12 year old boy shot dead while trick-or-treating

dunkman

i dont have to tell you this was in America :rolleyes:


http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hRQwzyLHeXFy9MJwA44-IE38aUrAD945VCN00

A 12-year-old boy trick-or-treating with his family in central South Carolina was shot from inside a home Friday and killed, and his father and brother were wounded by the gunfire, authorities said.

The shooting suspect, Quentin Patrick, was in custody, a jail official said. Patrick, 22, has been charged with murder and three counts of assault and battery with intent to kill. The jail official said she didn't know whether Patrick had an attorney and his telephone number was unpublished.

The family was headed home from a city-sponsored event downtown when they decided to stop at a few homes, Sumter Police Chief Patty Patterson said. The father and his four children approached a home with a porch light on about 8:30 p.m. EDT while their mother waited nearby in a vehicle.

As the family was at the door, they thought they heard fireworks. The 12-year-old boy, his father and brother were all hit by the gunfire. The boy died at a hospital, Coroner Verna Moore said. The other two children were not hurt.






guns are so cool... guns rule... i hope you all love your kids as much as your guns

Anon

another family broken forever.

fear, fucktards and guns. dangerous combination.

walden freeman

I was talking to one of my buddies yesterday. He's a cop and I'm a fireman, so naturally there's all the ball-busting that comes from that; a friendly pissing contest, so to speak.

Basically, he wound up saying "man, you guys have it made compared to us." I had to agree with him. Fire isn't scary. People are scary. You can study fire, it's predictable. You can learn how a building is built and find out what's inside the building and it'll tell you how the fire will burn and how to fight it.

People? People are unpredictable. People are scary. People can make choices and they can snap.

That being said, I still don't blame guns. That's too easy. It's a person, not the weapon. Why don't we blame the money they used to buy the gun? Should we make money illegal?

Why don't we ban cars? Cars can be just as devastating when used as a weapon. People use cars as weapons. Let's ban cars. Oh, wait, that would be inconvenient for anti-gun activists, right?

There's no answer. People, children included, are going to die regardless. It's a painful reality and that's why human beings have invented religion: so they can have the hope that they'll see their dead parents and spouses and kids again. I've got news for you all, and I hate to say it, but, these things happen, and it's disgusting and it makes me cringe. I hate hearing about kids being hurt and, even worse, I hate being on the scene after it happens but, kids get killed by guns, knives, cars, and diseases every week.

All that being said, tougher gun regulation is the closest answer. The red states hate the idea of gun regulation. I think it's a crime that you can walk into a Wal*Mart and buy a gun just by flashing a photo ID.

Oh, and the guy that killed the kid? I'm all about harsh sentences for murderers and the like.

SoonForgotten2

walden freeman wrote:

That being said, I still don't blame guns. That's too easy. It's a person, not the weapon. Why don't we blame the money they used to buy the gun? Should we make money illegal?

Why don't we ban cars? Cars can be just as devastating when used as a weapon. People use cars as weapons. Let's ban cars. Oh, wait, that would be inconvenient for anti-gun activists, right?

I hate this argument. The purpose of a gun is to kill or injure. That's what it does. The purpose of a car is transportation. The purpose of money is payment for goods or services. Comparing a gun to any possibly dangerous commodity shows a total lack of logic.

Collin

What a sad story.

walden freeman wrote:

I hate hearing about kids being hurt and, even worse, I hate being on the scene after it happens but, kids get killed by guns, knives, cars, and diseases every week.

All that being said, tougher gun regulation is the closest answer. The red states hate the idea of gun regulation. I think it's a crime that you can walk into a Wal*Mart and buy a gun just by flashing a photo ID.

Kids don't get killed by guns every week here.

I also believe in tougher regulation.

Gun and car = apples and oranges.

Anon

walden freeman wrote:

I was talking to one of my buddies yesterday. He's a cop and I'm a fireman, so naturally there's all the ball-busting that comes from that; a friendly pissing contest, so to speak. .

I'm a critical care paramedic - i hear you....

walden freeman wrote:

Basically, he wound up saying "man, you guys have it made compared to us." I had to agree with him. Fire isn't scary. People are scary. You can study fire, it's predictable. You can learn how a building is built and find out what's inside the building and it'll tell you how the fire will burn and how to fight it. .

I can agree with that. Sure, we've been in volatile situations, but not to the extent that cops are all the time.

walden freeman wrote:

I hate hearing about kids being hurt and, even worse, I hate being on the scene after it happens but, kids get killed by guns, knives, cars, and diseases every week. .

They do yes, but when it comes to the gun injuries/fatalities, i am just disgusted at the frequency of them. I worked previously in Australia, and in three years there, i was exposed to only 4 gun related injuries and no fatalities. Big difference here. Very hard to get used to.

walden freeman wrote:

All that being said, tougher gun regulation is the closest answer. The red states hate the idea of gun regulation. I think it's a crime that you can walk into a Wal*Mart and buy a gun just by flashing a photo ID. .

