Thursday, January 28, 2010

Stray Bullet Kills 13-Year-Old

Wsbtv.com reports on the tragic shooting, via Ooh Shoot.

A 13-year-old boy was hit and killed by a stray bullet at a Gwinnett County apartment complex Monday night.

Officials with the Gwinnett County Police Department identified the victim as 13-year-old Tre Shambry.Several people called 911 to report gunshots at the Holland Park Apartments on Holland Place just before 10 p.m. Monday, according to police.At the same time, a woman called police to report her 13-year-old son had been shot in their apartment.

When police arrived they found the teen had been shot in the torso while lying in bed.Paramedics took the wounded teen to Gwinnett Medical Center, where he died.Police believe the fatal shot was fired while two men were arguing in the parking lot of the apartment complex."

It is possible that the parties responsible are unaware that a person was struck by their gunshots," said Officer Brian Kelly of the Gwinnett Police Department in a release.Officials believe that the individuals responsible for the shooting left in two separate vehicles. Witnesses stated that they saw a red-type vehicle and a silver or gray-type vehicle leave the complex shortly after the shooting, police said.

When is enough going to be enough? I say now. That's enough. Legitimate gun owners need to be prepared for serious inconvenience in the future. When their star begins its descend, common sense restrictions will be put in place. Gun registration, background checks on every transfer, closer scrutiny of FFL dealers, to name just a few of the needed changes, will be implemented as soon as the country gets fed up enough with what's going on.

The great weblog Ooh Shoot lists only accidental deaths, which everyone agrees are a tiny fraction of the deliberate ones. Yet these accidents are daily fare in the media. Enough is enough.

How can so-called responsible gun owners continue to turn a blind eye on these tragedies and deny any involvement? If they're not involved, I'd like to know who is, the non gun owners? No, I don't think so.

The first group responsible for this mess is the criminals who do the shootings, next it's the legitimate gun owners from whom the criminals get their guns, and next it's the gun manufacturers from whom the legal gun owners get theirs.

What's your opinioon? Please leave a comment.

19 comments:

  1. When is enough going to be enough? I say now. That's enough. Legitimate gun owners need to be prepared for serious inconvenience in the future.

    Good luck with that! I'm awaiting the day where you and your ilk will be completely irrelevant.

    Hell, the Brady's are almost there now.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mikeb: "Gun registration, background checks on every transfer, closer scrutiny of FFL dealers..."

    Which one of those would have prevented this shooting?

    ReplyDelete
  3. While we're at it, let's pass a law to require that everyone own a pink unicorn that farts rainbows.

    Just as realistic, and just as likely to help.

    Rights deniers have an odd talent--they can make me laugh even in a discussion about a 13-year-old tragically and needlessly killed.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You are right. I feel so guilty. If I had only registered one of my guns, this wouldn't have happened.

    If the men who pulled the triggers were unaware of it, how am I supposed to be aware of it from 4 states away and stop it?

    ReplyDelete
  5. "How can so-called responsible gun owners continue to turn a blind eye on these tragedies and deny any involvement? "

    Because they're not responsible gunowners.

    Look at FJ's argument, for example. He tries to make the argument that all gun control is about registration or id'ing dirty FFLs.

    He knows what would go a long way to solving this problem--yet, he turns a blind eye to it.

    --JadeGold

    ReplyDelete
  6. I read a story yesterday about a woman who was strangled to death by a non gun owner.

    Do you consider yourself partially responsible for her death?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ownership is going up, crime is going down...but until we reach perfection, gun owners have to pay.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Damn, you're getting the rhetoric down pat. You should see Peter Hamm about a job if you ever get tired of working for the gun knotters.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mikeb: "Gun registration, background checks on every transfer, closer scrutiny of FFL dealers..."

    FishyJay: "Which one of those would have prevented this shooting?"

    I think another valid answer is "What are you willing to give up in fair exchange?"

    I asked this last time registration came up (UK anon - didn't realise the name/URL option was there, sorry).

    Serious question, thought I'd ask politely. Might be a change from the more acerbic replys you usually get from the others on the good side.

    If you're insisting gun owners accept restrictions for things that can't really be called their direct fault, what are you willing to give them in equivalent exchange?

    I have a few ideas, I'd like to hear yours first though.

    ReplyDelete
  10. JadeGold says:

    He knows what would go a long way to solving this problem--yet, he turns a blind eye to it.

    I know what would do it, too--require that all kids' bedrooms have brick or stone walls, and no windows.

    Problem solved.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Guy Ohki, Thanks for the non-acerbic comment and question.

    I agree it's not your direct fault, but indirectly you, meaning gun owners, must share in the responsibility for gun violence for the simple reason that the guns used by criminals start out in your hands and you oppose the restrictions which would make those guns less easily available.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It's a pretty horrifying story for sure. Some cultures and neighborhoods are so lost that people arguing in a parking lot draw guns and fire random shots. And random shots end up with random people and children dead. As a father, I can't imagine what it would be like to have that happen to my child.

    I don't turn a blind eye to it, but neither do I take responsibility for it.

    Any more than even though I both own a car and occasionally drink alcohol, I take responsibility for all the innocent children killed by drunk drivers. I treat my car and alcohol responsibly, and expect my fellow car owners to do the same. When they don't, we punish them. If I don't, I'll be punished. And drunk drivers kill many more people than random shots from arguing idiots.

    So punish those that break the law and work to help the violent drug subculture in this country fix itself, and quit spending your energy trying to take away my guns as I will then expend my energy defending them and nothing worthwhile will happen.

