15 year old shot and killed

[dennilfloss]

this guy used his registered weapon appropriately and lawfully

Key word is control. Not prohibition. I am for legal gun ownership with tight regulations. I see gun ownership as a privilege, not a right. In my book, you have to earn that privilege and show valid reason for possessing a firearm.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: dennilfloss

this guy used his registered weapon appropriately and lawfully

Key word is control. Not prohibition. I am for legal gun ownership with tight regulations. I see gun ownership as a privilege, not a right. In my book, you have to earn that privilege and show valid reason for possessing a firearm.

Ummm... the founding fathers disagree with you per the constitution. See the second amendment. Gun ownership is a right.

 

[Roguestar]

darwin FTW

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: dennilfloss

this guy used his registered weapon appropriately and lawfully

Key word is control. Not prohibition. I am for legal gun ownership with tight regulations. I see gun ownership as a privilege, not a right. In my book, you have to earn that privilege and show valid reason for possessing a firearm.

Ummm... the founding fathers disagree with you per the constitution. See the second amendment. Gun ownership is a right.

Dennis is Canadian.

 

[LtPage1]

Originally posted by: crt1530

I think this is an excellent example of how concealed handgun licenses and legal gun ownership are a benefit to society. Discuss.

I feel sh!tty agreeing with you when a kid died, but I do agree with you all the same.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: dennilfloss

this guy used his registered weapon appropriately and lawfully

Key word is control. Not prohibition. I am for legal gun ownership with tight regulations. I see gun ownership as a privilege, not a right. In my book, you have to earn that privilege and show valid reason for possessing a firearm.

Ummm... the founding fathers disagree with you per the constitution. See the second amendment. Gun ownership is a right.

Dennis is Canadian.

Darned foreigners...

I swear, sometimes I think we should have little flags next to our names...

 

[Czar]

City prosecutors decided Monday that Wells, 25, was justified and would not be charged for what appears to be the first time a concealed-carry permit holder has shot and killed an attacker.

This is the most telling that concieled weapons permit does indeed not work.

 

[Roguestar]

Explain?

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: Amused
OK, why is CCW even in question? The man was on his front porch. You do not need a CCW license in ANY state to carry a gun on your own property.

Bingo. This incident has little to do with concealed carry, except that the property owner might not have been armed at that particular point in time if he didn't have a concealed weapons permit. That's just speculation. Certainly, he didn't need a concealed weapons permit to lawfully carry the firearm on his own private property.

This is the most telling that concieled weapons permit does indeed not work.

Sure, if the basis of an effective police force is the number of criminal suspects killed as opposed to suspects arrested, crimes interdicted, or deterred, then not a single police department in the country measures up since they don't kill nearly as many criminals as they arrest or deter. Seems the police, in your view, aren't using their guns nearly as much as they should be to deter/reduce crime, eh?

In fact, it is well-established by numerous studies that most bona fide defensive gun uses (DGU) never involve a shot. Merely brandishing or producing a gun in defense is enough to cause a criminal to break-off an attempted robbery/rape/assault/murder and flee in most cases. Something about your victim having a gun changes the risk/reward dynamic...and not in a way that favors the criminal.

Besides, Ohio's concealed carry law has only been in effect for three years now and that statement only applied to Cleveland (if its correct), not the entire state.

While some still debate whether or not concealed carry actually reduces or deters crime on the whole as some proponent's claim, there is no disputing the fact that every reason stated in opposition to concealed carry is proven flat wrong over and over and over. It doesn't lead to wholesale gun play, people don't get into shoot-outs over parking places or cutting in line at the supermarket, the streets don't turn into the OK Corral or Wild West.

In every state that keeps records, permits holders have arrest and criminality rates well below the general population, with most offenses having nothing whatsoever to do with misuse of their guns. Only police officers are more law-abiding as an identifiable group than permit holders, and one study in Georgia found that permit holders had lower rates of serious criminal offenses than cops!

Whether or not you believe the arguments or claims in favor of concealed carry, there is absolutely no credible reason to oppose it.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Connoisseur
Seems like another case where you take an extreme (or statistically minor) incident and make it the poster child for a cause. As far as gun control is concerned, I'd like to know statistics on the following:
1) How many shootings are committed by criminals with registered guns or registered guns stolen from civilians or guns purchased through gun shows (not sure if these have to be registered)?
2) How many "justifiable" killings are committed by civilians with registered guns?

