Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Miami Shooting, Over a Parking Space?

The local CBS station in Miami reports on the shooting that took place outside a popular Miami nightclub.

A young woman was shot and seriously wounded early Tuesday morning as she and a friend parked their car near a Miami night club. Her attacker first had to pry his hand and gun free from the power window of her car.

Nineteen year old Charlene Zatroch of Cutler Bay and 19 year old Chelsea Whitaker, also of Cutler Bay, had been making the club scene on South Beach, then made their way to the White Room nightclub in the 1400 block of Miami Avenue. As Zatroch maneuvered her car toward a parking space, witnesses say she was blocked in by a white, Cadillac SUV.

Words were exchanged and the driver of SUV came out holding a handgun. A witness, who declined to give his name, said Zatroch attempted to drive away, but the driver of the SUV ran his car into hers, trapping it. The witness said the gunman "got out of the car, went straight to the (victim's) window and just started shooting."

Another possible motive is that it was an attempted robbery. To me that sounds plausible because according to the witnesses, "The girl in the driver's seat put up the window, catching the offender's hand inside the window, with the gun in his hand. He was able to pull his hand from the window and then he started shooting through the window and the door."

Most likely the shooter was not a lawful gun owner or holder of a concealed carry permit. Probably he was not an off-duty police officer. In all likelihood he was a criminal, probably a person already prohibited from having a gun. So what does this have to do with the lawful gun-owning public?

I say it has everything to do with it. I say you cannot have one without the other. The more guns we have in the country the more trouble we have with them. Not only is the huge body of legally-owned firearms seeping into the criminal world through gun flow, but we have that fringe element of the lawful guys who keep going bad.

So, I don't accept that pro-gun argument that it's not their responsibility, that only the criminals are responsible for their actions. The easy access to guns, which if the gun rights crowd has its way will get continually easier, is ensuring that incidents like this are continually more frequent and more deadly.

What's your opinion?


  1. An example of road rage and under age drinking. Another aspect of this story is the age of the girls and the fact that club owners often let under age into bars because they know the girls attract high paying men customers. The girls should not have been there in the first place.

  2. I have a question about your concept of shared responsibility. Do you believe that all Federal Firearms License Holders share some responsibility for gun crimes because they are the original source of legal guns?

  3. Further, if your line of logic is sound, as Reputo has begun to extrapolate, then wouldn't those that issue the Federal Firearms license also be to blame? Therefore, wouldn't the best way to resolve the gun crime issue would be to abolish the BATF?

  4. I hadn't thought that far FatWhiteMan, but taking it further then, wouldn't the people that created the ATF be responsible (politicians)? And one step further, those who elected those politicians (the people, not just the gun owners)? Finally, the deity, entity, or chance that created people is to blame as well?

  5. I think that, assuming the information here is correct, the guy should not be allowed to interact with society any more. We've got enough issues without his type, Thank you buh-bye.

    As for the prevalence of firearms causing the crimes? That's like blaming the ease of accessing alcohol and cars for drunk driving, or ease of access to spoons for making people fat.

    As for "The more guns we have in the country the more trouble we have with them." Why not look at historic data regarding population size and violent crime...THEN see if you can make such a claim...or if the rates are constant (or have dropped), especially considering the dramatic increase in gun sales recently.

  6. If the person in the car had been armed, they could have shot this bastard. That's legal gun ownership.

    He's just a predator with whatever weapon he can find. You can't disarm people like that that. You can only arm up and live vigilant.

  7. Perhaps gun dealers should be eliminated, and guns should only be sold by the government, similar to liquor sales in Utah.

  8. Now there's an anonymous commenter who's not afraid to take a stand.

    About "arming up and being vigilant," that sounds tough and all, but it doesn't consider thee spill over, peripheral damage. The more people you "arm up" the more people you're going to have misusing the guns. It's a proportional thing. What could be simpler than that? Yet you guys not only deny the obvious you insist on having proof that it's false.

  9. The more people you "arm up" the more people you're going to have misusing the guns. It's a proportional thing. What could be simpler than that? Yet you guys not only deny the obvious you insist on having proof that it's false.

    So, what you are saying is that as the number of guns goes up, the number of gun murders, gun suicides and gun accidents will (based on common sense and the proportional thing) go up as well? Surely, there should be some numbers somewhere that prove that. I mean, all you would have to do is find out how many guns are in the US (on a per person basis) and then find some statistics of gun murders, suicides and accidents.

    That is such a brilliant idea, I can't believe nobody has ever thought of it before.

  10. Reputo,

    Thanks for the morning laugh.

