12 Year Old Shoots Home Intruder

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2013 1:09 AM GMT
    http://www.kten.com/story/19848350/12-year-old-shoots-home-intruder

    “Deputies say the girl was home alone when a man she’d never seen before, rang the front doorbell. They say when no one answered the door, the man went around to the back of the house and kicked a door open. That’s when authorities say, the girl grabbed a gun and hid in a bathroom closet. . . . Under sheriff Ken Golden says the girl is a hero and that under the circumstances, she did everything right to protect herself.”
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2013 4:36 PM GMT
    Quick! Arm all the 12-year-olds! icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2013 4:38 PM GMT


    Meanwhile....

    http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Officials+Teenage+gunman+fatally+shoots+home+suspect+custody/7846109/story.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2013 8:03 PM GMT
    And meanwhile (more that goes unreported nationally, I'm sure):

    http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/police-henry-county-teen-accidentally-shot-and-kil/nT3CG/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2013 9:07 PM GMT
    This girl is no hero.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2013 10:25 PM GMT
    msuNtx saidThis girl is no hero.


    What she did was self defense and she was brave.

    However this topic smacks of Riddler-agenda, proven by the comments following the article where people are yapping (polite term for lying) that the gov't wants to do away with ALL guns for ALL citizenry.

    I think Riddler has shares in weapons manufacturing, or is busy offshoring such jobs via his Company (and then complaining about unemployment in the US lol). Frankly, the threat of any weapons curtailments has caused a huge buying spree and for that Mr Riddler should be happy.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2013 1:35 PM GMT
    Meanwhile... I'm sure even more of these go "unreported nationally, I'm sure":

    http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/region/detroit/police:-pizza-delivery-man-fights-back-after-being-ambushed,-kills-robber

    http://columbustelegram.com/news/local/article_4e0742ac-3914-11e0-8c90-001cc4c002e0.html

    http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/02/14/pharmacist-shoots-armed-robber-in-north-suburbs/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2013 3:49 PM GMT
    I can post more links to childhood firearm accidents from Google, and statistics from the CDC...but I won't. You and I have both done the misleading vividness fallacy.
    How can we compare statistics when we have don't have adequate research, which the CDC was directed not to do?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2013 9:23 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidI can post more links to childhood firearm accidents from Google, and statistics from the CDC...but I won't. You and I have both done the misleading vividness fallacy.
    How can we compare statistics when we have don't have adequate research, which the CDC was directed not to do?


    Yes - because the stats are quite clear - gun violence is falling while gun ownership is rising.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2013 9:24 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    q1w2e3 saidI can post more links to childhood firearm accidents from Google, and statistics from the CDC...but I won't. You and I have both done the misleading vividness fallacy.
    How can we compare statistics when we have don't have adequate research, which the CDC was directed not to do?


    Yes - because the stats are quite clear - gun violence is falling while gun ownership is rising.


    Even if both facts are true, it's entirely possible that they are true-true unrelated. There's a good theory out that it's the lead cleanup since the 1970's that is leading to lower crime in general.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/07/gun-ownership-declining1.png
    And gun ownership is not rising, per household.
    gun-ownership-declining1.png
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2013 9:37 PM GMT
    More recent data from Gallup:

    A clear societal change took place regarding gun ownership in the early 1990s, when the percentage of Americans saying there was a gun in their home or on their property dropped from the low to mid-50s into the low to mid-40s and remained at that level for the next 15 years. Whether this reflected a true decline in gun ownership or a cultural shift in Americans' willingness to say they had guns is unclear. However, the new data suggest that attitudes may again be changing. At 47%, reported gun ownership is the highest it has been in nearly two decades -- a finding that may be related to Americans' dampened support for gun-control laws. However, to ensure that this year's increase reflects a meaningful rebound in reported gun ownership, it will be important to see whether the uptick continues in future polling.


    http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx

    sgcossbzcei5hhmpeq0ryq.gif

    n-k9vdg170sylv4thxvfsw.gif

    I should note that even the decline in lead theory to declining crime also suggests that gun violence isn't the result of guns.
  • JackDoyle

    Posts: 706

    Jan 22, 2013 9:39 PM GMT
    America should just get rid of guns all together
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2013 10:11 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    I should note that even the decline in lead theory to declining crime also suggests that gun violence isn't the result of guns.


    Yeah, but it just means that guns are the easiest and deadliest way of committing violence at this moment in history. In another 50 years it will be laser guns and phasers.

    Thought experiment:
    0 guns= 0 gun violence (there might be more violence with sharp objects or poisons, etc)
    x guns (where x is the average current gun ownership in other developed countries)= low level of gun violence
    y guns (y is gun ownership in the US)= high current level of gun violence in the US.

    y may change over time (and it's declining at the moment) but y will probably never approach x at any time.