I suspect 1>>>2 unless someone can prove me wrong. If they can, i'll gladly tuck my tail between my legs and leave. If i'm right, what justification is there for giving civilians the right to carry concealed weapons. It's pure statistics in my opinion. Now i've never had a gun pointed at me or my family and I feel sorry for those who have experienced this; i'm not sure if it would change my opinion emotionally but i'm willing to bet the majority of gun owners haven't had this happen to them either. I'm not going to discuss the right to bear arms simply because it'll just be a flaming argument between both sides.

::EDIT:: Was responding more to the question of whether or not this event should promote the cause of guns, not whether or not the kid was guilty. I think all the people involved are retarded for blaming a man for defending himself from a couple of criminals.

Here are the statistics on firearm crime. Note that this isn't how many times a firearm was fired, merely how many times one was present. It also has nothing to do with registration. In other words, roughly 350,000 total, with a much smaller number given your original constraints.

Here is a fairly in depth exploration of defensive gun uses. It shows roughly 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year, or roughly 7 times the number of crimes. Again, these aren't deaths, just uses. I 'think' that there are usually about 200-300 annual deaths from defensive gun uses by civilians, but I'm pulling that number from memory so I could be completely wrong. I know it's very small though, as something like 70-90% of defensive gun uses don't end even in a shooting, merely a brandishing. It is not the only such study however, and (like crime statistics) the numbers reached by others varies. The lowest number I've ever read is 200-300k per year, or almost equal to the total number of gun crimes.

What this means is that at the very least people use guns to defend themselves as much as they are used for evil purposes, while at most they are used many times more often for good. Also remember that without the use of firearms for defense we would have 200,000 - 2,500,000 additional victims of crime (potentially) as they would no longer be able to adequately defend themselves.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
something like 70-90% of defensive gun uses don't end even in a shooting, merely a brandishing

"No man ever raped a .38"

- M4H

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues

Originally posted by: Kelvrick

Originally posted by: Connoisseur
Seems like another case where you take an extreme (or statistically minor) incident and make it the poster child for a cause. As far as gun control is concerned, I'd like to know statistics on the following:
1) How many shootings are committed by criminals with registered guns or registered guns stolen from civilians or guns purchased through gun shows (not sure if these have to be registered)?
2) How many "justifiable" killings are committed by civilians with registered guns?

I suspect 1>>>2 unless someone can prove me wrong. If they can, i'll gladly tuck my tail between my legs and leave. If i'm right, what justification is there for giving civilians the right to carry concealed weapons. It's pure statistics in my opinion. Now i've never had a gun pointed at me or my family and I feel sorry for those who have experienced this; i'm not sure if it would change my opinion emotionally but i'm willing to bet the majority of gun owners haven't had this happen to them either. I'm not going to discuss the right to bear arms simply because it'll just be a flaming argument between both sides.

::EDIT:: Was responding more to the question of whether or not this event should promote the cause of guns, not whether or not the kid was guilty. I think all the people involved are retarded for blaming a man for defending himself from a couple of criminals.

Google searched came up with this PDF Article is slightly old, but it answers your questions.

Key numbers from what I see are:

According to the 1991 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those inmates who possessed a handgun, 9% had acquired it through theft, and 28% had acquired it through an illegal market such as a drug dealer or fence. Of all inmates, 10% had stolen at least one gun, and 11% had sold or traded stolen guns.
Studies of adult and juvenile offenders that the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services conducted in 1992 and 1993 found that 15% of the adult offenders and 19% of the juvenile offenders had stolen guns; 16% of the adults and 24% of the juveniles had kept a stolen gun; and 20% of the adults and 30% of the juveniles had sold or traded a stolen gun.
From a sample of juvenile inmates in four States, Sheley and Wright found that more than 50% had stolen a gun at least once in their lives and 24% had stolen their most recently obtained handgun. They concluded that theft and burglary were the original, not always the proximate, source of many guns acquired by the juveniles.

Your comment was valid, but well, criminals can find other ways to get a firearm where law-abiding citizens can't.

if you own a gun, you should be more careful with it so it doesnt become stolen.

you should be required to get a goddamn real safe taht no punk robber can just crack so that gun cant get on the street. or for that matter, all of your guns.

if you want to be able to own a gun, you should be able to protect it against petty theft.

we not only need some gun control, but gun owners need gun repsonsibility. and that just doesnt mean shooting the bad guys.

