Posted by Hunter (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 3:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Not guilty by reason of insanity."

I see it coming.

Posted by fire39212 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 3:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

LOL @ Hunter........Well of course......Heck let's just give him probation.....Why put him in jail???????

Posted by Hunter (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 4:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I know! Locking up an insane person!? That would be . . . CRAZY.

Posted by mwhittington (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 8:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Unreal. When if ever, will people start to see there is no winning situation in fighting or "shooting" someone over a supposed love interest. This is ridiculous.

Posted by kpage (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 8:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

OK. He named the perpetrator right there in the story. Do they now go and get this guy? What happens now? If he reads his name in the paper, will he go into hiding? Move to Grandma's house to escape prosecution? Why print his name before arresting him?

Posted by mwhittington (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 9:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't understand that either kpage. What if the guy IS innocent? or if the guy mistakenly thought it was this guy? or what if it WAS him and he runs like you said.... Crazy.... the whole entire thing is crazy..... ugh.

Posted by Hobgoblin (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Another shooting? If the judges, d.a.'s and politicians don't remove their heads from their collective behinds and start sending these fools to the big house, Natchez will be just like JACKSON, and may God help us all.

Posted by mwhittington (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I am already afraid to go to Natchez at night. I still have friends there and go see them, but never at night. And the last few times I went to Walmart there, at night, I thought I wouldn't make it out alive.

Posted by silly_willy_24_7 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Read my comment posted on the Mullins story about the "village."

Posted by roberth33 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 9:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe he didn't mean to hit the kid--he was aiming for the house!

Posted by roberth33 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 9:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And again I say, time to ban guns...

How many people have to die before we finally get it through our thick skulls that guns serve no purpose than killing.

Otherwise, we might just as well ignore shootings and murders. They are inevitable.

Next story.

Posted by sayitloud (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

this is a new thing we citizens of Natchez have to deal with since Katrina and the folks from N.O. moved to our quiet town....ever notice our crime has skyrocketed since then???

Posted by bear45 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 10:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

First question, Why hasn't the guy that did the shooting been arrested? What, have the laws changed and you can go around shooting people and get away with it? The victim knows the shooters name, why not go pick him up and get his side of the story at least? Before long people in Natchez and Adams county are gonna think they can do what they want and get away with it....What's the matter with the Natchez Police Department?

Posted by Bigfish (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Just to be fair. . . .this story posted at 12 a.m. on October 10. this story is only a report of what happened as of that time, the police COULD have arrested the shooter after this story was complete and before it ran. . . . . but the follow up story should shed a little more light. Hopefully the NPD, local politicians, and community leaders are working on something to curtail the increased number of shootings in natchez

Posted by Hobgoblin (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

To roberth33: I understand what you mean but the fact is that it's the person BEHIND the gun that matters. I'll gladly give up my guns with the exception of my trusty hunting rifle when there's a cop on every corner, all the criminals are locked up and we can sleep with our doors unlocked like we once did many years ago. But until then I'll keep my Glock, AK-47, and AR-15. I'm a law abiding, God fearing citizen who's never been in jail and I raise my child to follow in the same footsteps. When the thugs give up their guns I'll give up mine.

Posted by mcmy (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Beaumont Street?...what a surprise. Am I the only one that has noticed what neighborhoods most of the crime is coming from? Natchez has become a place I can't wait to get away from. We are seriously letting the uneducated criminals take over.

Posted by roberth33 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 10:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

OK, hobgoblin, I see your point. It isn't like overnight guns would disappear, but if we systematically removed them--and stopped selling them!--the numbers would diminish and we would eventually have ALMOST no guns out there. We will never have none, but FAR fewer than now.

Until then, shooting and gun-related crimes are a way of life in America.

Why not have a headline, "The Sun Rose Over Natchez This Morning".

Posted by buttercup26 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 10:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

roberth33... i hope i'm alive the day that head line in on the ND.. THAT IS GOING TO BE ONE PEACEFUL DAY..

Posted by macuser (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 10:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

To Roberth33:
I just wanted to comment on what you said.
Guns do not shoot themselves. The people who pull the trigger is the problem--not the gun. Think about it. If someone were threatening your life or the life of your child with a gun, would you want to have a gun to defend yourself? I absolutely would. You woundn't have much of a chance of survival without one.

