GUNS IN THE NEWS - May 4, 2004

Please try to adhere to the following voluntary guidelines, in order that we can have an orderly discussion of gun-related news topics:

1 - Feel free to add any CURRENT stories to this thread by replying to this message. In order to be considered current, stories should have been originally posted on the Internet within the previous 24 hours, or provide follow-up to a story that was previously posted on the J/PS board. On Mondays (since many people do not log in to DU over the weekend), stories can be posted from Saturday, Sunday, or Monday.

2 - Both pro-gun and anti-gun stories, editorials, and press releases are welcome in this thread, as long as they're current. Please do not post links to items from a few years back that support your position.

3 - Bear in mind that any links to extremely right-wing sites (such as Newsmax, CNS, or the Washington Times) or intentionally pro-gun or pro-control sites (such as the NRA or the Brady Campaign) are not considered reliable sources by many DU-ers. If at all possible, try to find a link for your story from a more mainstream source, such as a general-circulation newspaper or magazine site. If you choose to use a slanted site, be prepared for any negative feedback you may receive.

4 - Do not change story titles. In other words, if the Oskosh Gazette's web site runs a story titled "Two Killed in Holdup", the title of your message should read "Two Killed in Holdup". Don't change it to "Gun Owner Kills Two People", or anything else that changes the meaning of the story.

5 - If it's not clear from the title where the story occurred, add the city, state, or country in parentheses after the title.

6 - The person adding a news story to the "GITN" thread is allowed (and encouraged) to comment on that story, indicating their position on the topic being discussed. These comments can appear either at the beginning or end of the post; if possible, place comments in a different typeface so readers can separate the comments from the story. Others who wish to comment on a posted story can do so by replying to that story; this allows other readers to follow the comments by scrolling through the subthread.

7 - Please direct your comments to the story, rather than attacking the person posting the story or any person responding to the story. In accordance with DU rules, any message that appears to be a personal attack against another DU-er or a violation of any other DU rule will be reported to the moderators.

8 - If you object to these guidelines, do everyone else a favor and go to another thread.

And the parents did SUCH a good job of hiding that gun... - Wayne

* * * * *

Third-grader found with gun on school bus

The Associated Press - MOULTRIE, Ga.

A third-grade boy was found with a loaded gun on a school bus.

And the 9-year-old boy apparently had the gun all day at Odom Elementary School before it was found Monday afternoon, investigative reports said.

The gun belonged to the boy's parents, who reportedly kept it hidden in their home.

The child did not seem like he planned to hurt anyone with the gun and did not exhibit any unruly behavior, officers with the Colquitt County Sheriff's Office said.

<more>

http://www.accessnorthga.com/news/ap_newfullstory.asp?ID=37372

I posted a story in the wrong place, and reposted it.

Simply amazing

Another improperly-stored gun ends a young life. - Wayne

* * * * *

13-Year-Old Shot To Death Playing With Gun

Victim's Best Friend Charged

POSTED: 8:34 pm CDT May 3, 2004
UPDATED: 5:57 am CDT May 4, 2004

HAMMOND, Ind. -- Police in Hammond, Ind., say a terrible accident could possibly have destroyed two young lives. One 13-year-old boy is dead, and his best friend could be charged in his death.

Andrew Norman (pictured), 13, lost his life playing with a gun. It happened inside the Hammond home of Norman's best friend, where the friend accidentally shot Norman in the head while putting the gun down, police said. The friend's father, John Sons, was not home at the time, but he told NBC5's Anna Davlantes that he feels a great deal of remorse.

"If there was anything I could do to bring him back, I would," he said. "I have asked God to take me instead of him. He is a young boy."

<snip>

As for the gun, it was a registered firearm that had not been used in years before the two boys found it under a bed. Sons could also face charges for leaving an unsecured gun in his house.

<more>

http://www.nbc5.com/news/3265429/detail.html

You can't hide guns from children.

...lock them up when not in use.

That's two days in a row!!!

:-)

And when I had a kid in the house I always locked mine up. Religiously.

Must be something in the air.

If you have kids and you choose to have a gun, keep the gun locked up. It's much easier than keeping the kids locked up, and ti keeps the child welfare folks off your back. :-)

...isn't such a bad idea either.

n/t

I don't object to laws that provide penalties for this kind of thing, but they can't bring a dead kid back to life.

Education, education, education is the answer to negligent gun storage.

I know Washington, DC has strict gun laws. These guns may have come from one of the surrounding states where guns are easier to get. - Wayne

* * * * *

Gun Battle Kills 8-Year-Old Girl

Aunt Receives Non-Life-Threatening Wound

WASHINGTON -- Stray bullets from a running gun battle came through the front window of a house in Northeast Washington, striking a 38-year old aunt and her 8-year-old niece as they were watching television.

Metropolitan Police Chief Charles Ramsey said the woman was hit in the shoulder, but the little girl was struck in the head.

