car. What I did was expose the anti-rights agenda. No wonder it made some here uncomfortable.

[ElboRuum]

89. As someone else said in this thread before...

To paraphrase... no right in this country exists as an absolute.

Shamelessly leveraging a tragedy? By what means? Acknowledging it? There's nothing shameless about using these sorts of incidents to discuss what should be discussed. So long as innocent people are harmed by firearms in this country, either by accident or on purpose, there are going to be reasons to ask the question, "what does the 2nd Amendment really guarantee?"

The assuagances of responsible ownership vs. irresponsible ownership is a hollow one which is of little comfort to people who have suffered personal loss at the hands of a weapon. Sure, there will be killing and violent crime regardless, but some people have questioned why we allow people these implements with which to facilitate the process. Whether they have a point or not is immaterial, they have a right to ask the questions.

The only people who fear conversations of this type are those who believe that people are not capable of discussing it rationally or fear that their view might be in the minority. For some reason the right has convinced people that the issue of gun rights vs. gun control is an all or nothing proposition, like most things the right would have us believe, ostensibly to fracture the electorate into an us and them society. It is not, so I find your alarm quite telling.

I've done nothing but attempt to discuss this rationally here, so your assertion that "(I'm) no better than a right-winger..." and so on is laughable, because very few right-wingers would deign to speak rationally about this issue. THAT house of cards will fall at the next light breeze. I contend that it is YOU who fears an honest discussion because there appears to be no persuading you that this 2nd Amendment is just as open to interpretation AS EVERY SINGLE OTHER ONE WE HAVE. If you can agree that shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is a form of speech that is not covered by the 1st Amendment, then you must concede the fact that nothing magical makes the 2nd Amendment, forgive the pun, bulletproof from having its breadth curtailed as well.

As to your equally strawman conclusion that you exposed the anti-rights agenda, you did no such thing. No one really suggested that this should be used as a springboard to anything other than discussion. The only thing you did here was expose your OWN agenda, that being to silence that discussion by pointing the finger of accusation at me or anyone else who disagreed with you as "anti-rights".

Oh, just so you know? I have no problem with people owning weapons. I have a problem with people fearing the idea that society is better served by an electorate willing to reevaluate the Constitution and its Amendments to keep with the needs of the times (as is ENCOURAGED by the Constitution itself).

[DissedByBush]

94. You may need a right taken away

I think your political speech should be limited to 100 words per day. I see McCain and Palin abusing their right constantly with respect to Obama, so we should limit this right for all. No right is absolute, correct?

Actually, I don't think that. But that is the equivalent. You should be able to exercise your right as much as you want as long as YOU don't violate the rights of another in the process. If you hurt someone, you suffer the consequences. But when we hear this slander I don't see people clamoring for blanket restrictions on the First Amendment.

"this 2nd Amendment is just as open to interpretation AS EVERY SINGLE OTHER ONE WE HAVE"

Interpretation or rewriting? All I have seen so far are blatant violations of the Second Amendment. Bush has rewritten several amendments by executive power. Don't you think he needed an amendment to be able to do warrantless wiretapping? Or do you think the Fourth Amendment was simply "open to interpretation"?

The Bill of Rights is there to prevent the tyranny of the majority, to lay down inviolable rights so a simple majority can't take them away by law, executive power or judicial fiat. If you want to take them away you need an amendment. And as a general philosophy I oppose any amendment that would take away rights. I'm open to any suggestions for amendments that strengthen rights.

"The only people who fear conversations of this type are those who believe that people are not capable of discussing it rationally"

Unfortunately it is not often discussed rationally by the anti-rights side, usually emotionally. Emotion and law do not mix well (see Patriot Act). The term "assault weapon" itself is an invented emotional term designed to make the weapons sound extraordinarily dangerous. It is certainly rarely discussed factually, which was the reason for my post. AK-47? Not likely.

"pointing the finger of accusation at me or anyone else who disagreed with you as "anti-rights""

Okay, the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. People want to take away that right. I think "anti-rights" is appropriate.

"I've done nothing but attempt to discuss this rationally here"

You: "You are daft if..."

"I have no problem with people owning weapons."

Now you say that. :)

"I have a problem with people fearing the idea that society is better served by an electorate willing to reevaluate the Constitution and its Amendments to keep with the needs of the times"

We agree. We appear to disagree as to the correct process (I prefer the one stated in the Constitution) and how society is better served on this issue.

