Such a tragedyTo the Hurtado family, our family shares your sorrow.
bk

No wordscan truly express my horror.

GUNS are FINE, they don’t hurt anyone.NRA.

WTF? What was this loon thinking? That this would make things “better”?So now he goes to jail, and his daughter is, like, “Dad you killed my girlfriend, and her mother.”
Thanksgiving is going to suck at their house…

What gets me is he apprently didn’t do this alone.So he can’t claim “twinkie defense” or anything else unpremeditated.  Cold blooded murder.

CondolencesMy condolences and it’s really surprising what people can do or rather what hate can do.  

Double standardIf he had used a hammer, or a car, or a 2×4, or even a kitchen knife – would you be calling for their ban too?
Yes, one can use a gun to kill someone.  It’s one of very many tools in a very long list of tools.
Murder is already illegal, and the barrier to entry is rather low – there’s not a whole lot you can do to stop someone who is willing to operate without regard to any consequences.
This is a horrible tragedy and time to mourn, not a time to capitalize on someone else’s suffering to push a political agenda.  

The twinkie defense doesn’t rely on plausibility.It’s a matter of whether he can pull a homophobic jury that will look for an excuse to let him off light or a group of citizens who don’t buy that crap.

The differenceThe difference is that hammers, cars, 2x4s, kitchen knives and everything else in that long list of tools, unlike guns, have uses other than killing. On the other hand, guns have only one use: to kill things. It is a single function tool that has no other practical use whatsoever and, like any single function tool, it is extremely efficient at performing its task.
Unless you are heading out to wilderness to get some geese or venison for your cooking pot, the only other possible use for a gun is to kill human beings. Whether done in aggression or defence, guns are only for killing.
I have often heard the argument from Americans that law-abiding people need to have guns to protect themselves from criminals with guns. Well this father was a law-abiding citizen too, up until he showed up at the house of his daughter’s girlfriend and started shooting his gun.
If he had showed up packing a 2×4 or a kitchen knife it wouldn’t have been as easy to kill 2 people with it.

Give it up, Stephanie…You are talking sense and logic to someone who has neither.

They’re just trying to make what they say true.That homosexuality causes a reduced life span.
A does being the parent of someone GLBT, the friend of someone GLBT, being suspected of being GLBT….

GrrrrrrrThis continues to cement my opinion that the machismo of the Latino male needs to be removed as quickly as possible. They’re cowards to the extreme

And this underscores…… the homophobia that a lot of young people face within their own families. This is such an f-ing tragedy.

Yeah, cause as a womanI only have to fear men of one particular ethnic heritage.  

And aside from all that,I’ve never heard of a kid accidentally blowing his head off while he was playing with his father’s hammer.  Or of anyone accidentally killing himself because his car (knife, 2×4 or whatever) went off while he was cleaning it.

No, they don’tBut the more wrapped up the males are in their status as a male (see also certain Arab societies), the less secure they truly are, and thus react with violence any time their precious masculinity is “threatened”.

Updated articeThere’s an updated article from the paper, currently the #1read story today:
http://www.statesman.com/news/…

I can’t rememberIs it all the drive-by 2×4 attacks or drive-by shootings that have killed so many school children in my city?

umm….There was a similar crime a few years ago against a family I knew in my hometown. My high school friend’s ex-husband murdered her parents and then killed himself in front of my friend. The perp was white, and the victims were Arab-American. Just saying.

Really? Only one use?

The difference is that hammers, cars, 2x4s, kitchen knives and everything else in that long list of tools, unlike guns, have uses other than killing. On the other hand, guns have only one use: to kill things. It is a single function tool that has no other practical use whatsoever and, like any single function tool, it is extremely efficient at performing its task.

