NationStates Jolt Archive

All I can say is WOW... :eek:

Police: Man Killed Teen for Walking on Lawn
By LISA CORNWELL


BATAVIA, Ohio (AP) - A man who neighbors say was devoted to his meticulously kept lawn was charged with murder in the shooting of a 15-year-old boy who apparently walked across his yard.

Charles Martin called 911 on Sunday afternoon, saying calmly: ``I just killed a kid.''

Police, who released the call's contents, said Martin also told the dispatcher: ``I've been harassed by him and his parents for five years. Today just blew it up.''

Larry Mugrage, whose family lived next door, was shot in the chest with a shotgun. The high school freshman was pronounced dead at a hospital.

Martin, 66, allegedly told police he had several times had problems with neighbors walking on his lawn. He remained jailed without bond Monday. His jailers said no attorney was listed for him.

Neighbors said Martin lived alone quietly, often sitting in front of his one-story home with its neat lawn, well-trimmed shrubbery and flag pole with U.S. and Navy flags flying.

Joanne Ritchie, 46, said Mugrage was known as ``a good kid,'' but she always also considered Martin to be friendly.

Union Township is near Batavia, about 20 miles east of Cincinnati.

Associated Press Writer Dan Sewell in Cincinnati contributed to this report


http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0001/20060321/1354467301.htm

A victory for the anti-gun lobby, methinks. Morale of this story: guns+ people= bad

*yawn*
old news

Liasia']A victory for the anti-gun lobby, methinks. Morale of this story: guns+ people= bad

Well, someone shares my beliefs. Put guns in the military and police only!

Well, someone shares my beliefs. Put guns in the military and police only!

Except you should put them in the hands of criminals too. The logic is that they can get guns illegally anyways, so my logic is why not offer them the guns and make a little profit out of it?

Even the police needing them is questionable. British police manadge ok without them.

Not to be a jerk, but didn't we discuss this like a week and a half ago?

Well, someone shares my beliefs. Put guns in the military and police only!

Pretty much the definition of a police state.

Of course noone ever talks about "putting" guns in the hands of people. There are 40 million + firearm owners in the US that don't commit any crimes at all. Would confiscating thier property be alright w/ you?

Liasia']Even the police needing them is questionable. British police manadge ok without them.

Well, you are right there. But I'd be more secure knowing the police are heavily armed.

Not to be a jerk, but didn't we discuss this like a week and a half ago?

Yes. It's already been done.

Pretty much the definition of a police state.

Of course noone ever talks about "putting" guns in the hands of people. There are 40 million + firearm owners in the US that don't commit any crimes at all. Would confiscating thier property be alright w/ you?

Well, if anything, don';t allow them ammunition.

Well, you are right there. But I'd be more secure knowing the police are heavily armed.

If the populace is unarmed, why should the police be armed?

Well, if anything, don';t allow them ammunition.

Ever hear of reloading?

Well, if anything, don';t allow them ammunition.

People can make their own ammunition.

If the populace is unarmed, why should the police be armed?

Because they can then protect the citizens from armed criminals much more effectively.

People can make their own ammunition.

A ban makes it that much harder.

Because they can then protect the citizens from armed criminals much more effectively.

So why shouldn't the citizens be able to protect themselves?

Will the police be able to protect each and every person at all times?

A ban makes it that much harder.

Just like drugs and alcohol, right?

A ban makes it that much harder.

Wait...Do you mean a ban on selling Ammunition, or a ban on possessing ammunition?

Of course noone ever talks about "putting" guns in the hands of people. There are 40 million + firearm owners in the US that don't commit any crimes at all. Would confiscating thier property be alright w/ you?

Yup. Be honest with yourself, could the populace actually overthrow a US government through force if that government was willing to defend itself? Doubtful, beings as very few people own b-52s or have an m-1 parked in their backyard.

Wait...Do you mean a ban on selling Ammunition, or a ban on possessing ammunition?

Both.

A victory for the anti-gun lobby, methinks. Morale of this story: guns+ people= bad

Actually, I think it proves that the notion that property is sacred is bad. I suppose you could see an anti-gun angle in it, but unless you don't consider police and the military people, you still have people with guns, and ones working for the government at that.

Liasia']Yup. Be honest with yourself, could the populace actually overthrow a US government through force if that government was willing to defend itself? Doubtful, beings as very few people own b-52s or have an m-1 parked in their backyard.

But seizing land still comes down to a man with a gun vs. another man with a gun.

Hell, look what's happening in Iraq!

So why shouldn't the citizens be able to protect themselves?

Will the police be able to protect each and every person at all times?

No, but how often do you need protection from police? Why do you want guns anyway?

