Neighbor charged with shooting teen (walked on his grass)

[Redstone]

(headline slightly altered to make it fit) http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/20/boy.shot.ap/index.html

BATAVIA, Ohio (AP) -- A man who neighbors say was devoted to his meticulously kept lawn was charged with murder in the shooting of a 15-year-old boy who apparently walked across his yard.

Charles Martin called 911 on Sunday afternoon, saying calmly: "I just killed a kid."

Larry Mugrage, whose family lived next door, was shot in the chest with a shotgun. The high school freshman was pronounced dead at a hospital.

More guns! Guns solve our problems!

Redstne

[THUNDER HANDS]

1. my grandfather was psychotic when it came to kids walking on his lawn

He lived on a corner house that happened to be on the way to the local high school and elementary school. He used to get up extra early in the morning to watch from the kitchen window to catch kids walking on his lawn and then yell at them. It got to the point where he put a fence up, a little wooden-post fence - not very high. But the kids would just jump over it. So then he started to put nails in the fence. I'm sure if he could have gotten his hands on some barbed wire he would have wrapped that around the fence too.

Some people take their lawns very seriously.

[Rowdyboy]

2. Hope there are no blood stains on his tidy lawn.....Can't have that,

now can we..... :sarcasm:

15 and dead for defiantly walking across his neighbors yard.....

[trogdor]

27. Blood makes the grass grow.

So said my old drill sergeant.

[wellst0nev0ter]

111. Wouldn't Blood Mess Up The pH? (nt)

[KittyWampus]

58. i hate myself for laughing at that comment

[redwitch]

212. As the mom of two teenage sons I can't see the humor.

What a totally senseless and shocking loss for that child's parents and loved ones. I would never, ever get over such a loss. :cry:

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

177. who will take care of the lawn when the old guy reocates to a prison? n/t

[baby_mouse]

236. What about the poor blades of GRASS?

Has no-one anything to say about THEM? HM?

To me, in the sudden furore of partisan bickering, the real victims of this apalling tragedy have been oevrlooked...

[acmejack]

3. Second amendment right

I suggest you post this in the guns forum.

[Untermonkey]

5. What right?

This guy had no right whatsoever to use his gun to commit murder. The Constitution clearly states the right is to "keep and bear arms" for defense, not murder.

[acmejack]

9. You'll get no argument from me.

post in the gun forum & let the gun people have at you though, they'll find some way to justify it. They always do. Guns good-thats their mantra.

[Dolomite]

120. I think that is a gross mischaracterization of your fellow DU’ers.

I’m disappointed but not surprised.

Perhaps, if you're truly interested, the one that should visit the "guns" forum is you.

[LostinVA]

228. Unfortunately, the poster was right

Lots of posts down thread about how the boy deserved it... all from self-proclaimed "gun nuts." *sigh* I think you should take THEM to task.

[Catch22Dem]

311. Why do you think we call it the gungeon?

Or do we call it that anymore?

[Centered]

301. Possibly

Some people will always stay true to their beliefs that guns=good, just like those who stay true to guns=bad.

[Kingshakabobo]

51. The kid WAS on his property.

He WAS trespassing. Let's put this in the win column of success stories for the RTKBA.







:sarcasm:

[ProudDad]

252. The constitution

says "well ordered militia", not any f*ckhead who has the money to buy a gun...

[LostinVA]

259. I know --

[currents]

261. That's bullshit

Right to bear arms is for everyone

[Untermonkey]

4. Who's responsible for the murder?

The gun or the man who pulled the trigger? Did the gun act on its own or did a person actually commit the crime? If the man had beaten the kid to death with a baseball bat, would you be ranting about baseball bats?

[BR_Parkway]

7. Thank you, it's not the gun at fault and those of us who have treat them

responsibly get tired of hearing all guns (and owners) are terrible, bad people. I've come much closer to doing actual bodily harm to others while driving my car than I ever have with a loaded gun in my hands.

The nutjob that could kill a 15 yo for any reason, much less something like having his lawn walked across was the problem and a tragedy was in the making because of the make up of at least one of the people involved - the gun was simply the weapon of choice.

[wicket]

34. Well said

:thumbsup:

[progressivebydesign]

42. If gun culture was not artificially inserted into our culture...

..then this type of shit wouldn't happen. You can argue til you're blue in the face about how guns don't kill people (which I always found to be a very ridiculous statement), but if it weren't for the corporate gun masters, people like that man.. and you.. would not be worshipping at the altar of the gun. You were marketed to and sold a lifestyle, just like women got sold on hairspray, but a wack job rarely kills anyone with hairspray.

Guns don't kill people.. yes.. they do. Ridiculously available guns kill people in the hands of those that should not have easy access to them. You have to have a license to kill fish, but any nutjob can have a gun.

[Untermonkey]

60. As it should be.

What part of "Shall Not Be Abridged" don't you get? I have an inalienable right, guaranteed in(not granted by, but guaranteed by)the Second Amendment of the Constitution, to keep and bear arms for the defense of my family and myself. Nothing you or anyone else can say can change that, and my rights can't be legislated out of existence. The fact is that guns are here to stay and you're just going to have to get used to it. You don't have to own a gun, or even like the fact that I do, but it's a fact that isn't going to change. The only thing in question is are you going to lose sleep over my gun ownership or just get on with your life and take care of your own issues?

[KansDem]

97. "...my rights can't be legislated out of existence."

I believe that's what the GOP is attempting to do at this very moment with Bush's illegal wiretapping.

Apparently it can be done, whether it's the 2nd or 4th Amendments.

[Bassic]

131. That amendment was passed in times where

the rule of law was not as easy to enforce and when people did indeed need guns of their own to ensure their safety.

That time, however, has long passed and now the second amendment is simply making it easy for crazy/violent/dumb people to have access to those guns.

As for taking care of one's own issues, gun violence is not exactly an isolated incident. That makes it everyone's "issue".

[Occulus]

143. I wish I lived in your perfect world

but in the REAL world, when someone breaks into our house and comes into our bedroom with a knife, we can't just go "HELP!" and FOOOMP there's the police.

They'll come after the crime occurs, perhaps. I could be dead. Nobody might know, for days. It's happened many, many times to others in the past.

I'd rather have a shotgun under my bed but within reach, thanks.

[Bassic]

144. Right, cause people barging into your room with a knife

happens all the time in the real world....

[Untermonkey]

184. You are either armed or you are a victim.

We all see which you've chosen to be.

[LostinVA]

191. That is totally bogus

Labeling the other poster a victim because s/he chooses not to own a gun is NO different than someone telling you you're a fascist jerk for owning guns. I don't own a gun either, and won't allow on in my home for personal reasons. That doesn't make me a victim, that makes me not a gun owner. It also makes me someone not wanting to be part of the statistics that say a weapon you own is more likely to be used against you than against an intruder.

I have read your posts on this thread, and some I agree with and some I don't... but posts like this just tick me off, because it is factually not true.

btw... I grew up with guns, was a major skeet shooter for many years, have a family full of hunters...

[Untermonkey]

256. My appologies to Bassic.

You are correct. The victim lable is not accurate. It is my personal opinion that unarmed persons are more likely to be victims of violence against them then are armed and trained individuals. It is certainly every individual's choice to be armed or not and I respect that choice.

[LostinVA]

260. Thanks -- Unter -- a rare apology on DU!

And, right back at you: even though I don't agree with you on this, I respect your right to your own opinion.

[Bassic]

216. Yeah, I'll tell you how that went the next time I get attacked by

a knife toting maniac.


In the meantime, I shure as hell am not going to make myself a victim of fear and paranoia.

[Realityhack]

309. I hate to say it...

because it will probobly start some kind of flameing but:

you come off as more than a bit paranoied dude.

I like guns. Shooting is a lot of fun. I am not into hunting but hey those who are seem to have a lot of fun. And a hand full of people need a gun for defense. But far more want a gun for defense without any serious reason. That tends to be where the acidents happen. Be it an accidental discharge, a mistaken identity, or just a split second of rage that otherwise would have resulted in a split lip or broken nose.

And to be intelectualy honest if someone pops in your bedroom door with a knive you could have a bazooka under your bed and they would still nail you before you got to it. That kind of paranoia is exactly what leads to so many 'acidental' gun injuries and deaths.

I happen to be pro-gun and pro reasonable gun laws. One must remember with any freedom there is a balance between your freedom and the freedom of others and I beleive there are several things that could be done to reduce gun violence and even accedental injury/death that do not impeed unreasonably on the freedom to own a gun.

I am NOT anti-gun and I agree that many proposed gun laws are arbitrary and unreasonable.

[Untermonkey]

185. The right to self defense didn't go away.

Nor did any of your rights. If you choose not to exercise those rights then that is your choice. You cannot, no matter how hard you wish, take away my right to defend myself. No piece of paper can do that.

[Bassic]

223. No, and nobody is taking it away either.

Thinking that having guns makes you safe, however, is simply false. For a long time stats have show that if you own a gun and if it is not securely locked (like a hunting rifle or shotgun for example), it is more likely to be owned against you.

Locks, alarm systems, hell bulletproof glass for your windows are all ways of defending yourself that don't involve having weapons lying around. And we can probably extend the list to any number of things that you can use to protect yourself of anything short of a bazooka attack.

Plus : gun control does not mean no guns at all. It means they must be regulated, registered, licenced, and you must keep them under lock and key, out of reach of childre and, yes, possible intruders. It's working fine in Canada.

[cobalt1999]

208. so that right is no longer valid?

I'm sorry, but a right is a right. You may not like it, but it is a right. We are no better than republicans if we try to take away right we don't like.

Conservatives always harp on the dangers of an "out of control" 1st amendment, Liberals always seem to do the same about the 2nd.

Sorry, I want ALL of my rights. I don't care if you, conservative, liberal, whatever, don't like it.

[Bassic]

226. White people used to have the right to own black people

Should also we bring that back, just because the law used to allow it?

I think that owning guns is ok, as long as there are proper regulations and controls enforced on gun owners. The fact of the matter is that guns serve no other purpose than to kill living beings, so yeah it stands to reason that they should be controlled.

[cobalt1999]

238. so because of slavery, any right can be argued away?

That's bit of straw man argument and I can imagine neo-conservatives using that same argument on the 1st amendment.

Are you willing to apply "proper regulations and controls" on the rest of the bill of rights? If we democrats are supposed to stand up for everyone's rights, then why are we always seen as trying to remove this one?

All of our rights can be "spun" as dangerous for the common good. Just because you don't like a right, or it sometimes causes problems is not an excuse to give it away.

[Bassic]

242. No not any right.

A right that favors the proliferation of lethal weapons that can create havoc from almost any distance, should be at least severely checked. Objects which have for sole function the termination of life and which are very effective ar helping the user to achieve such a goal should definitely be closely regulated. John Wayne is dead.

Nice of you to call me a neo-con, but I doubt many of them are concerned about the proliferation and general acceptance of guns and gun-violence.

