Woman Killed By Boyfriend’s Celebratory New Year’s Gunshot
[su_right_ad]A Sacramento, CA man is in jail after firing a celebratory New Year’s gunshot that killed his girlfriend.
Stephen Lucas, 24 was arrested after they say he fired a gun during a midnight New Year’s celebration that somehow hit his girlfriend. She died 20 hours into the new year.
He now faces a charge of involuntary manslaughter, among other felony charges…
Neighbors were left in shock over what happened early Thursday morning.
“We’re absolutely brokenhearted over it, and we believe it was a tragic accident,” said Wayne Daniels. “She’s just a young girl, 23 years old, and he’s 24.”
The couple has a toddler together that neighbors say was at home when the gunshot went off.[su_csky_ad]
D.B. Hirsch is a political activist, news junkie, and retired ad copy writer and spin doctor. He lives in Brooklyn, New York.
William January 2nd, 2015 at 9:12 am
Another member of the well regulated militia.
illinoisboy1977 January 2nd, 2015 at 3:04 pm
No. Another moron who shouldn’t have a gun. Most gun owners are responsible in their handling and storage of their weapons. The retards do tend to weed themselves out.
whatthe46 January 2nd, 2015 at 3:45 pm
in the mean time, innocent lives will be taken. (good analogy… s/)
illinoisboy1977 January 2nd, 2015 at 3:53 pm
Innocent people get killed all the time. Many of them, not by firearm. Bad things happen to good people and you can’t always prevent it. The law is designed to punish, not prevent. It’s the way our Constitution was written and why we have due process. Preemptive bans punish those who have done no wrong. I’m willing to put my life at greater risk, in order to safeguard the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of all Americans. It’s the price we pay for living in a free society.
William January 3rd, 2015 at 8:30 am
Congratulations. Your response to senseless killings is to post bumper stickers.
illinoisboy1977 January 3rd, 2015 at 1:49 pm
So, your solution is to disregard the Constitution and strip away everyone’s liberty? Good luck with that…
William January 3rd, 2015 at 2:50 pm
….and….ANOTHER bumper sticker.
illinoisboy1977 January 5th, 2015 at 11:31 am
And, the Constitution is a bumper sticker slogan, how? The rulings are in and firearm ownership is a right, protected by the U.S. Constitution. I think I’m seeing some sour grapes, here.
William January 5th, 2015 at 1:18 pm
Sour grapes?
Um no.
I’m a gun collector/owner, however.
Addressing the wholesale slaughter of our population especially children by simply shrugging your shoulders and regurgitating some lame NRA rhetoric is the cowards way out.
BTW, the Constitution doesn’t guarantee anyone gun ownership.
illinoisboy1977 January 5th, 2015 at 2:39 pm
You’re right, it doesn’t guarantee ownership. It gurantees the right to keep and bear. You don’t have to be the owner. But, if barring law-abiding people from owning firearms amounts to infringement on the aforementioned right, then the right to keep and bear supports an argument in favor of the right of ownership. Simple logic.
There is no “wholesale slaughter” of our population. We have a problem with violent crime, in some areas, but it’s not “wholesale slaughter”. That’s a misnomer, born of overemotionalism. Pure rhetoric, designed to elicit such a response.
ISIS is engaging in the wholesale slaughter of a population.
William January 5th, 2015 at 2:58 pm
Try reading something once in a while, Ignorance isn’t patriotism
illinoisboy1977 January 5th, 2015 at 3:13 pm
Even so, that’s not “wholesale slaughter”. Get rid of guns, you’ll have stabbing, beatings and vehicular homicides, and people will still die. A determined murderer is going to succeed. That’s why it’s importent to lock up people for a long, long time when they commit a violent crime. No parole, no credit for good behavior. Just 3 hots and a cot, for a large portion of their lives. I have no problem with locking up a violent criminal and letting him rot.
Punish the criminal, not the law-abiding, tax-paying citizen.
William January 5th, 2015 at 7:03 pm
At this time, it is now statistically more likely to be shot if you’re a toddler than a police officer.
Nice to see that you accept that as “collateral” damage for your insecurities.
.
illinoisboy1977 January 5th, 2015 at 8:14 pm
I don’t have any “insecurities”. Regardless, law-abiding people who properly keep and store their firearms aren’t the cause of innocent people being shot.
