11 Year Old Charged With Killing Pregnant Woman

[stephen426]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29314843/

This is a very sad situation and is sure to become ammo for the anti-gun crowd. How would you respond to an anti-gun person if they brought up this situation? They will claim the over-abundance of guns and accessability of guns makes these kinds of tragedies POSSIBLE. I know that a determined attacker could easily kill someone with a contact weapon (knife, bat, etc...) but it is not likely for a child to be able to do so to an adult (assuming they are not sleeping or inebriated). I think it would be helpful to have some insight from the other members on this forum as to how to respond to an anti-gunner if these kinds of topics are brought up. If we can bring some kind of logical solution for reducing these kinds of tragedies, we could use them as valid arguements in defending our second ammendment rights.

For me, it would be impossible to argue that arming the pregnant woman would have changed the situation. While she may have been able to shoot the child, I'm not sure how many would be able to do so. Maybe the child suprised her and thought it was a toy gun. We have laws in effect makng illegal for guns to be stored in such a way that children can access them. The anti-gun crowd will point to every incident where a child was involved in a shooting and call those measures useless.

I would also argue that the irresponsible actions of others should not infringe upon my ability to defend myself. I know criminals vertainly won't abide by the laws and they have guns. I guess it usually comes down to the old cliche "If guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have guns" and the right to defend yourself.

I'm sure this incident is going to add fuel to the anti-gun fire. :(

Here is another incident where 3 teens were killed in Chicago. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29309184/)

[BillCA]

Given the brevity of the news article there isn't much we can say, one way or another.

To blame a homicide on the fact that a gun was present, in this case, is to put the cart before the horse. We have no idea of the 11 year-old boy's state of mind or what transpired between him and the deceased pregnant woman.

For all we know, he could have been burglarizing her home when she came in and he killed her in desperation. This would not have required a firearm at all. I could also be a case of massive parental failure too. It's all speculation at this point.

If an anti-gun type got in my face claiming this was an example of 'x' or 'y' reasons to ban guns, I'd just ask what other information s/he's heard about the case. Otherwise, they are just speculating as to the circumstances and have no foundation to determine why it happened.

[stephen426]

Bill,

I will play Devil's Advocate here...

The point is not what the kid was doing in the house. The point is that guns are so readily available that an 11 year old kid was able to get one and use it on an 8 month pregnant woman. Anti-gunners do not care about other surrounding cirsumstances. For them, if there were no guns, or if they were heavily restricted, the chances of that boy getting his hands on a firearm are much lower.

[kayakersteve]

The gun was indeed the delivery vehicle for this crime, but a person hell bent on killing someone will always be able to find the vehicle to do the job - A knife, screw driver, hammer, hands, any object capable of being swung violently, etc. Don't blame the gun, rather examine the child and his upbringing.

[luvsasmith]

At least two people, in my mind, are at fault here and should be appropriately punished:

1- Who gave or permitted the kid access to a gun? That person is at fault. I don't care if the kid broke into their house and began pillaging through their belongings. This kid was not a lock smith, I assume, so there could not have been much security given to the location of the gun. If you take the right and responsibility of having a weapon, keep it locked up. This person should be punished.

2- Who raised this little **** to think it OK to kill a person who did not threaten his life? Who did not teach this little **** about gun safety or at the very least if you see a gun, don't touch it? This person (or these people) need to be punished.

3- The 11 year old little ****. I don't care if he is 5, if he purposely and knowingly took the life of 2 other people, lock him up and discard the key.

Maybe some swift justice for those at fault would keep the anti's from getting too much out of this. It will never bring the two victims back but it is better than nothing. Maybe it would also wake some irresponsible gun owners up to the fact that every right carries a responsibility.

This is a truly sad situation. That does not excuse those who are at fault nor make it OK for them to not be punished and/or removed from the general population.

I pray for this lady's family that they might be able to work past this horrific tragedy and lead productive lives.

[chemgirlie]

Wow, that is really sad, especially for the woman's 5 year old who found her body.

That said, I have a few questions/comments/snide remarks about the whole thing:

1. Who was watching this kid when he went and murdered this woman?

2. Who taught (or failed to) teach this kid that murdering people is not morally acceptable (especially if she's 8 months pregnant)?

3. Where did he get the gun and how was the gun stored?

4. Where did he get the ammo and how was it stored?

5. What was the kid's motive for killing her? Was it a robbery gone wrong, cold blood, ????

[chemgirlie]

As for the second article about the incident in Chicago, my comments/snide remarks are as follows:

1. "authorities believe [the crime] involved an assault rifle"
I don't care what kind of gun was involved. It could have been a civil war era canon for all I care. The gun didn't commit the crime, the murder(s) did.

2. One of the quotes bugged me a lot:

"It's just tragic, based on the guns that are on the streets, that three young men have lost their lives today," Weis said.

It's not tragic that the guns are on the streets. It's tragic that murders are on the streets. There are plenty of law abiding people who carry guns all of the time (mot of the people on these forums I'm sure). However, not in Chicago. I'll agree with banning guns the day I see my rifles load themselves, point themselves at somebody, and pull their own triggers. Needless to say, that hasn't happened yet.

[stephen426]

Again, I am playing Devil's advocate here. I just want to make it absolutely clear that I do NOT feel this way about guns, but am just trying to stir up some good responses to use for anti-gun people when they point to these kinds of incidents. In my opinion, it is important to develope non-offensive ways to expalin our stance to anti-gun people. Some of these people may even be family or friends. With that said...

chemgirlie,

It does not matter how the child was raised. He might have thought the gun was a toy. There is so much violence on the TV and movies that kids have difficulty distinguishing between reality and fiction. The problem is that there are so many guns available that this kid was able to get his hands on one and kill that poor lady. There are so many irresponsible guns owners out there as evidenced by all of the shooting that have involved children.

As for your assault weapon arguement, why would any normal person need one? We are not fighting a war? That kind of weapon is too dangerous for civilian use and should be restricted to soldiers in war zones. Assault weapons are deadlier and have no place for self defense.

[peetzakilla]

Well, the basics of the argument are fairly simple:

People kill due to lack of moral values not due to accessibility of weapons.


Naturally, there is more to the argument than one simple sentence but the discussion stands on that foundation.

If guns made killers there'd be a lot of them on this forum.

[stephen426]

Devil's Advocate here...

Guns are made to kill people. They make it easy to kill people. How many 11 year olds could kill an adult without a gun? Even with a knife, the victim has a much better chance of running away. Guns allow killing from a distance and it is impossible to out run a bullet. Those kids in Columbine and Paducah were savagely gunned down from a distance. Without guns, it would have been impossible to inflict that kind of damage.

