Police identify teenager slain in home-invasion shootout.

[Wcross]

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/mar/03/police-identify-teenager-slain-home-invasion-shoot/

Authorities this morning said a 16-year-old Knoxville boy was killed during a weekend home break-in that prompted a gun battle inside the residence.Mack and another person allegedly forced their way into the home through a back door, DeBusk said. Inside the home, Mack, who was armed with a handgun, was fired upon by a man who was visiting the woman who lives in the house, DeBusk.

After the gun battle between the two people armed with handguns, Mack died in the house of multiple bullet wounds, DeBusk said. No one else in the home was injured during the gunfight, he said.


Another young life lost due to gun violence.
:sarcasm:

[DrCory]

1. Not really...

Maybe he shouldn't have been breaking into other folk's homes. Or maybe you think he had only the best intentions in mind. After all, how can an armed intruder be a threat to anyone?

[michreject]

2. And good riddance

He got exactly what he deserved. Too bad the other one got away.

[Mike Daniels]

3. More accurately, another young life lost because he broke the law

and broke into the wrong house.

The victim was carrying a gun when he invaded the house so he's not some poor innocent.

[michreject]

4. This thread is flame bait.

:mad:

[BuelahWitch]

6. .

:thumbsup:

[DainBramaged]

7. Yup, I guess some folks are running out of anti-candidate comments

so they just need something else to attack us on.:eyes:

[Wcross]

11. Your handle really IS appropriate.

In "us" do you mean the half of D.U. people who don't own guns and don't believe in the right to keep & bear arms? Why aren't the other half of "us" here on D.U. who believe gun ownership is a right allowed to post anything about a shooting? Believe it or not scooter, not all of us believe in throwing away the bill of rights. So I am going to assume when you say "us" you are referring to misguided gun banners.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[Wcross]

8. No, just reporting a shooting like everyone else does.

Because it was justifiable does not make it flame bait. Because it upsets the anti-gun people does not make it flame bait. Are we only supposed to post shootings where only innocent people are killed, is that the policy here on D.U.?

[michreject]

13. This needs a sarcasm tag

Another young life lost due to gun violence.

I'm personally getting tired of all the gun grabbing posts. There is some real idiotic gun grabbers on here. Some of their posts have the logic of a three year old.

[Wcross]

21. Done. n/t

[krispos42]

93. This kid's death...

...will enter into the "what about the children?!?!?" cries of the anti-gun people, though. "Look, look, x number of kids were killed last year with guns!", yet they will include this person's death in the number and leave it to the reader to presume "kids" equals "innocents", which is NOT the case.

Check out the blue line... ages 14-17, homicide offending

[Historic NY]

5. Hey he took his chance, where did he get a gun........

its a good thing the other person was able to defend himself.

[mike_c]

9. if NONE of them had easy access to guns someone would have a bloody nose...

...and a few bruises, maybe even a broken bone today. But the chances are much better that everyone would be alive. Violence breeds more violence, and gun violence is the worst. People end up DEAD instead of hurt or embarrassed or whatever.

[michreject]

15. Not really

I have several swords. He would have been damn near sliced in two. A deep gash at the base of the neck. Results would have been the same.

[depakid]

18. "I have several swords?"

You do realize how ridiculous that sounds?

[BulletproofLandshark]

20. I don't know, sounds pretty cool to me.

[Tesha]

81. Violent people commonly do sound ridiculous to well-balanced people. (NT)

[BoneDaddy]

85. So do

self appointed, spiritual eltists who think they are superior to others.

[Edweird]

121. Thank. You.

:toast:

[Lex Talionis]

122. Score!!!!!

[TommyO]

137. Owning swords make you a violent person?

[BoneDaddy]

84. Why?

I have several swords, a saber, a staff. Tai chi martial artist for over twenty years. I love these "I am so superior because I do not believe in guns" posts.

[mike_c]

23. so you would happily kill someone simply for being on your property...

...without an invitation? That's crazy. It's one thing to feel you need a gun to protect yourself against armed criminals, but quite another to advocate killing unarmed criminals simply because they threaten your stuff. Property can be replaced.

[mondo joe]

29. A work acquaintance last year lost her husband to two burglars who shot him in the

middle of their break in.

Think he's easily replaced?

Think he should have wait to find out of they were armed?

[mike_c]

97. read the thread....

The scenario the DUer responded to specifically said "no one has a gun," to which he/she replied "I'd kill them with my sword."

[mondo joe]

101. When someone breaks into your houser you really don't know if they're armed or

not, until such time as arms are revealed.

I think it's reasonable to assume when someone breaks into your home your life is at risk.

[MaryCeleste]

45. Depends on intent

The little girl and her mother selling GS cookies are not going be be breaking down the door and forcing their way in. There are ways to discern intent. Home invasion robberies get handled differently salespeople.

I too have my sword handing on the wall in a glass case, but its only a showpiece. I do have some other things near by though.

[michreject]

46. In my house, uninvited

YES

[spoony]

87. Nice bullshit, there.

Now home invasion = "being on your property without an invitation"

Do you have any catchy euphemisms for rape as well? Carnal knowledge without foreknowledge?

[mike_c]

98. so "home invasion" is automatically worth murdering some over?

I don't care which term you prefer. In the scenario posited above, neither the homeowner nor the "home invader" has a gun. Without guns involved, there is much less likelihood that EITHER party would end up dead. Guns are the part of the equation that kills rather than simply injures or embarrasses.

[mondo joe]

102. Self defense isn't murder. Once someone breaks into your home they have established

themselves as a threat to your safety and your life.

[mike_c]

112. excessive force IS murder and the response that began this subthread...

...specifically posits a scenario in which NEITHER party has access to guns.

You're assuming that anyone who breaks into your house, even unarmed, wants to kill you. I think that's ridiculous. I speak from some experience-- in my misspent youth I broke into houses on occasion, but I ran like hell if I thought there was any likelihood of discovery. I certainly NEVER had any intent to harm anyone. I believe that is most often the case, and that it's peoples' over-reactions, and access to weapons, that usually escalates the matter from a well deserved ass-kicking (and arrest, followed by further ass-kicking, usually) to people being killed. Remove the guns from the equation and far fewer deaths would occur.

