Deadly night in San Fernando Valley: 2 killed, 8 hurt in 6 shootings

Source: LA Times


Deadly night in San Fernando Valley: 2 killed, 8 hurt in 6 shootings

Police plan to beef up patrols after an unusual spike in violence from North Hollywood to Northridge.

By Andrew Blankstein and Rong-Gong Lin II, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers

Six shootings in the San Fernando Valley left two people dead and eight wounded, Los Angeles police said this morning. The outburst of violence over a six-hour period Tuesday night was highly unusual for the Valley. Police officials could not recall a crime spike over such a short period in recent memory.

Officials said they planned a swift response to the violence, including a marked increase in police presence. Although they could not give specific numbers, they said the deployment could include dozens of additional officers.

The first shooting occurred in North Hollywood about 6:15 p.m. One person was found dead at Coldwater Canyon Avenue and Vanowen Street after what witnesses described as a car-to-car shootout, said LAPD Officer Ana Aguirre. Less than an hour later, in what police said was a related shooting, shots rang out at Oxnard Street and Whitsett Avenue. One person was found dead there.

A "person of interest" tried to flee but was tracked down by a police dog and taken into custody, police said. The man's name was not released. A third shooting was reported in Northridge shortly before 7 p.m. A 16-year-old boy was walking on the 8600 block of Wilbur Avenue near Napa Street when a Chevrolet sport utility vehicle drove up. The suspect emerged and shot the boy in the face and shoulder.

Then, at 8:15 p.m, four people were shot and wounded on the 10100 block of Vena Avenue in Pacoima. One person was in critical condition with chest and back wounds. The other victims suffered non-life-threatening injuries. Police suspect the attack was gang-related.

The fifth shooting was reported around 9:45 p.m. at Vaughn Street and Bromont Avenue in Pacoima. Police said the suspects drove by in a white Lexus and shot two men walking on the sidewalk; one was shot in the ankle and the other in the buttocks. The last shooting was reported at 11:15 p.m. at 15000 Nurmi Ave. in Sylmar. A man was shot in the arm by someone who fired from a dark-colored Honda Civic, police said. There were four suspects in the car, according to police.





Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-shooting22-2008may22,0,6028174.story

If one of those little souped up cars goes careening by you
in traffic over there in SC, hit the floor.

BHN

n/t

You see them on the freeway everyday-
zooming in and out of lanes at 90 miles an hour.
Smallish, maybe Hondas?

I guess the GBs have a method for
jacking the engines up for that incredible
acceleration through traffic lanes.

Guess it makes the drive by get away time more efficient.

I hate the fuckers and would bet
they are the number one cause for
freeway accidents.

BHN

Gee. And I thought it was the guns! Silly me!

I agree, blaming the cars is as foolish as blaming a gun. Somebody pulled the trigger. That is where the blame should be placed.

You people :spank:

business commenting on.
Dumb fucks abound yet again.
BHN

This kind of crap is getting on my last nerve!

How in the fuck those two drew the conclusions they did
is pathetic to ponder.

BHN

You people.

You are yet another uninformed commentator

who has no idea as to what we are referring to.

So please, piss off.

BHN

Even though I was not responding to your post, I was responding to zanne & her insistence that the guns were responsible for the shootings. I hope you feel better though, now that you have told me to "piss off". BTW- I know exactly what I am referring to, I am referring to the belief that guns cause violence as opposed to the criminal who pulls the trigger.

At no point do I blame cars for violence which is what the other idiot
implied.

READ the damn thread before you reply.

BHN

I get a "piss off" for responding to zannes post? I suggest you look at the order of sub threads under your post, it will clearly show I did not respond to you but rather, zanne. I specifically responded to zanne's ridiculous comment that guns are the cause of gang violence.

I wouldn't be throwing too many "reading comprehension" stones about, it seems as if you have some difficulties of your own.

This is the ONLY post I was responding to- "Gee. And I thought it was the guns! Silly me!"

I really didn't read your post because it was irrelevant to me.

Sincerely.
I do apologize.
BHN

You did seem to agree though- and I never said the cars were to blame.

"I agree, blaming the cars is as foolish as blaming a gun. Somebody pulled the trigger. That is where the blame should be placed."

That was your post, right? #15

I apologise for my behavior as well. You NEVER, at any point stated that the cars were to blame for these shootings. I couldn't let zanne spread her disinformation in this thread without commenting. It isn't the cars, it isn't the guns. It is a criminal problem.

You obviously don't live in LA and
therefore have no frame of reference as
to what we are discussing as far as the
gang banger cars.
BHN

Just saying.
Please DO go back and point out the sentence where
I blame cars for violence.

I think you will find that you REALLY should read
before you post.
BHN

last night (a rarity). Guess they were busy a couple miles over.......

The NRA and all the rest of the Gun Pushers put guns in the hands of killers, and guess what? They go out and kill people.

Guns are just too easy to get here in California, and this is just one more example of what happens when any Tom, Dick or Harry can buy one.

Here in Northern Arizona, about one in seven people have concealed weapons permits and we do defend ourselves. So tell me Einstein, when is the last time you have heard of a drive-by shooting at a police station where there are sure to be armed people, that return fire?

Now don't compare this with Phoenix, where they have laws similar to California and they have similar problems with drive-by shootings, just like California!

More guns means more violence with guns plain and simple....Anyone that denies that is not living in a reality based world..