What about Virginia Tech? Do you think one person could have killed so many without a gun? A gun is an inanimate object and it cannot shoot itself, but in the hands of the wrong people, they can do a tremendous amount of damage. There are so many of them that it is easy for the wrong people to get their hands on them.

[Mike Irwin]

Devil's Advocate Advocate.

Said mother may have been able to protect herself and her unborn child had she had a gun that she could have used to fend off her 11-year-old attacker.

Virginia Tech could have been stopped had one of the students or professors had a gun. Instead the killer blew right through dozens of existing laws (which only the law-abiding obey).

Anti-gunners bemoan the fact that guns are readily available. They need to refocus. That's the United States, and there's not a lot that is going to change that. The war on drugs and Prohibition show exactly what happens when inanimate objects are banned.

Hand wringing, crying, moaning, and sobbing about how horrible it is that guns are so easy to get isn't helping.

Want to help? Drop the phony "we'll be better off without guns" schtick and try a new tact -- "We'll be better off without so many repeat violent offenders."

[stephen426]

Hi... Devil's Advocate here again...

What do repeat offenders have to do with an 11 year old killing this 8 month pregnant woman? What does it have to do with the massacre at Virginia Tech? Neither the 11 year old child nor Cho had any prior criminal history. You claim that if the woman had a gun, she could have used it to defend herself and her unborn child. You also claim that armed students or professors could have stopped the attack. Are you suggesting that we need to walk around carrying a gun 24 hours a day? Having a gun doesn't guarantee survival. If so many people had gun, they would be easier to steal or picked up by children.

[chemgirlie]

It does not matter how the child was raised. He might have thought the gun was a toy. There is so much violence on the TV and movies that kids have difficulty distinguishing between reality and fiction. The problem is that there are so many guns available that this kid was able to get his hands on one and kill that poor lady. There are so many irresponsible guns owners out there as evidenced by all of the shooting that have involved children.
The rate of negligent (I hate the term accidental in this situation) gun deaths is far fewer than what is portrayed in the media. There are 6 times more children killed by fire than by gun related causes. http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvacci.html
Let's not disarm law abiding people because there are some idiots out there who don't teach their kids right from wrong and the difference between fantasy and reality.

As for your assault weapon arguement, why would any normal person need one? We are not fighting a war? That kind of weapon is too dangerous for civilian use and should be restricted to soldiers in war zones. Assault weapons are deadlier and have no place for self defense.
My hunting rifle has more stopping power than a .223 caliber AR. My little .22 rifle can kill somebody too. There isn't any firearm that is more "dangerous" than any other. It's like asking me out of the shoes I own, which are the best. Each has its own place. In a job interview/date I would want a pair of heels. For hauling my butt around town in the winter I prefer boots. On the beach flip flops are more appropriate. The same applies to guns. Not one of my guns is "more dangerous" than another. They each have their own applications though. I wouldn't use my .22 rifle to hunt deer, I would use my good old Winchester .308. To c.c. (if I could in WI) I would use a 1911. "Assault weapons" are no more or less dangerous than any guns I own.

Ah, I love devil's advocate.:D

[madmo44mag]

Well, the basics of the argument are fairly simple:

People kill due to lack of moral values not due to accessibility of weapons.


Naturally, there is more to the argument than one simple sentence but the discussion stands on that foundation.

If guns made killers there'd be a lot of them on this forum.

Very well stated;)

[Chris_B]

Devil's Advocate here...

Guns are made to kill people.


No. No they are not. That is what the anti-gun crowd preaches, do not use this argument or state this "fact"

My .22 pistol was not made to kill people. My .36 cap and ball revolver wasn't either. Neither was my dad's 10/22. Hunting rifles, target pistols, and birding shotguns were not made to kill people either. Please do not spread this "guns are made to kill people" idea.

I have a pistol that was in fact made for the purpose of killing people, and some firearms are made for the purpose of war. This does not mean that they are still used for this purpose or prove that I break any laws. To spread the idea of "guns are made to kill people" reinforces the idea that guns are bad, they are evil instruments, and that since they serve no other purpose but to put people in danger, they should be outlawed. It will be used to promote the idea that guns have no purpose but to kill people, and the implication will be that they only kill people wrongly, tragically, and illegally

[Chris_B]

This murder was a horrible thing.

The fact that a firearm was used reinforces the fact that irresponsible use of many things can cause death

Propane tanks
nailguns
circular saws
automobiles

Four nice solid examples of things that are mis-used and cause death

Let's take the car example for a minute. Compare the deaths per year from automobile accidents and the number of deaths per year from firearms

Where's the outrage and the lobby for banning the automobile?

In the year 2000, almost 4800 pedestrians were killed by automobiles

There were nearly 42000 deaths on US highways that year

In 2007, there were less than 1000 fatal shootings in the USA

The facts are clear:

Firearms are much safer than the US highway system. Ban Automobiles Now.

[stephen426]

First of all...
Ah, I love devil's advocate.
Thank you. Right back at ya! :D

Devil's Advocate here again... (Remember... I am only pretending to be anti-gun and I am looking for good sound reasoning why guns should not be banned. Please remember that some of your friends and family members might be anti-gun. Being prepared for a good intellectual debate gives us a better chance at winning them over to our side. Using harsh, illogical, or demeaning come-backs will just reinforce their point of view)

My hunting rifle has more stopping power than a .223 caliber AR. My little .22 rifle can kill somebody too. There isn't any firearm that is more "dangerous" than any other. It's like asking me out of the shoes I own, which are the best. Each has its own place. In a job interview/date I would want a pair of heels. For hauling my butt around town in the winter I prefer boots. On the beach flip flops are more appropriate. The same applies to guns. Not one of my guns is "more dangerous" than another. They each have their own applications though. I wouldn't use my .22 rifle to hunt deer, I would use my good old Winchester .308. To c.c. (if I could in WI) I would use a 1911. "Assault weapons" are no more or less dangerous than any guns I own.

Chemgirlie... How many rounds of ammunition does your hunting rifle allow? How many rounds does your typical assault rifle carry? How quickly can an assault rifle be reloaded compared to a hunting rifle? If Cho had used an assault rifle in Virginia Tech instead of two handguns, the death toll would have been astronomically higher. The combination of high capacity magazines and higher powered rounds (in comparison to handguns) is what makes assault rifles so deadly. How quickly can you fire your hunting rifle versus an assault rifle? While hunting rifle cartridges are designed for use on animals, assault rifles are designed for use on people. While almost any gun can be deadly, the power of an assault rifle is deadlier.

[44 AMP]

And debating the "gun factor" is just a red herring. ALL that matters is, did the gun aim itself? Did it pull its own trigger? I think the answer is no.

A person, even an 11 year old, that is mentally capable of understanding how a gun fires, and what the bullets can do is the sole responsible party to the shooting.