[ElboRuum]

96. Well, actually, we don't.

I'll try to keep this as brief as possible because, honestly, I've become very bored of our little conversation here. Nevertheless, your conjectures merit a response. Rest assured it will be my last in this flurry.

I think your political speech should be limited to 100 words per day. I see McCain and Palin abusing their right constantly with respect to Obama, so we should limit this right for all. No right is absolute, correct?

Actually, I don't think that. But that is the equivalent. You should be able to exercise your right as much as you want as long as YOU don't violate the rights of another in the process. If you hurt someone, you suffer the consequences. But when we hear this slander I don't see people clamoring for blanket restrictions on the First Amendment.

My first thought was "Did you buy your strawmen in bulk at Costco?"

My second thought was, well, go ahead. Start a movement to curtail political speech. Put it to the test and see how much traction it gets. Now compare that to the traction that 2nd Amendment curtailment gets. We are not dealing with the same thing here, as you can see. One's ludicrous, the other has legitimate cause for consideration.

You believe that this is the equivalent of what we've been discussing. It is not. The reason why it is not is because you claim that you don't see people clamoring for blanket restrictions on the First Amendment, but we actually HAVE them already as well as on the Second Amendment. No right is absolute. For example, it has been held up by the courts of the land that the First Amendment does not apply to speech of an inciting nature. So, there is a blanket restriction on things like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater or utilizing speech to encourage violence or incite to riot.

Interpretation or rewriting? All I have seen so far are blatant violations of the Second Amendment. Bush has rewritten several amendments by executive power. Don't you think he needed an amendment to be able to do warrantless wiretapping? Or do you think the Fourth Amendment was simply "open to interpretation"?

Interpretation, of course. The fact that the executive overreached his authority in violation of the Constitution with rubber-stamp approval from both the Judicial and Legislative branch, largely due to partisan favor does not diminish the fact that we, as a society, have both the opportunity and duty to revisit the rights and restrictions of citizenship therein. I'm not sure where you were attempting to go with this, because it strays from your initial contention that it is this so-called "emotional appeal" using supposedly inflammatory rhetoric such as "assault weapon" will mobilize the so-called "anti-rights" forces to action (as though the correct appellation "hunting rifle" makes much of a difference to most when dealing with these kinds of issues, which was my contention, but whatever).

The Bill of Rights is there to prevent the tyranny of the majority, to lay down inviolable rights so a simple majority can't take them away by law, executive power or judicial fiat. If you want to take them away you need an amendment. And as a general philosophy I oppose any amendment that would take away rights. I'm open to any suggestions for amendments that strengthen rights.

Certainly it is there to prevent the tyranny of the majority, but "inviolable"? The fact is that if 3/4ths of the states in this nation agree to do it, an Amendment could be passed which repeals those very rights you speak of. Legally. Constitutionally. These rights exist, in the final assessment, because the overwhelming majority of the people in this country believe they should exist, not because they were conferred from on high or represent some philosophical aegis. Should that ever change, in whole or in part, we reserve the right to grant or curtail rights as WE see fit. Contrary to your statement, you will note that, Constitutionally speaking, the Judiciary can't take away rights, however, their purpose IS to interpret the meaning of the Constitution and make decisions as to what these rights actually protect and how broadly that they may be applied.

Unfortunately it is not often discussed rationally by the anti-rights side, usually emotionally. Emotion and law do not mix well (see Patriot Act). The term "assault weapon" itself is an invented emotional term designed to make the weapons sound extraordinarily dangerous. It is certainly rarely discussed factually, which was the reason for my post. AK-47? Not likely.

The anti-rights side. This is a very "us vs. them" issue for you, isn't it? I use it quotidinously, you use it and apparently seem to want it to mean something. Is this an emotional appeal I hear?

That notwithstanding, rationality and an emotional reaction are not mutually exclusive IF what you are attempting to discuss rationally has emotional consequences. To ignore the emotional reality of the tragedy in one of of these "mishaps" is what is truly irrational, and I've said before, the whole objective of being "clinical" about it and the complaint that people are using emotional buzzwords is obviously an attempt to take the emotional consequences of the very issue we are discussing and neutralize it. Clearly, if one can ignore the obvious reality of the victims of these incidents, there is no further discussion required. And this has all been about stopping that discussion.