[mondo joe]

113. I don't know how in any scenario the victim is to know the intruder

doesn't have a gun.

And if an intruder doesn't have a gun, said intruder may yet intend to rape or significantly harm the victims.

I think once someone has violated your home, they have assumed the risk that anything may happen to them.

[mike_c]

114. make gun ownership illegal and confiscate all privately owned firearms....

Make guns a rare commodity and then we can all feel much safer. Once again, my main point was that in armed societies people KILL one another in disputes that would ordinarily be much less dangerous if guns simply were not available. No guns and the dumb teenager who broke into someone's house gets his ass kicked, or maybe the homeowner gets HIS ass kicked. A broken nose and injured dignity is a whole lot easier to overcome than being dead.

I mean, we've tried the part of the experiment where guns are easily available to just about everyone. Clearly that isn't working-- and I define "working" as a significant decline in gun violence, injury, and death. People shoot one another over STUPID disputes that would otherwise result in some chest pounding and maybe a little head pounding, but not nearly as often in serious injury and death.

[mondo joe]

117. Because no criminal would have guns then?

And if they did no one would be killed or raped by people breaking into their home?

Dream on.

[mike_c]

118. yes, and I'll repeat it for emphasis....

Shut down the gun trade in America and outlaw gun ownership, period. Getting from where we are today to a gun free society-- or even just a relatively gun free society-- will not happen overnight. That's the legacy of the failed gun policies that got us to where we are today.

But if we made guns a finite resource and eliminated them whenever they were found then yes, fewer and fewer criminals would have guns every day, until very few indeed have them and most of those will likely be too smart to use them to knock over liquer stores or to kill people for road rage.

The world you're unable to let go of is steeped in gun violence. Maintaining our rights to own guns is a failed policy that created a culture of excessive violence and maintains its growth. The might be other ways to reverse that trend, but keeping guns widely and easily available isn't one of them. That policy has failed. It lives on only because gun owners refuse to put the best interests of our whole society before their personal desire to carry, and ultimately use, deadly weapons.

[Lex Talionis]

123. Wow. I want to live in your world. Google (crime in the UK) By your theory

It should be Paradise on earth. What would you do to those who will not give up their guns?

[mike_c]

126. I never said giving up guns will stop crime....

I said it will reduce the amount of gun violence and the number of people killed by excessive force during the commission of crimes or in defense against crimes. Being the victim of a crime should not automatically confer the right to kill someone. Most crimes are not deadly force, and that would be increasingly more true if guns were damned difficult to come by. And yes, people would still stab, beat, rape, and bludgeon one another, sometimes to death. Some people would even become victims of deadly crimes because they lacked guns to defend themselves. We won't solve the excessive gun violence problem without taking some risks, but dammit, guns CAUSE more problems than they solve.

How would you propose reducing gun violence to an acceptable level-- and what is that?-- if not by making gun ownership nearly impossible?

[Pavulon]

127. Almost ALL

gun violence is either suicide or gang combatants. Stabbings kill many people.

However addressing cultural issues in the African American community and Hispanic Community, Drug Law, and mental illness is a great start.

"Gun Control" is much easier to address than why 1 in 9 African Americans between 18 - 32 are behind bars.

My wife reserves the right to kill a person attempting to rape her. A firearm is the most efficient way to do this.

I reserve to kill, without hesitation, a person entering my home armed or identified as a threat.

Geneva is a safe city. They address socio economic issues, and do not have gangs.

Why is Geneva safe?

[mike_c]

129. well, if you don't believe we even have a problem with gun violence...

...in this country then it makes perfect sense that you'd oppose attempts to solve that "problem." Perhaps we're simply seeing this issue from very different perspectives. I'm not going to argue with you about the bigger issue-- I mean, I'd love to discuss it but let's save it for a more appropriate thread-- but rather I'll admit without challenge that if there isn't any gun problem then we don't need to solve it.

I disagree, obviously, but respectfully.

[Pavulon]

130. We can address the smoke

or the fire. Gun control exists because of other problems. There are problems, that lead to gun violence. My opinion is that we need to address those.

Hopefully we can make steps toward that with health care and socio economic programs.

[Lex Talionis]

133. Glad you said that. I didn't want to be called a racist if I pointed

something like that out. A large amount of violent is committed in urban areas.

[Pavulon]

135. That is the point..

people are afraid to talk about race issues. We like to ignore them. This issue ruins lives. It is, sadly, most damaging to other people within respective minority groups. If you are murdered it is generally by a person of your race. I think that the government and some people's refusal to address this issue head on is scary.

We need to address this as a nation. Mental illness, poverty, and lack of opportunity is destructive.

[Lex Talionis]

138. Well, the problem is. Its the real world. The real world is scary.

And to point out the collapse of the family unit, due to "The Great Enlightenment", is taboo. Calls into questions ones beliefs You'll get called all kinds of ugly things for that. So people tend to blame inanimate objects and dead white men for todays problems. Yes, we as a nation do need to address all those problems. But, alas, I'm pretty cynical about all that happening. Good to meet someone with common sense here.

[BoneDaddy]

144. Nice post

thanks

[Lex Talionis]

131. How about, we stop making excuses for individuals,

who chose a life of crime. Instead of punishing law abider's, we punish law breakers. Enforce all +20,000 laws already on the books. That would be a start. I and my extended family on both sides have been around guns our whole lives. in that time no one in my family has killed wantonly, nor committed suicide with a gun. One Uncle killed himself by "the running car in the garage" way.

Lets say tomorrow your in charge of the USA. You ban all guns. I and many others say no way, come get them. What will you do? Send your troopers to kill us? People like me are not the enemy. People like me don't go quietly into the night.
I don't know where you live, but not far from me, the strong are preying on the weak. I'm guessing you have never been robbed, raped, or beaten, either. You may be willing to sacrifice a few to get guns off the street, but remember this. In the real world "wolves" exist and fear guns. I know some. Check the crime stats in the UK. It should be Paradise over there.

[mike_c]

158. the U.S. already imprisons more people than any other nation....