If the 11 year old had shoved 8 inches of sharpened screwdriver into the pregant woman, and killed her, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. If he had tripped her down the stairs, or pushed her out a window, same result.

And while we are blaming all of societies flaws, instead of the hand that pulled the trigger, lets not leave TV out. People using guns, 24/7 to solve every problem, and the people getting shot appear on TV the next day, in a different show, none the worse for wear.

I can go on, but I think you get the drift.

[Chris_B]

Chemgirlie... How many rounds of ammunition does your hunting rifle allow? How many rounds does your typical assault rifle carry? How quickly can an assault rifle be reloaded compared to a hunting rifle? If Cho had used an assault rifle in Virginia Tech instead of two handguns, the death toll would have been astronomically higher.

And if he'd mixed fertilizer with diesel fuel- or chlorine with bleach and then got them to lock the doors- or bought himself some propane at 20 or so different places, higher still :)

But the fertilizer, diesel, bleach, chlorine, and propane have no intent

[stephen426]

Propane tanks
nailguns
circular saws
automobiles

Hi Chris... Devil's Advocate here...

Propane Tanks While propane tanks have been used as bombs, many of them have built in safeties that prevent gas from flowing out unless a hose is connected. It is practically impossible to use a propane tank as a concealed weapon and it is not practical unless used as a bomb type device. How many accicedents occur with propane tanks versus guns?

Nail guns dot not have anywhere near the range nor the killing power regular handguns do. They are not easily concealed and they are designed for another purpose. Practically anything can be used as a deadly weapon if you choose to do so, but most handguns are designed to shoot people... hence the term combat handguns (Glocks, Sigs, H&Ks, etc...).

Circular Saws can hardly be considered a practical weapon. Most of them require power cords to operate. Practically ALL of them have guards surrounding the blades. I do have a battery powered one, but i have to be in cantact distance to use it agaist someone.

Automobiles Licenses are required to drive automobiles. The privelege can be taken away if you have too many traffic violations. Cars have license plates making it easy to identify who the wrong doer is. Cars are registered to owners, much like guns should be (I don't really believe this so don't flame me). Cars are necessary for transportation (unless you live in a city with good public transportation) where as guns are not necessary. Firearms are often used in the commission of crimes where as automobiles are not.

Being the Devil's Advocate is fun but I truely believe it is important to have some sound arguements when dealing with anti-gun people. I have had many debates with anti-gun people and I will give you my favorite arguements...

- Criminals will not obey gun laws and banning guns will only turn people into helpless victims.
- Guns are an equalizing force that allow a weaker person to defend him or herself.
- The police cannot be everywhere at once and contacting them during an assault may be impossible.
- While having a gun does not guarantee survival, it greatly improves your odds against an armed person (given the proper circumstances of course).
- If you have a gun, you have the option whether or not to use it. If you are unarmed and your assailant is armed, you are totally at their mercy.

I hope some of those arguements help you guys sometime in the future. If you want to play Devil's advocate against my arguements, feel free. Please add any arguements you might have heard from your anti-gun friends (assuming you have any... ANTI-GUN Freinds... Not Friends in general ;):p ).

[223 shooter]

People kill due to lack of moral values not due to accessibility of weapons.

Yep this pretty much is what I believe too. Back in the days when my grandfather was a young man guns were easily accessible and the amount of gun laws were no where near what they are today.

Yet he never told me stories of school shootings , mall shootings (well , there were no malls!) or "children" shooting pregnant woman. Aside from the 1930s ganster era - gun crimes did not seem to occur with the frquency of today's society.

[Chris_B]

:) Firstly, the argument seems to revolve around how easily used or efficient the following examples of mine may be to cause death by criminal intent. I would like to point out that I did not imply or say that any of these methods was as expedient as a firearm or was a viable alternative to a firearm for legal purposes

I'll address each in turn


Propane Tanks While propane tanks have been used as bombs, many of them have built in safeties that prevent gas from flowing out unless a hose is connected. It is practically impossible to use a propane tank as a concealed weapon and it is not practical unless used as a bomb type device. How many accicedents occur with propane tanks versus guns?


Safeties can be defeated, and propane gas is expelled easily by mundane objects such as gas grilles used in cook-outs. No great logical leap to use the equipment available at any Home Depot for use in an Infernal Device based on a propane tank. My statements did not imply that propane tanks were good concealed weapons, only that they could be used to kill greater numbers of people than Cho did with his weapons. For instance: the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was not concealable, but none the less deadly for it's lack of concealment about your person ;)


Nail guns dot not have anywhere near the range nor the killing power regular handguns do. They are not easily concealed and they are designed for another purpose. Practically anything can be used as a deadly weapon if you choose to do so, but most handguns are designed to shoot people... hence the term combat handguns (Glocks, Sigs, H&Ks, etc...).


Part of what you said is precisely my point, thank you: "Practically anything can be used as a deadly weapon if you choose to do so". Intent is everything. However, in your argument, you present levels of lethality which is not valid to my thinking. If a weapon is deadly, it is deadly period. Can a nailgun kill? Yes. Also, my statements were, once again, not to present weapons that can take the place of a handgun :)


Circular Saws can hardly be considered a practical weapon. Most of them require power cords to operate. Practically ALL of them have guards surrounding the blades. I do have a battery powered one, but i have to be in contact distance to use it against someone.


None the less a deadly weapon if pressed into service. One was used in a fairly well publicized assualt just about a week ago, in which the assailant allegedly stated "I'm going to cut your head off". I can defeat guard on a circular saw, and have done so to start cuts, many times, and it requires a finger. Nothing in your argument rules out it's potential use as a deadly weapon. It is true it must come into contact to be effective. So does an automobile :)


Automobiles Licenses are required to drive automobiles. The privelege can be taken away if you have too many traffic violations. Cars have license plates making it easy to identify who the wrong doer is. Cars are registered to owners, much like guns should be (I don't really believe this so don't flame me). Cars are necessary for transportation (unless you live in a city with good public transportation) where as guns are not necessary. Firearms are often used in the commission of crimes where as automobiles are not.