Liasia']Yup. Be honest with yourself, could the populace actually overthrow a US government through force if that government was willing to defend itself? Doubtful, beings as very few people own b-52s or have an m-1 parked in their backyard.

If you want to go in that direction, yes they could. Perfect example would be Vietnam. You're also assuming that a large percentage of the military wouldn't support the citizenry.

What other items would be acceptable in the name of "safety"?

Both.

Then you have to ban all the elements to make bullets and gunpowder, which are quite common.

And banning things have worked really well in the past...Prohibition, the "War on Drugs"...

If you want to go in that direction, yes they could. Perfect example would be Vietnam. You're also assuming that a large percentage of the military wouldn't support the citizenry.

What other items would be acceptable in the name of "safety"?

No Pies, for they have sharp edges!

Then you have to ban all the elements to make bullets and gunpowder, which are quite common.

And banning things have worked really well in the past...Prohibition, the "War on Drugs"...

Prohibition wasn't executed properly.

"War on Drugs" hasn't been either.

And even if they can still make them, it will be harder.

No, but how often do you need protection from police? Why do you want guns anyway?

Did I say anything about needing protection from police? No. You said the police would protect the citizens from armed criminals but you even admit the police can't protect everyone. Yet you want be to rely on the police for protection.

I use firearms for quite a few reasons. Why do you think I should have them confiscated.

Well, someone shares my beliefs. Put guns in the military and police only!
What if you are being attacked and there are no police around?

Prohibition wasn't executed properly.

"War on Drugs" hasn't been either.

And even if they can still make them, it will be harder.

Ah. So, just because the "War on Drugs" and Prohibition were not "Executed properly", you assume that the "War on Bullets" would be better managed?

Prohibition wasn't executed properly.

"War on Drugs" hasn't been either.

And even if they can still make them, it will be harder.

Not for the criminals. They seem to manage.

Not for the criminals. They seem to manage.

Well, could you not crack down on them?

Ah. So, just because the "War on Drugs" and Prohibition were not "Executed properly", you assume that the "War on Bullets" would be better managed?

Well sure, because if you make a law against them, they'll all magically disappear.

But seizing land still comes down to a man with a gun vs. another man with a gun.

Hell, look what's happening in Iraq!

What, the US barraging rockets into civilian suburbs while crazy insurgents drive bombs into civilian markets? Looks more like insurgents and America/Uk vs civilians to me dude. And one man with a gun is an outdated concept, which you can see from the various apache and gunship footage on the net, where insurgents (men with guns) get ripped apart from miles away by chainguns or whatever.

Well, could you not crack down on them?

Sure, but that doesn't have to be associated w/ confiscating the legal property of millions of people who follow the laws.

As a matter of fact, it seems to be happening now.

Ah. So, just because the "War on Drugs" and Prohibition were not "Executed properly", you assume that the "War on Bullets" would be better managed?

If it was executed right, and planned, yes, it would work. Seriously, demolish abandoned buildings, get rid of back alleys, and a good bit of crime would be stopped.

Liasia']What, the US barraging rockets into civilian suburbs while crazy insurgents drive bombs into civilian markets? Looks more like insurgents and America/Uk vs civilians to me dude. And one man with a gun is an outdated concept, which you can see from the various apache and gunship footage on the net, where insurgents (men with guns) get ripped apart from miles away by chainguns or whatever.

But Apache gunships can't seize land. Only men with guns can do that.

Liasia']What, the US barraging rockets into civilian suburbs while crazy insurgents drive bombs into civilian markets? Looks more like insurgents and America/Uk vs civilians to me dude. And one man with a gun is an outdated concept, which you can see from the various apache and gunship footage on the net, where insurgents (men with guns) get ripped apart from miles away by chainguns or whatever.

So you think that the US military would start firing on US civilians? You don't think that in another civil war, that there would be multiple sides?

[QUOTE=Kecibukia]If you want to go in that direction, yes they could. Perfect example would be Vietnam. You're also assuming that a large percentage of the military wouldn't support the citizenry.
[QUOTE]

How did the populace overthrow the gov by force in vietnam? And only a small percentage of the military would be needed to subdue any number of protests, with all the hardware available.

If it was executed right, and planned, yes, it would work. Seriously, demolish abandoned buildings, get rid of back alleys, and a good bit of crime would be stopped.

And what does that have to do w/ ammunition?

But Apache gunships can't seize land. Only men with guns can do that.

Helicopter lands-> men get out, look around and see no resistance thanks to the massive barrage by advanced hardware.

