Man with unloaded gun killed by victim

[michreject]

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070519/NEWS01/705190372>Link

Man with unloaded gun killed by victim

May 19, 2007

BY BEN SCHMITT and JACK KRESNAK

FREE PRESS STAFF WRITERS

A robbery and crime spree aided by an unloaded gun came to a halt late Thursday when the gunman met more than his match: a gun with bullets.

Charles Parker Jr., 18, of Detroit was killed when a 53-year-old man pulled out a 9mm handgun and shot the teen, who was armed with an unloaded .22-caliber handgun.

Advertisement
Detroit police are calling it self-defense.

The botched carjacking on Grand River and Prevost came after a string of robberies in Detroit on Thursday, which police said were committed by Parker and four others, ranging in age from 16 to 20.

The robberies began about 8:40 p.m. Thursday at Kentucky and Curtis when a 16-year-old was robbed of his cell phone, a silver chain and his wallet, by at least two of the suspects, police said.

More at link.


This must be a mistake. This kind of use of a handgun doesn't happen in real life, only on TV. Everybody know that there is never a handgun used to protect your life, that's what the police are for.:sarcasm:

[BurtWorm]

1. That is one of the weirdest headlines I've ever read.

:wtf:

[michreject]

7. It's not mine.

Plagiarized from the newspaper.

[Rage for Order]

92. Well, the headline got it right. What happened in the story?

The headline rightly calls the perpetrator a "man", but later in the story, apparently in an attempt to drum up sympathy for the attacker who was shot dead, they refer to him as a "teen", as in "...pulled out a 9mm handgun and shot the teen". That mean old 53 year old man shot a teen, and all the teen did was point an unloaded gun at him!!! :sarcasm:

[NightWatcher]

2. yay!

That's why I carry my .45...that and for duck hunting in the park :)

[SayWhatYo]

55. To kill teenaged kids?

*note, I'm just giving you a hard time... I'm sure it's obvious I'm kidding, but I wanted to make it clear.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

3. I read there were 11,000 gun murders last year and 67 gun killings in self defense

nt

[dmallind]

9. And many thousands of non-lethal self defense gun uses

In fact 98% of all defensive gun uses don't even involve pulling the trigger, let alone killing. Most criminals have an inherent sense of self-preservation and plenty of unarmed victims to choose from. Why risk a shootout once you see your intended prey is armed - whether you are or not? Hightail it out of there and find someone defenseless.

[billbuckhead]

13. And what about the many thousands of non-lethal ILLEGAL gun uses?

Like domestic violence, unreported street crimes against illegals, etc.

[dmallind]

They exist too of course

One says nothing about the other.

It's worth pointing out here that I am not arguing that guns in civilian hands are a good idea. Overall it would be great never to have a gun in either criminal or potential victim hands. BUT - as long as they are likely to be in criminal hands I want them to be in victim hands too.

[Joe Fields]

20. can you be more specific, and give me a link to your numbers?

[dmallind]

39. Sure

In fact here's a link to a good discussion on the various surveys.

http://timlambert.org/2003/04/

[krispos42]

17. It's a shade under 10,000

About another 5,000 or so non-gun homicides. We rank 24th in worldwide homicide rate and 8th in gun homicides. We own about 65% of the civilian-owned guns on the planet.

There about 360 civilian justifiable homicides a year, and about 200 police justifiable homicides.

Surveys estimate that there are about 1.2 million defensive gun uses a year by the US civilian population.

[uppityperson]

111. well, there you go.Self defense rarely ends in killing someone

Because people pulling out a gun in a crisis can aim better than those who planned the crisis. See?
:sarcasm:

[WI_DEM]

4. I guess that's what can happen if somebody with a gun tries to rob you

the victim doesn't know that there are no bullets in the gun. So, unfortunately for him, the tables were turned and he's dead.

[michreject]

25. And how many people will live long, meaningful lives

Because this dirtbag will not be around to murder them? Hell, worms gotta eat.

[kiki]

28. What, murder them with his unloaded gun?

[michreject]

32. He would have graduated to using bullets

after a close call with someone with a loaded gun.

[cherokeeprogressive]

40. I'm thinking it would have only taken until someone called his bluff n/t.

[michreject]

52. Someone did

He paid the ferryman.

[Drifter]

63. Rule #1 ...

Treat every gun as if it is loaded.