Law enforcement is not a viable solution. We already punish more "criminals" than any other nation, without tangible result.

[Lex Talionis]

159. That is true, but its the "War on Drugs" that puts most in jail.

My brother-in-law served 6 years for pot in Oklahoma. Guy in same cell block for rape, got out 1 year before he did. Is that justice? It says something about our judicial system, when non-violent offenders serve longer terms than violent ones. We do not enforce the existing gun laws that we have now. Not knocking any LEO's here, but most would rather deal with a kid smoking pot than a real hardcore criminal. My experience, anyway.

Would like to commend you on the way you make your arguments, mike_c. Most antis get foaming at the mouth by now and resort to name calling. You have some valid points, just not sure how you think we can get rid of all guns without going house to house. Its like drugs, people will get what they want legal or not. We made zipguns in 8th grade shop class. I know some master machinist who can make anything, guns included.

[slackmaster]

163. The problem, Mike, is that we are imprisoning the wrong people

[Wcross]

164. Well put Lex.

In the eyes of a "gun control advocate" WE ARE the problem. I know we are "the big tent" party but who let them in?

[Pavulon]

124. You know how they say "never say never"

that, thank god, will never happen. Any attempt to implement pointless gun control is POLITICAL SUICIDE.

PS ever wonder why the murder rate in Geneva, where machine guns are common, is less than that of london? Or Durham NC?

Fixing that is much harder than proposing a gun ban that will never EVER happen.

[mondo joe]

134. Actually the world I'm unwilling to let go is one in which people have the right

to defend themselves, by whatever means available to them.

[benEzra]

161. Sure, just like eight decades of drug prohibition have made pot and heroin vanish from society.

Oh, wait, both are easier to get than (legal) prescription foot powder.

If heroin prohibition didn't work, even after 80 years of harsh enforcement that pushes the boundaries of what is acceptable in a free society, what makes you think that passing a law outlawing lawful gun ownership would make guns disappear from society? Properly cared for, a gun can last a thousand years...and there are already 250-300 million in private hands.

No, we'll keep them, thanks.

[Threedifferentones]

120. I love the logic of the "anti-gun nuts."

Presumably, being on DU you recognize that the Federal government is closer to fascism now than it has been in a long time, hell maybe ever for all I know. So, you want everyone to give their guns up to the same govt. which has already sacrificed millions of Iraqis and thousands of our brave soldiers, not to mention the innumerable lies they have told, for the profit of relatively few rich people. Moreover it seems anyone who recognizes this UNsafe half of the gun-control coin is deemed a lunatic, a violent cretin with a fetish for killing by a small but vocal minority of nuts here.

Unarmed societies do not exist. One way or another modern nations are built on guns, and if the government is the only agency in control of them, that is a recipe for disaster in the long run.

Honestly I have always loved lurking on this forum and even the flamewars have made good reading for me but this has gotten tiresome. The 2nd Amendment reads clearly to me that since the state must have a militia the people must maintain an ability to defend themselves, lest said militia become a threat to their liberty. This interpretation especially makes sense considering the founders' circumstances, having just fought a war against their old militia, one of the best on Earth, with their private arms and all...

[mike_c]

125. then what would you propose...?

I believe that the gun policies we follow today are a massively failed experiment in egalitarian democracy-- a great idea in 1776 but an increasingly unworkable one today. I want to see some solutions emerge. VERY strict limits on gun ownership seems like a viable solution to the gun violence problem we face today, but I'm the first to admit that it's not necessarily the only solution, or the best solution.

So unless you're happy with the status quo in which people are shot and killed every day for ridiculous reasons, unless you LIKE a culture steeped in gun violence, you must have some solutions that you favor more than the one I'm advocating. Instead of attacking me personally as an "anti-gun nut" why not offer your perspectives on how to resolve what appears to me to be failed and counterproductive gun policies that PERPETUATE excessive violence in American life. I'd be happy to hear what you have to say!

[Threedifferentones]

128. Yes, it is something I have accepted.

When mass shootings seemed to become a growing trend in the 90s I thought to myself, well, this is the price we are going to have to pay. The way I see it is this. If we do not amend the Constitution and further restrict gun ownership, many of us will cry in the coming years. If we do, it seems quite probable that all of us will be crying for our guns back eventually, only we won't get them, but rather a dictatorship. Eventually.

So there seems no good way out. The obvious way to get rid of mass shooting without eliminating guns is to eliminate people's drive to shoot like that. Maybe if we lived in a more egalitarian society that helped those who need it, and not such an exploitative society that seems based around dominance at most every level, we would not have so many lonely whackos walking around.

But consider even if we lived in a society that closely resembles the vague ideal we all share here as progressives, where need has been mostly eliminated, social hierarchy has become less important and less exploitative, and opportunity abounds for all our citizens. We would still need guns, because a few armed people with bad intentions can dominate masses of well meaning people.

And remember ultimately unless these shootings become exponentially more common they represent a minor threat, except for the fear they create in our minds and the hysteria that follows each of them in our "MSM." You are just so much more likely to die in any number of horrible ways than to be shot by a madman. "Tell that to their victims," I know, it is awful. But getting rid of private gun ownership could unleash a far greater danger.

[Irreverend IX]

139. End the drug war.

Most violent crime is tied to the illegal drug trade in one way or another. Personally, I don't think there can be enough "egalitarian democracy." Freedom will necessarily lead to some amount of death and chaos; if you want total safety, the best place for you is solitary confinement in a maximum security prison. Trying to eliminate violence is just as foolish as trying to eliminate kindness or hope, all of which are integral parts of the human condition.

[WillowTree]

140. Right. The guy who broke into the place where I was living oln 2-11-69...

....didn't have a gun. His only weapons were his fists and his dick. He used both with every bit as much violence as any firearm could produce.

The naïveté of those who believe that just (trying to) eliminate guns will stop those bent on violence is stunning. Criminals will still be criminals, and as such, laws against guns won't give them a moment's pause, either in their violent ways or their propensity for having guns.

