Posted by AlabamaDreamin (anonymous) on October 22, 2009 at 8:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It would be nice if The Messenger provided a photo of Newson. The description is helpful, but a photo would be even better.

Posted by Bamabunny (anonymous) on October 23, 2009 at 12:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Seems every day there is another murder.

It would be a good idea to post a picture of the suspect and suspects when needed so the public can help the police....I agree AlabamaDreamin.

Posted by JEM (anonymous) on October 23, 2009 at 3:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I totally agree you guy's! Heres a link and his pic is posted on dothaneagle website.

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/dea/news/cri...

Posted by turtle (anonymous) on October 23, 2009 at 8:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wonder if a pic is in the hardcopy version? While the convenience of online newspaper is great, alot of things don't get put online like photos, and alot of great stories as well. Hope they catch the guy.

Posted by Linden (anonymous) on October 23, 2009 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I certainly hope that they find this man! It really is unfortunate that people can't even have peace of mind in their own home! I think that every responsible, law abiding citizen of the U.S. should be issued a protective weapon, that is to remain in the home, in a safe, after being given a thorough background check! Is that a little extreme, or does anyone agree with me?

Posted by WDM (anonymous) on October 23, 2009 at 10:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Linden,what good would it do you if it is locked in a safe when someone kicks in your door you would be dead before you could open the safe.I agree law abiding citizens need a gun in their home but where they can reach it when needed.

Posted by elvis2 (anonymous) on October 23, 2009 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

WDM your right about that . Might as well not have the gun if you can't get to it in time to use it .Mine is loaded and believe you me it's where I can get it if needed .

Posted by Linden (anonymous) on October 23, 2009 at 1:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, I agree with both of you, and maybe a safe isn't the answer, but for people with children in their homes need to make a responsible decision as to where to keep a weapon from ever reaching the hands of their children.

Posted by elvis2 (anonymous) on October 23, 2009 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Linden I agree that where you have children you need to be very careful that they cannot access them . I live alone so I didn't stop and think about that possibility . Thanks for the reminder .

Posted by traneman (anonymous) on October 23, 2009 at 3:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The Sheriff's Name Is Wally Olson.
Thanks

Posted by FoX (anonymous) on October 23, 2009 at 5:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Or better yet instead of promoting firearms, how about banning them. If I remember correctly, there's something 200 million registered firearms and an estimated 100 million unregistered firearms in the US. There are 400,000+ crimes committed with firearms every year in the US and about 10,0000 murders committed with firearms every year. Yet your solution to gun-related crimes is more firearms? Ironic.

The Second Amendment is outdated. The main reasons being the right to bear arms was for the purpose of maintaining a militia and protection from a tyrannical government, however in this era, your grandfather's old rifle is no match for Abrams tanks and F22s.

And honestly, if someone has the intent to kill another person, there is very little that person can do to stop them. Owning a gun for protection offers little real protection and only gives people a false sense of security. A gun may protect you for a burglar who has no intention of harming you but that is about it.

Posted by Bamabunny (anonymous) on October 23, 2009 at 10:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you JEM

Posted by Bamabunny (anonymous) on October 23, 2009 at 10:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

5' 5" and 232 pounds is a good start for looking for someone.

Just hope they find him quickly before someone else is hurt.

Posted by OldSchoolPike3Worker (anonymous) on October 23, 2009 at 11:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Fox, the word, firearms is not in the second amendment. As far as rifles not being effective against our F22s and Tanks, tell that to the Taliban. Even though I disagree with your view on gun control, I think that its pointless to even argue with you about it. I am far more afraid of a misinformed or zero liability voter than I am a gun owner. A stupid person with a gun can only harm as many people as there are bullets in the magazine. A clueless voter can destroy this nation. Now that I think about it, you may be right. We have the right to keep and bear arms as a means to fight against tyranny, and at the same time elect tyrannical leaders to office. And before you fresh squeeze your fruit of the looms, I'm not just talking about our current President. This as been going on for decades in all levels of the federal government.