[stevekatz]

266. people

People have the right to own a gun get over it,
Comparing it with slavery is just a sign that all rational arguments have aleady failed

[Bassic]

269. I never said they shouldn't be able to own guns.

I say there should be strict controls like up here in Canada.

The fact that you do not recognize the fact that such control is essential in limiting tragedies such as this one is indeed proof that rational arguments have never mattered.

[stevekatz]

270. what are you talking about

There should be gun control laws,

Howeve
A law abiding citizen has the basic right to own a firearm in this country.
Backround checks?
Permits?
Gun safety training?
Of course I agree with the above, but how would the above items have prevented this crime?

Whats your solution? Shread the constitution?

and there is gun violence in Canada, which is on the rise as I've read, despite Canada's strict laws. (though admitedly far less then the US)

[Bassic]

271. It's on the rise, but only in certain areas, and is still very restricted

As for other measures: a renewable permit would allow authorities to exercise control over who can have guns. A disclosure of certain iformation, like a background check yeah, would allow us to identify unstable gun owners for example.

Furthurmore, one of the things that makes it work in Canada is that you can't carry a loaded gun under any circumstances short of hunting in the woods. Thank makes for a much smaller chance of just getting shot in the street, and so a lot less fear and paranoia, which in turn slows the proliferation of weapons other than hunting weapons.

Of cours, we can't eliminate such tragedies altogether, but I don't see that as a good reason to just not try.

I value stric gun control because the right to own a gun should stop when the owner is at all likely to trample on someone else's right to live. Obviously, this guy is a few fries short of a Happy Meal, and gun control measures just might have caught him before that kid had to die.

[Phx_Dem]

207. no you don't

your "right" to bear arm comes to you under the cover of the 10th amendment. The 2nd amendment says what the SCOTUS says it says. In the last 100 years or so they have ruled on a handful of peripherally related 2nd amend. cases, NEVER have they ruled on the exact meaning of the amendment. Understand?

[ProudDad]

253. No, you don't know how to read...

"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"

"In the context of the Constitution, phrases like "shall not be infringed," "shall make no law," and "shall not be violated" sound pretty unbendable, but the Supreme Court has ruled that some laws can, in fact, encroach on these phrases. For example, though there is freedom of speech, you cannot slander someone; though you can own a pistol, you cannot own a nuclear weapon."

Guns should be severely regulated...they are unnecessary to a civilized society. The Europeans do fine without their deadly, useless presence.

[LostinVA]

93. I agree -- there's this weird "Wild West" mindset in so many people

Places like Canada, which have more guns per capita than the US, don't have this problem. It's some kind of strange culture hot button plus the easy availability of guns that causes these tragedies to happen...

[Bassic]

134. Most guns in Canada are hunting rifles.

Rather than hand guns or assault guns. Granted in this case it is a shotgun.

However, in Canada, even those hunting rifles need to be kept safely locked away at all times and under absolutely no circumstances may one carry a gun. (unless it is safely locked in a rifle carrying case)

More gun contro = less gun violence, Canada is proof.

[LostinVA]

145. No argument from me

I've never understood the argument that gun control equals taking away guns. And, I come from a family of hunters and skeet shooters. THEY don't feel that way y, and most of them are as red as can be. I never, ever remember seeing an unlocked gun or open ammo growing up. Everyone had (and still has -- my Dad included) these steel gun safes.

[mac56]

140. "Guns don't kill people....people kill people"?!

People WITH GUNS kill people.

[stevekatz]

268. more accurately

stupid people with guns kill people

[proud2BlibKansan]

124. And how easy would it have been for this elderly man

to kill a 15 year old kid without a gun? Sure the man did the killing but his choice of weapon made the kid an easy target.

[Centered]

302. you mean...

like throwing a knife, or an Axe??

Or perhaps you mean't attacking the youth with gas powered gardening tools?

Anything can be a weapon when someone has the urge to hurt someone.

[teknomanzer]

245. Guns don't kill people, jackasses with guns kill people...

Its certainly true that if the jackass in question really wanted to kill the kid who committed the most heinous crime of walking on his well manicured lawn he could use any legal implement including his bare hands to do so. The shotgun just made the task shockingly simple. The elimination of guns certainly won't prevent people from attempting murder, but it might just cut down on the rate of success.

[anitar1]

250. His family did not realize that Gramps was mentally off ?

happens all the time. Family says, we didn't know. IQ scores ??

[moodforaday]

8. Ease of use

comes into the picture. It much easier to shoot a gun (and not miss) than to use a baseball bat or your bare hands. A gun makes it remote and impersonal.

If the guy had run after the kid with a baseball bat, the kid would have had a good chance of escaping. But then, if all the guy had were a baseball bat, he probably wouldn't have attempted to kill him in the first place. And if he did, and if the kid didn't manage to escape, there would have been a couple of minutes to change his mind and stop beating the kid.

There is a world of difference between using a gun and using bats, knives or your hands. Please don't be blind to it.

[proud2BlibKansan]

127. Here here!

I get so sick of these gun nuts saying it's the person holding the gun who does the killing. Well let's see if they can kill just as many people with a baseball bat, shall we?

[The Magistrate]

130. That Is Indeed The Point, Sir

It takes a great deal more effort and emotional commitment, sustained over a period of time, to kill someone, or even to seriously injure them, with an implement depending on one's own muscle for effect. A firearm can be fatally employed with a mere instant's twitch of irritation: a club or even a knife takes work....

[LostinVA]

224. As well as making it up close and personal, Magistrate...

[zanne]

14. Oh, give it up.

We all know that the easy access to guns results in more shooting deaths. I suspect that even you know this, though I'm sure you'll come up with some table or graph, pulled from some gun-freak site, to prove me wrong. I'm tired to death of gun lovers defending this wild west mentality. Grow up.

[Untermonkey]

17. I'm not defending this man in any way, shape, or form.

I'm merely pointing out that HE committed the crime, not the inanimate object. I suppose if the title of the article was "Man kills 15 year old with knife" we wouldn't even have seen it here. The fact that he killed an innocent person is completely lost in the background of the insane need to blame an inanimate metal tube for the actions of the person weilding it.

I don't need any table or graph to prove anything to you. You already know who is at fault for this crime. You just choose to ignore that knowledge and blame an inanimate object because that suits your purpose at this time.

[Phx_Dem]

40. you choose to ignore context

If this individual did not have a firearm handy the 15YO would not be dead.

[Dolomite]

126. You'd be happier if he'd of been shot with a crossbow?

"If this individual did not have a firearm handy the 15YO would not be dead."

That is quite a leap.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

180. The old man might have beat the kid with a sprinkler head on a hose! (n/t)

[Phx_Dem]

206. I'd be happier if the kid was alive

but he isn't because we have 300 million+ guns in the US. You can be glib all you want but there is no other comparable weapon in such #s in this country.

Personally I stay out of "gun debates" because the states that allow them are not changing anytime soon, so any discussion about legality is pointless. The only constructive debate would involve how to better regulate firearms.

[Mountainman]

28. I see, "give it up" and "grow up" a lot in these kinds of rants.

It looks like you can't form a good argument so you have to attack the person rather than his/her argument.

[Untermonkey]

32. Not uncommon around here.

Especially when the topic is guns. It's were many otherwise sane, rational progressive individuals become unhinged. The very concept of someone owning a firearm and being responsible for their own safety just can't be justified.

This case in Ohio is a perfect example of a gunowner using his gun to commit a crime. No one here is saying otherwise. However, to claim that this one man's actions justify abridging the rights of 300,000,000 million others is simply asinine.

[Ronnie]

48. Bizarro

[Untermonkey]

59. Love the cartoon!

I saw that in today's paper. It's hilarious.

[Bridget Burke]

65. Are you really in the UK (Per your profile)?

If so, why are you wasting your time in a country a bit less gun-happy?

[Untermonkey]

186. I live in the UK, but I'm a U.S. citizen.

I'm here temporarily for work.

[proud2BlibKansan]

128. Beautiful

Yes, it is a wild west mentality. And it is sick.

[Toots]

39. Guns are sooo much easier though

Why do people drive cars instead of walking? Guns make killing easy. Cars make getting to work easy. They are tools but when they make crime very easy they are usually controlled. Yes guns have some blame.

[rexcat]

43. It was a shotgun and not a handgun...

the kid got shot twice by this idiot. I post this because even in many other countries who have strict gun control laws, shotguns are legal to own.

[Bandit]

77. Oh you mean he was "Peppered"

That is quite the norm in America I guess.

[rexcat]

92. Not really...

shot twice and murdered is not "peppered." I have mixed emotions on this whole issue of gun control. I am a gun owner myself (as in handgun my father left me when he died) but to kill someone because they were walking on your lawn is way past evil. He should be locked away for the rest of his life but he did kill a child and that is about the thing that would evoke me to consider the death penalty (has something to do with being a parent).

[Bassic]

138. True, but you still have to keep them under lock and key

and, in the case of Canada, the gun must be registered and you must have a gun owners permit, which greatly reduces the likeliness of utter maniacs buying guns. It's not an absolute garantee, but it works quite well.

[rexcat]

244. This situation should have been avoidable...

what a complete tragedy for the family who's son was murdered!

[Bassic]

258. That is completely right.

15 yo, all your life ahead of you and BOOM. Larry is annoyed at you.. it is an extremely sad story.

[Untermonkey]

188. Even in the UK shotguns are legal

Shotguns are the example the antis like to trot out to show they sympathize with the "need" to own a gun. Shotguns are ok, it's the evil "assault weapons" and handguns they don't like.

[superconnected]

52. I've only ever heard people accuse the gun owners, not the guns

It amazes me the fetish some ppl have with guns. You can certianly tell by their posts.

[dsc]

214. Go ahead

I'll give you a day to research. Find one, just one single solitary case, of an elderly man beating a healthy 14 year old to death with a baseball bat under circumstances similar to this. Where the kid is walking in a year and the man is presumedly a distance away. I really want to see this. That kid is dead because that man had a gun. There is no way that man could have killed him without a gun.

[Catch22Dem]

312. Always a ridiculous counter argument

A bat has a primary purpose which is not for killing. That's why this argument always gets an eyeroll :eyes: from me. A gun has only one function, to kill. Don't give me skeet shooting as an argument either, that's just a method of using a tool for killing in some secondary function.

[teenagebambam]

6. Forgive me, I couldn't resist

seeing the Freeper response to this story.

It only took seventeen posts to get this:

"There likely is a lot more to this story, and the kid and the parents probably enjoyed setting their neighbor off and harassing him. Obviously the parents and kid thought there would be no consequences , not realizing that their neigbor was crazy. The parents could have prevented this, and now their son is gone.

The parents in this story are likely idiots whose son could do no wrong, and assumed their neigbor was not a crazy shooter, they were wrong.

Lesson: Do not bother or willfully harass your neighbors and if you do , even by mistake, AVOID all future contact as much as possible. Your neighbor could be a shooter so treat him/her with politeness and respect, THE WAY YOU ARE SUPPOSED TOO."