When someone is using an unloaded gun as though it were loaded, then that person HAS a loaded gun.
Unless this person is announcing that he has an unloaded gun, he deserves to be treated as though he has a loaded gun.
In this case, he was shot and killed.

Cheers
Drifter

[chicagolefty]

127. It also doesn't matter...

If the gun is real or not. If someone points a softair gun at you, and you don't know it's a toy, you're justified in defending yourself. If you don't want to get shot, don't point guns at people - real, loaded, unloaded or toys.

[William769]

5. Good for the 53 year old man!

At least we know of one prick that won't be robbing anymore.

[karlrschneider]

11. Exactly!

...

[Joe Fields]

26. But for the fact that the assailant's gun was uloaded,

that 53 year old man would be laying in the morgue right now. It is highly unusual for an armed robber to point an unloaded weapon at a victim. The 53 year old was damned lucky. Carrying a gun would have cost him his life if the robber had bullets.

[Madspirit]

6. Self-Defense

Tragic and ended a young life but was absolutely self defense. What was this kid thinking? I live in Texas...a right to carry and conceal state. He would have been blown away even faster down here. You don't aim a gun at someone unless you want to get killed. This was like "suicide by victim". What an idiot kid.
Lee

[uppityperson]

112. Indeed. You don't carry a gun unless you figure someone might think it is loaded.

suicide by victim, good.

[Bandit]

8. More guns is the answer and this just proves it..

Every one year old and up should be required to possess a gun. Especially a pistol..This report only proves that more guns is the only answer to gun injuries and death in America...

[billbuckhead]

10. The car was worth more than the 18 year olds life

But it makes gun "enthusiasts feel good about killing a perp with their sacred tool. Obviously the kid didn't want to kill anyone since the gun was unloaded.

[William769]

15. The question remains how many cars did he actually steal?

And yes the car was worth more than his life at his choosing.

[michreject]

16. What about his earlier robbery victims?

They didn't know that the gun was unloaded. They were shitting in their pants. I bet they make a bee line to the police station and get the paperwork for a CCW. They know they were lucky..........This time.

[slackmaster]

19. billbuckhead completely misstates the contingencies

The choice was not the robber's life vs. the car. It was one person's life against another. The victim had no way of knowing the robber's gun was not loaded.

[krispos42]

21. But bill, isn't this what you want?

A person, an adult, waving an illegal gun around, using it in crime, and gets killed for his efforts.

[billbuckhead]

27. Don't assume I'm as bloodthirsty as most of the gun addict side

If the 54 year old guy didn't have a gun, no one would have been killed.

The 54 year old will also probably be haunted by this. Just another example of guns making America a worse place than the rest of the industrialized world.

[michreject]

31. I seriously doubt

that the deceased, had he not got killed, would have stopped his criminal behavior. He would have kept up his activity until he killed someone.

There is a person alive because the thug is dead.

[karlrschneider]

36. Bullshit. If the prick had found some bullets he would have killed a bunch of people.

Good riddance to bad trash.

[krispos42]

49. You want people that own guns to be punished

If the kid did have a loaded gun, you'd be martyring him and asking the older guy why his car was worth more than the life of an 18 year old.

Funny how you rage on and on about all the 'poor victims' of gun violence in other posts, then when a person decided to actually NOT be a victim of gun violence, you villinize him. The older man was a victim of gun violence, the teen was the victim of his own criminal acts.

If the 18-year-old didn't decide to commit a criminal act, he'd still be alive as well.

[billbuckhead]

81. There would be no dead person if neither had guns

Both are victims of gun violence and so is our society.

[EstimatedProphet]

82. You don't know that

The kid was robbing him. Do you think he would just walk up and ask for the keys, with nothing to back it up? Knives are lethal too, and if the kid didn't have a gun he'd likely have a knife instead, or something else to enforce his threat.

[VTMechEngr]

128. Sure Whatever - That Baseball bat was there just for asthetic reasons.

You lost this argument a while ago.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BoneDaddy]

24. And the victim

of his violent crime is supposed to know that?

[Zynx]

30. You do realize victims are frequently killed in carjackings, right?

Setting aside that the car probably is worth more than this bum was.

[Ghost in the Machine]

38. What a load of shit!

I hope your family (if you have one) never has to depend on you to protect them. They'll be shit out of luck, won't they?