Not a single valid argument here:
Automobiles Licenses are required to drive automobiles. This does not prevent a lawbreaker from using one

The privelege can be taken away if you have too many traffic violations. This does not prevent a lawbreaker from using one

Cars have license plates making it easy to identify who the wrong doer is. This does not prevent it from being used as a deadly weapon

Cars are registered to owners, much like guns should be (I don't really believe this so don't flame me). No flame. It simply is not true that the registration prevents an assault with an automobile

Cars are necessary for transportation (unless you live in a city with good public transportation) where as guns are not necessary. This is a rationalization for the possession of cars ("it is needed, while a gun is not") and should not excuse cars for being involved in so many deaths. Responsibility and considered actions behind the wheel- or behind the gun- are the dividing line between a death or injury and a non-event, not the importance of transportation, and it also does not prevent a car from being used as a deadly weapon. As well, ownership of an automobile is not mentioned in the US Constitution, while you know the other side of that coin . So "guns are not needed" the same way my right to free speech can be argued by some to "not be needed". I would reject the argument provided based on that reason alone

Firearms are often used in the commission of crimes where as automobiles are not You mean 'violent crimes' here. Simply crossing a state line in a car can make a State violation a Federal one, and the crime need not be of the type in which physical harm is caused. Also, many cars are actually used to escape the scene of violent crime, and I am sure you have heard of the "drive by shooting". But I reject the argument more easily on the grounds of the topic I had brought up was not "let's prevent crime". It was "US Highways are deadlier than firearms in the USA". Your argument evades that point :)


I was pretty good at Debate in College ;)

[Mike Irwin]

"You also claim that armed students or professors could have stopped the attack. Are you suggesting that we need to walk around carrying a gun 24 hours a day? Having a gun doesn't guarantee survival."

Ultimately, who is responsible for your safety?

You. No one else.

No, having a gun doesn't guarantee survival any more than having hospital coverage insurance will guarantee you competent care.

But it is, however, a step in the positive direction.

Every year there are thousands of instances where lawfully armed civilians defend themselves or others with a gun.

When I was with American Rifleman magazine I edited a column called "The Armed Citizen" that encapsulated accounts of such incidents from newspapers across the country.

Ultimately, I'm not exactly sure what your entire point of "reasoning" is here.

You're falling painfully close to the old gun banner's saw of "IF IT ONLY SAVES ONE LIFE IT'S WORTH IT!"

It can be equally shown that stripping the guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens can end up resulting in the deaths of those citizens at the hands of criminals, deaths that may well have been prevented had they had access to a gun.

Gun banners love to present their arguments wreathed in mental pictures of a world without guns becoming an instant utopian society, where crime and murder and robbery, etc., are things of the past because we've done away with those evil-inducing guns. It was all their fault anyways."

[Mike Irwin]

"If Cho had used an assault rifle in Virginia Tech instead of two handguns, the death toll would have been astronomically higher."

Your proof of that statement is... what?

That's called a supposition. There's no basis in fact for making that claim, only your supposition of what might have happened.

Also, Cho would not have had an "assault rifle." He would have had a semi-automatic rifle. True assault rifles are military hardware capable of firing fully automatic or in bursts. To date, only one legally owned automatic weapon has been used in the commission of a crime since 1934.

[MatBananas717]

Also, Cho would not have had an "assault rifle." He would have had a semi-automatic rifle. True assault rifles are military hardware capable of firing fully automatic or in bursts.

Only thing is, every GI learns in Basic not to fire on bursts/auto unless he has a damn good reason.

Interestingly enough, I remember on AWBSunset when we were talking about weapons we owned, we had a serviceman who had been in Iraq who said he owned a Bushmaster AR. He said he would have loved to take it into combat if he could, because his issued M16 was in poor shape, and because he said the burst didn't matter much to him.

[B.N.Real]

If this kid really killed this woman and her child and it was not an accident,he needs to never be free in society again.

I have no need to read or here why,if it was no accident.

Personally,if the kid did it on purpose,he should forfeit his life.

[johnbt]

"An 11-year-old boy has been charged in the shotgun death of his father's pregnant girlfriend"

[flippycat]

I have no idea who this 11 year old kid is, though I will put him in with the rest of the 10 to 18 year old punk kids of today with a total lack of respect for authority and parents and even themselves for that matter.

Who here can raise a hand like I can and think of your child hood and remember that if you crossed a line with your parents odd's are the belt or a good cuff to the head was dished out...not to mention maybe even a little soap to the mouth depending on who was dishing out the punishment. Even if it was not you I am willing to bet anyone over 30 had a friend that got that kind of punishment.

And the funny thing is I can only remember about 4 instances it happened until I walked the line.

I am giving the benefit of the doubt that one or both were decent parents though what sort of tools as a parent do they have?

Hrmm...none.

Lets see you could ground the child..hardly effective considering most kids all have every peice of technology in their bedrooms and lets be honest in the practicality of removing it all. Yell at a kid and he goes to school and family services are at your house that afternoon.

So the little recourse you have is praying that they are well rounded enough by genetics to listen to reason ..and when they are not..you wind up with an 11 year old acting out in however he wants to and basically doing whatever he wants to.

The problem is kids are way to empowered these days and yep I blame the internet and violent video games not the weapons that have been around for 100's of years.

That is where you need regulations because it is molding the mentality of today's youth.

[MatBananas717]

yep I blame the internet and violent video games not the weapons that have been around for 100's of years.

That's just as dumb as blaming weapons. I have been an internet surfer and a fan of many "violent video games" for as long as I can remember, yet I've never killed anybody or done anything else wrong.

Not to mention that you sound like a curmudgeon going on about "kids these days" as if we're all out killing pregnant women. Get off your soapbox.

[flippycat]

Lets go in reverse ...

Not to mention that you sound like a curmudgeon going on about "kids these days" as if <b>we're </b>all out killing pregnant women. Get off your soapbox.

I assume by your statement and the use of "we're" you fall into the category I mentioned. I also am going to assume you do not have any kids of your own to speak from experience on if you do fall into the category you put yourself into.

What I said about today's youth is no different then saying it was the guns fault the tragedy happened. Though there have been a lot more studies on guns, then the impact of the internet freedoms to minors to ALL and ANY information out there as well as the effects of desensitization a realistic violent video game has on a minor.

I applaud your efforts for being an internet surfer and not killing anyone...I also applaud your being a fan of violent video games and not killing anyone ...you must be of the higher genetic makeup I stated.

Though you do seem a little touchy on the subject.

I was not on a soapbox, I was only stating the obvious that anyone with a child in that age range and or deals with kids in that age range can attest to.



here a little reading so I don't seem to soapbox ...seems to be a growing trend ...




