54 guns found in home of Pa. murder suspect

[Jokerman]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10087890/

LITITZ, Pa. - Police seized 54 guns from the home of an 18-year-old man charged with killing his 14 year-old girlfriend’s parents and fleeing the state with her, according to court documents filed Thursday.

Warwick Township police removed the collection of rifles, shotguns, handguns and ammunition Sunday from the home where suspect David Ludwig lived with his parents. The search occurred as police were still trying to find him and 14-year-old Kara Beth Borden.

Ludwig was being held without bail on murder and kidnapping charges after being flown back to Pennsylvania on Tuesday from Indiana, where police captured him following a chase.

Police allege Ludwig shot Michael and Cathryn Borden on Sunday at their home in Lititz following an argument over his relationship with Kara. The two had been dating, apparently secretly, according to friends and witnesses.

Ludwig was arrested Monday after crashing his parents’ car into a tree in Belleville, Ind., about 600 miles from the murder scene, during a police chase. Neither Ludwig nor the girl, who has not been charged, was injured in the crash.

Investigators have said they are treating Kara Borden as a victim but that the investigation is continuing.

Ludwig’s parents, Gregory and Jane Ludwig, issued a statement Wednesday expressing their sorrow over the slayings but have not spoken publicly. They have not returned multiple phone messages seeking comment.

It was unclear whether the confiscated weapons belonged to Ludwig or his parents.

David Ludwig apparently was an avid hunter and posted 20 pictures labeled “Hunting 2004” on a Web site that included an image of him posing with freshly killed deer.

Neither of Ludwig’s parents is licensed as a firearms dealer or collector, according to the national licensing center of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Police were not immediately available Thursday to comment on the search. Lancaster County District Attorney Donald Totaro declined to comment, and attorneys for Ludwig did not immediately return telephone calls seeking comment.

The Bordens were each shot once in the head with what authorities said was probably a .40-caliber handgun.

Mike Borden worked for a printing company, and his children were home-schooled, said neighbor Tod Sherman. Sherman said the family knew Ludwig through a home-schooling network.

Kara’s 13-year-old sister, Katelyn, told investigators her parents were shot after they argued with Ludwig for about an hour, according to court papers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So....what were the 54 guns?! And what are they selling for?

Naturally he only had 54 guns. He was just a young man yet. Takes a few years to collect a respectable number of guns.

No doubt most of them were his father's. I seriously doubt an 18 year old was able to come up with enough money to buy 54 guns himself. So why are they seizing his father's guns? Were they all used in the murder? Hmmm, .40 S&W shell casings at the scene, do you think they took 54 .40 S&W caliber guns out of that house?

And what does having 54 guns in the house have to do with him murdering these people? With all those guns, he only used or needed ONE of them to commit the crime.

Neither of Ludwig’s parents is licensed as a firearms dealer or collector...

So?

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Last I checked, you didn't need no stinkin' licence to buy 54 guns.

Of course, the point is to paint the image of gun enthusiasts as murderers waiting to explode. They present the number of guns he had as if it's an "Oh, right, that explains it" kind of thing. Repeated enough, and people will come to associate an enthusiasm for firearms with being a murderer.

I guess he "lived in the same house with all those guns" though. You know that's what made him "go crazy" and kill people!

In fact, there's a negative correlation between number of firearms owned and likelihood of criminal use. Hunters and gun collectors tend to be gainfully employed, or in the case of subsistence hunters, the sort of people who take care of themselves rather than stealing from others.

Criminals just want to get a hold of a weapon to use.


This is pretty typical press coverage after a murder and especially following one that has garnered national headlines. O'Reilly started his discussion on this with the 54 gun thing last night. Moron.

