Teen killed, 12 others injured in Newark shootings
Three separate shooting incidents claim victims in NJ's largest city
A 15-year-old was killed and 12 others were wounded in shootings across Newark, New Jersey, on Monday evening, according to local reports.
"It was definitely a targeted incident directed at these people in the driveway," Acting Police Director Samuel DeMaio told the paper.
Many bullet casing lay on the ground of the driveway after the shooting. Police said it was unclear if they belonged to the attacker or attackers or to the group originally fired on.
Three men and a woman were wounded in downtown Newark about four hours earlier, according to the Star-Ledger. Officials expected them to survive, the newspaper reported.
Another woman was hit in the buttocks in a separate incident on Monday evening.
but, but, but how can this be? NJ has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation.
ReplyDeleteNJ: Ranked #2 in gun laws by the Brady Campaign and #49 in freedom by the Mercatus Center.
ReplyDeleteIt seems it's the gun laws that make NJ less free, not the violence.
That is simplistic reasoning, that gun regulation makes us less free.
ReplyDeleteEnforcement and prosecution need to be effective for the regulation to work.
New Jersey has not funded either, not adequately, thereby gutting any effectual function of gun control.
Hmmmmm.....who do you think caused THAT to happen, through budget cuts?
The Mercatus Center of GMU?
ReplyDeleteHey, Az Red, why not just cite World Nut Daily?
Koch Bros. front group.
So those who are locked in a padded cell, protected from all harm (even themselves)- they are the most free out of everybody.
ReplyDeleteDon't be silly; those who are locked up, aren't free either - because they can't be.
ReplyDeleteThe rest of us can be safe, if those who are dangerous have less access to weapons, and if when they are violent, they are locked up through lawful, effective police work and prosecution.
I was being silly, but it is clear we have different views on what freedom means. The concept being that if freedom means the government keeping you safe, then there is no better example than a padded cell. To me, the more likely I am to be locked up through lawful, effective police work and prosecution, though I am NOT violent- the less free I am.
ReplyDeleteI took your meaning TS.
ReplyDeleteArguing that having gun laws doesn't restrict criminals from getting guns, so therefore we shouldn't have them is silly.
It is like saying because some people drive illegally, or over the speed limit, we shouldn't regulate and enforce vehicle laws.
Or because there are tax cheats, we should simply not have taxes.
The reasoning is flawed.
What makes sense is to have good regulatory laws so that the legal people can have guns, so long as they do so safely and not endanger others by how they keep and use their firearms. We need to fund the enforcement and prosecution of all aspects of gun violence, not ban all guns, and not have unlimited access to guns either.
Realistically, we can probably never end all violence, or all illegal firearms, either. But that doesn't mean we should stop trying to reduce crime as much as possible, and violence - al violence, but to the extent that guns do the greatest damage, guns should merit greater regulation.
It certainly doesn't mean we should resort to vigilanteism, by encouraging more citizens to shoot each other; that is lawlessness, not rule of law. That is greater freedom and safety, REAL liberty, for everyone except the violent and the criminal and the dangerous.
Dog gone: “Arguing that having gun laws doesn't restrict criminals from getting guns, so therefore we shouldn't have them is silly.”
ReplyDeleteI never said we should have NO gun laws just like you never said we should ban ALL guns.
Dog gone: “It is like saying because some people drive illegally, or over the speed limit, we shouldn't regulate and enforce vehicle laws.”
Wrong analogy. Speeding is the act that the law is trying to prevent. Therefore when people get caught speeding, they get punished. Violence is what we are trying to prevent, therefore when people get caught committing acts of violence with a gun, they get punished. To apply the gun control method to speeding, they would be trying to ban cars over a certain horsepower or mandate manufactures to install speed governors. Also, if I get caught speeding, I get a ticket and then I am on my way. If I get caught with an 11rd magazine instead of 10- I go to prison. That is less free.
"New Jersey has not funded either, not adequately, thereby gutting any effectual function of gun control."
ReplyDeleteAs high as the taxes are in NJ, there should never be a funding problem for anything.
The real problem is that NJ's anti-freedom, nanny state laws (including it's gun laws) drive away productive citizens, therefore leading to less state income to fund further anti-freedom, nanny state laws, including so-called "effectual function of gun control".
Let's see; NJ has a border with NY, another notoriously commanistical gunzhell.
ReplyDeleteOh, wait, it also has a border with both Pennsyltucky and Delaware--two states that are a bit less restrictive than NJ when it comes to gunzlawz. 'course, nobody don't never go to someplace like PA or DE to buy gunz and, like, smuggle 'em into states like NJ where they can sell them to REAL crimiperps for BIG BUCKS!!
TS, Were you really comparing proper gun control laws, as we describe them around here, to being locked in a padded cell?
ReplyDeleteDid you also say that having those kinds of restrictions on gun ownership is tantamount to the government protecting you?
I think you're losing sight of the point, man.