Amen.

know1

Gun control is one issue that I'm still undecided about.

On the one hand, I do not believe the 2nd Amendment is anything but a farce anymore. Unless we are allowed by law to own missiles, bombs, nuclear weapons, etc., we really do not have the so-called protection that the guns activists seem to think we do.

On the other hand, I don't really like big government or government taking over every little aspect of our lives so I don't really think we should push for more regulation either.

walden freeman

SoonForgotten2 wrote:

I hate this argument. The purpose of a gun is to kill or injure. That's what it does. The purpose of a car is transportation. The purpose of money is the be payment for goods or services. Comparing a gun to any possibly dangerous commodity shows a total lack of logic.

What about people who buy guns for sport? People who collect guns and never shoot them? Their idea of a gun is not to kill people with it, but to use it recreationally. In fact, I'm willing to bet that the majority of people who buy guns will never kill anyone with them.

Or, hey, I live in a questionable neighborhood with my wife and two kids. I want a gun so if some guy breaks into my house with a gun, I'll have a better chance of killing him first.

Let's be honest here, if a person breaks into your house with the intention of killing you, do you think you're gonna pull some ninja shit and disarm him? Do you think you're gonna talk him out of it? No. Your best bet is to kill him (or her) first.

So, you're an anti-gun person, of course your view is that guns are strictly made for murder. Although, since you want to bring up logic, let's talk about all the people out there who own guns, and don't harm anybody with them. Let's talk about the people who use them to shoot clay disks and paper targets. Let's talk about people who hunt animals with them. Let's talk about people who collect them. Let's talk about people who would only use it for self-defense. Are those people somehow less important than people who can't accept the fact that guns are a cop-out when it comes to killing?

What do you think is going to happen? Ban guns and magically murders stop? People will find ways to get guns anyway. What kind of people? Predominately idiots. Meanwhile, I could theoretically kill someone with a knife, a fork, a pillow, a plastic bag, a baseball bat, a brick, a nailgun, rat poison, my car, and various other things, including unarmed. People might intentionally get a knife to kill somebody, same as a gun. Let's ban knives. No, it doesn't make sense. Banning something doesn't make it disappear. Look at prohibition. Look at weed.

walden freeman

Collin wrote:

What a sad story.



Kids don't get killed by guns every week here.

I also believe in tougher regulation.

Gun and car = apples and oranges.

People get killed by guns around here a lot. Unfortunately, a lot of them are kids affiliated with gangs. Also, unfortunately, some are kids just strolling by, caught in crossfire.

walden freeman

Pj_Gurl wrote:

I'm a critical care paramedic - i hear you....


I can agree with that. Sure, we've been in volatile situations, but not to the extent that cops are all the time.

They do yes, but when it comes to the gun injuries/fatalities, i am just disgusted at the frequency of them. I worked previously in Australia, and in three years there, i was exposed to only 4 gun related injuries and no fatalities. Big difference here. Very hard to get used to.

Amen.

Cops have it worse than any other emergency worker. They have the dirtiest, scariest, most unappreciated job out of all of us.

No wonder so many of them become corrupted. Nobody appreciates what they do, and they truly work their asses off.

Anon

walden freeman wrote:

So, you're an anti-gun person, of course your view is that guns are strictly made for murder. Although, since you want to bring up logic, let's talk about all the people out there who own guns, and don't harm anybody with them. Let's talk about the people who use them to shoot clay disks and paper targets. Let's talk about people who hunt animals with them. Let's talk about people who collect them. Let's talk about people who would only use it for self-defense. Are those people somehow less important than people who can't accept the fact that guns are a cop-out when it comes to killing?

What do you think is going to happen? Ban guns and magically murders stop? People will find ways to get guns anyway. What kind of people? Predominately idiots. Meanwhile, I could theoretically kill someone with a knife, a fork, a pillow, a plastic bag, a baseball bat, a brick, a nailgun, rat poison, my car, and various other things, including unarmed. People might intentionally get a knife to kill somebody, same as a gun. Let's ban knives. No, it doesn't make sense. Banning something doesn't make it disappear. Look at prohibition. Look at weed.

I know that this post wasn't directed at me, but i just wish people would admit we have a real problem here compared to the rest of the world with how many fatalities/injuries there as a result of gunshot wounds, and work towards trying to reform the laws to change those statistics. I'm not anti guns, i'm anti ''fuck you, no ones going to tell me what i can do because a peace of paper tells me i have my rights mentality.''

Tougher gun regulations have to be enforced.

walden freeman

Absolutely. I'm not a fan of guns. I never have been.

However, banning guns is absurd. A. It's impossible. B. It won't solve anything.

