• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

911 call: Gun in Easter fight was 'to prove point'

The Giant Noodle

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
7,332
Reaction score
2,011
Location
Northern Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
ANDREW WELSH-HUGGINS, Associated Press Writer
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — A woman who called 911 after a fatal shooting at an Easter party told a police dispatcher she shot a relative after she retrieved a gun to prove a point and it went off.

The woman told the dispatcher that she shot her niece, apparently referring to a 19-year-old woman killed during a fight that police say started over a skimpy Easter outfit — jean shorts and a green T-shirt tied up around her midriff.
"I just shot my niece," the woman says calmly at the beginning of the 33-second call released to The Associated Press on Tuesday.

"I didn't mean to do it," the woman said. "We was arguing, I tried to get my gun to prove a point, they got the rifle with me and it went off."



http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=10297065
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ANDREW WELSH-HUGGINS, Associated Press Writer
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — A woman who called 911 after a fatal shooting at an Easter party told a police dispatcher she shot a relative after she retrieved a gun to prove a point and it went off.

The woman told the dispatcher that she shot her niece, apparently referring to a 19-year-old woman killed during a fight that police say started over a skimpy Easter outfit — jean shorts and a green T-shirt tied up around her midriff.
"I just shot my niece," the woman says calmly at the beginning of the 33-second call released to The Associated Press on Tuesday.

"I didn't mean to do it," the woman said. "We was arguing, I tried to get my gun to prove a point, they got the rifle with me and it went off."

Asked about the location of her niece, the woman says bluntly, "In the car. I think she's dead."
The woman does not give her name but calls herself the victim's aunt. Family members say Evelyn Burgess, the woman arrested in the shooting, was referred to as the victim's aunt, though she was her older second cousin.
Police say Burgess got into a fight with Danielle Pickens over her attire, then shot her outside Burgess' house Sunday night. Pickens died at a hospital early the next day.
Family members of both women said Tuesday that Danielle Pickens' style of dressing was well-known among relatives.
Danielle Pickens often wore short skirts to the holiday gatherings hosted by Evelyn Burgess, said Pickens' sister, Ralinda Pickens, and uncle, Tico Pickens.
"The way she was dressed that day is the way she always dressed, and everybody knew that," said Tico Pickens, 33. "It wasn't like she meant any harm toward nobody by doing it. It was just comfortable to her."
Burgess, 42, is charged with one count of murder. Franklin County Municipal Court Judge William Pollitt set Burgess' bond at $500,000 during a court appearance Tuesday.
Burgess didn't say anything at the hearing and doesn't have a lawyer assigned to her yet.
At her house on Tuesday, her husband, Kevin Burgess, said his wife was doing all right, but he declined to comment further.
Danielle, who went by Danny, once dressed like a tomboy, then one day tried on a short skirt she liked and started dressing differently.
"The first time she put on a cute little skirt, I guessed she liked it and she dressed like that ever since," said Ralinda Pickens, 20.
She says events escalated quickly at the Easter party at Burgess' house on the north side of Columbus.
Evelyn Burgess was angry at Danielle over her outfit and accused her of flaunting her looks around other men at the party, including Burgess' husband, Ralinda Pickens said.
A fight broke out with Evelyn Burgess and Danielle struggling with a baseball bat, then ended as Ralinda Pickens broke things up, got her sister outside and prepared to drive her home.
The sisters were in the car when Burgess came running up with a gun, reached inside the car, pulled Danielle by the hair and shot her as she tried to seek shelter under her older sister, Ralinda Pickens said.
Burgess then walked back inside her house, sat down on a couch, told people what had happened and waited for the police, Ralinda Pickens said.
"I never thought she would do something like that," Ralinda Pickens said Tuesday of Burgess, crying softly as she sat on the porch of her house about a five-minute drive from where the shooting happened. "Whatever anger she had built up in her nobody actually knew."
Evelyn Burgess had bought the gun from a local gun store about a year ago, Ralinda Pickens and Tico Pickens said.


Copyright 2010 The Associated Press.


Sound like the kind of people that give rednecks a bad name.
 
She proved a point. A point she is f***ing crazy.
 
found a picture of the neice

daisymae.jpg
 
Here's the point she proved: Guns don't kill people. Stupid mother****ers who have no common sense and no ability to control themselves kill people.
 
People should have to take a gun safety course before being granted a FOID card.

Never point a gun at anything you don't plan on destroying.
 
And they live next to you....
And apparantly, they'll go to any extent to own a gun. Might as well just make it legal to own and not to shoot(at people).
 
Well, she did prove her point, I expect.
 
"I didn't mean to do it," the woman said. "We was arguing, I tried to get my gun to prove a point, they got the rifle with me and it went off."

I'm sure the girl's parents and siblings feel much better now knowing this :roll:


Senseless and completely unnecessary. :damn

 
PTHA - Permit to have an Abortion

LAUSS (License Against Unreasonable Search and Seizure, renewable every 5 years IF you meet all criteria, which may have been changed since you were issued the card. If you lose this card you are subject to search and seizure anytime anyone feels like it, without warrant or cause.)

