Murder, Kidnapping Suspect Kills Daughter, Shoots Self

[CO Liberal]

And yet another family made safer through firepower - Wayne

* * * * * * * * * *

Murder, Kidnapping Suspect Kills Daughter, Shoots Self
Condition Of Mayhew, Officer Not Known

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- A manhunt that spanned two states and 48 hours ended Saturday night in West Virginia.

Columbus police said murder and kidnapping suspect John Richard Mayhew shot a West Virginia officer Saturday night in Greenbrier County. Authorities said Mayhew shot the trooper in the chest, and then shot his own daughter, Kristy McKibben, and himself.

Mayhew's daughter, Kristy McKibben, 18, died of multiple gunshot wounds to the chest, officials reported. The officer and Mayhew were taken to local hospitals. Their conditions are not known.

Police said someone carrying a semiautomatic weapon burst into a home on Springmont Avenue Thursday and began shooting. Tamera McKibben, 34, was killed, along with her 39-year-old boyfriend, Frank Rigsby. Tamera McKibben died in the arms of her 14-year-old son.

<more>

http://www.channelcincinnati.com/news/2394597/detail.html

[JitterbugPerfume]

1. when will they ever learn?

there is only one use for a gun

to kill

[glarius]

2. If he wanted to die...why did he have to kill the young girl too?

This is always so sad...To end a young life for NO REASON...and of course his ex-wife also...so terrible.....

[GOPFighter]

3. There's a lot of anger in America

Why? What is it about America that produces so many angry, violent men?

[CO Liberal]

4. And Why Do They All Get Access to Guns???

Hmmmmmmmmmm?

[FireHeart]

5. Ask The NRA...and

the rest of the gun nuts who get their kicks out of this kind of thing. It's horrendous and spreading all the time. The ease of access to firearms makes it all the more likely we'll see many more such incidents. It's really not unreasonable to limit firearms access to people who are capable of rational, lawful behavior.

Unfortunately, the deliberate misinterpretation of the second ammendment will not allow such a logical and reasonable limitation.

So the innocents die.

Such is the way of life in America.

[Cthulu_2004]

6. Right....

after all, before 1968, when anybody could order guns out of a catalog or buy them with no paperwork at a hardware store, crime was so much higher, right?

"It's really not unreasonable to limit firearms access to people who are capable of rational, lawful behavior."

I'm eager to hear your suggestions on how to do this....but please, make it so that no bad people can get guns, yet ALL good people can. That's kind of hard to do.

[FireHeart]

7. True.

It is hard to do. But it's not unreasonable. Invesigate backgrounds, apply all existing laws to the results. However, I do admit this will cost money. But a human life can't be rang up on a cash register. We *could* do a great deal to lessen the loss of life by vigorously applying all (and I do mean all) current laws and adding a few minor ones. Ones that wouldn't cause anyone who wants to be a LAWFUL firearm owner any real problem.

It's the resistance to these minor applications that puzzle me.

[Cthulu_2004]

8. the problem is...

that you end up with 2 plausible scenarios. Under the first scenario of the checks being performed by the seller, anybody selling a gun must have access to the criminal background check system. This leads to serious privacy issues and potential misuse. Under the second scenario of all transactions having to go through a FFL, you're faced with a bottleneck because there are so few FFLs now, and it adds a huge hassle (and cost) to locate one willing to do the transfer for you.


On top of this, it completely ignores the black market issue, one of the main sources of guns for people prohibited from possessing firearms now.

[acerbic]

9. What kind of privacy issues and potential misuse?

Under the first scenario of the checks being performed by the seller, anybody selling a gun must have access to the criminal background check system. This leads to serious privacy issues and potential misuse.

Solutions to that have been discussed here before, so what kind of misuse scenario were you thinking about?

[Cthulu_2004]

10. typical stuff...

potential employers screening employees through the system without their consent, people conducting background checks on potential boyfriends/girlfriends, people not seeking mental health care because they fear being stigmatized, people looking to dig up dirt or blackmail material on somebody, people discriminating on housing decisions (or credit) based upon unauthorized background checks, stuff like that. Look at experiences with on-line sex offender registries for examples.

[acerbic]

11. The pretty obvious and simple solutions to those concerns:

The background check can be performed only if the person being checked has authorized it and the only information returned is whether the person is allowed to buy a gun or not.

[Cthulu_2004]

12. If you require authorization...

you're going to have to verify it, aren't you? Wouldn't that mean a pretty big delay in the process? And if a person isn't allowed to buy a gun, it's pretty safe to assume that there's a skeleton in the closet, isn't it?