I'm all for responsibility, but nothing is going to stop a determined criminal, therefore you need to be very careful when placing the responsibility on the law-abiding citizen and not the criminal to begin with. As long as people make a good faith effort they should be 100% blameless. The fault is entirely the criminals to begin with. Also, since anyone who wants one can just buy a gun underground, or even make one themselves, there's really not much gained from reducing the number of weapons stolen.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Czar

City prosecutors decided Monday that Wells, 25, was justified and would not be charged for what appears to be the first time a concealed-carry permit holder has shot and killed an attacker.

This is the most telling that concieled weapons permit does indeed not work.

Absurd. The vast majority of defensive gun uses involve no shooting, merely brandishing.

There are between 1.5 and 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year in the US. Only a tiny minority involve shots fired and an even smaller number end in fatalities.

Your lack of logic assumes that every defensive gun use must end not only with a shooting, but a fatality. Why would you assume that? Should CCW permit holders shoot criminals as they run away? Shoot them in the back? Would that make you feel better?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Special K
Question for the gun experts here - if you are concealed-carrying your gun and a robber pulls a gun on you, would you even have enough time to draw your own weapon and fire a shot without the robber shooting you first, assuming the robber's gun was loaded and he actually intended to use it?

That question isn't answerable with certainty. Being aware of the situation it's possible to see someone going for a weapon (or at least doing something suspicious/threatening and begin reacting immediately. It's possible to draw in such a way that the criminal isn't aware of it. It's possible you'll get acquisition and fire quicker than they will (especially if you train regularly like you should be). If the criminal hesitates and you don't it can make the difference. There are a number of variables like these that matter. In general, the first person with the gun actually out is going to win, but not always.

 

[SparkyJJO]

"My cousin is dead!! That guy killed him!"
Well maybe if your cousin wasn't going about thieving and pulling guns on others he would still be alive. Use your common sense....

Pity the kid died in some ways, other ways, well, he had it coming to him....

 

[ryan256]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Czar

City prosecutors decided Monday that Wells, 25, was justified and would not be charged for what appears to be the first time a concealed-carry permit holder has shot and killed an attacker.

This is the most telling that concieled weapons permit does indeed not work.

Absurd. The vast majority of defensive gun uses involve no shooting, merely brandishing.

There are between 1.5 and 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year in the US. Only a tiny minority involve shots fired and an even smaller number end in fatalities.

Your lack of logic assumes that every defensive gun use must end not only with a shooting, but a fatality. Why would you assume that? Should CCW permit holders shoot criminals as they run away? Shoot them in the back? Would that make you feel better?

I guess this is a good reason I don't have a CCW permit. If I was ever in a situation where I felt threatened enough that I had to draw you will get shot, even if its in the back.

And this kid got what he had coming to him.

Originally posted by: leftyman

Originally posted by: BKLounger
let me just make sure i am crystal here. A 15 year old pulls a gun on a person then the other person responds by shooting a weapon (which he had concealed and a permit for) and people are on the side of the 15 year old?

Am i correct in this? who in the world can actually be on the side of the 15 year old with an illegal fire arm who pulled his weapon first?

people of similar morals and make up.

QFFT!

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Connoisseur

Originally posted by: yuppiejr

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues

if you own a gun, you should be more careful with it so it doesnt become stolen.

you should be required to get a goddamn real safe taht no punk robber can just crack so that gun cant get on the street. or for that matter, all of your guns.

if you want to be able to own a gun, you should be able to protect it against petty theft.

we not only need some gun control, but gun owners need gun repsonsibility. and that just doesnt mean shooting the bad guys.

How about you focus on giving up your own rights and let others decide what to do with their rights?

how bout if you think you think you deserve the right to have a gun, you have taken on the responsibility to make sure it stays in your posession?

or is that too much of an infringement on your rights?

considering yourr esponse, you seem to think it is, which makes you a big part of the problem, and yhou should never own a gun. time to deal with reality and find pro-gun people that think like you, and eliminate their ability to own them.

Why is it the commie-lefto geeks always sweep in defending the criminals in the gun debate rather than looking to do something constructive like enforce existing laws? In the case of your argument, it's somehow a gun-owner's fault if someone ILLEGALLY breaks into their home/vehicle and steals their property?

By your logic, if someone steals or borrows your car then proceeds to get drunk and kill a pedestrian we should throw you, the owner of the car, in jail with the person who stole/borrowed it and killed someone. Your "arrest the gun owner" idea reeks of the same level of idiocy.

A gun is a tool specifically made for killing things. It's a huge responsibility for anyone to have; if they fail that responsibility, either purposely or inadvertently, they should be held accountable.