Posted by Bamabunny (anonymous) on October 23, 2009 at 11:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Boy oh boy OldSchoolPike3Worker have you ever got that right......

"A clueless voter can destroy this nation."

Posted by FoX (anonymous) on October 24, 2009 at 12:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I never said the word firearms is in the Constitution. How exactly does that change what I said? I know firearms is not the terminology used in the constitution, so a complete ban on guns would not technically violate the Second Amendment, although I am not sure such an interpretation
wouldn't be views the same way by the Supreme Court.

However, such a vague term as "bear arm" opens up the door for Congress to ban certain types of arms, so they could ban handguns, shotguns, etc. without overriding the Second Amendment.

As for your Taliban statement. Look at the number of Taliban forces killed vs. the number of US soldiers killed, and the Taliban actually has mines, assault rifles and RPGs. I think the weapons the US military use are far more effective than any weapons civilians in the US have. If you think for a second that any violent civilian uprising in the US would not be squashed by US military forces then you're delusional. The idea of protecting yourself from government tyranny with your .22 is ridiculous.

Posted by FoX (anonymous) on October 24, 2009 at 12:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

A clueless voter? In your eyes, is that a voter who doesn't know Obama is a Muslim terrorist, a pinko-communist, or a foreign born citizen?

Posted by JEM (anonymous) on October 24, 2009 at 12:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

your welcome bamabunny

Posted by OldSchoolPike3Worker (anonymous) on October 24, 2009 at 1:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

First of all, I am a 12 gauge man. .22s are for squirrels. Second of all, while a firearm is an arm, arms not defined as ONLY firearms, but they are included in the definition. So, banning firearms is the same as banning arms. Third, a violent civil uprising in the U.S. would never be started by those of us that love our country. It will be squashed by us. The military is made up of men and women that understand what tyranny is and the importance of defeating it. A tyrannical leader would surely have a difficult time going house to house and taking weapons from the citizenry. The second amendment is just one more thing to make our federal government an little less imposing to the individual. A LAW ABIDING American citizen that owns a firearm is a citizen has the ability to preserve their liberty when their government is unwilling or unable. Can I just ask you if there is anything in your view that is good about this country or its constitution? You seem to have a problem with most of things that make America great.

Posted by OldSchoolPike3Worker (anonymous) on October 24, 2009 at 1:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

A clueless voter is one that doesn't know or care what the President stands for. They just vote for what they see on the outside. And again, I have been saying this long before now and long before Obama.

Posted by FoX (anonymous) on October 24, 2009 at 3:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So guns make America great? I never got that memo. For me, what makes America great is tolerance of others, Americans helping one another, and most of the freedoms granted in the Constitution, however I just don't see how the right to bear arms is relevant anymore for the purpose it was initially included into the Bill of Rights, and it is a right that I don't agree with.

You said that the US military will protect the people from oppressive government so based on your statement, if that is the case, we really do not need weapons for that reason anymore, and as for maintaining a militia, if there is a US invasion that is so powerful that it overruns our own military, then I don't think the citizens stand much of a chance against that power.

As for personal protection from others, I've never owned a gun and I've never felt unsafe because of it. I've never been attacked and I've never been robbed, however if I was ever robbed, the last thing I would want to do is pull out a weapon against an armed robber because it seems that would be the easiest way to get myself killed. Hypothetically, if you wronged someone and they committed to murdering you for that, unless that person is completely incompetent, how much of a chance do you think you have of surviving if you own a gun versus not owning a gun. Unless that person made his intentions known to others then he could just follow you to Wal-Mart one day and shoot you in the back of the head, or get you while you are walking to you car from work, or any of the 100 other times during the day in which you are completely vulnerable.

So, why keep that provision when 10,000 people are being murdered and tens of thousands more injured every year from firearms.

Lastly, you say that "banning firearms is the same as banning arms" which makes it sound as if you think that a ban on any type of arms is a violation of the Second Amendment. So I ask you, do you think civilians should be allowed to own FGM-148 Javelin missiles, VX gas, Octanitrocubane explosives, and weapons-grade plutonium just in case they need to make a dirty bomb? After all, these are all considered arms and it appears that in your argument you think that banning any arms would violate your rights?

