Hey, there! Log in / Register
Daylight gang shooting at Roxbury park
By adamg on Sat, 10/13/2007 - 9:39pm
Update: Teen held in shooting of coach at Roxbury park.
Several men walked up to a Pop Warner coach at a youth sporting event at Washington Park shortly after noon today and opened fire, Boston Police report.
The coach, 39, was only hit once and was rushed to Boston Medical Center for treatment of a non-life-threatening injury.
Investigative information indicates that the victim and at least one of the suspects had come into contact prior to the actual shooting incident.
Investigators are canvassing the area seeking additional investigative leads. Commissioner Davis has also increased the number of officers on patrol.
Topics:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Thank goodness...
...for Massachusetts' "most effective gun laws in the nation". Someone might have been hurt here, had they not been in place.
Oh wait...
Good Example for Youth
Right, I really want my son's coaches to be armed, so they can start a shootout.
Sounds really safe to me!
Start a shootout?
Typical liberal ignorance. Self defense is a human right. Without the right to defend your life, you are not a free being. You lefties are simply incapable of differentiating between "predatory violence" and "protective violence". All you see is violence, and that scares you. Tell me, what percentage of gun owners across this country have been arrested for "starting" a shootout?
By denying the law-abiding the right to self-defense, you are standing up for the inane argument that the rights of violent criminals to threaten and injure the peaceable citizenry take precedent over the rights of would-be victims to protect themselves from harm.
Violent criminals commit violent crimes.
It's what they do.
It's in their job description.
You cannot legislate that reality away.
You can, however, legislate away the rights of the law-abiding citizens. Following the law is what they do.
But, hey, if it helps you sleep at night knowing you support a philosophy and political ideology that says a defenseless citizenry is preferable to one which is not wholly reliant on the government for their personal safety and well-being, so be it.
In this country, you are free to adopt any belief system you choose. I trust you understand the concept of the freedom of choice.
Just don't ever try to force me and my family to live our lives in accordance with your political and ideological views.
You choose one path. I'll choose another. That's the thing about CHOICE. Everyone gets to choose. You'd think that a group of folks so keen on wrapping themselves in the pro-choice banner would have a better grasp on the meaning of the phrase.
Reality, Dude
The reality is that more people with weapons = MORE PEOPLE GET SHOT.
And they aren't always your "bad guys" either, dude. They are often the very people who are armed for their own protection, or bystanders caught in the crossfire.
Lots of bystanders at a football or futbol game, dude. Think about it. Either that or go back to playing "save the fort" painball or "cowboys and injuns" or what ever childish game you play that gives you the idea that everyone will always be hitting the "right" targets and more guns solve anything.
Reality, huh?
"The reality is that more people with weapons = MORE PEOPLE GET SHOT."
Can you provide me with any kind of source material to backup to that claim? Because, it's the same argument that was made in nearly every state that has adopted "shall-issue" concealed carry permit laws.
Guess what?
eThe "blood in the streets" scenarios simply NEVER HAPPENED. There were NO "wild west" shootouts.
Kindly provide me with a link to your source for these claims. Show me where individuals lawfully carrying firearms are being killed "often". Show me where individuals lawfully carrying firearms are gunning down innocent bystanders.
Because, I can show you plenty of instances where lawfully owned and carried firearms have been used by law-abiding citizens to defend themselves from the criminals with whom we share our streets.
It happens EVERY DAY in America. Just because the Boston Globe doesn't write about it, doesn't mean it's not happening.
Next, explain to me how gun violence could possibly be on the rise in England, where the number law-abiding citizens with guns has decreased due to the government-sponsored and enforced confiscation of small arms.
Rely on the government for protection, if you must. It's what Tiffany Barwick and Michael Ruschak did. They made the choice not to take that responsibility on themselves.
From the Orlando Sentinel:
Roughly three hours before they died, Tiffany Barwick and Michael Ruschak asked Seminole County deputy sheriffs for protection from the man they feared would kill them.
Their killer was not going to be thwarted by any law. He was going to kill. Period.
These two young people were powerless to stop an attacker, who was hellbent on ending their lives and had made his murderous intentions known to them well ahead of time.
Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
You have yet to explain ...
how the coach having a gun would have made any difference here!
First of all, there are the obvious issues of youth leaders packing heat - nice example for communities torn by gun violence? Right.
Secondly, he was jumped. If he had a weapon, it would have to be loaded and accessible. Not only is that unlikely, that would be everyday dangerous given the type of job he was trying to do at the time (what's to keep an unarmed kid from grabbing it and using it against him?
Third, say he got it loose and fired - crowded area, struggle, shoot out ... how many bystanders would have been hit?
Bottom line: his having a weapon for self defense would likely NOT have helped him here, but could result in more mayhem on a daily basis due to the type of job he was doing at the time of the attack.
Next up: explain how having a gun might have helped the guy who was surprise attacked by three gunmen. C'mon, be honest here. Remember that you have to have your gun loaded, available, accessible, and have enough time to react.
Um...
You have yet to explain ... how the coach having a gun would have made any difference here!
Maybe that's because I never said that.
My original comment was to show that all the gun laws in Massachusetts weren't enough to stop a 15-year-old thug from shooting that guy in broad daylight.
How anyone can argue that giving victims the opportunity to defend themselves is a bad thing is beyond me.
You need a reality check, BrucemB
I'm totally with SwirlyGrrl on this one. The sad fact is that more people with guns end up maiming or killing other people that they know during a heated dispute of some sort or other in the home, in a barroom, or on a streetcorner than they do a strange criminal in self-defense. Guns really do not belong in civilian hands. For the past 3-4 decades, the omnipotent Gun Lobby/NRA has consistently bullied lawmakers/legislators throughout the United States out of passing stronger more affective gun laws. This society/culture has long been dependent upon and revolved around the gun since day one, and it's come home to roost. We're witnessing the net result of this gun-dependency.
Ahhh...that old, thoroughly debunked nonsense.
The sad fact is that more people with guns end up maiming or killing other people that they know during a heated dispute of some sort or other in the home, in a barroom, or on a streetcorner than they do a strange criminal in self-defense.
First off, that discounts all the times a person defends himself without a shot being fired. Happens more times than you'd like to believe.
Second, the "study" from which your little anecdote came included crack dealers shooting each other in crackhouses, and called that "people shooting acquaintances in the home".
What they called "people with guns" included law-abiding gun owners and felons who are prohibited by law from possessing firearms. They make no difference between the two wholly distinct population groups.
Typical lib response. All violence is bad, even if it's an armed homewoner shooting an intruder advancing on his wife and children aftger having climbed in through a window.
Yes, I have the link to that one. Want it?
Unless you have a new source to back that up, of course. I'd love to see where you're getting your information.
As to your claim that "Guns really do not belong in civilian hands.", tell that to the people in New Orleans who took up arms and banded together to protect their neighborhoods from roving bands of armed thugs (people whom gun control is supposed to disarm but fails miserably) during a period of time when phone lines were down, 911 emergency services were non-existent, and cops were running away from the job or looting their local Walmarts.
Just a couple days ago, a guy in Texas saw two guys break into his garage to steal his property. He took a loaded shotgun, pointed it at the would-be crooks, and held them until the police arrived.
No shots fired.
No "blood in the streets".
No innocent bystanders gunned down.
If you're of the opinion that the rights of the burglars to help themselves to that man's possessions is more important than his right to prevent them from doing so, then so be it.
As I said before, it's a free country.
The "reality" is, this citizen helped police apprehend a couple people responsible for multiple break-ins.
Coddle the criminal class if you must, just don't expect me to stand by your side.
Pffffftt!!
Your present post(s), especially the above-mentioned quote from your above post really is laughable, BrucemB. The fact is that there are incidents where somebody has accidently shot and killed a family member who has gone down to the kitchen for a midnight snack because he took up his/her gun and shot when s/he heard footsteps downstairs. Come on now, BrucemB. Get real!!
OK, here we go again.
Guns really do not belong in civilian hands.
So, the death of Gracie Watson - at the hands of her homicidal husband, who had no problem pinning her down, stabbing her multiple times and dousing her with gasoline - would be an acceptable price to pay to get the Second Amendment revoked?
The ONLY reason she is alive today, is because an armed civilian intervened, prevented her scumbag husband from lighting the match, and saved her life.
Again, no shots fired. No innocents gunned down in the crossfire.
