GUNS IN THE NEWS--October 27, 2003

[MrBenchley]

As CO Liberal sez:
Please try to adhere to the following guidelines:
1 - Feel free to add any CURRENT stories to this thread by replying to this message. In order to be considered current, stories should have been originally posted to the 'Net within the past 24 hours, or provide follow-up to a story that was previously posted on the J/PS board.
2 - Both pro-gun and anti-gun stories are welcome in this thread, as well as gun-related editorials.
3 - Do not change story titles. In other words, if the Oskosh Gazette's web site runs a story titled "Two Killed in Holdup", the title of your message should read "Two Killed in Holdup". Don't change it to "Gun Owner Kills Two People", or anything else that changes the meaning of the story.
4 - If it's not clear from the title where the story occurred, add the city, state, or country in parentheses after the title.
5 - Comment on a story by replying to that story.

[MrBenchley]

1. Man Kills Self, 4 in Idaho Bar Shooting

"OLDTOWN, Idaho - A man fatally shot his ex-girlfriend and three other people in a small-town tavern, then killed himself hours later as sheriff's deputies approached him in his car, authorities said.
The shooting Friday at the Stateline Bar apparently stemmed from a dispute between the suspect, Ralph Reeves, 53, and the ex-girlfriend, Tiki Danielle Wiese, 41, of Oldtown.
Also killed Friday afternoon were three Newport, Wash., men: Leroy Wiese, 84, Chester W. Cavaliere, 63, and Henry Shumake, 63. Leroy Wiese was Tiki Wiese's former father-in-law. "

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031025/ap_on_re_us/bar_shooting_8

[demsrule4life]

25. I think this happened on fri

Has the 24 rule changed? if so there is plenty of self defense posts I can post within a week old.

[demsrule4life]

48. Mr B

I had a question for you, has the 24 hour rule changed? Did you make a mistake or are you just being your typical two faced self? My wife is on TDY again, I have the week off and have plenty of time to flood the "guns in the news" thread with older self defense shootings. So I will ask again has the 24 hr rule been suspended?

[iverglas]

54. ah, the literal mind

"I think this happened on fri
Has the 24 rule changed? if so there is plenty
of self defense posts I can post within a week old."

Let's look at the voluntarily adopted rule:

In order to be considered current, stories should have been originally posted to the 'Net within the past 24 hours, or provide follow-up to a story that was previously posted on the J/PS board.

The story is dated October 25, 5:49 p.m. (Idaho time, which would make it a tad later east coast time), although the events occurred on October 24.

Surely we do have to go by date published; I doubt that any here are clairvoyant, or that anyone else would accept a citation to "the voices in my head" as a reference for a story reported here. And because otherwise, something like the discovery of new bodies in the Vancouver Lower East Side murders (which happened well over a year ago) would not be "news" here when the discovery of the bodies of more women known to be missing was reported.

And then there'd also be those cases where the crime itself didn't come to light until years after it was committed -- a sort of statute of limitations on reporting shootings at DU that would apply where a crime was successfully concealed ...


October 25 was a Saturday.

Saturday and/or Sunday, to some people, are days away from the computer. This might be because of lack of access (which can only be had at a workplace), or because of religious conviction.

If those people were prohibited from posting, on Monday, stories that appeared on the net on the weekend ... well, wouldn't that be just a little bigoted? or maybe classist? (And how could we offer them an exemption that wasn't offered to people without their religious convictions or financial limitations?)


Surely we can get around this problem by reading in the words "not counting weekends" after "within 24 hours", to ensure that the rule does not discriminate by adverse impact.

I mean, if the argument is good enough for "racist" gun laws, surely it's good enough for DU posting rules.

.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

2. 3 suspects sought in shooting death of Davie restaurant owner

"Saturday morning, just after midnight, three men burst into that out-of-the way ethnic enclave and shot Perla to death during an attempted robbery.
Chaos erupted when the armed men screamed in English at the Spanish-speaking clientele to get down on the floor. The customers scrambled -- some running out, others hiding in the bathroom.
Perla stood his ground behind the counter, shouting back at the men. In a split second, a bullet pierced the air, hitting Perla in the neck and dropping him to the ground. The would-be robbers panicked and ran away without a cent."

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/yahoo/sfl-cmurder26oct26,0,2105295.story?coll=sfla-newsaol-headlines

[MrBenchley]

3. Family, friends mourn West Boca teen shot to death by neighbor

"West Boca · Tears and inconsolable grief were not enough to hide the anger and disbelief among almost 300 friends and relatives who gathered at a Catholic Church on Sunday afternoon to pray for a beloved teen shot to death in a prank gone awry just hours after his 16th birthday party.
Mark Drewes, out with a friend ringing doorbells along Woodbury Road about 12:30 a.m. Saturday, was shot by a neighbor, Jay Steven Levin, 40. Levin, permitted for 12 years to own a concealed handgun, told police he shot Drewes thinking he was a burglar.
"Why is this man not in jail? These kids are going to be trick-or-treating in a couple of days. What happens when they knock on his door then?" said Laura Twomey, whose son Sean, was a lifelong friend of Mark's."