So wait, every time I go down to the shooting range and fire my guns at targets, it’s actually killing people?  Really?  Being involved in the shooting sports necessarily means that all of your gun usage in said sport is not for the purposes of killing people.  There is that chance it could be used for that purpose, but most defensive gun uses do not even result in a shot fired.
There are many LGBT’s who own guns, and some of them carry guns too, because of situations like what happened to Norma, and what happened to Joshua Esskew.
You can’t put the genie back into the bottle.  Heller and McDonald is settled law.  There is an individual right to keep arms in the home, and bear them in public, and this is reflected in the laws of more than three-quarters of the states, including North Carolina, and the constitutions of 44 states.  
Trying to reverse this trend is like pissing in the wind.  No state, since passing “shall-issue” carry licenses, has been knocked back into “may-issue” or “no-issue” by future legislative enactment (twice occurred via the courts either due to preemption issues or single subject requirements, and they were fixed later).  The remaining hold-out states (CA, MD, DC, NJ, NY, MA, RI) are facing litigation that they will lose once they a case like that gets to SCOTUS.  Hell, even Illinois (the adult home state of the President) is probably going to repeal their ban on carry and put in a permit to carry law.
The time of “putting the genie back into the bottle” is over.    Widespread gun ownership is here to stay, and will only get wider as the years go by, and hand-wringing by people attempting to co-opt the equality movement into being against an enumerated fundamental civil right will fade into the fringe.

“The time of “putting the genie back into the bottle” is over.”You may wish that, but the mood can turn and a new Supreme Court can overturn case law.

I can tell youThat I, personally, never hit a target. While I guess with enough practice and a bit more training, I could probably hit a stationary target, that’s quite different than hitting a human. This study appears to bear this out: http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_V…
The 1981 edition of SOP-9 makes this observation:
“An attempt was made to relate an officer’s ability to strike a target in a combat situation to his range qualification scores ended with no clear connection. After making over 200 such comparisons, no firm conclusion was reached.”
Personally, I don’t think that a gun would be useful for me – a handgun has far too small of an effective range, is difficult to hit with, and is ineffective at close range. A larger weapon (rifle?) is only useful at a distance, which is an unlikely threat model for me. A small hand weapon, such as a cane, is much more in keeping with the likely threat models I’d encounter, and unlike guns, I’m trained in cane-fighting.
I agree that District of Columbia v. Heller was a major win for people and companies that like handguns. However, it was limited to the home:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/5…
In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.

Only one useShooting a gun at a firing range is not a practical use. It is like randomly hammering nails into a block of scrap wood. If you want a “sport” that tests your accuracy at hitting a target, why not go down to the pub and play a round of darts?

most defensive gun uses do not even result in a shot fired.

That is because you a relying the threat of killing a human to deter an attack. And if that doesn’t stop them, then what? Your only choice is to follow through and actually kill them.
Like I said, there is no other PRACTICAL use for a gun than for killing living beings. Unless you want to use it to hammer nails.

That is extremely unlikely….*48 states allow or license carry, and 40 states are shall-issue for carry licenses (and will likely go to 42 this year).
*44 states have RKBA provisions in their state constitutions.
Class, let’s look at Article V and see what’s in there:
What is the threshold for getting a constitutional convention going?  What is the threshold for ratification of a constitutional amendment?
Look at the above numbers and tell me how those numbers add up.
The Supreme Court is not going to overturn Heller or McDonald, because they know exactly what will happen: The 28th Amendment.  It will be viewed as illegitimate.  Every major overturn of that magnitude has always been in favor of civil rights.  Plessy was overturned by the pre-cursors of Brown and then Brown itself.  Bowers v. Hardwick was overturned by Lawrence v. Texas.  All of these are increases of the civil rights of an individual against government.

Actually….

Personally, I don’t think that a gun would be useful for me – a handgun has far too small of an effective range, is difficult to hit with, and is ineffective at close range. A larger weapon (rifle?) is only useful at a distance, which is an unlikely threat model for me. A small hand weapon, such as a cane, is much more in keeping with the likely threat models I’d encounter, and unlike guns, I’m trained in cane-fighting.

That’s nice.  Not everyone can effectively cane-fight.

I agree that District of Columbia v. Heller was a major win for people and companies that like handguns. However, it was limited to the home.