Liasia'][QUOTE=Kecibukia]If you want to go in that direction, yes they could. Perfect example would be Vietnam. You're also assuming that a large percentage of the military wouldn't support the citizenry.
[QUOTE]

How did the populace overthrow the gov by force in vietnam? And only a small percentage of the military would be needed to subdue any number of protests, with all the hardware available.

Um, the NVA was primarily infantry and seriously hurt the US military. It's called guerilla warfare.

You keep assuming the military would fight against the citizenry. You can assume all you want about the size of the military and it's effect against an internal insurrection, most of it isn't factual.

Liasia']Helicopter lands-> menget out, look around and see no resistance thanks to the massive barrage by advanced hardware.

Men. Men with guns.

Also, assuming you know where the "Bad Guys" are. After all, this is a civil uprisining. You don't want to kill everyone. Do you?

Again, I point to Iraq.

Liasia']Helicopter lands-> men get out, look around and see no resistance thanks to the massive barrage by advanced hardware.

Helicopter lands, men get out and join the guerilla's. Or:

Men get out and are picked off by dozens of snipers. Lots of military hardware for the taking.

Or:

Helicopter gets shot down by Stinger taken from local ANG compound.

I hate to tell you what you already must know, but the 2nd amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

a militia is an armed group of citizens. granted we have organized groups now, such as the national guard to act as our militia, but we stil have the right to arms, which is great in the event that you need protection from immediate danger and the national guard isn't there.

So you think that the US military would start firing on US civilians? You don't think that in another civil war, that there would be multiple sides?

I think that anthing is possible, given certain circumstances. There are examples in the past where a seemingly normal army and police service have done disgusting things.

And what does that have to do w/ ammunition?

Those areas I mentioned are havens for crime. Stop them, and stop the environment, therefore stopping facilities.

a militia is an armed group of citizens. granted we have organized groups now, such as the national guard to act as our militia, but we stil have the right to arms, which is great in the event that you need protection from immediate danger and the national guard isn't there.

If a threat can take out the army and national guard, some guy with a shotgun in his shed is pretty screwed.

You keep assuming the military would fight against the citizenry. You can assume all you want about the size of the military and it's effect against an internal insurrection, most of it isn't factual.

That's very true. If so many civilians think that the government is opressive enough to revolt, what says that the military would not join them?

If it was executed right, and planned, yes, it would work. Seriously, demolish abandoned buildings, get rid of back alleys, and a good bit of crime would be stopped.
how do you do that and get rid of all alleys? that's not very practical. I don't think that would be the plan to manage this war on bullets you mentioned.

Those areas I mentioned are havens for crime. Stop them, and stop the environment, therefore stopping facilities.

Once again, those don't have to have anything to do w/ confiscating private property.

Liasia']If a threat can take out the army and national guard, some guy with a shotgun in his shed is pretty screwed.

A shotgun will kill you just as dead as a smart bomb.

Liasia']I think that anthing is possible, given certain circumstances. There are examples in the past where a seemingly normal army and police service have done disgusting things.

And there are examples of the police and military joining internal insurrections.

Liasia']If a threat can take out the army and national guard, some guy with a shotgun in his shed is pretty screwed.

What do you think the primary weapon of the military is? It's a rifle.

There are millions of rifles in civilian hands in the US. Owned by people who are very familiar w/ them.

'Um, the NVA was primarily infantry and seriously hurt the US military. It's called guerilla warfare.'

Yes, in terrain in which the NVA was at an advantage, with a bad political climate at home in the US. The USA would have eventually won Vietnam, if they hadn't pulled out due to political pressure. It's called a war of attrition, where the vietnamese lost 3 million to the USA's 75,000 (i think).

OK, this debate is getting nowhere. Onward and upward! Talk about the ARTICLE, people!

A shotgun will kill you just as dead as a smart bomb.

Slight difference in capability tho, eh? In that i'd rather be firing a smart bomb (or dropping one) than a shotgun

Liasia']'Um, the NVA was primarily infantry and seriously hurt the US military. It's called guerilla warfare.'

Yes, in terrain in which the NVA was at an advantage, with a bad political climate at home in the US. The USA would have eventually won Vietnam, if they hadn't pulled out due to political pressure. It's called a war of attrition, where the vietnamese lost 3 million to the USA's 75,000 (i think).

Ok, fine. Where do you think most of the guerilla's would be fighting? Thier home territory.

War of attrition: 40 million + vs. less than a million combat troops.

(still assuming that large portions wouldn't go over)

OK, this debate is getting nowhere. Onward and upward! Talk about the ARTICLE, people!

Old guy is going to spend the rest of his life in jail.

Good.

Liasia']Slight difference in capability tho, eh? In that i'd rather be firing a smart bomb (or dropping one) than a shotgun

Assuming you don't get sniped before you even reach the plane or that the crews are still there to arm/fuel it.