[spoony]

147. I swear you're getting worse by the post

You seem to have this bizarre, totally errant notion that the victim and invader are on even terms if guns are removed from the picture. As if some 70 year old is going to be able to physically resist a younger, stronger, probably chemically boosted invader. You also seem to think it's perfectly acceptable for the victim to get his "ass kicked" as if the parties involved each voluntarily entered into a fight. The invader also has the advantage of planning and preparing their assault, whereas a victim is presumably not anticipating waking to find a man with a knife in their bedroom (oh, sorry, you probably think that without guns criminals wouldn't arm themselves, right? Because the only possible scenario then is some ridiculous kung-fu nonsense like you posit, eh?).

And your solution is even more contemptibly insipid. Do you honestly not get the fact that only LAW ABIDING CITIZENS would turn in their guns? That the criminals would still have them? Still be able to use them at will? In your world, the homeowner in the OP is disarmed, and the invader likely still has their gun. Great solution, just brill.

[michreject]

150. This coming from a self confessed thief

112. ............in my misspent youth I broke into houses on occasion,







114. make gun ownership illegal and confiscate all privately owned firearms....


Your agenda is real clear now.

[slackmaster]

162. Gun control extremists advocate authoritarian measures

When you find yourself saying things like "Make <X> illegal" you really should take a step back and think about the implications of doing that.

[spoony]

146. So you have a professional, or nostalgic, interest in diarming victims

How about this: if assholes like yourself who had/have a tendency to break into houses were "removed from the equation" then there really would be fewer deaths.

[Mugu]

110. I'm generally against the death penalty.

Unless it is dealt to a home invader during the commission of the crime. Then I have no problem with it.

Regards, Mugu

[Wcross]

132. If pigs had wings we would be in deep shit.

Seriously Mike, how would we reach this utopia of a gun free society? Door to door searches? Raids on known gun owners? Prison time for gun owners? Outlawing any form of gun ownership throughout our society? No guns in civilian hands what so ever? You want to still allow hunting? What makes you think a hunting rifle or shotgun couldn't be used in a crime.
Criminals do not obey the law Mike. How will you disarm them after you have disarmed all the honest citizens?

[WillowTree]

136. "so 'home invasion' is automatically worth murdering some over?"

Damned right. In a New York minute and without giving it a second thought and with whatever weapon I might be able to put my hands on.

It's called defending my home and my life. Don't hold your breath waiting for me to be even one percent apologetic about it.

[Mojorabbit]

142. But that is fantasy land

even in England where guns are banned, gun crimes are on the rise as well as knifings. In a perfect world you would be right but it will never happen. Not while we have a military, not while we have armed police. Guns will always be with us one way or another.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

154. Home Invasion?

Last summer, about three miles from where this incident took place, 3 youths all 18 and younger committed a home invasion. They found a man and his wife at home. Beat the man, tied him up and then forced him to watch while they all raped his wife. I think I'll err on the side of caution and presume they aren't breaking down my door to deliver flowers. A close friend goes to church with the couple that was attacked, they are still quite scared because until last week all 3 rapists were still on the street because they were juveniles.

David

[Mike Daniels]

96. except in this case the victim was armed as well

When you carry a gun during the commission of a break-in it's for one reason and one reason alone - To subdue or intimidate the residents of said home in case there's a confrontation.

[mike_c]

99. see #97 above....

eom

[ileus]

156. walking in my yard no, breaking into my house at 3 YES.

Two against one, I'll shoot first and ask their intentions later.

[BoneDaddy]

83. That is incredibly naive

As much as you may try and pretend, there really are some bad people in the world, with absolutely NO regard for you or your loved ones humanity. You become nothing more than dirt on their shoe to be walked upon. It wouldn't result in a bloody nose. This person could have brought a bat, a knife, or any other implement that could be used to kill someone, even if it was only their hands.

Thankfully this other person had a gun or we could be possibly looking at two homicides as a result of this home invasion.

[krispos42]

92. Yeah, look how well that works in Britian

1989: Britian bans and confiscates what American anti-gun people would call either "assault weapons" or "deadly assault weapons", depend on just how pejorative they want to be.

1998: Britian bans and confiscates all handguns.

On the plus side, gun homicides are at record lows, at only about 8% of all homicides. Mmmmm... progress...

[Maine-ah]

100. is this a graph of all homicides in Britian or just ones with guns?

[krispos42]

103. Total homicides in both countries

The US information is from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the UK information is from the Home Office.


The "spike" in UK homicides in 2002 or so was the result of adding well over a hundred homicides that had been committed by a serial-murdering doctor over several decades into the year he was caught.

[Maine-ah]

106. before they even banned guns their hommicide rate was low

so, they're doing something over there that we in the US are not. Is their mental health care and prison system better?

[krispos42]

107. They've had universal single-payer since after WW2

I think also that after WW2, the country and the citizens were just so sick and tired of seeing death and destruction.

Also, most violent crimes are committed by fairly young people. Many of them were killed in the war, and the rest I think had veteran's benefits to help them rebuild.

Our homicide rate was also very low after WW2.


My point, though, was that despite the cries of "we need to ban guns to stop this violence and senseless slaughter", it's not showing up in the statistics. Their homicide rate has been creeping steadily upward despite a drastic change in the numbers and types of civilian-owned guns, while ours plummeted by 50% despite virtually zero change in the numbers and types of civilian-owne guns.

[Ghost in the Machine]

111. Yeah, but knife violence has drastically increased to the point that they have

criminalized carrying a knife and are having amnesty programs for people to turn their knives in without fear of prosecution for having it.

Knife attacks surge 73% as amnesty fails
By Richard Ford, Home Correspondent

THE number of crimes involving knives on the streets of England and Wales has risen dramatically in the past year, with huge increases in their use during robberies, mugging and violent attacks on strangers.
Attacks in which a knife was used during a mugging rose by 73 per cent while there was a 55 per cent increase in random attacks with knives on strangers.

A report accompanying the figures from the British Crime Survey accuses John Reid, the Home Secretary, of presiding over an incoherent strategy to tackle the problem and of resorting to knee-jerk legislative responses.

“Government and the police lack a coherent, evidence-based, reasoned strategy for dealing with knife carrying and knife-related offences,” the report from the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King’s College London said.

