Another Criminal Dead

[Lewkowski]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...se_105806.html

*****************
Talk about your inconvenient truth. Five days after Chicago Mayor Richard Daley had held a press conference touting the benefits of the city's handgun ban by brandishing a rifle with a bayonet and -- I swear I am not making this up -- cracking a joke about shoving it up a reporter's bum, an 80-year-old man on the West Side of Chicago traded gunfire with a burglar, killing the intruder.

For advocates of gun control, the optics on this story are just awful. It's nearly impossible to drum up any sympathy for the deceased, Anthony Nelson, who had a long history of drug and weapons convictions and was on probation. He attempted to break into the house, brought a gun with him, and fired twice at the so-far unnamed homeowner.

Conversely, it is impossible to fault the homeowner. The man who killed Nelson was a veteran of the Korean War. He fired only one shot and got the intruder in the chest. On that morning, the man was protecting not just himself but his wife and a 12-year-old great grandson who was staying over. A son told reporters "My father had no choice. It was him or the other guy."

Things only get worse. The old man moves slowly, with the aid of a cane. He reportedly acquired the illicit gun only after a previous incident, when the couple were robbed at gunpoint in their home by three intruders. Lastly, an ironic political detail, courtesy of the Sun-Times: "When he returned home, the man...wore a T-shirt emblazoned with President Obama's face and name." Talk about audacity.

Chicago police told the press that they're still investigating. So far the self-defense story checks out, and they've declined to press charges. Mayor Daley tried to avoid the implications of the story in a Friday press conference but he couldn't help himself. Asked if the man would be charged with violating the city's handgun ban, Daley said, "I don't know. Thank you very much." Pressed further, Daley defended the city's constitutionally suspect handgun ban, saying "guns is not the answer to the problems that we see in a home, in the streets of America. It's as simple as that."

Forget for a moment that a loaded gun in the hands of an otherwise law abiding citizen was precisely "the answer" in this case. Voters are entitled to wonder why the Mayor takes such a simplistic, obstinate view of the issue. Chicago has decided to buck the national trend, prompted by the Supreme Court's Heller decision in favor of more permissive gun ownership rules.

What's more, the High Court will likely hand Daley another defeat in the near future by voting to "incorporate" Americans' Second Amendment rights. That decision would give citizens in all 50 states the right to take gun bans to court if local governments won't at least scale them back to allow gun ownership in people's homes. The case that would set this in motion is appropriately titled McDonald v. Chicago. The city's stubborn mayor may not like the proliferation of guns in private hands, but it may not be up to him for much longer.

***********************

Wow and they might charge this guy for a crime? Gee talk about a mayor who is out of touch. I have to respect the 80 year old even if he is an Obama supporter. He knows how to take out the trash efficiently!

[Loki]

This is the mayor of Chicago we're talking about. This is the least of his faults.

[Veldan Rath]

This is the mayor of Chicago we're talking about. This is the least of his faults.

[Knux897]

I agree with this story. Much more reasonable use of weapons

[NGS]

Talk about overwhelming bias in the "reporting"...

[GGT]

Lewk, are you going to start a new thread every time you read a news story about someone being shot to death?

Please don't. Maybe you could have your own dedicated thread, where you can prance in glee whenever a criminal suspect is killed.

[Nessus]

Haven't you heard? Megathreads kills conversation

[BalticSailor]

Where's the usual laughter, Lewk?

Or perhaps you don't consider armed intruders being killed by people defending their family funny - as opposed to, say, unarmed thieves being killed by people defending their somebody else's toothpaste?

[']['ear]

Race of the deceased?

Edit: opinion pieces FTW!

[Lewkowski]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,6719263.story

The owner of a Northwest Side pawnshop shot and killed one of three men who tried to rob his business at gunpoint, authorities said.

The 24-year-old man who was killed had a prior robbery conviction and had been sentenced to boot camp, court records show.

The store's owner opened fire on the three armed men during an attempted robbery shortly before 1 p.m. Tuesday inside the Fullerton Pawners, 5900 W. Fullerton Ave., in the city's Belmont Cragin community, sources said.

One robber was killed at the scene, while a second may have been wounded before he and a third man fled on foot, said Officer Darryl Baety, a police spokesman.