ELYRIA, Ohio (Jan. 13) - Although a teenager's obsession with a violent video game may have warped his sense of reality, the boy is guilty of murdering his mother and wounding his father after they took "Halo 3" away from him, a judge ruled Monday.
"I firmly believe that Daniel Petric had no idea at the time he hatched this plot that if he killed his parents they would be dead forever," Lorain County Common Pleas Judge James Burge said.
Nonetheless, Burge rejected the defense attorneys' argument that Petric, 17, was not guilty by reason of insanity.
The defense didn't contest that Petric shot his parents in October 2007 after they took the game away from him, but insisted that the teen's youth and addiction made him less responsible.
Petric may have been addicted, but the evidence also showed he planned the crime for weeks, said Burge, who found the teenager guilty of aggravated murder, attempted aggravated murder and other charges.
Tried as an adult, Petric faces a maximum possible penalty of life in prison without parole. The judge didn't set a sentencing date.
The teen's mother, Susan Petric, 43, died of a gunshot wound to the head. Her husband, Mark Petric, a minister at New Life Assembly of God in Wellington, also was shot in the head but survived.
After the verdict was announced, Petric turned to look at his father seated behind him in the courtroom. Mark Petric, who previously said he has forgiven his son, gave an encouraging nod.
Mark Petric and other relatives left the court without comment.
Prosecutors said Petric planned to kill his parents because he was angry that his father would not allow him to play the video game, in which players shoot alien monsters that have taken over the Earth.
On the night of the shooting, Petric used his father's key to open a lockbox and remove a 9 mm handgun and the game.
Mark Petric testified that his son came into the room and asked: "Would you guys close your eyes? I have a surprise for you." He testified that he expected a pleasant surprise. Then his head went numb from the gunshot.
Deputy prosecuting attorney Anthony Cillo argued during the trial that the teenager had planned to make it appear to be a murder-suicide by putting the gun in his father's hand.
Defense Attorney James Kersey said that when the teenager fled the grisly scene, he only took one item with him: the "Halo 3" game.
Bungie LLC, once part of Microsoft, developed the Xbox 360-exclusive Halo 3, and Microsoft owns the game's intellectual property. Microsoft declined to comment beyond a statement: "We are aware of the situation and it is a tragic case."

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. Active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.


I think there are truly to many variables to point blame in one direction or another...but I do believe technology has grown faster then the impacts can be evaluated for the long term effects.

I mean hell we are just now acknowledging on a serious basis the wide range of the effects of war and post traumatic stress disorder. So I am not out of my realm to point the finger at something understudied.

[johnbt]

From the Pittsburgchannel

"Lawrence County District Attorney John Bongivengo said that Houk was shot in the back of the head as she lay in bed Friday morning.

Police said the weapon was a .20-gauge "youth model" shotgun, which investigators found in the boy's bedroom."

No statement on a possible motive.

And yes, that's a .20-gauge.

[B.N.Real]

This not about video games and not about how someone was raised.

A innocent woman and unborn child have apparently been murdered here.

The murderer,if that is the case,must pay for the crime with his life.

Either by being sent away for the rest of it or forfieting it.

This nonsense of putting ourselves in the mind of a killer to 'understand' why he did the horrible crime he did has to stop.

People murder people because they DECIDE to do that.

No gun ever got off a counter or out of a gun case and on it's own,floated down the street and killed anyone.

A human being decided that they did not care what happened after the fact,they were going to kill another human being.

For that decision,they need to pay the most severe price they can be convicted of.

I have other opinions to what the penalty should be if it was my wife and child this bizarre human being destroyed but I am not the one burying my wife and unborn child so I will not post those opinions.

[curt.45]

the story so far.

WAMPUM, Pa. – Fifth-grader Jordan Brown boarded the bus and headed to school like he does most other mornings in this rural western Pennsylvania community.

But Friday was no typical morning. Before he left his rented farmhouse, authorities say, the 11-year-old fatally shot his father's pregnant fiancee in the back of the head as she lay in bed. He then put his youth model 20-gauge shotgun back in his room and went out to catch his bus, police say.

Brown was charged Saturday as an adult in the death of 26-year-old Kenzie Marie Houk, who was eight months pregnant, Lawrence County District Attorney John Bongivengo said. Houk's fetus died within minutes due to a lack of oxygen, Lawrence County Coroner Russell Noga said.

The death and charges against Brown caught family and friends by surprise and left Wampum, about 45 miles northwest of Pittsburgh, to ponder what would possess a boy to allegedly shoot someone.

Houk's family and friends, who gathered at her parents' house Saturday night, told The Associated Press that there had been past problems with the boy.

"He actually told my son that he wanted to do that to her," Houk's brother-in-law, Jason Kraner said. "There was an issue with jealousy."

Pennsylvania State Police found Houk's body after her 4-year-old daughter told tree cutters on the property she thought her mother was dead, Bongivengo said.

The boy told police there was a black truck on the property that morning — possibly the man who feeds the cows — sending investigators to follow a false lead for about five hours, Bongivengo said. Inconsistencies in Brown's description of the truck led police to re-interview Houk's 7-year-old daughter, who implicated the boy in the killing, Bongivengo said. State troopers came to get the boy at school.

"She didn't actually eyewitness the shooting. She saw him with what she believed to be a shotgun and heard a loud bang," Bongivengo said. The gun was found in a "location we believe to be in the defendant's bedroom."

Brown has been arraigned and was being held in the Lawrence County Jail, with a preliminary hearing scheduled for Thursday.

"An 11-year-old kid — what would give him the motive to shoot someone?" Houk's father Jack said. "Maybe he was just jealous of my daughter and the baby and thought he would be overpowered."

Defense attorney Dennis Elisco said he plans to ask Monday for the boy to be released on bail and for the case to moved to juvenile court. Elisco and police said they had no clear motive for the shooting.

Elisco said he is waiting to see physical evidence that ties his young client to the killing.

"I don't think he knows what's going on," he said. "I walked out of there thinking he was innocent. I believe Jordan did not do this."

The boy's father, Christopher Brown, is "a mess" and had no prior indication his son had a problem with Houk, Elisco said.

"He's in a state of actual shock and disbelief," he said.

The shotgun used is designed for children and has a shorter arm and such weapons do not have to be registered, Bongivengo said. Jack Houk, 57, said the boy and his father used to practice shooting behind their farmhouse, and the two enjoyed going hunting together

[44 AMP]

was shot in the back of the head as she lay in bed Friday morning

based solely on the information I have so far (which may change, but I doubt it), I would say this is a deliberate act.

As far as the law should be concerned, that's all that matters. It won't be, they will take the age, and mental state of the shooter into account, but in the end, the poor woman and her unborn child will still be dead.

I may be getting cold and callous in my old age, but I simply don't care about why the kid did it. At all. I don't even care if he knew it was wrong. He did it (assuming the courts so rule), and therefore should be removed from society, permanently.

I don't care if he eventually grows into someone who understands and regrets what he did. He did it, and has proven himself to be a danger to humanity. Period.

Give me the curmudgeon badge, I will wear it proudly. I feel the same way about insanity defenses. I don't care if the 11year old or the 40 year old didn't know or understand what they did was wrong, they did it, and so are a danger to the rest of us. They should be removed from society, and personally I feel they should be removed for good.

There is only one way to be absolutely certain they will never be able to do it again. And we, as a society, don't do enough of it.

[stephen426]

"If Cho had used an assault rifle in Virginia Tech instead of two handguns, the death toll would have been astronomically higher."

Your proof of that statement is... what?

That's called a supposition. There's no basis in fact for making that claim, only your supposition of what might have happened.