    America-is-violent-graph.png

    If we confine ourselves to mass shootings, the data is even more clear. Easier access to guns and more deadly guns= worse mass shootings.
    15 of the 25 worst mass shootings in the last 50 years took place in the United States.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2013 10:35 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    riddler78 said
    I should note that even the decline in lead theory to declining crime also suggests that gun violence isn't the result of guns.


    Yeah, but it just means that guns are the easiest and deadliest way of committing violence at this moment in history. In another 50 years it will be laser guns and phasers.

    Thought experiment:
    0 guns= 0 gun violence (there might be more violence with sharp objects or poisons, etc)
    x guns (where x is the average current gun ownership in other developed countries)= low level of gun violence
    y guns (y is gun ownership in the US)= high current level of gun violence in the US.

    y may change over time (and it's declining at the moment) but y will probably never approach x at any time.

    America-is-violent-graph.png

    If we confine ourselves to mass shootings, the data is even more clear. Easier access to guns and more deadly guns= worse mass shootings.
    15 of the 25 worst mass shootings in the last 50 years took place in the United States.


    Your assumption is that zero guns means well, zero guns - particularly in light of the gun violence related to the so called "drug war." Trying to take away guns or limiting them in any substantive fashion also isn't addressing some of the root problems that just don't go away. I suspect doing away with the drug war would be both more sustainable and easier.

    To make it more obvious and more facetiously -

    553015_453953104658860_2010913979_n.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2013 10:46 PM GMT
    That's why it's called a thought experiment. Zero is possible theoretically if guns were to disappear entirely overnight. Australia made an attempt to reduce gun ownership, and it's paid off with their gun violence, and most unequivocably suicides. (Of the 32000 firearm-related deaths in the US last year, 20000 of them were suicides.)

    The "more guns=less violence" theory is dubious at best, and most likely fraudulent (John Lott most likely fabricated his survey). And if we're just responding to massacres like Newtown, it's exactly the wrong approach. This part is particularly true:

    http://www.salon.com/2012/12/18/the_answer_is_not_more_guns/And this is the problem with focusing on how to stop mass killings: It ignores what happens when there isn’t one. “Let’s say we flood the country with guns. We put guns in every school, every hospital — more guns everywhere. This kind of thing happens about 20 times a year in the United States; what are the chances that any one of those guns is ever going to be used to help prevent or abort a mass murder? Vanishingly small,” Wintemute said.

    “The problem is not the gun being there at that almost impossibly rare moment; it’s what happens to that gun all the rest of the time,” he said. With the introduction of the gun, regardless of its purpose, we can expect more violent deaths, Wintemute explained. We know, for instance, that the mere presence of a gun inside a house is associated with a nearly fivefold increased risk of suicide and threefold increased risk in homicide, according to a 2004 paper published by Centers for Disease Control researchers in the American Journal of Epidemiology. (That finding has been replicated in numerous studies.)

    Now, if there was somehow a way that we could make a gun magically appear when it was need[ed], and disappear otherwise, I think that’s a good idea,” Wintemute added with a laugh.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2013 11:19 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidThat's why it's called a thought experiment. Zero is possible theoretically if guns were to disappear entirely overnight. Australia made an attempt to reduce gun ownership, and it's paid off with their gun violence, and most unequivocably suicides. (Of the 32000 firearm-related deaths in the US last year, 20000 of them were suicides.)

    The "more guns=less violence" theory is dubious at best, and most likely fraudulent (John Lott most likely fabricated his survey). And if we're just responding to massacres like Newtown, it's exactly the wrong approach. This part is particularly true:

    http://www.salon.com/2012/12/18/the_answer_is_not_more_guns/And this is the problem with focusing on how to stop mass killings: It ignores what happens when there isn’t one. “Let’s say we flood the country with guns. We put guns in every school, every hospital — more guns everywhere. This kind of thing happens about 20 times a year in the United States; what are the chances that any one of those guns is ever going to be used to help prevent or abort a mass murder? Vanishingly small,” Wintemute said.

    “The problem is not the gun being there at that almost impossibly rare moment; it’s what happens to that gun all the rest of the time,” he said. With the introduction of the gun, regardless of its purpose, we can expect more violent deaths, Wintemute explained. We know, for instance, that the mere presence of a gun inside a house is associated with a nearly fivefold increased risk of suicide and threefold increased risk in homicide, according to a 2004 paper published by Centers for Disease Control researchers in the American Journal of Epidemiology. (That finding has been replicated in numerous studies.)