I don’t accept any innocent death as being acceptable. I just don’t believe you can use such an argument to strip away peoples’ Constitutional rights, because I disagree with your opinion of the root cause.
William January 5th, 2015 at 9:50 pm
“I don’t accept any innocent death as being acceptable”
Yes you do ..you wrote that you did.
‘Innocent people get killed all the time. Many of them, not by firearm. Bad things happen to good people and you can’t always prevent it”
sad that you accept it.
‘
illinoisboy1977 January 8th, 2015 at 6:49 pm
There’s a difference between accepting that you can’t do anything to prevent an atrocity, and finding the commission of the atrocity acceptable.
William January 3rd, 2015 at 8:28 am
You DO understand that the woman who was shot to death by her 2 year old wasn’t retarded right? You DO know she was actually a nuclear scientist….right?
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2025348711_apxwalmartshootingidaho.html
Throwing around the word “retard” really doesn’t solve the problem does it.?
illinoisboy1977 January 3rd, 2015 at 1:47 pm
She wasn’t exactly brilliant, if she left her firearm in a firable position, in close proximity to a 2-year-old. They make holsters that will mount in handbags. The holsters fasten tightly and won’t allow access to the trigger. She could have also made sure her carry weapon had a safety and that it was activated. When you own, store or handle a firearm, “restraint” and “safety” should be your first and highest priority considerations.
Book-smart doesn’t automatically equal intelligence. You can have all the education in the world and still lack common sense.
William January 3rd, 2015 at 2:49 pm
Mental retardation has nothing to do with it. It’s a medical condition. You should probably try to learn the difference between medical conditions and negligence.
Can I try?
The asthmatic’s do tend to weed themselves out.
Anomaly 100 January 2nd, 2015 at 9:16 am
What an arsehole.
KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker January 2nd, 2015 at 10:59 am
Consider the phrase……”after firing a celebratory New Year’s gunshot” shall we.
Another needless death by a doofuss gun humper.
rg9rts January 2nd, 2015 at 11:09 am
Look at those eyes…..I can see I-80 …anyway He qualifies for the NEW NRA shooter of the month award with special consideration given to the circumstances for this entry..
Carla Akins January 2nd, 2015 at 12:13 pm
A young woman is dead, a toddler is an orphan (essentially) and this douchecanoe will be spending many years in prison setting himself up for a lifetime of failure. I am so glad he was able to exercise his 2nd amendment rights.
illinoisboy1977 January 2nd, 2015 at 3:02 pm
Actually, there’s no 2nd Amendment right to irresponsibly fire a gun into the air. He violated the law and he’s paying the price for it. That’s how our laws are supposed to work. While it’s tragic that his wife is dead and his son will grow up without a mother, bad things happen to good people all the time. It’s not the fault of our Constitution or the law. It’s the fault of those who act criminally or irresponsibly. That is where the causes of such things begin and end.
whatthe46 January 2nd, 2015 at 3:43 pm
a police officer was in mcdonalds with his son, gun in pocket, son takes gun from cops pocket, pulls trigger, shoots father/cop in leg. wasn’t he not only a “responsible” gun owner, but he was in fact “supposed” to be a trained responsible gun owner?
illinoisboy1977 January 2nd, 2015 at 3:50 pm
If he had a gun sitting loose, in his pocket, he was neither a smart or a responsible gun owner. A gun should be securely holstered, when it’s not in your hand or in a case. The cop was a moron.
Carla Akins January 2nd, 2015 at 4:52 pm
Because our unchecked needs to own a firearm, with no proof of proficiency, proof of ability to secure or education requirement is more important than these people’s lives.
Blogvader January 2nd, 2015 at 4:54 pm
Carla, as someone with a hunting license, I’m glad we in Missouri at least require people to take a mandatory safety course before they hunt. It’s a damn shame we don’t require it for all gun purchasers.
Carla Akins January 2nd, 2015 at 5:24 pm
I agree, I just don’t find it onerous to require a basic education course and proficiency test.
illinoisboy1977 January 2nd, 2015 at 6:53 pm
If Congress can pass a requirement and it passes Constitutional muster, I’m all for it. But, it has to protect the rights of all applicants and provide several avenues of appeal, to avoid biased grading from instructors (due process).
