Obviously this has nothing to do with law abiding gun owners who simply want to protect their families, nothing directly, at least. I say it has a lot to do with them indirectly. As vehemently as gun owners deny any responsibility for these criminal acts, I say they are complicit for the simple fact that guns are so available. If it weren't for the powerful gun lobby, supported by the numerous gun owners of America, we'd already have had the the necessary restrictions to lessen the flow of guns into neighborhoods like Liberty City in Miami and there would be less bloodshed.
Just weeks after the Liberty City shooting, four people were shot in a North Miami neighborhood by a man who police say wounded three young men and an 8-year-old boy. All were seriously injured.
Witnesses said that a young man pulled out a rifle and shot at the group as they stood outside a duplex at 1345 NE 127th St. Miami-Dade Fire Rescue took the victims to the Ryder Trauma Center.
North Miami police spokesman Lt. Neal Cuevas said the suspect was a man in his 20s whose dreadlocks were held in a ponytail with a rubber band. Police did not find the shooter, who may have had an accomplice.
Cuevas said each victim had been shot several times.
About 20 ammunition cartridges were found scattered across the duplex's courtyard, including AK-47 and pistol rounds, according to officials.
In a nutshell, that's my position on guns, gun availability and gun laws, but I can't help but wonder about some of the things reported in the news. Does the Miami Herald like to use the term "AK-47" too freely, perhaps as a sort-of buzz word of the anti gun movement? In describing the last major shooting, they used the terms "AK-47" and "assault weapon," yet one eyewitness report had the shooter pulling the gun out of his waistband.
I'm opposed to that kind of sensationalism, not only because it's dishonest, but because it's unnecessary. There are enough common sense arguments for gun control without giving the entire movement a bad name by resorting to cheap tricks.
What's your opinion? Can spent cartridges recovered at the scene identify the gun as having been an AK-47? Where does a kid in Miami get such a gun? Are there places where one of those can be purchased legally? Gun owners like them for protection and for fun, but is it worth it? I say no. I say legitimate gun owners deny the "flow" theory in order to continue their unconscionable denial of involvement in the problem.
What do you think?
Broken Record Mike,ReplyDelete
This is getting old by now.
We ask you to address points and answer the questions on exactly how, you ignore it and then post again with the "easy availability" and the "flow".
You find a single story of negative while ignoring the stories of defensive gun uses.
Starting to doubt you are doing anything more then writing simply to see the words on the screen.
+1 to Bob.ReplyDelete
We keep asking you to talk about concrete stuff, and you keep repeating the same hand-wringing.
Why's that? Because you're the first kind of anti-gunner, the one who supports the wrong-headed idea out of ignorance.
"If it weren't for the powerful gun lobby, supported by the numerous gun owners of America, we'd already have had the the necessary restrictions to lessen the flow of guns into neighborhoods like Liberty City in Miami and there would be less bloodshed."
If you truly know what you're talking about, let's expand on this subject. Make your next post all about laws that would "lessen the flow"
Of course you'll supply data and studies, as well as antidotes to prove to us how this will all work, and isn't just wild speculation that hampers our rights.
If my guns are adding to the flow, I'll sell them all this year. If Bob's guns are adding to the flow, he'll sell his.
If I sell my guns I'll tell anybody who listens to sell theirs, then I'll work with you to support your laws.
Of course these were "common sense" laws I fully supported a little over a decade ago....until facts, research and REAL common sense proved to me that anyplace where the law abiding are allowed to be well armed with minimal restrictions is a safer place than the places where the laws you propose are already in place.
I've changed my mind once before, so I'm hardly closed-minded on this issue.
I've asked you to do this before. You haven't. I interpreted that as a dodge, because you either lack the desire to become truly knowledgeable in this subject (not even on the broader subject of guns...just the narrow subject of gun control laws), or because you KNOW what we say is true, and you'd rather deny the truth then be wrong.
that's just my interpretation, if I'm wrong, please set me straight.
But as for:
"egitimate gun owners deny the "flow" theory in order to continue their unconscionable denial of involvement in the problem."
I'm not in denial, I just have seen no evidence of your "Flow" theory, at least in any of the terms you speak of.
If you can prove it otherwise, I will in no way want to contribute to the "Flow" out of denial, arrogance, or otherwise. I will admit I'm wrong, sell ALL my guns, and put the money in a high-yield savings account...and maybe buy a new computer.
So what will it be, Mike?
Can spent cartridges recovered at the scene identify the gun as having been an AK-47?ReplyDelete
no. they can identify the kind of cartridge used, but no more. for any given type of cartridge, there's almost always more than one kind of gun built to fire it --- and conversely, most types of gun can be had in varieties meant to take several different cartridges.