 

[PuffnScruff]

i cant disagree with you. i dont understand what those guns had to do with the kids crime.

anti gun activists are going to have a field day with this story. i shot my first gun when i was bout 5 years old, and out of my fathers collection of riffles and hand guns, 2 belong to me. i've been shooting them off for years and i've never killed anyone. my father told me the rights and wrongs of firearms at a young age.

the only thing i could think of that would give the police the right to take away the fathers guns away is that there might be a law in that state that says if you own over a certain amount of guns you must get a firearms dealer or collector license.

 

[Duke]

There is nothing wrong with guns "an sich". It's just that 90% of the population aren't responsible enough to own them.

And that's something fervent gun supporters (like Jokerman) keep failing to see.

 

[Jokerman]

There is nothing wrong with guns "an sich". It's just that 90% of the population aren't responsible enough to own them.

Good thing I'm in the 10%; too bad you're not.

If you don't believe in owning them, you're not responsible enough to own them.

Nothing wrong with cars as such....

Nothing wrong with Bibles as such....

Nothing wrong with computers as such....

Nothing wrong with kitchen knives as such....

Nothing wrong with FREEDOM as such....

Rights are rights. Self-defense is a human right. When you exercise your rights, you must be held accountable for what you do, though. The right to keep and bear arms does not mean the right to do so without regard to the safety of others, no way, no how.

I have serious doubts about the morals of anyone who says that 90% of the people are too dumb/irresponsible/etc to enjoy basic human rights. That puts them right in the company of Saddam Hussein.

In this country, we assume that citizens are responsible and law abiding, unless they are proven otherwise in a court of law. That's the only thing that matters. Sure, it has inherent risks. But that's the price of freedom.

The solution is clarity about consequences, not the prohibition of actions which are inherently moral.

 

[S O F I]

Does it say what kind of guns they were? I'm pretty sure you need a license, unless it's like a hunting rifle.

 

[Jokerman]

No, u don't need a license to own guns in PA.

 

[Sebastian]

Jokerman, i always enjoy your posts and share a lot of opinions on certain things with you...but concerning this matter, i agree with Duke.

i remember there was a thread about guns in WoW some time ago and the discussion lasted for 15 pages or something but it didnt change my opinion on "guns".

of course you are right when you say:

Self-defense is a human right.

...but why do you have to defend yourself in the first place? because you have to be afraid that someone threatens you with a gun!

your argumentation is more like:

there is a certain risk/danger so you have the right to buy/own a gun, so that you can defend yourself.

my argumentation is more the other way round:

there is a certain (higher) risk/danger because everyone can buy a gun, so it would be better if no one owns a gun.


obviously there are other ways to threaten someone (with a knife or whatever), but that doesnt mean everyone should be allowed to own a gun (even without license) so that you can defend yourself. i feel like it makes the whole situation even worse.

 

[The.Menace]

Jokerman, why is it that in the US by far more people die through guns then it other countries with strict laws on guns?

 

[Duke]

Good thing I'm in the 10%; too bad you're not.

If you don't believe in owning them, you're not responsible enough to own them.

Nothing wrong with cars as such....

Nothing wrong with Bibles as such....

Nothing wrong with computers as such....

Nothing wrong with kitchen knives as such....

Nothing wrong with FREEDOM as such....

Rights are rights. Self-defense is a human right. When you exercise your rights, you must be held accountable for what you do, though. The right to keep and bear arms does not mean the right to do so without regard to the safety of others, no way, no how.

I have serious doubts about the morals of anyone who says that 90% of the people are too dumb/irresponsible/etc to enjoy basic human rights. That puts them right in the company of Saddam Hussein.

In this country, we assume that citizens are responsible and law abiding, unless they are proven otherwise in a court of law. That's the only thing that matters. Sure, it has inherent risks. But that's the price of freedom.

The solution is clarity about consequences, not the prohibition of actions which are inherently moral.

You use cars, computers and bibles for different purposes rather than killing people, though.

In this country, we assume that citizens are responsible and law abiding, unless they are proven otherwise in a court of law.

