It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ohio shopper shoots teen dead outside mall for trying to steal newly bought Nike Air Jordans

page: 44
53
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: ThaEnigma

I don't think someone died over a pair of sneakers. Someone died over Assault with a Deadly Weapon. There's a major difference there. The altercation may have started with some kid wanting sneakers, but it changed the moment said kid pulled a gun.




posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThaEnigma

Obviously the dynamic changed the minute a firearm was brandished (I agreed with that point earlier)... The sad fact is that a person died (and a person killed) over a new pair of sneakers,, forgive me if I can't help but taste the bitter irony in it all...


It is not about the sneakers. Let me give you a hypothetical even though I do not care for them.

The same two people have the same encounter except this time the perpetrator does not have a firearm. He demands the sneakers and the victim displays his weapon.

Do you think this scenario leads to the death of the perpetrator? Perhaps it does but I feel it does not and if it did the victim would have a hard time explaining why he had to use deadly force on an unarmed assailant instead of backing away with his weapon drawn.






edit on 30-12-2014 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: NavyDoc

A little anecdote: we used to have conscription in our country. So my father had to join the army as an 18 year old. He was given a rifle and they tested his shooting abilities one day at the shooting range. He had to lie down in the mud and then aim at the target and shoot. Which he did. Well, he hit bulls eye - of the target two lanes to the right... and almost killed the sarge there who'd been busy checking how he had done.

So, don't give me a gun. I'm genetically impaired. When I'm attacked, I'll run.

But I'd make a great General, come to think of it. "Forward he cried from the rear and the front rank died..."



I have absolutely no problem with you choosing not to own a gun. Just don't try to make that choice for me. Fair enough?



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
And shooting someone in the leg can easily lead to death as well.


So, indeed, we should not have anybody shoot at any part of anybodies body. It may result in death.

Did you know: according to UN statistics England (the UK) has an average of 54 firearm related murders per annum. The US has an average of 30 murders each DAY (!). The difference is that the UK has one of the most restrictive firearm laws in the world where the US has far less restrictive laws.

In comparable (relative) numbers: 0.1 firearm related murder per 100,000 citizens in England each year and 3.3 firearm related murders per 100,000 citizens in the US of A each year. That's a whopping 3300 percent difference!.

So, if we don't want people to get killed - we should have restrictive weapon laws. Also, lesser inequal societies have lower murder rates to begin with. So, set up a socialist government that is run by and for the people. Ban firearms. Limit unequality. Have strict weapon laws. Rely on the police, not on your personal (real or assumed) skills.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: ForteanOrg



So, don't give me a gun. I'm genetically impaired. When I'm attacked, I'll run.


Yeah, that didn't work out so well for my cousin who was helping a friend of his move into a new apartment a few years back...




Thi­erry’s murder oc­curred on Oct. 3, 2006, at Ros­a­lie and Hor­rocks streets. The vic­tim was chat­ting with three friends out­side an apart­ment build­ing where at least one of the friends lived. The four de­fend­ants were each armed with guns and ap­proached Thi­erry’s group, in­tend­ing to rob them. Thi­erry and his friends were trapped on the front steps.

Thi­erry tried to run away, but all four de­fend­ants opened fire. Two bul­lets struck Thi­erry, in­clud­ing one in the back of the head.

article


oh, and if that wasn't tragic enough for ya...



In pre­par­a­tion for the first tri­al, Phil­adelphia Po­lice Of­ficer Patrick Mc­Don­ald, a child­hood friend of Thi­erry, had writ­ten a vic­tim im­pact state­ment, but he nev­er got to read it due to the mis­tri­al. Mc­Don­ald was murdered in the line of duty pri­or to the re-tri­al.

edit on 12/30/2014 by RedParrotHead because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

Did you know: according to UN statistics England (the UK) has an average of 54 firearm related murders per annum. The US has an average of 30 murders each DAY (!). The difference is that the UK has one of the most restrictive firearm laws in the world where the US has far less restrictive laws.

In comparable (relative) numbers: 0.1 firearm related murder per 100,000 citizens in England each year and 3.3 firearm related murders per 100,000 citizens in the US of A each year. That's a whopping 3300 percent difference!.

So, if we don't want people to get killed - we should have restrictive weapon laws. Also, lesser inequal societies have lower murder rates to begin with. So, set up a socialist government that is run by and for the people. Ban firearms. Limit unequality. Have strict weapon laws. Rely on the police, not on your personal (real or assumed) skills.


How many of the homicides you cited occurred with illegally obtained weapons? This is important as there were laws saying that these people should not have had weapons but they got them anyway.

Damn criminals.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Nope, you'll have to make your own mistakes.

But there are Laws and even you have to obey them. I can try to influence the law makers - and do. I am a staff member of a political party which is in favour of a more egalitarian society, a society in which social behaviour and dignity are most important - and so I am opposed to free weapon ownership. And I'm very happy to see that most political parties in my country think alike: we don't want no frigging shoot-outs in our malls, thank you.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
And shooting someone in the leg can easily lead to death as well.