Posted by roberth33 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Macuser: Yes you are right, but if we remove ALL (or almost all) guns--there is no one to shoot anyone.

If WalMart and all other gun sellers are out of business, then there are no guns to buy.

Otherwise, let's stop all the jaw-gnashing about how terrible it is that someone got shot. Its a dog bites man story. Not a man bites dog story.

Posted by commander (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The underpaid and understaffed police had the suspect in custody before the article was even posted.

Posted by iluvntz (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 11:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes McKinley was in custody before the article was posted not because they arrested him or found him but because he turned his self in. I dont believe he shot Adrian Brown so instead of focusing on McKinley they need to find the real shooter and arrest him.

Posted by roberth33 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 11:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

this is a non-story.

Let's find out some REAL information--like how much money is in Phillip's discretionary fund???

Posted by iwonder (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 11:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Roberth33:
I wonder which you would ban to stop killings by drunk drivers - vehicles or alcohol?

Posted by jd (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Robert33:
Any other constitutional amendments you want destroyed?

Posted by mwhittington (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 12:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I would think he would say alcohol. but thats just my thinkin....

Posted by ChooseOrLose (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 12:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I would never vote to ban guns. I love to go to the range and get some practice in when I get a chance. People will find other ways to hurt each other if they really want to.

I think we should just teach them sword fighting and let them have a good old fashioned joust for the girl. Best man wins! (just kidding)

Posted by roberth33 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 12:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A gun's purpose is to kill. A car's purpose isn't to kill. Does that really need to be stated?

Look my point here is we can't have it both ways.

You all want free access to guns? Great. We have it. But with free access to guns comes murder. PLain and simple. So lets stop acting so horrified or sad when people are shooting and killing each other. We reap what we sow.

Analogy. I walk down a dark alley waving a wad of cash. Chances are pretty significant I'm going to get mugged. Then afterwards I express outrage that I got mugged. Who's the dope?

Sure I SHOULD be able to walk down the alley and NOT get mugged, but this is the real world.

Sure we should all be able to have guns, but the fact is that some people will use the guns to murder.

So lets stop wringing our hands at the fact that people get murdered. We asked for it. This isn't headline news is what I'm saying.

Posted by educated1 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

roberth ...... guns don't kill people, people do! Ban them so they can get more of them and buy them from somewhere other than the US. (???? purpose ????) Prohibition ... what happened?

Posted by mommyof3 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Guns do not kill people. People kill people.
If you are going to blame guns for murders then I will blame all of my typing errors on my computer.

That simple!

Posted by jd (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 1:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We have laws for crimes committed with fierarms.
ENFORCE them!!

Posted by tchamp (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 1:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

to iluvntz: just a question..how do you know he went and turned himself in

Posted by c_8512 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 1:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Any gun itself is not a deadly weapon. Only after a human loads it, a human (aims)points it, and then a human pulls the trigger, does it become a potentially deadly weapon. If ALL guns of any form were banned, the criminal-minded people who choose to ignore the law anyway would be the only ones with guns, and then murders and thefts and other crimes would certainly go up, simply because the criminals KNOW a law-abiding citizen will not have a gun to protect their life and property. Whenever I go to buy a gun, I proudly fill out the Brady background check application, confident in knowing that I have never been convicted of a crime or been committed to a mental facility. I doubt that very many drug dealers or chronic thieves can say that they passed the Brady screening process to buy their guns legally. And if any one of you who agrees that guns should be banned, I challenge you to hang a sign on your front door announcing that, "This is a gun free home!" Just sit back and the wait will most definitely be a short one.

Posted by roberth33 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 1:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You are missing my point. Let me try again.

Let's stop making a shooting a headline in the Democrat--or CNN or MSNBC. Let's not upset that someone shot someone. With all the guns floating around, shooting people is as common the sun coming up in the morning.

It IS NOT news that someone was shot. It IS NOT news that the sun came up. Guns are everywhere. The sun is everywhere.

Next story.

Posted by roberth33 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 1:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

c_8512: Guns don't bake cake. Guns don't shovel snow. Guns kill. Let's be clear. That is the purpose.

But you miss the point--Guns HAVE BE AVAILABLE in order to have one.

If you take away the point of sale/distribution, you take away the ability to get one.

No I don't think 100% of guns will be collected/banned. But the vast majority will no longer be freely available. I do think all these teenagers shooting each other and at houses and at whatever, will certainly go down.

