Police: Miss. Man Kills Sister Over Bag Of Ice

HATTIESBURG, Miss. -- Police in Hattiesburg, Miss., said a man fatally shot his sister in the head over a bag of ice.

Authorities say 35-year-old Antonio Page shot his sister with a handgun on a street corner Tuesday night.

Police Chief David Wynn said the woman's name was not available.

http://www.local6.com/news/4923019/detail.html

Or is that another big elephant in the room?

Humans with survival impulses up are nasty creatures.

This is just freaking un-believable.

If you had to pick one over the other, which would you chose?

... and expand them as poster-children for our disparate agendas.

won't remember doing it.

shooting can be done at a distance, is very impersonal. Anyone can shoot a gun, but it takes extra determination to kill to do it by hand where you feel the life being drawn out of the person as you break bone and flesh one hit after the other.

Lots of people who would never kill by hand because they don't want to feel the flesh would pick up a gun and pull a trigger.

:argh:

control law so that he could hang on to the gun? Would the gun control law have stopped this crime in that case?

Believe me when I tell you that gun control laws will work only if everyone complied with the law. Most gun freaks would not comply if it meant they would not be permitted to have their guns.

The problems with "feel good" laws is just that. They make someone like you feel good that you did something about the problem but it doesn't solve the problem.

Suppose that every second house abandoned in New Orleans had not contained firearms that anyone with a mind to loot was then able to get hold of without hardly lifting a finger, and that there weren't boatloads of firearms in the WalMarts and gun stores of the city left lying there for anyone who wanted them.

Suppose that law-abiding gun owners -- be they big strong daddies determined to save their little lambs from those awful nasty home intruders who are forever massacring USAmerican famblies in their sleep, or be they huge profit-making enterprises retailing the things to anybody with a few dollars -- suppose that all of them actually BEHAVED LIKE DECENT HUMAN BEINGS, even if that meant going beyond abiding by laws, and didn't acquire the fucking things if they weren't prepared to look after them.

And if looking after them means not letting them fall into the hands of looters when a hurricane wipes out your city, then that is what looking after them means.

After all, I'd say that it is at least as bloody likely that you are going to suffer a natural disaster of some sort that compels you to leave your home unattended as it is that one of those big nasty home invaders is going to bust in and try to massacre you and your wimminfolk and kiddies in your sleep.

So to all the law-abiding gun owners who would be so horrifically inconvenienced by firearms control laws, I say: BE PREPARED, TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS; take responsibility for your fucking guns, and if you won't do that, prepare to have the finger of blame pointed at you for what is done with those guns. There are obviously thousands of the things in closets and bedside tables all over the abandoned houses of the Gulf coast, and the display cases and storage rooms of the merchants who deal in them, and obviously thousands of them are now going to be circulating for years in the hands of those nasty bad guys you are all so afraid of. Get a clue. Where do you THINK that the thousands of guns already stolen from law-abiding gun owners in the US every year go?

Suppose the guy with the gun did not want to pay attention to the gun control law so that he could hang on to the gun?

Try supposing that the guy with the gun DIDN'T HAVE A GUN because he couldn't manage to steal one from a law-abiding gun owner who failed to store it securely or buy one from a law-abiding gun owner who didn't care whose money s/he took?


The problems with "feel good" laws is just that. They make someone like you feel good that you did something about the problem but it doesn't solve the problem.

The actual problem I'm seeing is that insulting other people's intelligence in this way evidently makes you feel good. It would be so much nicer, really, if you could feel good about actually acknowledging other people's legitimate interests and genuinely addressing actual problems and potential solutions to them.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

the prescence of a gun is almost irrelevant here. what is relevant is that society has come to this and we need to find out why and fix it.

Maybe we could just pass a law mandating everyone to line up quietly and wait for ice, water, food, and perhaps evacuation. Or maybe just line up quietly and wait to die. It isn't going to happen. And people who were living on the edge, are way over the edge now. They are surrounded by chaos and anarchy, and some are responding in kind.

I think more people define it as that rather than the more utopian definition. Although I do understand your point. I had a history professor who claimed to be an anarchist. But with the way I understand human nature, I just don't see that happening. :shrug:

a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government)
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

I would be quite pleased to have a gun at a time like that to protect myself.

but this ain't the time to be whining about gun control.

There is no law, there, now, in any case.

Just a lot of very desperate people, in who-knows-what-kind of mental state after dehydration, poisoning, and hunger.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I mean, why does a national emergency drive you and your ilk out on this board?

You know what, you won't be around long enough to answer. Never mind.

Just heard a call:

Armed civilians have surrounded police officers on Canal St near the Marriot.