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/sfl-pshot27oct27,0,826974.story?coll=sfla-news-palm

[Mikimouse]

4. Two arguments here

One: What are the circumstances under which the shooter was licensed to carry? While I have no problem with concealed weapons licenses for some, I don't think that every Tom, Dick, and Harry should have one, because there are simply too many people who treat firearms like a second phallus. Second, and last, what the H*** were these 'kids' doing ringing doorbells? Sorry for all concerned, but Ms. Twomey's argument holds no water IMO. It is tantamount to saying "So what if they were vandalizing a house, they were only having fun, and you know, boys will be boys." :mad:

[MrBenchley]

11. Gee, the gun lobby

pressured the Florida legislature back in 1987 that CCW permits were the way to REDUCE crime....between 1987 and 1993, violent crime then INCREASED 31%. Crime began to decline nationwide after the Brady law and COPS programs were put through by Bill Clinton...but the rate of decline in Florida was slower than in those states witrh sane gun laws.

Ringing a doorbell is vandalizing a house?

[Mikimouse]

23. I did not say that ringing a doorbell was vandalism, I suggested

that it would be simply be dismissed, even if it had been an act of vandalism. I wholeheartedly support strict gun control, for the reason I stated in the first part of my argument.
Quick trigger finger+really irresponsible (and not too bright) kid=disaster!

[DoNotRefill]

32. ringing a doorbell is vandalizing a house?

well, it depends on what else the kid did. The article states that he had performed other acts of vandalism in the past, specifically naming the vandalization of a car to get the attention of girls.

The kid sounds like a little juvenile delinquent to me. I'm wondering what the rest of the facts are. The fact that the shooter wasn't immediately arrested makes me think that there had to be some other evidence showing that he acted reasonably, at least to the cops on the scene. Otherwise, he certainly WOULD have been taken into custody.

[CO Liberal]

33. Does Vandalism Call for Capital Punishment????

I don't think so.

[DoNotRefill]

34. capital punishment...

is administered by the State. Shooting somebody who poses a risk to you isn't capital punishment, it's self-defense. We've yet to see or hear anything from the shooter here...it's entirely possible that he acted reasonably. All we have so far to go on is the kid's family saying "he was such a nice kid, even when he was vandalizing cars and terrorizing his neighbors."

[CO Liberal]

36. OK, Perhaps This Isn't "Capital Punishment" Per Se

But that asshole with the gun took it upon himself to serve as judge, jury, and executioner, IMHO.

[DoNotRefill]

38. Do you have facts to back that up? perhaps another link?

we don't know (from the article posted) what the threat to the homeowner was. Given the fact that the guy wasn't immediately arrested, it would appear that the cops on the scene didn't think that there was probable cause to think a crime had been committed by the shooter. Probable cause is a much lesser standard than certainty of guilt.

If the shooter said to the cops "I was tired of that little POS ringing my doorbell, so I capped his ass", he'd be in jail right now, no doubt about that. The shooter had to have a pretty damned plausible reason for shooting the kid to give to the police, and there had to have been some kind of physical evidence to back that interpretation up for the cops not to arrest him immediately.

If the shooting was justified, I don't see how you can say the man acted as judge, jury, and executioner, instead of that the man felt his life was somehow threatened, and he defended himself.

[CO Liberal]

39. How Does a Ringing Doorbell Threated Someone's Life???

It sounds like unjustifiable homicide to me.

[DoNotRefill]

40. We don't have all the facts....

all we have is the family of the dead delinquent saying he was a good kid, and the fact that the cops didn't arrest the guy immediately.

In order for the cops to arrest somebody, they must have probable cause to think that a crime has been committed, and that the person arrested committed it. Probable cause is a pretty low standard of evidence to have. For example, if a drug dog sniffs the outside of a car and alerts, that's probable cause for a warrant, provided that dog was there legally and had been trained. The officer doesn't need to have any other reason to suspect there are drugs in the car, as opposed to a nice piece of steak or another dog in heat. In this case, there's obviously no doubt about who shot the kid. What's in doubt is that a crime has actually been committed. If the cops can't reasonably articulate why they THINK a crime has been committed, well, that's a pretty weak fucking case now, isn't it? For example: here, at least, if a cop said "we found a dead body that had been shot in the back and a guy who admitted he shot the kid, and the shooter offered no viable legally justifiable reason why he shot the kid", that would provide enough evidence that somebody had been illegally killed to obtain a warrant for the shooter's arrest. That's apparently NOT what happened here. There had to be SOME kind of evidence presented to or found by the police to strongly suggest that the shooting was NOT a criminal act, but rather that it was an act of self-defense.

[iverglas]

43. such a partial story

Yours, I'm meaning.

"In order for the cops to arrest somebody, they must have
probable cause to think that a crime has been committed,
and that the person arrested committed it. Probable cause
is a pretty low standard of evidence to have."

Of course, it doesn't work the other way around, which it seems to me is kinda what you're saying it does. The existence of reasonable and probable grounds does not mean that the cops MUST arrest or lay charges, just for starters. Thus failure to arrest or lay charges really just doesn't mean that no such cause existed.