How many dead Gracie Watson's are you willing to accept in the aftermath of your civilian disarmament fantasy?
10?
100?
1,000?
Seriously, give me a number. What's your cutoff point?
Then explain to the rest of these folks how their safety is of no importance to you, and that they should surrender their personal sovereignty to the State for the furtherance of the "common good".
I thought it only fair to give you a second opportunity to respond to that post form last July that you must have (conveniently) missed.
Here's your reality check...
You have no idea what you're talking about. You probably know about as much about guns as you know about John Deere combines. I carry a gun pretty much everywhere I go. It's loaded, there's a round in the chamber, it's cocked, the safety is on, it's in a holster, held there by a retention strap. I've never shot anyone and probably, hopefully, never will. Once you live with them everyday, and everyone around you has at least one, then you'll be qualified to tell us about how they should be used and who should have them. Until then, your opinion on the matter is about as valuable as your opinion on mower-conditioners.
Go learn about the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968, and then tell us about the "omnipotent Gun Lobby/NRA". Guns belong in civilian hands more so than any government servant's hands.
Oh, please!!
So....you think that carrying a gun everywhere you go is so great?! I've got news for you, Rob K: The more guns are around, the more people are likely to use them during a dispute, as opposed to self-defense. What's so wrong about not wanting Boston and the United States at large to turn into
an Old West-like frontier?
Guns
Personally, my concern is not "cold hard killers" getting their hands on guns, but rather, the availability of guns escallating fights that would otherwise be non-lethal into lethal (or random) ones. I think its probably true that you just can't stop someone who is determined to murder someone else from doing so just by making guns less available. However, my concern is that there are fights that go on out there that end up in shoot-outs rather than knife fights or just brawls because some kid was able to get their hands on a gun. Also, inocent by-standers, or people in their living room, don't get inadvertently injured from drive by stabbings or someone going after someone else with a bycicle chain. When you throw in accidental child gun deaths, and domestic disputes that end in gun injuries, I just don't think the harm of restricting people from having guns outweighs the harm that guns cause.
Finally, your blustering about the government taking away your "rights" isn't exactly on bed rock foundation. The 2nd amendment isn't a bastion of clarity as to whether everyone, or just the National Guard (descendent of the militia), is allowed to have guns. Gun control laws aren't about big brother coming to get you. They're about municipalities and states trying to combat local problems and lessen the effect of social-ills mixed with human agression.
Ahh...yes. The old "National Guard" argument
To believe that one, you have to believe that our Founding Fathers were talking about the rights of individual citizens in Amendments 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 when they were putting the Bill of Rights together, but that the Second Amendment was included to guarantee the right of the government to maintain a military entity.
Makes perfect sense to me.
Not.
That view requires such a warped understanding (or lack thereof) of American history and the core philosophies of our Founding Fathers, it's simply laughable.
Governments have power.
People have rights.
Scary
- You're not concerned with "cold hard killers" getting guns, but, otherwise normal human beings shouldn't have them? I don't understand. Who will protect me from the bad guys?
- You're concerned with fights turning into shootouts. Please explain to me how, in a country with well over 200 million firearms, there aren't millions of shootouts on a daily basis.
- The National Guard is not, nor has it ever been a descendant of the militia.
- Finally, I'll ask you this: Can you demonstrate just one time, one place, throughout all of human history, where restricting the access of handheld weapons to the average person made them safer?
Wish I could take credit for that one, but it's Joe Huffman's.
Why do we need guns again?
I'm not concerned about "cold hard killer" vis-a-vis guns because regardless of whether all the guns in the world dissapeared or everyone was forced to carry a gun someone determined to kill you is going to do it one way or the other (if you think otherwise, you think too much of yourself). Therefore, "cold hard killers" aren't a reason for or against guns. As for your second comment, I think you're confirming my point. In a country of 200 million firearms there are lots of shootouts. Reason suggests that in a land of zero firearms there will be fewer shootouts (mayeb zero). As for the mitilia, if the national guard isn't a decenent of it, then there is no militia and the preamble to the 2d amendment which states why "the people" get to have guns - "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State" - is just a relic of the past, so no one gets to have guns. If you think that "the people" get to be the militia so that the people can fight the government when "the time comes" that's just silly. Treason was a concept that existed when the framers wrote the constitution and they certainly didn't legitimize it by writing into our bill of rights.
As for your last point, congratulations, its very clever of you to quote someone else who challenges people to prove a negative. Way to outwit those fast talking liberals.
Just like England...
Reason suggests that in a land of zero firearms there will be fewer shootouts (maybe zero).
...where civilian possession of any typer of handgun has been outlawed, yet violent crime (including shootings involving handguns) is on the rise.
And, as to your claim that "there is no militia", well, it speaks volumes to your lack of knowledge on the subject, and the core philosophies and beliefs of the men who drafted the Constitution.
Talk to the members of the "Edgewood Park Defense Patrol" down in Connecticut (Google it).
Talk to the armed citizens who banded together in the aftermath of Katrina to defend their homes in a time when the government had proven itself incapable of doing so.
You conclude that the Second Amendment, as written, provides no protection of the right to arms. Do you then conclude that the Constitution, as written, also provides no protection to women's right to abortion?
Because, the Democrat leadership in this country believes that the Constitution says "You can't have guns, but you can have abortions." Perhaps I have an outdated copy.
In a country of 200 million firearms there are lots of shootouts.
Again, you folks are failing to differentiate between lawfully possessed firearms and those possessed by prohibited persons.
Take the guns away from the former, and you put them at the mercy of the latter. That's "common sense" public safety policy in some folks' universe.
Not mine.
Lastly, can we get Dice-K out of this game please?
Lastly, can we get Dice-K
Lastly, can we get Dice-K out of this game please?
To little too late,
I think we can both agree on that :{
Oh, come on now, BrucemB!!
Guns and abortions are not in the least bit related to each other. Having an abortion is not killing another human being, no matter what the pro-lifers say. The idea that "Guns don't kill, people do" is yet another propaganda weapon of the NRA/Gun Lobby to prevent affective gun control laws passed.
Militia
I'll tackle the question about the militia, and what it was. The Militia, in terms of the Second Amendment, would be every "able bodied" male. I'll reference the movie "The Patriot" starring Mel Gibson. I realize that it is a work of fiction, but it is historical fiction, from the same era as the writers of the Constitution. The is a scene where Gibson's character's son enters a church service and calls out "We are calling up the South Carolina Militia. We need every able bodied man with his rifle." The quote may not be exactly accurate, however the important parts are. The Militia is not the National Guard. The National Guard can be federalized, and therefore be beholden to the Federal Government. That defeats the purpose of the Second Amendment. All Ten Amendments in the Bill of Rights were are there to protect people from a Federal Government becoming too powerful. The courts have expanded the application of them to areas they were not meant to cover.
You lost me when you
You lost me when you reference[ed] the movie "The Patriot"
Sorry buddy, let's leave fiction out of this, especially, new age fiction!
Prove a Negative?
I would think proving gun control works would be a positive in your book.
Right on, Bostonian!!
way to go!!
New Hampshire
Why do you even care about Mass.'s gun laws? You say right on your website that you live in New Hampshire. Perhaps when your entire state has only 500,000 people in it gun control laws aren't such an issue. I suppose you can shoot out your back door and stand a decent chance of not hitting anyone. However, when you live in a densly popoulated, highly urban area, gun control laws are very nice thank you.
Because...
I care about my fellow countrymen and women who are having their civil rights violated, regardless of where they live. If it's happening there, it could happen here some day if we're not careful. The defense of liberty knows no border.
Why does Ted Kennedy throw a shit fit when state lawmakers voted to outlaw abortion in South Dakota?
Why should anyone in this country care about the millions being slaughtered in Darfur?
2nd Amendment
Bruce, don't forget the second half of the amendment that the liberals always forget...you know the part that says the PEOPLE. After all, I think people still means people. The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
how about this
You keep your guns. And those of us that don't like guns won't buy any. Simple, isn't it? Last I checked, you can still buy a gun in MA! Imagine! And nobody's taking them away from you either. BREATHE, buddy, breathe.
Answer me this...
...you can still buy a gun in MA!
OK, let's say I'm a single mom in Dorchester, working two jobs, who wants to keep a handgun in the house for protection. Explain to me what I must do in order to "buy a gun in MA".
