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.

[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.

[Brian Pfleuger]

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.

[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...

Originally Posted by chemgirlie

Ah, I love devil's advocate.

Thank you. Right back at ya!

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)

Originally Posted by chemgirlie

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]

Originally Posted by Chris_B

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 ).

[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.