Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

I Support Gun Control

The father of a German exchange student shot dead in Montana after he trespassed in a man's garage has said the US cannot continue to "play cowboy" with firearms.

Markus Kaarma has been charged with deliberate murder in the Sunday killing of Diren Dede, 17, of Hamburg.

But he says Montana's self-defence law allowed him to shoot the boy.

Celal Dede said he would not have allowed his son to study in the US had he been aware of the lenient gun laws.

"I didn't think for one night that everyone here can kill somebody just because that person entered his back yard," Mr Dede told the German news agency dpa.
Pressure authorities

Mr Dede returned to Germany from Montana on Thursday after securing the release of his son's body, a German consulate spokeswoman said.

The son of a family of Turkish immigrants to Germany, Diren was attending Big Sky High School in Missoula, Montana, for one year as part of an exchange program.

Diren, known in Hamburg for his football skills, had only six weeks left in the programme.
This undated still image taken from video shows Markus Kaarma at his home in Missoula, Montana Markus Kaarma was released on $30,000 bond while he awaits trial on the murder charge

Mr Kaarma, a 29-year-old firefighter, has told investigators his home had twice been hit by burglars, and he told a hair stylist he had waited up at night to shoot intruders, prosecutors said.

On the night of the shooting, Mr Kaarma and his partner Janelle Pflager left their garage door open, and Ms Pflager left her purse in the garage in order to bait intruders, she told police.

They set up motion sensors and a video monitor, prosecutors said.

When the sensors went off just after midnight and they saw a man on the monitor screen, Mr Kaarma went outside and fired a shotgun into the garage without warning several times.

It is unclear what the teenager was doing inside in the garage.

Mr Kaarma's lawyer said his client planned to plead not guilty.

The state allows residents to protect their homes with deadly force when they believe they are going to be harmed, said his lawyer, Paul Ryan.

"We know with no question the individual entered the garage," Mr Ryan said. "Kaarma didn't know who he was, his intent or whether he was armed."

He said that there had been a spate of break-ins in the neighbourhood and Mr Kaarma did not think the police were doing anything about them.
'Castle doctrine' defence

The suspect was released on $30,000 (£17,800) bond, and has remained in his home.

Montana's so-called "castle doctrine" law was amended in 2009 to allow deadly force if a homeowner "reasonably believes" an intruder is trying to harm him or her.

Before that, residents could only use such force if the intruder acted in a violent way. The legislation was backed by the US' largest gun lobby, the National Rifle Association (NRA).

State Representative Ellie Hill told the Missoulian newspaper she has proposed legislation to repeal the 2009 amendments to the law.

"What the castle doctrine has done in this country is it has created a culture of gun violence and vigilante justice," Ms Hill, a Democrat who represents Missoula, said.

"And it's created a culture that it's okay to shoot first and ask questions later."


This is cold blooded and pre-meditated murder. I hope this idiot gets the death penalty!
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
JackBarnesMRA
Yes. I bought a 4 year old a BB gun. Yes it is legal.
A. 5 year old can gun hunting with an adult. A 10 year old can go hunting alone.
The gun I bought her is the least powerful one available. She is not allowed to use it without direct adult supervision. At point blank range it won't even penetrate a soda can. Just makes a little dent in it.
I bought it for her to teach her gun safety.
They have a very cool looking pink camo pattern 223 deer rifle that she will probably get for her 10th birthday.
Mikemcneil · 61-69, M
How about checking those figures on that study you quoted for me . I asked you some questions that you have ignored so far.
JackBarnesMRA
The number of men raped by men is 8.6%
Mikemcneil · 61-69, M
Where does that figure come from?
JackBarnesMRA
You get this by adding 5.6 ( the percentage that reported male only perpetrators) and 3 (the percentage that reported both a male and a female perpetrator).
Mikemcneil · 61-69, M
The 5.6 you quote should be 51.6. I pointed out that error to you twice.
JackBarnesMRA
No. It shouldn't. How can you get that 51.6 of the total number of men surveyed say they were taped by men plus 48.4 of the total number surveyed saying they were raped by women, when
JackBarnesMRA
When only 52.1 of the total number said they had been sexually assaulted. It doesn't add up
JackBarnesMRA
Your saying 51.6 + 48.4 = 52.1
Mikemcneil · 61-69, M
The figures are as follows

Sexual victimization of males by males 51.6 per cent
Sexual victimization of males by females 48.4 per cent

Which equals 100 per cent

Within those figures are attacks by both males and females at the same time. Thos amount to 3 per cent.

Also every case is not a rape case, is it? As usual you are making things up.
JackBarnesMRA
Point of fact the study labels it as sexual assault.
Mikemcneil · 61-69, M
No Jack you are being deliberately stupid.

52.1 percent of the survey of 299 said they had been sexually victimized.

Of the victims 51.6 were attacked by males and 48.4 were attacked by females.

That's what the study says. Can you actually read?
Mikemcneil · 61-69, M
It seperates sexual assault into 3 categories...only one category referes to completed rapes.
Mikemcneil · 61-69, M
It does add up....unless you don't understand maths.
Mikemcneil · 61-69, M
I want to see you apologise here!
Mikemcneil · 61-69, M
And Jack fades away with his head aching......
JackBarnesMRA
You a being deliberately deceptive.
JackBarnesMRA
It doesn't say that " of the victims." It says
"In this study, 51.2% (N = 153) of male partic- ipants reported at least one experience of sexual victimization since age 16 with 5.6% reporting victimization experiences by male perpetra- tors, 48.4% by female perpetrators, and 3% by both sexes. "
5.6 of the total participants not of the victims.
48.4 of the total participants not of the victims.
3 of the total participants not of the victims.
JackBarnesMRA
More demonization of men from a feminist. What else is new.
Can't stand that rape is not a gender issue.
Mikemcneil · 61-69, M
Jack. I will say it one more time. The 5.6 % figure is a mistake. It is 51.6 %.

Of the total participants 48.8 % reported no incidents of sexual victimization, so they cannot be counted as victims.

Of the victims, 51.6 were assaulted by males, 48.4 % were assaulted by females. 3 % of the victims were assaulted jointly by males and females at the same time.

You are making yourself look stupid again.
Mikemcneil · 61-69, M
I can't stand idiots like you misquoting studies to make things seem how you want them to seem!

Quit the insults and learn how to fucking count!
Mikemcneil · 61-69, M
Why does that not surprise me or anyone else that has had the misfortune to come across your bigotry on EP?
JackBarnesMRA
Your making stuff up so that you will feel better. Your multiplying the number of male perpetrators by more than a factor of 10 just to make yourself feel better with no other justification than your imagination. You can't handle reality so you are imagining reason to excuse it. You would rather believe in "man bad woman good" fantasy rather than to admit that we are all human both good and bad.
Mikemcneil · 61-69, M
Jack you are spouting crap. I told you the figure was wrong and explained why. Read the fucking study properly.

What is your IQ?
Mikemcneil · 61-69, M
Ok answer me this one

5.6 + 48.4 = 54.......it should equal 100 if those figures are percentages.

It doesn't ....it is out by 46.

The 46 has been left out by mistake.

46 + 5.6 = 51.6......the correct amount of male perpetrators.

Easy enough?
JackBarnesMRA
No. It shouldn't equal 100% which is the total number of participants. Why? Because not all of the participants reported being a victim.