[BR_Parkway]

10. Man, if they realized that some on the left are gun owners, maybe they

be a little less quick to yell things like Traitor and godless commie, huh?

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

12. WTF! Holy Moly that is some convulated thinking. n/t

MKJ

edited to add: :wow: :wtf:

[FlaGranny]

61. I once

lived near a school and kids freely walked across my yard to go to school rather than go the extra half block. I had to put up a 6-foot high fence around the entire property and that stopped them in their tracks. Just imagine the reaction of one of these kids' parents if they got hurt while crossing my property. Can you say lawsuit? I should NOT have had to put up a fence to keep the kids from walking through. Parents do have a share in the blame for kids not respecting the property of others. I was certainly taught respect for my neighbors when I was a little kid, and my kids were taught the same.

In no way am I saying the man was justified. What I'm saying is that parents never know what neighbor might be crazy and they should teach their kids from a very young age to stay off the property of their neighbors unless they're playing with the neighbor's kids.

[SemperEadem]

102. exactly

tresspassing for expedience's sake is not a right.

[LostinVA]

229. Nor is it a reason to be murdered

[SemperEadem]

293. who said it was?

[tenshi816]

257. Interesting what you said about your fence.

It's the norm in the UK to have fenced back yards (or gardens as we say here) and maybe because of that no one would ever think of crossing someone else's property, even on an unfenced part. I have neighbours who don't have fences around their front gardens and there's no way my children would walk across them without permission. It would never occur to them to do that.

There's actually a saying here (and maybe it's around in the US, but I've never heard it there): Good fences mean good neighbours.

[LostinVA]

262. It's the title of a very famous poem

[tenshi816]

276. Good Lord, you're right...

how could I not have known that? I like Robert Frost so you'd think I'd have remembered it.

[LostinVA]

277. Just not enough caffeine today!

[Gormy Cuss]

300. Oh the irony. It's called "The Mending Wall"

and the whole context is that fences/walls don't make good neighbors. The quote, which we all have learned to use as supporting boundaries, was a comment by a neighbor and the narrator of the poem asks him why that is and the neighbor doesn't give a reason, just repeats it.

'...He only says, "Good fences make good neighbors."
Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder
If I could put a notion in his head:
"Why do they make good neighbors? Isn't it
Where there are cows? But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.
Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That wants it down!..."

[tenshi816]

304. I can accept that idea in the States,

but in a country as small as England (roughly the size of the state of Georgia but with a population nearing 50 million), I stick by my view that fences are a good idea.

[Gormy Cuss]

305. Oh, not criticizing you, just commenting on how we use that quote

as if Frost was contending that fences were a good thing.

I know of small spaces and definition with fencing, because some parts of the U.S. are just as crammed full of people as some parts of England.

[sam the dawg]

94. re #6 more to this story - teenagebambam

Agree. More to this story. It ain't about guns - its about the culture wars in neighborhoods. Many people will NOT show any respect for other folks boundaries/property/space. They let their animals range and poop all over (health hazard?), they let their kids terrorize other people and pets. If you ask them to stop, what you receive is "we can do anything we wanna do" ----
Killing kids is not a solution but respect for private property and boundaries is lacking in many communities.
To allow or tollerate bad juvenile behavior is to facilitate it.
Thanks teenagebambam

[LostinVA]

148. Cutting across a lawn isn't bad juvenile behavior

It's cutting across a lawn. We did it all the time in the neighborhood I grew up in, the kids in my neighborhood do it now -- I don't consider it disrespect at all -- it's juts what kids do.

Having such a focus on a lawn is just weird to me.... even if this kid was tearing up chunks of sod with his hands wouldn't justify murder. NOTHING does, except complete self defense.

[sam the dawg]

158. bad juvenile behavior

Are you trying to justify your kids bad behavior and your own?
read post 6 and mine clearly before you twist and spin them.
no one said murder was justified.
if the kid was taunting the owner, and had been for 5 years,
it was one sicko child and parents as well as a sicko murderer.
cutting accross lawns can be bad juvenile behavior.
Also, you don't know enough about this story to absolve the victim of all blame.

There were a bunch of kids taunting a neighbor for years in my city.
The cops just "fed" the problem. Told the guy to video it.
He did. The guy had a video camera of the
delinquent kids behavior. The camera recorded when they killed him.

The time to solve these situations is early - before the kids start
cutting across lawns.

[LostinVA]

159. I don't have kids, and I suggest you cool down the ad hominen attack

And, pray tell what bad behavior of mine I'm defending? Gosh... what a surprise, you don't know me, so have no idea what the hell I do. And you have the nerve to tell me I'm spinning. I have cred...

Then the guy should have called the cops. There are many things he could have done. Not killing a teenager. Sorry. NEVER an excuse. Ever. This was not a case of self defense.

You ARE justifying the shooting -- telling me I don't know enough to absolve the victim. If you honestly feel murder is justified for this, then you really are on the wrong message board. Debating the death penalty is one thing... debating cold-blooded murder? Never.

You know, I don't listen to people who condone murder, or think they can just sign up and come on here and persoanlly attack me. So... IGNORE.

[LostinVA]

161. Oh, and you base your case ON A FREE REPUBLIC POST???

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

[LostinVA]

162. I would like a link where there';s proof this kid harassed the guy

What? Oh? There isn't any? Nope -- actually, neighbors said this was a good kid, and this dude had gotten angry about people cutting across his lawn. He claims several incidents of this before... big frigging deal. There was no "situation" to solve.

NOW: ignore.

[barb162]

313. other than this one little thing from the story

"I've been harassed by him and his parents for five years. Today just blew it up."

I am sure it will come out what they were doing and if he called the cops before, etc. Maybe he'll do an insanity plea. Who knows...maybe he told the family to stay off his property 500 times and the police never came and he totally, completely and utterly lost it. And maybe he's got a few screws loose too

[zanne]

181. People cut through my yard all the time

I'm on a corner lot. Why should they have to go all the way to the corner to get next door? The way I see it is, when you live in a neighborhood, you live with OTHERS. If you don't want anybody to walk on your precious lawn, go live out in the country somewhere.

[LostinVA]

193. That;s how I feel -- the kids aren't doing anything bad

They aren't loitering, vandalizing, stubbing out cigarettes in my yard -- they wave or act all goth and cool and ignore the grownups. That's cool. I understand that. The next door neighbor's kid's soccer ball pops over into my yard and he runs over and gets it... SO WHAT? A few bruised flowers and some worn grass aren't grounds for being a jackass... or a murderer.

[baby_mouse]

234. "there i likely more to this story - I'll just fill it in any way I like"

Is it any wonder they voted for that wankstain? They just make stuff up and believe it...

[johncoby2]

11. Guns don't kill people.

People with GUNS kill people.

What a dumb ass. He will spend the rest of his life in jail and in misery.

[400Years]

36. people with CARS kill MORE people

but you ain't screaming about that

This guy belongs in jail but disarming the public is exactly what the fascists want.

[Javaman]

47. Ahh but how many people purposely go out driving with the idea

of wanting to run someone over?

It would have been really interesting if this kid had walked across the lawn and the owner jumped into his car and tried running the kid over. Thus killing the kid and ruining his lawn at the same time.

that is the difference between cars and guns.

Guns and cars are single purpose items, both require licenses and both require a level of ability to use them correctly and both require RESPONSIBILITY. However, one is for conveyance the other is for shooting.

I'm not against owning a weapon, I'm against stupid ass people who own weapons. This guy was clearly a stupid ass with some real mental issues. And as such, should not have been in possession of a weapon.

[Solon]

49. Speaking of which...

If someone took a car out for the sole purpose of running people over, the press blame video games, should we blame video games for what this guy did too? As far as we know, he had a Playstation in his house!

[Javaman]

56. There you go! Video games are the root of all evil....

You know I was just saying to a friend while I was playing grand theft auto, "you know, I have this crazy urge to go out to kill and main people souly for my own enjoyment, what do you think, bob?"

Bob thought for a moment and said, "well, dave, I have had this unquenchable thirst for blood lately, as well, and I believe that a little mayhem and destruction are in order."

So bob and I walked out to the car, pumped up with excitement from our afternoon playing grand theft auto and filled with delusions of grandeur, we hit the road with a mission.

As bob and I casually mowed down one pedestrian after another, I turned to him, mid killing spree, and said, "you know bob, I have been thinking, do you think it's the failure of society that has turned us to this life of mayhem? Or do you think it's the failure of strong parental images, guidelines and lack boundaries set for us that has lead us down this road?"

We both momentarily chuckled at my pun, but bob thought for a moment, looking but not really "seeing" as one innocent person flew over our hood after another, then turned to me thoughtfully and said, "you know dave, you might just have a point there, I feel that if my parents were more like parents and not wanting to be my "best friend" (bob loves doing that finger thing for parentheses), I would have had the structure in my life that I so desperately crave on a deeper emotional level".

I really enjoyed bobs introspective moments that allow me to explore the deeper issues of life. "I concur", I stated and slammed the breaks on the car, just short of a family of 5 in the middle of shopping mall.

We exited our vehicle and turned ourselves in. We both felt better at taking responsibility for our actions.

Now as bob and I sit in our maximum security cell here in texas awaiting our death in the gas chamber, I look back and think of all the errors I have made. But also at the irony. bob and I killed people and now we are being killed to show that killing is wrong. Life is just so kooky, ain't it?

[Solon]

63. I guess that's the reason Shrooms are so popular as well, Super Mario...

Brothers is EVIL I tell you! Not to mention the nefarious influence of Pac-Man, an entire generation of kids wasting away in dark rooms, listening to techno and munching on pills! Don't even let me get started on the evil influence of Sonic the Hedgehog!

BTW: Your story was quite funny.

[Rocknrule]

282. What about the board game Clue?

It teaches kids to beat anyone named Col. Mustard over the head with a candlestick in the kitchen!

[uncle ray]

68. remember, that very thing happened a few weeks ago.

remember that man who rented a SUV because it was big and would cause more harm to people when he ran them down? didn't hear anybody harping about how dangerous SUVs are when that happened.

[Solon]

72. SUVs are dangerous for other reasons besides the amount of...

damage they can do to other drivers. Design flaws shouldn't be tolerated in vehicles, especially when its in what used to be a hot commodity like SUVs were. Whether its being a flip hazard due to having a far too high center of gravity, or insufficient brakes for vehicle mass, etc. These types of flaws, which are common in large SUVs shouldn't be tolerated, they are a bad design overall. Not to mention that drivers themselves simply don't know how to handle vehicles of the weight and handling traits that are common in these large vehicles, which should require at least commercial or large vehicle driver's licenses with training on those types of vehicles.

[uncle ray]

105. huh?

i was referring to the Iranian(?) fellow who rented a SUV to drive through a crowd of people at a University a few weeks ago. he made a conscious decision to try to kill with a SUV. nobody was blaming the SUV. had he chosen a gun we have a pretty good idea what the reaction would be. not sure what you're getting at.

[Bassic]

141. The point is that

a very small amout of people who die because of cars are deliberetaly killed. The same can not be said about gun deaths.