Now, let's say I'm a wealthy, real estate developer living on Beacon Hill with close political ties to the Mayor and several ranking state legislators. Same exercise.
I await you're response.
My point is you're incorrect.
Many people simply cannot legally purchase firearms in Boston, due to the gun control laws that make it an economic impossiblity.
And nobody's taking them away from you either
Tell that to the residents of Quincy who have had their right to own firearms revoked for such criminal "offenses" as losing a rental video, or failing to keep the address on their car registration current.
I don't want to come across as being too condescending here, but you really have no idea what you're talking about.
right.
You're somehow saying it's illegal to buy guns in MA? How do you not see that this is patently false? It being difficult to buy guns is NOT the same as them being illegal to purchase. It's also difficult for people to get a loan to buy a house, if not nearly impossible in many places. It's not the same as being illegal. So no, sorry, I'm not wrong.
Did you actually read what I wrote?
What I said is that it's simply impossible for some people to legally buy handguns. It was only "difficult" for me to buy a handgun as a resident of Boston, because I had the resources needed [$$$] to comply with the city's onerous licensing requirements.
Are you at all familiar with those regulations and requirements?
Try passing a law requiring all residents of Boston to lay out $300 (minimum) to get a voting permit. Tell me that wouldn't make voting impossible for some people. Tell me Chuck Turner wouldn't be screaming "RACISM!" at the top of his lungs.
Apples and oranges
Voting is a right. Owning and operating a gun is a privilege. Much like owning a car. Shouldn't the government make driver's licenses free and not require inspections and require auto manufacturers to sell their cars half off? Because, otherwise, you have people who can't own a car.
Really?
Owning and operating a gun is a privilege.
Says who?
It's only a privilege if you allow the government to take the right away from you, and turn it into a privilege to be doled out to those individuals they deem worthy.
If "keeping and bearing arms" is a privilege, how can you, or anyone on the left argue that abortion is a Constitutionally protected right?
If "common-sense restrictions" on Americans' right to arms are OK by you, which other "rights" can the government start arbitrarily taking from you?
As I wrote back in August:
If a people are denied the means with which to defend themselves by their government, they are denied the very basic right to self-defense. Essentially, their lives no longer belong to them. The responsibility for what happens to their bodies is no longer theirs, but now belongs to whomever is in charge.
From that point on, they cease being free. Yet, in places in and around Boston, these people continue to live under the false impression that they are free and sovereign, and therefore should be afforded the rights of a free citizenry.
When I hear folks from Brookline or Cambridge (or Chicago, San Francisco, Washington DC, etc.) crying out about how their rights and liberties are being violated by the Bush administration's wiretapping policy, or by a proposed law that would restrict, in any way, a woman's "right" to have an abortion, I can only shrug my shoulders, and offer this simple suggestion.
Quitcher bitchin'.
You ceded your personal sovereignty over to the government years ago - and your "right" to bitch about it along with it - when you voted all those totalitarian, elitist, Massachusetts "progressive" busybodies into office. They own you. They own your body. You've got exactly the government you deserve, so do us a favor, and shut the hell up.
And, one more thing, STAY IN MASSACHUSETTS!
Deval needs you.
Well, if you don't want it to be a privilege...
Then do you want the government to just hand out free guns to every person? I don't want that.
Huh???
Where did that come from? What are you talking about? If the government doesn't provide something for you (with your own tax dollars), then it's a privilege???
The 2nd Amendment protects your right to bear arms, not your right to have your neighbors subsidize your gun purchase.
You're starting to wade into the sea of Marxist philosophy, that says that allowing the free market to set prices for goods and services is discriminatory against poor people, therefore government mandated price controls must be implemented for the common good.
If you really think any
If you really think any party represents your views, you need a wake up call...
totalitarian, elitist, [Massachusetts] "[progressive]" busybodies
sounds like every Politician I know, not just those of the liberal demeanor.
Why would I want a Politician to legislate my parents wishes over mine? Oh wait, that doesn't fit your narrative. Stop drinking from the East/West kool-aid bro!
Oh, but in some fantasy world it all started with gun control! It's so clear! Come on, grow TFU. If your going to revert to childish arguments, so be it, but you went there first!
They own your body.
Thank god I'm not a woman, because isn't that what the GOP is trying to do to women? Lets throw of wifes, daughters and mothers in jail. You ain't going to get ride of it, thats a fact. Are you willing to legislate them to prison?
Anyways, that was a rebuff to the TALKING POINT's I've seen here tonight. Not much faction information coming from no profits or reputable government statistics. I;ts funny how when discussions start to wane in the favor of facts, we start to see these ramblings of other "hot topic" issues.
Keep the ball bouncing, watch the shiny object! Because when rationality comes to light, you need to push everything you got to hide the "liberal bias".
I hate to say this, but why do conservative arguments always end up in calling each other names, and shifting the topics from gun control to Massachusetts liberals that want to control your mind and body?
Right there you lose....
Come again?
"Not much faction information coming from no profits or reputable government statistics."
Let's keep it in English, please. My Klingon's pretty weak.
My Cardassian is pretty bad
My Cardassian is pretty bad also,
Give me a break, it was 12:30am after a bad sox loss, an unintresting MNF matchup and a whole bunch of $0.25 wings
I Like Your Position
I like the fact that you are willing to make the choice that works best for you. I wish everyone had your position. But you're not completely correct with your statement that nobody is taking away guns here. Tom Reilly single handedly claimed the right to regulate firearms without any legislative consent, which effectively stopped the import of most types of guns into the state. He did this by requiring guns to be manufactured differently than 49 other states, which made most manufacturers stop selling them here. Now some people may be happy about that, but imagine if 1 person single handedly decided he had the right to regulate tools that provide abortions for women, and effectively ended the practice here. I bet people would be a little up in arms. And by the way, in 1998, when new gun controls were enacted, gun licenses went from about 4,000,000 to less than 250,000. What has that accomplished? Nothing. And by the way, a 30 year old FEDERAL law has prohibited convicted felons from posessing firearms for the rest of their lives. Has this stopped them?
I don't know, as I'm just a "normal person" I suppose
Guns aren't my thing. I'll be honest here. I really don't care about them one way or another, I could do without them, but many folks in my family are avid hunters and they don't do any harm and I certainly would not want them to be told they can't handle guns, as clearly they can. But my family members that hunt aren't buying glocks to arm themselves walking down the street, either. The argument in either way -- ban guns, or arm everybody -- is just too knee-jerk for me. Certainly people will always get access to guns if they're determined, but it's a lot harder to quantify the people who perhaps should not have had access to guns and were unable to get them. Where are those numbers? Simply, we can't measure that.
I don't see why an exception
I don't see why an exception for hunting rifles can't be part of gun laws either. It's not like you can carry/conceal a rifle.
Handguns have only one purpose, and thats to kill the person on the other end of it.
Honestly, again, I don't know
I have a feeling most people "out there" have only a vague understanding of any of this. Guns and gun control is just not one of those issues I feel strongly about -- you won't see me out there on the picket line either way for either side.
I think in these arguments pro or anti gun the basic tragedy of violent death -- by any means (gun, knife, car, whatever) -- is lost. In all these years of squabbling "for" or "against" gun control in either direction, where is the progress in stemming violent crime? Instead we become mired in the hysteria on either side and succeed in only pissing everybody off.
"In all these years of
"In all these years of squabbling "for" or "against" gun control in either direction, where is the progress in stemming violent crime?"
BINGO!
Did the ones trying to ban guns ever stop to think that they might have the wrong target, after so many decades of failure?
Did they ever stop to think that guns aren't the problem?
See this for the REAL problem:
http://community.livejournal.com/guncontrolnow/801...
So basically, you're
So basically, you're admitting that you don't know what the f*** you're talking about?
Are you purporting that
Are you purporting that everyone needs to be an expert on every topic to have a discussion? Grow up, honestly.
Actually...
You keep your guns. And those of us that don't like guns won't buy any. Simple, isn't it?
I wish it were that simple.
It would be nice if Feinstein, Clinton, Kennedy, Schumer, et al in Washington held such a pro-choice position on the issue. Sadly, they do not.
Possibly because women die
Possibly because women die when this happens... People, even "good Christians", still have abortions when the shit hits the fan.
You might find yourself in a different situation if you ever have a daughter. I wouldn't be using this as a example if I were you.