Also, Cho would not have had an "assault rifle." He would have had a semi-automatic rifle. True assault rifles are military hardware capable of firing fully automatic or in bursts. To date, only one legally owned automatic weapon has been used in the commission of a crime since 1934.

Hi Mike,

I just want to reiterate that I am just using arguements I have heard from anti-gun people. I am NOT one of them. I think I should have started another thread... One to deal talking to anti-gun people and another covering the 11 year old shooting the pregnant woman. I will probably have to do that so we don't blur this thread.

I do find it difficult to believe that you would argue that a "assault-style rifle" (semi-automatic) would not be more lethal than a hand gun. First of all, the rounds are much nigher powered. If you take the energy of a .223 vs. the 9mm and .22 LR, the .223 has more than twice the power. The 7.62 x 39 typically fired from an AK-47 is also much more powerful than a 9mm or a .22 lr. There are high capacity magazines readily available for both military style weapons, which reduces the need for reloads. More frequent reloads means more opportunities to attack the shooter.

I'm going to start a new thread for ways to "reason" with an anti-gun person and let this thread focus on the 11 year old shooting the pregnant woman.

[Double Naught Spy]

Where's the outrage and the lobby for banning the automobile?

In the year 2000, almost 4800 pedestrians were killed by automobiles

There were nearly 42000 deaths on US highways that year

In 2007, there were less than 1000 fatal shootings in the USA

The facts are clear:

Firearms are much safer than the US highway system. Ban Automobiles Now.

This arguments are always pretty stupid. Cars are much safer than guns if you look at the amount of time of operation of each and presence in households...if you consider the number of deaths as an indication of safety. People many hundreds and often thousands of hours per year in their automobiles, driving on highways and surface streets. Few shooters ever operate their guns as much.

[Kleinzeit]

The facts are clear:

Firearms are much safer than the US highway system. Ban Automobiles Now.

This arguments are always pretty stupid. Cars are much safer than guns if you look at the amount of time of operation of each and presence in households...

Umm... Is this meant be an argument in DEFENSE of guns? :confused:

[Kleinzeit]

I don't know whether it's cars or guns that are most dangerous. But there is a fair comparison to be made between them: both have risks attached, but on balance we are better off with them than without.

So, to go back to the OP: It is my considered opinion that the best way to respond to anti-gun people when they seize upon these tragic incidents as proof that guns should be banned is to be REASONABLE. Cite statistics and present coherent arguments, but above all, do NOT be a pigheaded fool who wants to pretend that the exact same incident would have occurred if there had been no gun in the room, or that deaths only occur when Evil People have Evil intentions to do Evil, or when Good People act Righteously against Evil People who Deserve it, or When Very Stupid People who are not Us are criminally negligent. It is a simple fact that having guns around means that certain things ARE going to happen that might not have happened otherwise. But it ALSO means that some very bad things may be prevented. On balance, it's better to have them. Just like with cars. Trying to insist that guns contribute nothing to the situation is NOT going to win you any arguments. And besides, it's hypocritical: If you want to say that guns themselves do not make situations more dangerous, then you can't very well argue that guns themselves can make a situation safer.

[MatBananas717]

on balance we are better off with them than without.

In the case of guns, I think a legitimate case can be made to support the other side. Especially given the way that too many pro-gunners argue.

[dragonfire]

Hmmmm I dont know.Who's to blame,the 11 year old boy,the parents,society. I mean obviously we can't blame the gun.So we blame the boy for committing such a heiness crime,the parents for not locking the gun up,and society for permitting such fantasy violence to be seen and portrayed on tv and in video games.That should pretty much some it up.

Really everyone involved is to blame.As far as trying an 11 yr.boy as an adult,thats where I have trouble.Did he know what he was doing I would think so.It said in the article he and his father practiced regularly and went hunting,so he knew the gun was capable of killing.On the other hand was he put up to it,and does an 11 year old child understand fully what happens when you murder someone,as in legally.

[chemgirlie]

I know this sounds awful, but I really hope that there is something wrong with him (as in a clinically recognized mental illness). I think that would be a lot easier for the family to deal with than realizing that the kid did it out of hatred with full mental capabilities.

[Double Naught Spy]

Umm... Is this meant be an argument in DEFENSE of guns?

Nope.

When folks strive to make a comparison that doesn't make any sense and do so in defense of guns, it make gun folks look like idiots. The "facts" as presented were done so in an inequitable manner. The "facts" are not clear as claimed. Calling for the banning of automobiles is ridiculous.

As pro gun folks with the Constitution on our side, we should not have to skew or bias the presentation of data to try to make our arguments appear stronger. Yes, the opposition does it and we think very little of them for doing so, eh? Why would we want to commit the same fallacies?

[Kleinzeit]

In the case of guns, I think a legitimate case can be made to support the other side [that we are better off without them]. Especially given the way that too many pro-gunners argue.

Interesting. Well, yes - I might agree. So long as no one had guns.

What kind of pro-gun argument bothers you?

[Kleinzeit]

Administrator at the Internet Movie Firearms Database (IMFDB).

PS - Love your website.

[Kleinzeit]

Calling for the banning of automobiles is ridiculous.

Yes, but I thought we were meant to see it that way. I thought the post was being satirical. I.e., Banning cars is ridiculous, and for the same reason, banning guns is ridiculous. A similar parallel could be made with many dangerous things in our society.

Personally, when pro-gunners try to argue in defense of guns by refusing to concede that the lawful keeping and bearing of arms could ever actually have a down side, then that's when we look like idiots. Because that really is idiotic. It's just as idiotic as anti-gunners refusing to concede that the lawful keeping and bearing of arms could ever actually have an up side. As you say,

Why would we want to commit the same fallacies?

The presence of guns - like the presence of cars, chainsaws, pharmaceuticals, household chemicals, heaters, irons, stoves, candles, incense burners, etc. etc. etc. - does contribute to tragic situations. But we don't ban all that other stuff, because on balance, we think it's worth the risk.

[peetzakilla]

yep I blame the internet and violent video games not the weapons that have been around for 100's of years.

Yep, I've been playing violent video games since I was probably 6 or 7. Oddly, I not only have no inclination to act out those games but the very idea of taking a human life makes me ill.

What gives? All that violence and I'm not a cold blooded killer? I wonder why? Ohhhhh.... yep, moral values, now I remember. I was taught that hurting people is bad and then when I tried it out, liking kicking my sister, I got my a$$ beat and I found out what it meant. Today, no more a$$ beatings and lots of violent kids. Odd isn't it?

Who would have ever thought? Oh wait...

"He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him." (Proverbs 13:24)

"Withhold not correction from a child: for if thou strike him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and deliver his soul from hell." (Proverbs 23:13-14)

[MatBananas717]

Nope.