Posted by mwhittington (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 1:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I can understand to a degree where roberth33 is coming from. No guns, no problems. The fact is, just like drugs, there would be guns available somehow.... underground, dealing, etc.... At least as the law stands now, you can lawfully purchase and even with the proper license, carry a gun to protect yourself, family or whatever need may arise. The guns aren't going anywhere. Just like drugs. So I am for at least being able to legally protect myself and my family, from the criminal minded.

Posted by roberth33 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 1:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here's another fact.

Virginia use to allow anyone to come to VA and buy as many guns as they want. Drug gangs from NY/NJ would come to VA and load up with guns and take them back to NY. The guns were traced to VA.

VA changed the law to 1 gun a month--or something like that. And miracle of miracles, the guns in NY dried up! NYC is now suing gun dealers in Virginia for selling guns and not performing background checks. It is a huge battle between NYC and VA. It is going to have significant implications all ove rthe country.

Posted by mommyof3 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

roberth33-I am an avid hunter. Why should my guns be banned? I haven't killed anyone! You are making to vague a statement here. I own several guns. My guns however are locked in a gun safe. The only way to steal or take them is to take the entire case. Believe me that is not an easy task. The thing weighs a ton empty. Hunting is a sport that puts meat on my table. Why should I be punished for the sins of others?

Posted by roberth33 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 1:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

But mommyof3, you note yourself someone might/would/could steal them. Why would they steal them? To go hunting? Hardly--they are a thief--a criminal--who is now armed.

What will they do when armed with your guns, that they stole? Rob. Kill. Etc.

Hence why even make that an option.

You can buy food at a grocery store--no gun needed. No need to hunt in 2007.

Posted by mommyof3 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 1:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I like to hunt. Hunting is MOST DIFFENTLY needed. It is actually very relaxing.
You still didn't answer my question. Why should I be punished because of idiots who don't know how to obey the law. A theif could also steal my softball bat and beat someone to death with it. Do you want to ban those too? Or maybe you want to ban steak knives beacuse those could be stolen and used to stab someone!

Posted by roberth33 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 1:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes because the sole purpose of a bat, a car, a steak knife is to kill isn't it. The Demo routinely has cover stories of people taking a baseball bat and beating people. A gun is for killing. There is no other reason for it's to exist.

I explained why no one should have even hunting guns--because they DO get stolen. Those guns to kill.

There are other things to relax you besides hunting. It isnt a necessity.

Posted by ChooseOrLose (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 1:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you're looking for better headlines, bigger more serious stories, try cnn.com, or foxnews maybe.

I def. get my panties in a wad when someone starts talking about banning guns though. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. And people will find new weapons to mugg and kill each other, with or without guns.

Posted by mommyof3 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 1:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thaank you ChooseOr Loose! All I have left to say about this is NOBODY is worth shooting another person over.

Posted by c_8512 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 1:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

roberth33, I think I see the point you are trying to make. With your argument of "prevent the source and prevent the result," then there should be a ban on anyone having children. Prevent the source of crime, people, to prevent the result of crime, victims. That's a good one.
As for your post about NYC and VA, you just stated an actual case to the point I made earlier,"drug gangs". Suppose they stopped dealing drugs when the VA source of weapons dried up? They got their guns somewhere else for sure, and kept on dealing drugs.
And as far as the sport of hunting, which requires a licence and background check, ban people from going into the woods where all the wild animals live, buy all your meat from chemically and genetically altered chickens, hogs, and beefcattle.

Posted by mommyof3 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 1:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Looks likeI have made my point! Thanks ya'll!

Posted by iwonder (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 1:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I wonder why you can't understand that you are more likely to be killed or maimed by a drunk driver while you are walking down that alley than you are to be shot. More cars than guns are stolen every day. Alcohol is more readily available than guns.

Posted by roberth33 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 2:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well C_8512, again, all children cause crime don't they. All children grow up to be criminals, dont they.

In fact re. the NYC gun wars, they did INDEED reduce the killing. In DC as well. There was a measurable reduction in gun crimes when VA reduced availabilty. DC was no longer the murder capital.

As for where you buy your meat--that has nothing to do with guns. You can buy organic meat without a gun.