Okay, the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. People want to take away that right. I think "anti-rights" is appropriate.

It's nice you think that. I disagree. However, "people want to take away that right"? Some perhaps, but clearly, all I am doing is discussing the possibility with you.

I think I have a notion as to why the discussion itself has a timbre you find discomforting.

Nearly all discussions of the extent of rights center upon the balance between the rights of the individual and the need of society to restrict the rights of the individual for the common good. Is it possible that, since needless death is involved, that this balance is found naturally in favor of society, disfavoring the individual? Perhaps, and perhaps not. But if the right to bear arms is truly a defensible one, contrary to that possibility, and that the balance is found elsewhere, why are you so greatly concerned about these details which only serve to muddy that discussion? The type is not a detail meritous to the consideration and outcome of the overarching issue. Can't the 2nd Amendment be successfully defended from its critics if we actually look at both what it protects and whatever problems that may exist in the shadow of that right?

We agree. We appear to disagree as to the correct process (I prefer the one stated in the Constitution) and how society is better served on this issue.

Clearly we do not. If you want to make the process itself the issue, I'm surprised that you'd prefer the one stated in the Constitution. If you were a "Constitutionalist", we'd have to actually ADDRESS that pesky "well-regulated militia" clause as having some legitimate meaning, as opposed to the current interpretation which generally ignores it as some pile of rhetorical nonsense. It is this very nuance which calls into question the validity of the current interpretation, and I cannot legitimately fault anyone for pointing it out and using both it and the relatively high number of deaths in this country at the hands of firearms as compared to other nations with stricter gun possession laws as a springboard to an apropos discussion of its merit and meaning.

If you can fault people for wanting to entertain something they've got every legitimate reason to entertain, well, then we agree to disagree.

[DissedByBush]

95. Hunting rifle

BTW, look above at the "Sporting rifle" vs. "assault weapon" post. That is a "Mini-14 Ranch Rifle," very popular for hunting small game and for varmint control. It accepts 30-round magazines. They also make a tactical variant for the police that is full-auto capable, and a target variant for competition shooters.

[ElboRuum]

97. Questions of a rhetorical nature are not meant to be answered.

End of line.

[LanternWaste]

84. Yeah... they also reported the victim was twelve....

Yeah... they also reported the victim was twelve. But any studious, fact-checking journalist with integrity would have written "twelve years, xx months, xxx weeks and xxxx hours of age..."

Unless of course that degree of absolute precision is not entirely relevant to the story as a whole...

[Paladin]

53. What I Mind Is Gun Nuts Trying To Make Firearms Descriptions....

...the most important aspect of an unspeakably tragic incident like this. Over and over and over again. You're not fooling anybody but yourselves, trying to deflect attention from the fact that yet another mouth-breather has destroyed lives with a gun....

[DissedByBush]

58. I guess you didn't see

Us wondering how a felon got the weapon and calling for him and his criminal supplier to go to prison.

The reason we bring this up is that whether through ignorance or by an anti-Second Amendment design, media and government descriptions are often faulty. Such misinformation has been used by governments throughout history to deprive people of their rights. Governments will take one crime and blow it up so they can end rights. Hitler used one arsonist nut job setting fire to the Reichstag to impose a dictatorship. Five years later they prohibited Jews from owning weapons, and a few years after that they implemented the Final Solution.

Such a misinformation campaign was used here to outlaw marijuana and lay the groundwork for the destructive war on drugs.

[go west young man]

54. The article seems to focus on the shooter as the victim and even

includes this nugget from the sheriff. He told police he had been robbed and shot in the past year.

"He wasn't going to be robbed again, and he wasn't going to be shot again," Patterson said Saturday at a news conference.

Now the next question from a good reporter would be does the police chief who is rationalizing why this man shot a child have evidence this guy was previously shot? That question isn't even posed. Because the truth of the matter is in Sumter, S.C. guns come first.

[happyslug]

37. See my comments on this rifle on the previous cite on this subject

I suspect the shooter modified the sear in the trigger mechanism to make the weapon automatic. This is both illegal AND unsafe. See my comments in the previous thread on this subject.

