Home invasion victim charged with firearm violation

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-040108wilmette,1,2116694.story?coll=chi-news-hed

A Wilmette homeowner who shot and wounded an intruder was charged today with violating the north suburb's ordinance banning handgun ownership.

If convicted, Hale DeMar, 54, faces a fine of up to $750.

"It would be unfortunate and potentially tragic to conclude from this incident that Wilmette families would be safer if they keep a handgun in their homes," Wilmette Police Chief George Carpenter said in a written statement. "The opposite is true. Wilmette families are in greater danger if they keep a handgun at home."

DeMar also is accused of failing to renew his Illinois Firearm Ownership Identification card when it expired in 1988, a Class A misdemeanor.

Violation of the firearm registration law carries penalties of up to one year in jail, a $2,500 fine or court supervision or probation.

[MercutioATC]

1. Unfortunate circumstance, but it IS the law...

He didn't comply with the legal requirements of handgun ownership. That's the issue.

If somebody else slams their car into mine while we're driving down the highway and I'm drunk at the time, should the police ignore the fact that I'm drunk because I didn't cause the accident?

To be more fair, if I'm driving under an expired license, wouldn't I expect a citation even if the accident wasn't my fault?

[Heyo]

2. Agreed, with a BUT.

Is there truly an ordinance that says people from that town are not allowed to have a handgun in their home?

If that is the case, that would be wrong, IMHO, and a seperate issue.

If there's a town where every criminal and theif knows that "hey, nobody in this town has a gun".. that would be the first place they'll deiced to kick in the door at night and do with your family and property whatever they please...

I am not one of these gun nuts, by far... and don't own a gun nor plan to get one.

However I see no problem with a homeowner shooting and killing a intruder who has attempted a home invasion. (dont know that's what happened here, just saying)

"Might go to jail if I get caught and can't get away" is a decent deterrent.

"I could die right there on the spot if the homeowner has a gun" is an even better one.

-Heyo

[MercutioATC]

3. I'm decidedly NOT anti-gun, but...

...if you want to own a gun in a town that's outlawed them, work to change the law or expect to be charged if you're caught. Disagreeing with a law doesn't give you immunity from it.

[TexasMexican]

10. civil rights movement of the 60s...

all of those people that marched and what not shouldnt have broken whatever local ordiances there were against it. Rosa Parks should have gone to the back of the bus too, correct?

They should have just worked to change the laws instead of disobeying them?

[iverglas]

17. civil disobedience

People who engage in genuine civil disobedience really do not whine when they are charged with breaking the law.

In fact, they generally break the law in order to be charged, so that they can then mount a *legal*, as well as *political*, challenge to the law.

That is, they break the law openly and notoriously, in full view of the public and law enforcement authorities.

I don't think that Rosa Parks wore a burqa when she sat at the front of the bus, so that no one could tell that she was black. She wanted to be seen breaking the law. She was not breaking the law for her own convenience, because she was just more comfortable sitting at the front of the bus. She was breaking it in order to challenge it and try to get it changed, for the benefit of others and not merely herself, and she was willing to sacrifice her own interests -- to intentionally risk prosecution and punishment -- to achieve that.

Somehow, hiding a handgun away in one's home and bringing it out only to try to kill someone with doesn't strike me as quite such a selfless, principled action.

I wonder whether the NRA will be funding this individual's defence on the firearms charges. Surely this will be its perfect opportunity to make that 2nd amendment argument all the way to the Supreme Court, eh?

.

[RoeBear]

23. Incorrect about Rosa...

...she didn't start the day with a mindset to start a small revolution. She was tired and just didn't want to move and said "enough is enough". Fortunately it snowballed from that point and she became the icon of the movement.

[iverglas]

25. I sound right to me

She did what she did in public, she didn't attempt to hide what she was doing or who she was ... and hey, she didn't push someone else out of the seat she wanted to sit in.

"Civil disobedience" that no one else knows about really just doesn't count as civil disobedience, my friend. It counts as breaking the law. The law may be a bad one, the law may be a good one, the law may be an indifferent one. And the reasons for making it may be equally good, bad or indifferent. But if the law is not broken publicly, and the reasons for breaking it are not made public, what you have is disobedience, not civil disobedience.

.

[RoeBear]

26. Read some more about her...

You say "I don't think that Rosa Parks wore a burqa when she sat at the front of the bus, so that no one could tell that she was black. She wanted to be seen breaking the law."

That's because Rosa did not start out the day with the idea of starting a revolution. When she first sat down in the bus she was 'entitled' to that seat because no white person wanted it...yet. The movement started when she was told to give it up for a white person. She was tired and decided "enough is enough".

[iverglas]

32. tell ya what

You explain how any of this blah blah is remotely related to an issue I raised, and I'll address whatever you have to say.