There could be all the cause for arrest/charge in the world, and still not a hope in hell of getting a conviction, just for instance. In the absence of witnesses, say, it might be impossible to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect committed the act. Perhaps the suspect even admitted to committing it in response to a police question, but the statement was inadmissible because no caution was given. There would be no "doubt is that a crime has actually been committed" whatsoever, but still no charges -- because it is improper to lay charges where no possibility of conviction exists.

One could just theorize on and on about situations in which cops and prosecutors would have no doubt at all as to who did what, and the fact that it was a crime, but just no way of proving it to the standard required and thus no justification for charging. But the failure to lay charges can in absolutely no way be interpreted, in such cases, as a determination that a crime was not committed.


"For example: here, at least, if a cop said 'we found
a dead body that had been shot in the back and a guy who
admitted he shot the kid, and the shooter offered no viable
legally justifiable reason why he shot the kid, that would
provide enough evidence that somebody had been illegally
killed to obtain a warrant for the shooter's arrest. That's
apparently NOT what happened here. There had to be SOME
kind of evidence presented to or found by the police to
strongly suggest that the shooting was NOT a criminal act,
but rather that it was an act of self-defense."

Gracious me, what fallacy do we have here?

Even if one agreed that the scenario you hypothesize was "not what happened here", we have absolutely no basis for concluding that there was ANY evidence that in ANY way suggested that the shooting was NOT a criminal act, LET ALONE that it was an act of self-defence.

If I cannot satisfy you that the sky is pink, does that mean that I MUST have presented you with proof that it is green??

These situations simply are not either/or. Just as failure to prove that the sky is one colour does not mean that the sky is any particular other colour, the fact that the conditions for laying a charge did not exist in the moment does not mean that any particular condition for NOT laying a charge existed.

.

[DoNotRefill]

45. What's the most likely scenario?

Fact: The shooter admitted shooting the kid. Fact: The kid was dead. Fact: The police didn't arrest the shooter despite having him right there to arrest.

Based upon those facts, what's the most likely inference that you can make?

To me, given those facts, the most likely scenario is that the cops didn't think that a crime had been committed.

"The existence of reasonable and probable grounds does not mean that the cops MUST arrest or lay charges, just for starters."

Please give me a scenario where cops wouldn't arrest somebody for murder if they had probable cause (dead body, shooter saying "I shot him" to the police when questioned) to think that he had committed murder and he was right there, with the gun in his hand. You may need to break out your tin foil hat, first...

"Even if one agreed that the scenario you hypothesize was "not what happened here", we have absolutely no basis for concluding that there was ANY evidence that in ANY way suggested that the shooting was NOT a criminal act, LET ALONE that it was an act of self-defence."

Except, of course, for the FACT that the cops didn't arrest the shooter on the spot. Believe it or not, most cops DO arrest murder suspects down here when they find them. That's part of their job.

[iverglas]

46. very easy answer

"Fact: The shooter admitted shooting the kid.
Fact: The kid was dead.
Fact: The police didn't arrest the shooter despite
having him right there to arrest.

Based upon those facts, what's the most likely inference that you can make?"


How about: the police are continuing to investigate and have not yet reached a conclusion?

Looks about right to me.


"Please give me a scenario where cops wouldn't arrest somebody
for murder if they had probable cause (dead body, shooter saying
"I shot him" to the police when questioned) to think that he had
committed murder and he was right there, with the gun in his hand.
You may need to break out your tin foil hat, first..."

How about I reach for my law degree and (lapsed) call to the bar, instead?

Saying "I shot him" to the police when questioned -- if the questioning was not preceded by the necessary caution -- would not provide the police with a shred of usable evidence. More investigation needed.

Saying "he banged on my door and tried to knock me over and said 'I'm going to kill you and your wife right now' and I thought he had a gun in his hand" might be a reason not to lay a charge ... but it might also be a lie that the cops don't believe for a minute, but have no ability as yet to prove false. More investigation needed.

It's pretty easy to understand, really.


"Except, of course, for the FACT that the cops didn't arrest
the shooter on the spot. Believe it or not, most cops DO arrest murder
suspects down here when they find them. That's part of their job."

Take a course in logic before you even attempt a law degree, 'k?

As I said, the fact that no arrest was made is not proof that no crime was committed. It really is that simple.

Facts exist independently of anyone's ability to prove them, or unwillingness to believe them, you see.

But maybe you believe that the fact that OJ Simpson was not convicted of murder is proof that he did not kill anyone ...

.

[DoNotRefill]

59. heh...

"How about: the police are continuing to investigate and have not yet reached a conclusion?"

If they haven't reached a conclusion given the facts, it could hardly be considered an airtight case now, could it?

"How about I reach for my law degree and (lapsed) call to the bar, instead?"

Lapsed and in a different country, don't you mean...different rules, different binding precedent, and all that stuff...

"Saying "I shot him" to the police when questioned -- if the questioning was not preceded by the necessary caution -- would not provide the police with a shred of usable evidence. More investigation needed."