Posted by mwhittington (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 2:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

my my my. How the times have changed. Hey rob, why plant gardens anymore??? why do anything like the older days??? why do YOU think we are in the shape we are in now??? The only way a law could be beneficial against guns would be to keep law abiding citizens from getting them to hunt or protect themselves. The CROOKS are still going to have them if they want them... unlawfully.... I love to hunt. I love to fish... I love to garden and grow my own vegetables and never buy much food at all from grocery stores. That is MY prerogative. It is a family tradition. And I am female.

Posted by roberth33 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 2:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

the purpose of alcohol soley is not to kill. The purpose of a gun soley is to kill.

Posted by roberth33 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Where are the criminals going to get guns in volume they have them now if there is no source for them??? You keep saying the criminals will have them--from where???

No, guns wont disappear overnight. But they will reduce and ultimately be insignificant in numbers.

Posted by mwhittington (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 2:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

yes, guns kill. They are not all bad. Some kill to provide survival. Some kill for protection against an enemy. Some kill on accident. Some kill to keep from being killed. More than likely if my home gets broken into, I can holler that I have one or the crook can see I have one and perhaps I WONT have to use it... Just scare them off. Just like seeing an officer with one hanging by his side perhaps detours alot of criminals, I am sure.

Posted by mwhittington (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 2:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hello!!!! drugs are illegal and there are supposed to be no source for them LEGALLY... do you honestly believe that they wont buy them underground? It will be a NEW TRADE... BIG money maker too... JEEZ

Posted by roberth33 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I can holler that i have a gun too. I dont have to have one.

Posted by roberth33 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 2:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh totally agree. And if we had proper border control instead of lip service and smoke and mirrors, drugs would not be so prevelent. That requires enforcement. But that doesn't mean we let everyone do drugs, does it?

Posted by silly_willy_24_7 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 2:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I remember an episode of All In The Family where Archie and Gloria were discussing gun control and murder. Gloria stated some statistic about how many people were killed with guns. Archie asked her if it would make her feel any better if they were pushed out of windows. I thought that was hilarious then, and I still do today. Although people getting killed by people who use guns to do the killing is not at all funny, I still think some of these comments are just as funny.

Posted by roberth33 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 2:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just read that a 14 year old just opened fire at a high school.

I'm sure the kids that got shot, and their parents, are happy that guns are freely available.

Posted by iluvntz (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 2:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

tchamp: it doesnt matter how i know but it is a fact that he turned his self in. And why would he turn his self in if he did it? The only reason the police has him in custody is because BRown said he is the one who did it so like i said they need to find the real shooter and let an innocent man out of jail. Thats my opinion i wasnt there to see it for myself.

Posted by stateofnatchez (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 2:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Simply put for the confused people on this board.

--->Guns do not kill people. People kill people. Guns are inanimate or lifeless objects.

If you take the guns away, there will always be an alternative for the determined idiot.

It never ceases to amaze me how some people come up with these insane solutions to a problem that is defined by the action itself...but that's the way our back assward society revolves unfortunately.

Posted by mommyof3 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 2:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm sure those parents are asking how that 14 year old kid got on campus with a gun to begin with!

Posted by roberth33 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 2:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes Stateofnat. I could choke someone with my hands. But my hands have a million other uses. I can't randomly drive down the street and choke a person. I can't choke a person on the street from on top of building.

A gun has one purpose. To kill.

Exactly mommy3.

Posted by mommyof3 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 2:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I didn't blame the gun! I blamed the student! The gun was in NO way at fault for this shooting. The student is 100% to blame on this one.

Posted by astrid (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 2:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The real shooter?????

Posted by roberth33 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 2:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

without the gun, no one would be shot.

Posted by astrid (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 2:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry, but guns do make it much easier for an angry person to kill someone. If they did not have a gun then maybe they would think twice as it would take more time and thought to kill a person with their own two hands. Killing someone over a "love interest" is ridiculous, i agree, as most ppl will go on and find someone else and forget about the person with a little time and see that this is not worth ruining your life over.

Posted by iluvntz (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 2:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ok dont you all realize illegal things like guns,drugs and so on are the easiest things for a minor to get ahold of. Then people read the news all these shootings and things they want to go out and do it to.

Posted by roberth33 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 2:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Which was exactly my original point iluvntz.

Guns and shootings are as ubiquitous as sunshine. Why do we place stories about shootings on the front page of the paper?? That ISN'T news!

I have the right to buy and keep milk in my house.

