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:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Thank goodness...
By BrucemB
Sun, 10/14/2007 - 1:07pm
...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
By SwirlyGrrl
Sun, 10/14/2007 - 2:10pm
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?
By BrucemB
Mon, 10/15/2007 - 9:37am
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
By SwirlyGrrl
Mon, 10/15/2007 - 9:57am
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?
By BrucemB
Mon, 10/15/2007 - 10:36am
"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 ...
By SwirlyGrrl
Mon, 10/15/2007 - 4:15pm
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...
By BrucemB
Mon, 10/15/2007 - 5:04pm
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
By independentminded
Mon, 10/15/2007 - 12:08pm
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.
By BrucemB
Mon, 10/15/2007 - 2:18pm
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!!
By independentminded
Tue, 10/16/2007 - 12:19am
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.
By BrucemB
Mon, 10/15/2007 - 3:15pm
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...
By Rob K
Wed, 10/17/2007 - 2:23pm
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!!
By independentminded
Thu, 10/18/2007 - 6:03pm
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
By Bostonian
Mon, 10/15/2007 - 2:55pm
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
By BrucemB
Mon, 10/15/2007 - 3:08pm
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
By Rustmeister
Mon, 10/15/2007 - 3:30pm
- 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?
By Bostonian
Mon, 10/15/2007 - 5:03pm
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...
By BrucemB
Mon, 10/15/2007 - 8:55pm
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
By PrivateGomerPyle
Tue, 10/16/2007 - 12:25am
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!!
By independentminded
Thu, 10/18/2007 - 6:08pm
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
By Bill
Mon, 10/15/2007 - 9:08pm
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
By PrivateGomerPyle
Tue, 10/16/2007 - 12:06am
You lost me when you [i]reference[ed] the movie "The Patriot"[/i]
Sorry buddy, let's leave fiction out of this, especially, new age fiction!
Prove a Negative?
By Rustmeister
Mon, 10/15/2007 - 10:51pm
I would think proving gun control works would be a positive in your book.
Right on, Bostonian!!
By independentminded
Tue, 10/16/2007 - 12:20am
way to go!!
New Hampshire
By Confused
Mon, 10/15/2007 - 3:04pm
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...
By BrucemB
Mon, 10/15/2007 - 3:14pm
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
By Andrew
Mon, 10/15/2007 - 3:27pm
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
By Anonymous5
Mon, 10/15/2007 - 3:33pm
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...
By BrucemB
Mon, 10/15/2007 - 3:44pm
...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.
By Anonymous5
Mon, 10/15/2007 - 4:00pm
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?
By BrucemB
Mon, 10/15/2007 - 4:54pm
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
By eeka not logged in
Mon, 10/15/2007 - 9:34pm
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?
By BrucemB
Mon, 10/15/2007 - 10:19pm
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...
By eeka not logged in
Mon, 10/15/2007 - 10:48pm
Then do you want the government to just hand out free guns to every person? I don't want that.
Huh???
By BrucemB
Tue, 10/16/2007 - 12:21am
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
By PrivateGomerPyle
Tue, 10/16/2007 - 12:23am
If you really think any party represents your views, you need a wake up call...
[i]totalitarian, elitist, [Massachusetts] "[progressive]" busybodies[/i]
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!
[i]They own your body.[/i]
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?
By BrucemB
Tue, 10/16/2007 - 9:07am
"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
By PrivateGomerPyle
Tue, 10/16/2007 - 12:13pm
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
By Andrew
Mon, 10/15/2007 - 3:48pm
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
By Anonymous5
Mon, 10/15/2007 - 4:08pm
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
By PrivateGomerPyle
Mon, 10/15/2007 - 4:29pm
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 [b]person[/b] on the other end of it.
Honestly, again, I don't know
By Anonymous5
Mon, 10/15/2007 - 4:38pm
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
By Tao
Tue, 11/06/2007 - 10:14pm
"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
By T.C.K.
Tue, 10/16/2007 - 9:44am
So basically, you're admitting that you don't know what the f*** you're talking about?
Are you purporting that
By Anonymous5
Tue, 10/16/2007 - 12:54pm
Are you purporting that everyone needs to be an expert on every topic to have a discussion? Grow up, honestly.
Actually...
By BrucemB
Mon, 10/15/2007 - 5:11pm
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
By PrivateGomerPyle
Tue, 10/16/2007 - 12:01am
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 [b]rare [/b]possibilities, and not the [b]cold hard[/b] instances Bruce...
Just a Q, Perhaps for
By PrivateGomerPyle
Tue, 10/16/2007 - 12:04am
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!!
By independentminded
Tue, 10/16/2007 - 12:22am
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
By BrucemB
Tue, 10/16/2007 - 12:42am
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
By PrivateGomerPyle
Tue, 10/16/2007 - 1:08am
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 [i]majority[/i] 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!
By independentminded
Tue, 10/16/2007 - 11:42am
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.
By BrucemB
Tue, 10/16/2007 - 2:41pm
Just...wow.
uh oh, here come the gun nuts!
By trigger happy
Mon, 10/15/2007 - 3:37pm
*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
By BrucemB
Mon, 10/15/2007 - 3:46pm
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!!!!
By BrucemB
Mon, 10/15/2007 - 3:47pm
Quick! Call them names in an attempt to discredit their arguments, without offering any rebuttals based on logic or rational thought!
Sockpuppet Invasion!
By SockyMcSockpuppet
Mon, 10/15/2007 - 4:09pm
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
By trigger happy (...
Mon, 10/15/2007 - 4:17pm
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
By trigger happy
Mon, 10/15/2007 - 4:23pm
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
By adamg
Mon, 10/15/2007 - 4:35pm
... 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 :(
By trigger happy
Mon, 10/15/2007 - 4:41pm
aww, ok, i'm done.
Sorry :-(
By SwirlyGrrl
Mon, 10/15/2007 - 4:46pm
Stimulus, response. Stimulus, response.
Okay, I'm done now, too.
Gun nuts and anti-gun nuts
By Ron Newman
Mon, 10/15/2007 - 4:13pm
are equally annoying.
The Profile of a "Gun Nut"
By Andrew
Mon, 10/15/2007 - 4:25pm
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!!
By independentminded
Tue, 10/16/2007 - 11:43am
n/m
Uh...
By eeka not logged in
Tue, 10/16/2007 - 1:21pm
I'm pretty sure he was.
5 for 5
By HerrBGone
Mon, 10/15/2007 - 4:27pm
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...
By HerrBGone
Mon, 10/15/2007 - 4:36pm
Make that 5 for 9. And you were doing so good!
In our nations capital
By PrivateGomerPyle
Mon, 10/15/2007 - 5:44pm
[i]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.[/i]
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...
By HerrBGone
Mon, 10/15/2007 - 9:14pm
“… 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.
Pages