A Chicago police blue-light camera sits on a pole about 10 feet away from the entrance, but it wasn't clear whether it captured any images of the fleeing suspects. Detectives could be seen taking the hard drive for the store's surveillance cameras.

Police late Tuesday weren't saying whether the shop owner would face criminal charges or whether he was registered to own a firearm. Reached at his Deerfield home, a family member of the pawnshop owner declined comment.

A man answering the telephone belonging to Joseph Barats, listed as the president of the shop, declined to comment. In two recent home invasions where residents shot intruders, police have declined to seek charges.

The dead man was identified by his family as Michael McMillion. McMillion was convicted in 2006 of robbery and sentenced to the Cook County sheriff's boot camp program.

He and three other men had been indicted on armed robbery and robbery charges. But they pleaded guilty before Cook County Judge Michael Brown to robbery in exchange for prosecutors dropping the armed robbery charges, records show.

The owner of another business on the block — one of several nearby businesses robbed at gunpoint in the past year — said he heard a popping sound outside that he at first thought was a balloon bursting. As he arrived to the front of his store, he spotted two men, one wearing a black backpack, fleeing the store and running through an alley.

Tribune reporters Annie Sweeney, Carlos Sadovi and Andrew L. Wang contributed to this report.

Sweeet. Another criminal dead. This is why a well armed citizenry is important.

[']['ear]

I thought an armed citizenry was important for domestic violence and suicides, since FAR more people die of that than in committing crimes.

[agamemnus]

I thought an armed citizenry was important for domestic violence and suicides, since FAR more people die of that than in committing crimes.

The price we pay for freedom?

[Being]

The price we pay for freedom?

Which freedom? The one that keeps you safe from gun toting vigilantes? Or the freedom to be a gun toting vigilante?

[Angel_Mapper]

http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=12635542

3-Year-Old Killed In Accidental Shooting

DICKSON, Tenn. – Police said a 3-year-old boy has died after apparently shooting himself in the head Friday morning. According to officers, the stepfather had put on a movie for the child in his room and went downstairs. The mother was asleep in her bedroom when the child went into the parent's room and took the pistol from a drawer. The child allegedly then took the gun back to his room and shot himself. Officers said the shooting preliminarily appears to be accidental. The boy was taken to Horizon Medical Center in Dickson. The parents were taken away by police in handcuffs, but were later released. Officials said the shooting is still under investigation. NewsChannel 5 report Marcus Washington is on the scene and will bring you more information on NewsChannel 5 at 4 p.m. and NewsChannel5.com.

Sweeet. Another idiot's kid dead. This is why a well armed citizenry is important.

[Loki]

Isn't it illegal to have a loaded gun in a house with a child?

[Steely Glint]

why do you hate freedom

[Ominous Gamer]

Isn't it illegal to have a loaded gun in a house with a child?

Isn't that a state by state thing?

[Being]

Isn't that a state by state thing?

Or county or municipality?

[']['ear]

The price we pay for freedom?

Only the freedom of official militiamen (not women) to bear muzzle-loading firearms is protected by the constitution.

[Lewkowski]

I thought an armed citizenry was important for domestic violence and suicides, since FAR more people die of that than in committing crimes.

Of course you never see statistics on how many people are NOT dead because they were able to defend themselves with a gun. Its the ultimate deterrent. And suicide? Meh. Its not hard to kill yourself and if someone wants to off themselves I don't think its societies job to stop them.

Sweeet. Another idiot's kid dead. This is why a well armed citizenry is important.

Want me to post some articles on how many people die in car accidents? Or how many people/kids OD off of medicines or household products? Should we ban those too?

[Nessus]

Want me to post some articles on how many people die in car accidents? Or how many people/kids OD off of medicines or household products? Should we ban those too?

Knives would be a better example, but even those have other uses than just killing people

[Lewkowski]

Knives would be a better example, but even those have other uses than just killing people

Its not even just about killing people but about defense. Just knowing that a homeowner might have a gun decreases the likelihood of a home invasion. Furthermore hunting is a sport to millions. And of course for folks who live in the country or on a ranch they are useful against nasty critters.