My point really is fairly clear.

Rosa Parks broke a law openly and notoriously -- in full public view.

Anyone who hides a handgun away in his/her home, contrary to the law that prohibits him/her from doing so, and does not make his/her "disobedience" known to law enforcement authorities or bring it, in some other way, to public attention IS NOT ENGAGED IN CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE.

S/he is breaking the law. And the two are not the same thing.

Rosa Parks may well also not have been engaged in civil disobedience. I WAS NOT THE ONE WHO SAID SHE WAS. I was responding to someone making an extremely specious analogy, comparing Rosa Parks to our pistol-packing pal here.

A person who breaks a law for whatever reason could certainly still then mount a principled legal and/or political challenge to the law -- no doubt about it. Even our pistol-packing pal could do that.

That would not make secretly possessing a firearm contrary to the applicable law, or any other violation of any other law, an act of civil disobedience, nonetheless.

.

[slackmaster]

34. The nature of the law Rosa violated ensured a public scene

Maybe I lack imagination, but I find it hard to envision a black woman taking a whites-only seat on a bus in the privacy of her own home.

:freak:

[alwynsw]

37. i sincerely doubt that this fellow started his day thinking that he would

shoot an intruder. All other things being equal, he could become the RKBA version of Rosa Parks. Good for him.

Let's see, $750.00 fine and possibly a year in jail as opposed to injury or death - I'll take the former option - which would not be available to the authorities had he maintained his registration properly.

I do agree that he should still be brought to task for violating the local ordinances and state laws. Those laws are the reason that I will never live in an area that requires such (what is in my opinion) nonxense.

[RoeBear]

30. FYI-

Rosa Parks action was in 1955

[Fescue4u]

4. Chicago wants to charge him $750 "survivors fee"

For the privledge of surving.

What a facist city.

Pay the fine. Get a new gun.

If you need it again. Repeat as necessary.

Much better than being buried.

[MercutioATC]

5. No, they want people to obey laws. Don't like laws? Change them.

Don't ignore them.

[Fescue4u]

6. Id rather live.

Than obey an unjust law and die.

This is a civil right we are talking about it.

I understand your point perfectly. But of all places in the US, Chicago is one of the places where one needs a gun most of all (murder capital of the US).

Fortunately, I live in a free City and State, and we don't have such facist laws, but Im not about to give up my civil rights, for some control freak on City council.

[MercutioATC]

7. Hey, I agree that people should be able to have guns for self-protection.

(Though I question the wisdom of owning guns and never training with them, as most people do). I just don't think it's realistic to expect to be able to ignore a law (especially a gun law) without repercussions. He knew what he was in for when he bought the gun.

[Fescue4u]

8. I don't fully disagree with you.

I think we are both half a step towards meeting in the middle.

I guess Im saying that even if he is fined and jailed...he still way way ahead of where he would have been if he obeyed the law.

[MercutioATC]

9. I'll agree with that...individual circumstances are not a good indicator

of the whole, however. THIS is a circumstance where breaking the law possibly saved a life. It usually doesn't happen that way.

I guess my objection is that I'm being asked to feel sympathy for somebody who knowing broke a law instead of trying to change it.

Aside from that, I do agree with you. I'd rather be alive and charged than dead.

[DoNotRefill]

14. Makes you wonder how many people obeyed the law....

and ended up dead because of it.

An unjust law is no law at all.

[Township75]

18. Because Chicago is #1 in murders in the US, you have a good number

to start with.

[Romulus]

27. this is why we fight bull*** gun laws

He knew what he was in for when he bought the gun.

No, it seems that he had a FOID and the handguns back in 1988, when the FOID expired. Six months later, the town passed its hadngun ban after some asshole shot someone on a local school grounds. The village gun ban happened AFTER he owned his firearms.

That police chief seems all too eager to kick down doors and (probably) kill gun owners like this homeowner in the name of "public safety." Must be an Asscrack grant recipient.

[DonP]

31. Caused by a school shooting IIRC

Wilmette was the site where a woman named Laurie Dann (?), IIRC used two illegally obtained handguns to hold an entire elementary school captive.

I think it was back in the late 80's or early 90's.

A man I worked with at the time had his 6 year old in the classroom she invaded.

I can't even recall how it ended up, but right afterwards, in the heat of the moment, Wilmette and a bunch of other neighboring communities, passed a bunch of local laws banning guns in one way or another.

No one pointed out that the ban would have had no effect on the whack job in the first place.

[iverglas]

45. why don't you try

... saying that --

That police chief seems all too eager to kick down doors and (probably) kill gun owners like this homeowner in the name of "public safety."

-- somewhere where the police chief in question can hear you.

Lots of people don't take too kindly to having completely unfounded accusations of this sort levelled at them. You could let us know how the police chief feels about it once you've been a big brave fella and asked him.