"Obviously the kid didn't want to kill anyone since the gun was unloaded." :puke: I thought I'd read it ALL here before, but this takes the cake. You're blaming the victim of a crime for defending himself???

Maybe robbery victims should start asking robbers if their gun is really loaded before they give up their wallets, purses, cars, etc? Yeah, that's it. That'll help cut down the crime rate, won't it?

[billbuckhead]

85. I've defended myself and family from gun owners several times

So far no one has died and it has made me skeptical to an extreme that anyone has the responsibility to use guns. That you would place property over human life is disgusting and cowardly. I guess it's all so much gun porn for you people.

[Ghost in the Machine]

88. You've defended yourself and your family from gun OWNERS?!?!

How, by not going to someone's house to visit because they own guns? WTF are you talking about? Have you ever defended them from an ARMED CRIMINAL??

And just who in the FUCK do you think you're calling "you people"?

That you would parse words and make up bullshit claims of defending yourself and your family from gun OWNERS is more cowardly and disgusting than anything I've ever said or done in my lifetime. You'd probably use a kid as a human shield while pissing your pants and begging someone not to rob you or kill you.

[karlrschneider]

90. This guy is a total nutcase.

A one-track mind that leads nowhere.

[Ghost in the Machine]

95. LOL!!

yeah, one track that goes around in tiny little circles. I think his train ran out of coal a year ago and just stopped in the middle of the track.

Seriously, how can people even say something like that without busting out laughing?

Oh, BTW... I defended myself and my family from bears today. We stayed away from the zoo and woods where bears are....

[karlrschneider]

97. Oh, bully for you! I defended my family from TIGERS today!

I mean, whatever I did obviously worked, nobody got eaten...

:rofl:

[billbuckhead]

106. Statistically, bears are less dangerous than gun owners

It's a fact that bears kill less Americans than so called "law abiding" gun owners before they go off their nut.

[Ghost in the Machine]

110. Ok... I'll make a deal with you, right now....

You come on here to Tennessee and we'll go camping. I'll share a camp site with 3 law abiding gun owners and let you share a camp site with 3 bears. We'll see who's still alive in the morning. Deal??

[billbuckhead]

116. Bears kill far less Americans than "law abiding" gun owners

But a prudent person tries to stay away from both.

[billbuckhead]

105. No one call can tell very quickly the difference between a "good" gun owner

and a criminal gun owner. Are the "good" gun owners going to wear orange hunting hats? is there some signal that law abiding gun owners will give the world before they go off their nut and become killers?

BTW, how can saying something on the internet be called cowardly. It's actual actions that show couarge or cowardice.

Hilarious how some equate gun ownership with courage. I guess some are trying to buy something they don't have in their heart.

[Ghost in the Machine]

109. Nowhere in your rely did you even come close to making any sense.

Everyone here is now a little dumber for having read it. What's it like living in the outer fringes of reality? Cold & lonely??

What a load of shit! Are you saying that eventually EVERY law abiding gun owner "goes off his nut" as you so ineloquently stated it? My god, dude, how paranoid are you of guns?

People equate gun ownership with courage? Where do you come up with some of this shit? I've seen goldfish with better grasps on life and reality than you've got. I love when people show themselves for the tools that they are.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

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

[Ghost in the Machine]

91. can you believe this clown?

defended himself and family from gun OWNERS??!! WTF!?

[karlrschneider]

94. There's no accounting for stupidity, evidently.

But it's probably just a pack of lies anyway...
:puke:

[Ghost in the Machine]

98. you just can't fix stupid...

Nope, I don't think it's lies. I firmly believe this person has defended himself and his family many times from gun owners. Notice he didn't say he defended them from gun toting criminals, but gun owners. He just didn't take them to someone's house because they owned guns, thereby defending them from gun owners.

What a putz!

[karlrschneider]

100. DU is a big community. There are bound to be a few screwballs.

I don't know what else to say...

[billbuckhead]

107. And a lot of Astroturf to try to cover up the blood in the NRA's USA nightmare

Those 30,000 dead people and over 100,000 wounded every year by America's absurd gun regulation environment touch the lives of many people. Here in Atlanta, Grady hospital leads the nation in the number of gunshot victims, I know some of the doctors.