For someone concerned about saving lives, your looking to the rare possibilities, and not the cold hard instances Bruce...
Just a Q, Perhaps for
Just a Q,
Perhaps for another discussion
would you send a womans doctor to jail for recommending an abortion if a woman needed to live?
would you jail a woman who went through with one to save her life?
what should the punishment be?
Ha Ha Ha!!
BrucemB, it seems that you're throwing a shit-fit because Ted Kennedy's outraged by state lawmakers' votes to outlaw abortion in South Dakota. He's got good, ample reason to be outraged by that, imho.
A little consistency would be nice then
The other point there is that Kennedy can't make up his mind if he believes in states rights or not. Gun control? Sure. Massachusetts has every right to restrict gun ownership in any manner they choose. Abortion? No way? Suddenly, states rights are right out the window.
When a state restricts a politically correct "right", he's outraged. When a state defends its residents' non-PC rights, he's outraged.
But don't you agree that any
But don't you agree that any restrictions or openness of gun laws must be on a state level?
Isn't that part of your argument?
The fact is, there's issues that will effect citizens more with federalism, then nationalized laws. Massachusetts can't ensure the majority of guns coming into the state are not from putside states because of lax gun laws.
We could care less what Alabama does with abortion rights, as long as our citizens and their, are not effected by it.
Sure they think it's icky, and they disprove, but our laws aren't damning their citizens, like gun laws are providing to our criminals. As you said, apples and oranges.
No!
Your argument doesn't even begin to hold water, BrucemB. Gun control and Abortion Rights are extremely important, and if and when abortion is outlawed, that's when people's rights are out the window! The same thing can be said if Gun control is gutted, because it violates people's rights to live in a safe, secure environment where they don't have to worry about getting shot and maimed/killed by a disaffected, gun-weilding friend, family member or acquaintance, or a gang member holding them up for money.
Wow.
Just...wow.
uh oh, here come the gun nuts!
*gets out the popcorn*
let me summarize what they're going to say:
WHEN YOU OUTLAW GUNS ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS!!!11
GUN RESTRICTIONS DON'T PREVENT OR REDUCE GUN DEATHS!!!1
CRIMINALS WILL ALWAYS FIND A WAY TO GET GUNS!!!11
WHEN THE GOVERNMENT FINALLY TURNS ON US, I NEED TO BE ARMED TO THE TEETH SO I CAN FIGHT OFF THE DICTATORSHIP
.: WE SHOULD ALL HAVE GUNS, ALL THE TIME. GUNS GUNS GUNS!! YIPPEEEE GUNS!! TEACHERS SHOULD BE ARMED, COACHES SHOULD BE ARMED, DOCTORS SHOULD BE ARMED, PRIESTS SHOULD BE ARMED. EVERYBODY GIT UR GUN!!
there, done.
Ah, yes, the name-calling strategy
I'm going out on a limb here and guessing you've never used the term "abortion nuts" when referring to the NARAL or Planned Parenthood folks.
AAAAAGHH!!! Opposing viewpoints!!!!
Quick! Call them names in an attempt to discredit their arguments, without offering any rebuttals based on logic or rational thought!
Sockpuppet Invasion!
Agreed! Agreed!
Talking points not verified. Anecdata. Anecdote. Talking points canned talking points.
Agreed! 2nd Amendment. Dangerous Librals. Talking point!
yeee haww this is fun
GUNS IN THE HANDS OF PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE!!!
WE ARE NOT A GUN CULTURE!!11
BAN GUNS!! ONLY POLICE NEED THEM EVER!!
.: GET RID OF GUNS!! BURN THEM IN A FIRE!! LOVE-IN, EVERYONE!!! PEACE AND CANDY!!!
/do not feed the trolls
oh wait, godwin's law
ALL THOSE THAT OPPOSE BANNING GUNS/ ALL THOSE THAT ARE FOR BANNING GUNS -- ARE NAZIS!!!1
now this thread is complete.
You know, it's sockpuppetry like yours
... That really make me question the wisdom of having an open system where anybody can just shoot their mouths off without being forced to register.
Christ, pick a pseudonym and stick with it instead of sockpuppeting yourself (yeah, yeah, the software logs IP numbers, so knock it off, yada yada).
sorry :(
aww, ok, i'm done.
Sorry :-(
Stimulus, response. Stimulus, response.
Okay, I'm done now, too.
Gun nuts and anti-gun nuts
are equally annoying.
The Profile of a "Gun Nut"
At the risk of people calling me arrogant, here is the profile of a "gun nut."
-Valedictorian of my college class of almost 2,000 students.
-26 years old, making well over 6 figures in a finance position and paying more in taxes than most people earn in a year.
-And no, I am not a silver-spoon baby. Grew up in a 3 decker in Worcester, MA. Single FATHER household with 2 sisters, and he made about $40,000 a year. Public school educated. Lived on my own since I was 18, worked 50 hours a week while attending full-time college classes, and paid 100% of my own tuition.
-I have carried a handgun since I was 21, and I have never magically been forced to kill anyone. However, I was able to use it in an act if self-defense, you know, the kind liberals pretend don't exist. All I had to do was draw the gun, no shots fired, armed robbery stopped.
Speak for yourself, BrucemB!!
n/m
Uh...
I'm pretty sure he was.
5 for 5
You should listen to yourself objectively, T. H. You are making more sense than you realize.
You have the right, guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, to defend yourself with the most effective tools yet devised by man.
You also have the right to go through life hoping that you don't become a victim, but doing nothing to prevent it. Most days you'll make out OK. But you don't put on your seat belt only on the one trip in a thousand when you expect to wreck you car. Do you? The Boy Scouts have a motto: "Be prepared." Being able to defend yourself if needed is part of that general preparedness.
The typical response time to a 911 call is measured in minutes. (Assuming you can get a cell signal and that the thug will grant you the time to make one last call…)
How fast can the average criminal make your day turn very bad?
In our nations capital handguns have been banned for thirty years. Yet that very city has been called the murder capital of our nation for almost as long. IMHO that is directly tied to the criminals knowing that the city is full of unarmed victims. The thugs know they are safe. So they have free reign.
As for my choosing not to go through life trusting in nothing more than the hope that I won’t get mugged today, or that if I am maybe the thug will take pity on me and not do me great bodily harm, what part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
Then again...
Make that 5 for 9. And you were doing so good!
In our nations capital
In our nations capital handguns have been banned for thirty years. Yet that very city has been called the murder capital of our nation for almost as long. IMHO that is directly tied to the criminals knowing that the city is full of unarmed victims. The thugs know they are safe. So they have free reign.
Yeah, It probably has nothing to do with the huge inequality between socio-economic status, nothing at all...
With that in mind, why are more gun wielding cops killed in Alabama, then gun free Massachusetts? How about citizens? Mass has 3.1 deaths per 100,000 while Gods Country in Alabama has 13.1 per 100,000.
No correlation to the ability to get guns?
Banning guns is foolish, but making it hard for only sane rational people to get guns, making these laws uniform so guns can't get smuggled, and prosecuting those who are tied to black market guns will be effective.
Yes, but...
“… so guns can't get smuggled, …”
A recent study released by the Justice Department revealed that, surprise surprise, the vast number of guns used in crimes in New York were originally purchased in – drum roll please - New York. Likewise Massachusetts. Same for New Jersey. And so on down the line. The only exception being Washington DC where there hasn’t been a legal gun store for three decades. There most of the guns were stolen right next door in Virginia or Maryland. The government has pretty well determined that the alleged black market shipping guns from state to state is fiction.
“… and prosecuting those who are tied to black market guns will be effective.”
Prosecuting is a start but what I’d like to see is actual punishment of people convicted of committing crimes. And make the punishment fit the crime!
Case in point (not gun related but illustrating slap-on-the-wrist sentencing):
Two towns from where I live there were two thugs who beat, kicked and stomped a smaller and younger teen to death two years ago this past July. They were convicted – not of murder (the prosecutor didn’t think there was enough trauma to charge them with murder) – but of involuntary manslaughter! I guess it wasn’t a voluntary action on their part to drag the kid out from under the truck he crawled under to get away from them in order to continue beating him. ‘The Ayer Twins’ as they were dubbed in the media received all of five (5) years with credit for time served. Correct me if I’m wrong here, but isn’t involuntary equivalent to accidental? Voluntary being the opposite of accidental would indicate a deliberate action? Like dragging someone out of hiding so you can beat on him some more? Until he’s dead? Isn’t being dead sufficient trauma? Apparently not.