Yes, after someone got hurt and/or killed. That's the damn problem. YOu give the population guns are you're surprised people get killed!


Gun ownership a basic human right? Please. Protection from guns is a basic human right, not owning them.

I have serious doubts about the morals of anyone who says that 90% of the people are too dumb/irresponsible/etc to enjoy basic human rights. That puts them right in the company of Saddam Hussein.

I haven't said that, have I? Don't twist my words, Jokerman, you know better than that. I said that 90% of the population is too irresponsible to have guns or use drugs for that matter. Same goes for cars, yes, but you use cars for a purpose, don't you. Guns don't serve such a purpose. Frightening people into buying more guns perhaps.


After all is said and done, guns are still weapons with which it is incredibly easy to kill someone. Sure you can kill someone with a kitchen stool, but pulling a trigger is a lot easier than bashing someone's head to a bloody pulp. You can kill someone with anything almost. But firearms serve 1 purpose and 1 purpose only. And that's killing stuff. So what do we suspect happens when we let loose that power on the general population?


You get America.

 

[Jokerman]

there is a certain (higher) risk/danger because everyone can buy a gun, so it would be better if no one owns a gun.

I'm sure criminals are going to go along with that. We're talking about the real world, not a theoretical construct. The criminals will get the guns no matter what. In 1982, a town in Georgia enacted a law that required every household to to own a firearm, exempting those with a criminal record or for religious reasons. Opponents argued the law would result in serious accidents and that angry residents would settle their differences with gunfire. Guess what? Didn't happen. The residential burglary rate in in that town fell immediately -- almost 90 percent in the months directly following the law's enactment. In the ensuing years, the crime rate has remained at basement levels. Not one murder has occurred there. You know why? Because an armed society is a polite society.

Guns are a deterrent to bad guys.

On the other hand, Washington, D.C. used to have a relatively low crime rate. It never used to be the nation's Murder Capital. But that all changed after the city passed its gun ban in 1976. In the following years, the city's murder rate has increased 51 percent, even while the national rate has decreased 36 percent.

Same thing can be seen in England. Crime has gone up. I'm not even gonna talk about France. These riots wouldn't be happening.

Taking guns away from good people never makes them safer. It should be obvious by now.

Read:
http://porcupinenine.blogspot.com/

 

[Jokerman]

firearms serve 1 purpose and 1 purpose only. And that's killing stuff.

That would be news to the over 2 million Americans a year who use guns to protect themselves and others without even firing a shot.

 

[Jokerman]

Jokerman, why is it that in the US by far more people die through guns then it other countries with strict laws on guns?

You're getting this "fact" from where? You ever hear of Columbia? Their murder rate is 64 per 100,00 people. The US is 5.5 per 100,000. And there are other countries with higher rates. Reason for high rates, besides culture? Not enough good people have guns. Those US cities that have a high ownership have lower murder rates, and vice versa.

Read: http://porcupinenine.blogspot.com/

 

[The.Menace]

Well I was thinkin about western countries - but on the other hand, if you want to compare the US with Columbia aiight, go for it.

 

[Jacob]

On a per capita basis, Switzerland has more firearms than most nations; and yet, it's one of the safest places in the world.

Regulation of the legal gun market is futile because America has a healthy black market. Even if all manufactured guns were kept out of the country, they're still cheap and easy to make with parts that can be bought in any hardware store.

The idea that taking guns away from Americans will decrease crime rates isn't supported by any real evidence. Worse, it takes attention away from violence-promoting cultural issues (socioeconomic factors, the impact of the mass media, etc).

 

[Duke]

Guns are a deterrent to bad guys.

And a fastastic source of tragic accidents. Kids getting their uncle's rifles out of the cabinet and taking them to school? Check

Son pissed off at mother and gets daddy's gun? Check

Man mistakes family member for burglar and shoots him in half? Check


Of course the criminals are always going to have guns. That's not my point either. My point is civilians having guns. Civilians, who are bound to use them irreponsibly.