What do you think the primary weapon of the military is? It's a rifle.

There are millions of rifles in civilian hands in the US. Owned by people who are very familiar w/ them.

Yes, but the US army still has a huge advantage over any number of people with rifles simply through technology. An example of tech's effectiveness is the first gulf war- Saddam lost his entire army of tanks to a handful of enemy losses. They didn't stand a chance, despite having a much larger army (one of the most developed in the Middle East at that time).

Assuming you don't get sniped before you even reach the plane or that the crews are still there to arm/fuel it.

Meh. I don't really care to be honest, beings as i live in the Uk. I just think that a modern army can easily crush a malitia, given a straigt fight whatever the numbers.

Ok, fine. Where do you think most of the guerilla's would be fighting? Thier home territory.

War of attrition: 40 million + vs. less than a million combat troops.

(still assuming that large portions wouldn't go over)

The soldier's home territory too, and you are assuming every firearm owner fights against the gov.

Liasia']Meh. I don't really care to be honest, beings as i live in the Uk. I just think that a modern army can easily crush a malitia, given a straigt fight whatever the numbers.

Tell that to the Iraqi civilians...

Liasia']Meh. I don't really care to be honest, beings as i live in the Uk. I just think that a modern army can easily crush a malitia, given a straigt fight whatever the numbers.

Ah, so explain Iraq then?

We're also not talking about a "straight fight".

Of course it's interesting to note that gun crime is on the RISE in the UK.

Liasia']The soldier's home territory too, and you are assuming every firearm owner fights against the gov.

It wouldn't necessarily be the soldier's home territory. You don't seem to realize just how big the US is.

Fine, let's say 10%. That's still 4 million +.

Ah, so explain Iraq then?

We're also not talking about a "straight fight".

Of course it's interesting to note that gun crime is on the RISE in the UK.

Source?
Iraq is being fueled by terrorists from outside the country, not a malitia of Iraqi citizens.

I'm suprised this didn't take place in Texas. Don't they have a law that says you can shoot someone if they're on your lawn? Oh, those crazy Texans.

Liasia']Source?
Iraq is being fueled by terrorists from outside the country, not a malitia of Iraqi citizens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgents

Usage of the term "foreign fighters" has received criticism as being Western-centric because taken literally, the term would encompass all non-Iraqi forces, including coalition forces.[3] [4] [5] [6] Zarqawi himself has taken to taunting the American occupiers about the irony of the term: "Who is the foreigner, O cross worshippers? You are the ones who came to the land of the Muslims from your distant corrupt land." (Communiqué of 10 May 2005[7]). Zarqawi's group has since announced the formation of the Ansar platoon, a squad of Iraqi suicide bombers, which an AP writer called "an apparent bid to deflect criticism that most suicide bombers in Iraq are foreigners." [8]

While it is not known how many of those resisting the U.S. occupation in Iraq are from outside the country, it is generally agreed that foreign fighters make up a very small percentage of the insurgency. Major General Joseph Taluto, head of the 42nd Infantry Division, said that "99.9 per cent" of captured insurgents are Iraqi.[9] The estimate has been confirmed by the Pentagon's own figures; in one analysis of over 1,000 insurgents captured in Fallujah, only 15 were non-Iraqi. [10] According to the Daily Telegraph, information from military commanders engaging in battles around Ramadi exposed the fact that out of 1300 suspected insurgents arrested in five months of 2005, none were non-Iraqi, although Colonel John Gronski stated that foreigners provided money and logistical support: "The foreign fighters are staying north of the [Euphrates] river, training and advising, like the Soviets were doing in Vietnam"[11]


U.S. Army commander Colonel HR McMasters said the "vast majority" of insurgents captured there were "Iraqis and not foreigners."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgents

*gives cookie* you win.:p

Liasia']*gives cookie* you win.:p


You set me up for the win so I wills plit it with ya

http://www.kookiesandmilk.com/cc_cookie_in_half.jpg

You set me up for the win so I wills plit it with ya

http://www.kookiesandmilk.com/cc_cookie_in_half.jpg

*groans* that looks quite tasty. Meh. I shouldn't argue about stuff i don't actually know much about. All my info comes from the BBC and the Daily Show

Liasia']*groans* that looks quite tasty. Meh. I shouldn't argue about stuff i don't actually know much about. All my info comes from the BBC and the Daily Show

That actually explains a great deal...

You set me up for the win so I wills plit it with ya

http://www.kookiesandmilk.com/cc_cookie_in_half.jpg

That cookie has a face.

That actually explains a great deal...

*shrugs* Its the blind arguing with the blind. Interesting, but no-one gets anywhere.