[400Years]

142. And yet far more people have died for your right to drive than

have died as a result of the 2nd Amendment.

Hell I can think of at least 100000 dead Iraqis (According the the Journal Lancet) that have died in the last three years. Not to mention U.S. soldiers.

[Bassic]

146. The fact of the matter is that the sole purpose of a gun

is to kill something or someone, you can't say that about a car.

[400Years]

156. And?

I've already addressed this in a post just below here. I repost it for you since you can't be bothered to read the thread.


Does that mean we should abolish the 2nd amendment?

There is a certain amount of freedom in which we wish to live and that means that a certain amount of risk is necessary. Anti-gun types are willing to take that risk when it comes to cars but not guns. Yet if you banish gun ownership you are giving up a certain amount of freedom. If you don't value that freedom then that is your right but many people do and the result of that is some people are going to kill others using a gun. As well, some people are going to kill others with cars, one way or another.

[Bassic]

174. I've already addressed the relevence of this amendment nt

[Bassic]

149. Furthurmore, what the heck to the people who die in Iraq

have to do with cars killing people?

[400Years]

157. now you are just confusing yourself

[Bassic]

176. This is from your post just above

"Hell I can think of at least 100000 dead Iraqis (According the the Journal Lancet) that have died in the last three years. Not to mention U.S. soldiers."

As we were discussing the deadliness of cars, I asked why that was relevent.

And yet apparantly I'm the one confused?

Sure, that makes sense :sarcasm:

Eventually gun nuts are going to have to at least recognize that gun free-for-all allows situations like this one to happen a lot more easily.

[400Years]

178. maybe you don't even listen to the words that come out of your mouth

You said "a very small amout of people who die because of cars are deliberetaly killed"

I guess all those dead Iraqis were an accident.:eyes:


As far as your other stupid ass comment, I have said here several times that the 2nd amendment has an inherent risk and that risk is that people are going to kill each other. Do you even read these thread or do you just talk shit?

[Bassic]

182. Ok, I must have missed the part where insurgents drove cars into them.

Or perhaps you meant all those cars rigged to blow up.

It may surprise you to learn this, but tose actually had bombs in them. Those bombs are what killed all those people, not the cars.

As for your caracterization of my lack of reflection : I've also already said that the second amendment belongs to an era long passed. It is no longer relevant to contemporary life.

[Critters2]

57. And car accidents are

ACCIDENTS! People (okay often driving too fast or otherwise not carefully enough) happen to be in a situation where an accident occurs. The only analogy with this would be if people are normally out in their yards with shot guns. Do you just hang out in your front yard with a loaded shot gun at your side?

It just occurred to me...some of the gun crazies probably do.

[400Years]

66. cars are inherently dangerous, and will always result in death

You will never ever have a situation where people don't die in car wrecks. It's impossible.

You simply cannot send a several thousand pound object flying through the city at a high velocity and not expect people to die.

Cars kill over 40000 people a year way way more than guns.

Just pointing out a few facts.

Not to mention global warming, war, and habitat destruction.

[Javaman]

74. I find it odd that you state...

"You will never ever have a situation where people don't die in car wrecks."

I think I know what you mean but your grammar is wrong.

If you still believe the above statement that you wrote, then there would be a much greater number of people killed in car wreck yearly than the 40K number that you posted.

Being a former fireman/emt, I have been to many many many car wrecks and of the majority of them, people survived. It's due to two things in particular, not exceeding the speed limit and wearing their seat belts.

Of the millions of drivers currently on the American roads and Highways, 40000 people killed is a small percentage. I'm not saying it's a good percentage, just a small one.

If we were to eliminate drunk driving, that number would fall significantly.

[400Years]

81. If it is so easy why the death toll

You simply cannot place people and cars in such close proximity and not expect people to die.

I just find it funny that people get so upset over guns while never questioning the death that results in automobile usage. It's a cost they are willing to pay to drive around but they would gladly trade their freedom away to somehow feel safe from guns. Statistically speaking the number of deaths due to gun shot wounds is very small as well.

As far as grammer goes I don't see the error unless you mean I should have used "in which" instead of "where."

[Javaman]

85. Ummm you missed my point...

I think you were grammatically wrong.

once again, you stated, "You will never ever have a situation where people don't die in car wrecks."

by your logic, every car wreck results in death.

See my point?

Can I assume that you meant, "there will always be situations were there will be car wrecks that result in death"?

[400Years]

89. I wasn't referring to every car trip

I was referring to living in a car culture.

I see your point.

[Javaman]

121. ahh okay. nt

[Critters2]

83. Do you know people who actually aim their cars at others,

with the intention of killing them? Or do you think this asshat "accidentally" killed his neighbor?

[400Years]

87. stupid question

That guy murdered somebody and belongs in jail. Do you always ask dumbass question such as this?

Now as far as the car question goes: Yes sometimes people do run over other people intentionally but that is not the point I am making. What I am pointing out is that there is a cost to allowing the public to own guns and that cost is that you will have a certain number of people kill each other with them just like with cars. People are willing to tolerate the much higher death toll that results in auto usage but some of those very same people get their panties in a wad over the gun issue. That trite phrase "freedom isn't free" which is most often used to justify murdering people in other countries is actually appropriate here. Freedom comes at a cost and that cost is that people are going to hurt each other and themselves and unless you want to live in total lock down you need to face this fact. Otherwise we can just let Big Brother come and confiscate every gun in the country and accept living under a totally authoritarian regime, which is what too many people on the left and right are clamoring for. But as Benjamin Franklin pointed out, that safety is very illusive indeed.

[Critters2]

90. You still missed my point

Guns are weapons. They are made to harm other living creatures. That is their purpose.

Cars are a form of transportation. That they are sometimes used unwisely and that harm ensues is a problem, but it comes from the misuse of the vehicle.

When a gun is used properly, something--sometimes a human, sometimes a non-human animal, is going to be hurt.

See the difference?

[400Years]

95. I didn't miss that at all and I understand very well what guns are for

Does that mean we should abolish the 2nd ammendemnt?

There is a certain amount of freedom in which we wish to live and that means that a certain amount of risk is necessary. Anti-gun types are willing to take that risk when it comes to cars but not guns. Yet if you banish gun ownership you are giving up a certain amount of freedom. If you don't value that freedom then that is your right but many people do and the result of that is some people are going to kill others using a gun. As well, some people are going to kill others with cars, one way or another.

[Critters2]

107. Gun advocates never answer this for me...

What does the phrase "well-organized" mean?

[400Years]

109. ah, changing the subject I see

I've seen that merry-go round bullshit a hundred times.

It's not even "well-orginized" it's "well-regulated" and that is not all it says.

I see you haven't even read a single thing I said. I might as well be talking to a fence post.

[Critters2]

116. Okay,

what does "well-regulated" mean, and if that's what the Consitution says, why does the NRA oppose regulations of all kinds? I thought you guys loved the 2nd amendment.

[400Years]

118. your parsing

oh, and you are also making spurious assumptions since I am no NRA fan.

Since you seem to have no clue as to what the 2nd amendment says I'll post it for you:

"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."

Now you can try to parse that to fit into your viewpoint but don't ask me to agree with you.

On Edit: I took notice of how you have completely ignored the points I have made. Like I said
I might as well be talking to a fence post.

[Critters2]

123. Exactly the kind of reasoned argument I've come to expect from

a gun nut. I've aksed a question. You haven't answered it.

Let me try again. What does "well regulated" mean?

And I think you meant to say "You're parsing". I worry that people who have trouble with basic grammar are carrying around weapons that can kill.

[400Years]

133. Resorting to insults I see

How pathetic.

You'r game goes just like this but I'll do it in reverse:

What does "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" mean?

Answer that.

"Well-regulated" means that if a militia is formed it will be organized etc. It does not mean the government can outlaw guns, even if you want it to.

I find it funny that you can't discuss anything without resorting to insults. Are you that immature? Well, I guess we can all see the answer to that question.

[Critters2]

135. Remember, you're arguing in favor of a man who shot a 15 year old

because he walked on his grass. You don't need me to insult you. You're a walking insult to yourself.

[400Years]

139. Now you are losing it, stupid accusations like that betray you

You are arguing against gun ownership. I am defending it and now you have to result to this little stunt. It clearly shows that you have not read a single thing I have written. Again I might as well be talking to a fence post.

Wow, I really can't believe you just said something so stupid.

[proud2BlibKansan]

132. I have been in more than one car wreck and I am still alive

Are you saying it is impossible that I didn't die? Some logic there.

Cars are NOT designed for the sole purpose of injuring and/or killing living things. Guns, however, have no other purpose. You guys always leave that little factoid out of your 'cars are more dangerous than guns' argument.

Here's another factoid - I have lived my entire life without owning a gun. However, I would have a very difficult time surviving without a car.

I think they teach that needs vs. wants theory in about 2nd grade now. :)

[400Years]

137. we've already gone over all this

maybe you should read the thread before you start spewing talking points.

I see you can't live without a car eh? Where not here to discuss your personal problems.

I have already addressed the "guns are only made for killing" meme as well.

You wouldn't have accused me of leaving something out if you had bothered to read the thread.

Sheesh. :eyes:

[proud2BlibKansan]

160. I did read the thread

I just found some of your points kinda silly, like this cars kill more people argument. That is by far one of the dumbest arguments you gunners have.

[400Years]

163. You can't even address it.

The point is that if you are willing to give the government the power to confiscate all the guns in the country then you have given up a certain amount of your freedom due to your fear of being shot, which is much less likely than being killed in a car wreck. Yet at the same time you are willing to risk the inherent dangers of automobiles which kill over four times as many people as guns do each year. I know, I know, cars take you places while guns only kill, but that is not the point. The point is that every bit of freedom comes with a certain amount of risk. I am willing to deal with the risk that is inherent in gun ownership just like I tolerate the risk of cars, although it is much greater. You can't even address this issue because you are too busy jerking your knee around.

[proud2BlibKansan]

167. You're the one

behaving like a jerk. You gun nuts are so arrogant. Many many people in this country and on the planet live long and rich lives without ever owning or even firing a gun. Guns are not the be all and end all to life in the 21st century. The sooner you gun folks understand that the further you will be able to advance your gun ownership agenda.

I could give a shit if you want to own a gun. If it makes you feel all powerful or whatever - that is your psychosis, not mine. But don't try to win me over with bullshit arguments comparing the number of deaths in car wrecks to deaths by guns. And keep your gun away from me and my kids.

[400Years]

169. talk about paranoid and delusional

You sound just like Rush Limbaugh when he describes Democrats.

I'm behaving like a jerk because I make a point about something and you can't even address it?
Okay, talk about projection.

Oh, and as far as the twisted idea that anybody who doesn't cower in fear from the hypothetical "gun-nut" holds the view that "Guns are the be all and end all to life in the 21st century" says alot about your messed up view of the world. That view point is nothing but pure paranoid delusion.

I feel sorry for you.