2 possible cases: spontaneous admission prior to mirandizing, or as a result of questions asked after he'd been mirandized. It's SOP to Mirandize before questioning. Both are admissable at trial. If you'd kept up with your CLEs, you'd know this.

"Take a course in logic before you even attempt a law degree, 'k?"

nice ad hom...but, alas, it's far too late. I did take a logic course in undergrad, before going to law school. I also took one while I was in law school.

"As I said, the fact that no arrest was made is not proof that no crime was committed. It really is that simple."

You're sort-of right...it's not absolute proof....but it does suggest it.

[iverglas]

62. I'll keep asking

"Lapsed and in a different country, don't you mean...different rules, different binding precedent, and all that stuff..."

Of course, if I'd been relying on what I cited (my law degree and call to the bar) to make me an authority on what I said -- rather than as rebuttal to your "tin foil hat" nonsense -- you might have a point.

More to the point: if you had a point, you might have a point.

Challenging my authority for what I say is not proof that what I say is false. Y'know?

And really ... I keep trying to get people who say things like you've just said to grasp the fact that not everyone is ignorant of things outside their borders, and not everyone suffers from that exceptionalism delusion and as a result thinks that stuff in the USofA is just not like stuff anywhere else.


"2 possible cases: spontaneous admission prior to mirandizing, or as a result of questions asked after he'd been mirandized."

Indeed, they are possible cases. But they are not the ONLY POSSIBLE TWO CASES, and neither of them is THE CASE THAT I HYPOTHESIZED. I specifically addressed the case in which it was not a spontaneous admission (it was elicited by questioning) and it was not preceded by a caution. So the fact that the two cases you hypothesized would result in admissible statements says precisely zero about the case that I hypthesized, and that does indeed occur. (The fact that something is standard operating procedure really doesn't mean that it is followed in 100% of instances.)

Any chance you'd like to take a kick at that one? The only evidence that the police can present to the prosecution office after their initial attendance at the scene is, as to part, circumstantial (body, gun) and, as to the other part (statement) is either (a) inadmissible (uncautioned, non-spontaneous), or (b) an obvious but as yet unprovable lie. You can invent your own scenarios if you like, just don't pretend they're mine.


"As I said, the fact that no arrest was made is not proof that no crime was committed.
It really is that simple."

"You're sort-of right...it's not absolute proof....but it does suggest it."

Nope ... and I'm not a little bit pregnant, either. I'm right. It isn't "proof" of any sort, "absolute" being a redundancy when we are referring to logical proof, which we were.

You can prove that the sky isn't pink until you're blue in the face, but you will *not* have proved that it is green.

And all that we can infer at the moment is that the police in this case had some reason for not laying a charge at the scene (on the reasonable hypothesis that police, like anyone else, have some reason for what they do). We just plain don't have a clue what that reason was, or any ground for claiming that it was one thing or another. As you'll notice I have not done.

.

[iverglas]

41. "extra-judicial execution"

That's what we call the killing of people without due process where there is no justification for the killing.

I'm dying to know what circumstances could make the shooting of a kid engaged in door-bell ringing "reasonable". I'm having a very hard time thinking of any, myself.

Surely, while awaiting further reports, you could hypothesize for us.

"Killing a kid who rings your door-bell would be justified, as self-defence, if ____________________________________."

.

[DoNotRefill]

44. OK, I'll play...

"Killing a kid who rings your door-bell would be justified, as self-defence, if ____________________________________."

while ringing the doorbell, he was yelling "I have a gun and am going to kill you." so you shoot him through the door.

That would be a clear-cut case of self-defense, wouldn't it?

[iverglas]

47. beep

"Killing a kid who rings your door-bell would be justified, as self-defence, if
while ringing the doorbell, he was yelling "I have a gun and am going to kill you."
so you shoot him through the door.
That would be a clear-cut case of self-defense, wouldn't it?

Now, look up a law or two, and I'm sure you can answer your own question.

Here's a hint: No. It would not be a "clear-cut case of self-defence".

.

[DoNotRefill]

51. LOL!!!!

Maybe not where you are, but certainly down here it would.

There's ability ("I have a gun"), opportunity(the person with the gun is in range), and jeopardy ("I'm going to kill you").

Down here, that's a TEXTBOOK case of self defense. BTW, it's §18.2-32, should you care to look it up.

[iverglas]

57. take the logic course

but maybe try a grade 11 law course too.


There's ability ("I have a gun"), opportunity
(the person with the gun is in range), and jeopardy
("I'm going to kill you").

And now all you need is an actual law that doesn't include a "no reasonable alternative" requirement ... and if you find one, which you apparently can do, explain how it does not violate the due process clause of your constitution. And I'm certainly not impressed by the kind of cherry-picking that offers up some idiosyncratic jurisdiction's laws as the gold standard, when there are equivalent laws in equivalent jurisdictions (say, other US states) that differ.

We all know that the fact that something is a law doesn't make it a valid law. Just ask Texas, which seems to have its laws struck down rather regularly.