[acerbic]

13. Huh?

Wouldn't that mean a pretty big delay in the process?

Things like credit card purchases are verified in seconds all the time.

And if a person isn't allowed to buy a gun, it's pretty safe to assume that there's a skeleton in the closet, isn't it?

Double huh? What would it matter, unless somebody authorizes a background check on himself although he's not qualified to buy a gun and so the seller finds it out? Oh the horror... :shrug:

[Cthulu_2004]

14. Acerbic....

credit card purchases are a little less complex then verifying the identity of somebody's signature on a governmental form. This is why they have Notaries, and don't just do a POS-type check on something like that. In order to do this without a time delay, it would have to be done over the phone. How are you going to verify the information by phone?

And if a person renting a house got a "no" reply, I'd think they'd be very wary of renting to that person, don't you?

[acerbic]

22. No, not over the phone: by carrier pidgeon...

In order to do this without a time delay, it would have to be done over the phone. How are you going to verify the information by phone?

Duh. Of course by phone (or computer): first the buyer uses a phone to call the center to authorize one background check. Then the seller uses a phone to perform the check.

If you're going to "ask" next how the center could possibly verify the identity of the buyer making the authorization, please contact e.g. any bank to find out how exactly they verify phone banking users... or shall we skip the next 127 excuses and jump directly to where you just say that some hacker somehow will find a way to misuse the system and without authorization find out if someone else is qualified to buy guns or not and to you that risk is far greater evil than criminals buying guns easily without any kinds of checks?

[Cthulu_2004]

24. So...

you're going to issue "Background Check PIN #s" to everybody in the US who might sell or buy a gun? Or are you suggesting that there already exists a governmental database which keeps track of your mother's maiden name, the town you were born in, and the name of your favorite pet, or that you would support the creation of such a database? Big Brother, anybody? Social Security numbers are out, due to long-standing Federal law.

your idea sounds like quite the "cluster-fuck". :)

[acerbic]

25. Silly...

you're going to issue "Background Check PIN #s" to everybody in the US who might sell or buy a gun?

Not for everyone who might but for everyone who is going to and asks for it. How difficult would that be?

Next contorted conjecture, please... :eyes:

[Cthulu_2004]

32. well, let's see...

there are around 80 to 90 million gun owners, right? How many of them do you reasonably think might sell a gun?

How many people buy a gun every year?

If a person hasn't gotten their Government approved PIN number, well, so much for an "instant" check, right? They'll have to wait for the form to be sent in and a PIN issued, right? That'll tack on a 2-3 month wait (that's how long it took DMV to issue me my PIN for their system), right?

Tell me....Identity theft is currently a problem, and it's gaining popularity, right? Wouldn't this give an incentive for criminals to engage in additional identity theft?

yup, sure enough, your system is problem-free... :eyes:

[acerbic]

37. Thank you, you just don't disappoint...

...in the contorted conjecture category:

If a person hasn't gotten their Government approved PIN number, well, so much for an "instant" check, right? They'll have to wait for the form to be sent in and a PIN issued, right? That'll tack on a 2-3 month wait

Why exactly would it have to be that way? Why not e.g. just go to a police station that has an interface to the system, prove your identity and get your PIN instantly?

Your imagination seems to be incredibly flexible when coming up with something that wouldn't work and nonexistent when thinking what would work. I wonder what your profession is? :-)

[Cthulu_2004]

43. why not...

"Why exactly would it have to be that way? Why not e.g. just go to a police station that has an interface to the system, prove your identity and get your PIN instantly?"

go into a SSI main office, show valid id, and be able to get a new social security card right away? Why can't you take a marriage license into a SSI office and get your name changed right away? Why not go into a DMV, show ID, and pick up your new PIN number? Because they are bureaucracies, and they DO NOT WORK THAT WAY.

It's pretty simple to understand if you have much experience dealing with the Government...

[acerbic]

44. Well duh...

Why not go into a DMV, show ID, and pick up your new PIN number? Because they are bureaucracies, and they DO NOT WORK THAT WAY.

...and you seem to be quite content/resigned to it that it will continue to be so. "What is, has to be"... pretty bleak. If everybody thought that way, guess where civilization would be...

[Cthulu_2004]

45. Fine. If it can work,

start by cleaning up the EXISTING bureaucracies so that they can work as efficiently as you promise they can.

Once you do that, I'll think you're onto something.

[acerbic]

47. Why not build a new system that works right to prove the old

...bureaucracies that it can work and they have no excuses?

