Multiple shootings in Minneapolis. Wonder where those guns came from? We're less free with this kind of gun violence. From
KSTP:
By: Leslie Rolander 2 Shootings, At Least 3 Injured in Downtown Minneapolis
At least three people were shot in Minneapolis after two shootings Monday morning.
An officer heard the shots at about 2:15 a.m. after bars closed in downtown Minneapolis.
Minneapolis Police tell 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS two victims were found at First Avenue and Third Street.
About five to ten minutes later there was another shooting at First and Sixth, and a third victim.
Police are working to determine if another person who showed up at Hennepin County Medical Center with a gunshot wound is involved.
Police are working to determine if the two shootings are connected. Additional details have not been released.
and also from the same person at
KSTP:
Man with Gunshot Wound to Head Dropped Off at Mpls. Gas Station
Authorities say the man was shot in the head. He was taken to Hennepin County Medical Center.
Police are investigating this incident. Additional details have not been released.
I would remind our readers that Minnesota is one of the safer, more peaceful LEAST violent states, so compare all of these incidents I report to your own, and realize you probably live where there is more, not less of this kind of gun violence incident
Minnesota has it's share of shootings. Hopefully we won't turn into Florida or Texas or some of the southern states where gun laws are looser and gun deaths are higher. Our legislature, with the help of the NRA just tried to bring us one step closer to being like those other states. Luckily, they failed.
ReplyDeleteMike B, after browsing your blog, I have come to the conclusion you are nothing more than an Internet troll trying to get a rise and generate traffic with your out of touch views on the 2nd Amendment rights.
ReplyDeleteThe law abiding citizens' right to keep and bear arms is part of the Bill of Rights. The BoR stands above and beyond any local, state, or federal law; it especially stands high and tall above your and your readers' closed gate community views.
If you, your readers or a blog post talks about ways or reasons to restrict the right to bear arms, put it through this test: Replace the right to bear arms with the right of free speech, freedom of religeon, freedom of press, freedom to vote, etc etc. Choose one of those and see if your solution still sounds right. Passing a law requiring a background check through an authorized Federal Free Speech Licence agent before speaking your mind is completely ridiculous.
Yes, there are tragic firearms related deaths, but it is miniscule compared to other causes of death; cars are a perfect example. They cause exponentially more deaths each year. And driving is a privilege, not a right. Why don't you focus on that instead of trolling about my right to take responsibility for mine and my loved one's life and safety against those who would endanger them?
Anonymous, I'm afraid you're too biased and closed-minded to see reason.
ReplyDeleteYes, there are tragic firearms related deaths, but it is miniscule compared to other causes of death; cars are a perfect example. They cause exponentially more deaths each year.
You need to consider the meaning of such words as "miniscule" and "exponentially."
If you consider 30,000 miniscule compared to 40,000, or if you consider the second number "exponentially" greater than the first, I think you have some problems with English.
japete, Thanks for the comment. I don't think you have to worry about Minnesota slipping down to the level of some of the Southern States, but the alarming amount of gun violence in your comparatively safe state is tragic.
I used the correct words.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
Scroll down to Accidents, Fatal and Non-Fatal.
Most gun control advocating groups claim an average of 30,000 firearms related deaths a year. This is scraping the barrel to get every single number to add up to help with the statistics.
How much of those are by criminals who give no heed to whatever type of restrictive gun laws you can think up to pass?
How much of that number is suicides, people who would take their own lives through other means if a firearm wasn't available? Most unbiased statistics peg it at 50%.
How many of these firearms related deaths were caused by law abiding citizens with legally owned firearms?
Finally, how many of accidental firearms related deaths would be prevented if we had a national campaign to educate the population to the same degree we educate them on how to drive?
The final hypothetical aside, the true number of firearms related deaths by law abiding citizens is miniscule compared to the exponentially higher automobile related fatalities and accidents.
Again, as mentioned in my previous post, put it through the test of replacing one bill of rights with another in your proposed changes to restrict the Second Amendment.
I do not understand how you can hold high and exercise your Freedom of Speech to denounce the very next amendment to our Constitution.
I agree with Anonymous completely. Get rid of guns and a good portion of the deaths "caused" by guns will be "caused" by something else.
ReplyDeleteWe will presume you are not agreeing with yourself here.
ReplyDeleteThere are too many 'anonymous' commenters.
The assertion that deaths caued by guns would be caused by something else doesn't appear to take into consideration the ease with which one can kill with a gun, compared to the difficulty doing similar harm with other weapons entail.
It is an assumption, and not a very plausible one, not a fact.
Dog gone: “The assertion that deaths caued by guns would be caused by something else doesn't appear to take into consideration the ease with which one can kill with a gun, compared to the difficulty doing similar harm with other weapons entail.”
ReplyDeleteThen you shouldn’t have to use your “gun death” stats. Total murder rates would prove your point just fine.
Anonymous said, "I agree with Anonymous completely. Get rid of guns and a good portion of the deaths "caused" by guns will be "caused" by something else."
ReplyDeleteNow, that's funny not only because of the silly anonymous/anonymous thing but also because of the suggestion that "a good percentage" of the deaths would still occur if there were no guns.
I'd say that's absolutely right. Out of the 30,000+ per year we'd probably still have a good 5,000.
What do you think the numbers would be, since we've gone into hypothetical land?
"They cause exponentially more deaths each year. And driving is a privilege, not a right. Why don't you focus on that instead of trolling about my right to take responsibility for mine and my loved one's life and safety against those who would endanger them?"
ReplyDeletePosted by one of the red-faced little boys who have boycotted this blog (at least to the extent that they won't use their "handles" anymore).
This tired analogy has been trotted out as often as the Lott, "data" on such things as DGU's.
I furnished a pile of links and a fair amount of raw data on this a while back and I'm not doing it again. Yes, driving is a "privilege", once engaged in by at many, many millions of americans, for hours every day, in traffic, at speed, with a lot of other factors that have an impact on how, were, when and why accidents and fatalities happen.
Gun deaths, otoh, more frequently involve two or more people who know each other and have "issues".
Comparing the two sets of statistics and concluding that, because a lot of people die in auto accidents that automobiles and guns are equivalent is not just stupid, it's disingenuous. You fucking well know better.