[VTMechEngr]

129. And millions have died in Africa because of a lack of Machete Control.

Better get that Machete banning campaign going...

And cars too!

Cars kill an estimated 1.2 million people worldwide each year, and injure about forty times this number.

Frankly, my Alma Mater Aside, I've known far more people killed or injured by cars than by guns. In fact, just now, I'd calculate a 23 to 1 ratio.

[Madspirit]

61. Of course not

No material object is worth someone's life BUT HOW THE HELL WAS THE GUY SUPPOSED TO KNOW THE KID'S GUN WAS NOT LOADED. Jeez...
Lee

[Madspirit]

dupe delete

[Madspirit]

62. dupe delete

[MilesColtrane]

71. Was it always unloaded?

Maybe he didn't have any bullets because he put them into someone else.

[michreject]

12. I agree.

[Swamp Rat]

70. I want my very own, personal canon.

"Get the hell outta my yard, you bothersome children!" ... BOOM! :nuke:

[Greyhound]

114. Rather ironic sig line considering your reply. n/t

[VTMechEngr]

130. Though technically

Arms are what can be borne by a citizen, and a cannon is a bit heavy to hold. :silly:

[unpossibles]

14. I guess it's true: guns don't kill people

bullets do. Maybe the comedian (Chris Rock?) who said bullets should cost $1000 each was on to something...

[Man_in_the_Moon]

18. Yeah, only those rich enough

should be able to arm themselves for their own defense.

the poor and poverty stricken should be at the mercy of those that will ignore whatever law that is put in place...

[unpossibles]

22. never mind.

sorry to try to make a joke on your sacred subject. the point Rock was making was that no one would get shot unless they really deserved it. Sorry. I'll try to be more serious.

[slackmaster]

41. I think the person who got shot in this incident deserved it

Don't you?

[unpossibles]

46. I don't recall saying that he deserved it or not

frankly he did in the sense that he was robbing people with a gun, so in some f'd up way he did "deserve" it. I'm starting to think we should just arm everyone older then 6 months old so that everyone who deserves to die can be shot.



But going along with my original joke, he obviously could not afford the bullets.

[SayWhatYo]

57. You're too hard on him...

He was carjacking people so he could get money to buy bullets.

[unpossibles]

59. see, that was funny.

and for the record, I don't think the guy who shot him was in the wrong for doing so. it was self defense all the way, and I would have done the same.

All in all though, I think we're too gun happy as a culture, and the "he deserved to die" idea - while true - is kind of sad really.

[SayWhatYo]

I personally don't think he deserved to die.

I also think it's unfortunate that he was killed. However, he put himself in that situation and the guy who shot him had every right to do it. I'm not sure how I would have behaved in a similar situation, but I can't fault the victim.

[unpossibles]

77. I almost said that, but was sick of arguing the point between "deserved"

and the other guy being justified in self defense.

[SayWhatYo]

67. dupe...

stupid mouse is acting funny... I need a new one.

[billbuckhead]

29. So lets start giving immigrants and the homeless semi-automatics

These poor vulnerable people people need them the the most.

[michreject]

33. As long as it's legal for them to own them

[Man_in_the_Moon]

35. i would not have a problem with that

not at all.

If you are too poverty stricken to afford your own firearm and ammunition for protection, why not have a program that helps out those most in need? Those that dont have means to help themselves.

[Madspirit]

65. I Was Homeless For Years

...would have come in handy. Thanks.
Lee

[treestar]

34. It's good that the 53-year-old (apparently) saved his own life

Since the kid was pointing a gun at him, I don't see that he had any duty to check whether it was loaded.

It turned out right this time.

[DemDem07]

37. The gun "wasn't" used to save his life.

It was used to end the life of the accused car jacker.

[karlrschneider]

42. Maybe it will encourage others to get rid of filth who try to rob them.

...

[slackmaster]

43. The victim had no way of knowing the assailant's gun was not loaded

It would be a legitimate act of self-defense in any state.

[dmallind]

47. who was threatening the shooter's life

Just because the gun was unloaded doesn't mean that he wasn't threatening the victim with a lethal weapon. The self defense statutes generally have a "reasonable person" standard of threat to life or serious harm. I find it hard to credit that any reasonable person would NOT find staring at the hole-y end of a gun not to be a threat of death or serious harm.