The authorities probably recovered 7.62x39 cartridges from the scene. By far the most common guns for this caliber in the US are the SKS, and semi-auto versions of the AK-47. These are both rifles designed by the Soviets in the late 1940's, with greatly reduced power compared to WWII-era rifles.ReplyDelete
If less than 11 7.62x39 cartridges were found, probably a standard SKS. If more, or if witnesses saw a long curved magazine, probably an AK variant but possibly one of the SKS models that can use AK magazines.
It is possible that spent cartridges could identify the specific type of weapon, but not likely before the story is released.
SKS and AK-style rifles are used a lot in crime because they are very inexpensive for their types.
Now, the meat of the matter--Do you want to change the constitution?
What restrictions do you think are necessary, effective and constitutional?
What types of guns would you allow?
Who would you allow to have them?
Would more laws really help? Of course not. The argument is getting old that it is the fault of gun owners because these poopstains want to commit murder.ReplyDelete
None of these idiots will let a gun law stand in their way of obtaining and using a gun any more than they will obey the law against murder.
"If it weren't for the powerful gun lobby, supported by the numerous gun owners of America, we'd already have had the the necessary restrictions to lessen the flow of guns into neighborhoods like Liberty City in Miami and there would be less bloodshed."ReplyDelete
48 hours, and no answers, but 3 blog updates.ReplyDelete
And Mike wonders why I claim he dodges questions in this issue to keep his failing ignorance alive and well.
Why do you do that, Mike? Is it pride?
The proof is in the numbers. There are tens of millions of you. Some percentage is contributing to the flow. That's a lot when your talking such a large group. I say that makes all of you responsible. You don't like that leap of logic, I'm sorry about that.ReplyDelete
In your view, what needs to be done to reduce flow sufficiently?
Dodge in 3-2-1.....ReplyDelete
Also, Mike, yes some guns do end up in the hands of criminals from lawful owners (vast majority through theft) But it does only amount to less than 1% of all legally held guns, and those numbers were generated assuming EVERY gun crime was committed with a unique gun (unlikely) and that the number that the ATF claims are lawfully held in America is correct (likely VERY low, probably by a factor of ten), and assuming that no guns are stolen from police, or factory shipments (which isn't true)ReplyDelete
So logically the number is MUCH lower than that.
WE KNOW you know this Mike, the only other explanation is you are stupid and/or mentally ill. That isn't the case.
You intentionally don't talk about concrete laws, and in the VERY rare instance when you do, you never answer any critiques.
I originally assumed you supported gun control out of ignorance, but you've read at LEAST some of the the studies posted, and read lots of gun blogs, and the comments here, so the chances of ignorance is very low. I can only assume you've chosen to continue your support of backwards laws for sinister reasons.
Is it Arrogance? Is it a phobia?
Again, are you willing to apply the restrictions to other aspects of your life that you want for firearms?
There are tens of millions of men, there is some number of men that are raping women. Therefore you are responsible for every woman who is raped. What reasonable restrictions are you willing to put up with to stop these crimes?
You are one of millions of people who drink (Assumption correct?) and you own a car, therefore you are responsible for the thousands of deaths each year from drunk driving. What reasonable restrictions are you willing to put up with to stop these crimes?
One of the most horrible crimes I can imagine is child molestation. Since you are a father and formerly law abiding dads have molested their children, are you willing to be restricted in your interaction with your kids?
In each of these cases, yes there is some number of people who break the law. Does that justify placing restrictions on everyone because of the few?
The proof is in the numbers.
Let's talk about the numbers Mike, since you say the proof is in the numbers.
From the Bureau of Justice Statistics
The prevalence of imprisonment in 2001 was higher for
-- black males (16.6%) and Hispanic males (7.7%) than for white males (2.6%)
-- black females (1.7%) and Hispanic females (0.7%) than white females (0.3%)
Those that have been convicted show a clear difference based on race....care to restrict the rights based on those differences?
* Fifty-three percent of jail inmates were on probation, parole or pretrial release at the time of arrest.
* Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime.
Looks like letting people out of prison isn't working....shouldn't we, based on numbers, keep people in jail?
How about this from Wikipedia:
Black on black crime
Homicide is the leading cause of death for African American males aged 15 - 34. In the year 2005 the Black homicide victimization rate was 6 times higher than the rate for Whites at 20.6 per 100,000, with 94% of Black homicide victims being killed by a Black offender. Explanations offered for the higher rates of crime among African Americans include family structure, the higher rates of single parent families, gang activity, close proximity to dangerous and violent urban drug trade, unemployment and ecological concentrations of urban poverty, and other socio-economic causes.