[Cthulu_2004]

48. because if you do it that way...

odds are good that you'll fail. We're talking about unproven systems here. When dealing with this kind of thing, it's prudent to "tinker" with an existing thing to gain the knowledge required to make it work. It's intellectual evolution in action.

[acerbic]

52. "Unproven systems"??????

We're talking about unproven systems here. When dealing with this kind of thing, it's prudent to "tinker" with an existing thing to gain the knowledge required to make it work.

I mentioned banking by phone as working systems of the kind and your objection was that the bureaucracies wouldn't work that way. I understand that if the technology didn't exist, you might have to develop and refine it gradually, but the bureaucracy????? Nope, it would be quite possible to "just do it" and easier if you're setting up a new system than trying to fight all the change resistance in an existing one.

[Cthulu_2004]

56. can you name a single bureaucracy...

that has ever implemented a system like you envision? If not, it's untested...

[CO Liberal]

57. Or Is It Your Distrust of Government?

We have the technology - it has been proven in many different industries. It is far from untested.

[Spoonman]

17. Do you actually believe

"the rest of the gun nuts who get their kicks out of this kind of thing."

any of us enjoy reading these things?

"Unfortunately, the deliberate misinterpretation of the second ammendment will not allow such a logical and reasonable limitation."

Should I have to remind you that multitudes of scholars with a 1000 times more knowledge of this issue than you, have all come to the same opinion regarding the 2nd amendment.

If you want to get into that debate I would suggest you bring better arguments than I've seen here in the past, cause none of them passed muster.

[MrBenchley]

23. What a laugh!

"Should I have to remind you that multitudes of scholars with a 1000 times more knowledge of this issue than you, have all come to the same opinion regarding the 2nd amendment."
Yeah, they have....which is why the National Rifle Association and the RKBA crowd have to lie so furiously about it.

"(The Second Amendment is) the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime...The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon...urely the Second Amendment does not remotely guarantee every person the constitutional right to have a ‘Saturday Night Special' or a machine gun without any regulation whatever. There is no support in the Constitution for the argument that federal and state governments are powerless to regulate the purchase of such firearms..."
--former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger

[Spoonman]

28. You should take note of

your own post.

"(The Second Amendment is) the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime...The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon...surely the Second Amendment does not remotely guarantee every person the constitutional right to have a ‘Saturday Night Special' or a machine gun without any regulation whatever. There is no support in the Constitution for the argument that federal and state governments are powerless to regulate the purchase of such firearms..."
--former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger

I do believe the summary of this is pretty clear - while cheap guns, automatic weapons, and restrictions on purchase are mentioned, he does not state that we should not be allowed to own firearms. His statement was in fact (if memory serves me) in reply to the NRA's stance that we should have zero regulations on ownership. You failed to demonstrate where he stated anything regarding your stance of zero ownership. In fact He's bolstering our argument more than yours.
So thank you for verifying my point.

[MrBenchley]

29. Gee...

The only ones on here ever nattering about a gun ban are the RKBA imbeciles.

"he does not state that we should not be allowed to own firearms."
No, he doesn't does he. But what he does say is that the notion that individuals owning firearms has anything to do with the second amendment is pure horseshit..

"In fact He's bolstering our argument more than yours."
Surrrrrrrrrrrrrrre.....that's why you leaped to bring it up..

[Spoonman]

30. If

you could read without spinning, you would realize what he said.

Face it you latched on to a speech that was preaching restrictions on the interpretation, not a complete rebuttle of it.

[MrBenchley]

34. Who are you trying to kid?

"you latched on to a speech that was preaching restrictions on the interpretation, not a complete rebuttle of it."
Yeah, surrrrrrrrrre.....

[Spoonman]

31. Now

Go out there and find us another one!

[MrBenchley]

35. Next ask me

if I feel like bothering...

In its entire history, the National Rifle Association has never challenged any gun control law in court on Second Amendment grounds, although if the interpretation of the Second Amendment that they peddle to their inbred and ignorant members were true, all gun control laws would be unconstitutional. That's never, as in not once.

Why is that, do you suppose?

[Cthulu_2004]

36. Well now...

Periodically, very smart people say very stupid things. Here's an example taken from a case about the State forcibly sterilizing the handicapped against their will:

"The attack is not upon the procedure but upon the substantive law. It seems to be contended that in no circumstances could such an order be justified. It certainly is contended that the order cannot be justified upon the existing grounds. The judgment finds the facts that have been recited and that Carrie Buck "is the probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring, likewise afflicted, that she may be sexually sterilized without detriment to her general health and that her welfare and that of society will be promoted by her sterilization," and thereupon makes the order. In view of the general declarations of the legislature and the specific findings of the Court, obviously we cannot say as matter of law that the grounds do not exist, and if they exist they justify the result. We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11. Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr, for the majority in Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927).
http://www.law.du.edu/russell/lh/alh/docs/buckvbell.html

I think your Burger quote falls into the exact same category...

