12-year-old boy shot to death through a front door while trick-or-treating

[Liberty Star]

What is happening to America?

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hRQwzyLHeXFy9MJwA44-IE38aUrAD9469G900

[s35wf]

this is just fucking SAD :(

the guy that shoot this kid should be put in front of a firing squad. piece of shit.

[Mini-Me]

What was that guy THINKING?!?

[dr. hfn]

sickening

[Matt Collins]

Well we need to ban guns to keep this from happening in the future. Or at least maybe we should at least only let people the government approves own guns.

[Mini-Me]

Well we need to ban guns to keep this from happening in the future. Or at least maybe we should at least only let people the government approves own guns.

Not funny, since this is exactly the reaction this story will provoke. :-/

[jonhowe]

Well we need to ban guns to keep this from happening in the future. Or at least maybe we should at least only let people the government approves own guns.

Would a strict reading of the 2nd amendment stopped this murder? No.
Would not having guns have stopped this murder? Yes.


This is why Im so torn on that darned #2. its important for protecting our liberties (or, was, at this point it's almost pointless :( ), but it's also the root of much sadness.

[Mini-Me]

Would a strict reading of the 2nd amendment stopped this murder? No.
Would not having guns have stopped this murder? Yes.


This is why Im so torn on that darned #2. its important for protecting our liberties (or, was, at this point it's almost pointless :( ), but it's also the root of much sadness.

Indeed, this particular murder would not have happened if guns were not readily available. However, there are hidden variables here. Who's to say a guy that crazy would not have gone on a killing spree with a chainsaw next week and killed dozens of children if he had not done something so stupid and atrocious with a gun last night in particular? Someone like that is obviously a ticking time bomb, so there's really no certainty that banning guns would have produced a net decrease in senseless murders even in this particular guy's case. In addition, there are other overriding opportunity costs of banning guns, even if it would prevent occasional incidents like this. For instance, a strict reading of the 2nd Amendment and a pro-gun policy at Virginia Tech probably would have saved about 25+ lives in that incident (the shooter would have still killed a few people, but he would have been stopped much earlier).

[RonPaulR3VOLUTION]

If only trick-or-treating was never invented...

:rolleyes:

The issue here isn't the existence of trick-or-treating or guns.

[Matt Collins]

Not funny, since this is exactly the reaction this story will provoke. :-/Are you familiar with satire or sarcasm?:confused:

[jonhowe]

Indeed, this particular murder would not have happened if guns were not readily available. However, there are hidden variables here. Who's to say a guy that crazy would not have gone on a killing spree with a chainsaw next week and killed dozens of children if he had not done something so stupid and atrocious with a gun last night in particular? Someone like that is obviously a ticking time bomb, so there's really no certainty that banning guns would have produced a net decrease in senseless murders even in this particular guy's case. In addition, there are other overriding opportunity costs of banning guns, even if it would prevent occasional incidents like this. For instance, a strict reading of the 2nd Amendment and a pro-gun policy at Virginia Tech probably would have saved about 25+ lives in that incident (the shooter would have still killed a few people, but he would have been stopped much earlier).

Agreed, agreed. But it's times like this that make things gray.

[angelatc]

Indeed, this particular murder would not have happened if guns were not readily available.

You don't know that.

[zach]

I'd blame it on being mentally unstable..

Nobody in their right mind would shoot a kid point-blank.

[tmosley]

My reading of it was that the guy was probably doing some sort of nefarious activity (perhaps robbing the place, preparing to rape some poor woman, or was in the middle of a home invasion). When he heard the knock at the door, he thought it was a threat, so he blasted them.

That said, it's still a senseless crime, and they guy should definitely be put away for life. Whether it's in a prison or a metal institution is up to a jury, IMO.

[Mini-Me]

Are you familiar with satire or sarcasm?:confused:

Yes, and my own response was tongue-in-cheek as well. :rolleyes: If I had thought your comment was serious, I would have argued against it. Instead, because I knew it was sarcasm, I said it wasn't funny, considering the fact that a ton of anti-gun people are going to politicize it using exactly that argument (except they won't be joking). I wasn't actually saying you shouldn't have made the comment...rather, I was basically just saying that hearing those words makes me groan/cringe, knowing that so many people will use those exact words without any hint of sarcasm or satire.

[Mini-Me]

You don't know that.