Let's have front page articles about milk in refrigerators. Heck, let's have articles about spilled milk!

Mrs. Jones dropped her faux crystal 4 oz. milk pitcher spilling milk on the floor. Details at 11:00!

Posted by mwhittington (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 2:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ok. There will be two sides on the gun factor. Those of us that use guns for the purposes intended will never see those of a gun activist side. Someone who has no use for hunting, sport, or whatever intended use besides murdering someone is a gun activist. Aren't you roberth33?

Posted by astrid (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 3 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Since when is it not news when someone gets shot????? Esp in a small town.

Posted by astrid (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 3:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why would anyone compare a shooting to spilt milk?????

Posted by iluvntz (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes we do want to know what goes on in our neighborhoods and in our community but breaking news shouldnt be someone getting shot.

Posted by astrid (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 3:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And i guess that a shooter on the loose is not anything to worry about?????

Posted by tchamp (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 3:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

iluvntz: so help me out here you are convinced that mr brady was not the shooter because he turned himself in. do you perhaps have info that you are withholding, or some idea who the "real shooter" is.

Posted by roberth33 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 3:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Look I am not trying to overturn the second ammendment. Guns aren't going away. So for being an activist--not something I am spending a lot of time on.

Astrid--my point re milk is--Our society wants guns--we got'em. But with the free availabilty come gun related crime. You can't provide a tool for murder freely, and then be shocked that murder occurs freely.

You cannot provide milk, and then cry when it spills.

Posted by astrid (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree roberth33. It just seemed that you flip-flopped as you had been making comments against guns then you threw me on that comment.

Posted by roberth33 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

no, quite frankly, you can't be alarmed when a shooter is on the loose--because due the free availablity of guns--they are ALWAYS on the loose. Every day. It isnt news. It isn't anything but common eveyday event. Like the sun coming up.

Posted by iluvntz (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 3:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Like i said before i wasnt there thats just my opinion i dont believe he shot the young man you can take it how you want to.

Posted by astrid (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 3:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't quite agree that it is not news or out of the ordinary in this town.

Posted by fire39212 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 3:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well roberth33 if you really think just because me, you, or any law abiding citizen couldn't buy a gun that that means they can't be bought??????C'mon now.You smarter than that...I have yet to see where i can buy DOPE in Wal-Mart and lo and behold it can be bought same way the guns would be able to be bought

Posted by roberth33 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No, i do think guns should be banned. I see no point in anyone owning a gun. However, I also think that gun crimes are inevitable. So why does anyone even blink at the thought of someone getting shot.

Posted by astrid (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why don't you agree iluvntz? Do you know something?

Posted by iluvntz (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It so many people around Natchez,MS with guns and chips on their shoulders who knows who shot him.

Posted by astrid (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 3:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why would the kid lie?

Posted by mwhittington (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 3:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Guns have been around forever, Since the first blacksmith made one or even before. They were intended then as a way to hunt or protect your family. Yes, even then there were villains, that killed with them for fun or to rob etc... Today is the same way. In a much much broader sense. Those factors will never change. How they are used will never change. The bottom line, to me, is if you make a law that outlaws guns period, then why should the military use them to protect our country?? Certainly if we banned them other countries would too??? Gimme a break. If you outlaw guns the criminals will still get them in the alleys or stealing. and the law abiding citizens will be reduced to becoming criminals in a sense, because they will be forced to find ways to protect themselves and their families. I could see crime increasing, knowing the odds of that nice big house on the hill with all the goodies in it, could be broken into because they are probally law abiding citizens who CANT own a gun!!! Just my opinion and I am entitled to it....

Posted by astrid (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 3:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

roberth33, would you prefer to have a community that did not even care about it's citizens?????

Posted by jd (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 3:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's clear Roberth33 is a gun control idiot, bent on controlling every law abiding citizen and avoiding the real issue. Do the crime, do the time. Hang that sign Rob. Maybe a law abiding neighbor will save you when the law can't.

Posted by iluvntz (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I reed previously on a post it said he might have thought McKinley was the shooter. He might have though that McKinley was the shooter but what if it was someone else? Were you there astrid you are going by the newspaper do you know that the newspaper puts things in that arent the truth sometimes.

Posted by tchamp (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 3:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

the victim was lying in the emergency room and told the police that mr brady did it, as stated by mr mullins in the article. and nobody has stated that he "turned himself in" until you brought that up. i gather you know the victim and mr brady.