I looked up your "ability, opportunity, jeopardy" "tripod" through Google, and found that it is indeed quite popular among the Guns Über Alles crowd. The "no reasonable alternative" requirement is noticeably absent from their discussions, although I understand that it is present in at least some US states' laws.

This charmingly named site describes the requirement -- the fourth corner of the square, as it were, that's missing from the tripod -- like this:

http://www.gutterfighting.org/LethalForce.html (emphasis added)

"Preclusion" simply means that lal other options were precluded. In other words, you used deadly force only as a last, desperate resort. The jury must be persuaded that, under the circumstances, you had no logical or reasonable alternative but to use deadly force to defend yourself. Generally, the more self-restraint you use, the more "reasonable" your actions will look. In fact, "self-restraint" is a key word, particularly if you used a firearm. It is desirable for the jury to see your actions as judicious, restrained, reasonable, and retrogressive. They should believe you made every reasonable effort to abate the situation, even including the use of non-lethal force, before finally resorting to the use of deadly force. Conversely, they should see your attacker's actions as precipitous, unwarranted, barbarous, and unconscionable.

Some states repuire preclusion as a component of legitimate self-defense. Some more liberally-inclined state legislatures have even bassed "manditory retreat laws." In general, the require a person to retreat from an attack, rather than use deadly force to repel it, even when the person attacked otherwise has a right to be where he is. Generally, mandatory retreat laws apply to every situation, except when the victim is in his own home.

(And in even more "liberal" jurisdictions such as my own -- or what I'd call "civilized" jurisdictions -- the requirement simply applies to every situation, since no individual loses the right to life by virtue of where s/he happens to be standing.)

The decision to use deadly force always hinges upon a balance of two opposing imperatives: risk exposure and restraint.

Exposure to risk is, of course, inherent to all human activity. Risk cannot be entirely purged from any endeavor, but is must be identified, controlled, and minimized. Everyone is expected to expose themselves to some risk during the course of their daily activities. It is an understood condition of life. However, no one is expected or required to expose themselves to unreasonable or suicidal risk.

In any situation, as a person's risk exposure increases, he is permitted by law to take reasonable measure to reduce it, restraining himself from using deadly force until such a time as risk exposure has escalated, or is about to escalate, to unacceptable levels. At that point, deadly force may be employed if it is the only reasonable <a>venue through which the risk can be reduced.

.

[DoNotRefill]

60. heh...

"And now all you need is an actual law that doesn't include a "no reasonable alternative" requirement"

My state's law doesn't have a "no reasonable alternative" clause in it, and it has consistently been upheld on appeal. While my jurisdiction is generally seen as conservative, it's not "Uber-conservative" like Texas.

"I looked up your "ability, opportunity, jeopardy" "tripod" through Google, and found that it is indeed quite popular among the Guns Über Alles crowd."

That's because it's the law. Not just a good idea, but the LAW.

"The "no reasonable alternative" requirement is noticeably absent from their discussions, although I understand that it is present in at least some US states' laws."

It is, but it's a minority rule. I might add that it's a SMALL minority rule.

[iverglas]

63. voting on it

"It <the 'no reasonable alternative' rule> is <present in some states' laws>,
but it's a minority rule. I might add that it's a SMALL minority rule."

So what? (I ask, assuming that your statement is correct, which I have no basis for assuming ...)

I'm just not of the bent that claims that the number of jurisdictions that adopt or reject a rule is proof that the rule is correct.

I see a law that permits das sogennant "self-defence" justification in circumstances in which the killer had a reasonable alternative to the assault or homicide s/he committed, and I see a jurisdiction that violates the right to life and not to be deprived thereof without due process, by failing to impose a legal prohibition on the killing of certain persons.

This, from good old Roe v. Wade, may help you out:

The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well- known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument.(51) On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument(52) that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

You see? If a z/e/f were a person, the state would be COMPELLED to protect its right to life.

The state is compelled to protect the right to life of all persons equally. Permitting a person to be killed by another person where the killer had a reasonable alternative is nothing more nor less than permission for extra-judicial executions: violation of the right not to be deprived of life without due process.

It's so very simple.

I hear much tell of these decisions that have been "consistently been upheld on appeal". I'd love to see one. I imagine you could cite one handily.

I assure you that it would have no effect whatsoever on my position (just as whatever decisions may have been made in the US allowing capital punishment have no effect on the obvious fact, and my opinion, and the only possible "liberal" opinion, that it is unconstitutional), but I'd love to see one nonetheless.

.

[Romulus]

13. quick Q's

? While I have no problem with concealed weapons licenses for some, I don't think that every Tom, Dick, and Harry should have one, because there are simply too many people who treat firearms like a second phallus.

(1)Who makes the decision, and how is that decision rendered?

(2) If the guy shot the kid on the guy's own property, what relevance does the CCW permit have on the event?