Quoting selectively again?
Here’s the part in particular:
Apart from his challenge to the handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement respondent asked the District Court to enjoin petitioners from enforcing the separate licensing requirement “in such a manner as to forbid the carrying of a firearm within one’s home or possessed land without a license.” App. 59a. The Court of Appeals did not invalidate the licensing requirement, but held only that the District “may not prevent [a handgun] from being moved throughout one’s house.” 478 F. 3d, at 400. It then ordered the District Court to enter summary judgment “consistent with [respondent's] prayer for relief.” Id., at 401. Before this Court petitioners have stated that “if the handgun ban is struck down and respondent registers a handgun, he could obtain a license, assuming he is not otherwise disqualified,” by which they apparently mean if he is not a felon and is not insane. Brief for Petitioners 58. Respondent conceded at oral argument that he does not “have a problem with … licensing” and that the District’s law is permissible so long as it is “not enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 74-75.We therefore assume that petitioners’ issuance of a license will satisfy respondent’s prayer for relief and do not address the licensing requirement.
As demonstrated above, and opposite of the statement made, the Parker and later Heller case was more than about more than just a ban on the registration of handguns after September 24th, 1976.   It also prohibited carrying ANY firearm inside of one’s home, and required that all guns, whether a handgun or a long gun, registered or no, to be disassembled, or unloaded with a trigger lock.
District of Columbia v. Heller Oyez Link.  Click on the 2nd rebuttal of Walter Dellinger talking about the carry ban and the ban on having a loaded firearm in one’s home for self defense.
The Parker/Heller case only asked questions of whether or not it was constitutional to ban handguns, and to prohibit functional firearms and carry within one’s home.  That is because that is the only prayer of relief that was asked for.  Narrow pleas for relief, much in the way that Charles Hamilton Houston did with the cases leading up to Brown.   Houston did not ask for K-12 desegregation with his first cases in the 1930′s.  Houston and Marshall killed most of Jim Crow, and the last vestiges of this is interracial marriage, which was fixed by Loving v. Virginia.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses also followed a similar path, increasing first amendment freedom
The Heller/McDonald cases and the follow-up cases follow this path.

Ah, right….

That is because you a relying the threat of killing a human to deter an attack. And if that doesn’t stop them, then what? Your only choice is to follow through and actually kill them.

First thing to remember about self defense, something that is taught even to law enforcement officers, is that using a firearm is for the purpose of stopping a criminal attack.  Not to kill someone, to stop an attack. Death is a potential consequence of being shot.
So I have to ask: What’s with the obsession of governmentally enforced unarmed pacifism in the light of violent anti-gay bigots like Aviles and the attackers of Joshua Esskew?

Better survivabilityWell, if the violent anti-gay bigots can’t get guns either then their attacks are less likely to be fatal.
Perhaps the Hurtado family had a gun too, but if they weren’t in the habit of grabbing it every time someone knocked on their door, then it wouldn’t have been of any use in defence when they opened the door to find Mr. Aviles there with his gun.
I live in Canada and I am comforted by the knowledge that if some person takes unreasonable exception to my existence as a transsexual lesbian and decides to attack me, it won’t be by effortlessly squeezing a trigger from several metres away but by expending physical effort and in close contact so I still have the opportunity to fight them off and escape the encounter alive, if not unscathed.
Also, I am eternally grateful that my dad married a Canadian girl and decided to settle in Canada instead of taking her back to Virginia to raise his family. I think I would find it incredibly stressful to live where there are so many people who are so paranoid and suspicious of their fellow citizens that they feel the need to carry a lethal weapon with them where ever they go.

Latino or Latina is not a heterogeneous cultural or ethnic groupso it is useless to make broad based assumptions about the group or large parts of the group.
En boca cerrada no entran moscas.

and that is the important partof all of this, people suffered, people died, people’s lives were shattered because of homophobia and hatred

True, MauraBut this is about as close to being a racist as I get. As far as I’m concerned, any male gang member convicted of a violent crime should be sentenced to estrogen therapy until their violent tendencies are reduced.
I’m getting sick and tired of seeing these gang wars based on their infantile and cowardly excuse of “they insulted my manhood!” Darling you’re no man…

Machismo. Yes I think I recognize machismo when I see it, Marlene.“Would you like me to whip it out and piss on you and the floor?”