    Now, if there was somehow a way that we could make a gun magically appear when it was need[ed], and disappear otherwise, I think that’s a good idea,” Wintemute added with a laugh.


    Yes, if only magic were a policy solution. Instead, what we have is a US Administration that has actually covered up a massive and botched gun running operation that has led to the deaths of hundreds of Mexicans and a number of Americans. It's really too bad we don't have more politicians who are serious about sustainable solutions. In the absence of the inability of making all guns disappear or making the US a large island like Australia, it is very possible that more guns is a rational response. How long did it take for first responders to show up at Sandy Hook?
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Jan 23, 2013 12:24 AM GMT
    I do wish reporters who sometimes can be liberal buffoons would learn to list the caliber of weapon used. They can at least pose the question to officer who arrive to move the wonderful person who broke into a home off to medical care.

    There have been way too many home invaders who have survived gun shots here recently.

    I suppose we should conduct a home defense donation program where we pass out new 10mm Glock model 29s to the ladies -- who can qualify provided they do not hold a felony record -- and perhps provide the gentlemen with a nice tactical shotgun, qualifications being the same. After all, this would be entirely legal in America -- provided ObamaLamaDingDong doesn't have his way -- and I'm sure hospital emergency rooms would love treating legitimate patients rather than thugs who had been misbehaving.

    Go girl!!! Kill the mother-fucker next time.

    Ya'll be sweat now.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2013 3:50 AM GMT
    conservativejock saidI do wish reporters who sometimes can be liberal buffoons would learn to list the caliber of weapon used. They can at least pose the question to officer who arrive to move the wonderful person who broke into a home off to medical care.

    There have been way too many home invaders who have survived gun shots here recently.

    I suppose we should conduct a home defense donation program where we pass out new 10mm Glock model 29s to the ladies -- who can qualify provided they do not hold a felony record -- and perhps provide the gentlemen with a nice tactical shotgun, qualifications being the same. After all, this would be entirely legal in America -- provided ObamaLamaDingDong doesn't have his way -- and I'm sure hospital emergency rooms would love treating legitimate patients rather than thugs who had been misbehaving.

    Go girl!!! Kill the mother-fucker next time.

    Ya'll be sweat now.


    Home Invasion= Death Penalty???

    No wonder our society is so hateful.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2013 4:16 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    q1w2e3 saidThat's why it's called a thought experiment. Zero is possible theoretically if guns were to disappear entirely overnight. Australia made an attempt to reduce gun ownership, and it's paid off with their gun violence, and most unequivocably suicides. (Of the 32000 firearm-related deaths in the US last year, 20000 of them were suicides.)

    The "more guns=less violence" theory is dubious at best, and most likely fraudulent (John Lott most likely fabricated his survey). And if we're just responding to massacres like Newtown, it's exactly the wrong approach. This part is particularly true:

    http://www.salon.com/2012/12/18/the_answer_is_not_more_guns/And this is the problem with focusing on how to stop mass killings: It ignores what happens when there isn’t one. “Let’s say we flood the country with guns. We put guns in every school, every hospital — more guns everywhere. This kind of thing happens about 20 times a year in the United States; what are the chances that any one of those guns is ever going to be used to help prevent or abort a mass murder? Vanishingly small,” Wintemute said.

    “The problem is not the gun being there at that almost impossibly rare moment; it’s what happens to that gun all the rest of the time,” he said. With the introduction of the gun, regardless of its purpose, we can expect more violent deaths, Wintemute explained. We know, for instance, that the mere presence of a gun inside a house is associated with a nearly fivefold increased risk of suicide and threefold increased risk in homicide, according to a 2004 paper published by Centers for Disease Control researchers in the American Journal of Epidemiology. (That finding has been replicated in numerous studies.)

    Now, if there was somehow a way that we could make a gun magically appear when it was need[ed], and disappear otherwise, I think that’s a good idea,” Wintemute added with a laugh.


    Yes, if only magic were a policy solution. Instead, what we have is a US Administration that has actually covered up a massive and botched gun running operation that has led to the deaths of hundreds of Mexicans and a number of Americans. It's really too bad we don't have more politicians who are serious about sustainable solutions. In the absence of the inability of making all guns disappear or making the US a large island like Australia, it is very possible that more guns is a rational response. How long did it take for first responders to show up at Sandy Hook?


