Friday, July 10, 2009

Mass Shooting in Miami - Again

The Miami Herald reports on the shooting which took the life of one and wounded twelve, two of whom are critical.

Miami City Commissioner Michelle Spence-Jones admitted the solutions she offered were all too familiar.

''The reality is we must all take responsibility to face this madness,'' she said. ``No more excuses. No placing the blame.

''We already played this story on Jan. 23,'' she added, referring to a January mass shooting in Liberty City in which two died and seven were wounded.

Spence-Jones urged residents not to retaliate against suspects and to send letters supporting a federal ban on assault rifles, one of which was used in Monday's shootings outside a birthday party that attracted hundreds. She also asked police to implement zero-tolerance practices in Overtown, saying small infringements of the law lead to bigger crimes.


In the video, Miami Mayor Manny Diaz repeats the Commissioner's plea. "Until we have a Federal Government that is willing to do something to get these weapons off of our streets, unfortunately we're going to be right back here or somewhere else talking about the very same thing."

What's your opinion? Are the Mayor and the City Commissioner misinformed, are they ignorant? When we discussed the Liberty City shooting in January, which left two dead, it seemed the local politicians, the local residents and even Al Sharpton were all in agreement that the easy availability of weapons in Miami is the problem. Yet, I don't see anything being done about it.

It's a sad state of affairs when the gun control folks can boast of a success only in the "guns on campus" fight, but the inner cities continue to be war zones. The AK-47 and the 9 mm pistols used in this shooting were probably purchased legally from a licensed gun dealer at some point. Then, somehow they passed into the criminal world. There are only so many ways that can happen, all of which can he stopped or severely diminished by proper gun control. When this type of gun flow takes place, there are so-called lawful gun owners involved, one way or the other.

What do you think? Please leave a comment.

6 comments:

  1. So there was one assault rifle used (I really doubt that) and five handguns so naturally this commissioner says that citizens must write letters against assault rifles. Sounds like opportunistic political nonsense to me.

    "What's your opinion? Are the Mayor and the City Commissioner misinformed, are they ignorant?"

    Are you kidding? Of course they are obviously ignorant. Mayor Diaz is also a known gun banner that never misses a chance to meddle his nonsense either.

    "When we discussed the Liberty City shooting in January, which left two dead, it seemed the local politicians, the local residents and even Al Sharpton were all in agreement that the easy availability of weapons in Miami is the problem. Yet, I don't see anything being done about it."

    Al Sharpton, now there's a reliable source. If all of the city's politicians and residents truly felt this way, then why didn't they pass a local law?

    "The AK-47 and the 9 mm pistols used in this shooting were probably purchased legally from a licensed gun dealer at some point. Then, somehow they passed into the criminal world."

    Yup, criminals steal stuff. That is why they are criminals. How about we stop grand theft auto by banning cars. (Haven't used a car analogy in a while).

    You mention that inner cities continue to be war zones, yet millions of these same guns are owned legally in suburban and rural communities without all of the carnage. Did you ever stop to think that maybe it is these inner city animals that are the problem? Would infringing on legal ownership really stop criminals from behaving like criminals?

    ReplyDelete
  2. FWM - It's funny because those violent inner cities generally have more gun control than other areas of the country, yet higher crime rates.

    Perhaps it is the PEOPLE inhabiting those cities that are the problem? In particular a small subset of those people. (18-25 y/o black males)

    ReplyDelete
  3. "but the inner cities continue to be war zones"

    And WHY are they war zones Mike? Those of us out in the suburbs & rural areas have PLENTY of guns yet far less violent crime than we see in the inner cities.

    Could it be that the problem is actually the violent PEOPLE in the inner cities rather than firearms?

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Would infringing on legal ownership really stop criminals from behaving like criminals?"

    That's the issue here. Mike has incorrectly identified the problem as one of "gun avaliability" when in fact violent people are the problem.

    We can do everything possible to cut down on the # of guns, but that's all useless if we fail to address violent criminals.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mike W. says, "That's the issue here. Mike has incorrectly identified the problem as one of "gun avaliability" when in fact violent people are the problem."

    I never said gun availability was the entire problem. I never said the violent people weren't the problem either. What I do say is when you increase the gun availability among violent people, you have more shootings and bloodshed. Therefore, reducing the availability is imperative if we want to diminish the violence. Of course, we need to work on the other social problems which are contributing, but weapon availability is one of the most concrete and therefore one of the easiest to do something about. That is, it would be if it weren't for you gun owners fighting against it every step of the way.

    ReplyDelete
  6. MikeB,

    I never said gun availability was the entire problem.

    No, but you never seem to focus on anything else...do you?

    Therefore, reducing the availability is imperative if we want to diminish the violence.

    1 in 10 violent crimes involves a firearm. If we reduce firearm crime 100%, we've only achieved a total 10% reduction of violent crime.

    Is it practical to think that we can completely firearm related crime?

    Isn't it more feasible, practical and common sense to try to reduce violent crime by 10%?
    That reduces firearm related crime by 10% at the same time....right?

    So...how do we reduce violent crime? By focusing on a tool or the criminals doing the crime?

    Which makes use of common sense?

    ReplyDelete