Forums → WEPR → NYC and Chicago Shootings.
| 55 | 17970 |
Well, we shared our thoughts on the "Batman" Shootings.
Chicago: lice say 13 people were shot and wounded in a 30-minute spate of violence in Chicago, including eight gunned down on a single street.
olice say a drive-by shooting on Chicago's South Side late Thursday wounded seven men and one woman ranging in age from 14 to 20 years. Two of the victims were taken to Comer Children's Hospital. Most are in stable condition. Police say the 19-year-old woman wounded was shot in the arm while walking to work.
Five people were wounded in three other shootings around the same time.
Police say 19 people were shot in Chicago on Thursday night and early Friday.
Source.
NYC: Shots fired by a man who had been fired from his job (a year ago) - killed two people, once being his 'ex'-boss. The numbers of injured people shot may include accidental shots from the police. (Says Mayor Bloomberg in his statement). By. The. Police.
Views? Thoughts? Gun law arguments? Thoughts for the people affected?
- 55 Replies
If thats the case, then why have gun laws if they fail to achieve their desired end?
If thats the case, then why have gun laws if they fail to achieve their desired end?
That's like saying why have laws against sexual harassment if they fail to achieve their desire end?
Laws are always going to be broken.
Even then, it does not justify shooting 50+ times on someone. Shoot him in the leg, or in the chest if you're bad, but why do they, like, empty their barrels to make sure the guy is dead? Policemen have the right to be afraid too, but they should be trained to handle such situations even though they occur rarely.
Perhaps they should be trained in that, but they are not. It takes time and dedication to be able to train someone to restrain themselves in a situation like that, as well as amazing organization to decides who actually shoots. How do you suggest that they train people to do that, since apparently you know so much about combat?
Perhaps they should be trained in that, but they are not. It takes time and dedication to be able to train someone to restrain themselves in a situation like that, as well as amazing organization to decides who actually shoots.
Surely if someone is given the responsibility to enforce law and protect citizens which involves training, learning everything etc they would have the mentality to organize something.
Well, it would seem my computer doesn't want to copy, so this is in response to Jefferysinspiration:
Perhaps, but sexual harrassment isnt a constitutional right. The ability for a law abiding citizen to "bear arms" is.
If the only justification for a law's continuance is that it will be broken, thdn I still question the utility of the law. While sexual harrassment laws are broken. They are done so with horrific consequences. Gun laws, even if not broken, punish the law abiding citizen as his or her constitutional right to "bear arms" is being limited, while those who the law intends to punish can still obtain firearms through other means outside he breath of he law.
Perhaps they should be trained in that, but they are not. It takes time and dedication to be able to train someone to restrain themselves in a situation like that, as well as amazing organization to decides who actually shoots. How do you suggest that they train people to do that, since apparently you know so much about combat?
I do realize that policemen are often under pressure and heated due to the nature of their job and recalcitrant people not making it easier. Overreactions are common I think. However I don't think you have to be such an elite special ops in order to not go on a rampage on your target. It simply shows you're not apt to exercise that job under such circumstances and should restrain yourself to giving out fines. As to how one could train that; simulations. Simulated operations, and I'm sure they're doing it for some situations already.
If the only justification for a law's continuance is that it will be broken, thdn I still question the utility of the law. While sexual harrassment laws are broken. They are done so with horrific consequences. Gun laws, even if not broken, punish the law abiding citizen as his or her constitutional right to "bear arms" is being limited, while those who the law intends to punish can still obtain firearms through other means outside he breath of he law.
Those who can get weapons by illegal means will get them no matter how the legislation is, right. But there are still tons of people who will be discouraged by such a legislation, and usually those who go amok are not criminals, but regular people.
Also, that bearing arms is a constitutional right and sexual harrassment isn't, is a simple matter of fact and could be changed fast if supported, so that argument on itself seems a little... weak to me.
that argument on itself seems a little... weak to me.
for americans their constitution is like the most holy thing on earth.
nothing may be changed and everything has to stay as it is.
even if it doesn't work their argument is "it's in the constitution" or "it's our constitutional right" and BS like that.
ive never heard any other country cry about it as much as the americans do.
The problem persists.
In response to Hahiha:
That he legislation could discourage future crime bears no relevance; an individual's personal morals could lead them to the same end entirelly independent from the law. For example, I don't go about killing or raping people as I find I find it to be morally impermissable, and not that I have to restrain myself because of some law. In regard to gun laws and violent gun crime, the individuals who would most likely commit a violent gun crime would not likely be deterred by any law, and such a law would only harm those would have no intention of breaking it. The fact that Chicago (and Illinois) have very strict gun laws and yet still manages to have a 24-hour period of double digit gun-related deaths is testament to this.
Except that the right to bear arms is within the Bill Of Rights, which codifies the basic rights all citizens have, providing the citizen does not infringe on the rihts of others. Not to mention the sheer legislative difficulties in passing an amendment to the constitution.
In response to Partydevil:
Your parochial overtones in regards to your US-related discourse does nothing for my respect of you.