.

[TexasMexican]

57. What exactly is your point?

[1a2b3c]

70. ???

Should we send him an email? :eyes:

[iverglas]

88. if I may borrow a phrase

I hold some things to be self-evident. The reason for my comment on the statement

"That police chief seems all too eager to kick down doors and (probably) kill gun owners like this homeowner in the name of "public safety."

would be one of them.

Perhaps I really ought to explain ... for anyone to whom the completely obvious really is not self-evident.

I have seen not one shred of evidence in relation to this story that would suggest, in anyone's wildest imagination let alone in the news story linked to, that the police chief in question might be "all too eager to kick down doors and (probably) kill gun owners like this homeowner". Here is the sum total of what that news story said about the police chief in question:

"It would be unfortunate and potentially tragic to conclude from this incident that Wilmette families would be safer if they keep a handgun in their homes," Wilmette Police Chief George Carpenter said in a written statement. "The opposite is true. Wilmette families are in greater danger if they keep a handgun at home."

Anybody seeing any evidentiary foundation WHATSOEVER for the allegation that this police chief "seems" eager to do anything that he allegedly "seems all too eager" to do -- kick down doors and KILL people??

Can anyone explain how such baseless allegations serve in any way to advance the discussion of whatever public policy might be in issue here?

Can anyone offer any explanation for the making of such a baseless allegation other than that it is an attempt to impugn the character of someone perceived/alleged to be on the other side of the issue (and perhaps of any others who appear to agree with him) and thus discredit anything he (and perhaps they) might have to say about that issue?

Can anyone justify this kind of conduct in a discussion of public policy?

Is anyone prepared to make that allegation to the face of the person about whom it was made, and see what his reaction might be?

If not, why not?

.

[Romulus]

96. here's why I said that

1) he said that the police are eager to confront criminals in the name of public safety

2) He said that owning handguns is a threat to public safety, and against the law, so it should be then presumed that he thinks that any handgun owner in his town is an "armed threat to public safety"

3) police consider people they deem "armed criminals" as the ultimate threat to public safety, and respond with overwhelming force to eliminate that threat

4) SWAT teams are usually called out to confront "armed threats to public safety." link As a matter of tactics, SWAT teams prefer shock and surprise when confronting "armed threats to public safety" - namely kicking in doors at 2AM to conduct a "high risk arrest." link link

5) Armed homeowners usually become concerned when someone kicks their door in at 2AM, and sometimes confront those aggressively postured door-kickers as a last-ditch desperate act of self defense, rather than wait to be attacked.

6) Since the SWAT team is eager to eliminate the "armed threat to public safety," their encounter with the armed homeowner ends with the homeowner perforated by the SWAT teams' submachine guns.
link

7) The chief can then describe to an eager news media, and the adoring anti-gun-owner crowd, how he has now made the community safer by eliminating an "armed threat to public safety."

Evan CAN isn't immune to this phenomena link

[slackmaster]

20. Every individual has to decide how to deal with laws they don't like

I have no problem with people growing or using marijuana quietly in the privacy of their own homes, for whatever purpose they intend. I don't an individual who breaks the unjust drug laws in that manner in lower esteem than the medical marijuana advocate who lights up a hooter on the courthouse steps in front of live TV cameras and shouts "Come and arrest me, fascist tools of the corrupt medical-pharmaceutical complex!"

Likewise I can't fault the Chicagoan for what he did. I believe I would have deployed a shotgun for home defense, but my second-guessing serves no useful purpose.

I hope the NRA provides legal support for his defense. That would be one positive contribution they could offer. I'm willing to chip in $35 to a legal defense fund; the price of an NRA annual membership much better spent even if he ultimately loses. The law is unjust and really ought to be changed.

[iverglas]

21. but hmm

I don't <hold> an individual who breaks the unjust drug laws in that manner in lower esteem than the medical marijuana advocate who lights up a hooter on the courthouse steps in front of live TV cameras and shouts "Come and arrest me, fascist tools of the corrupt medical-pharmaceutical complex!"

If said lawbreaker-in-privacy offered your eight-year-old a puff on that hooter in said privacy of his own home, would you (and s/he) perhaps expect to be charged with unlawful possession of marijuana? If s/he ground said hooter into the eye of a bible salesperson to whose presence on his/her front porch s/he objected -- ditto?

Our pistol-packing pal didn't just possess his handgun in the privacy of his own home. He shot someone with it. Methinks (and for those not in the know, that expression means "it seems to me", not "I think") that our pistol-packing pal isn't quite the equivalent of some peaceful pothead puffing in privacy.

I suppose I wouldn't be too bothered by someone who owned a pistol, contrary to the applicable legislation/bylaws, and kept it sealed in plexiglas above his/her mantel -- I mean, I suppose I might hold him/her in slightly higher esteem than someone who illegally kept a pistol in his/her home and also shot someone with it.