Until something like that is made law, I value the current rights and privileges guaranteed under the Constitution, over the potential increase in my personal safety. I wholeheartedly support all aspects of the United States Constitution. Even the ones with which I may not particularly agree (the taxing of personal income). It’s the supreme law of the land, after all.
edmeyer_able January 2nd, 2015 at 12:41 pm
Ladies if your SO drinks and pulls out his gun get the F’ out of the house and don’t look back EVER. That’s my PSA for 2015.
whatthe46 January 2nd, 2015 at 3:41 pm
if i have an SO that pulls out a gun, drunk or not, i’m out.
illinoisboy1977 January 2nd, 2015 at 2:59 pm
This has nothing to do with anyone but the irresponsible gun owner. He deserves to spend many years in prison and never be allowed to own a gun, again. Those who believe that this makes some sort of case for prohibiting responsible citizens from owning a gun, are being unreasonable in their expectations.
It’s no different than demanding that a man’s neighbors all have their driver’s licenses suspended, because HE got a DUI. The logic is the same.
Bunya January 2nd, 2015 at 3:20 pm
Are we being unreasonable to request that we be protected from gun nuts who perceive themselves as responsible gun owner? Sure, he may be responsible until he/she accidentally kills someone, and then it’s too late. Dead is forever. This is a sick society with too many people having access to deadly weapons, all because their precious second amendment rights must be protected. Who was protecting this girl from her gun-happy boyfriend? How many children were killed by their 6-year-old playmate who happened to find his/her responsible parent’s gun? And you’re right. Guns don’t kill people, people with guns kill people, with the end result being death.
illinoisboy1977 January 2nd, 2015 at 3:29 pm
Yes, but in a nation of due process, you can’t take rights away until a criminal act has been committed. That’s in our Constitution. Those who want to legislate, out of fear of what “may” happen, shouldn’t be calling the shots. They’re being irrational and more than a little tyrannical.
whatthe46 January 2nd, 2015 at 3:40 pm
“…out of fear of what ‘may’ happen…” is exactly why a mother was killed in walmart by her 2 y/o. what in the hell did she think would happen at 10 in the morning while shopping? apparently the only true fear she should have had, was being killed by her child for being irresponsible. and not every citizen has the right to own a gun. if that’s the case then anyone like lanza should be given the same right. you’re the one irrational.
illinoisboy1977 January 2nd, 2015 at 3:46 pm
My point, oh paranoid and unreasonable one, is that a person must be adjudicated unfit, before his rights are restricted. Felonies, mental deficiency, history of violence, etc. No right is absolute, but those who haven’t given cause to have them curtailed, have absolute rights.
Crime must come, before restriction of rights. If I didn’t do anything illegal, I’ll be damned if I let someone tell me I can’t have or do something.
edmeyer_able January 2nd, 2015 at 3:49 pm
So do you work to have the gun show loop hole closed and universal back round checks for every purchase?
The cop killer in NY never should have been allowed to purchase that gun in Ga. but he did. because Ga sucks.
illinoisboy1977 January 2nd, 2015 at 3:56 pm
Of course, background checks should be conducted. That’s where you’ll stop the wrong sort (felons, mentally deficient, violent offenders) from purchasing firearms.
Bunya January 2nd, 2015 at 4:07 pm
“… I’ll be damned if I let someone tell me I can’t have or do something.”
And I’m sure you won’t encounter any resistance once you pull out your fully loaded revolver, ready to use it on anybody who says, or may possibly think, otherwise.
illinoisboy1977 January 2nd, 2015 at 4:26 pm
I wouldn’t pull out anything. I’d simply tell them to mind their own business and continue with my day. The Constitution already says they can’t arbitrarily take my guns. I’ll pack them in grease, wrap them in leather and bury them in the woods, before I hand them over to anyone who seeks to take them from me. I’ll also let them know I have weapons that I’ve hidden “off-site” and there’s not a damn thing they can do, to make me tell them where they are. 🙂
Bunya January 2nd, 2015 at 5:01 pm
If that is true, then I applaud you sir. However, there are many, many gun owners out there who think that, because they’re packing heat, they own the lives of those around them. And this country has no shortage of irresponsible gun owners who purchased their firearm under the guise of responsible gun owner.
whatthe46 January 2nd, 2015 at 6:42 pm
i’m not the paranoid nor unreasonable one. you are. i’m not bitchin’ about not being able to go out to dinner with my family while strapped. that’s because i’m not paranoid about some invisible bad guy.
illinoisboy1977 January 2nd, 2015 at 6:57 pm
Bad guys aren’t invisible and you are partially correct. There USUALLY isn’t anything to worry about. But, to use a rather tired axiom, I’d rather have a firearm and not need it, than need a firearm and not have it.