Previous thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3578148

[fascisthunter]

50. who cares about details? A 12 Year Old Has Been Killed

oh that's right... people who care too much about guns.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

30. Heartbreaking...

He looks like a sweet kid...His family must be devastated. :cry:

[Indi Guy]

31. Crystal meth makes one paranoid, then add a gun to the mix...

I'm drug free and a supporter of our right ot bear arms (although I don't own a gun, if things get really crazy where I live -- I'll get one, legally or not).

This understood let's introduce the Rambo wannabies to the virtues of pot and Pringles? :shrug:

[WildClarySage]

35. I think Trick-or-Treating is done for.

We had less than 40 kids and we live in a decent sized working-class neighborhood. Most kids here go to the mall on Halloween night. This kind of thing, along with the urban myths of razorblades, poisons and pins have discouraged parents, and the fundynutjobs have managed to take a huge chunk out of what was once my favorite holiday.

We didn't even have a real haunted house in town this year. Just a crummy "Judgment House" at the Church of God.

[Blue_Tires]

80. i think it is definitely on the decline

too many fundies are raising this new crop of kids to believe halloween is "evil" and "pagan"

[xchrom]

36. of course the shooter was fearful -- that's why you have a gun to start with. nt

[fascisthunter]

48. .

[whistle]

38. Sounds like a lot more to this story

[wartrace]

43. Why was he afraid of being robbed? Crack dealing?

Police said they also charged a 19-year-old in his home, Ericka Patrice Pee, with obstruction of justice when she was caught trying to run away after the shooting with $7,500 in cash. Patterson did not give an explanation for the money.

It seems clear to me he was engaged in the selling of illegal drugs. Not many 22 y/o people have 7,500 dollars in cash laying around with no explanation of where it came from. He was a convicted felon in possession of a firearm engaged in a criminal activity while armed. He is going to get the death penalty when its all said & done. I would also like to see the person who sold him the gun do time if it was a straw purchase.

I really am not concerned with what "type" of gun it was, a shotgun could have done a LOT more damage to those wounded. The fact that this man was a convicted felon with a gun of ANY type is what bothers me.

1) I wonder what his criminal convictions included.
2) I wonder what percentage of his sentence he served.
3) I wonder why he wasn't on probation.
4) If he was on probation I wonder why he felt confident enough to keep a firearm in his home. Aren't the probation people supposed to "drop in" every once & a while?

[fascisthunter]

47. Mighty Paranoid of Him

really really sad

[Lydia Leftcoast]

51. But remember the case in Louisiana a few years back where a Japanese exchange student

was shot by a NON-FELON for approaching his house in Halloween make-up?

As I recall, there were people on DU DEFENDING that asshole "because he felt threatened."

Some people are too paranoid to live in populated areas.

[benEzra]

76. That sad incident occurred in 1992...

when DU did not exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshihiro_Hattori

And no, you cannot legally shoot someone simply because you "feel threatened."

[Lydia Leftcoast]

77. True, DU didn't exist, but I definitely remember it being discussed

(perhaps when I was a mod in the Gun Dungeon) and definitely remember people saying that they "understood" why that trigger-happy man had shot the Japanese student.

[Pavulon]

55. Shooter is a CRACK DEALER

multiple convictions. Most crack dealers are not NRA types.


http://www.theitem.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081101/ITNEWS01/811019997

[slackmaster]

59. The guy should never have been let out of prison

He's obviously a deranged psychopath.

[Mesteryo]

62. This is not manslaughter it's

First degree murder. This guy intended to kill this kid and on Halloween you should know children come by to trick or treat.

He simply is a psycho who wanted to kill someone.

[DissedByBush]

69. One of those times where the death penalty almost starts looking good

I am against the death penalty because I know we've sent innocent people to their deaths. Our system is imperfect and no imperfection can be allowed when it comes to the state executing someone in our name because it makes us all murderers.

But times like this test me on the subject.

[louis-t]

63. They never say whether the gun was legal but

since it says ex-con, must be illegal.

[Pavulon]

66. Crackhead/crack dealers

are not allowed to carry guns while selling crack. Generally a sentence enhancer.

I wonder if the shooter was on parole, probation?

[samsingh]

83. this murderer should be locked up forever or executed.

[flvegan]

85. This is why all trick-or-treaters should be armed.

His brothers could have returned fire after the first couple shots.

:popcorn:

[superconnected]

87. Why does the ex-convict even have a gun? He better be on his way back to jail.