http://news.yahoo.com/violence-amid-revelry-ny-west-indian-day-parade-031906107.html I didn't really want to start a whole new thread just for this, but I can't find any where to put it... this whole story is very sad; a tragic event for sure...the problem I have is this: the kneejerk reaction is it is the gun's fault...well if the guy had an 'extensive criminal history' then why was he out on the street? Maybe if NY would work on doing a better job of sentencing and put these people in JAIL, they wouldn't be out on the street shooting people. we don't know what the criminal history is, the reporter didn't bother to find out, it wasn't on his agenda. then there is this: then why is the parade allowed to go on every year? if there is a history of violence, why allow it then blame a gun? would it be ok if someone used a knife to kill people? it is just irritating to constantly see this propaganda in story after story...Yahoo is one of the worst about this kind of thing..
Maaaaate! You would NEVER want to read that same story in a media outlet OUTSIDE the USA You think it has a "liberal" spin there? Consider this - yours is about the only country in the developed world where guns are so freely available And one of the few countries on this planet where gun ownership legal or illegal is defended as a "right"
I dont' really want to get into a whole "my country is better than your country" I am talking about the US.
You seem to be hyper-sensitive to anything that appears to put guns in a bad light. The fact of the matter is that the article you linked to did NOT "blame the gun" as you put it. If you can show that it did, then you are free to do so. Secondly, you appear to have an inconsistent argument. On the one hand blasting those whom you imagine to be "blaming the gun", and on the other hand blaming the parade yourself. Most reasonable people would agree that it's not the parade's fault that some nuts want to shoot each other and yet you would step on their constitutional freedoms to protect your imagined fears. A fairly typical anti-controller who thinks that Constitutional freedoms are only for gun owners. Oh, the irony.
So in your world people aren't killed by being stabbed, bludgeoned, thrown off buildings, drowned, beaten, burned, poisoned etc. In the U.S. more people are killed by being beaten with hands and feet than are killed by rifle fire.
What exactly was the purpose of qualifying your stat as "rifle fire"? Why not use the stat for ALL firearms? Can you please answer this?
Linky!! But there is no doubt that the US overall has a higher gun related crime rate This is interesting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence If you look and compare Australia to the US it sort of blows your argument out of the water
Right. You would never read stories of horrific massacres in areas like Oslo, Norwary. Thank you for offerring your unbiased, historically-relevant opinion here. Actually, in NYC, where the shooting took place in the article, guns are strictly controlled. This is a lie! Illegal gun possession is a felony punishable by many years in prison. Regarding LEGAL gun ownership, this is indeed a RIGHT that most Americans are extremely proud of.
It seems odd that you only look at "gun related" crime. Why do you think that other means of violent crime are less important to the point that they should be neglected?
Link: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_08.html FBI stats for 2009. Killed by rifle - 348. Killed by hands, feet - 801. Since you have a reading problem, notice I said RIFLE, not guns. Rifles are a specific type of gun and account for about 3% of gun homicides. Criminals don't use rifles much because they are difficult to conceal on one's body.
What I found most interesting in the article originally referenced, was this quote from Mayor Bloomburg -- So now what? My ability to purchase a firearm could be restricted even further, because NYC can't get it's (*)(*)(*)(*) together?
Exactly. With this twisted logic, gun control advocates like Bloomberg make it so they can't lose: If they enact gun control during a time when societal gun-related violence is on a downturn, they take credit for that. On the flip side, if they enact gun control and gun-related crime rates stay the same or increase, then they just blame other states with "less strict" gun control. Talk about not taking responsibility. With this logic, America can blame all of its crime problems on Mexico.
It's the Law of Unintended Consequences at work. New York passes tough firearm legislation, and the net effect is that the average law-abiding citizen has to go through a bureaucratic nightmare in order to purchase a legal firearm, while the criminal element purchases them out of the trunks of automobiles from sellers who bought the firearms out-of-state. How this makes New York any safer is beyond my limited comprehension! As a side note -- I just spent two weeks in and around the Empire State. NY has the worst taxes on cigarettes of any of the 50 states - almost $4.50/pack. The cost of a pack of regular Marlboro cigarettes is between $10.50 and $11.50 per pack, depending upon where they're purchased. As a result of this exorbitant tax, a long-lost crime has re-surfaced in the Empire State - cigarette smuggling. Newspaper reports I read tell how gangs in NY are turning away from drug smuggling, and instead taking up cigarette smuggling - the profit is almost the same, and the penalties are far less for defrauding the state out of revenue than for drug-related crimes. The state loses out on tax revenue, legitimate businesses suffer because they can't compete price-wise with illegally obtained cigarettes, and the criminal element finds another way to make money!
Liberal elitists like Mayor Bloomberg and the wealthy hypocrites that run the major liberal media outlets in NYC can all afford to have armed security. Superstars like Rosie O'Donnell can cut through the paperwork to have their own security armed with handguns. Your typical NYC small businessowner or private citizen that lives in violent high crime area like Washington Heights are completely unworthy of this privilege of having a handgun (and permit) to defend themselves. As any liberal sitting in his own armed ivory tower would tell you, "guns are for me, not for thee." P.S. --- Criminals don't obey laws, they only care if they will be punished severely.
Liberals are more likely to live in more urbanized areas, with more crime, and a more present professional police force. It is no surprise that they have difficulty understanding the desire for gun ownership.
Ayuh,... Just as it's been the standard operatin' procedure since, Oh, 'bout 1968 or abit earlier for the Progressive Liberals... Enact more restrictive laws, 'n Crime continues it's rise... Even if they got their wish, 'n guns vanished from the planet over night,... It still won't change human nature...
Ayuh,... Probably because death by Rifle fire fit 'is statement, 'n All firearms didn't, don't ya think,..??