Prosecute. Convict if the case has merit. Then punish. And let law abiding citizens go about their business unfettered.
That's the one I'm looking for.
See my comment below, where I quoted some 2005 trace numbers.
Link to said study? No link
Link to said study?
No link to liberal biased think tank, or right wing nut jobs tank either please.
Linked below
You're one to ask for a link, using your hand-picked fatality rate numbers, sans link of course, to make a point.
2000 census data
2000 census data Bruce...
Even I thought you'd know those by memory if you're going to get into this argument...
Or does the Census & CDC data have a liberal bias...?
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_13... Table 2
table 29 got cut off for
table 29
got cut off for some reason...
/liberal bias!
//I kid!
who cares who can carry a gun legally
There are too many illegal guns out there, we need to protect our children and i dont mean by carrying a gun i refer to the poloce protecting our children. I think there should be extra police at the games where the kids are more likely to caryy a weapon. I dont want to stereotype a certain group of kids but we all know there are more kids carrying or who have access to a gun in boston area than we do over here in medford malden area. I am an upset mom being made to put my child in a dangerous situation is not something i would not do willingly and i try not to do it unwillingly. So why am i sending my daughter to a dangerous area in mission hill because if we dont send our daughters there they cant compete in eastern ma. competition how unfair is that. we try so hard to protect our children now we are force to put them in a dagerous situation its not right.
worried mom
worried mom is right
why should we have to put our kids were we would not let them go were we forbid our children from going just because if we dont let them go we lose our chance to compete how unfair your right to be worried i would be too what to do.
Continuing…
It isn’t “socioeconomic disparity” or “lack of opportunity” that causes crime.
I lived with my mother in a single parent home in Maryland back in the sixties. We were close enough to DC that from my bedroom window we could see the columns of smoke rising over the city when DC burned during the riots. We were dirt poor. I was never hungry only because Mum did what ever she had to within the law to keep us fed. Fast forward to today: I now own my own home. I have three cars and a boat. (Wanna buy a boat?) And I have a good career. I have never been on drugs or in a gang. I have always been a law abiding citizen. I came from just as tough a set of circumstances as any of these ‘poor deprived inner city kids’ and would have had just as many excuses as any of them to have gone bad.
There is no need to join a gang or take up crime as a way of life. Not in America! This is still the land of opportunity. If I can make it here – anyone can!
So don’t tell me that I have to surrender my constitutional rights because some malevolent criminal can’t be trusted to live among us with the same freedoms that law abiding citizens such as ourselves enjoy!
OK, one more before I go to bed
I can't let this "pearl of wisdom" go unanswered.
How about citizens? Mass has 3.1 deaths per 100,000 while Gods Country in Alabama has 13.1 per 100,000.
No correlation to the ability to get guns?
In a word, no.
Washington DC = 26.9
You're talking about state firearms fatality rates. I notice you neglected to post your source to back up your numbers. Here's a link. Though, these are 2003 numbers, which have Alabama at 16.9. If you have more current numbers, feel free to share them with the rest of the class.
I can't blame you though for not posting the actual data. It shows just how disingenuous your argument is, seeing as it's based on two hand-picked data points that you're using to "prove" your case. Typical tactic of those who can't win arguments with facts and truth.
Here's how that works, using the same link from above:
Firearms Death Rate per 100,000 by state:
#1 - District of Columbia = 26.9
#43 - New Hampshire = 6.7
Look! I've just "proven" that draconian gun control causes a drastic increase in firearm fatalities!!!
Yawn.
Yawn. Indeed, We can all
Yawn.
Indeed,
We can all pick outliers to fit our own agendas, why don;t you post the statistical trends?
Where's DC by the way? How easy is it to drive an hour or two to a state with guns laws much more lax?
Rationality be damned!
No
"We can all pick outliers to fit our own agendas"
Only you did that. I was merely using your same technique to show how ridiculous your original question was.
I don't claim to know all
I don't claim to know all the facts, but to me making it harder for people to own guns is fine by me.
I really don't see how the 2nd amendment is relevant anymore in a world where a militia will have six shooter and semi's while a military dispatched against them has MOAB's and M60's... It all made sense circa 1779, but today it's outdated.
Either way, Banning guns isn't an option because of our history. But what's the hate for making it harder to own and especially carry? I'd love to hear a sane rational to let anyone who wants a gun, get one. Why shouldn't gun owners, especially those who carry, have to go extensive background checks, psychiatric checks and regular gun safety courses? Make the checks better, and if you pass have at it.
I don't want some home schooled kid planning a school massacre have access to a gun because him mom easily went out and bought one for him without a second thought.
Not sure on the correlation of gun deaths per capita vs. carry laws, but as far as I know it's a well known fact that southern states have a much higher rate of Police Officer Death by handguns (with NYC as an outlier). Also gun deaths are the number one cause of Police officer deaths right in front of auto accidents since 1997.
I think it's fair to note states such as Alabama had 435 officer deaths, while Massachusetts had only 293 with 2 million more residents.
http://www.nleomf.com/TheMemorial/Facts/state.htm
http://www.nleomf.com/TheMemorial/Facts/causes.htm
I also think it's fair to make sure the people who want a gun are:
1) Who they say they are
2) Have a clean psychiatric bill of health
3) Have no prior major convictions, both civic and criminal
4) Required to take safety and marksmanship courses
Of course they also need a system that's fair and works along these guidelines.
If you can do this across a federal level, i'm sure you'll see deaths drop. It won't work unless every state is on the same page.
Home-schooled kid?
Wouldn't a home-schooled kid planning a school massacre... target his family?
Why on earth would a home-schooled kid go shoot up a school? Sounds to me like you're gratuitously picking on home-schoolers.
agreed
Weren't all the school shooters bullied in "normal" schools anyway?
(I'd think a home-schooled kid would be less likely to commit a school shooting as he or she would have parental supervision almost all the time -- I say this as a public school graduate, so no offense to anyone else who is a public school kid)
Sorry I plead the fifth, I
Sorry I plead the fifth,
I was comic-quizigly making a reference to a news story from a few days ago. The point was that it's very easy to get a gun in some states, very hard in others, and until the laws are unison over all states, illegally owned guns are going to flow from one state to another.
If it was harder to get a gun in Alabama (and all others) as it is in mass, you will see gun violence go down. Doesn't need to be outlawed, just needs to be enforced in a way of keeping guns out of the hands of reckless people, such as the mother who bought her kid and arsenal of airsoft guns, and then a real one.
Pop Quiz
1. What is the #1 source state for guns used in crimes in New York?
a. New Hampshire
b. Georgia
c. Virginia
d. New York
1. What is the #1 source state for guns used in crimes in Massachusetts?
a. Maine
b. Vermont
c. Alabama
d. Massachusetts
Answers:
1. d.
2. d.
And you un-biased source
And you un-biased source is?
Screaming from a soap-box != facts
Don't worry...
I'll get you the source info (unlike some other folks 'round here).
Portland Press Herald (Aug. '06)
link
These records show that 8 percent of the illegal guns confiscated in the Bay State in 2005 that could be traced were originally purchased in Maine. That makes Maine the second largest source for out-of-state crime guns coming into Massachusetts, just behind New Hampshire. But by far the largest share of illegal guns in Massachusetts, 37 percent, were traced back to gun dealers within the Bay State.
I'll get some more recent numbers, if you'd like. Gimme some time.
I'll get those NY numbers for you too, and the beautiful spin Bloomberg came up with to try and deflect criticism from his backyard.
Here you go, Bruce:
Direct from the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives:
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/trace_data/index.htm
Got it already, thanks.
A quick search through Say Uncle's archives was all it took.
That's the one.
Looks like you beat me to it.
Here you go, pal.
(see page 6)
New York
Massachusetts
How about some other "common sense gun laws" states?
Illinois
New Jersey
Delaware
California
Hawaii
Oh, wait. You wanted an unbiased source. These came from the U.S. Department of Justice (BATFE, to be precise). Those are federal agencies. They must be run by a bunch of neo-con Bush cronies.
BUSH LIED!!!
HALLIBURTON!!!
Now, let me try my hand at some Bloomberg spin.