So, indeed, we should not have anybody shoot at any part of anybodies body. It may result in death.

Did you know: according to UN statistics England (the UK) has an average of 54 firearm related murders per annum. The US has an average of 30 murders each DAY (!). The difference is that the UK has one of the most restrictive firearm laws in the world where the US has far less restrictive laws.

In comparable (relative) numbers: 0.1 firearm related murder per 100,000 citizens in England each year and 3.3 firearm related murders per 100,000 citizens in the US of A each year. That's a whopping 3300 percent difference!.

So, if we don't want people to get killed - we should have restrictive weapon laws. Also, lesser inequal societies have lower murder rates to begin with. So, set up a socialist government that is run by and for the people. Ban firearms. Limit unequality. Have strict weapon laws. Rely on the police, not on your personal (real or assumed) skills.



First of all, that is a false statistic. TOTAL murders in the US annually are around 13,000 with firearms of all types accounting for about 9,000. FBI Crime Stats The 100k number is a bit of disingenuous (ok false) statistic made up by the Brady Campaign to justify their political agenda.


Secondly, Mexico with some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the world, have a murder rate many times higher than the US and The Czech Republic with gun laws roughly on par with the US has a murder rate lower than the UK so we really do see that correlation does not equal causation where gun control is concerned.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: NavyDoc

Nope, you'll have to make your own mistakes.

But there are Laws and even you have to obey them. I can try to influence the law makers - and do. I am a staff member of a political party which is in favour of a more egalitarian society, a society in which social behaviour and dignity are most important - and so I am opposed to free weapon ownership. And I'm very happy to see that most political parties in my country think alike: we don't want no frigging shoot-outs in our malls, thank you.



Ah, but by passing and working for laws that affect your fellow man, you ARE making choices for your fellow citizens. How noble and condescending of you.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: NavyDoc

Nope, you'll have to make your own mistakes.

But there are Laws and even you have to obey them. I can try to influence the law makers - and do. I am a staff member of a political party which is in favour of a more egalitarian society, a society in which social behaviour and dignity are most important - and so I am opposed to free weapon ownership. And I'm very happy to see that most political parties in my country think alike: we don't want no frigging shoot-outs in our malls, thank you.
It's awesome that your country is relatively firearm free. The problem is that can't feasibly be done in the U.S.

I've talked about this before, but turning the U.S. into a "gun free" nation would first require the deaths of many, many hundreds of thousands if not MILLIONS of it's citizens, a complete change in the constitution, and much, much stricter control of the borders and ports of entry. They would essentially have to close the borders down, forcibly remove guns from once law-abiding citizens who are very likely to fight back, and stop new weapons from getting into the country. It would be a bloody massacre and logistical nightmare completely unlike anything the modern world has seen thus far. The President would have to become a tyrant in order to make the U.S. gun-free like some other nations.

It may a sad reality, but... Ah, しょうがない.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: NavyDoc

Nope, you'll have to make your own mistakes.

But there are Laws and even you have to obey them. I can try to influence the law makers - and do. I am a staff member of a political party which is in favour of a more egalitarian society, a society in which social behaviour and dignity are most important - and so I am opposed to free weapon ownership. And I'm very happy to see that most political parties in my country think alike: we don't want no frigging shoot-outs in our malls, thank you.


The below is not intended as a attack on you just a observation from what i quoted.

And that is the reason why your party is against guns?you and your party get in charge id wager for the good of the people you and your party will take their weapons. then later..their freedom of movement. once gain for protection. You do realize you are heading down the path of Hitler and MArx with that kind of thinking. Both of which said much the same things as long as it served their goals.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
How many of the homicides you cited occurred with illegally obtained weapons? This is important as there were laws saying that these people should not have had weapons but they got them anyway. Damn criminals.


Still, a whopping 3300 percent difference. So, the numbers prove me right: weapon control laws work.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: ForteanOrg

I must have missed where you broke out the figures showing the proportion of homicides committed with illegal firearms.

How did gun control work on those? They were illegal.


And where did the bad people who did the shooting get most of their guns? Were those gun show “loopholes” responsible? Nope. According to surveys DOJ conducted of state prison inmates during 2004 (the most recent year of data available), only two percent who owned a gun at the time of their offense bought it at either a gun show or flea market. About 10 percent said they purchased their gun from a retail shop or pawnshop, 37 percent obtained it from family or friends, and another 40 percent obtained it from an illegal source. Source


Read that slowly. The majority of criminals obtained their firearm through illicit means. Meaning there were already laws on the books and the opted to circumvent them.

I wonder why? Is it because they are criminals? Maybe more laws saying, 'You cannot have a firearm!', would have deterred them.



edit on 30-12-2014 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: ForteanOrg

OK,as has been pointed out by the mods previously, this is not a discussion on gun control. Lets keep it more focused on the topic of this incident and how it affects/relates to personal protection.