The situation is far too complex for direct crime/murder rate - gun ownership statements.

Not enough good people have guns. Those US cities that have a high ownership have lower murder rates, and vice versa.

So a country like Holland or Belgium, where few people own guns should be flooded with murders, right? 'Cos we can't protect ourself?

On a per capita basis, Switzerland has more firearms than most nations; and yet, it's one of the safest places in the world.

That's because the Swiss have a civilian army of over 400.000 men. They still have conscription and every swiss male starting in his twenties gets drafted and has to attend training camps once in a while. That and he has an assault rifle and plenty of ammo in his house, because he's technically a soldier, not a private gun owner.

And i feel the question already: "But, Duke", you clamour, "why aren't they shooting each other all the time?". Well, obviously because they're trained in the use. They are soldiers, not a house dad that bought a 9 mm because it makes him and his wife feel safe.

My main issue i guess is, that i see too many sad accidents and incidents related to private gun ownership to warrant it in my eyes.

 

[Jokerman]

My main issue i guess is, that i see too many sad accidents and incidents related to private gun ownership to warrant it in my eyes.

For children under 14 years, it's around 150 purely accidental deaths by gun in the US per year. Note that some 200 kids die from bicycle accidents each year, and I don't know how many adults. But 200 incidents alone should be way too high in your eyes to warrant bicycle ownership.

As far as accidental death by firearms, the safety record is pretty good. It only accounts for 2% of accidental deaths in the 0-14 and 2.8% of accidental deaths in the 0-19 range nationwide.

If you look at accident statistics, clearly pools, cars, bicycles, all household cleaning products, and walking in the vicinity of vehicles should be banned to maximize the number of children and adults saved each year.

You just don't get it. It ain't a crime issue or an accident issue; it's a disarmament issue, first; and then a "swaddling-cloth, safe-and-secure-world" issue, second...

 

[Duke]

For children under 14 years, it's around 150 purely accidental deaths by gun in the US per year. Note that some 200 kids die from bicycle accidents each year, and I don't know how many adults. But 200 incidents alone should be way too high in your eyes to warrant bicycle ownership.

As far as accidental death by firearms, the safety record is pretty good. It only accounts for 2% of accidental deaths in the 0-14 and 2.8% of accidental deaths in the 0-19 range nationwide.

If you look at accident statistics, clearly pools, cars, bicycles, all household cleaning products, and walking in the vicinity of vehicles should be banned to maximize the number of children and adults saved each year.

You just don't get it. It ain't a crime issue or an accident issue; it's a disarmament issue, first; and then a "swaddling-cloth, safe-and-secure-world" issue, second...

I get it perfectly. You keep portraying me as a nanny, which i'm not.

And you use crooked examples. Comparing guns to cars is silly. What if we did away with cars just in a snap? How are you going to get from A to B if the distance is 500 miles? Public transport? I'm all for it, but thats not realistic.

And household products? Whats the alternative? No household products? Dirty houses?

Swimming pools? They are about as dangerous as any body of water.

I mean, looking at the object, a gun is simply much more a dangerous tool than a bicycle or a swimming pool.

But perhaps you're right. Perhaps it's not about crime or accidents. Perhaps there's just something inherently rotten in American culture that has the country getting all the high school shootings and crazy snipers. Those kids wouldn't have taken cars, bicycles or household products to their classmates in Columbine. There is something in America that has people drawing out firearms at the smallest occasion.
You keep portraying guns solely as a detterent. For how many foiled robberies, due to the victim pulling a gun on the assailant, are there robberies gone wrong where the criminal pulled out his own gun and the whole thing ended in bloodshed?

If you are all for private gun ownership, you have to fully accept things like Columbine happening. Simply because the general public has easy acces to guns.