I think the number of murders in the US alone is justification enough to ban at least handguns since handguns account for about 80% of all murders involved firearms and firearms account for over 70% of all murders in general. I think that it may take at least 20 years to get the majority of handguns out of circulation through voluntary turn ins and confiscations, but I would find it hard to believe there would not be a dramatic decline in the number of crimes committed with firearms after that time.

Posted by Bamabunny (anonymous) on October 24, 2009 at 7:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OldSchoolPike3Worker

I'm a 16 guage and 20 guage woman accented by my trusty friends "Smith and Wesson" on hand just in case...and headlining that cast is my good sized pooch. He never misses either. <s>

Posted by AlabamaDreamin (anonymous) on October 24, 2009 at 9:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Self protection is a right, and a responsibility. It's always refreshing to see that most of us take that seriously.

Posted by Bamabunny (anonymous) on October 24, 2009 at 9:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I sure do take it seriously AlabamaDreamin

Before I picked up my pistol after my clearance...I asked at the gun store where I could practice loading....firing....and unloading. At the time my husband and I went to this man's house the next day. He had a small range behind his house. He taught me everything I needed to know.

I did not even want to handle it until I knew everything about it. There was no problem with my shotguns because for a long time I shot trap and skeet....and knew everything about them.

Posted by oldhog (anonymous) on October 24, 2009 at 10:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

England outlawed guns and their murder rate has jumped over 300%. We outlaw guns and the crackheads would have a field day. The reason bad guys pick their victems is due to easy targets. Take away our guns and were all easy targets. Fox get yourself a gun, you seem to be a bright fellow but obviously have never been a victim of violent crime. The bad guys will have their firearms.

Posted by Bamabunny (anonymous) on October 24, 2009 at 11:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Once a victim...always a victim because you never really get over it....that is if you are fortunate enough to have survived a potentially deadly and vicious crime/attack.

After a while you get angry...and that anger needs to be focused on the fact that you will never allow that to happen again and will use whatever it will take to remain a suvivor within the eyes of the law.

Posted by FoX (anonymous) on October 25, 2009 at 12:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Once something is banned the cost to illegal purchase contraband increases dramatically. Sure, there are going to be lots of guns out there in the beginning, however, for each day guns are banned, there will be fewer and fewer available in the general public. Also, if people can't get ammunition for firearms, then the guns themselves aren't going to do much damage.

Oldhog, would you mind citing the sources of your information. I have been looking at the crime sites on http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk ( the United Kingdom's official government crime site) and http://www.fbi.gov (US FBI site) as well as http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov (US Department of Justice).

Here is what I have found:

UK: There were 648 incidents of homicide (murder, manslaughter, infanticide) in 2008/09, (the
lowest recorded level in the last 20 years).

US: There were 14,180 incidents of homicide in the US in 2008

UK: There were 8,184 firearm offenses recorded in 2008/09 in England and Wales, a 17% decrease on 2007/08, and a decrease of 26% from 2005/2006. Of those 8,184 offenses, 38 resulted in fatalities while 320 involved serious injuries.

US: There were just under 385,178 crimes involving firearms in the US in 2007 (I was unable to find this total for 2008, however for perspective the number of crimes involving firearms was first recorded in 1973 at 361,141 and decreased to 301,590 in 1977. Then the number increased to 581,697 in 1993. It then fluctuates with a low of 338,535 in 1999, before increasing to 385,178 in 2007.)

UK: There were 38 fatal injuries from crimes with firearms in England and Wales in 2008/2009 a decline from 53 fatalities in 2007/2008.

US: There were 9,484 fatal injuries from crimes with firearms in the US in 2008.

UK: 5.9% of homicides were committed in England and Wales were with a firearm.

US: 66.9% of homicides were committed in the US were with a firearm.

UK: In England and Wales, 1% percent of violent crimes involved a firearm in 2008/2009.

