Gunmen opened fire on dozens of people marching in a Mother's Day second-line parade in New Orleans on Sunday, wounding at least 17 people, police said.
Police spokeswoman Remi Braden said in an email that many of the 17 victims were grazed and most of the wounds weren't life-threatening. No deaths were reported.
Police Superintendent Ronal Serpas told reporters that a 10-year-old girl was grazed in the shooting around 2 p.m. She was in good condition. He said three or four people were in surgery, but he didn't have their conditions.
Officers were interspersed with the marchers, which is routine for such events. As many as 400 people joined in the procession that stretched for about 3 blocks, though only half that many were in the immediate vicinity of the shooting, Serpas said.
Police saw three suspects running from the scene in the city's 7th Ward neighborhood. No arrests had been made as of late afternoon.
I guess La Pierre's nonsense about a good guy with a gun didn't work.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
I guess La Pierre's nonsense about a good guy with a gun didn't work.
ReplyDeleteYeah--in the same sense that a car accident in which someone using a seat-belt dies "proves" that the "nonsense about" seat-belts saving lives "didn't work."
The problem with your hypothesis is that there are not enough anti-self-defense fanatics in the world for it to get any traction.
Say--you know what would have been a great title for this post? New Orleans Mass Shooting - No Deaths.
I wonder why that title didn't suggest itself to you . . .
If he'd been wielding a knife, I doubt if SEVENTEEN would have been wounded.
DeleteThe comparison you made to the seat belt law is silly. Although this is only one anecdotal case, it does cast doubt upon the La Pierre claim.
No, Mikeb, you firmly believe that data is the plural of anecdote.
DeleteAs Kurt said, you also demand that good citizens, whether private or police, have a perfect score of stopping events like this, while at the same time waiting only until you deem using a gun to be absolutely necessary. I suspect that you've chosen such a standard as a way of denying the utility of guns in private hands, but that's a question of your motives, and the facts are bad enough.
If he'd[?] been wielding a knife, I doubt if SEVENTEEN would have been wounded.
Delete"Doubt" it if you wish--if I were trying to defend the indefensible positions you take, I suppose I'd "doubt" the truth--like like mass stabbings in which dozens are hurt, some fatally, too.
Oh--and, "If he'd been wielding a knife . . . "? Generally in English, "he" is used as a singular pronoun. In this non-fatal shooting, however, there are thought to have been at least two shooters.
Multiple armed attackers--whatever the weapon--tend to translate to more carnage.
Although this is only one anecdotal case, it does cast doubt upon the La Pierre claim.
DeleteA single anecdote (and a very imperfect one, at that, given your lack of proof of the presence of a "good buy with a gun") does not "cast doubt upon" anything, except sweeping generalizations that do not allow for exceptions ("a good guy with a gun always stops a bad buy with a gun," for example).
On another note, I gather you don't fancy my alternative title--I'm hurt. Well, perhaps you'll like this one better: "Multiple Shooters Cause Fewer Deaths than One 12-Year-Old with Knife."
Like it?
Kurt, it's dishonest of you to pretend that knives are as lethal as guns or that mass killings are as frequent with knives as they are with guns. Anecdotal examples don't change the fact.
DeleteMikeb, you telling us that anecdotes don't change the fact is cute.
DeleteKurt, it's dishonest of you to pretend that knives are as lethal as guns or that mass killings are as frequent with knives as they are with guns.
DeleteI don't pretend that, any more than you pretend that if all guns suddenly disappeared, there would be no more murders.
If it's legitimate for you to belabor the point that a given mass stabbing claimed no lives, it's equally legitimate for me to point out mass shootings with no fatalities, and stabbings in which many people are killed.
Problem was, there were no good guys. Like the Toronto basketball game a couple of weeks before the Batman movie shooting, it was gang bangers shooting at each other and hitting innocents instead.
ReplyDeleteOf course there were good guys with guns present. It was a crowded event, not at all limited to gang members, in a city with very wide gun ownership.
DeleteDo you mean the officers--those highly trained and Brady Bunch approved gun users, the only ones professional enough to carry guns? Here's the thing, when the good guys don't have a shot, they don't take a shot. But that doesn't mean that guns are therefore useless to carry.
DeleteActually, that's exactly what it means. And let's not forget all the negative uses for those guns, they're stolen, they're negligently discharged, many of you guys forget there's one in the chamber and sometimes you drop them and they go off.
DeleteMikeb, explain to me how much less than one percent of total gun owners constitutes many.
DeleteCome on--you really expect us to believe that there weren't any "law abiding citizens" out there given Louisiana's love of gun rights?
ReplyDeleteOr...
Have you lot made the situation so bad that not even an "armed citizen" is brave enough to go out due to the "otherwise law abiding citizens" being so well armed due you shitheads making it easy for them to get their hands on guns?
How many people that were wounded by gunfire were carrying a weapon?
ReplyDelete