True, I probably should not have agreed with jonhowe so quickly that restrictive gun laws would have necessarily prevented this situation from unfolding as it did. Under the assumption that this guy was just a total nutcase who happened to own a gun and was shooting at anything that moved last night, it's a relatively safe bet, even if I don't know for sure (just because psychotic paranoids probably wouldn't dare venture into the black market to buy a gun, like people with premeditated criminal intent would). However, if the scenario played out more like tmosley described (a botched burglary, etc.), then you're right that no restrictive laws would have prevented it. Anyway, that's a bit of a tertiary point, since the main point of my post was just to bring up the "hidden variables" that are still involved, and why it's not a simple matter of "restrictive gun laws would have prevented this crime," even if I were to accept that assertion at face value.

[Matt Collins]

Yes, and my own response was tongue-in-cheek as well. cool :cool:

[James Madison]

I'll bet the guy was on an SRI; they always are...

[TastyWheat]

I think intelligence would probably save more lives than a gun ban. Outlaw stupidity!

[LibertyEagle]

Would a strict reading of the 2nd amendment stopped this murder? No.
Would not having guns have stopped this murder? Yes.


This is why Im so torn on that darned #2. its important for protecting our liberties (or, was, at this point it's almost pointless :( ), but it's also the root of much sadness.

Are you frickin' CRAZY???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad:

[The_Orlonater]

They have a stabbing problem in the UK.

[Matt Collins]

They have a stabbing problem in the UK.Well that's it. Time to go door to door and remove every knife in the country (except of course from the police). In other news... no one seems to be eating steaks anymore in the UK.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

What is happening to America?

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hRQwzyLHeXFy9MJwA44-IE38aUrAD9469G900

Well, he was on his property.... hm

I guess the kid got tricked lol

[phixion]

Trick or treat is aggressive and it's robbery these days.

In the old days when everyone knew each other and there were proper communities - fine. It's all fun. You're doing it to people you know, and that's why it's fun.

Nowadays it's every man for himself, so why people are surprised when faced with an angry home-owner who's been harassed by annoying children and their annoying parents is beyond me.

I wouldn't dream of knocking on a strangers door and basically asking for money or sweets, else you're the bad guy if you don't do it for the kids.

We don't even know why he shot at them. I'd like to hear more of the case, perhaps he had a valid reason.

Pete

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Trick or treat is aggressive and it's robbery these days.

In the old days when everyone knew each other and there were proper communities - fine. It's all fun. You're doing it to people you know, and that's why it's fun.

Nowadays it's every man for himself, so why people are surprised when faced with an angry home-owner who's been harassed by annoying children and their annoying parents is beyond me.

I wouldn't dream of knocking on a strangers door and basically asking for money or sweets, else you're the bad guy if you don't do it for the kids.

Pete

I agree. And what about property rights? But what's so wrong? The kid got tricked, he said "trick or treat," no? lol. What is fun without risk? :rolleyes:

This kid didn't get his treat

[RideTheDirt]

Would a strict reading of the 2nd amendment stopped this murder? No.
Would not having guns have stopped this murder? Yes.


This is why Im so torn on that darned #2. its important for protecting our liberties (or, was, at this point it's almost pointless :( ), but it's also the root of much sadness.
Wrong. If the kid had a gun he could have defended himself;)

edit: Halloween sucks anyway. Celebrate the devil? I'd rather not.

[Mini-Me]

I agree. And what about property rights? But what's so wrong? The kid got tricked, he said "trick or treat," no? lol. What is fun without risk? :rolleyes:

This kid didn't get his treat

Well, I'm glad SOMEONE decided to make the forum look like it's full of batshit crazies. :rolleyes:

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Well, I'm glad SOMEONE decided to make the forum look like it's full of batshit crazies. :rolleyes:

Hey, atleast I don't compromise on my principles, buddy.

[Mini-Me]

Hey, atleast I don't compromise on my principles, buddy.

Your principles are apparently, "Property rights are the only rights that exist. Life and liberty are silly privileges, and any minor inconvenience to property rights merits painful death." I would call those principles, "batshit crazy."

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Your principles are apparently, "Property rights are the only rights that exist. Life and liberty are silly privileges, and any minor inconvenience to property rights merits painful death." I would call those principles, "batshit crazy."

If you violate property, you give up your life and liberty.