People will always do "bad" things. I don't think disarmament would eradicate that, of course. But firearms are the easiest way to kill someone. Far harder than bashing their head in with a bar stool or strangling them. And because the general public is and will always be stupid, it's not worth the risk giving them firearms.

 

[Jokerman]

You keep portraying me as a nanny, which i'm not

You're not a children's nurse? I thought...

What if we did away with cars just in a snap? How are you going to get from A to B if the distance is 500 miles? Public transport? I'm all for it, but thats not realistic.

What if we did away with civilian ownership of firearms just in a snap? How are you going to protect yourself against criminals with guns? Police? I'm all for it, but that's not realistic.

And household products? Whats the alternative? No household products? Dirty houses?

Actually, products made from all natural ingredients work great. But that's not relevant here.

Those kids wouldn't have taken cars, bicycles or household products to their classmates in Columbine.

If there were no guns, they sure would have used something else, like a car.

If you are all for private gun ownership, you have to fully accept things like Columbine happening. Simply because the general public has easy access to guns.

If you are all for restrictions on where a law-abiding citizen can carry a gun, you have to fully accept things like Columbine happening. Simply because teachers on the job do not have easy access to guns. One who might have been armed didn't get a chance to stop it before the bodies started to pile up.

And because the general public is and will always be stupid, it's not worth the risk giving them firearms.

And because the general public is and will always be stupid, it's not worth the risk of giving them freedom of speech or the right to vote.

I tell you, there's no shortage of people who feel called upon to pose as self-appointed aristocrats whose responsibility is to save the commoners from themselves. Some of them are leftist extremists. Some are just old-fashioned snobs.

They're people who'd probably benefit from a few years' state slavery in some "progressive" Third World hell hole such as North Korea or communist China. If they ever had to live under a self-appointed aristocracy, maybe they'd mellow out a bit.

 

[Sebastian]

http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,383934,00.html

^
thats a german article, mentioning a shooting on nov. 8th in Jacksboro, Tennessee. a 14 year old kid killed one person, two injured.

today i heard about a shooting in an american super-market, one person being injured by a gun shot.

all i can say is that im glad these kind of incidents seem to happen way less here in germany, compared the USA.

 

[Duke]

You're not a children's nurse? I thought...

What if we did away with civilian ownership of firearms just in a snap? How are you going to protect yourself against criminals with guns? Police? I'm all for it, but that's not realistic.

Actually, products made from all natural ingredients work great. But that's not relevant here.

If there were no guns, they sure would have used something else, like a car.

If you are all for restrictions on where a law-abiding citizen can carry a gun, you have to fully accept things like Columbine happening. Simply because teachers on the job do not have easy access to guns. One who might have been armed didn't get a chance to stop it before the bodies started to pile up.

And because the general public is and will always be stupid, it's not worth the risk of giving them freedom of speech or the right to vote.

I tell you, there's no shortage of people who feel called upon to pose as self-appointed aristocrats whose responsibility is to save the commoners from themselves. Some of them are leftist extremists. Some are just old-fashioned snobs.

They're people who'd probably benefit from a few years' state slavery in some "progressive" Third World hell hole such as North Korea or communist China. If they ever had to live under a self-appointed aristocracy, maybe they'd mellow out a bit.

" If there were no guns, they sure would have used something else, like a car."

I bet you they wouldn't have.

But hey, we're not going to agree, i'm done arguing if you advocate everyone being armed. Columbine wouldn't have happened if the teachers were armed.

Haha.

Violence breeds violence. Guns are only a deterrent up to so far. After that, they're a weapon, and they will always remain a weapon and a threat. Not a deterrent.

But like beReal said, have fun in your gung-ho society. Luckily we Dutch don't risk getting shot in half going to school or the supermarket.

But you know what, Jokerman. you're probably 100% right. America needs guns, because somehow everyone are already so Rambo crazed.

But don't advocate armed society for everyone. We Euro scum are doing fine without Wild West happenings.