Posted by mwhittington (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 3:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

oooook.... Rob I do agree that I do NOT care who did it, who they finally caught that did it, or all the dumb details like in this case. Over a woman, no less. If it wasn't a woman it would be SOMETHING. Criminals are bored otherwise. I don't waste my time with those details. I do want to know about a shooting at schools or when an employee snaps and kills everybody they work with. That concerns me for different reasons. That is SICK people. They are in this world of ours and I wanta be slapped in the face and reminded of it everytime it happens, so I don't forget it. I am a court tv freak, and just the other night I saw where a man poisoned the water cooler at this girls work cause she wouldn't go out with him. It did kill her and if she hadn't been first to drink of it, it would of killed others. Even the coffee had the poison in it.... So do we outlaw poisons???? it's only purpose is to kill. Even if it is just innocent bugs that infest our homes and kill our crops..... you tell me....

Posted by iluvntz (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 3:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

On a brighter note I hope Adrian Brown will be alright and i pray for him as for McKinley i pray for him also.

Posted by tchamp (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 3:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

its a good thing that our officers dont carry the same attitude about the details, because even the smallest detail matters

Posted by tchamp (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 3:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

i echo your comments iluvntz

Posted by roberth33 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 3:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes JD, and adult conversation is moved so much farther along by calling someone an idiot. Thank you for you contribution to the discussion.

Posted by mwhittington (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 3:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I pray every day. For this country, for it's people. For peace on Earth in this crazy world. And mostly for strength to be able to deal with what I learn and what happens every day and what I may have to go through.

Posted by roberth33 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 3:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Look you can't have it both ways. You want to freely permit tools for murder out on the street and then be surprized that murder occurs.

You can't squeeze an orange and be surprised you got orange juice.

Posted by mwhittington (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 3:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I do not care about the details of this case. Sorry if that hurts your feelings. The cops are supposed to care about the details. That is supposed to be part of their job requirements, not mine. Also, their time would be better spent solving our drug problem etc... I am certain they will lock this shooter up, press charges, and let the law do whatever it is going to do in this case. There won't be alot of investigating. Afterall, he did leave a survivor.

Posted by mwhittington (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 3:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

and for the record roberth33. I normally tend to agree and support everything you comment on. Today was the day we agreed to disagree. please??

Posted by tchamp (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 3:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

well you have no idea just how much investigating has gone on already. and no it doesn't hurt my feelings at all. i hate to see anyone harmed. but from what i can tell i have scanned through blogs lately and it seems as though you really just like to find someone to argue with. your last two comments dont even sound like they come from the same person. personally i like the comment where you pray for peace.

Posted by mommyof3 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 3:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No! We outlaw the water cooler and the coffe. It wasn't the the poison's fault. (extreme sarcasim here)!

Posted by mwhittington (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 3:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What else is poison used for roberth33????? to kill to kill to kill.... I am never suprised by what PEOPLE do with things that are not intended for that purpose or that are ILLEGAL

Posted by firered (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 3:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I totally disagree with the banning of guns thing! I'm with everyone who believes its ok to own guns. Hunting is a necessity. It is used to keep the overpopulation of certain animals down especially deer. I'm sure you wouldn't want there to be more deer around to run into your vehicle or stand in the road and you run into them. Guns do not kill people people kill people. I know that for a fact. And to be perfectly honest with you I should be one of the biggest gun control freaks around but i'm not. I understand where killing comes from. If there aren't guns there are still methods of killing people so if someone really wants to get rid of someone there will always be a way to do it! However, parents need to keep a closer watch on their guns. How on earth did a 14 yr old sneak a gun into school past their parents and past officials???? (saw that on a post up there) Just wanna mention that I'll be praying for the victim. Doesn't seem too many care about him or his family! Just care about controlling guns which by the way will never be controlled.

Posted by mommyof3 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 3:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

mwhittington-you and I have the exact same views on this one it seems.

Posted by iluvntz (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 3:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

so tchamp how much investigating has went on?

Posted by roberth33 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 3:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

already addressed your point earlier mwhitt. re. bats, cars, steak knives.