    But while there is really no redeeming value of having alcohol freely available in our society, the benefits of freely available firearms to the law abiding are abundantly clear, both in this nation, worldwide, and historically.

    Political pendulums swing, but the gun control pendulum is a slow one. In my lifetime I saw it move slowly to a strong support for gun control in the 70's, and it's been swinging the other way ever since.

    Has the pendulum peaked? I don't think so. When it starts to swing back will it go as far as it did before, or even farther (as you would wish?) -- I don't think so. I think too many people enjoy the empowerment of firearms ownership and the ability to carry firearms to let that happen.

    But only time will tell. And we bloggers will keep blogging either way.

    It is my hope that a future blog of yours will be around the theme, "so under new Federal guidelines K-12 teachers are now required to carry 3 full mags of reloads for their mandated sidearms? Isn't this a little extreme? When will the madness end! A year ago teacher's were even allowed to carry revolvers!"

    At that point Jadegold and Democommie will only be notable as the last two viewers of MSNBC. They'll be living behind protective glass at the Smithsonian as the last two people willing to admit to having voted for Mr. Obama.

    ReplyDelete
  13. JadeGold

    "Look at FJ's argument, for example. He tries to make the argument that all gun control is about registration or id'ing dirty FFLs.

    Wrong, yet again. Those were MIKEB's proposals (not mine), made in response the this particular shooting."

    Thus it seems reasonable that proposals made in response to a particular shooting have something
    to to with preventing that shooting. But, in the Bizzaro world of gun control, I suppose not.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I agree it's not your direct fault, but indirectly you, meaning gun owners, must share in the responsibility for gun violence for the simple reason that the guns used by criminals start out in your hand . . .

    No gun I've ever owned has ever left my ownership, and thus has ever been used by criminals--guess that absolves me of any responsibility, eh?

    Oh--but I still oppose gun laws--laws that will, according to you, work completely unlike any other prohibition in history (in that they will somehow supposedly "make guns less easily available").

    Have you explained yet somewhere, and I missed it, how gun laws will do what the "War on Drugs" has failed to, what "The Noble Experiment" failed to, etc.?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Bad comparisons, Zorro. The war on drugs and prohibition compared to gun control makes no sense.

    Stephen, I think you're wrong about the pendulum. It's definitely swinging in the direction you like now, and will move further after the McDonald decision. But I predict after that it'll peak out, many of the false claims of the pro-gun folks will be revealed for what they are and people will begin to get fed up. They'll start to put the blame where it belongs and you'll see gun control like we've never had it.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I don't think that anyone is arguing against keeping guns from criminals.

    The problem arises when the measures taken for such an endeavour affect the law abiding as well, such as your AWB or our 1997 ban.

    I mean in our case, it was the police who made the mistakes (at least six, if I remember correctly) that lead to the tragedy, but it was the gun owners who got shafted.

    I have a few stories from the time from members of our ARU, but anecdotes don't really count for much.

    If you want laws that gun owners will support, compromise is necessary. For example, if your law restricts the law abiding, it should reduce restrictions by an equal amount. Anything less is irresponsible.

    The problem is that to most anti-gun groups, "compromise" means "we get all this, you get nothing, but we'll not get this until next time".

    If, as you say, the blame will eventually go where it belongs, there will be no new gun control.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Notorious B: But I predict after that it'll peak out, many of the false claims of the pro-gun folks will be revealed for what they are and people will begin to get fed up. They'll start to put the blame where it belongs and you'll see gun control like we've never had it.

    Obviously we have different hopes for the future, and I have seen too many radical changes to be certain of anything.

    But ... I do know that people don't like to give something up once they have it. I believe that whatever they do get through (limited AWB, universal registration, one gun a month, smart guns, etc.) the main point of the anti-gunners, a total gun ban or at least handgun ban and end of legal CCW, will not come to pass anytime within the forseeable future, decades at least. Although CCW holders are only a small percentage of the population, they are almost all voters and will NOT want to give up the empowerment they have.

    And at some point the pendulum will begin to swing back, if it is a pendulum indeed.

    Is it a bet? Don't want to set a monetary amount because after 4 - 8 years of an Obama administration deficit and inflation there's no telling what US currency will be worth. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  18. Bad comparisons, Zorro. The war on drugs and prohibition compared to gun control makes no sense.

    Explain, then, why it "makes no sense" to compare two types of failed supply-side prohibitions, to another type of supply-side prohibition.

    All three share, as a fundamental point of commonality, the fact that because there is demand, and money to be made by satisfying that demand, there will be suppliers. When the commodity is decreed illegal, that means the suppliers will be criminals, which means they'll be willing to use violence to protect their trade, and that they won't obey any lesser restrictions that may be placed on that trade.

    So edify a poor, dumb grunt--what about the comparison "makes no sense"?

    Sorry--I'm not going to accept the "inconvenience" of having my liberties trampled because of the bad actions of others--especially when trampling those liberties will do nothing to prevent people like Tre Shambry's parents from suffering the inconvenience of losing their child.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Zorro, Drugs including alcohol are "products" used by people to get high, to esacape reality, to relax, to have fun, whatever. Guns, on the other hand, are "products" designed for killing. I don't accept the arguments denying that, sports shooting and the old "to propel a projectile." Guns are for killing and as a result they cannot be compared to drugs and alcohol, or to cars and swimming pools for that matter.

    Of course, you can use all your skills in elaborating the similarities, but I'm afraid I remain unconvinced.

    ReplyDelete