Tough laws and tougher enforcement and even tougher education are the keys to lessening the gun problem (notice I didn't say solving, because it can't be solved).

Collin

walden freeman wrote:

Let's be honest here, if a person breaks into your house with the intention of killing you, do you think you're gonna pull some ninja shit and disarm him? Do you think you're gonna talk him out of it? No. Your best bet is to kill him (or her) first.

Let's be honest here, there's no way you can predict what will happen. He could break into your house, walk up to your room while you're snoring in bed and kill you. Furthermore, how do you know when someone has the intention to kill you?

SoonForgotten2

walden freeman wrote:

What about people who buy guns for sport? People who collect guns and never shoot them? Their idea of a gun is not to kill people with it, but to use it recreationally. In fact, I'm willing to bet that the majority of people who buy guns will never kill anyone with them.

Or, hey, I live in a questionable neighborhood with my wife and two kids. I want a gun so if some guy breaks into my house with a gun, I'll have a better chance of killing him first.

Let's be honest here, if a person breaks into your house with the intention of killing you, do you think you're gonna pull some ninja shit and disarm him? Do you think you're gonna talk him out of it? No. Your best bet is to kill him (or her) first.

So, you're an anti-gun person, of course your view is that guns are strictly made for murder. Although, since you want to bring up logic, let's talk about all the people out there who own guns, and don't harm anybody with them. Let's talk about the people who use them to shoot clay disks and paper targets. Let's talk about people who hunt animals with them. Let's talk about people who collect them. Let's talk about people who would only use it for self-defense. Are those people somehow less important than people who can't accept the fact that guns are a cop-out when it comes to killing?

What do you think is going to happen? Ban guns and magically murders stop? People will find ways to get guns anyway. What kind of people? Predominately idiots. Meanwhile, I could theoretically kill someone with a knife, a fork, a pillow, a plastic bag, a baseball bat, a brick, a nailgun, rat poison, my car, and various other things, including unarmed. People might intentionally get a knife to kill somebody, same as a gun. Let's ban knives. No, it doesn't make sense. Banning something doesn't make it disappear. Look at prohibition. Look at weed.

Firstly, I live in the UK where guns are banned. Now this doesn't mean that people don't get their hands on them. I understand that fact. But coming from the US and Detroit specifically, the muder rates here are nowhere near the same arena as in the US. Yes, people will always find ways to kill other people. There's no arguing that. To me, guns in the hands of the public are totally unnecessary. You mention hunters, which is again, using a gun to kill. People hunted long before there were guns. Which isn't to say that's even necessary today. Give me the percentage of Americans who live off the land and hunt. Your other examples are target practise and collecting. Is either really necessary? I really think people could live without either. Is it honestly worth trading one innocent life for two people to be able to collect guns?

Your point about sense defense goes back to illustrating what I had said, the purpose of guns is to maim or kill. Where guns aren't readily available, this doesn't seem to be much of an issue to be honest. In relatively gun-free societies there are not loads of families being gunned down or burgled at any higher rate than in the US.

Now I'm sure that the majority of people who buy guns will never kill anyone with them, but that fact doesn't make them any less unnecessary. To me, the risks and consequences outweigh the benefits to a society.

walden freeman

Collin wrote:

Let's be honest here, there's no way you can predict what will happen. He could break into your house, walk up to your room while you're snoring in bed and kill you. Furthermore, how do you know when someone has the intention to kill you?

Um, you'd be stupid to wait and see.

Yeah, person broke into my house, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. Wrong. They're getting a baseball bat to the skull since I don't own a gun.

walden freeman

SoonForgotten2 wrote:

Firstly, I live in the UK where guns are banned. Now this doesn't mean that people don't get their hands on them. I understand that fact. But coming from the US and Detroit specifically, the muder rates here are nowhere near the same arena as in the US. Yes, people will always find ways to kill other people. There's no arguing that. To me, guns in the hands of the public are totally unnecessary. You mention hunters, which is again, using a gun to kill. People hunted long before there were guns. Which isn't to say that's even necessary today. Give me the percentage of Americans who live off the land and hunt. Your other examples are target practise and collecting. Is either really necessary? I really think people could live without either. Is it honestly worth trading one innocent life for two people to be able to collect guns?

Your point about sense defense goes back to illustrating what I had said, the purpose of guns is to maim or kill. Where guns aren't readily available, this doesn't seem to be much of an issue to be honest. In relatively gun-free societies there are not loads of families being gunned down or burgled at any higher rate than in the US.

Now I'm sure that the majority of people who buy guns will never kill anyone with them, but that fact doesn't make them any less unnecessary. To me, the risks and consequences outweigh the benefits to a society.

Yes, guns are made to kill, but, peoples' intentions are the deciding factor. Whether or not cars are made to kill and knives and baseball bats are made to kill is benign. It's all about intention. If a person wants to kill, they don't need a gun to do so. So, how is banning guns going to do anything?