I don’t go to Vegas and the only odds I like to play are the ones that favor me.
whatthe46 January 2nd, 2015 at 8:55 pm
how many shootings by a “bad guy” have you read recently in the Olive Garden? so a good girl with a gun, son takes it out of her purse and kills her, it could have been another mother or child instead. just trying to purchase a few items in the local walmart. having it on her was unnecessary now wasn’t it? because it sure as hell didn’t do her any good.
illinoisboy1977 January 3rd, 2015 at 1:55 pm
We don’t get to decide whether someone legally carrying a firearm is “necessary”, or not. We don’t have that right. The mother was negligent in her storage of her firearm, as evidenced by a 2-year-old gaining access to it. As for not reading about bad guys shooting up an Olive Garden, no I haven’t. However, I’d never heard of someone shooting up a school, or an office building, or a military base, until it happened. There’s a first time for everything and fortune favors the prepared.
It’s not paranoia and it’s nothing to do with “fear”. It’s all about being prepared.
whatthe46 January 3rd, 2015 at 2:13 pm
we may not get to decide if its reasonable or not, but a reasonable person should not be in fear of nothing by carrying it into a grocery store. are they expecting a shot out? hardly. as for the schools, are you suggesting teachers carry? i don’t want them carrying in schools. i don’t know what their state of mind is. who’s to say they won’t go postal? and its crazy ass bastards that are shooting up the schools and not with a 22.
illinoisboy1977 January 3rd, 2015 at 2:41 pm
Obviously, you didn’t understand me. So, let me speak more clearly. It’s not about fear. I’m not afraid that someone will start shooting. I’m prepared, on the very slim chance that they do. It’s NOT fear. It’s preparation. As I said, before: there’s a first time for everything. I can’t guarantee that it WILL happen and I hope it never does. But, you can’t guarantee that it WON’T happen, either.
As far as teachers in schools go, I don’t think teachers should be armed. But, I think schools should have armed security, whose ONLY function is to respond to any mortal danger to the children. These officers would not take part in disciplining students or enforcing school rules, apart from weapons and drug seizures.
cogitoergodavesum January 3rd, 2015 at 7:49 am
Wrong. It’s like demanding that your neighbors all pass a driver’s test before driving around the neighborhood.
Ldrider Nca January 3rd, 2015 at 6:27 pm
Uh, would that be a drivers’ test in English?
Might not work well out here in the land of legal licenses for illegal trespassers.
Rendimiento anyone?
cogitoergodavesum January 4th, 2015 at 10:32 am
A test to prove they are competent to drive a car safely through my neighborhood.
Roy Blankenship January 5th, 2015 at 5:27 am
Oh, STFU. Same old tired argument. I don’t CARE what you think your rights are, this crap is happening EVERY DAY. We have a problem in the USA, maybe you could propose a solution instead of blabbing the same old platitudes about YOUR phucking rights.
illinoisboy1977 January 5th, 2015 at 11:17 am
There IS no solution. You can’t save everyone from everything. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that’s reality and taking away peoples’ rights won’t change that.
Roy Blankenship January 5th, 2015 at 2:45 pm
Australia, Great Britain and Japan seemed top have solved their gun problems, maybe you could open up your scope of the planet a little.
illinoisboy1977 January 5th, 2015 at 2:56 pm
Great Britain and Japan have just as much murder and violent crime, as ever before. The criminals just use different means to do it. You’re not going to stop someone, determined to injure/murder someone else. Yes, gun crime would go down, but I bet VIOLENT crime and murder wouldn’t. So, in the grand scheme of things, nothing changes except the means of said violence.
By the way, I’m not sure what the numbers are for Australia, so I can’t comment on them.
burqa January 2nd, 2015 at 7:14 pm
Given my history of accidental discharges, I shall recuse myself on this one….
Kobukvolbane January 2nd, 2015 at 11:54 pm
A party. A toddler. Let’s get the gun out!