    Rational as much as initial thoughts might be, but clearly not to anybody who knows the statistics about guns and the increased risk their presence entails. By increasing the number of guns, the probability of more suicides and homicides and just went up. Therefore, the more rational response would be fewer guns and restricting the type of guns that could be used in massacres like Sandy Hook.
    First responders or not, it's impossible to react in time after a madman has just sprayed a classroom with bullets.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jan 23, 2013 4:30 AM GMT
    Homeschooled teen who killed family with AR-15 plotted Walmart mass shooting
    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/22/homeschooled-teen-who-killed-family-with-ar-15-plotted-walmart-mass-shooting/#.UP9YcgQrIrY.facebook

    New Mexico authorities announced on Tuesday that a 15-year-old boy who killed his family with several weapons including an AR-15 military-style assault rifle enjoyed playing “violent” video games and had planned to go to a local Walmart to shoot random people.
    Raw Story (http://s.tt/1yNO4)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2013 3:47 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidRational as much as initial thoughts might be, but clearly not to anybody who knows the statistics about guns and the increased risk their presence entails. By increasing the number of guns, the probability of more suicides and homicides and just went up. Therefore, the more rational response would be fewer guns and restricting the type of guns that could be used in massacres like Sandy Hook.
    First responders or not, it's impossible to react in time after a madman has just sprayed a classroom with bullets.


    If it were just one class, I might be inclined to agree with you. But you are also making assumptions not made by "anybody who knows the statistics about guns and the increased risk their presence entails" - the first that suicides and homicides go up by any substantive margin, and secondly that "it's impossible to react in time after a madman has just sprayed a classroom with bullets" - which is not what happened in the case of Sandy Hook where it wasn't just a random spray and end to the violence. Your prescription seems to be you'd rather take guns away from those who actually care to use them legally than look to any root causes of others who don't care about gun regulations when committing their crimes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2013 4:43 PM GMT


    Meanwhile in Hong Kong:

    http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/hong-kong


    icon_lol.gif
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3274

    Jan 23, 2013 5:39 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]q1w2e3 said[/cite]
    riddler78 said
    q1w2e3 saidThat's why it's called a thought experiment. Zero is possible theoretically if guns were to disappear entirely overnight. Australia made an attempt to reduce gun ownership, and it's paid off with their gun violence, and most unequivocably suicides. (Of the 32000 firearm-related deaths in the US last year, 20000 of them were suicides.) [/quote/]

    we can only speculate what a ban on firearms would do to the suicide and homicide rate. There are too many variables.

    It is possible to regulate firearms through the legislative process. A sweeping ban on firearms would require a constitutional amendment.

    I could dream up many scenarios where we could ban refined sugar or require everyone to walk 1 mile a day. This could effect the death rate more than any ban on firearms. Fortunately none of these would be legal/constitutional.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2013 7:57 PM GMT
    musclmed said
    we can only speculate what a ban on firearms would do to the suicide and homicide rate. There are too many variables.

    It is possible to regulate firearms through the legislative process. A sweeping ban on firearms would require a constitutional amendment.

    I could dream up many scenarios where we could ban refined sugar or require everyone to walk 1 mile a day. This could effect the death rate more than any ban on firearms. Fortunately none of these would be legal/constitutional.


    I never said suicide or homicide rate. I said "gun violence." No guns = no gun violence.

    And it's a thought experiment. God knows when we'll see a national gun buyback program. You might see it in pockets of the country but that is unlikely to do any good if not done comprehensively.

    And I hate to quote Scalia again, but the 2nd amendment does not rule out reasonable constitutional legislation on guns.

    If this wasn't a spray, I don't know what is:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shootingLanza stopped shooting between 9:46 a.m. and 9:49 a.m., after firing 50 to 100 rounds.[48] He reloaded frequently during the shooting, sometimes firing only fifteen rounds from a thirty round magazine.[24] He shot all of his victims multiple times, and at least one victim, six-year-old Noah Pozner, 11 times.[49][50] He shot mostly in two first-grade classrooms near the entrance of the school, killing fourteen in one room and six in the other.[51] The student victims were eight boys and twelve girls, between six and seven years of age,[52] and the six adults were all women who worked at the school. Bullets were also found in at least three cars parked outside the school.[24]

    And no, my prescription would be to make it much, much harder to get the type of guns used in Sandy Hook. No civilian, sane or insane, should have that type of firepower for self-protection.

    Riddler, if more guns are the answer to less violence, why don't you buy one, and an assault weapon at that? (You made a point of saying that you are not getting one any time soon in a previous thread)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2013 8:20 PM GMT
    It's a personal preference issue. I do not feel compelled to personally buy guns but I think it's better if those who would do ill will aren't able to guess as to whether or not others are armed. I also happen to read the statistics that show that gun violence has been falling dramatically - and a lot of that gun violence that exists in the US is far far from random (many of them suicides and many of them between individuals who know each other).

    As for spray - the attack happened over 15-20 minutes - which is over a long period of time. This wasn't an unpreventable instant.