US: In 2008, 66.9% of homicides, 43% of robberies, 22.4% of aggravated assaults, where committed with a firearm. (They did not have data for forcible rapes involving a firearm.)

Note: Violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

UK: Violent crime and property crime in the UK is at its lowest level in over 20 years.

For population comparisons the US has ~ 304,059,724 people and England and Wales has ~63,943,912 people. Or about 21% of the population of the US.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pd...
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09/...
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses...
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/d_gu...

Posted by FoX (anonymous) on October 25, 2009 at 1:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Bamabunny, so if you are victimized, your going to carry around a firearm for the rest of your life? In my opinion it seems like you endanger yourself and others more by carrying a weapon than if you didn't carry one at all. Personally, I'd be a lot more weary and scared going out in public if I knew a large percentage of people carried a firearm, even if it was for their own protection. When people have guns on them they are just more likely to use them. I'd rather be the victim of a robbery than be shot by some stray bullet that came from a member of a gun-happy public trying to stop a robber.

Then think of all the places you are not allowed to carry firearms in the first place and if you were attacked do you really think you're going to be composed enough to get your gun to protect yourself? Are you really going to risk reaching for a firearm when an attacker has a gun pointed at your face? The reasoning behind carrying a firearm for protection is irrational and the thought that a firearm offers you any significant degree of protection is crazy.

Looking at victimization rates I have about a 1/40000 chance of being the victim of a homicide in the next year. Not really a big enough threat to warrant carrying a gun around. Statistically speaking, my chances of dying from accidental drowning, accidental poisoning, or falling are greater than the chance I have of being murdered next year.

Maybe I should be more worried about falling when I'm walking up stairs and less worried about making sure I have a gun with me when I'm walking up the stairs.

Posted by Bamabunny (anonymous) on October 25, 2009 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

FoX....

First of all I never said that I "carry a firearm around with me"....YOU did. You obviously know nothing about me and never will.

Your analogies at times are so far out and without merit. You base facts on the personal scenarios of others that you know absolutely nothing about but pretend you do trying to make yourself look smarter than you actually are.

Your info is not exclusively yours.....because most of what you post has been "googled"...and when you rant on and on it just shows your ignorance about people and life in general...because you are incapable of voicing anything worthy of discussion and lack any respect at all towards another's opinion.

Not long ago you called the hard working people of Troy "simpletons". That says a lot about your arrogant and self centered character.

Another example of your self-centeredness:

Posted by FoX (anonymous) on October 14, 2009 at 10:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So, furthering your analogy inaword, if there were no computers then their wouldn't be any stupid comments on this forum. Problem solved.

Posted by inaword (anonymous) on October 15, 2009 at 12:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

FOX You finally get it! Congratulations.

So in keeping with my own mindset....until you show a bit more respect for others when you post....I really don't care what you say about me that suits your little fancy.

Posted by elvis2 (anonymous) on October 25, 2009 at 10:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you Bamabunny for saying what most of us think . I ignore his so called comments but to get to the point sometimes you have to refer to his . Regardless , if someone should ever decide to do him harm they would not necessarily have to use a gun . A baseball bat would also do the job .

Posted by Bamabunny (anonymous) on October 25, 2009 at 10:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

LOL Amen Elvis and thank you!

Posted by WDM (anonymous) on October 25, 2009 at 1:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bama,I second what elvis2 said,I seldom read what FoX,VOR,troll,blue-sky post but I have read enough to know what kind of person he is.He thinks he is smarter than anyone else but shows his stupidity by his comments.He also claims not to be these other people but all you have to do is read a few of his comments and Ray Charles could see it's the same person.I pray there isn't more than one person like him.

Posted by Bamabunny (anonymous) on October 25, 2009 at 2:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you WDM.

Maybe someday he will not just grow up....but maybe even "mature".

Posted by FoX (anonymous) on October 25, 2009 at 8:05 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by Bamabunny (anonymous) on October 25, 2009 at 8:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

FoX

You "don't get it" and you never will.