And of course the Americans talk about the US Constitution. What else would they talk about, Argentina's? That akin to lambasting Spain for not discussing France's constitution, or shunning India for not discussing Japan's.
That he legislation could discourage future crime bears no relevance; an individual's personal morals could lead them to the same end entirelly independent from the law. For example, I don't go about killing or raping people as I find I find it to be morally impermissable, and not that I have to restrain myself because of some law. In regard to gun laws and violent gun crime, the individuals who would most likely commit a violent gun crime would not likely be deterred by any law, and such a law would only harm those would have no intention of breaking it. The fact that Chicago (and Illinois) have very strict gun laws and yet still manages to have a 24-hour period of double digit gun-related deaths is testament to this.
That's all about their motivation; fine. I was getting at the availability: msot shootings are done with legally purchased weapons. If those wouildn't have been legally purchaseable, they would have to get them illegally, which is a wholly different thing for someone who has never delved in those milieus before. I persist in thinking that many people would be discouraged by that.
Most violent crimes (and crimes in general) are committed by insividuals with no criminal record. By your logic then, I ought to throw everyone into prison because they *might* commit a crime. The purpose of the law is to punish those who break the law, not those who could break the law but dont.
Likewise, to make illegal the purchase of firearms simply because they are used in violent crime is ridiculous. You might as well say that knives and baseball bats need to be illegal, since they could possibly kill someone. Even further, you could make the argument that everyone's hands ought to be chopped off, since they could bludgeon someone to death. You have a correlation, but you still have to show a causation. Firearms do not choose kill; they are simply an instrument that can kill. The fact that humans have been killing one another long before the invention of firearms is evidence enough to this.
Then why don't people possess bazookas and tanks?
You can kill people with basically anything that isn't nailed down, but most of those things have a certain purpose; like playing baseball. They can be misused to kill someone. A gun is made to kill, and can be used to kill someone. I know I'm playing with words here, but it's only to make clear what I mean; pencils are made to write and are used to write, guns are made to kill and are used to kill. I cannot understand why you people get wet dreams about them.
With the appropriate license, you can possess an explosive weapon (such as a bazooka or an RPG), and a quick perusal of Google found that not only can you purchase tanks, they're also street legal in some areas. But I would assume that the sheer cost of the average tank, not to mention the whole 'one mile to the five gallons' means its not a feasible option for most commuters.
I aggree that guns are meant to kill, but thats it. You dont iolate the warranty if you dont kill a person with it. Many, many people use firearms for both recreational and subsistence hunting, as well as personal defence. Firearms can be misused, as you said, but such misuse does not warrant the demonization of the item as a whole.
To each his own, I suppose. I dont understand how people can get so worked up about sports, for example.
A good example on how laws don't really effect anything. Everyone know about the flamethrower? A powerful weapon that can take down fortified positions and light combat vehicles. However, they are not regulated by the federal government in America, meaning they are completely legal. When was the last time a flamethrower was used for a crime?
I do realize that policemen are often under pressure and heated due to the nature of their job and recalcitrant people not making it easier. Overreactions are common I think. However I don't think you have to be such an elite special ops in order to not go on a rampage on your target. It simply shows you're not apt to exercise that job under such circumstances and should restrain yourself to giving out fines. As to how one could train that; simulations. Simulated operations, and I'm sure they're doing it for some situations already.
I meant how logistically. Are you going to make everyone take one class as a rookie? Are you going to make everyone take a course every month? Every few years? How are you going to pay for this?
Really, it would be nice to have a more civilian team like the regular police men take care of simple things, and have a well-trained military like team like a SWAT team take care of combat things. That would be ideal, I would think.
Then why don't people possess bazookas and tanks?
You can posses flamethrowers without any regulation in America. I am not sure they even count as a fire arm here. Is that close enough?
Otherwise, because it is expensive. You need a class III license, for a bazooka, which costs money, and the actual weapon will also cost you a bundle. As for the tanks, you can buy them online. I am imagining they are more expensive then the average car, though.
You can kill people with basically anything that isn't nailed down, but most of those things have a certain purpose; like playing baseball. They can be misused to kill someone. A gun is made to kill, and can be used to kill someone. I know I'm playing with words here, but it's only to make clear what I mean; pencils are made to write and are used to write, guns are made to kill and are used to kill. I cannot understand why you people get wet dreams about them.
A gun isn't made to kill, it is made to shoot. This can be used in many purposes, from hunting to self defense. When it is used in a crime, it is misused. When it is in an accident, it is misused. That is why several people I know call their guns "Firearms" rather then "weapons", since the term "Weapons" suggests that you want to use them to harm someone else. But to be honest, most the people using that term are on boyscout style target shooting...
remember people you dont have to buy guns from the gun store there are other ways! if we out law guns then the good guys cant get guns and the bad guys buy under the table
remember people you dont have to buy guns from the gun store there are other ways! if we out law guns then the good guys cant get guns and the bad guys buy under the table
more easy to identify good from bad.
and the bad from the really bad.
when outlawed the small criminals wont have a gun.
+ hunters and sporters don't use automatic gun.
if they do, it aint a sport.
You must be logged in to post a reply!