FOR1 (Freedom of Religion, One: Right to freely practice one specific religion. Denomination must be registered with the Government. If you begin to practice a new religion, that one must be registered also. Must pass background check and written exam to renew every 5 years. Practicing religion without a FOR1 is a felony.)

Gets ridiculous in a hurry, doesn't it.... but oddly enough the Founders never said "By the way...the Second Amendment isn't actually as important as the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth, despite the fact that we put it in there with the others. Go ahead and make it a privilege that has to be renewed every few years, no matter how ludicrous it would be to do that with the other 9.

Heck, we could make property ownership something you need a 'OID card for. If you are unable to renew your POID every 5 years, you have to hand your house over to the government, even if it is paid for...:roll:
 
Thank God that most people do not need a FOID card.

It amazes me that people get upset when the government regulates dangerous things.
 
It amazes me that people get upset when the government regulates dangerous things.


It amazes me that people want to make a right that is so fundamental that it was enumerated in the Constitution, into a privilege that can be taken away at the government's whim. If they can mandate a FOID card, they can determine the criteria to possess one... and change it to make it as hard to get and maintain as they wish.

You wouldn't put up with a 5 year license with hoops to jump through for, say, political speech now would you? How do you feel about background checks, a written test, and paying a fee for your voter registration card?

I'd argue that letting some people vote is far more of a threat than letting them have a gun...
 
It amazes me that people want to make a right that is so fundamental that it was enumerated in the Constitution, into a privilege that can be taken away at the government's whim. If they can mandate a FOID card, they can determine the criteria to possess one... and change it to make it as hard to get and maintain as they wish.

You wouldn't put up with a 5 year license with hoops to jump through for, say, political speech now would you? How do you feel about background checks, a written test, and paying a fee for your voter registration card?

I'd argue that letting some people vote is far more of a threat than letting them have a gun...

The "criteria" for getting a driver's license is "not getting more than six DUI's" in some states. I don't really see what the worry is about.
 
The "criteria" for getting a driver's license is "not getting more than six DUI's" in some states. I don't really see what the worry is about.

Not to mention about 7 times more people die in traffic accidents than are ever murdered with a gun.
 
It amazes me that people want to make a right that is so fundamental that it was enumerated in the Constitution, into a privilege that can be taken away at the government's whim. If they can mandate a FOID card, they can determine the criteria to possess one... and change it to make it as hard to get and maintain as they wish.

To say "at the government's whim" isn't an honest representation of reality. There are valid reasons that some people shouldn't have guns. The public safety trumps an individual right.

You wouldn't put up with a 5 year license with hoops to jump through for, say, political speech now would you? How do you feel about background checks, a written test, and paying a fee for your voter registration card?

One vote can't take a life.

I'd argue that letting some people vote is far more of a threat than letting them have a gun...

It's a poor analogy. It takes a whole lot of people to "pull the trigger" as far as voting is concerned. A vote can't be pointed at your head. A vote doesn't have the sole purpose of destroying something.
 
Last edited:
Not to mention about 7 times more people die in traffic accidents than are ever murdered with a gun.

Cars have a purpose other than to destroy. Cars are used far more often. Gun accidents due to irresponsibility matter too.
 
To say "at the government's whim" isn't an honest representation of reality. There are valid reasons that some people shouldn't have guns. The public safety trumps an individual right.

Well, oddly enough we have this NICS (nat'l instant check system) thing. It checks to see if a buyer is a felon, loonie or otherwise barred from legal gun ownership. There's no need for a FOID card that you have to renew every 5 years to keep known lowlifes from being able to legally purchase a gun.

While we're at it, if you could demonstrate that requiring FOID has kept bad people from getting guns illegally anyway... ?



One vote can't take a life.

It's a poor analogy. It takes a whole lot of people to "pull the trigger" as far as voting is concerned. A vote can't be pointed at your head. A vote doesn't have the sole purpose of destroying something.

Perhaps it isn't the best analogy, despite the fact that votes can collectively alter laws that lives hinge on.

Driver's licences aren't really a good analogy either, because driving isn't a right enumerated in the Constitution right after freedom of speech...but let's run with that one a bit.

A driver's license is ludicrously easy to get. Yet, far more people die in traffic accidents than are murdered with firearms. I don't hear anyone calling for a COID (car owner's ID) that has to be renewed every 5 years; that requires extensive background checks and so forth; that if you are denied renewal requires you to give the government any and all vehicles you might own.
 
Meh. Bad parenting. She should have listened to her aunt and wore appropriate clothing.Resolved with no drama.
 
Cars have a purpose other than to destroy. Cars are used far more often. Gun accidents due to irresponsibility matter too.

Guns are also used to save lives, and far more often than they are used to take lives, even by the most low-ball estimates.

About 30,000 people each year die due to gunshot wounds. This includes everything: suicides (about half), police shootings, self-defense, murder, and accidents.