“There is insufficient evidence that a knife amnesty or increasing sentence length for carrying knives will decrease the level of knife use and carrying.”

The surge in knife crime on the streets comes after a decade of decline. Ministers will hope that the increases disclosed in the report are a blip rather than a reversal of what had been a downward trend since 1995.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article603869.ece

edited for spelling: D'OH!

[sendero]

151. Too bad...

... that there is absolutely NO way to make it so that he had no access to a gun. NONE WHATSOEVER.

[islandmkl]

10. seems like someone was going to get shot here...

but the guy IN the house wasn't looking to shoot just any passerby...

[madokie]

12. yessir and the gun itself is still an inanimate object

That gun itself didn't do shit, on the other hand the owner of it used it as a tool to protect himself and the other occupants. I say good on the owner of the gun that killed the intruder whether it be a 16 year old kid or a 60 year old man. He done the right thing, simple. What scares me more than anything is the people who can't discern the difference between the person and the gun. A gun is a tool nothing more nothing less and the first one to start talking to me then maybe I will start thinking that we don't need them but not until. I personally don't own guns other than pellet but the more I hear the cries to take them away the more I'm rethinking that decision I made years ago.

[Ordr]

24. "He done the right thing, simple."

Damn good post, sir.

[madokie]

27. I thought so too

anything else

[mainegreen]

14. You have GOT to be kidding.

Another young life lost due to gun violence?

:wtf:

He broke into a home to burgle it and god knows what else and we're supposed to somehow blame the resident's gun for this? Is that actually what you are saying?

[Wcross]

19. Sorry, I fixed it.

I guess I should have added the sarcasm tag earlier.

[mainegreen]

28. Oh, now I agree with you!

:rofl:

Sometimes the internet really doesn't convey irony or sarcasm well.

[MaryCeleste]

51. He did not lose it due to gun violence

He lost it because he chose to commit a home invasion robbery, placing his desired material gain above the lives of the occupants. That is what really happened here.

One problem is that his death will still be counted as a gun death even though it was totally justified.

[krispos42]

94. No, he lost it due to gun violence

A gun was discharged, and the bullet it fired violently shattered his body, causing loss of life.

What is missing is that the "gun violence" in this case was both neccessary and justified.

Those that denounce violence to not differentiate between fighting violence and fighting aggression. The 16-year-old was violently aggressive, the man was violently defensive. The teen had no moral or legal right to be violently aggressive, and the man had every right to be violently defensive.

Fortunately, the man was in a position to be that way, which anti-gun people would not like him to be in because he might go nuts and shoot up a school or something.

This kind of situation happens far more often than any mass shooting, yet results in a firearm discharge at all, much less injury or death, very very rarely.

[iamthebandfanman]

61. since they all had guns

you should probably blame them all for loss of life.

btw, the young kid lived there. he died too. not just the intruder.


EDIT :thanks for correction about the kid, the way it sounded to me they werent naming the kid. i realise mack is him now ;)

[FalconsRule]

69. No...the kid was

the intruder. He did not live there.

[mondo joe]

71. Why should they all be blamed for one person breaking in?

Why should people in their own home, doing nothing wrong, be blamed?

[Wcross]

76. The kid WAS THE INTRUDER.

Nobody that lived in the home was harmed. Only one person died. Where did you get your information?

[BoneDaddy]

86. The insanity on these boards

is incredibly staggering at times. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. The same people who hide behind victimhood are going to blame a gun owner for shooting a young man who entered his home with a gun. I don't have time to ask if the burgler intends to kill me, I shoot first in that situation.

[BulletproofLandshark]

16. Well, maybe he shouldn't have been conducting an armed break-in then.

I have NO sympathy for this punk whatsoever.

[depakid]

22. And in other news from Tennesse: Six killed, including children, in Memphis shooting

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/03/memphis.killings/index.html

Not that it'll placate those obsessed with firearms. Nothing will- no matter how many tragedies occur.

[Ordr]

25. "Not that it'll placate those obsessed with firearms."

Nor will it stop grabbers from immediately politicizing a tragedy to fit their agenda.

[El Pinko]

26. Nice sarcasm. I guess we should be celebrating the loss of a 16-year-old's life?

If someone broke in, I'd escape and call the police from elsewhere, not KILL the burglar.

My material CRAP is not THAT important to me.

The KID may be a delinquent, but some people outgrow that and become productive members of society, but he will never have that chance now.

Well, I guess it's all worth it as long as the jewelry and entertainment center are safe and sound.

:sarcasm: :sarcasm::sarcasm: :sarcasm::sarcasm:

[Ordr]

30. "The KID may be a delinquent, but some people outgrow "

The kid was a home invader with a weapon.

[Wcross]

34. They don't usually live long enough to outgrow it.

My home is my castle. If you bust in without an invitation & armed I can only assume you intend to kill me. I have no choice but to terminate the threat to my life.

[Wcross]

31. No, we are appreciating the SURVIVAL of the occupants.

How can you assume that escape would even be an option? Are you familiar with the floor plan of this particular house? You also ASSume that the kid was after material possessions. Had it ever occured to you that he might have had other motives such as rape or murder? Seems to me the fact that he was armed and broke in KNOWING people were at home he may have not been after the entertainment center.

Good for you if you would rather die than harm a criminal, I have absolutely no problem with your choice. When people start deciding what MY options should be I start to have a problem.

[El Pinko]

35. No, I'd rather escape than kill someone.

If I couldn't escape and was forced to, I might use my baseball bat or kitchen knife if I could, but this story doesn'nt make me want a gun, which is much more likely to kill a member of my family than a criminal...

[Ordr]

36. "No, I'd rather escape than kill someone."

If you and your children (if you don't have children, pretend you did) were in your house and an armed robber broke in, you wouldn't want to have equal or greater firepower to overcome what can very likely be a threat to the lives of your family? A baseball bat or knife doesn't really work too well against a firearm. Remember the sword guy versus Indiana Jones? ;)

[El Pinko]

40. I do have kids, and I would tell them to hide or escape if there was ever a burglar.

The last thing I want in my house is a gunfight. The baseball bat and knife would be last resorts. And they have been used effectively against gun-wielding thugs on occasion...