But then, our esteem, or lack thereof, isn't usually much relevant to questions of law-breaking and law-enforcement. This strikes me as one of those gun laws that, from time to time, I hear should be enforced -- enforce the laws on the books already, isn't that how it goes? Perhaps there should be a federal prosecution, if the municipality really wants to send a message, eh?

.

[slackmaster]

22. Your pot smoker analogy doesn't stay lit

If said lawbreaker-in-privacy offered your eight-year-old a puff on that hooter in said privacy of his own home, would you (and s/he) perhaps expect to be charged with unlawful possession of marijuana?

No, I would expect him or her to be charged with furnishing drugs to a minor, which is a completely separate crime from possession. If said civil disobediator on the courthouse steps offered my hypothetical eight-year-old a puff on a hooter I would expect the same charges to be filed against him or her.

Our pistol-packing pal didn't just possess his handgun in the privacy of his own home. He shot someone with it.

He shot someone who needed to be shot. Nobody is making an issue of the shooting itself, which makes the matter of what kind of weapon was used seem completely absurd to me.

I suppose I wouldn't be too bothered by someone who owned a pistol, contrary to the applicable legislation/bylaws, and kept it sealed in plexiglas above his/her mantel -- I mean, I suppose I might hold him/her in slightly higher esteem than someone who illegally kept a pistol in his/her home and also shot someone with it.

Personally I don't have a problem with the guy having the pistol or the manner in which he used it. The case sounds from what I've read like a clear-cut self-defensive shooting. If he had used a shotgun the assilant would more likely be dead and no charges would be filed against the homeowner.

Perhaps there should be a federal prosecution, if the municipality really wants to send a message, eh?

But no federal law was broken, only a municipal one that in my unqualified personal opinion is unconstitutional.

[iverglas]

35. and once again

'Tweren't mine, the analogy.

And, also once again --

"He shot someone who needed to be shot"

-- that there just looks like a personal opinion that hasn't got thing one to do with any issue at hand.

You think the person in question needed to be shot. Perhaps your pot-puffing person thought your 8-year-old needed a toke. Matter of taste, I'd say.

Whether or not said pot-puffer were charged with a dealing offence, s/he would still have committed a possession offence and could and quite predictably would be charged with that possession offence.

"Personally I don't have a problem with the guy having the pistol or the manner in which he used it."

Groaning god almighty. The only reason I expressed a hypothetical opinion about someone in illegal possession of a firearm was to point out how irrelevant such personal opinions are. I don't care what yours is any more than you care what mine is.

YOU offered an opinion about someone placidly puffing pot in the privacy of his/her own pad, as if this situation were somehow analogous to someone using a firearm of which he was in illegal possession to SHOOT SOMEONE ELSE. The failed analogy was, and still is, all yours, completely regardless of what opinion you might care to have about whether it was a goooood thing for him to do that.

.

[Wcross]

13. Next time, buy a shotgun

Only handguns are banned right? Get a shotgun and be legal with increased firepower. I agree it is a silly law but as others have said, it is the law.

[Devil Dog Dem]

15. I agree: get a shotgun

It's legal.

[DonP]

28. Not Chicago, Wilmette

As much as I hate the gun regulations in my fair city ...

This is all about Wilmette, on the upscale North side of Chicago. They passed their own "victim enhancement" laws about this.

Wilmette is about as close to a gated community as you can get with out the guards at the border crossing. Very insular and very upper crust along with neighboring communities like Kenilworth etc.

Families that live there include names like Wrigley, like the gum and the field etc.

I guess if he had used a 12 guage pump with #7 birdshot it would have been OK with Wilmette.

I'm sure Daley is happy about this though.

[necso]

11. He should have used a shotgun.

Or some other legal weapon --- in my experience, there is always some legal option.

[slackmaster]

19. Agreed - the law sucks rocks but he knew better

Shotguns have many uses, especially if you have a variety of barrels.

I keep an M1 Garand rifle as my primary home-defense weapon, but also a handgun for when I need to investigate something outside of the house. State law allows me to carry the handgun concealed as long as I'm on my own property (or in lawful pursuit of birds of mammals).

:evilgrin:

[Ready4Change]

12. Confused

One part of this article says "violating the north suburbs ordinance banning handgun ownership." But another part says "failing to renew his Illinois Firearm Ownership Identification card."

So, he is required to have an ID card for a gun his local area doesn't allow him to own?

Way beyond any 2nd amendment issues, am I the only person here who doesn't see any sense in this?

[Devil Dog Dem]

16. One is a state law, the other is a local law

It makes sense. Just because you are in violation of one law (the local ordance prohibiting handguns) doesn't give you a pass from having to obey the other (a state gun card, required for all gun owners in Illionis).

