Update 2: Man shot dead in Qormi

John Axiak

Dec 21st 2008, 19:59

Its high time that we should reconsider our gun laws and criminalize all firearms. There is a strong correlation between gun ownership and gun death.

For more information on gun ownership and death vide http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/TheCaseForGunControl.html

deb bugeja

Dec 20th 2008, 19:51

I agree, if a person is on my roof especially during night time the person will be asking for it.
one has to investigate more about the case.

Andrew Hughes

Dec 20th 2008, 08:21

The tone of some of the comments here is frankly hysterical. If somebody is on your roof, of course phoning the police is a good option. What you do not do is open fire as we have no idea what he is doing there. Whilst burglary is one option, which as far as I know doesn't carry the death penalty, other options might well be drunkeness and mental illness. The most unlikely option is perhaps that somebody is trying to kill you. Who wants to kill you and why? This is definitely a minority activity. And in any case, if you were wanting to kill somebody would you get to your intended victim by creeping over their roof late at night? As with so many of these stories, we need to hear all the facts before rushing to conclusions. It seems to me that we are getting into a very bad habit in judging these thngs from the first few details that appear in the newspaper. Perhaps you want to close down the courts altogether!

E.Vella

Dec 19th 2008, 21:55

Before accusing the guy I think we must see for what reason did happened....What was the other man doing on the roof of someone else house? Could it be fired becuase being afraid was a thief? We point fingers but if you were you what would you have done - invite him inside and give him a hot chocolate

James Sultana

Dec 19th 2008, 19:03

I don`t think that in London there are hunters with freely available shotguns (or the ability to buy one with the excuse of being one) - yet TEENAGERS (and even 11-year olds) ARE KILLING EACH OTHER EVERY WEEK using knives, etc? Should they ban them and go for chopsticks which can be as lethal? The true problem is that the police force in malta have lost their authority and image - partly due to the fact that a good number are in the job just because they needed a job and not because they like it. We are in a situation where nobody fears the police, and nobody fears justice - from maltese to immigrants. And consequently many have lost faith that the police will defend them so they take the law in their own hands.

As regards this particular case, the suspect is saying that he heard noise on the roof and went to check what happened, leading to many to link it to self-defence - yet, for all that matters, we have no proof yet of whether the victim really entered the property from the roof or whether he was inside for any particular reason

Vincent Galea

Dec 19th 2008, 17:27

Where does the evil in the world come from?
What is this phenomenon of rage so rampant in Malta? Altough we have never killed ,how many of us can claim that we have never vented the inner rage and frustration brought on by life's many inevitable disappointments by directing wounding remarks to those near to us and our friends.Destroying someone mood or his day is obviously not to be confused with taking life, but it is also an example of engaging in destruction for it's own sake.This type of behaviour which we all witness in our daily encounters on our Maltese roads is an expression of rage that has slipped free of the control of reason, and as such, it is also evil. A difference in degree, not a difference in kind.

Crimes of the heart are never known to others.

The evil of destruction rage is alive and well in all of us.

Steve Farrugia

Dec 19th 2008, 16:15

It's very sad to hear of such an incident but It's not fair to blame guns. I am a licenced gun owner and I love to practice my hobby. Unti-gun groups will always blame guns but guns are tools and they don't kill, it's the person behind them that kills! I hope you have this clear. With your same argument we can ban cars because of a drunk car driver killing 2 children while crossing the street! or ban airplanes because they can crash into a skyscraper and kill everyone inside! This is insane!!! You should think before you speak. I really feel bad when I hear such arguments.

As far as this case goes it's still too early to comment. and it's not fair for the investigation that is being carried out.

John B.Vincenti

Dec 19th 2008, 15:15

Dear Keven and Company,

What is wrong with this little blessed Island of ours, is the fact that we have so many self proclaimed experts on any field imaginable. Be it football, be it economics or whatever subject, we seem to know it all and want to tell everyone else how to do it.

Let the authorities get on with their job and conclude on the facts. Presently, their are many people (family and relatives of victim and house owner) who are going through hell. I doubt that they are consoled by such ideal chatter as goes on here.
People using such tragic moments in order to ply their lobbying against gun ownership is cheap propaganda.
Most serial killers use knifes, ropes and duct tape.......... shall we ban them all to appease your reasoning?
Most deaths are caused by traffic accidents or dangerous driving...... shall we ban cars and motorcycles?
A very high percentage of deaths and injuries are caused by sports....... shall we ban sports?

