"Blade Runner" Pistorius charged with murdering girlfriend

Comments (25)

Oh how the might have fallen… Of course he knew what he was shooting at.

Feb 14, 2013 2:22am EST  --  Report as abuse
sjfella wrote:

Good Lord, here come the guns nuts again. (on both sides)

Feb 14, 2013 8:57am EST  --  Report as abuse
brd893 wrote:

Innocent until proven guilty. I am sure that he will have his day in court.However, I know that there is more to this than meets the eye. Jealousy , perhaps? think that there is some there there and will find out that anger had a huge play in this.
Lock him up and throw away the key.

Feb 14, 2013 9:04am EST  --  Report as abuse
trex2561 wrote:

Come now! Accidently shot his girl friend 4 times when he believed it was an intruder. Not only is he a great runner, he is also a great shot and a liar.

Feb 14, 2013 10:13am EST  --  Report as abuse
ConradU812 wrote:

Hmmm…it seems that Reuters has had to reach out to obscure places, people, and events to propagate their anti-gun rhetoric.

Next headline: Islamic Jihadist accidently shoots his grandmother, mistaking her for an infidel. Tighter gun control in the Middle East could be the answer.

Feb 14, 2013 10:37am EST  --  Report as abuse
elocutionist wrote:

I speculate that she said/did something that hit him critically where he was vulnerable– for example, they got together and argued, she screamed “You can win gold, but can’t even satisfy me in bed– without those blades, you’re nothing but a worthless cripple! I have a pot-bellied lover who couldn’t win an old ladies’ walker dash, but at least he’s got legs: two more than you’ve got! Now that I’ve got your money, I’m leaving you…” Then he got insanely mad, tried to shoot her ear off to make her a cripple, missed the ear twice.

Feb 14, 2013 10:43am EST  --  Report as abuse
ChangeWhat wrote:

@Grant_X

LOL, can i have some of what your smoking please?

Feb 14, 2013 10:49am EST  --  Report as abuse
americanguy wrote:

I guess Pistorius was Pistoffius about something.

The new stricter gun control laws in South Africa were a massive failure long before this incident. Gun control has nothing to do with the death of the girl.
But once again we have proof that gun control fails.

(The South African Institute of Race Relations)
“In 2004 the South African Government implemented new gun control legislation in the Firearms Control Act.”
“Had the law been made to be fair, and just, and reasonable to comply with it might have won the backing of the shooting community in South Africa. However it was from the outset accompanied by threats of prison sentences and the like, creating the impression that every legal hunter and sports shooter in the country was just a step away from being a dangerous felon”
“This sentiment is spurious. Not all armed societies demonstrate high levels of violent crime. In some cases quite the opposite has been true. In South Africa’s case the police did not even keep complete records about what kinds of guns and their origins were used in what kinds of crimes. We have never known, for example, to what extent firearms owned by the police and the military are used in house robberies compared to weapons illegally imported from Mozambique – let alone legally owned hunting rifles”

Feb 14, 2013 10:55am EST  --  Report as abuse
Crash866 wrote:

Grant_X
Hey Grant_X there is a second amendment so you story/arguement is baseless. And oh monkeys might fly out of my butt but I highly doubt it. But go ahead an feel free to make arguements baesd on “if and buts were candy and nuts” but it makes you look silly. Maybe if he had legs they would have never been together and this would have never happenned…but that’s not case or reality.It’s not the gun but the person who chooses to use it but liberals who hate guns will never understand that.

“If you are in a relationship that you fight a lot in, you have no business owning a gun. If you are a hot-tempered individual, you have no business owning a gun.” Not that is just silly.

Feb 14, 2013 12:42pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Grant_X wrote:

Yes crash866. Not that is just silly. Or maybe you meant “now?” Please work on your own writing before you try and pick on others for expressing their thoughts.

It is pretty sad that people cannot think outside of their little box framed for them by men with funny hair nearly 226 years ago. A lot of things have changed since 1787. No more slaves (changed the constitution) women can vote (changed the constitution) and we can’t drink (changed the constitution)…oh wait, yes we can (changed the constitution again).