[Mikimouse]

24. The shooting on Private property has little if anything to do with

CCW. It was the article that highlighted that part. As far as the first question goes, the answer is: Certainly not me, because I am in favor of very strict handgun controls. I believe that there is little reason for most of us to have X number of handguns. I can understand the ownership of such, if there is a demonstrable reason for it, such as a home business with assets on site, and clearly the agents of social control will always be armed (in this society). Getting back to your first question, I would argue that a lapse in judgement is a lapse in judgement, irrespective of the location. There is fault on both sides of this one, but again, firing a shot (in the dark, or through the door-don't know, wasn't there) would indicate a certain lack of control to me.

[DoNotRefill]

30. no license to carry is needed...

in your home or on your property. It's a license to carry a concealed weapon in public.

[iverglas]

69. see "update" (post 20) in 28 Oct thread

here

The investigation continues ...

.

[CO Liberal]

5. Lawmaker Renews Fight for Gun Law

I'm ba-a-ck..... - Wayne

* * * * * * * * * *

Lawmaker Renews Fight for Gun Law

WASHINGTON — Nearly a decade after her husband was killed and her son wounded in a shooting rampage on the Long Island Rail Road, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (search) is headed back into battle over the same legislation that propelled her to Congress.

McCarthy, 59, became a public symbol and advocate for gun control in 1993 after the shooting that became known as "The Long Island Rail Road Massacre (search)." She defeated Republican incumbent Daniel Frisa, who had voted in 1995 to repeal the assault weapons ban (search).

As Congress approaches the 10-year expiration of the ban, McCarthy is gearing for the political fight to extend and enhance the ban.

She begins each working day by lighting a candle in her office, a ritual that began when she first came to Washington. At first, the candle's light symbolized all shooting victims and the fragility of life, she said. Now it represents all victims of violence, including those killed on Sept. 11, 2001.

<more>

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101267,00.html

[MrBenchley]

8. Good to see you!

During McCarthy's campaigns, the gun lobby has spent a small fortune trying to get her defeated.

[CO Liberal]

12. Fortunately, Her District Is Filled With Smart People...

...who don't fall for the gun lobby's lies.

[MrBenchley]

15. During her first campaign

the schlub running against her spent nearly an entire televised debate mindlessly repeating "she's going to grab your guns" type gibberish....

About two weeks before the election he just disappeared...stopped making campaign appearances, stopped answering the phone...the local GOP had to admit to the NY Daily News they didn't know where he had gone....

[Wcross]

61. McCarthy is a real gem for your side.

"At a recent news conference calling for a permanent extension of the assault weapons ban - and extra measures designed to eliminate what she and others call loopholes in the law - McCarthy stood with Sonia Wills, whose son was killed last year in the Washington-area sniper shootings.

The women argue the gun allegedly used in those shootings was available only because of a flaw in the current assault weapons ban, and the new proposal would prevent gunmakers from manufacturing guns with only cosmetic changes to skirt the law."

Oh No! Criminals will be forced to use hunting rifles. The Washington "sniper" shot single rounds in his attacks. Just how does the fact that this "bullet hose" was used in the crime matter?
How could you point to that crime as a reason to extend the ban?

[Stilgar]

67. They are just reminders to scare people

The gun used in the Long Island Railroad Massacre was a 9mm Ruger pistol. The way she is acting I thought it was a high capacity, semiauto rifle. What she is so rightous about banning would have had no impact on the Massacre.

True snipers use bolt action. The reason? Because semiautos eject the casing, sometimes quite high, that can give away a position. The choice of rifle used to commit the sniper assault in Virginia should not be the cause of an uproar, it should be why they wanted one in the first place and felt they had to shoot people. No, we must jail them in a deep dark room and ban the rifle they used... despite the FACT that if they were so intent on doing this ANY HUNTING RIFLE would have worked. Banning what they used is easier than why. Sorry to say but until why is fixed, it doesnt matter what was used.

One more confusing problem. If they banned the cosmetics that manufacturers and people put on their guns, and all that was done was remove the cosmetics so the manufacturers could still sell them, what did they think would actually happen? I cant understand why anyone was shocked by this.
Cosmetics do not change the lethality of a gun. It changes the look and feel. Pleople like military guns becasue the guns have years of testing in all types of environments. The military makes sure the guns work in all conditions. Why would someone want a rifle that works no matter the condition? Animals are only out when its sunny and 80 degrees.
If it is all cosmetic and removing them does nothing, which has been said by all sides now, why ban them? I can take most any semiauto rifle and add stuff to the outside, doesnt change the insides.
Banning mean looking guns does nothing but make the people trying to ban them look ignorant or just stupid.

[CO Liberal]

6. Jaguars Linebacker Arrested With Gun

Yet another "law-abiding" gun owner we don't have to worry about ... NOT!!!! - Wayne

* * * * * * * * * *

Jaguars Linebacker Arrested With Gun

T.J. Slaughter Charged With Aggravated Assault

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- Jaguars linebacker T.J. Slaughter was arrested on a charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

Two men told police they were driving on state Road 9A Sunday night when they came alongside Slaughter's sport utility vehicle in the next lane. With both vehicles traveling 65 mph, one of the victims claims he pointed at the rims of Slaughter's vehicle, "commenting on how nice they were."

They called police, who stopped Slaughter near Craig Airport on Atlantic Boulevard. Police found the gun and two clips but no rounds in the chamber.