Shall I go one more...... Alcohol.....

John J. Mercieca

Dec 19th 2008, 14:59

If someone is on my roof at any time of day without my authorisation, he is up to no good and needs to be dealt with. Phoning the police is not an option because the person can get away or commit whatever crime he was planning to commit before they arrive to stop him. Shoot first ask questions later ;)

R Bartolo

Dec 19th 2008, 14:57

If someone wants to kill somebody else, there are pleny of ways to do it, one never reads about "banning knives" "banning steel pipes" or other similar items. Not commenting on this case since we don't know the facts, but killings will only stop when one manages to ban intent to harm, and judging by humanity's track record, that won't be any time soon - so do not penalise the law abiding. A person intent on causing harm / breaking the law, by inference in any case respects no laws.

If someone wants to kill plenty of people, guns are probably one of the least efficient ways to do it. No guns were used in the Oklahoma City bombing, and neither were they used in 9/11.

To clarify misconceptions, locally it is simply not possible to walk into a gunshop and walk out of it with a firearm, so comparisons with countries where this is possible are not realistic.

Carmel Xuereb

Dec 19th 2008, 14:42

You do not kill a man just because he is on your roof at 1 am !

Even if you are armed, you would not go out for him or shoot him unless he tries to enter inside your house.

Kevin Zammit

Dec 19th 2008, 14:42

The pro gun ownership need to re-examine their head. Proposing that guns are needed for self defence is to say the least stupid. If you have enough time to go get your gun, then you have enough time to clear away and call the authorities. Whether one has a gun or not is no security while your sleeping 'safely' in your own home.

In the U.S. the discussion is a completely different story. The U.S. constitution brought down from the founding fathers grants the right for U.S. citizens to bear arms. This was done so in recognition of the fact that the U.S. obtained her freedom from her former colonial masters the U.K. thanks to the citizens militia.

Back to little Malta ... short of sleeping in your rocking chair on the porch the gun is as usefull as a toothpick.

In Malta's case due to homes being so close to each other and therefore can be accessed from the roof proper security measures should be in place.

The less guns there are the easier it would be for the authorities to control them and the less accidents that would happen. Not to mention birds would be happier too :)

john falzon

Dec 19th 2008, 14:16

Let's cut to the core here.

As a family man, I would like to get a gun for use solely when I need to defend my family and for no other reason.

How can I go about it ?

victor vella

Dec 19th 2008, 14:16

The Victim (sic) w2as on the roof of the perpetrator, so far we know.So before we know what he was doing there we cannot open our mouths or rather write anything about the case. What I say is this, if I am at home at 1 am and hear someone on my roof I would phone the police, but if I thin that the uninvited visitor is going to harm me or my property before the Police arrive then yes I will defend myself my family and my proerty with all means available legal or not.Having had my house broken into twice some years back I am still traumatised by the experience, luckily for all concerned we were not at home on both occasions, but again we still have to know what happened before commenting.Happy Christmas to all.

Sandra Pace

Dec 19th 2008, 14:08

This case is still being investigated by the police but it bears the hallmark of an act self defence,which is perfectly legal, and not of a murder.It would be most unwise to confuse to two issues.

Clive Brockdorff

Dec 19th 2008, 13:18

Mr. Parnis,

one may cherry-pick statistics to make a case as one pleases. Granted, the case you brought up may lend strength to the fact that banning guns leads to a drop in crime. On thr other hand, the situation in Great Britain would seem to prove otherwise as the incidence of firearms-related death has skyrocketed, even though handgun ownership was banned.

What this means is that we should look elsewhere for causes of violent crime and not stop at the first, simple solution, which in the long run would not be any solution at all. The term "hysteria" was not meant as an insult, but was an attempt to get people to stop and think about all aspects before firing off suggestions for facile solutions.

If one does not like guns, one is perfectly free to say so. However, it is pointless to use incidents such as the one under discussion in an attempt to abolish something one disagrees with, when this would not lead to the solution of the problem which brought about the incident in the first place.

Joseph Attard

Dec 19th 2008, 12:33

If it was not a gun it would have been a knife, if it was not a knife it would have been a stone...

The intent remains the same!

Manny Parnis

Dec 19th 2008, 12:33

"Guns do not kill people; people kill people' It's the same mantra trotted out by pro gun lobbyists everywhere. Then Clive Brockdorff calls everyone who displays anti gun sentiments as being hysterical and to prove it he quotes " facts' about Washington State's increased crime rate. Well In Tasmania Australia, following the massacre of 35 people in 1996, the tightening of the gun laws resulted in a significant decrease in gun injuries and deaths. The crime rate still increased like everywhere else but fatalities of both perpetrators and victims of crime decreased.

rennie stivala

Dec 19th 2008, 11:57

Personally I believe that it is high time that we stop blaming the fact that Malta has amended (improving) its law, consenting law-abiding citizens to own a gun and practice their hobbies in peace. A sad occurrence like this is always a bad news, and as such popular demand is always forcing to have someone to blame. However, it does not make sense that instead of waiting for the police to duly do their job and then listen to the result of the inquiry, we start shooting comments against weapons! Clearly a weapon in itself is no harm, and legalised ownership is one way to educate and help people move away from this taboo.
As regards limiting the amount of ammunition a person can keep at home, I can't see how this can help to reduce crime, let alone stop it, for 2 main reasons: 1) illegal ways to buy bullets will always exist for criminals, and 2) even 1 bullet is enough to commit homicide if there exists the intent. So I suggest to focus on the individual case and wait for more information before being carried away emotionally against gun owners who have full respect of the law.

Paul Barrett

Dec 19th 2008, 11:50

If someone is on your roof without permission at 1am then the reasonable assumption is that you and/or your family are under threat.
We do not know the circumstances here and therefore we can jump to all sorts of conclusions. (Who had the weapon in the first place, was the intruder armed and was shot in a struggle, did the intruder attack rather than run when disturbed) There are so many possibilities without knowing more.
That someone was killed is very sad but if it was murder or an accident, self defence or not has yet to be decided after the evidence has been collected in full.
Irrespective of the circumstances of this particular case, I personally hope that this might put off some of the thugs that have been breaking into houses and brutally terrorising the occupants (usually defenceless senior citizens).
That the law is often more on the side of the intruder than the owner/occupier in the case of an injury to the intruder whilst committing a crime is ludicrous.

D Farrugia

Dec 19th 2008, 11:46

Why are you branding the suspect as a criminal? I wish to know what you all would do if you see a man breaking in and about to rob you in your own house at night with your kids sleeping in bed. Of course this is what we heard from the media but if what has been reported is true then the man is surely not a criminal. He has every right to protect his own family in his own house. What do you all expect?? Offer the thief a drink???

Elaine Mizzi

Dec 19th 2008, 11:40

just like drugs and drink driving ....making guns illegal does not stop criminals from having them.. only handicapps futher the victims!

assuming the situation is of an intruder in a law abiding citizen's home:

- the intruder will most likely have a firearm or some other weapon whether it's legal or not!

- on the other hand the law abiding citizen will not have a choice of owning a weapon should this be illegal!

in my mind it's simple... the criminal/intruder is breaking the law with intentions of harming others for his own benefit ....therefore if there has to be a dead body i would rather it be the criminal/intruder!

self defence is very much underrated by the law!

in any case this is not an analysis of this case as for now we don't know for sure what the scenario is/was...

all we know is a man was found shot on an other man's roof...

and just because i can't help the black humour of it all... doesn't anyone find it funny that this happened in triq id-drama... ?

david calleja urry

Dec 19th 2008, 11:39

We still don't know the facts. It is very unfair to take positions and stands unless all the circumstances are know. While in no way condoning the excessive use of violence - personally, if my family is under threat - i would do anything and everything it takes to defend it.

JC Mifsud

Dec 19th 2008, 11:36

The point is that if the authority ban guns less murders will commence. I don't think that all the murders are done by criminals.

Criminals do obtain a fire arm illegally but as I said before half of the murders are done by normal people like all of us.

Charles Micallef@hotmail.com

Dec 19th 2008, 11:32

Is this the Wild West revisited?................................no this is Malta 2008...................!

Richard Scotto

Dec 19th 2008, 11:11

@Joe Cordina , perfectly correct.
It is one of the situations where it is legally considered to be justifiable homicide

@Maria Schembri
The incident you described took place in the Uk where they have a particular perverted sense of justice,where self defence laws are heavily stacked in favour of the criminal and not the law abiding

@D vella
I suggest you read some history on the origins of the 2nd Amendment before making such comments.It is an additional system of checks and balances between citizen and state to keep a government in check and to prevent it from becoming a tyrannical regime.Remember that a rogue government always starts by disarming its own populace.