[GGT]

Hey Lewk, what do you think about guns in schools? After all, some schools are fairly violent, and teachers might need to protect themselves. Some universities might have a rogue student who goes on a shooting rampage. Should everyone carry a handgun just in case there's a criminal around?

[Spawnie]

Lewkowski says yes. And in truth, the arguments above work just as well in a school situation.

What you have to do is show him that its more dangerous to carry a gun than not. Unfortunately this is near impossible to prove.

[GGT]

Lewkowski says yes. And in truth, the arguments above work just as well in a school situation.

What you have to do is show him that its more dangerous to carry a gun than not. Unfortunately this is near impossible to prove.

He's a Texan. Pretty much everyone in Texas has a firearm. But so do gangs in LA or Chicago. I grew up in the midwest, at a time when kids could drive to HS at age 15, with a shotgun in the back rack. It's not that I'm against guns, or gun ownership. Or even the delusion that we can keep guns "out of the hands of the wrong people".

I just don't like the idea that, in the 21st century, people like Lewk still think the best way to keep crime down is to arm everyone, and say shoot to kill. Even for a tube of toothpaste

[Lewkowski]

Hey Lewk, what do you think about guns in schools? After all, some schools are fairly violent, and teachers might need to protect themselves. Some universities might have a rogue student who goes on a shooting rampage. Should everyone carry a handgun just in case there's a criminal around?

Yes guns at universities would be a fantastic idea.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lott/lott14.html

But much more than a bias toward bad news and drama goes into the medias selective reporting on gun usage. Why, for instance, does the torrential coverage of public shooting sprees fail to acknowledge when such attacks are aborted by citizens with guns? In January 2002, a shooting left three dead at the Appalachian Law School in Virginia. The event made international headlines and produced more calls for gun control.

Yet one critical fact was missing from virtually all the news coverage: The attack was stopped by two students who had guns in their cars.

[GGT]

So your answer to potentially violent crime is to arm everyone? Sounds like a nightmare to me. Or a movie out of the Wild Wild West, where one shot fired means a full blown shoot-out, with lots of collateral damage.

Does the same solution of defensiveness apply to our roads and highways? Should we all drive Hummers or Sherman tanks because there might be a reckless driver?

[Lewkowski]

So your answer to potentially violent crime is to arm everyone?

Well... yes. Even if we outlawed guns tomorrow (which won't be happening any time soon) criminals would still have guns and continue to have access to guns. If someone wishes to attack someone getting a gun is not that difficult. By getting rid of guns all you do is turn law abiding citizens into sheep to be fleeced, you turn them to people who are 100% dependent on the police and government to protect them from criminals.

Or a movie out of the Wild Wild West, where one shot fired means a full blown shoot-out, with lots of collateral damage.

Interestingly enough in places with open carry laws you don't see full blown shoot outs like you do in the movies. What gives?

Does the same solution of defensiveness apply to our roads and highways?

The analogy doesn't work.

[GGT]

Well... yes. Even if we outlawed guns tomorrow (which won't be happening any time soon) criminals would still have guns and continue to have access to guns. If someone wishes to attack someone getting a gun is not that difficult. By getting rid of guns all you do is turn law abiding citizens into sheep to be fleeced, you turn them to people who are 100% dependent on the police and government to protect them from criminals.

When the hell did this become about "outlawing guns"? I've never said such a thing. But I do question the 'wisdom' of thinking that packing heat will protect us from a criminal, ergo--everyone should pack heat.

Interestingly enough in places with open carry laws you don't see full blown shoot outs like you do in the movies. What gives?

What about conceal carry? If guns don't kill people but people kill people....then how can more armed people mean more safety?

The analogy doesn't work.

Why not? If all that matters is the masses protecting themselves from potentially dangerous individuals, then we should all drive tanks on the streets, build homes as bunkers, carry guns everywhere we go, and presume everyone is a threat. Ya know, just to be on the safe side.

[Illusions]

Just knowing that a homeowner might have a gun decreases the likelihood of a home invasion.

Have you considered the idea of what the response to every homeowner/person owning a gun is, which seems to be your Holy Grail of an armed citizenry? I can tell you history doesn't point to safety for all, but instead career criminals just brandishing better defenses and higher powered weapons.