Youngest hitman, only 15

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by August

That's my point as well. Gun control does not stop gun crime.

Exactly....it never has and never will.

Here we see a clkassic example of how cheap a price a life can be if you find the right piece of vermin that is desperate enough for a few quid

May his starfish never know any piece.

[jumpy]

The point made was also that firearm ownership would not have prevented this crime either - debating ownership or control (ban) is fundamentally irrelevant to this case.
Unless of course you open your front door with the business end of a firearm... and who does that?
Civilised society continually forgets (or deliberately ignores) that humanity's default setting is barbarism.

[Freiwillige]

Originally Posted by jumpy

The point made was also that firearm ownership would not have prevented this crime either - debating ownership or control (ban) is fundamentally irrelevant to this case.
Unless of course you open your front door with the business end of a firearm... and who does that?
Civilised society continually forgets (or deliberately ignores) that humanity's default setting is barbarism.

Not true entirely. She should have known her ex was a dirt bag. She probably knew he was a threat. In the U.S. she could have bought a pistol for protection, got some training in defensive tactics and been very aware of her surroundings. Had those things happened this may have turned out differently. It may not have either. But it would increase the odds even if by a small percentile of her surviving that encounter.

[August]

Originally Posted by jumpy

The point made was also that firearm ownership would not have prevented this crime either - debating ownership or control (ban) is fundamentally irrelevant to this case.

No it's not irrelevant. The case has been made repeatedly that restricting private gun ownership eliminates the need for criminals to use firearms in the commission of their crime. That concept was not demonstrated in this case. Just because it does not also demonstrate that firearms ownership would have prevented the crime, well now that is irrelevant.

Gun control disarms victims. It does not, as this incident shows, disarm criminals.

[Freiwillige]

Originally Posted by August

No it's not irrelevant. The case has been made repeatedly that restricting private gun ownership eliminates the need for criminals to use firearms in the commission of their crime. That concept was not demonstrated in this case. Just because it does not also demonstrate that firearms ownership would have prevented the crime, well now that is irrelevant.

Gun control disarms victims. It does not, as this incident shows, disarm criminals.

Well put.

[Skybird]

Gun license and owining a gun do not offer your protection if a hitman is set on you, for any hitman competent in his business will strike you by surprise and by the means against which you cannot defend. But should we legalise explosives and mines because he may wire your carseat with explosives?

The debate in this thread is misled, and maybe intentionally so. Gun ownership for self defense in the very very big majority of cases makes sense only against random street crime, robbers, thieves, etc.

This case thus does not serve as an argument for general easing of gun ownership. the only thing that could have saved her when opening the door wouldjhave been reflexes and training in hand-to-hand combat, or reflexes combined with huge physical strength - and this most likely only if the hitman was not standing meters in front of the door.

If I were a assassin with a gun or rifle and you would be marked by somebody who hates you,. you can safely assume that you would be hit with me leaving you zero chance to react.

Preferred defense against assassination, are good intel, and body guards to control at least the vicinity around you. But intel is key for maximising chances to neutralise the surprising momentum of the attacker. But if the intended victim is not even aware of that it has been marked, then chances for defence are almost nil as long as the assassin is not a total idiot.

And as a reminder on that the balance of safety gained-versus-risks of gun ownership is not as linear and simple as some try to make it appear:

a meta-study

[danasan]

Is this really about guns only?

I think, it is about growing brutality nowadays. There are so many cases of brutality done by youngsters, for example the subway cases in Germany. Sometimes ending in the dead, sometimes in the hospital...
And often for less than 200 pounds

[August]

First off this was done a 15 year old kid, not a "hitman".

Second I am not trying to make the case that gun ownership would have stopped this murder from occurring. I am only using it as a counterpoint to the claims that taking away legal gun ownership will somehow stop criminals from using guns when they commit crimes.

[Howard313]

Age makes no difference, if he is evil enough to take a life for money then he is evil enough to rot in jail.

What a waste of good youth though

I thought gun control was supposed to prevent these things from happening.

It sure don't look like Kansas

according to popular gun control theory the murderer shouldn't have needed a shotgun.

Who is that strange figure?

So if gun control does what it's advertized to do then why did he need a shotgun and how did he obtain it?

Off to see the wizard.

Now what was it the strawman required?

May his starfish never know any piece.

Don't you mean may it be ripped to pieces on a regular basis?

[Freiwillige]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Gun license and owining a gun do not offer your protection if a hitman is set on you, for any hitman competent in his business will strike you by surprise and by the means against which you cannot defend. But should we legalise explosives and mines because he may wire your carseat with explosives?

The debate in this thread is misled, and maybe intentionally so. Gun ownership for self defense in the very very big majority of cases makes sense only against random street crime, robbers, thieves, etc.

This case thus does not serve as an argument for general easing of gun ownership. the only thing that could have saved her when opening the door wouldjhave been reflexes and training in hand-to-hand combat, or reflexes combined with huge physical strength - and this most likely only if the hitman was not standing meters in front of the door.

If I were a assassin with a gun or rifle and you would be marked by somebody who hates you,. you can safely assume that you would be hit with me leaving you zero chance to react.