Regulation and education are the keys to success in lowering gun casualties. Not a ban.

sponger

It's not like it happens every halloween.

Anon

try telling that to his family. i'm sure that'll cut it with them.

sponger

Pj_Gurl wrote:

try telling that to his family. i'm sure that'll cut it with them.

It's not up to one family whether or not the rest of us should have guns.

Besides, when trick or treating, people have to exercise caution over what neighborhood they choose to go to go and which houses they pick to trick to treat at.

The article didn't say that anybody else had been trick or treating at that house, so it's not entirely improbable that other trick or treaters were able to figure out there was something odd about that house.

Anon

sponger wrote:

It's not up to one family whether or not the rest of us should have guns.

Besides, when trick or treating, people have to exercise caution over what neighborhood they choose to go to go and which houses they pick to trick to treat at.

The article didn't say that anybody else had been trick or treating at that house, so it's not entirely improbable that other trick or treaters were able to figure out there was something odd about that house.

Ok, let's get one thing straight so you don't try and twist my words around.

1. I never said it was up to one family whether the rest of you have guns or not ok? You said it's not like it happens every halloween. I said tell that to his family. Are we clear? Good.

2. The rest of what you said makes me feel sick to my stomach. You are exactly the sort of person that pisses me off with your defend the guns at any cost attitude. A kid was killed you heartless fuck. How dare you insinuate it was probably his fault for not noticing something odd about the house.

sponger

Pj_Gurl wrote:

Ok, let's get one thing straight so you don't try and twist my words around.

1. I never said it was up to one family whether the rest of you have guns or not ok? You said it's not like it happens every halloween. I said tell that to his family. Are we clear? Good.

I'm not twisting your words around. I'm saying that the opinion of one family is irrelevant in a discussion about gun control. This is a discussion of gun control.

2. The rest of what you said makes me feel sick to my stomach. You are exactly the sort of person that pisses me off with your defend the guns at any cost attitude. A kid was killed you heartless fuck. How dare you insinuate it was probably his fault for not noticing something odd about the house.

Now you're twisting my words around. I didn't say it was the child's fault for not noticing there was something odd about the house.

The story clearly states that he was with his family, which included his father. Obviously, the father is responsible for the family's actions.

See how easily you jump to conclusions?

Anon

sponger wrote:

I'm not twisting your words around. I'm saying that the opinion of one family is irrelevant in a discussion about gun control. This is a discussion of gun control.

This is a discussion about a dead kid. A kid that was killed by a gun. Somebodys Sons, Brother/Sister, grandson, friend.

sponger wrote:

Now you're twisting my words around. I didn't say it was the child's fault for not noticing there was something odd about the house.

The story clearly states that he was with his family, which included his father. Obviously, the father is responsible for the family's actions.

See how easily you jump to conclusions?

Ahh. So it's the fathers fault?

urbanhippie

Gun don't kill people, people kill people :rolleyes:

People with guns kill people.



And I live in a questionable neighbourhood, on my own with my kids. Never felt the need to own a gun though.

Collin

sponger wrote:

Obviously, the father is responsible for the family's actions.

Don't let the feminists see this one

sponger

Pj_Gurl wrote:

This is a discussion about a dead kid. A kid that was killed by a gun. Somebodys Sons, Brother/Sister, grandson, friend.

That's a matter of opinion.

Ahh. So it's the fathers fault?

I'm not saying that either. However, I think it's important to keep in mind that other trick or treaters were probably able to pick up on the clues, whereas this person was not. He was a full-grown adult and he was not able to figure out which house had the gun-toting psycho in it.

Collin

walden freeman wrote:

Um, you'd be stupid to wait and see.

Yeah, person broke into my house, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. Wrong. They're getting a baseball bat to the skull since I don't own a gun.

OK, asshole.

edit: I probably misinterpreted your message wrong. So excuse my comment.

Anon

sponger wrote:

I'm not saying that either. However, I think it's important to keep in mind that other trick or treaters were probably able to pick up on the clues, whereas this person was not. He was a full-grown adult and he was not able to figure out which house had the gun-toting psycho in it.

You are despicable. How does one determine WHICH house has a gun toting psycho in it.

Enlighten me.

sponger

Collin wrote:

OK, asshole.

C'mon now...where's your bible?

Collin

Pj_Gurl wrote:

You are despicable. How does one determine WHICH house has a gun toting psycho in it.

Enlighten me.

1. The sign that says "beware: gun toting psycho inside."

2. dead bodies on the lawn

3. creepy music and possible fog

SoonForgotten2

This has certainly gotten ugly fast.

urbanhippie

Surely whether or not the other trick or treaters visited or not is kind of off the point? The point being that if this psycho DIDN'T have a gun, the child wouldn't be dead?