    It was a double laugh noting the silence of the lamb-- I mean MikeB

  11. It seems that someone brilliant came up with that very idea, and made a graph that shows the number of guns, murders, crime, population, shall-issue permits, and things of that nature, all plotted over a long time period.

    If one's central point were "more guns equals more badness", then this kind of graph would be a very interesting barometer of the soundless of one's beliefs.

    I eagerly await your response!

  12. Nathaniel, I'll answer now rather than waiting till tomorrow, which is my usual routine. I wouldn't want you to get too eager.

    First of all, I loved Linoge's graph. It was a brilliant piece of work. The problem with it was it was completely focused on the guns. I keep telling you guys you do that too much.

    I, on the other hand, am well aware that there are any number of other factors. The drug fads that come and go, changes in law enforcement methods, immigration, illegal immigration, education and other societal conditions, to name just a few. Then you have the guns.

    Of all the contributing factors, the one which is the most concrete and therefore the easiest to target, is, guess which one. That's the story.

    Let me ask you this way, given all the other factors, do you think a country with 100 million guns would have the same problems as one with 200 million? Would every gun suicide use a razor or pills; would every gun murderer use a knife or bat?

  13. "Let me ask you this way, given all the other factors, do you think a country with 100 million guns would have the same problems as one with 200 million?"

    Most likely, yes. Especially given that the legal power to remove guns would disproportionately target lawfully held guns. Stuff like Registration and removal of private sales do nothing to the criminal guns, but do put lawful guns on the radar for the MikeB Removal.

    "Would every gun suicide use a razor or pills; would every gun murderer use a knife or bat?"

    More than likely yes. Especially given that England did exactly what you propose and got MORE violent crime. their suicide rate didn't change much either.

  14. So, you're arguing that crime and suicide and murder are caused by a multitude of factors and that it's naïve to focus only on guns?

    You know, I totally agree. Let's run with this. Since you have just admitted that these social problems are far more complicated than being able to boiled down to simple gun availability, then what effect can we expect when we twidle with the number of guns?

    Very little, as you said before; the guns are an easy-to-see constant when the whole world is changing. I'm glad you've come to this conclusion!

    You're surely right that linoge's graph doesn't take into account poverty, homelessness, drug addiction, law enforcement, illegal immigration and a raft of other social factors. And you're also right that those things play a more important role than guns.

    So why are we here even arguing about guns? If you believe that these social problems are merely exacerbated by guns, why isn't your focus on the social problems themselves? Why blame guns for problems you have just acknowledged are more affected by other phenomena?

  15. All right, Nathaniel, you've cornered me. Here's what I propose. Total gun confiscation, using Balckwater/Xe going door to door. We start with the threepers, then we go to those snarky female bloggers, then we take care of the rest of you. (only kidding).

  16. Love your logic MikeB

    Even in your jokes you are willing to use force to stop people from owning firearms.

  17. Note than rather take the subject seriously (like he claims he does) he makes a joke.

    Do you take this subject seriously, Mike?

  18. This comment has been removed by the author.

  19. sladduch,

    You are wasting your time. We have pointed out several times before that those issues are the driving factors (not inanimate objects). mikeb has no solutions. Only registering guns and common sense.

  20. Sladuuch said this: "I wasn't talking about gun confiscation here, I was asking why you focus on guns if you will freely acknowledge that other social factors play a far larger role in determining the severity of the worst problems?"

    Are you writing under another name? This looks like the first comment from Sladuuch, yet you said you'd said something before.

    I'd like to point out that I've said many times that guns are a part of the problem and other social issues are at play too. I never said those social issues "play a far larger role."

    This is an example of purposefully mischaracterizing what I say in order to gain an advantage in the argument. You're not the only one who does this around here, but it's not helping.

  21. il principe, road rage nor underage drinking were contributing factors to this situation in specific. I would recommend getting the facts straight before proposing an argument. Otherwise, in most cultures, it's called talking shit.

    However, that's not to say that your argument doesn't apply to other scenarios.

    In regards to gun control, it's simple to take a stance when looking at it subjectively. Much like you can't bring peace by providing more war, you can't stop the uncanny amount of deaths in the United States by guns each year by providing the population with more guns. Its apparent that the NRA nor any other association that rightfully promotes mans right to bear arms will be going anywhere for a while so the right for any american to own a gun will rest... the question is, what is it about americans that leads us to having about 10,000 more deaths a year through gun control than any other nation in the world?

  22. Gina Lily,

    Thanks for the comment. I noticed that the Principe said the girls shouldn't have been there in the first place. I'm surprised no one took him up on it.

    I like your ideas about guns. I hope we hear more from you around here.