When folks strive to make a comparison that doesn't make any sense and do so in defense of guns, it make gun folks look like idiots. The "facts" as presented were done so in an inequitable manner. The "facts" are not clear as claimed. Calling for the banning of automobiles is ridiculous.

As pro gun folks with the Constitution on our side, we should not have to skew or bias the presentation of data to try to make our arguments appear stronger. Yes, the opposition does it and we think very little of them for doing so, eh? Why would we want to commit the same fallacies?

Thank you! It is really nice to see another pro-gunner (and yes, I consider myself a pro-gunner) who thinks the way I do.

I have never understood how so many pro-gunners can repeat silly arguments with extremely flawed logic and then accuse the antis of being the same way.

[MatBananas717]

Interesting. Well, yes - I might agree. So long as no one had guns.

I don't think nobody should be allowed to own guns. I want to keep my own guns, obviously.

But I do understand why many people are proponents of gun control in some form or another, and why they don't see the intrinsic value of either guns or the 2nd Amendment. There is a case worthy of debate on their side. They aren't simply freedom-hating "socialists" or "communists", nor are they people whose reactions are based on "emotion". I am willing to take their arguments at face value and acknowledge some of their grievances do have merit, while still not agreeing with them.

It's something that, much to my disappointment, the broader pro-gun community has not shown itself to be capable of doing.

What kind of pro-gun argument bothers you?

The automobiles argument is one of them. I've also been an opponent for many years now of the argument that "assault weapons are no different than hunting rifles". (and again, please note that I was also against the AWB, since I own a Poly Tech AK)

PS - Love your website.

Thank you, sir.

[Kleinzeit]

I do understand why many people are proponents of gun control in some form or another. ... There is a case worthy of debate on their side. They aren't simply freedom-hating "socialists" or "communists", nor are they people whose reactions are based on "emotion".

Yes; so true. It's important that we be able to understand this. (Though sometimes some of them are reacting emotionally...) And I entirely agree that we should make sure our pro-gun arguments are genuinely sound and reasonable. The anti-gun lobby already tends to see us as idiots. :rolleyes:

But I think that the automobile comparison does have some utility. It helps to counter the view of guns as something set off completely from the rest of material reality (a view which is often held by anti-gun people).

Like guns, automobiles are necessary. They are more than necessary; they can even be things of beauty. We wouldn't want to have to manage without them. Neither would we want to be denied our choice of car; they have an attraction and a function that goes far beyond someone else's idea of what we "need." They are a symbol of our liberty and, more than that, they are an actual means of expressing and maintaining our liberty. Not everyone should be allowed to drive one, but we have to be very careful about denying that right. Accidents sometimes happen with automobiles. Sometimes people use them carelessly. Sometimes people allow them to become mechanically unsafe. Sometimes their use results in the killing or maiming of innocent bystanders. Sometimes they are used by people to take their own lives. But automobiles do not "cause" these tragedies, and it would be absurd to attack them, and absurd to suggest that the ordinary people who drive them are evil, or deluded, or paranoid, or reckless.

The difference between a gun and an automobile is that, in some people's minds, the former has become a symbol for everything that is twisted and dark in our society, and they think that by banning the symbol, they can abolish the reality they have taken it to symbolize.

Comparisons between guns and other things will always have their limits. But up to a point, they help to overcome the ridiculous burdening of guns (and their owners) with all this heavy weight of symbolism. It situates guns and their owners within a bigger social picture.

[BillCA]

I have to disagree with a couple of posts here...

This nonsense of putting ourselves in the mind of a killer to 'understand' why he did the horrible crime he did has to stop.

People murder people because they DECIDE to do that.

I may be getting cold and callous in my old age, but I simply don't care about why the kid did it. At all. I don't even care if he knew it was wrong. He did it (assuming the courts so rule), and therefore should be removed from society, permanently.

Isn't this like saying we should toss out self-defense as a justification for homicide? Or defense of another person? Re-read your statements in light of it being an act of self-defense (which we know it was not, but humor me).

Based on what we know from public media sources, it would appear that the kid had emotional problems with his father and the woman over the arrival of a step-sister. And at 11 years old, some kids think this means a parent will no longer love them anymore.

But stepping away from the particulars of this case, there are situations where such a homicide might be defensible.

There have been cases where an abused child or spouse finally strikes back, sometimes with fatal consequences. Years of abuse mount until something triggers the victim to lash out.

We saw it here in the bay area not long ago. A 10 year old boy living in an upscale neighborhood and a lavish house whacked his step-mom five times with a fireplace poker and she nearly died. Why? Because she destroyed his first-place school art project -- a relaistic & detailed pencil drawing of a space station -- by throwing it into the fireplace and calling it "worthless, stupid trash". :eek: Mind you when police investigated they called the house "luxuriously lavish" -- except for the boy's room which was labeled monastic. The parent's room boasted a canopy bed, deep pile carpeting, 3 phones, a large TV, stereo system and even a small fridge. The bathroom had a jacuzzi spa tub, heated toilet seat and towel rack, dressing table, marble counters and gold-toned faucets. But the boy's room held a single pine bed, with white sheets and a thin blanket, a pine dresser, a small used second-hand lamp table sitting on a bare wood floor. He had six sets of clothing (nothing more or less), two pair of shoes and a pullover sweatshirt. No books, no rugs, not even curtains. They also noticed there were no toys, no pictures or posters on the walls, no comic books, no baseball cards, no sports equipment, nothing. Nothing said a young boy lived in that house.

Some parents don't deserve children. Some that have them deserve what they get.

[Kleinzeit]

Great post, BillCA.

[keys85]

Let's not forget why guns are so often used. More so than a circular saw or large screw driver, a firearm is very impersonal when inflicting death. Simply put, it's like pointing a finger at somebody and pushing a button. They also get the objective completed quite easily. Granted, you can murder someone with your barehands, effectively as well. But I believe there are a lot of emotionally charged people out there willing to commit murder but can not make such a connection. For this reason, guns are to blame, and not the choice of human decision.

[44Magnum]

i Will Play Devil's Advocate Here...

Devil's Advocate Here...

Devil's Advocate Advocate.

Hi... Devil's Advocate Here Again...

Ah, I Love Devil's Advocate.

Hi Chris... Devil's Advocate Here...


Be Gone, Satan!!

[Kleinzeit]

Be Gone, Satan!!

No! We aren't done with you yet.

guns are to blame, and not the choice of human decision

Maybe not "to blame" but they are certainly a powerful facilitator.

There is also the fact that a great deal of mystique has accrued to guns and this can make them very attractive to people who are emotionally weak. Even if screwdrivers were just as effective as weapons, they would not have this attraction.