The 2nd amendment has no place in our society anymore, nor do the people that vehemently promote the value of having over 300 million guns in our country. That stockpile in regular citizens and corporations hands…who I do not trust as much as the citizens I elected to office…is dangerous and has been a complete disaster. We have the highest death rate from gun violence than any modernized country not at war in the world. 30-40 thousand a year. Dead because the NRA and gun proponents can’t fathom a world without bang bang sticks they can use to make holes in soda cans in their backyard.

Get out of your little box and think for yourself for once!

Feb 14, 2013 1:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Grant_X wrote:

Yes crash866. Not that is just silly. Or maybe you meant “now?” Please work on your own writing before you try and pick on others for expressing their thoughts.

It is pretty sad that people cannot think outside of their little box framed for them by men with funny hair nearly 226 years ago. A lot of things have changed since 1787. No more slaves (changed the constitution) women can vote (changed the constitution) and we can’t drink (changed the constitution)…oh wait, yes we can (changed the constitution again).

The 2nd amendment has no place in our society anymore, nor do the people that vehemently promote the value of having over 300 million guns in our country. That stockpile in regular citizens and corporations hands…who I do not trust as much as the citizens I elected to office…is dangerous and has been a complete disaster. We have the highest death rate from gun violence than any modernized country not at war in the world. 30-40 thousand a year. Dead because the NRA and gun proponents can’t fathom a world without bang bang sticks they can use to make holes in soda cans in their backyard.

Get out of your little box and think for yourself for once!

Feb 14, 2013 1:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Crash866 wrote:

Grant_X
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Those guys you speak of with funny hair…you are right, what were they thinking?? What a complete joke their ideas were and are. Those freedoms and laws they gave us, who needs them?

Good luck getting the 2nd amendment repealed…like I said Monkeys might fly out of my butt. If you don’t like the US with a 2nd amendment and think so little of the men with funny hair that started it go ahead and leave. I am sure you can find a country more suitable to your views to live in other than the one you live in now. Why live here when you are so quick to point out the many flaws you see here in the US?

Feb 14, 2013 3:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Crash866 wrote:

“Dead because the NRA and gun proponents can’t fathom a world without bang bang sticks they can use to make holes in soda cans in their backyard.”

Dead because the person holding the gun made a choice. Life is all about choices and owning the ones we make.

Feb 14, 2013 3:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Grant_X wrote:

Guns for the entire nation is not essential liberty. Ben Franklin would view you and the other gun proponents in the country as being insane. So would Mr Washington, one of the biggest proponents of the 2nd Amendment. These guys would be sick to their stomachs if they knew how people like you have used their words to justify the amount of gun violence we have in this country. Again, we have the most gun violence than any modern nation not at war in the world. It is crazy to think this is OK. It is crazy to think you are safer if you have a death tube on your hip. It didn’t work in the wild west days and it won’t work now. It will never work. Countries that have limited access to guns for reasonable hunting purposes have drastically reduced their gun violence rates. But we have people like you, proponents of the 2nd Amendment that can’t see how having a well regulated militia is a moot point in this age of smart drones, missiles and atom bombs.

Keep this in mind. The 2nd Amendment would be repealed in a second by the guys with funny hair if they knew how people in this country took advantage of this Amendment for their own financial gain. These guys made mistakes. They allowed slavery. They prohibited women and non-property owners from voting. They were human and fallible and they knew this well. That is why they left an editable document to us to guide the formation and reformation of our nation over time.

I do think you are right that the person who pulls the trigger is the killer…not the gun. But I would rather that killer have to resort to some other method besides using a gun. The gun is too easy an instrument to bring death upon someone else or yourself. This is why all of the experts say that the positive correlation between gun ownership and gun violence is significant enough to warrant a reduction in the amount of guns in order to decrease gun violence.

The alternatives are doing nothing (not an option) or using thought police (psychologists, therapists, teachers, social workers, etc.) to catch killers before they kill by arresting people for having negative thoughts like in 1984. I say get rid of the guns and let people think and be free as they should be. Because, as you quoted, those that give up essential liberties (like thinking about what you want to think about) to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Feb 14, 2013 4:16pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Crash866 wrote:

Grant_X
So take away all the guns? Do you think that is realistic? Next time someone breaks in to your house or threatens you or your family call the military and they can use a smart drone or atom bomb to stop them.