[LostinVA]

194. It;'s cool, Proud2 -- just forget it

[proud2BlibKansan]

241. But but

he feels sorry for me. :cry:

:rofl:

[LostinVA]

263. I know -- don't you feel special???

Just use ignore like I do -- life is too short to let them nibble at you...

I feel sorry for you, too... hehehehehehe...

[Javaman]

69. You know, you have a point there...

Bob and I were casually shooting chipmunks off our suburban neighbors fence, when he, the neighbor, walked in to the yard "complaining" about all the noise, dead chipmunks and the dozens of weapons we had laying on the lawn.

bob and I listen patiently to our neighbors rage, all the while, cleaning our respective rifles. Occasionally, during the "discussion" bob would, he's such a goof, mindlessly aim down his rifle at the neighbor. It's really a riot watching the guys eyes bug out the way they do. But it's all in good fun.

Finally, the neighbor quiets down, expecting something. You know, he had one of those looks on his face as if he was egging us on. I looked at bob and we both shrugged.

bob said to me, "you know dave, I think our neighbor her is worried about our target practice".

I thought for a moment, looking back and forth a bob then to the neighbor then back to bob, "you know bob, do you think that there are certain social norms that should be observed for the sake of society?"

bob mindlessly picked off another chipmunk while he pondered my question. "Well, dave, that being said, what you say is true for the group, but don't you think that limits personal expression?"

The neighbor upset about something, for unknown reasons begins putting our other weapons in the trash can.

I looked to the neighbor and thought, "gee how inconsiderate of him not to ask our permission first", but then I said to bob, "you make a valid point, my friend and I believe that a happy medium could be reached."

Bob replied, "I concur", doing that thing he does with his finger for parentheses, then promptly shooting our neighbor.

As bob and I sit on death row for murdering our neighbor, I think of the errors we both made. I think of the irony's presented to us in our life.
The idea of invading another countries land without the use of diplomacy and at the same time lying to a nation by saying diplomacy has run it's course the proper. Is that the way to deal with the worlds problems? I think we know the answer to that.

[Bandit]

78. Cars are regulated and licensed though aren't they?

:shrug:

[400Years]

82. I guess that is why they are so "safe"

after all they only kill four times as many people as guns do.

[Javaman]

86. so let me ask you a basic question: do you drive? nt

[400Years]

91. Sometimes, and I assume a certain amount of risk

just as with the 2nd ammendment.

Having said that, my primary transportation is a bicycle. It wouldn't make any difference if I drove everyday or not at all.

[Javaman]

122. Now that I understand what you mean by a car culture...

I see what you were driving at. Pardon the pun.

[benEzra]

99. So are guns...

Cars are regulated and licensed though aren't they?

So are guns.

You probably have no idea how much guns are regulated...the criteria to be eligible to own them...and the limits on the types of guns civilians can own without special goverment permission.

Cars can be owned without a license in most states, can be operated on private property without a license, but a license is required to operate them in public roads (just like with guns--license generally required to carry one). You don't have to pass a background check to purchase a car, and writing a bad check to a restaurant doesn't cause you to lose the right to own a car for the rest of your life. Unlike the situation with guns...

[mac56]

213. Using a car for its designed purpose doesn't kill someone.

Using a gun for its designed purpose does.

[LostinVA]

225. That argument is rational, Mac... it has no place on this thread!

[dysfunctional press]

80. CRAZY people with guns kill people...

and "gun control" wouldn't have stopped this murder anyway- shotguns are generally not covered by handgun bans, seeing as they are not handguns.

until technology renders them obsolete, guns are here to stay- but we need to do a better job of keeping them out of the hands of the wrong people.

[sandrakae]

13. This is disgusting. I would almost bet this guy is a Republican.

[Solon]

15. Could be a Libertarian...

I mean, since people are supposed to have a ABSOLUTE right to do whatever they want on their own property, no crime took place, at least according to the Randians.

[Untermonkey]

19. Absolute right doesn't apply in this case.

The guy with the gun violated the kids rights AND no one has the right to commit murder, ever, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum.

[Solon]

22. One thing to understand about Capital L Libertarians...

is this, Property Rights trump ANY individual rights, at least, that is the ideology, so, given that, the kid violated the owners property rights, and therefore "got what was coming to him". Note, before you jump all over me, these are Ayn Rand acolytes that I'm talking about, not me, I'm a Leftist, so to me, this guy who shot the kid deserves life in prison with no possiblity for parole.

[Untermonkey]

24. I agree with you.

The guy had absolutely no right to do what he did and he should spend the rest of his life in a little cell wallpapered with pictures of the kid he killed.

[jody]

29. Private Citizens committed 246 Justifiable Homicides in 2003.

See Table 2-16 of CIUS 2003

[Solon]

30. My personal belief is that...

You may defend the lives and safety of yourself and others, including using deadly force, in any way possible. However, you may NOT do the same to protect PROPERTY, killing someone to prevent them from killing you or someone else is good, killing someone to prevent them from stealing something, not cool.

[Untermonkey]

33. Hear hear!

Killing someone over material posessions is murder. No real argument there.

[jody]

76. Your reply means LEOs should not kill a person committing a robbery. nt

[Solon]

255. Bzzzzt, WRONG!!!!

Repeat what I said, then look at the definition of ROBBERY. Robbery involves the use of FORCE to acquire items that don't belong to you. That includes using weapons and endangering the safety and lives of OTHERS in the pursuit of wealth. Hence the reason why Shoplifters get probation and Robbers get prison.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

16. Here's the pic of the fellow who chose his lawn over life.

MKJ

[progressivebydesign]

44. I'm so unbelievably sick of angry white men.

you could take that photo, and the one of the man that shot up Denneys last week, and they're interchangable. ANgry old white men. It's a fucking disease.

[onenote]

53. I'm sick of anyone who shoots an innocent person

Gender, race, age. Who gives a rat's ass. When some kid shoots some other kid to steal his jacket or iPod, its as much a tragedy as when some old white guy with a gun and no brains shoots a kid for walking on his lawn.

onenote

[TrogL]

71. I'm angry, old and white

and at one point I had firearms.

Never felt the need to blow anybody away.

[brentspeak]

73. What about angry black men?

Or angry yellow men?

[Occulus]

147. Notice the common denominator there, though

Angry old ________ men.

I think there are just a lot of angry old men in this country. Self-entitled old men, I might add.

[slackmaster]

274. I'm 48 and I resent that statement

:nuke:

[Renew Deal]

230. Is that a bigoted statement?

It sounds like it. It would certainly get deleted if it said "I'm so unbelievably sick of angry black men."

[slackmaster]

273. Threre were THREE shootings at Dennys restaurants in CA last week

Only one of them involved an "angry white man". The other two incidents were basically gang fights.

[Cronus Protagonist]

254. Why do I think he's probably "Pro Life" as well?

Just a hunch?

[Kolesar]

18. Riots in Cinci, riots in Toledo, shootings in Batavia. Bloody Ohio

Did the second civil war start already? Last time it started on the Kansas frontier. This time we brought it back to Ohio.

[qanda]

20. What a real shame

I have always taught my kids to not walk on anyone's lawn-- I never thought of it as life-saving advice.

[MissMillie]

21. So, I wonder

Who is going to water this guy's lawn while he's being bubba's girlfriend....?

[Untermonkey]

26. I hope he lives a very long time in prison.

And that they pass him around like a two-bit whore for a pack of smokes.

[jody]

23. Some people may snap over anything and kill someone. I assume those

who blame guns for this sad death also blame automobiles when a person deliberately kills someone with one as happened 51 times in 2003. See WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports, 1999 - 2003 for Homicide Overall Motor Vehicle Deaths.

[progressivebydesign]

46. 51 times a car was used for murder vs. over 12,000 with guns that year.

Not exactly points you gun fanatics want to bring up for examination.

[jody]

75. Correction 9,638 murders with firearms in 2003. All 14,408 murders in

2003 were committed by humans using some instrument or personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.).

You don't know me so why do you call me a gun fanatic?

Are you an anti-gun fanatic?

[400Years]

175. over 40000 people a year killed by cars

but you tolerate that risk. I tolerate both risks.

Freeedom ain't free, risk is always involved.

[brentspeak]

215. 40,000...killed yearly in U.S. auto accidents???

You didn't say the U.S., but that's the inference. If "40,000" are killed annually in automobile accidents, that number would apply to the world over, not the United States.

[jody]

251. 44,929 Overall Motor Vehicle Deaths in 2003 in the U.S. See WISQARS at

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

[LostinVA]

264. That's deaths, not murders -- huge difference

[jody]

286. Post # 46 said "killed by cars" not murders. n/t

[LostinVA]

289. Sorry -- you can't equate accidents with murder

And that's the analogy that's being forced.

MOst people die in accidents in their homes... so raze all the homes. It's a ridiculous argument. Cars are made and meant as vehicles. Guns are created and meant for destruction. I'm not someone who's violently anti-gun, although I am very much for much stronger gun control than we have now. However, all of these posts on this thread trying to act like this boy wasn't murdered because of a gun... whatever.

ARgue all you want. But, you can have your own opinions, but not your own facts. And, this boy was murdered by a blast from a shotgun. Not a bat, a knife, a board, a crow bar.

[jody]

290. Facts I quoted speak for them self. Apparently the boy was murdered

because a man lost control. The results would have been the same if the man had used a knife to kill the boy but I seriously doubt if you would have blamed the knife. Of course you can prove me wrong by calling for the ban or control of all knives.

[Paladin]

306. Get Real

That 15-year old boy would have had a 1000% better chance of avoiding death or any injury whatsoever if the elderly man had come after him with a knife. But let's be honest: pro-gun zealots like you accept this kind of tragedy as a fair tradeoff for easy access to fireams....

[jody]

310. I am a pro-RKBA Democrat and I support our party platform that says, "We

will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do." See http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

Apparently you do not support the pro-RKBA part of our party's platform.

What other Democratic Party positions do you oppose?

[Critters2]

Do you guys get these talking points straight from the NRA?

[Critters2]

136. 51 times!

Wow! That IS as bad as the number of gun deaths!!

Oh, wait...no it isn't.

[400Years]

173. You are trying to shift away from the real point of the car analogy

which is cars are inherently risky and so are guns
but you want to give up one freedom but not the other while the car freedom kills way more people.

funny how you keep running from that.

[Critters2]

239. I know you're having trouble grasping this,

but killing people is not the purpose of cars. It IS the purpose of guns.

Ask the family of that 15 year old. Or of the two girls killed in Chicago last week, while standing in their living rooms.

[jody]

288. SCOTUS has said government is not obligated to protect an individual

unless she/he is in custody. Every state recognizes law abiding citizens have a right to defend them self.

Given that law enforcement officers and criminals use guns for self-defense and neither group has an inalienable right to defend self and property, just what type of arms would you recommend for citizens who wish to defend them self against criminals?

I assume you know that the Democratic Party Platform says "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do." See http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

I also assume you know that Senate bill 397 passed the Senate 65 – 31 and passed the House 283 – 144 in the 109th Congress. The bill said:

QUOTE
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.
UNQUOTE

The bill was signed 26 Oct 05 and became Public Law No: 109-92.