Just because you steal a car doesn't mean you get a pass on having to obey the speed limit.

[timebandit]

24. gun control kills

Jessica Lynne Carpenter was 14 at the time. She knows how to shoot,
taught by her father. At 9am on a Wednesday morning she and her brothers and sisters were home alone. David Bruce broke into the house after he cut the phone line. He began stabbing the children with a pitchfork. Jessica ran to where the family guns were stored but in accordance with a new California law they had been locked safely away by the parents. Long story short, two dead children and a dead murderer (shot to death by the police who finally showed up). But most important, the LAW had been obeyed by John and Stephanie Carpenter.
Should we not repeal gun laws if it will save a single child ????

[MrBenchley]

29. Quick, who's surprised? It's ANOTHER John Lott fraud

"It’s a good story, but as far as I have been able to determine it isn’t true. After I heard it , I tried to locate the news stories. As far as I can tell, the account my source had given (in a public lecture) and had gotten from someone else confused two different news stories.
The original story on the shooting had nothing about the girl trying to get at her parents’ handgun, and it sounded from the sequence of events as though that would have been impractical."

http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/guns/Lott/Merced/0523.html

And where does the piece of shit that Lott is trying to palm off come from?

"Jessica Lynne Carpenter is 14 years old. She knows how to shoot; her father taught her. And there were adequate firearms to deal with blah blah blah....Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, and editor of Financial Privacy Report ...His book, "Send in the Waco Killers: Essays on the Freedom Movement, 1993-1998""

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0900armkids.htm

[iverglas]

33. heh

Does John Lott plagiarize too?

Actually ... in this case, he quoted and attributed the passage that our new little friend just copied and pasted:

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/postsbyday/5-24-03.html

.

[MrBenchley]

39. Interesting how so much of this stuff

can be traced back to a handful of far right wing crackpots, isn't it?

[MrBenchley]

41. Here's some more "wisdom" from the racist Dr. Lott

Just to remind everyone of the sort of person flogging the bogus gun rights issue in public....

"Increasing black officers’ share of the police force one percentage point as a result of the new hiring policies increases murders by at least 2%, violent crime by almost 5% and property crimes by 4%.”

http://www.whoismaryrosh.com/nraleaders.html

[RoeBear]

60. Certainly sounds ridiculous...

...is there any research proving he's wrong?

[iverglas]

89. you be the judge

"is there any research proving he's wrong?"

http://www.tsra.com/Lott43.htm

Why don't you tell us whether there is any basis for his claims in the first place?

This was the claim in question:

Increasing black officers’ share of the police force one percentage point as a result of the new hiring policies increases murders by at least 2%, violent crime by almost 5% and property crimes by 4%.

In the article linked, that claim is immediately preceded by this statement (emphasis added to clarify my point):

The change in demographic composition of police departments, resulting from these new hiring rules, produced dramatic results.

-- and the following statement appears later in the article:

While creating a more diverse police force may be of value by itself, affirmative action consent decrees ironically end up creating the biggest crime increases in poor black areas already suffering the most from crime.

He is claiming a cause-and-effect relationship between the increased hiring of black police officers and increased crime rates.

You might be expected to find this a fascinating topic for further investigation. Can we look forward to your conclusion about the validity of his claims?

btw, and just fyi, the site that hosts that article, tsra.com, is the Texas State Rifle Association. Its upcoming Sportsman's Spectacular features "NRA Speakers Wayne LaPierre and Kayne Robinson".

.

[MrBenchley]

95. Amazing

what the RKBA crowd will jump to defend, isn't it?

[timebandit]

42. Facts are stupid things

Dead
Ashley Carpenter age 9
John William Carpenter age 7
stabbed to death with a pitchfork Aug 23, 2000 at their Vassar
Avenue home Merced California by Jonathan Bruce who was shot to
death by Sheriff's deputies responding to the 911 call.
Source Merced Sun-Star, Tuesday April 23, 2003.
Correction the mother's name is spelled Tephanie.
No details by the media as to sequence of events as related by the uncle but based on other stories where the media leaves out facts which do not fit the template I am not shocked.
Again won't someone please think of the children

[MrBenchley]

43. Especially when invented by right wing crackpots

[timebandit]

47. Merced Sun-Star

Soooo the Merced newspaper is making up things too ?? Hmmmmmmmm

[MrBenchley]

58. Let's see a link, then

ought to be easy enough for you to back it up if it was true.

But then if it was true Mary Rosh wouldn't be peddling it.

[timebandit]

61. Link ??

I gave the source newspaper and date it appeared
Sorry I am not computer literate enough to give link
I had to do search all by myself.
When I have time I will contact the reporter who did the story
and give you his email to confirm. Screech ! all this to suggest that just one time in recorded history a citizen might have been able to protect themselves if a firearm was available.
I forgot we are dealing here with a belief system closer to religion
than any scientific rational IE gun control

[MrBenchley]

62. In other words...

you're busted.