Police said Tavaris Jermell Slaughter had a license to carry the 9 mm handgun.

<more>

http://www.news4jax.com/sports/2583546/detail.html

[CO Liberal]

7. Citizens don't want it but gun bill OK'd (Wisconsin)

The pro-gunners keep saying "shall issue" laws are "the will of the people", but this article shows that actually they're just the will of the gun lobby. - Wayne

* * * * * * * * * *

Citizens don't want it but gun bill OK'd

Two new polls show a majority of Wisconsin residents oppose a plan to allow citizens to carry concealed weapons.

The polls were released Friday as the state Senate passed the measure, 24-8, sending it to the Assembly, where approval is expected in November.

For 130 years, Wisconsin has banned the carrying of concealed weapons. It now is one of only five states with such a ban.

A poll of 285 citizens, conducted for the Sheriffs and Deputy Sheriffs Association, showed 56.3 percent were opposed to the legislation. Three percent were undecided and 40.8 favored the idea.

<more>

http://www.shawanoleader.com/articles/2003/10/26/news/news4.txt..txt

[MrBenchley]

10. Wonder how many of the 40% that favor it

would do so if they knew the full story about Mary Rosh's claim?

[Romulus]

14. (gratuitous flamebait)

If a poll showed that "most people" did not want their kids marrying someone from a different ethnic group, and supported a law to that effect, should that opinion's majority backing, by itself, validate that opinion as being the "right" one?

:shrug:

[MrBenchley]

16. Gee, rom

Wonder why all the sort of people who might support a law to keep their kids marrying someone from a different ethnic group seem to be peddling this gun rights crap?

[CO Liberal]

17. Pro-Gunners Keep Telling Us......

....that most people favor the pro-gunners' position. Perhaps this is not the case......

[Valarauko]

26. And I care why? (nt)

nt

[Stilgar]

68. I am glad they gave us the all the info on this great poll

Last I heard there were more than 285 citizens living in that state. How was this poll conducted? What were the EXACT questions? Who was polled? What area of the state do they live in?

This poll shouldn't have even made the news.
1. 285 people cannot accuratly represent a state
2. no mention on error rate, with roughly 5% between neutral and only 285 people were counted, the error rate could be much higher than +-6% which would show majority support
3. was this by phone, inperson or online? How the poll is carried out influences the outcome.
4. what questions were asked influenses the outcome.
5. from what area of the state were the people asked? People living in cities are usually more anti-gun than people in rural counties.
6. A small poll, taken from a group against CCW, where no info other than total polled and outcome, and delivered the day of the vote is just a desperate attempt to sway votes not an actual, scientific poll.

[MrBenchley]

9. Boxer Spadafora arrested in shooting

"Police arrested boxing champion Paul Spadafora last night for the shooting of his girlfriend, who was critically wounded in the chest.
About two hours after Allegheny County detectives issued a warrant for criminal attempted homicide, aggravated assault, recklessly endangering another person and violation of the uniform firearms act, Moon police apprehended Spadafora in a female companion’s vehicle about a block from his residence there.
Police had searched throughout the afternoon and evening for Spadafora, who was let go earlier after answering questions about the shooting which occurred at 5:54 a.m. outside the BP gasoline station, 801 Island Ave., McKees Rocks."

http://www.post-gazette.com/localnews/20031027spadafora1027p2.asp

[DoNotRefill]

35. And if he hadn't had a gun...

she wouldn't have been hurt, right? After all, a pro boxer couldn't be expected to know how to beat somebody to death... :eyes:

[CO Liberal]

37. He Had a Choice of Two Lethal Weapons

His fists and his gun. He chose the gun, which is the choice of too many killers.

[MrBenchley]

18. Shooting kills woman

"Police are investigating a quadruple shooting in front of an East San Jose home early Sunday morning that left a 22-year-old woman dead and three others wounded, said San Jose police spokeswoman Catherine Unger.
Police arrived at 2:33 a.m. at the 1600 block of Woodridge Way at Park Lane and found two male and two female victims, Unger said. Lorena Carrasco was pronounced dead at the scene, police said.
The three other victims -- Carrasco's 26-year-old sister, a 26-year-old San Jose man and a 25-year-old Sunnyvale man -- were taken to local hospitals, where the two men are in critical condition, Unger said. Police did not release their identities. Unger did not know the condition of Carrasco's sister, and the family declined to be interviewed Sunday."

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/7113874.htm

[MrBenchley]

19. Laundromat Worker Killed In Queens

"(St. Albans-WABC, October 27, 2003) — There is a murder mystery in Queens where police say an employee of a laundromat has been found murdered.
Police have roped-off the area around the scene and they are still collecting evidence from inside the "Laundry Land" Laundromat. That is where an employee returned to work early this morning only to find one of his coworkers dead. The worker was shot multiple times.
Neighbors say the victim, a 46-year-old father of three, has worked the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift at this 24-hour laundromat since it opened here two years ago. His name is Robert Madison and he is a Queens resident."