[LeftHander]

25. More of a "American Beauty" type thing...?

Right out of the movie "American Beauty". I look at the picture of that guy and that is what I see.

Guy lived alone. Ex-navy...old vaulted gay? Finally took the cowards way out to satisify his inner desire to be gay...he killed the object of his affection...now he gets to live his fantasy of being someone's bitch in prision.

Our homophobic society perpetuates this poison...the lengths to which people will supress who they are manifests itself in very corrosive and unexpected ways...but the true person always will eventually come forward. The great tragedy is that it took a beautiful young life to do so.

"Neighbors said Martin lived alone quietly, often sitting in front of his one-story home with its neat lawn, well-trimmed shrubbery and flag pole with U.S. and Navy flags flying."

If this were the case the story becomes so intensely sad...just running this story through my head has made me very depressed this morning.

[raccoon]

31. I wonder if the old coot has dementia?

If so, he definitely shouldn't have had any guns.

In upstate SC a few years ago, an old man got p.o. because people kept turning around in his driveway. He shot somebody over it. Turned out he had dementia (the property owner).

[Untermonkey]

35. I'm sure his lawyers will try that angle.

Even if he did, it's very difficult to prove to a court that the government should step in and confiscate an indivisuals guns. Not impossible, but difficult. When my wife's grandfather started going 'round the bend we just went to his house one day, while he was at the doctor, and took all of his guns and ammo. He asked a few months later where his guns were and his son told him he didn't own any. It seemed to have worked as the subject never really came up.

[raccoon]

37. You were very wise to do that. nt

[progressivebydesign]

45. No. probably not. Just that angry old man disease.

Some psych association actually researched and classified that syndrome wherein men, usually around their 50s, become angry and paranoid, and convinced that someone is going to rip them off, that the govt is crooked. Often they're the ones that do this shit.. they are the guys that are harrassing someone down at the City Hall, harrassing neighbors, writing hateful letters to the paper. They have an angry mind, and are not paranoid in the most traditional sense, but more paranoid that someone is ripping them off, or they did not get their fair share... It pretty much describes lots of those angry white men republican types.

There should be some sort of REAL process for gun ownership. This is bullshit that these wingnuts can just buy guns.

[Love Bug]

172. The Angry Old Men Disease is probably caused by

the realization that they are never going to get rich, and their current life is as good as it will ever get.

[DavidDvorkin]

38. He should get a Mac!

Windows users always --

Oops, sorry. Wrong rant.

Guns should be outlawed. That's my real rant. I know it'll never happen, and if it did, the black market in guns would explode. But if it were possible/practical, I'd be behind it. At the very least, we need a lot more control and a big change in social attitude -- sort of what's happened with cigarette smoking over the last few decades.

(By the way, I'm a Windows user.)

[superconnected]

55. I think there needs to be more control on who is allowed to have a gun.

Mean, angry, murderous people exist no matter what. The problem is, they are more likely to be armed than calm civil people who don't see shooting someone, as an answer to their problems.

[DavidDvorkin]

64. Good point

[DUHandle]

41. Dried blood

works just as well.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

50. "Well shoot, I didnt know it would kill him! I mean, Cheney shot a guy in

the face and he lived!

[superconnected]

54. He belongs in prison for murder.

I'm sure a bunch of gun owners will defend this.

And, them defending crap like this is exactly why they lose integrity, and appear to be raving gun nuts, instead of sane people we would trust with guns.

[Lorien]

67. He does indeed

what he did is completely indefensible. It was a senseless murder by a psychotic man, period. I can't imagine what the young man's family is going through right now. :cry:

[LostinVA]

204. Oh people are defending it, but more the "trespassing is illegal" and

"bad juvenile behavior" allows this people. I put a bunch of them on ignore. It sickens me. It's frigging GRASS. All this "trespassing" stuff is so insane... wtf??? Even the Freepers in my family don't give a damn if kids walk through their yard. To me, it's such a strange, very intolerant mindset to have.

[stanwyck]

62. Who wants to take me up on this bet?

that he's against women being able to obtain abortions. Because "life is so precious"..yada, yada, yada.
But, hey, he can blow a kid away cause of his lawn.

[brentspeak]

70. Something tells me the NRA will not be highlighting this incident

on their web site.

[donsu]

79. I had someone yell at me one time cause my muddy footed dogs

walked on his grass

his unfenced grace yard was at least 1/2 acre

[sam the dawg]

96. grass

Did you leave dog poop as well as mud on his private property?
probably everyone else has.
his grass ain't your private park -- keep your muddy footed dog leashed and curbed.

[donsu]

110. they didn't poop, it was in the country, a back road across from a woods

with a creek

there was not a curb in sight

[SemperEadem]

104. his unfenced yard can be 600 acres

you have no entitlement to walk your dogs on any inch of what is not yours.

There is a space on the other side of his property line on which you may run your dogs to their hearts content. If there isn't, then you should choose a better place to walk your dog.

[donsu]

114. get a grip - this was in the country, I lived in the country, I tramped

around in the woods and creeks with the dogs and kids

no curbs, no walking dogs to poop

they guy yelled to get their muddy feet off his grass. we were getting in the car to go on up the hill to home.

I've never allowed my dogs to poop on other people's property.

[hedgehog]

84. Would it help if the neighbors could comment on who should have guns?

My dad lives on a corner and for years local jerks have made it a point to harass the guy on the opposite corner because he has a lawn fetish. My dad has had to go out and talk to these jerks to put them on notice that the guy they're harassing isn't hitting on all cylinders and has a bit of an arsenal stashed away. The harassment tends to die down then until a new crop of jerks comes of age.

I'm not sure if letting neighbors put a thumbs down on a gun license would help, I suspect this guy gets his guns off the street. I'm throwing the idea out for comment because I'm sure everyone knows somebody who shouldn't be allowed near a gun because of drinking/anger issues or some such problems.

[leftofthedial]

88. if the kid had been armed and trained

he undoubtedly could have protected himself

:sarcasm:

[Critters2]

113. LOL!

Arm all teenagers!!

[SemperEadem]

98. There were so many other means by which he could have

kept tresspassers off of his lawn... but I supposed he was sick and tired of the blatant disrespect shown to him for years by his neighbors that he snapped. Squirting the kid with a garden hose would certainly have been just as effective in getting the "stay the hell off of my lawn" message across as putting bullets in his chest... and all the kid would have needed was a change of clothes.

But I think that this incident speaks to a larger issue: that people don't have the right to trample on private property for the sake of expedience.

The house in which I grew up in St. Louis was situated in the middle of the block. There are about 15-20 houses/block. The kids who lived on the next street over made it a habit of cutting through our gangway, through our back yard to the alley, through the neighbor's yard behind our house, through her gangway and onto the next street---instead of walking around the block. I remember times of sitting on the front porch with my parents and someone popping out of our gangway on their way somewhere. What was most insulting was for them to then walk down the grass instead of showing some modicum of home training or respect for what's not yours and use the sidewalk provided. Phillistines!

It all stopped when my parents installed a 7' chainlink fence and gates with locks on them. While it may have been habit for people to cut through when the previous family lived in that house, it was not their right to do so nor did they have an entitlement justifying their doing so. One should not have to tell anyone that private property is just that--that they have no entitlement to be on it uninvited.

When I was a very small child, my parents taught me to stay off of other people's lawns. Most people learned that, too. Either this kid didn't care or his parents didn't instill in him the importance of not disrespecting other people's property by walking on their lawn. Someone else may have yelled at him; someone else may have squirted him with a garden hose or pelted him with rotten tomatoes; this particular guy snapped and killed the boy. It's a shame all around.

[BikeWriter]

101. ...

:popcorn:

[Beaverhausen]

112. Can I have some?

Just when you thought you've heard everyting... :crazy:

[BikeWriter]

119. Certainly, you're most welcome.

:popcorn:

[LostinVA]

150. OMG... unbelieveable....

[wtmusic]

106. Yup, the real issue here is trampling on private property

and blatant disrespect, and instilling the importance of respecting people's anal-retentive psychoses. :silly:

[SemperEadem]

129. No.. it's instilling the importance of respecting what is not yours

it has nothing to do with anal retentive anything... it's basic human respect.

No one has a constitutional right to tresspass for expedience sake. The man does have a constitutional right to bear the arms he owns. We all found out too late that his mental state has turned him toward the consideration that a 15 yr old kid walking across his front lawn is a threat to his perception of safety on his own property.

[LostinVA]

153. Good grief -- what the heck is so big about cutting across someone's lawn?

I did it as a kid -- we were all neighbors, everyone did it. WE WERE NEIGHBORS. A community. The kids in my neighborhood do it all the time now. They cross the yard... they aren't vandalizing, lotering,etc. I don't know them, and neither do I care if they use my yard as a shortcut. All of this "private property" screed on this thread is totally bizarre to me -- screaming "trespassing" when it's some kid walking across the lawn. Who cares? Maybe this guy should have put his money and concern into volunteering instead of acting fanatical about GRASS.

Who cares if a kid cuts across your yard? Seriously. If people on this thread do.... then they must have pretty good lives if that's something they're actually worrying about.

This murder had nothing to do with safety -- per the article, he didn't want his lawn ruined. Again -- big deal.

[stevekatz]

272. well

I won't lie, I'm a home owner.

I'd never ever shoot someone for walking on my lawn(I don't currently own a gun)
But I certainly don't people walking around on my property

I planted my grass and maintain it, it's an investment. Also what if someone got hurt? I'd be sued!

[LostinVA]

278. I'm a home owner, too

And kids cut across my lawn all the time. I honestly don't care, and I personally don't see my grass as an investment. The getting sued part also boggles my mind -- the kids (and sometimes adults) walk a few feet into the yrad... I don't know, I just don't worry about any of that.

If they were loitering, smoking, etc., I would have to do something about that, for all of your reasons, but not the cutting across part.

[SemperEadem]

295. and herein lies the cruxt of the issue

I personally don't see my grass as an investment

And you have every right to take this position. Many people dont' care about the condition of their lawns. However, many people do and they have every right to their position, too.

[LostinVA]

303. Sorry, not to this extent

[wtmusic]

166. So now it was his "perception of safety"?

It had nothing to do with that (it doesn't have to do with the damn lawn, for that matter). It has to do with a guy who considers himself a failure finding a flimsy excuse to take it out on some kid.

There is no justification, so don't even try.

[SemperEadem]

294. no one is trying to justify anything... why are you getting so angry?

[bettyellen]

168. oh bullshit, he said he was annoyed, he didn't say he felt threatened

although his lawyer might say so later.
he killed a kid because he had no self fucking control. there is no excuse.
asshole should rot in jail.

[brentspeak]

218. Er, um...

But I think that this incident speaks to a larger issue: that people don't have the right to trample on private property for the sake of expedience.

No, that is definitely not the moral of this story.