[krispos42]

50. It is the perceptions and assumptions the man was operating under

The teen was pointing a loaded gun at him, as far as the adult knew. Unless the adult had some personal mitigating knowledge that is not apparent from the story.

It is neither reasonable nor prudent to assume that the gun was unloaded or that the criminal would not shoot.

[Madspirit]

66. People DIE all the time in car jackings

It has become one of the most violent crimes. What a crock. So this guy should have died rather than defend himself. Okey dokey.
Lee

[VTMechEngr]

131. And the 53 year-old looking down the barrel of a gun knew this how?

Way to 20/20 that one!

[knitter4democracy]

44. What do you expect? It's Michigan--he should've expected that.

I mean, waving a gun around up here will get other people to get their guns out, and most of those will be loaded. I wonder why he didn't have any ammo.

[slackmaster]

45. The most likely explanation is the simplest

He was a dumbass.

[dmallind]

48. I suspect all of us can agree there. NT

nt

[krispos42]

51. If I had to guess?

The teen didn't want to shoot anybody, even accidently. The gun was a stage prop for his criminal career.

Or, he figured that the charges are less for carrying an unloaded illegal pistol than a loaded illegal pistol.

Not that either of those are particularly good reasons.

[knitter4democracy]

78. Those make sense, though.

They sound like things some of my former students would believe. *sigh*

[michreject]

56. Maybe he didn't know how to load it.

Being a Range Officer, you wouldn't believe some of the thing that I See. Maybe the mag was loaded but didn't rack the slide, thereby loading the chamber.

[SayWhatYo]

60. If that was the case, then I don't they would say it wasn't loaded...

Then again, who knows with the media. They seem to like to make things more 'interesting'.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

125. Heh, my only response to those who don't know this is....

Dumbass.

I mean, quite a few of accidental teenage gun related deaths are from some dumbass who thinks the gun isn't loaded simply because they took out the mag, and didn't check the chamber (however, generally it's probably better for the springs and firing pin for the chamber to be empty when kept on hand {I don't really know this, just operating on the assumption that springs can wear out], but I doubt many gun owners would do that).

[ComerPerro]

53. well, for one thing, the hand gun didn't exactly save his life.

How do we know that, were the assailant's gun loaded, then the victim wouldn't have been killed instead, or both would have been killed?

[SayWhatYo]

58. Don't know....

On the other hand, how do we know that the victim wouldn't have been beaten to death if the he didn't have a gun? While it's unfortunate that his life ended because he made a poor choice. The fact is that it was his own fault for trying to commit a crime with a gun. He did it himself, and no one but himself is ultimately to blame for it.

[ComerPerro]

72. and when did I indicate that it was anyone else's fault?

[SayWhatYo]

79. I didn't claim you did.

I added my opinion to complete my response to your question. :D

The jist of my response was that we could throw out all sorts of "what ifs".

[Jed Dilligan]

54. The Darwin award goes to...

The kid who bothered to get a gun and didn't bother to buy bullets.

:wtf:

[progressivebydesign]

64. Only statistics we need to know is about countries with gun control.

Frankly, you don't have to be a genius to see the lack of gun related deaths in countries that have successfully controlled gun ownership. And countries that are not run by gun lobbyists.

[slackmaster]

74. No, Japan isn't run by gun lobbyists

It's run by the police who beat confessions out of innocent people.

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70A14F63F550C728DDDAC0894DF404482

[Zynx]

75. Um, Brazil, Mexico and Russia would like to have a word with you.

[guitar man]

68. too bad about him

When he decided to perpetrate a violent crime, he took the chance that someone would defend against him, in fear for their life, which is what happened in this case. The victim had no way to know if the would-be perp's gun was loaded or not, and did the same thing I probably would have done given the same circumstances.

If he didn't want to get shot, he shouldn't have been out there trying to rob someone in the first place.

[shenmue]

69. If the carjacker didn't have a gun, probably none of this would have happened in the first place.

The obvious answer is ignored, as usual, by the gun freaks.

If nobody has guns, nobody will be an outlaw.

:dunce:

[MilesColtrane]

76. That's naive.

Google for knife wielding carjackers.

[SayWhatYo]

80. or play grand theft auto...

[EstimatedProphet]

83. Yes. The only possible way to commit a violent crime is with a gun.

No violence existed before the Chinese invented gunpowder.