Not in Travis CountyNo, he can’t.  He’ll be very fortunate if he doesn’t get the death penalty.  This is a very liberal county, but it’s also Texas.

Oh puh-LEEZE!That’s as far removed from machismo, sweetie as Pluto is from the goddamn sun!
That was said for shock value, my dear.
Machismo is thinking the world revolves around your dick, that women are to be used, abused and tossed aside like so much garbage, that getting drunk and getting laid are your two favorite hobbies, you drive the flashiest car with the loudest stereo and the deepest bass… thinks I absolutely and positively abhor.
It’s one of the reasons why I’m thankful to be a dyke, and why I think there should be mandatory orchis for those testosterone-poisoned morons.

And this is why I love you.

Um, this sounds just a wee bit racist

yucksome more racist-ish assumptions. maybe reframe a little.

Yes, so do shut up for the moment with your 2nd Amendment crapI say, with all due respect, in light of this awful tragedy. And no personal offense meant to you.

Obviously, I disagree.

That’s as far removed from machismo, sweetie as Pluto is from the goddamn sun!

But to continue with your planetary rif: your willy wagging is as far from Venus as, well, anything, “sweetie.”

Snotty and sneering

Well, if the violent anti-gay bigots can’t get guns either then their attacks are less likely to be fatal.

Except anti-gay hate crimes tend to not be shootings.  Anti-gay hate crimes are crimes against the entire community to scare said community, and purely shooting someone doesn’t give that sort of terror factor as curbstomping or just beating the hell out of them.  They want to torment us, not kill us, by inflicting massive amounts of bodily harm.

Perhaps the Hurtado family had a gun too, but if they weren’t in the habit of grabbing it every time someone knocked on their door, then it wouldn’t have been of any use in defence when they opened the door to find Mr. Aviles there with his gun.

Some chance is better than no chance.  Considering how much of a problem Aviles was beforehand, continually threatening harm and death towards the Hurtado family, do you not think they would have answered gun in hand?  I believe they would if they had one, it would have been in better use.  Considering you live in Canada and have zero understanding of defensive pistol use (and considering Texas requires a training class in defensive pistol use before getting a carry license), the Hurtado’s could have stood a chance in light of the rule threat Aviles would have made, versus some crazy who was demanding that Hurtado stop dating his daughter “or else”.

I live in Canada and I am comforted by the knowledge that if some person takes unreasonable exception to my existence as a transsexual lesbian and decides to attack me, it won’t be by effortlessly squeezing a trigger from several metres away but by expending physical effort and in close contact so I still have the opportunity to fight them off and escape the encounter alive, if not unscathed.

Explains the snotty attitude towards gun ownership.  Sorry to say here, Stephanie, but I was born in the United States.  My parents were not Canadian, and even since the downturn in the economy, the chances of my immigrating north of the 49th went down significantly, and it’s not worth trying.

Quoting selectivelyOf course I quoted selectively, and I apologize if you think I was being deceptive. However, my reading of the case, was that this is the key holding in the decision – prohibiting use of firearms in the home is a violation of the Second Amendment. However, in McDonald v. Chicago,  the Opinion of the Court, second paragraph:
Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554
U. S. ___ (2008), we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense, and we struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home.

I had never read McDonald v. Chicago before, so this is new to me. It looks like the Court’s opinion is broader than mine in how it interprets District of Columbia v. Heller.
And yes, it’s typical for any court to decide cases on narrow grounds, unless doing so will give them more work (in their opinion). I don’t see anything unusual about that in this case.
I’m unclear as to what you’re referring to in the Oral Argument; could you give a quote? What I found in a brief search was something about that lawyer’s opinion about gun collection, which I doubt is what you’re trying to describe.
As for McDonald v. Chicago: http://www.supremecourt.gov/op… I had no familiarity with it save for reading some general news articles. After reading it, it still surprises me that there wasn’t a majority opinion on how to apply the Fourteenth Amendment to the Second Amendment.