"This is the kind of tragedy that no one should stand for, an 8-year-old girl that loses her life," Ramsey said. "We have problems some times getting people to talk to us, but when you have something like this, it has to move an entire community."

Police said the gun battle started at Division and Nannie Helen Burroughs avenues. Witnesses told police that one of the people involved ran toward the house in the 800 block of 52nd Street.

<more>

http://www.nbc4.com/news/3266230/detail.html

ANother one of those "law-abiding gun owners" that none of us have to worry about... - Wayne

* * * * *

Woman indicted over gun purchases

Tuesday, May 04, 2004
By RUDY MILLER
The Express-Times

EASTON -- A city woman was indicted Friday for illegally buying eight guns for other people, records say.

Lydia Carter, 50, of the 1000 block of Ferry Street is accused of being a "straw purchaser" of eight guns from two stores in 1999 and 2000, court documents say.

According to the documents, Carter signed forms indicating the guns were hers when in fact they were for someone else.

The crime carries a five-year maximum prison sentence and a $250,000 fine.

<more>

http://www.nj.com/news/expresstimes/pa/index.ssf?/base/news-11/1083663243118290.xml

Clearly this person is a criminal. I doubt that anyone who contributes to these forums would say otherwise.

Is it because up to the moment just before she made her first straw purchase she might have been law-abiding?

:shrug:

It would be interesting to see how many guns she had purchased in the past.May just be the first time she was caught.

Great minds think alike.....

:-)

...some of you pro-gunners keep saying that we don't have to worry about the "law-abiding gun owners" - just the criminals. I say that since there's such a fine line between law-abiding and criminal, all gun purchases should receive the same scrutiny.

Is it because up to the moment just before she made her first straw purchase she might have been law-abiding?

"Might have been"? If she wasn't, how was she able to make the purchases?

Ah ... she might have been a *successful* scofflaw; one who'd never been caught.

Well ... so might everybody else in the world. What do we do, take their word for it? Or simply call everyone who has no criminal record "law-abiding"?

Sauce for the ganders is sauce for this goose. Her ability to purchase firearms "legally", i.e. without failing whatever background check applied, seems to me to be prima facie evidence of "law-abiding gun owner" status in exactly the same way it is for anybody else.

Right up to the moment when she ... what, purchased the firearms with an unlawful intent? actually completed the unlawful transfer? Again: exactly like any other "law-abiding gun owner" who strays from the straight 'n narrow, in whatever way s/he does it.

Clearly this person is a criminal.

And yet she, too, was born law-abiding, and fully entitled to fill her kitchen with firearms.

.

Given the choice between believing the standard pro-gunner line and the San Francisco Examiner, I'll go with the Examiner. - Wayne

Keep gun ban

Published on Monday, May 3, 2004

CONGRESS THIS SPRING WILL decide whether to renew an important piece of public-safety legislation -- one with a tragic origin in San Francisco and an unfortunate recent reminder of its importance. It's the federal assault weapons ban, otherwise known as the 1994 Federal Violent Crime Control Act, created by Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

The law, which is set to expire Sept. 13, was put in place following a 1993 incident in which an unhappy client burst into a law office at 101 California St. Armed with two assault weapons, he killed eight people and wounded six others.

<snip>

Opponents often portray the ban as a sweeping infringement on the rights of law-abiding gun owners, but in fact the legislation affects a very limited number of weapons. Most are useless for hunting and too dangerous for home defense, and some are not even accurate enough to make for good target shooting.

This bill does not prohibit those weapons that might arguably be most useful for defending a person or a home; it does not affect the guns sought after by the vast majority of reasonable hunters and target sportsmen; and the precautions it requires of retailers are minor, considering the potential for destruction and loss of life such guns represent in the wrong hands.

<more>

http://www.sfexaminer.com/article/index.cfm/i/050304op_editorial

...just based on the shitty quality of the weapon. It is often argued that "no responsible owner has a use for such a weapon"...which is true. It's a piece of junk that frankly, I'd be afraid to fire for fear of blowing my hand off.

But to use that same rationale to apply to well-designed weapons like the AR-15 and AK design doesn't fly. As I mentioned in another thread, .223 Remington was recognized as a "legitimate" hunting caliber long before it was used in the AR-15.

Many rifles classified by name as "assault rifles" were done so only because of their visual similarity to full-auto military rifles.

I get a little tired of the Brady Bunch telling me what guns a "responsible owner" would "ever" own. My M4 is an outstanding target rifle and I plan to use it to hunt wild hogs this summer.

It can't be "spray-fired from the hip" and it's not a "bullet hose." In fact, mention "hip firing" to a shooting instructor and he'll laugh in your face...another VPC/Brady scare reference that has no basis in reality.

Quality right down there with the Jennings, Raven, etc. cheapass handguns, commonly known as Jam-O-Matics. I'll stick with my reliable Glock G17 for a 9mm handgun.

OTOH my AR-15s are of impeccable workmanship and quite accurate.

...in the threads where the facts are laid out. They stick to the ones with the loudest rhetoric.