Oh, BTW, there are thousands of very highly respected scholars who disagree with your interpretation of the Second Amendment, and many of them are DEMOCRATS.

[MrBenchley]

39. And then again

there are the outright lies promulgated by the RKBA crowd....

[jody]

15. Mayhew was a convicted felon and could not legally possess a firearm.

What new law would have prevented Mayhew from obtaining a firearm and committing the crime? :shrug:



QUOTE
Mayhew served an eight-year prison term for kidnapping and aggravated burglary in a 1992 incident involving another former wife, court records in Ohio show. Prosecutors said he broke into the woman's home and forced her into a car at gunpoint, freeing her four hours later when she promised to rekindle the romance.
UNQUOTE

[MrBenchley]

16. Wow...

Sure was nice of the scummy gun industry to sell him one anyway.

[Spoonman]

18. Still trying to peddle

that garbage?!

I guess he ordered it dirrect from the factory?

[MrBenchley]

19. Who are you trying to kid?

Where'd this asswipe get that gun then, if he didn't buy it?

[Spoonman]

20. I don't know,

"Sure was nice of the scummy gun industry to sell him one anyway."
It was you that was claimimg to have that knowledge.

Maybe we should look into where he got it before we make unsubstantiated statements.

Did he buy it off the street?
Did he steal it?
Did he borrow it?
Did he buy it through a classified add?

[MrBenchley]

21. Who are you trying to kid?

Quick, who is that trying to knock down the background check system? Who is that trying to prop open every loophole they can find?

[BullDozer]

53. False

Quick, who is that trying to knock down the background check system?

You mean the system that the NRA supported?

[MrBenchley]

54. RKBA fantasy

never fails to amuse....

[CO Liberal]

55. Only When They Were Backed Into a Corner......

...like the spineless, mindless rats they've become since LaPierre, Nugent et al have assumed leadership positions in the Nuts Ruining America.

[Cthulu_2004]

38. probably from the same guy...

who sold him his dope.

[CO Liberal]

26. And Which Existing Laws PREVENTED Him From Getting a Gun?????

NOW do you see why some of us feel that something else needs to be done? Keeping the status quo ain't gonna do squat.....

[jody]

27. OK, please tell me what new law would have prevented this incident? eom

[CO Liberal]

33. You're Asking Me to Predict the Future

I'm a hypnotherapist - not a psychic.

[Cthulu_2004]

40. How about...

reporting the past?

This guy got a gun. How did he do it?

[MrBenchley]

46. He could have walked into any gun show

in the state and bypassed the background check.

Or he might have found a helpful gun dealer who routed it through a straw man..

Or he might have found another one as corrupt as the Bullseye Shop in Tacoma.

[Cthulu_2004]

49. Or, more likely...

he got it illegally from friends or family.

[MrBenchley]

50. Yeah, surrrrrrrre....

I guess that's a good argument for making guns more readily available....NOT.

[CO Liberal]

51. Yep - He May Have Gotten It From a "Law-Abiding" Gun Owner

MOre proof that perhaps the same rules should apply to everybody, INCLUDING the "law-abiding gun owners", because they NEVER break the law...... NOT!!!!!

[jody]

41. I understand, but I also know that you, I, and a few other regulars on

the J/PS forum know more about the issue than any politician.

I don't know what "new law" would have prevented the incident and at the same time preserved a citizen's inalienable right to defend self and property. As long as criminals and police are armed, then I as a citizen insist than my inalienable right is protected. That takes us back to law enforcement.

Previous administrations did not and the current one is not aggressively prosecuting criminals who possess firearms. I know that such actions will not stop all crimes, but it will reduce crime a little bit.

There are several medicines that will help a person with a specific illness, but do major damage if given to a healthy person. It would be irresponsible to lobby for mass injection of such medicines and it is also irresponsible to impose draconian gun laws on law-abiding citizens when the targets should be criminals.

[MrBenchley]

42. That's what passes for RKBA logic

If there is ever a crime, any law that addressed the problem is utterly futile and should be abolished. Laws are only meant to prevent future crimes....

After all, laws against bank robbery prevent only law-abiding citizens from robbing banks; criminals will still rob banks anyway....so why bother with them?