The problem, again, is that American society has trouble seeing guns as objects. I bet there isn't so much mystique around guns in Switzerland. Maybe it comes from American society being so Christian; there is an unresolved, unconscious tension between guns and the commandment not to kill.

Dr. Freud signing out. ;):rolleyes:

[wingman]

I was raised by a mother who woke each morning gave me breakfast seen me off to school and when I returned each day she was there to greet me. That is the way we raised our children,if you can't or are too lazy to so then simply please don't have kids.


Look we are living in a broken society, failed marriages,single mothers, drugs, poor public schools and extremely angry children, don't misunderstand I am not making excuses there is never an excuse for this type of shooting but children today have 50 times the pressures I had growing up in the 40's-50's. We simply are failing as a society in morals, standards, greedy, knowing right from wrong.

This is not a gun problem but the extremes of our society.

[Bud Helms]

Okay, long overdue to be moved to L&CR forum.

Some of us occasionally get caught up in long work hours and when we get back to TFL we play catch up. My apologies for not keeping house on this one.

Off to Law & Civil Rights ...

[USASA]

"I was raised by a mother who woke each morning gave me breakfast seen me off to school and when I returned each day she was there to greet me. That is the way we raised our children,if you can't or are too lazy to so then simply please don't have kids.


Look we are living in a broken society, failed marriages,single mothers, drugs, poor public schools and extremely angry children, don't misunderstand I am not making excuses there is never an excuse for this type of shooting but children today have 50 times the pressures I had growing up in the 40's-50's. We simply are failing as a society in morals, standards, greedy, knowing right from wrong.

This is not a gun problem but the extremes of our society."

Yep......

[44 AMP]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP
I may be getting cold and callous in my old age, but I simply don't care about why the kid did it. At all. I don't even care if he knew it was wrong. He did it (assuming the courts so rule), and therefore should be removed from society, permanently.

Isn't this like saying we should toss out self-defense as a justification for homicide? Or defense of another person? Re-read your statements in light of it being an act of self-defense (which we know it was not, but humor me).



I suppose I should have been clearer. My statment referred to shootings other than defense of self or others. I feel that an age based defense (too young to know it was wrong) like an insanity defense (couldn't understand it was wrong) should have no bearing on guilt, or punishment. To me, it matters not why, or if the shooter "understood" the consequences. If they were capable of taking a gun, loading it, pointing at someone and pulling the trigger, simply because they wished to, they are a danger to society at large. If they did it once, they could do it again. They may grow/ be cured and become someone who truly regrets what they did. That is their cross to bear. It does not and cannot change what happened to the person they shot.

Again, I don't consider self defense shooting in this category. One shoots in defense because one has to. One commits assault or murder (for what ever percieved reason) because one wants to.

shooting a pregnant woman in the back of the head while she is in bed seems to me to be about as far removed from valid self defense as one can get.

[Kleinzeit]

One shoots in defense because one has to. One commits assault or murder (for what ever percieved reason) because one wants to.

That's true 98% of the time. But life just isn't that black-and-white. Sometimes, people who are later charged with "assault" see themselves as acting in self-defense at the time. The example given earlier of the child who was essentially being abused by his parents is a case in point. There are women who have shot their husbands after suffering years of the most terrible abuse.

This is an uncomfortable area because those of us who keep guns for defensive purposes want to know that, should something happen, we will be free from such charges. We might choose to believe then that there's a nice clear line between the people with white hats and the people with black hats, so that we can insist that we are definitely a white hat guy. But there isn't some kind of absolute clear line. There just isn't. Sure, you can find nice, clear examples where the person was definitely justified in defending themselves, and nice, clear examples of people who are definitely being criminally violent. And it will seem to you then that the world divides up neatly between them -- but only because you refused to look at all the other examples that didn't fit.

I'm not saying this to be soft or to make excuses for anyone. But you don't have to use too much imagination to realise that someone you know and care about could get caught up in an unfortunate situation where that line is being blurred, and you wouldn't want them subject to some kind of heartless, "lock 'em up and throw away the key" attitude, would you?

If they did it once, they could do it again.

It sounds like you think everyone who ever did something wrong has some kind of inner core of evil. Do you really mean to say that you feel like you could repeat every bad thing you've ever done? And that you ought to be punished forever for all those things?

They may grow/ be cured and become someone who truly regrets what they did. That is their cross to bear.

And a reformed person should suffer forever?

You gotta lay down that cross for a moment.

[44 AMP]

(because sometimes I don't do such a great job of it)

In this situation, a pregnant woman was shot in the head while laying in bed. The person who pulled the trigger either knew it was wrong, or they didn't. Either way, the woman is dead. Either way, the killer has demonstrated that they are too dangerous to be allowed freedom.

Even if "proven" they are "not responsible" for their actions, they should not be allowed freedom, for that reason alone. Jail, mental institution, or execution, I care not, that is for society to decide, via our legal system. What matters is that they never be given the opportunity to repeat their crime.

Not knowing/understanding what you are doing is an explanation. It is not an excuse.

[Kleinzeit]

In this situation, a pregnant woman was shot in the head while laying in bed. The person who pulled the trigger either knew it was wrong, or they didn't.

Or... They knew it was wrong legally but believed it was right morally, because of some other factor that we currently know nothing about. (I'm not saying this is likely, I'm just saying it is possible. The fact that she was pregnant doesn't make it any less likely that she did something to contribute to this. And no, I'm not blaming the victim. I'm just pointing out that we are making judgments based on very little knowledge of the situation.)

Either way, the killer has demonstrated that they are too dangerous to be allowed freedom.

Yes. For the time being. But we don't know why that person became dangerous. It may have been in response to an extreme situation that is now over. We are in no position to decide that they've demonstrated they will be too dangerous forever.

Even if "proven" they are "not responsible" for their actions, they should not be allowed freedom, for that reason alone. ... What matters is that they never be given the opportunity to repeat their crime.

Agreed. Abolutely. And more than that, what matters also is that they be punished for the crime they have already committed. But "not giving them the opportunity to repeat their crime" is relative; if there is no sign that they ever will repeat the crime, and there is every sign that they will not, then you don't have to kill them or lock them up forever (at huge expense to the taxpayer) to guard against that possibility.

Not knowing/understanding what you are doing is an explanation. It is not an excuse.

Again, I agree. But imagine for a second this scenario... A guy's wife leaves him, he has a few drinks, he has an argument with a friend, he takes some sleeping pills because he can't sleep, he wakes up in the middle of the night, heart pounding in his ears, adrenaline coursing, fumbling in the dark because he heard a sound he doesn't understand, and he fires a shot... That person is really going to be hoping that others in his community will be willing to consider mitigating circumstances when the wheels of justice start grinding over him.

You know that saying, "There but for the grace of God go I"? I understand your frustration, but mercy is a powerful thing. We will all, at some time, be hoping for it from others.