"all this to suggest that just one time in recorded history a citizen might have been able to protect themselves if a firearm was available."
Hey, you dredged it up...and I just showed what a wretched and dishonest provenance this piece of crap has.

[Wickerman]

63. here's the link

only trying to help the computer illiterate:

http://www.mercedsun-star.com/news/newsview.asp?c=22446

Tuesday, April 23, 2002

By Mike De La Cruz & lt;p & gt;

The annual Victim's Rights Ceremony at Old Courthouse Park in Merced on Tuesday attracted many familiar faces and some new ones.

--snip--
The hour-long ceremony, sponsored by the Merced County District Attorney's Victim/Witness Assistance Program, was held at noon near a redwood tree planted in 1990 by the district attorney's office.

Their children, Ashley Carpenter, 9, and John William Carpenter, 7, were stabbed to death with a pitchfork on Aug. 23, 2000, at their Vassar Avenue home.

The killer, Jonathan Bruce, 27, was shot to death by sheriff's deputies responding to the 911 call.

--snip--

[MrBenchley]

64. Funny, isn't it?

Not a word THERE about how gun control might have cost these kids their life...nor even any indication that the Carpenter family OWNED a gun in the first place....

But it DOES have this....

"McFadden lost her children - Michelle Hogan, 5, Melanie Willis, 17, Stuart Willis, 14, and Stanley Willis, 15 - on March 26 when her ex-husband, John Hogan, 49, entered her home and killed the children. He then fatally shot himself. "

[alwynsw]

68. You forgot to mention these

Teresa and her boyfriend, James Nicholas Hartery, 52, were stabbed to death in March 1994 by her jealous husband in the victim's rented home on North Parsons Avenue. Stabbed implies a KNIFE.

Also attending the ceremony was Jacque MacDonald, an advocate of victim's rights ever since her daughter, Deborah Ann "Debi" Whitlock, 32, was murdered in 1988 in her Modesto home. No mention of method.

You're cherry picking to support your anti-RKBA position. It appears that Mike De La Cruz & lt;p & gt; were attempting to show that violence comes in many forms - not just at the muzzle of a firearm.

[MrBenchley]

72. Wonder why the RKBA position had to be a lie?

I don't....

"It appears that Mike De La Cruz & lt;p & gt; were attempting to show that violence comes in many forms"
Yeah, it does....and the gun lobby does it all it can to encourage it.

[demsrule4life]

74. the gun lobby does it all it can to encourage it.

Link?

[MrBenchley]

75. Yeah, it does....

http://www.nraila.org/

[demsrule4life]

76. No not there

I want the link with the gun industry telling people to buy guns then go out and shoot innocent men, women and children.

[MrBenchley]

77. Ask Bob Novak to explain it to you

[demsrule4life]

78. Where in this link

does it say to go out and shoot men, women and children? I know, it must be in the paranoid minds of the anti crowd.

[MrBenchley]

79. Ask Bob Novak, dems....

"A training camp linked to Islamic militants has been operating in Alabama, and European law enforcement officials believe Muslim extremists were using it to prepare for a holy war.
Bullet-riddled police cars and a school bus with mannequin targets are scattered around the property. Inside a huge shed is an equally macabre scene — shot-up mannequins, male and female, in domestic settings, some with red, blood-like stains on them.
Marion Police Chief Tony Buford said he became suspicious of the use of police cars and buses as targets."

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/DailyNews/WNT_alabama_camp020725.html

"Around lay the human trappings of an al-Qaida gun post: empty packets of milk, cans of tomato paste, boxes of chicken stock, sheets of pink toilet paper, dozens of radio batteries and the plastic wrapping for a pair of Chinese-made socks.
One of the huts had once been a training room with concrete dumbbells, an old pair of boxing gloves and metal weights. On the floor lay a discarded paper target, printed by America's vociferous gun lobby, the National Rifle Association, replete with bullet holes and names and scores scribbled in Arabic. "

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,617396,00.html

"The National Rifle Association reportedly is beginning to rally the troops in an effort to convince Congress to overturn the Brady law, a 1993 piece of legislation requiring background checks for potential gun buyers.
In a potentially disastrous step in the wrong direction, the House passed legislation before its holiday recess that would require the FBI to destroy gun buyer records within 24 hours of the sale of a weapon, wiping out a database that police use to solve gun crimes and track gun sales. Such records are now kept for 90 days."

http://www.decaturdailydemocrat.com/articles/2004/01/08/news/opinion/editorial01.txt

[RoeBear]

80. Also from the article...

..."A federal ban on the sale of assault weapons is set to expire later this year, and reportedly will also be the target of a NRA blitzkrieg. That ban also must be continued, and conscientious gun owners know it."