[Ordr]

42. "The last thing I want in my house is a gunfight."

I couldn't agree more. That is why you immediately remove the threat that has injected itself into your lives. One carefully aimed shot from you solves the problem since you know your house better than he does.

[El Pinko]

43. No, that is what YOU do (assuming you would have the presence of mind in that situation)

I will run my house as *I* see fit, thank you.

[Ordr]

50. I will run my house as *I* see fit, thank you.

Absolutely, and I will never, ever say that you don't have the right to do so. :)

[FalconsRule]

44. You get a lot

of armed intruders at your place?

[El Pinko]

48. Of course not. All the more reason not to have a gun laying around.

nt

[FalconsRule]

49. Then why this comment?

"The baseball bat and knife would be last resorts. And they have been used effectively against gun-wielding thugs on occasion..."

[El Pinko]

52. They have been used by others, not me.

I hope I never have to use them in that way, but I do keep in mind where both of them are...

[FalconsRule]

54. Roger...got it

I thought you meant you had used them in the past. Thanks for the clarification.

[sergeiAK]

57. Some bad news for you.

I've seen the result of a gun vs. knife fight. Let's just say the old axiom "don't bring a knife to a gunfight" proved true. A baseball bat would likely prove less effective. Sure, you might get lucky, but it's not odds I'd stake my life on.

[El Pinko]

60. Again, that would be the last resort.

If I heard someone coming in the back, I'd leave out the front and call the cops if at all possible.

In a gunfight with an intruder, there is NO guarantee that the homeowner would come out alive.

Thank you for your kind advice, anyway...

[Wcross]

47. So, you have no problem killing as long as you don't do it with a gun?

I find that to be an interesting statement. Oh, that propaganda about a gun being more likely to be used against you? When you factor in the suicide by gun (well over half of the gun deaths every year) I suppose it is true. If you fear a suicide seek professional help & take the door off the garage!

[michreject]

56. Nice UNPROVEN talking point

doesn'nt make me want a gun, which is much more likely to kill a member of my family than a criminal...

[TheMightyFavog]

32. Is your own life important to you?

Look at the article. The kid was conducting a break-in and he was armed. He had a gun on him. It was a potential kill or be killed situation.

This was a justifiable use of lethal force.

[mondo joe]

33. I'm sorry the young man decided to risk his life by making himself a threat to the family.

A work acquaintance of mine lost her husband last year when he was murdered during a burglary in their house.

Would I have rather he shot the burglars than died himself because they were robbing his property? You bet.

[Mike Daniels]

37. Perhaps he shouldn't have invaded the house to begin with

Breaking into a house has certain risks. He took them and he lost.

The fact that he had a gun would indicate that he was intent on intimidating someone in the house if needed.

One more parsite removed from society. Big deal.

[FalconsRule]

41. That's why the kid was there with a GUN

just to "steal stuff," yes sir. He wan't going to USE the gun or anything...

[michreject]

53. You expect me to run away

while in my home?

I won't even offer up a warning.

[Mugu]

59. Hear, Hear. n/t

[El Pinko]

63. Did I tell you what to do?

No, I didn't.

[michreject]

68. It was rhetorical

But you knew that.

[El Pinko]

74. More like overly defensive.

I've done nothing but say what *I* would do and bring up the fact that a KID was killed, possibly unnecessarily and that this may not have been the best of all possible outcomes of this situation.

Because none of us were there, we can't assume that it was or wasn't, but all of you have already assumed that the kid came in guns blazing and that the homeowner was defending his life, even though that isn't clear from the story.

And for saying what *I* would do, I get a whole volley of hostile responses.

Why does the fact that some of us DON'T WANT GUNS AROUND bother some people so much?

Jeez.

[Mugu]

89. When an armed person enters an occupied dwelling,

the occupants must assume the worst. Waiting for the invader to prove non-hostile intent may prove to be fatal.

If you choose to not arm yourself, that's your choice and more power to you. I only ask that others not attempt to make that choice for me.

Regards, Mugu

[FalconsRule]

91. Doesn't bother me

If you don't want a gun, don't own one; however don't interfere with my rights as you exercise your own.

[Wcross]

104. We don't have problems with you not wanting a gun.

We do have a BIG problem with those that would impose their beliefs upon others through ineffective gun control laws. Nobody that I am aware of is advocating forcing you to own a gun. There are those however that are advocating that others be denied their right to keep & bear arms.

[El Pinko]

143. People are entitled to fight for stronger gun control laws.

Doing so is not an imposition on you. It's our right. The 2nd amendment is awfully vague about whether it merely protects the right of the community to keep a militia armed with muskets or if it means that all citizens are entitled to keep and bear bazookas and flamethrowers.

America has some of the most lax gun laws on the planet, and also by far the highest rates of gun violence. A lot of people think that restricting private gun ownership to non-repeating rifles, etc. would be a good idea - I agree.

You can disagree, but don't tell ME not to exercise MY right to demand that my government pass laws that will (IMO) make the country safer in the long run.

EVERY LAW imposes somebody's beliefs on everyone, whether it's income taxes (which anti-tax nutjobs consider to be illegal confiscation) or parking tickets.


Your right to own any and every type of weapon known to man is not sacred or unlimited under any reasonable view of the Constitution.


I personally would never want citizens' rights to keep and bear firearms to be denied, but limiting the firepower and types of firearms to be allowed is perfectly reasonable. If the government can ban certain types of MUFFLERS on CARS, it can sure as hell ban people from carrying automatic and high-caliber handguns, assuming there is the consensus to do so.

[Mugu]

145. I would be interested in knowing

where exactly in the Constitution that the right of people to possess car mufflers is mentioned.

What exactly is a "high-caliber" handgun?

Regards, Mugu

[Wcross]

148. What is a "high caliber handgun" & why are they dangerous?

Sales of automatic weapons are highly restrictive & one must obtain a tax stamp on each one they own as well as go through an extensive FBI background check. Also any automatic weapon made after may 1986 is illegal to own for civilians. How many of these guns have been used in a crime? None. This NFA law would also apply to your mythical flamethrower or bazooka.