[LostinVA]

227. Thanks, Brent -- been bemused about this side of the "argument" all day

It's a LAWN. If anyone gets so bent out of shape because someone walks through their yard.... get a life. Seriously. "Trespassing," forsooth...

[phylny]

231. Hell, forget the garden hose.

Shooting 20 feet away from the kid into the grass would have gotten his attention, too, and would have resulted in much less of a legal hassle than this guy has now. He lost it, plain and simple.

In any event, no amount of "harrassment" or trespassing is worth attacking someone.

How sad this is. What a waste.

[bettyellen]

100. calmly called 911? onTV they bleeped out 1/2 the words.....

where he seemed to be attempting to blame the kids, justifying his actions and
mentioned the kid was down only when they specifically asked him. fucked up selfish old man.

[wordpix2]

103. it's legal to sell guns to insane people--medical privacy ensures doctors

won't put them on any "no gun sales" lists.

[Critters2]

115. Only if the law has changed recently

I helped a friend check into a psych unit for depression about a decade ago. They explained to her that she would not be able to own a gun after her admittance, and made her sign a document saying she understood that those hospitalized for mental illness are prohibited from buying guns in Illinois. They said the info would be given to the national database.

[wordpix2]

152. OK, that's new then, or may be an Illinois law, not federal

[slackmaster]

187. No, it is a federal law - Gun Control Act of 1968

See http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000922----000-.html

Scroll down to paragraph (d):

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—
(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) is a fugitive from justice;
(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien—
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26)));
(6) who <1> has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that—
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and
(B)
(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence....

[wordpix2]

283. note thelaw states the person has to be adjudicated or committed to mental

institution. That doesn't prevent a LOT of people with mental problems from getting guns. The point being, a shrink might be concerned about a patient's violent fantasies but said doctor cannot put the person on a "no guns" list unless doctor wants to commit patient first.

The other issue is, a lot of people who should be seeing doctors for mental problems aren't doing that if they're poor because public funding for such programs has been cut.

[slackmaster]

296. Not all "people with mental problems" are dangerous

And having "mental problems" alone is not grounds for denying a person his or her civil rights.

I think most of us agree there needs to be a standard for determining who is mentally or emotionally unfit to own a firearm. To avoid the obvious potential for abuse, the standard must be at least in some sense objective. We can't have doctors arbitrarily deciding that someone is OK to live in society, move about as he or she pleases, drive a car, have custody of children, etc. but not qualified to own a gun.

If someone is not mentally fit to have a gun, that person IMO should be in some kind of custody. Guns and other potentially deadly objects are easily available, and that is always going to be true.

The other issue is, a lot of people who should be seeing doctors for mental problems aren't doing that if they're poor because public funding for such programs has been cut.

The solution to that is to stop allowing tight-fisted conservative Republicans to control all three branches of the federal government. One of several reasons they are in control now is that we Democrats have alienated gun owners wholesale. We have failed to respect a right that some people regard as very important.

[Sapere aude]

108. Does anyone think that if there were laws prohibiting gun ownership that

people like this guy would turn in his shotgun?

[mark11727]

117. Four quick personal stories about strangers on my front lawn...

(1) Our area where we live is not as developed as an actual "community" would be, but it's not really rural, either. The road that runs in front of my home connect two larger main roads, and sometimes there's pedestrian traffic (there used to be a social services office a few blocks away). So it's not too unusual to see teens (sometimes pleasant enough, sometimes pretty skeevy) walking down the block. One afternoon, some kids were going up the side street (we live on a corner property), and one tall and lanky teen cut across our front yard to catch up. I was working elsewhere in the yard, and he didn't see me, until he was already deep into the property. I called out from about a dozen feet away, "Dude! Do ya mind, I just seeded there...". He looked a little embarrassed, apologized, and walked back to the curb.

(2) I've got neighbors living across the corner, who until recently had about twelve (I'm not kidding) very large and aggressive dogs living in their front yard, but the story's not about the dogs --- the couple themselves were a very volatile bunch, and very often their fighting would spill into their front yard for all to see. One time about midnight-ish, the pair of them carried their argument all the way across the street and into my front yard. He's yelling, she's screaming, and the lot of us were peeking out the window. I wanted to call the cops on this, but the rest of the neighbors have the local precinct on speed-dial just for these two lovers.

(3) One weekend afternoon I'm working on the lawn, and there's a feller under a tree in my front yard, sitting on a puppy carrier. "Hi. How ya doing? Can I help you?" This breaks the ice, and gives us both a chance to size up each other without actually having a confrontation. It comes out he's a friend of the corner neighbors (with the dogs), and he's been given a couple of puppies, and he's waiting for the local bus, which comes through our street. They're gradually giving away or otherwise getting rid of their dogs (the police were called a few weeks ago when two jumped their fence and chased an old lady who came out to collect her mail).

(4) Late at night, a large, strange dog was running back and forth on the lawn, with two men calling and chasing after it... apparently the dog had slipped out of its own yard, and these two were trying to corner it without much success. I poked my head out and having a dog myself, offered them a few jerky-type dog chew sticks. One man coaxed the dog over, and the other grabbed it from behind. They smacked at the dog a few times as they walked it home, poor thing.

Jeebus, it's just f*ckin grass, right?

[FlaGranny]

125. Yes, it's only grass, but

people need to be aware that the grass may be cared for by a maniac instead of a normal, sane person. I've heard so many stories like this one. Some crazy old coot shoots a teenager. Well, some old coots are losing their faculties and become paranoid and delusional. My father, not too long before he died, thought my sweet son had killed my mother. My mother wasn't at home at the time and my son liked to build rockets. My father thought the rockets were swords and that he had killed my mother with one (he didn't even know who my mother was, called her "that nice lady." May I add that my father had always been a gentle, sweet man his entire life, but who knows what could have happened that day. Once, when I was putting some tiles down in my father's bedroom, he got angry at me and grabbed me by the hair. It hurt like hell and he had a look of pure hatred in his eyes. I'm still not sure what set him off, except maybe he thought I was keeping him out of his room.

Just a bit of a story to illustrate WHY parents should insist their kids respect others' property - old people can become delusional and violent when they get Alzheimer's or mini-stroke syndrome, not to mention just plain old evil younger neighbors.

[superconnected]

151. Did you shoot them?

Do you feel you would be right to?

[mark11727]

192. OF COURSE NOT...!

Please READ THE POST AGAIN, and you'll see how each situation WAS handled.

To summarize:

(1) "Dude! Do ya mind, I just seeded there...".
(2) I had wanted to call the cops --- it blew over in a few minutes.
(3) "Hi. How ya doing? Can I help you?"
(4) I offered a few dog chew sticks to get their runaway dog back.

No shooting justification there --- now, if someone were HARMING MY FAMILY, that would be another matter. And no, I don't have a gun.

[superconnected]

196. sorry, I skimmed it the first time.

Yes, you handled it well.

[LostinVA]

154. Exactly what I said in an above post: IT'S GRASS!

[superconnected]

155. You have to take a written and a driving exam to drive a car.

What do gun owners have to do to own a gun.

[400Years]

164. I guess that is why cars are so safe.

oh wait...

[superconnected]

195. compared to how many ppl drive to how many carry around guns

at least cars attempt to have a test before someone can drive them.

I realize that will fall on deaf ears of most gun nuts.

[Realityhack]

308. So um...

what are the federal safety tests for guns?
Do they have to pass an accidental drop test without dischargeing?
Do they have to have a mechenism to indicate they are loaded?
Does the safety mechanism have to meet some test for acidental un-safetying of the weapon?
Are they required to have some form of child safety lock?

Do gun owners have to pass a basic gun safety test?
Do they have to pass a gun law test?
Are they required by law to disarm and secure the weapon in some particular way when not in use?

Personaly I like guns. I have shot and its a lot of fun. But guns are designed to kill and I think a lot more could be done to reduce the number of gun related deaths.
I do not think such laws would necisarily have done anything to prevent this crime but there are an auful lot of gun deaths that could be prevented.

[Endangered Specie]

200. In this state... a NICS background check...

and a pistol permit for handguns, and the 'exam' for getting a driving license in this state is a joke.

Plus, you DON'T have to have a drivers license to own or place your car (or even drive it) on YOUR OWN property, you need a license to take it unto public roads. (much like you need a CCW permit to carry a gun in public).

[benEzra]

280. Not to OWN a car...just to DRIVE one in public...look at your analogy...

You have to take a written and a driving exam to drive a car. What do gun owners have to do to own a gun.

You don't have to do that to OWN a car and keep it a home, or to operate it on private property.

In order to CARRY a gun in most states, you generally have to take a written exam, have your fingerprints run by the FBI, and get a mental health records check to be licensed to CARRY a gun.

It would be logical to compare car ownership to gun ownership (requirements are stricter for guns), car use on private property to gun use on private property (requirements stricter for guns), or car operation in public vs. carrying a gun in public (requirements usually stricter for guns).

[stepnw1f]

165. Killer's Best Friend: Guns

Pull the trigger and game over, unless you miss.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

171. hey--the idea of SHOTGUNS being llegal has never come up ever-

The anti gun lobby is targeting assault weapons and handguns.
Shotguns are always going to remain legal.

I personally don't think idiots should own ANY guns.
But the right to bear arms IS guaranteed in the Constitution.
I just don't think they meant the right to bear machine guns (which weren't invented yet)...
or the right to hide pistols (weren't invented yet) under your shirt.

[mrgunguy]

179. A note about the constitution...

"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. "

Period.

Now, you can rightfully argue that known criminals and lunatics should not be allowed access to firearms, but that's where it ends.

I've heard some people say that this or that gun has no "legitimate sporting purpose" and should not be owned by civilians. Why not? Especially if it's not going to be used for sporting purposes.

The framers of the constitution weren't thinking about hunting or target practice when they wrote those well known words. They were thinking of armed rebellion against a tyrannical government.

The fact that machine guns were not yet invented is beside the point. If they had been invented in 1776 they would still have been included and covered by the second amendment. In fact, more so for the very reason that they are military arms.

In fact, pistols had been invented by 1776 and would still be thought a reasonable defensive and offensive weapon.

The second amendment isn't about hunting. It's about protecting freedoms from those who would take them away. Whether it be a crook or a politician.

[phylny]

233. Welcome to DU.n/t

[stepnw1f]

240. It's Not 1776 Anymore

Where's the Militia?

[stevekatz]

279. you know

That comma is probably the most power comma ever written

[stepnw1f]

291. sure

[slackmaster]

297. The militia is all of us

From the United States Code:

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311 Prev | Next

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes


Release date: 2005-07-12

(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.

See http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=militia&url=/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html

The age limit and males-only provisions may be unconstitutional.

California's militia definition is similar to the federal one:

MILITARY AND VETERANS CODE

SECTION 120-130

120. The militia of the State shall consist of the National Guard,
State Military Reserve and the Naval Militia--which constitute the
active militia --and the unorganized militia.