Posted by FoX (anonymous) on October 25, 2009 at 9:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh, and by the way, the comment you posted by me from October 14, 2009 at 10:24 p.m. was from the article "Kelley faces trial for murder" in which Kelley shot and killed a guy named Joey Spikner.

I hope you noticed the irony in comment when you posted it.

Posted by Bamabunny (anonymous) on October 25, 2009 at 9:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The "irony" FoX....is simply that you still "don't get it" and you never will....and I still don't care what you say about me.

Posted by oldhog (anonymous) on October 26, 2009 at 12:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Fox has any one ever told u to "man-up", and after being asked to man up , did this word "man-up: make you feel uncomftable, exposed,paranoid or maybe like hiding in a closet. You get what i want to know with out asking you outright.

Posted by FoX (anonymous) on October 26, 2009 at 4:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You mind telling me what "it" is? Is "it" knowing that you are a old lady with a flawed ideology whose only outlet in life is the Troy Messenger, because in that case, I got it. It seems like you have more posts on the Messenger than anyone else. Seriously, over 1800 posts, I'd guess that was three times a much as anyone else. I don't recall seeing anyone else over 500.

Maybe "it" is the belief that the culture and government of America should remain unchanged, which seems to be your mindset. In that case, no, I "don't get it." America should exist in constant change because the world is constantly changing. If you think things used to be so much better, then you simply just have a bad memory.

Or maybe "it" is knowing that if you come on the Troy Messenger and post information that seems outrageous in an article I am commenting on, then I am going to research it and if what I find contradicts your info, then I am going to correct you on it. In that case I think you don't get it, but you should have figured that out by now.

Someone can't just come in here and post outrageous claims such as, "England outlawed guns and their murder rate has jumped over 300%" without me checking the accuracy of it. First off, you saw my above post, and to add to that, England had several acts over the last 100 years that gradually implemented stricter gun laws, so the above comment is vague in that aspect which often means it is wrong in the first place.

It is nothing personal against the person who made the claim, but a lot of people take information at face value. People shouldn't be basing opinions on inaccurate info. For instance, when the first $85B bailout was issued to AIG, there was an email that was circulated saying how if the bailout was split among American's it would be enough to give every individual over the age of 18 years old $425,000. I heard several people mention this and had half a dozen emails from friends who forwarded this to me who believed the email was true. All it took was a quick math check shows that is would be $425/individual not $425,000, but many people who received this email didn't even bother to check. So when bad info gets spread, whether accidentally or intentionally to build up support or opposition for a certain cause then it can do nothing but cause problems, because it is then the public's opinions are based on lies.

But I realize you've given up on the article because I've pretty much torn you a new one. Your "don't get it" comment has become your white flag. Maybe that's "it".

Posted by BeachGirl (anonymous) on October 26, 2009 at 8:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

BamaBunny Im a 38 special kind of girl myself...lol...

and banning of guns wouldnt help ANYTHING..the bad folks would still illegaly acquire them. same as they are doing now...they need to worry about the UNlicensed people carrying guns instead of those of us who are..i have one next ot my bed and you bet anything if someone threatens me il have NO issues pulling the trigger...Ill take my chances b/x at least with a gun i have more of a chance than simply sitting there and letting them shoot me...and its proven that having a gun USUALLY makes the thiefs or whatnot run themselves...most of them are cowards anyway...

Posted by Bamabunny (anonymous) on October 26, 2009 at 9:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I hear you BeachGirl...

I pretty much feel the same way.

I was told a long time ago by a homicide detective that criminals are more afraid of being bitten by a dog than being shot.

So I guess you might say I have 2 angles covered lol

But yes....I feel too that most criminals are cowards plus the fact that most feel that women are easy marks. They don't think that now a days most women are indeed in control of their own environment and they need to think twice before doing women harm.

Posted by Bamabunny (anonymous) on October 26, 2009 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ditto oldhog <s>

He never will "get it"....and I still don't care what he says.

Posted by Bamabunny (anonymous) on October 26, 2009 at 9:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

PS oldhog.....

I did get a good Monday morning laugh out of him this morning too. <s>