[billbuckhead]

86. Try a carjacking with a your bare fists, sword, knife, baseball or hammer

Pretty hard to do without a guns. Some crimes are only possible with guns.

[EstimatedProphet]

87. That's funny, because google says entirely different

Nice try

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

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

[LSK]

73. fuck prisons, lets just meet in mainstreet at noon

:sarcasm:

[Big Pappa]

84. Darwin at it's prime.

n/t

[Rex]

93. Strange they didn't call it a carjacking.

News you can use.

[karlrschneider]

96. Actually they called it a "botched carjacking"

"The botched carjacking on Grand River and Prevost"

Did you even bother to read the article?
:eyes:

[Rex]

104. I was talking about the articles title.

Duh. :eyes:

[iamthebandfanman]

99. and this is why

the gun laws in many states is HORRIBLE and allows for this sorta thing.

the ole shoot first ask questions later case but only now its legal in alot of states. go figure.

heck, what if i had been a teen n walk near by and it was assumed i was part of the 'teen age' gang n he shot me....
guess he wouldnt go to jail for that either.

[karlrschneider]

102. Even worse, you could have been an Iraqi minding your own business

when the Air Force dropped a bunker buster on your house.

[krispos42]

103. No, it's not

You'be been reading too much gunguys.com propaganda.

The standard for lethal force in self-defence is 'reasonable belief' of impending death or serious bodily harm to yourself or innocent bystander.

Some states require you to retreat when faced with a dangerous threat, allowing use of lethal force only when you could not retreat anymore, which is a real pisser when you're in your own home facing down an aggressive intruder. Some states require you to retreat when you can do so safely. And soem states say that if you are in a public area and not engaging in illegal activities you are not required to retreat at all.

In either case, the standard for shooting your attacker is still 'reasonable belief'. Not "hey, the bastard oogled my girl so I stabbed him"

[billbuckhead]

108. The standard is what ever you can get away with

and there will be a grandstand of gun owners cheering on the propaganda from these incidents.

[krispos42]

113. I don't think you have the moral authority to discuss this topic

If an intended victim legitimately shoots a gun-wielding attacker, you whine and bitch about the attacker being dead and say, completely unfounded and entirely speculatively, "If the guy didn't have a gun there wouldn't be a dead body."

If an intended victim illegitimately shoots a gun-wielding attacker, you whine and bitch about the attacker being dead and say, completely unfounded and entirely speculatively, "If the guy didn't have a gun there wouldn't be a dead body" followed by "See, see, we can't trust anybody to have a gun."

If an intended victim is shot by a gun-wielding attacker, you whine and bitch about the victim being dead and say, completely unfounded and entirely speculatively, "If the guy didn't have a gun there wouldn't be a dead body", and blame the gun somehow causing the criminal to become one.

If an intended victim legitimately shoots a non-gun-wielding attacker, you whine and bitch about the attacker being dead and say, completely unfounded and entirely speculatively, "If the guy didn't have a gun there wouldn't be a dead body. Gun versus knife isn't a fair fight."

If an intended victim illegitimately shoots a non-gun-wielding attacker, you whine and bitch about the attacker being dead and say, completely unfounded and entirely speculatively, "If the guy didn't have a gun there wouldn't be a dead body" followed by "See, see, we can't trust anybody to have a gun."

If an intended victim is killed by a non-gun-wielding attacker or an attacker killed by a non-gun-wielding victim, you sigh with happiness and feel all righteous and warm inside, because you've accomplished your goal.


Besides, according to you, the uber-vast majority of people this country hate guns and will swarm the grandstand to counter all that propoganda. Because it's okay if the anti-gunners spew propoganda, but not if the pro-gun people do.

[billbuckhead]

115. Can't hate an inanimate object just the pushers of these killing machines

The USA is proven to have a high murder rate and other problems other similar nations don't have because of the easy availability of guns. It's just a fact.

What I hate are the bloodthirsty gun lobby and the evil people who promote guns and the despicable gun culture as a cheap replacement for law, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[distantearlywarning]

118. Dude, check Switzerland.

Basically no gun restrictions at all, a large percentage of the population owns a firearm, and homicide rates are the lowest in the world.

Also, all evidence linking gun availability to crime rates is totally correlational, in Switzerland, the U.S., and everywhere else in the world. Your post implies causation (e.g. the use of the word "proven").