That's another issue I have with ant-gun people, they know very little about guns. They don't know what they are supporting. You are of course entitled to fight for any silly ass law you want but don't be surprised that people who know guns laws call you an idiot. (no offense intended but that's what I think when I see people advocating ridiculous laws).

How about this law? Have a gun on your person when you commit a crime 20 years in prison is added to your sentence- no plea bargaining. Use a gun during the commission of a felony and you get life. Kill someone with a gun during a felony life w/o parole?

[beevul]

149. Vague my ass.

The only thing vague is the understanding you demonstrate of this issue, firearms and arms in general, and the bill of rights - in the post I am replying to.

"People are entitled to fight for stronger gun control laws. Doing so is not an imposition on you. It's our right. The 2nd amendment is awfully vague about whether it merely protects the right of the community to keep a militia armed with muskets or if it means that all citizens are entitled to keep and bear bazookas and flamethrowers."

Heres some facts for you. The second amendment, is the second in a list of restrictions on governmental power. Says so right here in the preamble of the bill of rights:

"People are entitled to fight for stronger gun control laws. Doing so is not an imposition on you. It's our right. The 2nd amendment is awfully vague about whether it merely protects the right of the community to keep a militia armed with muskets or if it means that all citizens are entitled to keep and bear bazookas and flamethrowers."

www.billofrights.org


The operative restriction in the second amendment is "shall not be infringed". Now, neither YOU nor anyone else has any basis for saying that the "shall not be infringed" applies any less to "the right of the people" than it does to "a well regulated militia".

Furthermore, flamethrowers are classified as agricultural equipment, not firearms. Bazookas are strictly regulated under the NFA of 1934.

America has some of the most lax gun laws on the planet, and also by far the highest rates of gun violence. A lot of people think that restricting private gun ownership to non-repeating rifles, etc. would be a good idea - I agree.

Highest rates of gun violence ? Measured how? Strictly by dead bodies? Or does that take into account that there are some 270 million forearms in some 80+ million private hands? And yet we have 13 thousandish firearm homicides.

Alot of people once thought the world was flat, that toads gave people warts, and that witches should be burned at the stake...and so far I am not seeing anything that would differentiate your lack of critical analytical thinking from thiers. Same type of ignorance. Same type of unfounded poorly thought out conclusion. Same kind of arrogance. All wrapped efficiently together on this issue.

You can disagree, but don't tell ME not to exercise MY right to demand that my government pass laws that will (IMO) make the country safer in the long run. EVERY LAW imposes somebody's beliefs on everyone, whether it's income taxes (which anti-tax nutjobs consider to be illegal confiscation) or parking tickets.

Demand all you like. There is however a process for this. Its called asking for less restriction on governmental power. Repeal or change the second amendment. Your free to demand all you like, but the fact of the matter, is that government MUST work within the relatively narrow limits of power granted to it by we the people.

Your right to own any and every type of weapon known to man is not sacred or unlimited under any reasonable view of the Constitution.

Who decides what is reasonable? And furthermore who said that "any and every type of weapon known to man" were protected via the second amendment?

I personally would never want citizens' rights to keep and bear firearms to be denied, but limiting the firepower and types of firearms to be allowed is perfectly reasonable. If the government can ban certain types of MUFFLERS on CARS, it can sure as hell ban people from carrying automatic and high-caliber handguns, assuming there is the consensus to do so.

Now you show quite clearly that you just dont get it. See ...a firearm works like this: A mechanical device strikes a primer, which ignites a power propellant, which forces the projectile out of the barrel of the firearm, at velocity.


That projectile, whether it be from something as small as a .22 rifle or handgun, or as large as a .50 BMG rifle round should be considered LETHAL.

Since automatic weapons are already highly restricted under the NFA, your "carrying automatic" point ..isnt really any point at all.

Heres something you can do. Check out DC where POSSESSION, and CARRY of handguns is BANNED. See how well thats working out before you start ignorantly spouting off about what the government can "sure as hell ban" blah blah blah.

Oh, and note that Heller vs DC goes to the supreme court the 18th of this month. Thats the case where DC is appealing to the supreme court because they are not happy that the prior decision said that they were in violation of the second amendment for banning handguns.

[MaryCeleste]

55. How about celebrating that innocent people were not harmed in a thwarted home invasion

The kid was willing to kill for illgotten material gain. What was protected was the occupants, not the stuff. There is a world of difference between home invasion and a burglar. A burglar would have turned tail and run if he found people in the home.

[Ordr]

58. "There is a world of difference between home invasion and a burglar."

Absolutely. Individuals willing to commit a home invasion while the occupants are in the home are almost always brazen, armed, and violent.

[timtom]

66. You would like to think that you'd "escape"

Truth is, we never know how any situation is going to play out in real time, regardless of how many times we have planned our responses.

[El Pinko]

67. The same applies to having a gun in the house - it's no guarantee of thwarting a criminal

nt

[FalconsRule]

70. I like my odds

better if I have a gun...especially if the intruder does.

[StrongBad]

72. Let's face it

The human race didn't lose any potential cure for cancer with this kid...

[Sanctified]

105. I am sure you would escape and leave your wife, girlfriend, children or significant other

in the house to be meat for the intruder, hope the cops get there in time to fill the body bags or address the hostage situation.

[Mugu]

108. I'm too old to run

and I refuse to be pushed around by anybody in my own home.

But aside from that, I believe that your reasoning is flawed in one major aspect. Burglars don't enter occupied dwellings and don't carry weapons. They have no need for a weapon because they don't intend to encounter anybody. This young man entered an occupied dwelling with a weapon, clearly he was there for something other than the jewelry or entertainment center.

Regards, Mugu

[Mugu]

38. Occupational hazard. n/t

[Ordr]

39. "Occupational hazard."

Perfect.