You can't just walk on people's property and ask them for candy lol

[phixion]

Few more facts I've learned:

- Black neighbourhood
- Man was previously robbed
- Car stops outside his home, man and boy get out wearing masks, other party stays in car waiting.

Yes it's Halloween.. but the guy thought he was being robbed again.

Bad judgement perhaps, but there we go.

I'll let the jury decide. It's a tough one.

Pete

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Your land is like your country. You make your own law on your own land. You can choose to "invade" him, but you can't justify statism.

[Mini-Me]

If you violate property, you give up your life and liberty.

Maybe under the philosophy of JosephTheLaVeyanSatanistTroglodyte (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/troglodyte.htm), but not under any coherent rights-based system. If you violate property rights, you forfeit your property rights in kind, to the proportion you violated someone else's (for compensation of "principal"), plus some multiple for the inconvenience (for compensation of "interest"), and depending on the severity, you also may rightfully be stripped of liberty until you make your reparations. If you break into someone's home, that's quite different, because you're threatening life and liberty as well, and home-owners are well within their rights to take you out. Rights are reciprocal, and that is why the violation of rights goes along the lines of "eye for an eye," not "eye for a minor scratch." To the degree that a person "overpunishes" for a minor offense, they have committed a net rights violation that is not warranted by what was done to them.

BTW, my comments are directed only at Joseph. Phixion has valid points. Joseph is just being belligerent and hiding behind "libertarianism" once again to justify the most violent and barbaric belief system he possibly can.

[qh4dotcom]

Yet another reason why I prefer to spend my time reading the posts at RonPaulForums on Halloween night rather than go trick or treating :)

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Maybe under the philosophy of JosephTheLaVeyanSatanistTroglodyte (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/troglodyte.htm), but not under any coherent rights-based system. If you violate property rights, you forfeit your property rights in kind, to the proportion you violated someone else's (for compensation of "principal"), plus some multiple for the inconvenience (for compensation of "interest"), and depending on the severity, you also may rightfully be stripped of liberty until you make your reparations. If you break into someone's home, that's quite different, because you're threatening life and liberty as well, and home-owners are well within their rights to take you out. Rights are reciprocal, and that is why the violation of rights goes along the lines of "eye for an eye," not "eye for a minor scratch." To the degree that a person "overpunishes" for a minor offense, they have committed a net rights violation that is not warranted by what was done to them.

BTW, my comments are directed only at Joseph. Phixion has valid points. Joseph is just being belligerent and hiding behind "libertarianism" once again to justify the most violent and barbaric belief system he possibly can.

I'm talking about natural rights here, not a "rights-based system." If I am a landowner I have the right to do whatever I want with my land. That's the way it is. If you step on my sovereign territory, I have a right to lay my law down on you. You can build a voluntary society with people and landowners coming together to create a voluntary society. This hasn't happened in America. States don't have rights, people have rights.

[Mini-Me]

I'm talking about natural rights here, not a "rights-based system." If I am a landowner I have the right to do whatever I want with my land. That's the way it is. If you step on my sovereign territory, I have a right to lay my law down on you. You can build a voluntary society with people and landowners coming together to create a voluntary society. This hasn't happened in America. States don't have rights, people have rights.

I'm talking natural rights, as well. When I say "rights-based system," I'm talking about a rights-based system of beliefs, stemming from the fact that people disagree on exactly what our natural rights are, what proportion of your own natural rights you give up when you infringe on another's, etc. There's a universal truth here, but you and I disagree on what that truth is, and I would venture to say you're way off the mark. My whole point is that your particular beliefs surrounding natural rights are horribly skewed and incoherent, as if you purposely developed your ideas on natural rights in such a way as to come up with the most violent and barbaric interpretation possible...and that point still stands.

This is not intended to parallel the Halloween situation (because it does not), but consider this example: If, as a landowner, you invite someone onto your property, do you have the right to "change the law of your domain" suddenly and kill them without warning, merely because they're on your property? No, you do not, because no matter how sovereign you are over your land, your guests are still sovereign over their own persons. Taking your "one law" belief system to its logical conclusion, you've already forfeited your own life, liberty, and property in their entirety many, many times...once for every time you've posted something on Josh's forum that might annoy him a bit. Under your own belief system, you obviously no longer have any rights, since you've given them all up by committing petty offenses. That means your property rights are now similarly void, and Josh is justified in storming your home at any time, killing you, and planting his flag in your living room. :rolleyes: