3 dead after killer unloads 63 rounds from AK47 after argument over a girl in Queens

[pwaldo]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ment-girl.html

A brutal shooting this morning on the streets of Queens, New York, ended in the deaths of three men after a gunman unleashed 63 rounds from an AK-47.

A fourth man was wounded during the attack at around 5 a.m. which occurred on the corner of 185th street and 144th Avenue as the men sat in a Jeep Grand Cherokee.

According to a friend of the victims, the men were killed in a dispute over a girl and the killer apparently stalked them from Brooklyn to Springfield Gardens in Queens after their 'fight over a girl'.

'It was over a girl, over a look,' said the friend to the New York Daily News

'They were followed from the club and shot.'

When emergency workers and police arrived they discovered two of the dead men inside the car, while the third man was found on the street near to the rear of the vehicle and was barefoot.

The police have not identified the dead nor have they caught the killer.

[pghin08]

That's insane, my goodness.

[mrveggieman]

If this isn't the perfect example of why we need the death penalty then I don't know what is.

[habsheaven]

If this isn't the perfect example of why we need the death penalty then I don't know what is.

Maybe a better example of why you need a ban on automatic weapons.

[mrveggieman]

Maybe a better example of why you need a ban on automatic weapons.

He still could have killed them with a hand gun. Are you suggesting that we reliquinsh our second amendment rights that our founding fathers fought and died for?

[habsheaven]

He still could have killed them with a hand gun. Are you suggesting that we reliquinsh our second amendment rights that our founding fathers fought and died for?

Not at all. When those rights were granted did they foresee every citizen having access to a weapon that could shoot umpteen rounds per second? And just how does limiting the firepower of the weapon become relinquishing your 2nd amendment rights?

[mrveggieman]

Not at all. When those rights were granted did they foresee every citizen having access to a weapon that could shoot umpteen rounds per second? And just how does limiting the firepower of the weapon become relinquishing your 2nd amendment rights?

Ok I was just making sure. I'm not sure why the average joe on the street would need an AK-47 but I am a strong supporter of the average citizen being able to legally buy and possess firearms for their own personal defense.

[habsheaven]

Ok I was just making sure. I'm not sure why the average joe on the street would need an AK-47 but I am a strong supporter of the average citizen being able to legally buy and possess firearms for their own personal defense.

I have nothing against the right to own firearms. I think it is very reasonable although I do not, and probably will not, ever own one. I just think, for society's benefit and safety, there should be limits placed on the race to own a bigger, better gun than the guy down the street. When you start talking about a right to own assault rifles, I think the reasonability issue becomes questionable.

[mrveggieman]

I have nothing against the right to own firearms. I think it is very reasonable although I do not, and probably will not, ever own one. I just think, for society's benefit and safety, there should be limits placed on the race to own a bigger, better gun than the guy down the street. When you start talking about a right to own assault rifles, I think the reasonability issue becomes questionable.

I guess we would be both "pro-choice" when it comes to gun ownership.

[shrewsbury]

making automatics illegal or limited their capacity willonly mean the "bad people" will have them and us normal folks won't.

we need to go back to hanging people in the town square with a note hanging from them.