"Massachusetts is the #1 out-of-state source for crime guns recovered in New Hampshire! They simply need to do more to close down this iron pipeline that's killing our young people!"
See how that works, kids?
Good start, but it's time
Good start, but it's time for bed for this "kid"
Anyways, see how easy it is to elevate the conversation and stop from regressing into name calling and cheap talking points?
All I have to say is, so far with MA; 1/3 of guns are from in state, but how many combined are from states that have much less strict GCL's? How many have had their serials removed to the point they are untraceable?
And off topic, but on topic, why can't guns be serialized with laser inscription in several random places, much like diamonds are, so that serial number can't be easily removed? /not sure on that last one
599 out of state weapons vs
599 out of state weapons vs 334 in state weapons; of the ones which they could confirm...
[data's a little fuzzy, what does the number on the state vs the number in the bottom point to]
I'd also hope state police following up with the original owners of in state weapons, if they didn't own the firearm in the first place.
NH:
81 out of state weapons vs 112 instate of the ones they could confirm, a reversed ratio, plus you need to consider the fact that it's easier to get a handgun in NH.
yet with more gun prosecutions total, Mass has 1/2 the gun related deaths per 100,000 citizens....
Other factors at play
Massachusetts, Boston in particular, is also home to the largest 24-hour Level 1 trauma center in New England, conveniently located a stone's throw away from where a bulk of the gang activity is taking place.
What do you suppose would happen to the "firearms death rate" in Massachusetts, if all the shooting victims from Roxbury and Dorchester had to be driven by ambulance to a hospital in Woburn for life-saving treatment?
I'd give a gangbanger with a .38 caliber slug in the gut in Roxbury a better chance of survival than a hunter in New Hampshire who just took a 30-30 in the midsection up in the North Country.
A study out of UNC a while back looked at just this kind of relationship between trauma death rates and the proximity of trauma centers. They concluded:
There are simply too many factors at play here to look at one set of statistics and claim victory based on such a shallow overview.
A:z A:z "all other states
A:z
A:z
"all other states combined"
It's all in how you ask the question!
Am I the only one who see's that if you can halt the transportation of smuggled out of state guns from areas with lax gun control laws, you could half the number of illegal [traceable] guns in Massachusetts?
wouldn't that go a far way to protecting our selfs from being shot? Or would they just be used more often ; }
Who says they're smuggled?
I used to live in Maryland. Now I'm in Marxistchusetts. Soon I'll be living in New Hampshire or Maine. All of my possessions will be coming with me when I move. Look also at how long the guns took to get from state to state. The vast majority of "out of state guns" were brought in state by their owners when they moved, usually quite some time after purchasing them. Others were inherited when the original owner passed away. It can all be gleaned from the data – if you look at it objectively.
Good Idea
Every single item you mentioned is already required, along with letters of recommendation on company letterhead from 3 different people. So apparently you are uninformed.
I'm also informed that in
I'm also informed that in many states, all you need to do is walk into a trade show to bypass said laws, and even some states waive several of them besides the federally mandated criminal background check.
Again, without a nation wide enforcement on gun laws, you're right, they don't work. Get all the states playing by the same rules and you'll see the benefits.
Absolutely
You're right. We should work to ensure stringent gun laws like those of the progressive state of Vermont are made
to apply nationwide. That way we could
enjoy their low violent crime rate.
I *heart* VT!
Works fer me!
AP statistics man.. there
AP statistics man..
there are always outliers, doesn't mean you overlook the majority of the data......
Basing a trend of a state with the lowest population per land mass & capita [which is most likely offset by other smaller states] isn't statistically relevant. Everyone can cherry pick data, but it's too bad data tends to have a reality base bias, right?
I hate to bring this up, but how do you account for gun deaths in Great Britain since it outlawed most firearms? And please don't bring up relative crime, as we are talking about limiting gun deaths and the factor increased guns has on gun deaths.
I'd rather go up against a punk with a knife then a gun, wouldn't you? I'm much more sure of my own ability to defend myself without a fire arm, then myself with one gun against 4-5 people carrying illegally. And as you said, those who carry illegally, will do so anyways. Doesn't that negate your argument?
Doctors would also like seeing a victim with a knife wound then a gun shot, as statistically they're much less lethal and survival rates are higer.
Heh.
Everyone can cherry pick data...
As you've amply demonstrated (see above).
OK, I'm off to bed. This time I mean it.
"...and the factor increased guns has on gun deaths."
Define or clarify what you mean by "increased guns".
I won't bring up relative crime in the UK. Just gun crime, which by all accounts is soaring through the roof. Even more so, given the news stories this past year about the government downplaying and misreporting crime data.
I'll link that later on. I'm tired.
With regard to the US/UK firearms fatality rates you're alluding to, how is it calculated? What goes into arriving at this number?
Does it include accidental hunting deaths? What do those numbers look like for these states in question? How about suicides? Does it differentiate between criminal use of firearms and justifiable homicide? I have to assume that shootings by those who are supposed to be disarmed by existing gun laws are included. How about fatal shootings by law enforcement officers? What methods are used to compile this data in these two countries?
And as you said, those who carry illegally, will do so anyways. Doesn't that negate your argument?
Only if you see surrender as a morally superior path to take.
Yep...
You're falling for the "gun show loophole" talking point. Private, or face-to-face, sales are permitted in many states, provided the seller is not prohibited from owning firearms. Selling to a prohibited person is a felony in all 50 states.
If person A is willing to commit the felony of selling a gun to prohibited person B, how will making that "more illegal" deter him from doing so?
The fact that some of these transactions take place at a gun show is irrelevant. They can just as easily take place in the parking lot outside the gun show, from the back of a van 50 miles from the gun show, or in someone's kitchen on the other side of the state.
Anyone purchasing a firearm from an FFL (Federal Firearms License) dealer at a gun show is required to complete the 4473 form, and is subject to a NICS background check. Some states allow for CCW permit holders to bypass the background check, as they've already voluntarily subjected themselves to such a check on their backgrounds.
Get all the states playing by the same rules...
Yeah, just like Menino wants Boston's bigoted gun laws to be used as the national model. No thanks.
But you and I both know that
But you and I both know that in many states these laws aren't followed as strictly as they could. Prosecutions, when braking these laws, is almost nonexistent in most states with lax gun laws.
Thats not the same as a uniform gun control law, which is why it will never every work.
It goes the same with legalized mary jane, as long as some states in the union have lesser or more severe laws, it becomes an issue of distribution on a black market.
Like i said, responsible citizens should be permitted to own guns.
I'm much less likely to allow them to carry in public, because then you're infringing on my own rights to not escalate a dangerous situation, much like forcing me to inhale your secondary smoke. We all have rights against fellow citizens actions that infringe upon our own rights.
Even thought you have the right to life and liberty and no-one infringing on your rights, if you pull a gun in a situation in a public place, where I'm also present, your infringing on my rights also, no matter what your "noble" {if misguided} cause is. I could give a rats ass if your going to "save" me.
As an example; should I dive into a car with a woman and child in tow because some guy jumps me with a gun while walking home? Just because he's much more likely not to shoot in that instance? I'd never think of it!
I'd also think very carefully of putting other peoples lives in danger just because I had a concealed weapon and feel like I'm the Texas Ranger. I'm really sick of this tough guy internet talk I see everywhere these days.
You want to serve the public, you want to pack heat, quit your day job and serve! Boston cops are hiring, National guard is hiring, hell the coast guard is hiring, and they all let you play with some fun big boy toys.
OK...
"Prosecutions, when braking these laws, is almost nonexistent in most states with lax gun laws."
Should I even waste my breath asking for a link to your source for that one?
Even thought you have the right to life and liberty and no-one infringing on your rights, if you pull a gun in a situation in a public place, where I'm also present, your infringing on my rights also, no matter what your "noble" {if misguided} cause is. I could give a rats ass if your going to "save" me.
Dude, you're insane.
If I pull a gun in public, it's because my life is under immediate threat. Sorry if that scares you. You don't have the right to not be scared by others acting in a perfectly legal fashion.
My rights are not subject to your feeeeeelings.
I'm done with you man. You're beyond help.
My rights are not subject to
My rights are not subject to your feeeeeelings.
You also don't have any "right" to subjugate mine.
If you think it's you god giving right to pull out a six pistol in a crowded mall to stop of crime, I think the majority of Americans will think you're going to far with this.