And you might want to reconsider calling half of DU "evil people" - that's what the last poll on gun ownership among DUers indicated was the approximate population here who own a gun or would consider owning a gun.

[billbuckhead]

120. Dude! Switzerland is switching to EU style gun laws

Half of DU doesn't own guns. Most liberals stay away from the gun crowd like a steaming pile of poo on the street and didn't participate in the heavily Astroturfed unscientific gun polls. Half of RepublKKKans don't even own guns. The strongest democratic constituentcies are women and minorities which are strongest supporters of stronger gun regulations.

[distantearlywarning]

123. Well, here's one "heavily Astroturfed" poll for you.

Amazing what you can find in the DU archives.

You should have remembered this one - you are a major contributor to the thread! Or maybe you just conveniently "forgot" about this particular poll...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=677659

I will admit that I did mislead a little bit - it looks like it's actually 54%, not 50%. Sorry about that.

Here's another Astroturf poll for your edification:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=518023

Interesting. Looks like you contributed to that one too. Guess you "forgot" about that poll also. Huh.

Anyway, I think I've made my point here. The "gun crowd" is us, mister, like it or not. Guess we've all been brainwashed by the NRA, women and minorities and all. Except for you, lone bastion of free thinking and true liberalism, right?

Also, whatever Switzerland is going to do about gun control in the near future doesn't change the fact that it has had simultaneously both a high rate of gun ownership and a low homicide rate for many decades. Further, I only brought that up to counter your assertion that lax national gun laws always lead to high gun deaths. Saying that Switzerland might change its gun laws to match those of the EU doesn't effectively counter my counter, nor does it change the basic statistics about homicide in that country for the last 50 years.

[billbuckhead]

126. Here's the truth about what's happening in Switzerland

"Now, Switzerland's biggest women's magazine is leading a campaign to tighten what they see as the country's archaic gun laws. They want lawmakers to create a national gun register and ban loaded weapons being kept in the home.

A petition to the Swiss parliament contained the signatures of 17,400 Swiss women who support the reform campaign.

"There are more and more homicides in the home and more and more of the victims are women," says Lisa Feldmann, editor-in-chief of Annabelle. As well as having one of the highest gun-suicide rates in Europe, Switzerland has more women shot dead than almost anywhere in the Western world, many of them after arguments with men.

The wake-up call for Swiss women came with the killing of alpine skier Corinne Rey-Bellet earlier this year. She was shot dead by her army reservist husband 10 days after leaving him. Gerold Stadler, who also killed Rey-Bellet's brother before committing suicide, used his service pistol."

<http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article1919124.ece>

[distantearlywarning]

117. Sorry, can't get on board with this opinion.

While I think it's sad that someone was killed, the kid certainly could have avoided the situation by not trying to rob someone at gunpoint (loaded or unloaded). It's as simple as that.

Personally, although I own a gun, I'm not as competent with a firearm as I am with a knife. If someone tried to rob me at gunpoint and I had a knife at hand and thought I could successfully use it without getting shot, I absolutely would. Would it be more or less of a tragedy if I killed my attacker under those circumstances? And would you try to take my knives away from me afterwards? How about my neighbors' knives?

Or maybe we should just let teenage carjackers do whatever they feel like to other citizens, because we certainly wouldn't want them to become injured in the commission of a crime or anything. That would be terrible, and a sign that our civilization is in utter decline. :sarcasm:

(Yes, BillBuckHead, I'm one of "you people". P.S. - calling people who disagree with you "you people" is a sign that you need to take a little step back emotionally.)

[billbuckhead]

122. I'm against both gun owning perps, the carjacker and the killer

Both people who would have done better if they didn't hide behind guns.

Some people sure have a large emotional investment in being able to kill people as readily as possible. Devaluing "the other" so that so that they deserve to die from a gun is marketing 101 by the gun lobby and it's minions.

[distantearlywarning]

124. "Some people"?

I guess that'd be me. But I thought I was part of the "you people"? Or the "evil people"?

[depakid]

119. I see a Darwin award nomination n/t

[JVS]

121. Boo hoo!

[Louie the XIV]

132. Menacing people with a gun regardless of whether its loaded

can lead to cardiac arrests, accidents, and all kinds of tragedies.

One less thug on the streets is good news for the people of Detroit.