Thank you.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
How many of the homicides you cited occurred with illegally obtained weapons? This is important as there were laws saying that these people should not have had weapons but they got them anyway. Damn criminals.


Still, a whopping 3300 percent difference. So, the numbers prove me right: weapon control laws work.


Nope. Again, you confuse correlation with causation. As I pointed out, Mexico with draconian gun control has a huge murder rate. Czech republic with US like lack of gun control has a very low murder rate. Thus, something else must be the factor.

In addition, the vast majority of violent crime in eh US revolves around the war on drugs, just like the vast majority of violent crime in the 1920's revolved around the prohibition of alcohol. A single thing, legalizing drugs, would drop the US violent crime rate exponentially without infringement on a single right of a single law abiding citizen.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc




A single thing, legalizing drugs, would drop the US violent crime rate exponentially without infringement on a single right of a single law abiding citizen.


City of Denver after only decriminalizing marijuana is a good example. It was only weed, not all drugs, and the murder rate dropped by over 60%.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
And that is the reason why your party is against guns?you and your party get in charge id wager for the good of the people you and your party will take their weapons. then later..their freedom of movement. once gain for protection. You do realize you are heading down the path of Hitler and MArx with that kind of thinking. Both of which said much the same things as long as it served their goals.


Well, since you made clear that this was not meant as an ad hominem attack, I'll answer it


Firstly, democracy - in my book - only works if you have a lot of smaller parties that represent a significant part of the population. Say that a typical party represents roughly 10-20 percent of the population. As long as there are significant differences between the programmes of these parties, the system works: you'd need 3 or more parties to acquire a majority. A coalition based democracy.

That's what we have in The Netherlands. As long as it exists my country was never ruled by just one party. We are a nation of diversity and hence are accustomed to forming coalitions. They are firmly established here and I think it is quite infeasible that my party would ever acquire an absolute majority.

But in the unlikely case that we would have an absolute majority, yes, than indeed what we'd say would go. Such is democracy. I guess terrible things would happen: education would be freely available for all, health care would be available for all, you'd have some form of guaranteed income so you don't need to beg or steal, there would be a decent house for all and probably work in some form for most, if they appreciated it. Terrible. Hope the day never comes


Now, of course it's the duty of any democratic party - which includes mine - to ensure that the minorities in a State are heard and respected, but yes, if the majority of a nation decides that we all drive on the left side - we all drive on the left side. That's how it is, can't be helped.

Now, about the "taking their weapons away" - that's not necessary, we don't have them as it is. Sure, some hunters, a few sportsmen and our military and police forces have guns. They are expected to use them if need be. But only within the framework of our Laws.

So, we don't have to take away the guns, the population does not have any. They don't even would want them as it is now; weapons don't fit into our social system, we don't like them: they kill our resources and we need these resources to survive. See, we're a small and partially very crowded country that mostly lies far under sealevel. We need each other to survive. So, we have rules and laws and we tend to abide to them.

And taking the people's freedom of movement away - have you seen my country? If our people all breath in together, the ones on the outside are suddenly in Germany, Belgium, England and Danmark


But seriously: if history taught us something it is that restriction of free movement does not work. But restriction of arms does!



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

About confusing correlation with causation - we might say the same thing w/regard to the statement that CCW acts have brought down the murder rates. For all I know it was the rise of the mobile phone with built-in camera that was responsible for the drop in murder rates. However, whatever - I'm glad they ARE dropping.

And about drugs: in The Netherlands we have legalized selling and owning of weed. And we are on the brink of legalizing production. And, typically Dutch, have been tolerating illegal drugs in our society for many decades, including hard drugs. By accepting the fact that some use that stuff and not stigmatizing these users but helping them to remain part of society, we've had great success in keeping most of our population away from the nasty stuff. Yes, legalization of drugs, gambling, brothels and liquor is one of the best ways to bring down criminality. And it helps to avoid abuse in many ways.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Frankly, I don't care! If the laws make such a huge difference - again: 3300 percent! - they work. Sure, people can still illegally obtain firearms. We have the Internet nowadays. We have 3D printing nowadays. Russian weapons pouring in from the East. It can be done. But still: 3300 percent less firearms related murders in the UK - I rest my case.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 03:01 PM
link   
The State of Ohio should hire teens to help pick up road side trash. Teens need jobs. Jobs are still scarce for teens who need money from the recession days. If jobs are available they can earn money, learn how to manage money, build character and self esteem. This was a tragedy that the teen committed a crime with a gun. I wish we were all more peace loving, tolerant, kind, hardworking and honest to each other. This is a social economic problem. Gun should be kept locked up in safes where teens can't get to them. Bullets kept separately else where. Jobs for teens.... Why doesn't Obama offer tax cuts to businesses who hire more teens?




top topics



 
53
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join