Posted by tchamp (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 4 p.m. (Suggest removal)

they system does work sometimes. lets watch it all unfold

Posted by roberth33 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 4:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We control lots of weapons. Torpedos, Bazokas (sp), hand grenades, machine guns. It would not be impossible to significantly reduce the guns in this country.

Posted by mwhittington (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 4:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am an idealist. I am a Christian. I can not solve the worlds problems on my own, but I do try in any area I am able. I do care. But this seems to be a pretty open and shut case that is easily solveable. And to me, over a very juvenile reason. I am grateful nobody died, yet. Someone may do some time, who knows? Praying sounds all well and good and I am a believer. But I am also a realist. If you aren't and think all the worlds problems will be solved by prayer you are naive. It certainly helps, but people are lost without the Lord. They are responsible for their own stupidity or criminal acts. Thanks. I believe I said before, it's just my opinion. I am entitled to it.... Sorry you feel I like to agrue. I just am vocal and want to point out other views that perhaps nobody thought about. I certainly learn more everyday. Sorry if I insulted anyone.

Posted by roberth33 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 4:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I know I'll get hell for this too, but I don't think organized religion is the answer to anything. My opinion.

Posted by tchamp (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 4:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

thank you for explaining your point.

Posted by mwhittington (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 4:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ok rob. I give up. Guns ARE used for other purposes other than murdering innocent people for little if for any reasons at all. You just said yourself, it is okay for us to "control" them and have them in our country for protection. How is that different? Either they are for NO PURPOSE or for some purpose. As you keep pointing out with "bats, cars, steak knives" I am done

Posted by mwhittington (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 4:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks mommyof3. It feels good to know you aren't alone in your thinking in the world.

Posted by roberth33 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 4:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Misery loves company.

Posted by mwhittington (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 4:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

haha. I am not miserable. I am glad that you are in a position to not be in the need of guns for any reason. But I guess it's alright for our government to use them to protect your butt and your freedom. But me, (since I only know myself here) A happily divorced mom of two, who grew up hunting, fishing, and growing big gardens, and teach my son and daughter the responsible mature ways to do those things, can not own a gun? to protect myself or my family if a person breaks in to rape me, or my children, or murder us for a dollar?? I do not have the strength of most men, but I am strong, I don't believe I could beat someone or multiple people off of me or my kids without a weapon of some kind. That would be the only reason for me to EVER turn it on a human being. (and I was in an abusive marriage for many years, and didn't choose that option either). I stand by my statements Rob. I am not miserable. I am the happiest most real person I know, and have been for the last 7 years. so that is totally misplaced. I didn't call you an idiot Robert. Somebody else did.

Posted by jammin1 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 4:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Anyone ever seen the movie Red Dawn? Anyone really think it can't/won't happen here? Does anyone think for one second that if we take away guns from private citizens,that Islamist extremists won't use it to their advantage? BinLaden already gave us the warning. It was subtle, in his last video, it was there. He said for us to convert to Islam. Anyone know what happens to people who don't? They are killed. Well, I won't convert to any religion that doesn't give me free will. Hades will freeze over first. And I won't give up the right to own or bare arms.

Posted by mwhittington (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 4:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Agreed jammin1 and yes I remember the movie. I own it.

Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 4:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I brought this whole anti gun control issue up before with Roberth, I sure am glad everyone now seems on my side. People were killing each other with rocks, swords, and bows and arrows long before guns were invented. And I will repeat, "they can have my guns when they pry them from my cold dead fingers".

Posted by ghost (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 5 p.m. (Suggest removal)

so giving up guns will solve the problem eh?.....thats right, just keep on giving up your Bill of Rights and lets become the "Nanny State." Might as well ban fireworks and vehicles or anything else that could cause injury and death.

Posted by mwhittington (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 5:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Guess we are all in "misery" together..... hum....

Posted by jd (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 5:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I apologize for the idiot statement, Rob. But when gun controllers continue their mindless assaults on law abiding, God fearing citizens, I sometimes lose control. As I stated, we have laws that deal with outlaws. Let us enforce them, and let law abiding Americans enjoy the freedoms our fore fathers set forth. Hunting is necessary as someone else stated to control over population and diseases. Our law enforcement can not stop criminals mindless attacks on our citizens. The second amendment was established for these and a host of other reasons. But, I know it's fruitless to argue with gun controllers. I only pray all voters get to the polls on Election Day.

Posted by astrid (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 5:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes i do know that the Democrat gets things wrong on occasion.