The lowest low-ball figure, from a government agency, on how many times firearms are used defensively each year is 68,000; another gov't study said 82,000. One of the highest estimates is the Kleck study, which says 2.5 million annually, usually with no shots fired. Assume the truth lies somewhere between... guns are used to protect life many many times more often than to take it.


the Kleck Study:
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology

Number Of Protective Uses Of Firearms In U.S: Projected at a minimum of 2.5 million cases annually, equal to 1% of total U.S. population each year. Criminal assailants are killed by their victims or others in only about 0.1%, and wounded in only about 1.0% of incidents as described above. Most such crimes are prevented by mere presence of a firearm in the hands of an intended victim.(Dr. Gary Kleck, PhD, Florida State University, Targeting Guns, 1998)


A 1993 Gallup Poll study (hardly a conservative partisan group) found a likely annual rate of defensive gun use (DGU) of 777,153 per year in the US.
An LA Times 1994 study found an implied national DGU of 3,609,682.

National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS).

Data from the NCVS imply that each year there are only about 68,000 defensive uses of guns in connection with assaults and robberies, [16] or about 80,000 to 82,000 if one adds in uses linked with household burglaries. [17] These figures are less than one ninth of the estimates implied by the results of at least thirteen other surveys, summarized in Table 1, most of which have been previously reported. [18] The NCVS estimates imply that about 0.09 of 1% of U.S. households experience a defensive gun use (DGU) in any one year, compared to the Mauser survey's estimate of 3.79% of households over a five year period, or about 0.76% in any one year, assuming an even distribution over the five year period, and no repeat uses. [19]
The strongest evidence that a measurement is inaccurate is that it is inconsistent with many other independent measurements or observations of the same phenomenon; indeed, some would argue that this is ultimately the only way of knowing that a measurement is wrong. Therefore, one might suppose that the gross inconsistency of the NCVS-based estimates with all other known estimates, each derived from sources with no known flaws even remotely substantial enough to account for nine-to-one, or more, discrepancies, would be sufficient to persuade any serious scholar that the NCVS estimates are unreliable.
...The NCVS was not designed to estimate how often people resist crime using a gun. It was designed primarily to estimate national victimization levels; it incidentally happens to include a few self-protection questions which include response categories covering resistance with a gun.


The Kleck study concluded that there were possibly as many as 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year, many of which involved no shots fired or no one injured, and many of which were not reported:
The most technically sound estimates presented in Table 2 are those based on the shorter one-year recall period that rely on Rs' first-hand accounts of their own experiences (person-based estimates). These estimates appear in the first two columns. They indicate that each year in the U.S. there are about 2.2 to 2.5 million DGUs of all types by civilians against humans, with about 1.5 to 1.9 million of the incidents involving use of handguns.

Even if you take the Kleck study with a grain of salt, it is clear there are a lot more than defensive gun uses than there are unjustified firearm deaths. Many times more.



As for accidents...the last time I checked automobile fatal accidents were around 40,000.

Firearms Accidents and Firearms Safety Education
Fatal Firearms Accidents for All Ages Annually: 1,134 nationwide in 1996. Rate of 0.4 per 100M population. Represents a roughly 90% decrease from record high in 1904. Accident rate is down by 65% since 1930, while U.S. population has doubled and number of privately-owned firearms has quadrupled. Compare to other types of fatal accidents, for all ages: Motor Vehicles 16.7/100M, Falls 4.8/100M, Poisoning 4.0/100M, Drowning 1.7/100M, Fires 1.6/100M, Choking 1.1/100M.(National Safety Council, National Center for Health Statistics, BATF, US Census)

Fatal Firearms Accidents for Children 14 and Under Annually: 138 nationwide in 1996. About 3% of all fatal accidents under age 14. Represents a 75% decrease from record high of 550 in 1975. Compared to other types of fatal accidents for children: Motor Vehicles 44%, Fires 16%, Drowning 14%, Choking 4.5%.(Nat'l Safety Council, Nat'l Center for Health Statistics)
 
Last edited:
Well, oddly enough we have this NICS (nat'l instant check system) thing. It checks to see if a buyer is a felon, loonie or otherwise barred from legal gun ownership. There's no need for a FOID card that you have to renew every 5 years to keep known lowlifes from being able to legally purchase a gun.

While we're at it, if you could demonstrate that requiring FOID has kept bad people from getting guns illegally anyway... ?

Please notice that I endorse coupling this with a gun safety course. Education alone will reduce needless deaths that may occur from accidents.

Of course outlaws will still get guns. Nothing will prevent that.



Perhaps it isn't the best analogy, despite the fact that votes can collectively alter laws that lives hinge on.

Driver's licences aren't really a good analogy either, because driving isn't a right enumerated in the Constitution right after freedom of speech...but let's run with that one a bit.

A driver's license is ludicrously easy to get. Yet, far more people die in traffic accidents than are murdered with firearms. I don't hear anyone calling for a COID (car owner's ID) that has to be renewed every 5 years; that requires extensive background checks and so forth; that if you are denied renewal requires you to give the government any and all vehicles you might own.

In my state they can prevent you from getting registration for your car. You do have to take a test to get it renewed, just not every time. And though it doesn' happen often enough, Elderly people are denied licenses.
 
Back
Top Bottom