121. The unorganized militia consists of all persons liable to
service in the militia, but not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

122. The militia of the State consists of all able-bodied male
citizens and all other able-bodied males who have declared their
intention to become citizens of the United States, who are between
the ages of eighteen and forty-five, and who are residents of the
State, and of such other persons as may upon their own application be
enlisted or commissioned therein pursuant to the provisions of this
division, subject, however, to such exemptions as now exist or may be
hereafter created by the laws of the United States or of this State.

See http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=mvc&group=00001-01000&file=120-130

[Phx_Dem]

265. The SCOTUS

has NEVER ruled on the meaning of the 2nd amendment. So it's not really that simple. Gun ownership in some states is allowed under the 10th amend.

[Blue Diadem]

170. Here's more: he and kid apparently had argued 1 hr before

http://www.fox19.com/Global/story.asp?S=4660806

On Sunday afternoon 66 year old Charles Martin snapped and he admits it in a dramatic 911 call to police.

In the call Martin tells the operator that he "just killed a kid" and the operator asks Martin what happened and he talks about his feud with his 15 year old neighbor. "It's just...I've been being harassed by him and his parents for five years, and I just today, just blew up," Martin tells the operator.

snip:

Police say that 15 year old Larry Mugrage first had an argument about Mugrage crossing Martin's lawn. Then an hour later, Mugrage again crossed Martin's yard, this time with friends. That is when he became a target for Martin's weapon and rage. In the call, the 911 operator asks Martin what happened and Martin talks about the kids harassing him and tearing things up.

Then the operator asks what Martin did and Martin replied, "I shot him with a g*****n .410 shotgun. Then according to the call, Martin said that Mugrage was laying next to his driveway dying from a gunshot wound. Martin told the operator that he would be outside waiting for police unarmed.

[slackmaster]

183. Well, that certainly doesn't excuse the shooting

But it does cast it in a slightly different light.

Provoking a person who is (pretty obviously IMO) deranged is not a good idea.

[mrgunguy]

189. You must blame the criminal...

... not the weapon. Without someone to pull the trigger a gun is just a piece of metal...

[slackmaster]

190. Yes I blame the criminal 100%

But potential victims have some responsibility to stay out of situations that are clearly dangerous.

[LostinVA]

197. He was a victim, not a potential victim

He was a 15-year-old. The killer should have called the cops. Period. It doesn't matter whether or not the kid was being a stupid, punk teenager. Just like it doesn't matter if that woman wore that short skirt and walked home alone at 1 am and was raped. Not their fault.

[slackmaster]

198. There's a fuzzy line between assigning fault and taking responsibility

My parents taught me never to trespass on anyone's property at any time, precisely because of the possibility that a property owner may be a deranged, armed lunatic.

[LostinVA]

201. Nope, no fuzzy line here, or for the raped woman example

A group of kids "trespassing" by cutting across a yard never, under ANY circumstances, warrants murder.

Geez... another one on Ignore today. These threads bring 'em out....

[slackmaster]

202. I didn't say trespassing warranted murder

And I didn't say that walking out alone at night warrants getting raped.

I'm saying that it's possible that doing either might not be wise, if you do have a choice in the matter.

:eyes:

Geez... another one on Ignore today.

Suit yourself. I refuse to tow the PC party line. People DO have an obligation to take reasonable steps to keep themselves out of trouble.

[Paladin]

210. You Just Can't Help Yourself, Can You, Slack?

You and your fellow gun activists invariably slink up from the Gun Dungeon to weigh in on the side of gun-wielders on threads like this one, doing what you can to shift blame to their victims. The rape victim in a short skirt analogy is absolutely perfect. Makes me wonder about the kind of homes in which you guys were raised.

Almost (but not quite) makes me wish that Cheney would pop somebody else with his shotgun; at least we have proof that it makes the gun-hugging "Democrats" here at DU go silent. And silence would be infinitely preferable to some of the shameful things turning up here.....

[slackmaster]

211. It wasn't me who said anything about a short skirt

Why don't you even read these posts before replying to them, Paladin?

Could it be that your intent is to attack the person rather than the idea?

[superconnected]

217. I think most people can look at these ppl

blaming the guy walking across the lawn, and see they are dealing with someone not all there.

You have great points. I just feel they're wasted on sociopathic personalities.

Seriously when it gets down to blaming the guy walking on the grass for getting shot, because these people want to defend guns so much, I don't think there's enough sanity to even bother trying to rationalize with them.

[slackmaster]

220. Of course nobody actually did blame the guy who walked across the lawn

But reading comprehension goes out the window when people deal with troubling subjects.

The fact that crime victims sometimes had a role to play in their fates, even though the crime wasn't their fault, can be very troubling.

[superconnected]

232. and for those of use who passed logic in college...

[slackmaster]

267. What part of "I blame the criminal 100%" was unclear to you?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2179373&mesg_id=2180444

[LostinVA]

219. Thanks, Paladin -- I refuse to "play" with them any more

It's passed beyond debating and into sickening. Appreciate the support...

[phylny]

235. I must state that had the criminal not had a gun, the kid would probably

still be alive.

So, while I can "blame" the criminal, the tragedy lies with the rifle in the criminal's hand.

[slackmaster]

307. I agree with you

The guy obviously shouldn't have had a weapon, but he did have one, and I have yet to see anyone come up with a politically and legally possible way to have prevented the guy from having it.

The shooter was obviously deranged. Anyone who would shoot someone over that kind of thing has to be crazy. But how would you identify such a person in advance? Was he crazy when he bought the weapon? Possibly so and he wasn't diagnosed, or maybe he became crazy after he bought it.

[LeftHander]

275. There is more to this than simple rage....

I'll put money on it...that old bastard was sexually abusing the boy or wanted to.

The family made the tragic flaw of living next door to a pedophile. The kid got old enough and started to rebel. He was in love. And shot him.

that's my theory.

[Endangered Specie]

199. If I say that I wouldn't mind seeing him executed...

could we change this from a gun flamewar to a capital punishment flamewar?

[slackmaster]

203. How about a Very Late Term Abortion flamewar instead?

Or, The Japanese Had It Coming In August 1945?

:nuke:

[Endangered Specie]

205. Was he smoking a cigarrette at the time?

:smoke: :smoke: :nuke: :nuke: :hide:

[imperialismispasse]

281. ..

:rofl:

[0007]

209. That's one way to fix a problem.

[bleedingheart]

221. Who will take care of that yard while he sits in prison.

you know what's funny...this old geezer could have been nice to the kid...tried to start up a conversation with him and perhaps become a mentor...but no...he had to be an adverserial jackass and now he will sit forever in prison.

[GinaMaria]

222. There's a lawn freak in every neighborhood

it seems. They usually seem to have the lot near the bus stop. I never understood the point of screaming at kids about the lawn. Tell them firmly, teach them about other people's property and cut them a little slack because they don't seem to remember very well.

It is beyond sickening that someone shot a kid for walking on his lawn. Wish the guy had had a water gun instead... good for the lawn and teaches the kid a lesson at the same time.

I am heartbroken that a family has to buy their child for such a senseless reason :cry:

[Blue Diadem]

237. Yep, lawn freaks are out there..I've had two phonecalls from them.

When we first moved here, my then 10 yr old had to go fluff up a neighbor's grass before the woman's husband came home from work and went balistic. He'd left footprints in the grass! I told him to go take care of it but to never ever step foot in that yard again. The neighbor's own kids weren't even allowed to play on the grass..not even the back yard. It's no wonder she finally divorced him. What was hilarious was they actually asked me some time later to let a dump truck drive through the full length of my yard (400') to deliver lawn stuff to them.

Another woman on my oldest boy's paper route also called to complain that she had marks in her grass from my son cutting across the side of her yard instead of walking around the corner and up her path. I told him to honor his customer's request..as far as I know he did.

Unfortunately, one never knows when someone is looney.

[Kailassa]

243. Every gun added to society makes society more dangerous.

Every time society becomes more dangerous, it becomes more needful to own a gun.

As you said, "Unfortunately, one never knows when someone is looney."

When guns are generally available there is no way to limit ownership to the people who can be trusted with them. And the more of a looney a person is, the more likely they are to have a gun.

Every gun freak says, "Trust me, I'm a Responsible-Gun-Owner, I'd never shoot without good reason."

And every time a person gets shot they are vocal in blaming the victim, and saying that such a shooting is inevitable under the circumstances. A few months back there were even avowed democrats saying a dead boy deserved to be shot because he tapped on the window of his girlfriend's house.

I'm glad to be in Australia, where I can safely travel on almost deserted trains anywhere in the middle of the night, knowing that the average street-thug here does not tote a gun. There is no need for one when rival thugs don't carry them either.

And yes, knives can kill, but I've already defended myself from several knife attacks. You can't defend yourself against a gun attack. Even if you are armed too, it's the aggressor who gets to shoot first.

[ProudDad]

284. Thank you

A voice of reason from someone who knows!

I've traveled throughout Europe, Mexico and Cuba and felt a hell of a lot safer from gun violence (and most other kinds as well) than I do traveling through Texas or Nevada...

[raccoon]

298. Wish you'd told them No effing way..

"What was hilarious was they actually asked me some time later to let a dump truck drive through the full length of my yard (400') to deliver lawn stuff to them. "

[sam the dawg]

246. lawn freaks

This story is not about lawn freaks.
Murder is never justified, not here either.
If the adolescents were deliberately bullying this guy and taunting him,
and if their parents were involved, it is a sick, brutal circumstance
involving bullying, and harrassment.

I know someone who reported highly suspcious activity (DEA) and for the
next twelve years was harrased -- broken window glass, hung in effigy, pit bulls
in the back yard, false statements to police etc etc etc --
The "code" of that neighborhood is to never call enforcement.
Several groups of young people were drawn in. Brutal.
No, the person i know didn't shoot anyone.
My acquaintance was the home owner, the others were rentals.
My friend lived out of his vehicle.
A lot of the harrasement was tresspass and allowing dogs/animals to poop/pee
in the once beautiful well cared for yard.

Sure, now tell me it's just about grass.
In his case it was "grass" and "weed" and other things.
All the neighbors were so "dirty" covering their own butts
they wouldn't say a thing.

[Kailassa]

248. Character assassination of a murdered 15 y o boy ...

Yeah, that must take Real guts.

Cowards and bullies sure do need their guns.

[RedXIII]

247. If guns are outlawed can i....

use my sword,katar,kama,and longbow?

[RedXIII]

249. ...

edited.

[Joey Liberal]

285. Yet another neo-con goes nuts n.t

[SoCalDem]

287. An old guy threw a rake at me and my friend ...

why?

we dared to pick two apples off a branch that hung over the fence and into the alley.. We were riding bikes and the apples were just in our reach, so we picked them He must have been siting in his yard waiting for someone to pick them, because he stood up, and threw a rake over the fence at us.. he missed...but.. if he'd had a gun instead of a rake??? who knows??

There ARE weird people out there who SHOULD be locked up.

[goforit]

292. Guns + obsessive compulsive disorder = TRAGEDY!!!

[raccoon]

299. Or Alzheimer's. nt