Posted by JunkyardDawg (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 6:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

let me think back...prior to men having guns...spears, swords, or bow and arrows were the weapon of choice for man to fight for his woman...and in the days of the cave men, men fought over women with clubs made from tree limbs. Nah, it's men we need to get rid of...lol.

Posted by astrid (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 6:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I just assumed that JunkyardDawg was a male!?!?!?!?
You can't be!!!!!

Posted by fire39212 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 8:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That was to funny JunkYardDawg.........Needed that..Thanks

Posted by ddsmith (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 8:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How about Natchez just goes to Marshall Law and have curfews for the kids, and if the kid is found or caught lets arrest the parents.

Posted by jammin1 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 8:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I thought there was a curfew for kids already. And marshell law would mean NO ONE could be on the street after a certain time.

Posted by callitasitis (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 8:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jammin 1 there's supposed to be a curfew...No one to inforce it...To a degree, I agree with Roberth33, it's really not news to that part of town, IT'S THE GHETTO, THE HOOD, along with Bishop St., Maple St., Oak St., and I could go on and on. You, me, we, and the police have known for a long time where the hot spots are, the Mayor knows, the Supervisors know, somebody DO SOMETHING. I guess one could keep shooting till they get the right one. Teenagers with guns, everybody needs one on a leash and muzzled.

Posted by murph1 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 8:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

gun arent given out freely you have to be 18 to buy a rifle and 21 for a handgun you cant be a convicted felon. so its not like they hand them out to everyone. i own several guns because i hunt. guns dont kill people pople do! why should i have to give up guns for something someone else does. i keep them in cases locked up so they are kept safe. if we ban guns there will just be an increase in them being sold on the underground market. a ban on guns isnt the answer.

Posted by riverat (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 9:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

On the news tonight there was a story about woman who shot her mother because she thought she was a burglar...she shot through the door. I understand the need for protection...what concerns me is the inexperience and knee-jerk reactions of people like this poor girl who didn't think before she reacted and forever changed her family's life. Too many people have guns who don't know what the hell they're doing. And for all of you NRA members, tell me exactly why assault rifles are needed....I've never heard of shooting a deer with an assualt rifle. I agree with much of what roberth33 has said...sadly, shootings are now so commonplace, they really aren't newsworthy anymore. School shootings are becoming that way too. Maybe we should just revert back to the days of the wild, wild west when everyone had a gun strapped to their hip and justice was decided by who had the fastest draw.

Posted by jammin1 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 10:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

With an AK47 you don't have to be the fastest draw. And you don't have to be that close either.

Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 10:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And it's a lot of fun to shoot an AK-47!

Posted by Bigfish (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 10:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Making guns illegal is an after the fact idea. If guns were illegal from the begining then there wouldn't be any to start with. however as guns have been legal for the entire existance of this country making them illegal wouldn't STOP gun related crimes. Once somethingis allowed it is IMPOSSIBLE to eliminate it, guns, drugs, etc. The only way to limit the amount of gun related crimes is to make the punishment fit the general public's view of what is a fitting punishment, for example if someone intentially shoots another person for whatever reason, they should't be allowed to ever buy another fire arm, a mandatory prison sentence, etc and if they are ever found with a firearm punishments should be clear and manadatory, not subject to judge discretion and situational evidence

Posted by JunkyardDawg (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 10:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

but at least if we took away the guns, men would have to work harder to kill...you know, grab a box cutter and hijack a plane and fly it into large buildings, or come up with some crafty way of making a suicide belt to wear into the midst of a crowd! Or better yet, they could join the police dept or become a deputy to get legal access to weapons; such as, the policeman that killed his baby moma not too long ago, or the deputy that shot up his ex gf's pizza party just recently.

And have we so soon forgotten the Baton Rouge serial killer...hmmm, did he ever fire a shot? Nope, I think he liked it up close and personal when he took a life.

I don't know if banning guns or keeping them available would make a whole lot of difference. Men are evil beings.

Posted by jammin1 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 10:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Women can be just as evil. We prisons full of them too.

Posted by jammin1 (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 10:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Excuse me, I meant to say, we have prisons full of them too.

Posted by JunkyardDawg (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 11:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Perhaps I should have used humans.

Posted by riverat (anonymous) on October 11, 2007 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

jammin1...how many women serial killers have there been (compared to men)?