Saturday, November 16, 2013

Sleeping 9-Year-Old Boy Shot During Drive-By In Miami

A 9-year-old boy was shot in the face during a drive-by as he slept inside his Miami home Friday morning.
"It's a sad situation when a child can't be a child, when at 3:00 in the morning a kid can't sleep comfortably in his bed," said Miami Police spokesman Delrish Moss.
Investigators say a light-colored SUV drove down the 800 block of 55th Terrace in Liberty City and sprayed the house with bullets, Local 10 reports.
"I heard about 30 rapid gunshots, they went bop, bop, bop, bop, real rapid, about 30 of them," said a neighbor.
One of those bullets reportedly struck the boy in the cheek at an angle. He was rushed to Ryder Trauma Center in serious condition, police said.
This is good news for the gun nuts. In cases like this they don't have to embarrass themselves with cold-hearted ratios and rates of child deaths to the total number of guns in the country.  That's what they do when little Johnny finds dad's gun and kills himself or his little sister. In these cases they can simply point out it was criminals doing their thing and the resultant damage that happens.

The one thing they will never admit is that proper gun control would lessen the number of these tragic incidents. First they say, the gun accidents are too few to worry about, then they say the inner-city violence that kills kids is not their fault and gun control cannot prevent it.

Both are lies. Gun accidents that harm kids are not too few to worry about and proper gun control laws would have a direct impact on criminal gun activity for the simple reason that all guns start out the legal property of lawful gun owners. Proper legal constraints on those legal gun owners would make guns harder to get in the gang and drug circles where they are plentiful now.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

18 comments:

  1. You mention gangs and drugs, but then claim that punishing good citizens will keep criminals from being armed. All the gangs will have to do is hide guns in bags of drugs. So we're left with the question of why you want armed thugs and disarmed good people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're right that some guns would come in if the domestic sources became too difficult. But it would never match the ease with which guns are had now through private sales without background checks and through theft. These two sources account for most of the guns that end up in criminal hands and both start out with you lawful gun owners who don't want to do anything about the problem.

      Delete
    2. I can't help it that you suffer from a lack of imagination, but consider how easy it is to get illegal drugs in this country. When one source dries up, another takes its place.

      Delete
    3. I repeat, nothing could ever replace the ease with which criminals can get guns now. The source: legal gun owners like yourself who oppose restrictions which would help.

      Delete
    4. Repeating bullshit doesn't make it true. You've yet to answer my objection here. Criminals will always get guns in this country, just as they are able to get drugs. It's the good citizens who would be disarmed. Why do you want that?

      Delete
    5. You're the one who keeps repeating bullshit. When you say "criminals will always get guns," you're right. SOME of them will, but with proper gun control not nearly as many will.

      This is another example of the way you carefully word your responses in some vain attempt to avoid lying. But it's still a lie.

      Delete
    6. I don't accept a country where only the police and clever criminals are armed.

      Delete
  2. Certain things you have to do to disarm thugs and killers. Doing nothing only makes the problem worse and end in more deaths.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The best answer is to put thugs and killers in prison for a long time.

      Delete
    2. But that's not happening.

      Delete
    3. Indeed, but punishing good people for the actions of thugs and killers isn't the answer.

      Delete
    4. First of all, we do put thugs in prison at a rate higher than any 1st-world country on the planet. Secondly, restricting gun ownership is not "punishing good people" any more than requiring drivers to wear seat belts and have insurance is.

      Delete
    5. When you infringe on rights, that's a punishment. You want to infringe on the rights of millions of good citizens.

      And our prisons are filled in large part with people who committed drug offenses. Make our drug laws rational, and that number will plummet.

      Delete
    6. Then, is it a punishment that you cannot legally own a surface to air missile.

      Delete
    7. Again Greg is spouting HIS law, not THE law. There are ways to change the law, set up by the law. Greg has no time to work within the law, nor does he believe in working within the law.

      Delete
    8. SAMs aren't the kind of weapon that the Second Amendment refers to.

      Delete
    9. The second amendment refers to no kind of weapon.

      Delete
    10. That's bullshit, Greg. They are exactly the kind of weapon the 2A refers to, according to one of your own definitions. Weapons than can be borne by an infantry soldier, is one way of defining the word "arms" in the amendment. Your side says that. But, in your hypocritical and inconsistent way, you accept the proscription of missile launchers but continually bleat, shall not be infringed.

      Delete