Again, the ONLY thing you can do here is make an effort. There is NO WAY to ensure it won't be stolen. As long as you are reasonably responsible there can be nothing said, especially when there are so many other ways for criminals to obtain weapons.

For instance, let's just say that I'm mugged and the mugger appears with gun already in hand (preventing me from going for mine). He searches me and finds my gun and takes it. Now, how the FVCK am I responsible for what he does with my gun when I had taken EVERY responsible precaution to prevent being a victim of crime in the first place? What if I lock it up in a lockbox in my car because the place I'm going into doesn't allow me to carry and while I'm inside my car is stolen. Again, I did everything right, but you want me punished? If anything punish the owners of the building I went into because if they hadn't prevented me from carrying I would have had it on me and thus it wouldn't have been stolen when my car was taken. How far do you want to take this?

100% responsibility lies with the criminal, every time, no matter what. THEY are the bad guy, THEY should pay the price for their actions. Now, if you want a thief held accountable for what happens with the things he steals, then I'm all for it. So, a thief breaks into my house and steals my gun. He fences it and another criminal buys it and kills someone with it. Charge the murderer with murder, and charge the thief as an accessory. I'm fine with that.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: ryan256

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Czar

City prosecutors decided Monday that Wells, 25, was justified and would not be charged for what appears to be the first time a concealed-carry permit holder has shot and killed an attacker.

This is the most telling that concieled weapons permit does indeed not work.

Absurd. The vast majority of defensive gun uses involve no shooting, merely brandishing.

There are between 1.5 and 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year in the US. Only a tiny minority involve shots fired and an even smaller number end in fatalities.

Your lack of logic assumes that every defensive gun use must end not only with a shooting, but a fatality. Why would you assume that? Should CCW permit holders shoot criminals as they run away? Shoot them in the back? Would that make you feel better?

I guess this is a good reason I don't have a CCW permit. If I was ever in a situation where I felt threatened enough that I had to draw you will get shot, even if its in the back.

If you shoot someone as they are fleeing, you WILL go to jail. They have to pose an immediate threat. A fleeing criminal does not pose an immediate threat, and therefore a claim of self defense is not justifiable.

 

[sourceninja]

I'm glad that man was able to defend himself.

 

[Mxylplyx]

When a criminal forces a law abiding citizen into an unexpected situation, the law abiding citizen should IN NO WAY be held responsible for what happens, since he didnt make the choice to enter the situation. I dont care if the law abiding citizen snaps and saws the criminal's head off with a rusty butter knife. When people are fighting for their life, they dont have the time nor mental capacity to think about the law, only about protecting themselves and/or their family.

 

[ryan256]

At least they guy who defended himself was also black. If he'd been white the town would have probably lynched him already.

 

[imported_Baloo]

What's age got to do with it? People don't pull out guns unless they intend to use them. There isn't any question here, the man committed no crime.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Gun supporters said the weapon saved Wells' life. Opponents said it took Buford's - that the 15-year-old might be alive if a citizen had not been armed.

Yeah, and the 15 year old might be alive if he hadn't tried to rob an honest citizen at gun point. What was your point again? If you're asking me to chose between the law abiding citizen and a thug...well, I choose the law abiding citizen. Boo Hoo, one less gangster in the world. BFD...

Ditto. Thugs can all rot in hell this county is going to piss due all that thug life BS I'm cool you're not BAMMO you dead...

What's cool there in robbing peeps?

Anyways where was the Mother and Father?

 

[alkemyst]

it's screwed up the accomplices got away.

 

[Pwnbroker]

Originally posted by: Kntx

Originally posted by: DanTMWTMP
i can't believe stupid people put up a memorial at where the kid died. he was a thug, and looked for trouble. he was just asking for it. he deserves no memorial, no balloons, no teddy bears. lame.

Just because the kid was a dick doesn't mean his friends and family arn't going to be affected by his death. I agree the fellow was justified in defending himself, but I wish more people could feel compasion for kid and his family. He may have grown out of his troubles and led a good life. It's sad.

It's obvious that the family is in grief, which is why they don't understand the gravity of the situation. In time, after their sorrow subsides, they may see that the man only did what he had to. But, in the mean time, their grief won't let them see reason, and they may never see reason, especially since the media if fueling their rage. The media is as responsible for any consequences of this incident as any future perpetrators will be, for flaming the fire. Will the media be held accountable? Not at all, because they will hide behind the first amendment. Will the media ever excercise good judgement? That depends on their wallet.