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/WABC_102703_laundrymystery.html

[MrBenchley]

20. Man Hit in Neck by Stray Bullet While Sleeping

"The victim, a 33-year-old man, is recovering from his injuries after being rushed by ambulance from his apartment on Rogers Avenue to Kings County Hospital.
A fraction of an inch difference -- and the bullet could have killed him. But luckily it missed a major artery. The shot was fired through the floor of a third floor apartment--striking the man while he rested in his bed on the second floor.
Community activists came out to defend their neighborhood, saying that the shooting was not random. They say it was an accident, the result of two young men playing with a loaded weapon.
Salvatore Grupico, Neighbor: "They were playing with a gun, thinking it was a toy and it was a real gun. It fired and shot the young man in the neck."

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/wabc_102603_straybullet.html

[MrBenchley]

21. Woman Finds Her Parents Dead in Their Home

Another family made safer by guns...

"Hundreds of friends and neighbors are gathered on the sidewalk of 541 Court Street at the house where the middle-age couple was found dead Saturday afternoon at around 3:30 p.m. They were found by their daughter who was visiting for the weekend.
The investigation continues into their apparent murder-suicide. Her father -- police say -- was still holding a gun in his hand .
Neighbors tell Eyewitness News that this was a happy couple. In fact, they were right in the middle of a major home renovation.

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/wabc_102503_twodead.html

[MrBenchley]

22. Police make arrest in killing of Fletcher High student

"JACKSONVILLE, FL -- Police say they have caught the gunman who killed a 17-year-old Fletcher High School student. Police say 17-year-old Jackson Lee Blakely was shot and killed while leaving a party at the Courtyard Apartments on Friday night."

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/local/news-article.aspx?storyid=9840

[MrBenchley]

27. Police Investigate Shooting in Langley Park

"(Langley Park) - P.G. County police are investigating a shooting in Langley Park early Sunday morning.
When police arrived at the 8300 block of Navahoe Drive, the victim had already been taken to the hospital.
Jason Allen, 23, was pronounced dead shortly after arrivng at the hospital. He was shot several times in the upper body. "

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/031027/126/5os6d.html

[MrBenchley]

28. Man dead, 2nd hurt in Allentown

"One man died and a second was injured in a shooting and car accident in Allentown on Sunday night.
The victims were found in a Cadillac sedan that had stopped after sideswiping a parked sport utility vehicle. Allentown police did not release the names of the men in the car.
Neighborhood residents said they emerged from their homes after hearing a series of gunshots and the car crash.
''I knew it was a shooting,'' a woman said, because she has grown accustomed to the sound.
She said it was the third shooting in four months in the neighborhood."

http://www.mcall.com/news/yahoo/all-b1_5murderoct27.story

[CO Liberal]

29. "Well, They're Shooting Here in Allentown....

...And the victims are falling down....."

(Apologies to Billy Joel)

[MrBenchley]

31. Update....

"A second man has died following a shooting and a car accident in the 1400 block of Chew Street in Allentown Sunday evening."

http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-shooting1027,0,2081035.story?coll=all-aol-yahoo-nws-hed

[MrBenchley]

42. Woman Found Dead In Her Home

"State police said a Schuylkill Haven woman was found shot to death in her home Saturday night.
An autopsy showed Billings died of a gunshot wound to the chest, but how she was shot has not been determined. "


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1025&ncid=1025&e=1&u=/ibsys/20031027/lo_wgal/1848420

[demsrule4life]

49. Home Invader Killed in Highland Park

Early this morning, the tenth home invasion--in 11 days--took place in the Highland Park neighborhood.
http://www.newschannel9.com/vnews/topstories/1054420679/

[CO Liberal]

64. Old Story - Posted May 31st 2003

[demsrule4life]

50. Home Invader with Machete Shot Dead

A man armed with a machete was shot to death
yesterday while apparently invading a home where his
ex-girlfriend was staying with another man, the Sheriff's
Department said.
http://www.galleryofguns.com/shootingtimes/Articles/DisplayArticles.asp?ID=4726

[CO Liberal]

65. Old Story - Posted May 10, 2003

Besides www.galleryofguns.com can hardly be consideres an impartial site.

[demsrule4life]

52. DA: Woman Shooter Killed 2 In Self Defense

MADISON -- The Dane County district attorney has decided not to charge a woman in the shooting deaths of two men Friday night.

http://www.channel3000.com/news/2499442/detail.html

[CO Liberal]

66. Old Story - Posted September 20, 2003

[demsrule4life]

53. Two men die after home invasion attempt

Third suspect charged with armed burglary, robbery, firearm use
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/986674/posts

[demsrule4life]

56. Convenience Store Clerk Shoots Suspect In Attempted Robbery

DALLAS -- Police say a Dallas convenience store clerk shot and killed a man in an apparent attempted robbery.


http://www.nbc5i.com/news/2581457/detail.html

[demsrule4life]

58. Burglar Shot and Killed by Homeowner

A man from Marion County, Tennessee has been shot and killed after police say he tried to break into a house last night in Dekalb County, Alabama.

http://www.newschannel9.com/vnews/marion/1058826688/