Nice of them to tell me what I should know. Too bad that they are totally wrong.

Please note: the lack of a reply from Benchley will indicate that he agrees with me.

[demsrule4life]

81. Still waiting for the link

by the gun industry telling people to buy their products and commit violent crimes with them.

[MrBenchley]

82. Ask Bob Novak

While you're at it, ask him why the "news item" above turned out to be a flat-out lie by right wing loonies....

[demsrule4life]

83. This little conversations has been about

the statement you made about the gun industry promoting violence. I have searched for a link and one does not exist. I have prob bought at least a hundred guns in the past thirty years and I don't ever recall in any of the literature you receive with a new gun that I should take it out and commit violent crimes with it.

[MrBenchley]

84. No, this has been about another RKBA lie

[demsrule4life]

85. HaHaHaHaHaHaHa

If you say so.

[MrBenchley]

86. Yup....a big fat RKBA LIE

Not a word in the actual news story about how gun control might have cost these kids their life...nor even any indication that the Carpenter family OWNED a gun in the first place....

But it DID have this....

"McFadden lost her children - Michelle Hogan, 5, Melanie Willis, 17, Stuart Willis, 14, and Stanley Willis, 15 - on March 26 when her ex-husband, John Hogan, 49, entered her home and killed the children. He then fatally shot himself. "

Turned out to be another big fat LIE cooked up by right wing loonies like racist Mary Rosh.

[demsrule4life]

87. Keep on spinning

[MrBenchley]

91. The RKBA crowd posted a phony news item from Mary Rosh

and another right wing piece of shit...and got busted again.

No spin at all there, except from the gun "enthusiasts" AS USUAL.

[demsrule4life]

92. Silly cartoons still doesnt point me towards

the link.

[MrBenchley]

93. Ask Bob Novak, dems

[alwynsw]

67. Gotta have a link

If it's on any anti-gun site it MUST be true.

If it's on any pro RKBA site it MUST be false.

[MrBenchley]

73. And the RKBA crowd deliberately didn't have a link AGAIN

because when the link turned up the story they were peddling was revealed to be 100% horseshit....AGAIN.

"If it's on any anti-gun site it MUST be true."
Hey, as we saw from the NRA's idiotic enemies list, everybody BUT the American Nazi party is anti-gun.

"If it's on any pro RKBA site it MUST be false."
Ask Mary Rosh why that is, sometime.

Just for fun, here are some NRA-certified "anti-gun" websites:

http://www.kcchiefs.com/

http://usmayors.org/uscm/home.asp

http://www.ywca.org/

http://www.lwv.org/

http://www.collegedems.com/

http://www.agc.org/environmental_info/EAF.asp

[CO Liberal]

36. Listen To The Man

"It would be unfortunate and potentially tragic to conclude from this incident that Wilmette families would be safer if they keep a handgun in their homes," Wilmette Police Chief George Carpenter said in a written statement. "The opposite is true. Wilmette families are in greater danger if they keep a handgun at home."

[DonP]

38. "Except in this case where he may have saved his life"

The cop conveniently left that idea out.

In this case this particular family would not have been safer because a repeat offender (at least one burglary and grand theft, the car, and a second home invasion) came in to see what else they could make off with.

With out an effective means to defend himself, we don't really know where this might have gone. But based on the bad guys track record I doubt he wanted to swap baseball cards.

The cop is saying what he has to say to keep his nice safe job in the suburban world that probably pays him 6 figures.

I'm sure he leaves his service weapon at the cop house when he drives home and never has a gun in his own home.

Heck, he might even offer to disarm all the Wilmette police in their homes because everyone will be safer that way.

This isn't just an exercise in philosophy. A real bad guy broke into a real innocent civilians home. The civilian successfully defended himself, home and family (?, haven't heard if anyone else was home yet).

Now the good guy has to be punished for doing what comes naturally to most people that don't have anurge to be a professional victim.

[iverglas]

44. gosh, let's speculate

"With out an effective means to defend himself, we don't really know where this might have gone. But based on the bad guys track record I doubt he wanted to swap baseball cards."

Perhaps not ... but perhaps you could treat us to some statistics about how many burglaries occur annually in the US, and how many of them result in the death of someone in the burgled property; or, from another angle, how many people commit burglaries in the US and how many of them subsequently commit homicide.

Then maybe we could have some actual reason why our pistol-packing pal here might actually believed that his life (or someone else's life) was in danger (which we actually don't know that he did believe at all). A number of people seem to want to assert that he "saved" someone's life, but I haven't yet seen any indication that there was anything that anyone's life needed saving from ... except him and his pistol.


"Now the good guy has to be punished for doing what comes naturally to most people that don't have anurge to be a professional victim."