In the US, significantly less media coverage is given to crimes where the victim is black, compared with crimes where the victim is white.
Willing to implement restrictions based on the numbers Mike?
Why enact laws that effect the majority negatively when most of the problems are coming from a very small subset of the population?
"The proof is in the numbers. There are tens of millions of you. Some percentage is contributing to the flow. That's a lot when your talking such a large group. I say that makes all of you responsible. You don't like that leap of logic, I'm sorry about that."ReplyDelete
So that makes you equally responsible for child pornography and phishing and ID theft.
Do you like the 'logic' now? What restrictions are you willing to have placed on yourself to stop this? If just one child is saved, it's worth it, right?
Thirdpower said what Bob keeps saying:ReplyDelete
"So that makes you equally responsible for child pornography and phishing and ID theft.
Do you like the 'logic' now?"
I say it certainly would if there were a serious debate about allowing those things or not and I kept insisting that we allow them. If my side won that debate, then we would be responsible for the unavoidable damage caused by it.
It's a bad comparison, sorry, same with cars. If there were a serious attempt to ban cars and I fought against it and won, then I'd be indirectly responsible for the problems.
My logic runs something like that. That's why these comparisons don't work.
You are ducking the issue. AGAIN.
According to most gun banners, there isn't a serious debate about banning firearms but yet there are constant attempts.
IF you don't like those arguments, how about the arguments on banning knives in England?
How about the argument for banning certain sport motorcycles, crotchrockets, in America.
I think that you ignore the reality of the arguments because it forces you to consider how unconstitutional, how ineffective your ideas are.
Don't like child pornography, how about pornography in general?
Don't like banning all cars, how about all high performance cars? You can't tell me there isn't serious debate about capping how fast cars can go.
How about Rape? Are you willing to put up with the restrictions to stop rape?
How about child molestation? Surely that is a crime that every "reasonable" person can see needs to be stopped.
You are simply hiding from the truth Mike.
So I'm responsible for gun violence not because of any violence I've committed, not because I support violence, but because other people say that taking guns away from people who didn't do it will solve the problem?ReplyDelete
What if they are wrong--Am I still responsible?
What if they are only using crime as an excuse?
sevesteen, i've been trying to get mike to explain that bit of logic for quite a while now. it makes no sense to me either, but i can't seem to get mike to understand it needs a deal more support than he's giving it.ReplyDelete
Sorry Mike, you fail. You keep your computer even knowing that others w/ computers use them for nefarious means.ReplyDelete
By your supporting the computer and internet industry, you are partially responsible for the proliferation of child pornography et el.
Note that Mike's response neglected to include his own words:ReplyDelete
"There are tens of millions of you. Some percentage is contributing to the flow. That's a lot when your talking such a large group. I say that makes all of you responsible."
How about cameras? People misuse cameras to take child porn, invade the privacy of women by taking up the skirt pictures.ReplyDelete
Because of the sale of legal cameras to these criminals, are all camera owners responsible for the "flow" of easily available cameras to the criminals?
Mike, name an activity, name a legal product and some one out there has misused it.
You know, you guys keep saying banning things doesn't work, but I suddenly started wondering about that. Child pornography, for example, I wouldn't know where to get it, would you? I guess you'd have to start googling around the internet, but because it's banned, you'd need to be very careful. So right there you'd be inhibited by the fact that it's banned.ReplyDelete
Take crack cocaine, same thing. Thomas used to boast about how he could go to a certain part of town and get whatever he wants in 20 minutes, if he had a mind to. I don't think so. I don't know what you guys look like, but I couldn't pass for a user anymore. But even if I could, the fact that the stuff is banned would made it risky and dangerous, therefore inhibiting my getting it. So banning does work, not to eradicate the banned item, not to remove it from existence, but to curtail, to diminsih. That's the idea.
Take crack cocaine, same thing. [...] I don't know what you guys look like, but I couldn't pass for a user anymore.ReplyDelete
who says that's a requirement? what you have to pass for is not being a cop.
Can you drive up the costs (financial, physical, effort, etc) by banning items, yes.
Does it stop the item from being available, NO.
Look at firearms. Chicago has some of the strictest firearm laws in the country. It one of the highest murder rates in the country 508 people last year. Most of them with firearms.
The crooks who want firearms, or crack, or meth, will find them. The law abiding people who want to just protect their families can't get firearms without breaking the law. Is that fair?
Child porn, google it and in 2 minutes you can be looking at the most vile stuff imaginable.
Let's go back to some simple basics.
Do people have a right to life?
Do people have a right to survive?
Do people have a right to defend their lives?
Do people have a right to have tools that make that defense effective?