The 2nd amendment is currently an essential liberty. People in the US are already free. Free to think what they want and to own guns legally. How is thinking about what I want to think about giving up essential liberties?

More than 3 paragraphs is a little excessive. It’s a comment section not a place to write thesis.

Feb 14, 2013 4:56pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Crash866 wrote:

Guns for the entire nation is not essential liberty. No it is grant to citizens in the constitution.

Feb 14, 2013 4:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

Death..via the comments..was whemsical today. A beautiful lady died and an Olympic champion was charged.

Feb 14, 2013 5:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Stu_ell wrote:

The proliferation of firearms creates an environment of elevated risk. In much the same way as DUI. A loaded weapon poses a risk to everybody near by.

If home owners have guns then burglars need guns. If petty criminals have guns, everybody needs a gun. It’s an arms race. But if nobody has a gun, nobody needs a gun.

If everybody has a gun there will be accidents with guns, there with mental breakdowns with guns, there will be domestic incidents with guns.

In the UK nobody has a gun, and nobody needs a gun. That is an amazing achievement and there isn’t another country in the world capable of achieving the same peace of mind perhaps with the exception of Japan.

Feb 14, 2013 5:31pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Grant_X wrote:

Crash866, I live in Hawaii, where hardly anyone has guns. We have the lowest gun violence rate in the nation, bar none. And we have the toughest gun laws. In other words, gun laws work to REDUCE gun violence.

In fact, if you look nationwide, the states with the toughest gun laws have the least gun deaths, and the states with the least restrictive gun laws have the most gun deaths. You can Google it or if you are just too lazy post a response to me and I’ll find it for you myself. It is worth spending the time helping people like you understand how more guns in our nation equals more gun deaths.

I never said take away all guns. That is not realistic. I said reduce the amount of guns so that we can reduce the amount of deaths. That is realistic. I would hate to think that just because you cannot prevent all gun violence you should do nothing. With gun laws we can prevent some of it, and we should.

I am not sure why you commented the length of my post. Either it bugged you it was too long because you are lazy or you are just trying to end your weak rebuttal with a put-down. Might I point out that neither is helping your illogical argument.

And one last point, we do not need guns to guarantee our freedom. If our government wants to take it away, they will take it away. They have the bomb, tanks, missiles, and fighter jets. Your cache of AR-15′s will do nothing. To think we need guns in this day and age to preserve our freedom is just paranoia.

Feb 14, 2013 6:33pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Crash866 wrote:

Grant-X
One more thing. You did say you wanted to take away the guns when you wrote this in your post “I say get rid of the guns and let people think and be free as they should be”

Feb 14, 2013 8:34pm EST  --  Report as abuse
carolo43 wrote:

It’s been reported that Oscar perhaps thought she was an intruder and shot her on accident. The ONLY ones who have said that was the media themselves. The police claim Oscar did not say that to them so guess we have the media again writing their own storyline rather than writing facts.

After things like this happen, we always hear how someone says “they could not have done this and they were such a great person.” Fact is, we do not know these people at all. No one knows anyone unless you live with them and even then they can surprise you.

Feb 14, 2013 9:48pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bates148 wrote:

@Grant_X You write: “In fact, if you look nationwide, the states with the toughest gun laws have the least gun deaths, and the states with the least restrictive gun laws have the most gun deaths.”

That’s actually not true. California (#1) and New York (#3) have very high rates of gun deaths. Many consider their laws to be the toughest in the country.

Feb 14, 2013 10:20pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Grant_X wrote:

Crash866 and bates148, I am going to present you with some statistics that will illustrate how states with the least restrictive gun laws have the most gun deaths and states with the most restrictive gun laws have the least gun deaths. But before I do, please understand that I post these things with the utmost respect for you and everyone else who posts here. I just disagree with your viewpoint due to the empirical evidence I have. Hopefully you can look at the empirical evidence I am presenting in an objective manner.