Clive Brockdorff

Dec 19th 2008, 11:10

Kindly cut back on the hysteria and stop blaming inanimate pieces af metal.
Criminals will always have access to guns, whether these are banned or not. As for the poster going on about US crime rates, it's a fact that the states such as Washington which have very stringent gun laws have a crime rate which is often many times higher than those states which have more lenient legislation.

A higher rate of violent crime points to much deeper things than the presence of guns. Of course, it's very easy to indulge in cosmetic (and totally ineffectual - just ask the British) solutions such as banning guns.

Bertie O'Cassey

Dec 19th 2008, 11:10

I think that a law regulating the amount of bullets one has should do part of the job.

On the other hand, can all the law abiding gun owners assure us that they will not go birzurk if lets say, they find their wife in bed with someone else? or his/her child is hit by a drunk driver?

Joseph Pace

Dec 19th 2008, 11:02

I think that everyone should be given the right to protect his family, his property and himself with any means that he may have at his disposal. The fact that firearms are illegal here does not stop criminals from having them, so basically only the bad guys can be armed.

It is not fair to comment on this particular case before the facts are known, but generally speaking I would prefer having the potential victim of a crime being able to defend himself and stop the crime from happening.

A. Saliba

Dec 19th 2008, 10:49

Here we go again... blaming a heinous crime on a weapon. Right! I'm sure the murder wouldn't have taken place if guns were banned! Banning guns would not prevent people from purchasing them through a black market, and if anything, the ban would simply leave the majority of the people unarmed and defenseless.

John Portelli

Dec 19th 2008, 10:45

Firearms don't kill people,Criminals kill people.By banning guns you don't solve the problem because criminals obtain firearms illegally from anywhere.I am a gun owner since I was 18 in New York City ,But I never shot anybody. What they should do is STOP THE DRUGS,ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION,PROSTITUTION,Taking guns away from law abiding citizens DOES NOT SOLVE CRIME.

Joe Cordina

Dec 19th 2008, 10:42

Homicide in self defence is not easy to prove. However scaling in a private residence at night time, is one good point for defence.

richard scotto

Dec 19th 2008, 10:13

Please stop blaming the tool used. Blame the person. As a gun owner myself,it angers me when I read emotional based but illogical comments regarding firearms.

Maria Schembri

Dec 19th 2008, 10:00

@ Marcel
Actually that's not correct. The way the law is structured, even if you find someone in your own house stealing your stuff, you still cannot do anything unless they attack you. There are cases were actually the thief sued the victim for cutting himself on the broken glass put up on top of a wall, when trying to get in or get out of a house. And obviously, because it makes a lot of sense (read: the law if stupid) the thief won the case in question.

So unless he has proof that he shot the other guy for personal defense, then it's won't be that easy for him to be acquitted. It won't be considered as intentional, but still a murder.

D Vella

Dec 19th 2008, 09:52

That's exactly what you get when you legalise firearms . . . . ! Ask the americans, no on the other hand don't ask the americans . . . they have one of the highest rates of armed violence and of murder and gun-crimes in the world and they're all shocked whenever some nutcase goes on a shooting spree with an automatic weapon! Then they campaign to keep the right to buy lethal firearms . . . . sad!

Marcel Dingli

Dec 19th 2008, 09:48

Well, hearing noises on your roof at 1 am is not exactly pleasant. It would be very difficult for the Police to prove murder.

J. Borg

Dec 19th 2008, 09:46

round up all fire weapons
restrict their availability only in licenced shooting ranges

J Oatmon

Dec 19th 2008, 09:43

Guns guns guns , they have no place on this small island except for target or clay pigeon shooting at recognised licensed clubs etc.

Chris Azzopardi

Dec 19th 2008, 09:19

I can't image how angry you have to be to do something like that. I mean... can you imagine KILLING another human being?

It's really really sad....

Catherine Farrugia

Dec 19th 2008, 09:18

Not much to say about it. A clear message of the happy life we are living in. Life has become so stressful we are forgetting about the values we were brought up and the consequences it brings afterwards. Another murder in a time that should instill peace supposedly.

jamie pace

Dec 19th 2008, 08:44

my goodness...whats has become of our darlyn safe malta....re we turning into another banana republic?....i hope this will not become a reoccuring development....shooting here and murder here...we re too small a place to be facing this type of insecurity in our society...God help us.....