Preferred defense against assassination, are good intel, and body guards to control at least the vicinity around you. But intel is key for maximising chances to neutralise the surprising momentum of the attacker. But if the intended victim is not even aware of that it has been marked, then chances for defence are almost nil as long as the assassin is not a total idiot.

And as a reminder on that the balance of safety gained-versus-risks of gun ownership is not as linear and simple as some try to make it appear:

a meta-study

I have to disagree with you. Re-reading the story I disagree wholeheartedly.

If she was armed, trained and aware this would have never happened.

First...don't open the door for strangers especially when your psycho ex is in a child dispute with you. Learn to spot the danger instead of walking right into it.

Second upon not answering the door if the ASSassin tries to break in, you the defender have the advantage.

Her problem is that she had a false sense of security in an unsafe world and with her especially unsafe circumstances.

[August]

Originally Posted by Freiwillige

Her problem is that she had a false sense of security in an unsafe world and with her especially unsafe circumstances.

Well said.

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by Freiwillige

Not true entirely. She should have known her ex was a dirt bag.She probably knew he was a threat. In the U.S. she could have bought a pistol for protection, got some training in defensive tactics and been very aware of her surroundings. Had those things happened this may have turned out differently. It may not have either. But it would increase the odds even if by a small percentile of her surviving that encounter.

Roger that.
So if she would have done all those things above in your quote, she would have shot the hell out of that 15-year old kid and lived to see another day with her child.
How the hell can this be twisted to insinuate or allege that because she didn't do all those things that that is why she is dead?
Errm, ok.
And what guarantee is there that if she had been armed, that A) She would have had the gun on her at that very precise moment? B) What guarantee is there that she would have had a quicker reaction time than the 15-year old? C) If she did indeed have a quicker reaction time, what's to say she would have hit him? D) If she did indeed react quicker, what's to say the gun didn't mis-fire?
So you see, just because the almighty gun laws allow you to carry and defend yourself at home, doesn't guarantee you safety. Sure, sure, it increases the chance of you repelling an attack, but i'm arguing that your point that IF the woman had her own gun then that would or could have been a better outcome.
Unless i am mis-reading your post.
I hope i am.
As for your argument about her living in a false sense of security and with her especially unsafe circumstances?
It's a shame that that woman, and indeed all of us can't live day to day without ------- exes and 15-year old would-be-wanna-be assassins that don't give a ---- about life.
Yea, yea, the arguement about "get a reality check dood, the world is a cold harsh place" argument is tiring, neeext.
Pity her for living in a false sense of security and living in unsafe circumstances.
Pity her for not carrying a gun and taking self-defense classes (God knows what self defense classes would have done when someone stands there pulling a trigger from a shotgun).

[Freiwillige]

Well you can never guarantee your life, But if you could change the odds ever so slightly in your favor? Why wouldn't you?? I did say in my post it might have changed the outcome, might not. And by self defense training I meant with the firearm not karate, I am sure she did not have the 5 extra years to train in defense martial arts but gun defensive training is relatively quick.

I guarantee you that this 15 year old twit couldn't hit the broadside of a barn especially under return fire. You think he was so committed for a couple hundred bucks to kill someone he never met that he would risk his own selfish interests when being fired upon? He would soil his pants and flee like the punk he is. Anybody can shoot a gun, it takes practice and commitment to shoot one well. And now to answer your 4 points

A. (What if she didn't have her gun on her?) She should always have her gun on her if she knows there is a threat. But since she was at home all she had to do was retrieve her gun, yell out asking who it is without getting close to the door or opening it and if the response is not adequate take a defensive position in the home and phone the police while being prepared to defend yourself.

B. (What guarantee is there that she would have had a quicker reaction time than the 15 year old?) This isn't the wild west drawing at high noon. Following the above scenario she would be at the ready and have the advantage of knowing his whereabouts while he doesn't know hers. IF he decided to try and force entry he would be doing so into an unknown environment not knowing what direction his intended pray is located. The girl would know the direction of the attack and already be unloading in the general direction. Who do you suppose has the advantage there?

C. (If she did indeed have a faster reaction time what makes you think she would hit him?) Well she has been training in defensive firearm usage including hitting a target. He probably being a 15 year old scum bag has not. He thinks like most gang members that having a gun is enough. And even if she did not hit him he would almost certainly flee seeing as how his defenseless victim is anything but a defenseless victim.

D. (Even if she did draw faster whats to say the gun doesn't misfire?) How many guns have you been around? Do they misfire? Sure but not as often as to make that anything but the most remote of possibility's. Especially if she had a revolver and it was new (Most likely scenario for a new to guns woman who wants to learn immediate defense) In that case if it did misfire then another squeeze of the trigger solves that.

Feurfrei the best way to show their stance as just plain silly is to use a well known example.
Say for example the soccermum who became an icon for gun nuts when she insisted on exercising her right to open carry at her kids soccer games because her life may be under threat at any moment and it was vital that she had a gun on her person at all times and always be ready to fight off the unexpected attacker
Someone just walked up to her in her own house and blew the contents of her skull all over the computer monitor and terminated her web-chat.
I suppose it can be said that her gun meant....
Her problem is that she had a false sense of security in an unsafe world and with her especially unsafe circumstances.