It's one thing when you put yourself and your own being in danger in private place.
The constitution and the bill of rights does NOT allow you to make that decision for me.
Your preferred course of action, then?
If some nutjob in a mall starts shooting people, and I'm there with my family, with a holstered handgun, how is my attempt to protect my family from harm violating your rights?
The guy who's already started shooting apparently doesn't give a flying rat's turd about your right to feel safe. His right to open fire in a mall does not take precedent over my right to protect my family.
I'm sorry if you feel otherwise.
Really, really sorry.
Are you going to stake your life on the chances that the police will be there in time. This happened in Utah last year, and the reason the shooting ended when it did was that an off-duty cop happened to be shopping with his wife, and ignored the "No Guns Allowed" sign posted at the mall entrance.
If it makes you feel any better, my response in that situation would be to take cover with my family, and try to get out of there as safely as possible. I'm under no obligation to save you from getting your ass peppered with buckshot. But if cowering in the corner, waiting to be killed makes you feel better, go for it.
I'm all for freedom of choice, regardless of how imbecilic your choice may be.
Me? I'll be in the store's back office with my wife and kids behind a desk, with a 230-grain hollowpoint ready to go out of the business end of my .45 trained on the door.
Not a single "gun nut" I know is out there looking for trouble. If trouble finds us, well, that's another story. You deal with it your way. I'll deal with it in mine.
You mean as strictly as *this* ?
From the Hooter:
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/general/...
"The 15-year-old suspected gangbanger who allegedly shot a Pop Warner football coach in the leg during an afternoon practice this weekend was ordered by a court to be placed under around-the-clock electronic surveillance two weeks ago, but it was never put in place, the Herald has learned.
The Roxbury teen, who is “well-known to police,” according to two law enforcement sources, was in juvenile court Oct. 2 for violating the conditions of his probation in connection with a weapons charge."
Seems we need an Operation Exile in MA, as the desire of the local judicial system to prosecute gun offenders is "almost nonexistant"
This kid should have a Federal jacket by now,
and his lawyer should be arguing that he shouldn't be tried under Federal law as an adult.
Or is this too harsh?
Here's why...
OK, I'm going to bed.
I'll check back in the morning to see who has and hasn't answered my questions (Anonymous5) or provided me with the source material to back up some of the ridiculous statements that have been put forth here tonight (SwirlyGrrl, independentminded)?
It's been fun, kids.
Can we all agree that Adam
Can we all agree that Adam needs to get some sort of "forum" like postings with a quoted "reply" button
These nested reply's and pages of comments are killing me!
loving the website, hate the comments section!
Yes, please!
I’ll amend a second to that. ;-)
Arms and the Man
there are a lot of conflicting statistics out there, so I don't want to get into them. But I think there are a few stipulations we can all agree on:
A: If there were no guns, nobody would get shot.
B: There are guns in America – probably more guns than adult Americans.
C. Reducing the number of people getting shot is an important goal.
D: Placing further restrictions on people who already follow all the gun laws is unlikely to greatly reduce death by gunshot.
Now that leaves us with a quandary, which is question one:
1. What would reduce deaths by gunshot?
That’s the question I’d really like to know the answer to, and I’m sure our elected representatives would too.
Now some questions especially for gun owners:
1. Is “arm” a synonym for “gun?”
2. Is “bear” a synonym for “carry?”
3. Is openly carrying a real sword in a public place protected by the 2nd Amendment?
4. Do you oppose your state’s regulations on carrying knives, swords, brass knuckles, etc. on 2nd amendment grounds?
5. Do you believe the 2nd amendment, with it’s right to keep and bear arms, gives the right to all persons, in all settings, to carry any weapon for any purpose?
6. What are the exceptions? Convicted violent criminals? Insane people? Blind people? Children? Airports? Bazookas? Explosive vests?
7. Do you belong to a well-regulated militia?
8. Do you consider that participating in a well-regulated militia, if it should become necessary for the common defense, is part of your responsibility as a gun owner?
Point by Point
A: If there were no guns, nobody would get shot.
True, but that Pandora’s box has been opened for centuries. It’s a little late to un-invent firearms now.
B: There are guns in America – probably more guns than adult Americans.
True.
C. Reducing the number of people getting shot is an important goal.
Here’s my suggestion for how to accomplish that goal:
Deterrent: If those who would do the shooting know that they are likely to be shot themselves by and armed citizen they may be less likely to engage in that kind of behavior in the first place.
Incident response: If the criminal is intent on mayhem on a grand scale an armed citizen may be able to significantly reduce the carnage by stopping the person who is causing the problem before they can complete their rampage.
D: Placing further restrictions on people who already follow all the gun laws is unlikely to greatly reduce death by gunshot.
Very true. That is in fact my point.
Now that leaves us with a quandary, which is question one:
1. What would reduce deaths by gunshot?
See answers to C. above.
…
Now some questions especially for gun owners:
1. Is “arm” a synonym for “gun?”
No. From Merriam-Webster’s OnLine Dictionary:
Main Entry:
3arm
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English armes (plural) weapons, from Anglo-French, from Latin arma
Date: 13th century
1 a: a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : firearm
“Arms” as used in the Second Amendment is more inclusive that just firearms.
2. Is “bear” a synonym for “carry?”
Carry, have immediately available in a useable condition and, if necessary, use.
3. Is openly carrying a real sword in a public place protected by the 2nd Amendment?
IMHO, Yes.
4. Do you oppose your state’s regulations on carrying knives, swords, brass knuckles, etc. on 2nd amendment grounds?
Yes.
If a tool can be used by a law abiding citizen for self defense it is unconscionable to deny that citizen the right to poses that tool. Also technology advances and new things are invented all the time. The Founding Fathers recognized that. That is why the Second Amendment does not have a laundry list of specific weapons types that are protected which would exclude any new ones that might be invented in the future.
5. Do you believe the 2nd amendment, with it’s right to keep and bear arms, gives the right to all persons, in all settings, to carry any weapon for any purpose?
5a “all persons”: I would change that to “all law abiding citizens.”
5b “for any purpose”: “Any” is a bit broad and would include such things as robbing banks. I would use a term such as is applied to the Marxistchusets concealed carry permit: “All lawful purposes.” Behaviors such as robbing banks and assaulting people are already illegal and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law regardless of the weapon (if any) used in their commission.
6. What are the exceptions? Convicted violent criminals? Insane people? Blind people? Children? Airports? Bazookas? Explosive vests?
“Convicted violent criminals” are not law abiding citizens. See my comments under 5a.
“Insane people” probably shouldn’t either. However, if they are fully recovered they should be able to get off the prohibited list.
“Blind people” are actually able to hunt using adaptive technology and working with a guide who does the sighting for them. You may want to check it out. It’s quite interesting!
“Children” Why not if they are properly supervised and trained? Take away the mystery and they are much less likely to be injured or worse by investigating on their own.
“Airports” How many planes would have been commandeered on September 11 if there had been armed citizens on board?
“Bazookas” See definition of Arms above.
“Explosive vests” are not defensive arms. They are weapons of mass destruction of a purely offensive nature and thus not covered.
7. Do you belong to a well-regulated militia?
Immaterial. The militia clause is a separate but equal clause of the overall amendment. Do you have to be employed by a newspaper to exercise your right to freedom of expression under the First Amendment?
From the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on Parker v. The District of Columbia:
“To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.” – From page 46 of the Court’s summary.
8. Do you consider that participating in a well-regulated militia, if it should become necessary for the common defense, is part of your responsibility as a gun owner?
Law abiding gun owners work for the common defense whether we are part of an organized militia or not. That is what it means to be a citizen.
Three pages? My apologies for being so long-winded in response. But you did ask…
No apology necessary
I asked; you answered. Thanks. Extra thanks for the quote from the 5th circuit.
One of the things I wonder about is whether there is any organized group concerned with protecting the second amendment right to bear arms other than guns. The NRA is, as it's name might suggest, interested above all in firearms. But I do not own a firearm and am unlikely to for reasons I don't wish to debate. Let's say simply that I just don't like them terribly much. I have, however, owned other weapons, some frankly illegal, and am much more likely to fall afoul of the law as regards other weapons. Several friends of mine have been charged with weapons violations of what I consider absolutely absurd sorts - such as having (ooh!) double-edged knives, or wearing spikes. I think I'd be happy to see some of the people who frequently wax wroth about gun rights pay the same attention to other arms.