States with the Five HIGHEST Per Capita Gun Death Rates

Louisiana–Rank: 1; Household Gun Ownership: 45.6 percent; Gun Death Rate: 19.04 per 100,000.
Alaska–Rank: 2; Household Gun Ownership: 60.6 percent; Gun Death Rate: 17.49 per 100,000.
Montana–Rank: 3; Household Gun Ownership: 61.4 percent; Gun Death Rate: 17.22 per 100,000.
Tennessee–Rank: 4; Household Gun Ownership: 46.4 percent; Gun Death Rate: 16.39 per 100,000.
Alabama–Rank: 5; Household Gun Ownership: 57.2 percent; Gun Death Rate: 16.18 per 100,000.

States with the Five LOWEST Per Capita Gun Death Rates

Hawaii–Rank: 50; Household Gun Ownership: 9.7 percent; Gun Death Rate: 2.20 per 100,000.
Massachusetts–Rank: 49; Household Gun Ownership: 12.8 percent; Gun Death Rate: 3.48 per 100,000.
Rhode Island–Rank: 48; Household Gun Ownership: 13.3 percent; Gun Death Rate: 3.63 per 100,000.
New Jersey–Rank: 47; Household Gun Ownership: 11.3 percent; Gun Death Rate: 4.99 per 100,000.
New York–Rank: 46; Household Gun Ownership: 18.1 percent; Gun Death Rate: 5.28 per 100,000.
(http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pro-gun-states-lead-the-nation-in-per-capita-firearm-death-rates-57514947.html)

There are anomalies like Chicago and some parts of California and New York, but as you can plainly see the states with the most restrictive gun laws have the least gun deaths and the states with the least restrictive gun laws have the most gun deaths.

You can also look at this sortable table that clearly illustrates that states that have less gun deaths have stricter gun laws.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state)

Feb 15, 2013 5:59am EST  --  Report as abuse
Grant_X wrote:

Crash866 and bates148, I am going to present you with some statistics that will illustrate how states with the least restrictive gun laws have the most gun deaths and states with the most restrictive gun laws have the least gun deaths. But before I do, please understand that I post these things with the utmost respect for you and everyone else who posts here. I just disagree with your viewpoint due to the empirical evidence I have. Hopefully you can look at the empirical evidence I am presenting in an objective manner.

States with the Five HIGHEST Per Capita Gun Death Rates

Louisiana–Rank: 1; Household Gun Ownership: 45.6 percent; Gun Death Rate: 19.04 per 100,000.
Alaska–Rank: 2; Household Gun Ownership: 60.6 percent; Gun Death Rate: 17.49 per 100,000.
Montana–Rank: 3; Household Gun Ownership: 61.4 percent; Gun Death Rate: 17.22 per 100,000.
Tennessee–Rank: 4; Household Gun Ownership: 46.4 percent; Gun Death Rate: 16.39 per 100,000.
Alabama–Rank: 5; Household Gun Ownership: 57.2 percent; Gun Death Rate: 16.18 per 100,000.

States with the Five LOWEST Per Capita Gun Death Rates

Hawaii–Rank: 50; Household Gun Ownership: 9.7 percent; Gun Death Rate: 2.20 per 100,000.
Massachusetts–Rank: 49; Household Gun Ownership: 12.8 percent; Gun Death Rate: 3.48 per 100,000.
Rhode Island–Rank: 48; Household Gun Ownership: 13.3 percent; Gun Death Rate: 3.63 per 100,000.
New Jersey–Rank: 47; Household Gun Ownership: 11.3 percent; Gun Death Rate: 4.99 per 100,000.
New York–Rank: 46; Household Gun Ownership: 18.1 percent; Gun Death Rate: 5.28 per 100,000.
(http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pro-gun-states-lead-the-nation-in-per-capita-firearm-death-rates-57514947.html)

There are anomalies like Chicago and some parts of California and New York, but as you can plainly see the states with the most restrictive gun laws have the least gun deaths and the states with the least restrictive gun laws have the most gun deaths.

You can also look at this sortable table that clearly illustrates that states that have less gun deaths have stricter gun laws.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state)

Feb 15, 2013 5:59am EST  --  Report as abuse
Crash866 wrote:

bates148
Thanks for stating reality

Grant_X
Your Empirical evidence presented in an objective manner shows that in highly populated areas such as anomalies like Chicago and some parts of California and New York, the strict gun control laws have not stopped and may have increased crime and gun deaths.

Feb 15, 2013 10:34pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.