My prayers are with you. Welcome to DU :hi: and stay safe

No, of course not, because the EEEEEEEEEEVIL LIBRULS R GUNNA TAKE ARE GUNNS AWAY.

I keep firearms in my home mainly as a collection, but the fact that they might come in handy after a bad earthquake has not escaped my attention.

If you can come up with a plan that would keep guns away from bad people but still allow good people to have them, we might have something worth discussing. I won't even consider a change in the law that would affect my personal weapons.

you are a government agent, you haven't a need for a 9mm in an ankle holster.

myself I wouldn't carry a 9mm in an ankle holster.
a Kimber Pro or Ultra Carry in .45 acp in a waistband holster makes much more sense.

Ankle holsters are not very practical.

What harm have liberalized concealed weapons laws done?

I haven't seen any hard evidence that allowing any qualified person who wants to carry a weapon has done society any harm (or any good). It's a wash or even a non-event in terms of public safety, therefore the greater flexibility enjoyed by individuals is fundamentally good IMO.

They also might get STOLEN after a bad earthquake. How 'bout that one? Has that occurred to you? If you are forced to leave your home, do you expect to be able to tote your gun safe with you? Hmm ... water, or guns. The family silver, or the guns. The baby, or the guns. Which to take? What to do?

What exactly would your plan for RESPONSIBLE gun owner behaviour be in that case?

Why exactly should the rest of the world have to worry about your guns falling into the hands of criminals if you have to leave them behind in a natural disaster?

If you are forced to leave your home, do you expect to be able to tote your gun safe with you?

No, it weighs over 1,500 pounds empty and is bolted to the concrete foundation of my house.

Hmm ... water, or guns. The family silver, or the guns. The baby, or the guns. Which to take? What to do?

Depends on the situation. My priorities will be roughly as follows:

Water
Medicine
Clothing
Food
Pets
One weapon and ammunition
Cell phone
Computer backups
Important personal papers
A few valuable family heirlooms

Why exactly should the rest of the world have to worry about your guns falling into the hands of criminals if you have to leave them behind in a natural disaster?

The rest of the world can take a flying fuck. I really don't care what irrational crap you or anyone else CHOOSES to worry about or not. You do not have a right to live in a world free of worries.

at gun shows and the like. I'm guessing some of these people were criminals or gang members to begin with. They aren't using the guns for self defense. And yes, the guy probably would have killed his sister in another way, but I've been appalled at the number of people running around with guns.

And yes, the guy probably would have killed his sister in another way

Somebody would have got the bag of ice, one way or another. With no gun in the scenario, it is beyond highly unlikely that anyone would have been killed.

We make it really easy for criminals to get guns

And one of the ways that people in the US make it easy for criminals to get guns is to have them in their homes, and particularly to store them in their homes in ways that provide easy access to anybody who can break a window when nobody's home.

Thousands and thousands and thousands of firearms enter the criminal market this way in the US every year.

I can only guess how many firearms will get there from the abandoned homes and businesses of the Gulf coast this week.

that's the point. a knife is more visceral, bloody. beating your sister to death for a bag of ice with your bare hands is even tougher. not many would keep it up until she was dead.

a gun? point & shoot. takes a half-second of blind rage to kill.

the more remote the killing, the easier. the scale slides from suicide bombing (kills you) to high altitude bombing (you don't even know if you killed hundreds).

I mean, surely there's some reason why 2/3 of the people who commit homicides in the US every year use firearms for the purpose ... and don't use icepicks instead ...

Killing a person is VERY HARD for a normal person to do. Most of us never do it because we think killing is wrong.

a gun? point & shoot. takes a half-second of blind rage to kill.

Anyone in enough of a blind rage to shoot someone is in enough of a blind range to stab someone.

the more remote the killing, the easier. the scale slides from suicide bombing (kills you) to high altitude bombing (you don't even know if you killed hundreds).

What's so hard about walking into a cafe and pushing a button?

That is so awful.

just sarcasm...but if this shortage of basics needed for survival situation is any preview of what is to come for the rest of us in the future, i may want to get a gun myself...when there is no gas and no water and no food...people will take it anyway they can..that is the basic survival instinct...the human instinct that has kept the race alive and surviving..if conditions change, this survival instinct will kick in..and u don't know what u would do in such a situation..but that instinct is the most powerful and basic one that we as humans have.

In Chile about a generation or so ago, an aircraft crashed with a football team in the snowy mountains. In a few days men were eating the flesh of those who died to stay alive and then men actually killed men for food.

The bottom line is that after three days of starvation, most of us are just animals. Who am I to judge any of them - I've just returned from the supermarket and my dinner is ready and waiting for me.