Second, I used the term "persons" for a reason... our founding fathers actually made a distinction between "the people" and "persons." For example, slaves were considered persons in 1789, but their rights were not included in those of the people. They didn't have free speech, free religion, free association... heck, they didn't have freedom. And yet they were persons in America.
There is, and has always been, a distinction in this country between classes of persons as regards civil rights (such as those affirmed by the 2nd amendment). In your answer, you refer to "law-abiding citizens." That's the kind of response I was hoping to provoke. One of the peculiarities of the debate about gun control is that most crimes are committed by... well... criminals. And the real purpose of gun control should be to get these guns out of the hands of the criminals. I think that one thing I'd really like to see from gun rights enthusiasts is suggestions about how to get guns out of the hands of criminals ... besides shooting them out cowboy-style, that is.
(One of the other peculiarities is that most people shot dead by guns were shot by... themselves).
police with guns
I live in Prince Georges county MD. High school graduates pay about $6 grand, take a 19 week police academy training class (http://www.pg.cc.md.us/pgweb/pgdocs/coned/criminal...), and are eligible to be a cop. And the state police program is 25 weeks(http://recruiting.mdsp.org/training.asp). The pay is crap.
So what is the difference between a cop and a fellow citizen? What aspect of that training makes a cop more trust-worthy to have a gun. If you trust some random guy who took 19 weeks of training to come into your house at night, deal with the intruders, find you, stop your bleeding, call the ambulance, why not trust Bruce as well?
If you trust mall security guards, who haven't even completed 19 weeks of training, to protect you in the food court when the teens decide to rob you, why not trust Bruce who is having lunch at the next table to protect you?
Accountability
See, that's the weird thing about some gun enthusiasts. You try to talk about one thing, and all of a sudden they whip out their pet peeve.
And the pet peeves they have! As I asked in another post, why is it so many gun rights enthusiasts seem to hate policemen and want to disparage them? It really disturbs the sense I have, based on my own family and friends, that gun owners are mostly upright, conservative, law-abiding citizens. Personally, I like cops very much. But that's because I'm an upright, law-abiding citizen. I've lived in bad neighborhoods and had trouble with gangs and thugs, and I'm happy to know the boys in blue have my back. Face it: the cops are the good guys. If you think otherwise, you're probably one of the bad guys.
Anyway, even though it's irrelevant to the points at hand, since you asked, I'll answer. What makes police more trustworthy is accountability. They have to fill out several forms every time they pull a gun. Somebody knows where they are at all times. Their bullets are counted every time they come home. That makes them think good and hard before they draw a gun or use it.
Basically, if a cop accidentally shoots me, odds are it'll be clear who it was. If some random guy named Bruce accidentally shoots me because he thinks for some reason I want his gunslinging protection from punk teenagers at a mall food court, he'll probably run off and nobody will know who he was unless they can reconstruct it from the security cameras. He's not filling out any forms; nobody's counting his bullets. He didn't have a badge number or a patrol beat I can check at the station.
I know, I know, any kid in pajamas can dredge up a dozen examples of times a LEO shot someone in an unaccountable manner. But whatever is unaccountable about the way LEOs use their arms goes ten times for random strangers, however well-intentioned they may consider themselves.
Gareth, Have you ever been
Gareth,
Have you ever been shot at? Or been in the presence of somebody firing a gun? You are posting about make-believe. 'If a cop accidentally shoots me' That is vanishingly unlikely. You're more likely to find a winning lottery ticket or get struck by lightning.
And you're more likely to be shot accidentally by a cop than by a citizen, because cops pull their weapons more often in public than citizens.
Most cops are good people. In fact, most people are good people. I believe the average person is trustworthy enough to have a gun. There are a few bad cops (http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,35... ; http://www.reason.com/blog/show/123011.html). But cops don't have a magic aura that makes them better or worse than anyone else.
"Somebody knows where they are at all times. Their bullets are counted every time they come home." This is such unmitigated crap that you must have force-fed crap to pigeons and then force-fed their crap to cockroaches, to get such rarified crap. You have absolutely no idea how government bureaucracies operate. The police lose track of case files, evidence, guns, handcuffs, badges, uniforms, laptop computers, and occasionally police vehicles. They sign a piece of paper vouching for where they were and how many bullets they have. To believe what you believe is to have a religious faith in a human institution.
You claim a fear of paperwork is going to keep the few lazy/stupid/evil cops on the straight-and-narrow? Really? Have you ever seen an police report? Ever, ever? They routinely omit important information. Government documentation in general is spotty and lackisdasical and policing is not an exception.
I was answering a fantasist
who asked:
And I was explaining exactly why, despite this fellow's avowed hatred of and perceived superiority to police, I still trust them more than his Bruce to the Rescue. The word stands: Accountability.
You can argue all you like that the accountability of policemen is imperfect. The fact remains that it even exists, which makes it that much superior to the accountability of the random Bruce. Cops have beats, cops have rules, cops have dispatchers, cops have accountability. Sure, a bad cop could beat it. But arguing that because a bad cop could beat it it doesn't exist is poor logic. Arguing that I'm better off trusting the random stranger, whose accountability begins at nil and increases to the degree he can be identified by witnesses, is simply bizarre.
As to your question, I have:
-been shot at, or in the general direction of (I don't think he intended to hit me but to scare me)
-been with someone who shot a gun
-been with a civilian who used a gun to apprehend a criminal
-held a gun
-shot a gun
-got in an argument with somebody who pulled a gun on me
-made him put it back away again
I have also
-been assaulted
-been arrested
-had someone else arrested
And none of these things make me think I should trust some random guy named Bruce more than my local police officers - or even the rent-a-cops at the mall food court.
I know you troll around this board looking to argue with someone, but really you should find a better outlet for your blather.
Look. It’s not about
Look. It’s not about trusting Bruce or me or the equally random cop. It’s about trusting yourself and being about to protect yourself by yourself from all of the above if needed. The Second Amendment is all about individual responsibility for our own security, as well as the nations. The Second codifies into law at the highest level our individual right to defend ourselves.
Stop farming out your personal safety!
It’s not Bruce’s responsibility to protect you. It’s not mine, and incase you haven’t heard, the Supreme Court has established that it is not the police’s responsibility either. It is the responsibility of each and every one of us to protect ourselves! And the Second Amendment guarantees us the right to own and to have available to us in a usable condition the tools that we need to do that.
You abdicate that responsibility at your own peril.
Frik’n auto replace!
That should have read: “being able to”
I’m sure you figured that out. * grumble grumble Microsoft grumble! *
more likely to be shot by a cop than a citizen?
more likely to be shot by a cop than a citizen? really? if you mean by a law abiding citizen (just because you are a citizen doesn't mean you obey the law, i know this seems like a dumb comment but seeing as how i don't know how you are using the term, i felt a need to clarify) then you are probably right, as cops do draw their weapons more often. however if you mean any resident of the united states, then you are sadly mistaken. take into consideration gun violence from gangs, people who snap and shoot up schools, etc. not to mention the fact that cops don't generally go around firing their weapon for little to no reason, as the types of people i mention before hand do (not i said typically, i know that cops have abused their power before, as well as out right broke in peices the laws they swore to uphold) i don't have any stats to back this up, but i think most people will agree with me here. this may seem like something trivial to harp on, however, be careful about what "facts" you throw around. a lot of people throw around such miscontrued facts to win arguments on such issues as gun control and sadly, the majority of the people whom these laws affect aren't the wiser (we don't have the brightest population in the world). regardless of whether done purposefully or not, misinformation still does its damage in anything from our history books to the daily news we recieve and unless someone the record straight, it has a chance to be lost entirely. oh and if any part of this doesn't make sense, i apologize but its almost 6am and i'm a bit tired (not to mention i have to be up in like 45 min anyways, damn this message board).
actually
i think i'll skip my morning classes and get some much needed sleep. i do hope this debate continues however as i have enjoyed just reading both pages of this. not to mention the mental stimulation is nice (however it would be nice if alot of the left wingers out there would do more than regurgitate the same, weak arguments).
Good idea!
"One of the things I wonder about is whether there is any organized group concerned with protecting the second amendment right to bear arms other than guns."
Start one! Every group, however large and well known they may be today, started with an idea in the head of an individual. What’s to say that your idea is any less valid than any other that has an established organization behind it today?