[WillowTree]

141. A-effin;-men!

[iamthebandfanman]

62. this is what happens when people take the law into their own hands

unless the intruder came in shooting without saying anything or checking to see whether the boy was armed(which maybe the man knew the boy was armed since he was obviously a friend of someone living there)... it probably coulda been avoided, a gun battle i mean.


why dont people follow the same rules as a store or gas station when they get robbed? why cant people let the police do their jobs? i know when i worked at a gas station for a brief amount of time i was told
'if someone tries to rob you or comes in demanding money, you give it to them. we'll get our money back some how, its not worth your life'

why dont people use that philosophy when dealing with their own personal items? what material item could possibly worth death ? and by death i mean the death of ANYBODY?

[Ordr]

64. Hmm.

why cant people let the police do their jobs?
I, for one, don't want to wait however long it takes for the police to arrive at my house. That's also assuming the armed criminal who broke into my house even allows me to reach the phone.

i know when i worked at a gas station for a brief amount of time i was told "if someone tries to rob you or comes in demanding money, you give it to them"
I'm guessing the gas station you worked for didn't want to deal with the liability of their employee unsuccessfully taking out a threat or inaccurately determining the severity of the threat.

why dont people use that philosophy when dealing with their own personal items? what material item could possibly worth death ? and by death i mean the death of ANYBODY?
The lives of your family members is vastly more important than the life of the armed criminal who brazenly entered your home to rob you (and only rob, if you're lucky). Perhaps you should be asking him why he considers material objects more important than his own life.

[MaryCeleste]

65. Its not taking the law into your own hands, its self defense

The perps were conducting a home invasion. That means they knew the people were there and went in anyway. It also means they were armed and willing to do violence to the occupants. Its not about the stuff, its about threat to the people.

A buglar would have not forced the door and would have run when he realized the place was occupied. No threat of violence, no shooting, no dead bodies.

Under the circumstances, its a righteous shoot. If they walked in on a burglar and shot him, I could see it differently.

[mondo joe]

73. Self defense has never been "taking the law into their own hands".

Protecting yourself from an intruder is not taking the place of law enforcement.

[Wcross]

75. Just give it to them? How about if their intention was rape & murder?

Are you just going to make the assumption they only wanted your tv set or your money? When an armed intruder enters your home you have to assume the worst.

[mondo joe]

78. Apparently you are to give burglars anything they want, no matter

what - theycan rape you, your kids, steal what little you have.

What a pukefest.

[iamthebandfanman]

79. atleast you arent dead.

perhaps i value life to much.



this self defense arguement is lame at best.
like i say, why are employees encouraged to give over anything someone with a gun asks for ? ever notice that the majority of store robbings in which the cash is handed over nobody is hurt? or is that a statistic we'll all just ignore for the sake of backing all your arguements(the people who replied to my post, not just you specifically).

[mondo joe]

82. False choice.

If it were a choice between my life and my property, or my life and being raped, obviously I'sd pick my life.

But that's not the choice. There's no reason to think when someone enters your home with a gun that you're safe, or likely to come out of it alive.

A work acquaintance lost her husband last year to the teenage burglars in their house who murdered him. Is he better off for not having shot them first? Is she? I don't think so.

"why are employees encouraged to give over anything someone with a gun asks for ?" Because store theft almost universally about a quick hit for cash, and the company doesn't want the liability associated with its employees shooting people.

That's not the story with home invasion.

[Mugu]

88. "perhaps i value life to much."

I would argue that you don't value your life enough, but that's your choice. However, I will not allow a home invader to be the arbiter of whether I live or die (and that's my choice.)

Regards, Mugu

[Mugu]

77. My daddy always told me that 95% of winning a fist fight

is getting in the first punch. That's even more true in a gunfight. Some people may feel more comfortable running rather than fighting and that's alright for them. But, I will not be pushed around or intimated by anybody in my own home and I certainly won't allow a home invader to decide whether I live or die.

Regards, Mugu

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

155. See post #154

[ileus]

157. How do YOU know he wasn't there to KILL? And where did you get he was a friend?

[krispos42]

160. One thing to remember...

The intruders in this case were quite willing to risk arrest, injury, and/or death for material or sexual gain, and were prepared to cause injury and/or death in pursuit of those goals.

I have no problem at all with their intended victims making such people who have put their lives at statek to take what they're gambling with.

Yielding to such people at all, in your own home, is an unacceptable and intolerable risk to you and your family.

[leftofthedial]

80. Make my day

punk

[pitohui]

90. he wont be missed

as i have a relative who was a victim of a home invasion where she was raped by a gang breaking into her home, i say hooray for the guy who was there with the gun to defend the woman

i don't know if he had reason to suspect she was targeted by these creeps and that's why he was there with the gun, or if it was just good luck he was there, but whatever -- i'm only sorry that both of the home invaders weren't removed from this earth

[idovoodoo]

95. One less gangsta out terrorizing people.

:D

[BreweryYardRat]

109. Good riddance.

Armed home invader does not = burglar.

[flvegan]

115. I'm sorry for the 16 year old kid's family and loved ones.

Somewhere there is a grieving mother, possibly some siblings.

While I'm torn at the loss of life, I can't help but wonder what might have happened to that woman that lives there. One hears such tales of horror at the hands of home invaders, especially when it's a woman who might be alone.

I'd also hate to be the individual that took the life of this kid. That's got to be tough to live with, regardless of the reason.

[Wcross]

116. Yes, he is going to be haunted by this for the rest of his life.

I own guns for self defense & I hope there is never a need to use one. Despite what many gun control advocates think I am not "itching to kill". I don't want someone to force me to kill them in order to save my life, but I will.

[Mugu]

119. From your keyboard to God's ear.

I also dread the thought of centering up the sights on somebody and squeezing the trigger. But, if for some terrible reason such action becomes necessary, my intent will not be to kill my adversary. But instead, to cause him to immediately cease and desist his wayward behavior.

Regards, Mugu

[GaYellowDawg]

152. Fuck him.

He broke into a house carrying a gun, meaning he was fully prepared to end someone else's life to rob them. As far as I'm concerned, he got precisely what he was asking for.

[ileus]

153. Were they there to RAPE KILL or Rob? Or all three? You make the call.

Something tells me this 16 YO was going to be another leech on the system if he felt it necessary to steal others.

Stupid thug should have broke into a unoccupied home, if he didn't want to end up dead. This thief got what he deserved...