Interesting assertion. One might guess (but only guess, of course, and be completely open to disproof) that you would define anyone to whom it does not come at all "naturally" to attempt to kill people who are not presenting an immediate and unavoidable threat to their own life or health as people with an urge to become "professional victims"; if that is the case, it would be impossible to refute your statement.

Of course, your definition of "professional victim" doesn't prevail, so I can confidently assure you that I neither (a) have an urge to become one nor (b) would find it natural to attempt to kill someone for no good reason. And I know hundreds, nay, thousands, of people just like me.

This little fella was at least as much of a sport of nature (an aberration, a weirdo) as the one he shot, by any standard (whether normative or descriptive) I can think of, myself.

.

[MrBenchley]

46. Didn't the RKBA crowd have some bigoted "expert"

on here railing about "Jews, blacks and women" being "professional victims" this summer?

[MrBenchley]

40. He's absolutely right

[CarinKaryn]

48. This proves the point

that those possessing weapons are just itching to shoot someone. Why couldn't he have left and called the police? He had time to get his replacement penis, so he must have had time to run out the door.
Thank G-D the burgler didn't escape with a VCR!

[RoeBear]

49. Yeah that should be the law...

...anytime someone enters your home, bail out as fast as you can.
Wetting your pants is optional.

[slackmaster]

52. How to deal with home invasions

http://www.handguncontrolinc.com/snivel.htm

[1a2b3c]

71. bbbbwwwwwaaaa

wetting the pants should be mandatory.

[slackmaster]

50. Good freaking grief, another Internet mind-reader

...those possessing weapons are just itching to shoot someone.

CarinKaryn, how many fingers am I holding up?

:freak:

[CarinKaryn]

51. One - the Trigger Finger

:P

[slackmaster]

53. Guess again

:evilgrin:

[DonP]

56. ROTFLMAO!!!! NTXT

[iverglas]

90. yeah, eh?

Kinda like in post # 27?

I guess *you* didn't wonder what my point in response to that one was ...

.

[demsrule4life]

54. When I was seven years old

my father shot a man that broke into our house. The bad guy was shot in the hallway that all the bedrooms were connected to. So with what you are saying my father should of jumped out of his bedroom window and left four kids age 7-2 in the house with the bad guy?

[DonP]

55. Itching to shoot someone?

Where in the hell did you get that?

So if you are in your own home, that has been broken into a day or two prior, and you find someone breaking into your home again, you are "itching to shoot someone"?

(And please try to be slightly more creative and less tedious than using the tired and offensive penis analogy.)

This is not about whether the guy valued his VCR or DVD more highly than a man's life.

"Why couldn't he have left and called the police?"

Proper response to a criminal:

"Please wait here and make no attempt to detain or attack me while I attempt to escape from my own home and call the police, while you do lord knows what to me or my family."

Nice bit of overly simplistic and dangerous philosophy. My sympathy to anyone who depends on your approach for their safety and security.

But this man had a real world situation not a philisophical situation to resolve. This was a repeat offender criminal that came back for more after stealing the guys car the day or two before.

He didn't have the advantage of sitting at Starbucks, like a Monday morning quarterback, to discuss how he "might" handle a break in.

[alwynsw]

65. Odd. I own several firearms and have no such itch.

Once again, we're proving that generalizations are not a good thing. I would take offense at your post, but I realize that you're speaking emotionally. There are no hard facts to support your statement.

It holds as much water as "All Muslims are terrorists." We all know that's a load of hogwash as well. Let's try this one: "All Mexicans are wetbacks." or: "All blacks are lazy."

I picked those three generalizations for good cause. All are emotional statements. All are patently false - as is your statement "This proves the point" that those possessing weapons are just itching to shoot someone. Your statement is a rash generalization that reeks of prejudice.

[fitz_777]

97. Well your point is.... a point.... i guess

that those possessing weapons are just itching to shoot someone.
Do you think people with cars are just itching to be in an acident too ?

He had time to get his replacement penis...
Sounds like some one has a problem with men more than guns.

[RoeBear]

59. I'm amazed...

...that I haven't seen a single gun control proponent condemn the town of Wilmette for banning an entire category of guns. Every gun control proponent who has ever posted here has said something to the effect of "I only want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals" and "I don't want to ban guns I just want to make sure they are only owned by good people" or "The only guns that I want to see banned are assault weapons".

So here you are guys, here's your chance to speak up.

[alwynsw]

66. Not gonna happen

"You-know-who" is usually off on the weekends.

[iverglas]

94. waiting .............

You ask the question, you oughta be prepared to address an answer.

I ain't seen you do it yet.

.

[1a2b3c]

69. Yep

In fact the opposite is true, he would be much safer if he didnt own a gun at all. :eyes:

[Moderator]

98. locking thread

getting unwieldy

is that the right word?