Qualified people carrying licensed, concealed weapons do not lead to an increase in violent crime.

and a drastically lower violence rate!

In a responsible manner. We're the last country that should have liberal gun laws.

97 percent of murder suspects in Chicago, and 90 percent of victims, have prior arrest records. That should tell you a bit about the relationship between the Prohibition-fueled drug trade and urban violence. Which is absolutely no different than it was in Chicago in the 1920's.

http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_EDITORIAL/March08CrimeStats.pdf

If Americans with clean records were "unable to handle guns," then New Hampshire would consistently have one of the highest murder rates in the nation, instead of the lowest.

13-ish thousand firearm homicides would not be considered evidence that the 80+ million people in the possession of 280+ million firearms aren't able to handle the responsibility of owning them.

In fact it would suggest quite the opposite.

I'll bet you've never tried.

...this is just one more example of what happens when any Tom, Dick or Harry can buy one.

Tom, Dick, or Harry needs the following in order to buy a handgun:

- California DMV-issued Driver License or state ID card (US Passports and military IDs are not acceptable)
- Two additional documents establishing proof of residence, e.g. utility bill, car registration
- California Handgun Safety Certificate (cost = $25 for three years; you also need to pass a test)
- Ability to demonstrate that you know how to safely unload that particular weapon
- Must not have purchased another handgun within the last 30 days

With all that in hand, you choose from among the handguns that are on the state's list of handguns certified as "safe" - http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/

And you certify that you own a DOJ-approved safe storage device, OR you can pay money for a DOJ-certified trigger locking device.

Next, you fill out the federal paperwork on which you certify that you are the actual buyer of the gun, that you are a lawful resident of the USA, you live in the state where the purchase is happening, you have never been convicted of a felony or violent misdemeanor, you have not been dishonorably discharged from the military, you have never renounced citizenship in the United States, you are not an unlawful user of drugs, and you are not subject to a restraining order for domestic violence...

And of course you complete the state paperwork on which you certify some of the same things as on the federal paperwork all over again,

Then you pay for the gun, plus a fee to the dealer for executing a state Dealer's Record Of Sale (DROS), plus sales taxes.

And then you have to pass the state's criminal background check.

After that, you have to wait for 10 days.

Then finally, if nothing has gone wrong, you can take possession of your gun.

If you think all that is too easy, you are living in a fantasy land.

Gun Pusher make it glamorous enough for people to make the effort to buy guns. Then the gun owners have them stolen by criminals who go out and shoot people.

What we need is for fewer guns to be out in the public to begin with.

(And no, I don't own a gun, I have never bought a gun, and I haven't even fired a gun since I was in the Navy over 35 years ago.)

How about a big fat tax break for people like me who buy robust storage devices for their firearms?



The thing cost me about $3K, and all it saves me financially is the $5 - $10 cost of a trigger lock for the (very few) firearms I buy in California. But it does provide peace of mind. I know that nothing from my collection is going to be stolen and misused in a crime. Also, the chunk of my retirement savings that I have in firearms is not going to rust away or be taken from me.

You can bleat and bray about having "fewer guns out in the public", but that is not going to happen. Most people in this country feel very differently about it than you do.

n/t

3000 of those are probably accidents in the true sense. The rest are people doing illegal things that kill others. BAN THE CAR!!

Your kid on a cell phone worries me more than gun violence.

Since, you know, it was "your kid," so to speak, shooting those people in the Valley the other night....

(and btw, good NRA-directed "numbers out of your ass" on the alleged "car crimes" "number")
'

Do all gun fanatics take "Cars Cause More Deaths every Year than Guns 101"? Every single one of them tries to use that false analogy. They think that, if you add up the number of car deaths and gun deaths every year, the gun deaths go away or become unimportant. It's the same logic Bush and his friends used when we started noticing that soldiers were dying in Iraq.

Don't they ever get tired of sounding like idiots?

talking about the ones with a small penis. It's all a matter of perspective.

We have to register automobiles, why not firearms?

A person needs to pass a safety test and be licensed in order to drive a car. Why shouldn't gun owners have to pass a safety test and be licensed also?

Gun owners should be insured (just like car owners), to cover the cost of the bloodshed their hobby inflicts on society.

n/t

Bush logic is:

We need to restrict your freedoms to protect you all.

That sounds an aweful lot like the things gun control proponents often say.

after a civil war there was access in the civilian population to ordinance. Not just handguns but akm's up to crew served weapons. Murder rate and drive by nope. Bullshit drug culture and gangs, nope.

Guns are the lazy mans crutch. You think you are going to fix this by banning guns. Well you know what tommy franks said about feith.

I spent a year around angry bored and armed people. M9's were issued and common. You know how many people got shot. Not a fuckin one.

Plenty of ass beatings, broken noses, no murder in the NG. Why?

everyone is afraid to say it. Because of my household income my kid will have other problems. Gang banging is not one of them.

Guns are the excuse of the LAZY. Those who will not address root cause.

"your kid" is driving on a cell because they have never seen a person on a slab. These kids are part of a gang culture. They are fighting a war and bad policy, poverty, and culture contribute to this much more than a weapon.

We need strict restrictions on the quantity of guns held by the public to reduce these unnecessary deaths by guns.

It is not an either - or situation. It is not a zero sum game for unnecessary deaths.

Get rid of guns and get rid of unnecessary deaths for guns. Deal with drugs and cars as a separate issue

Hmm.

yellow form from the ATF.. As a former NG member can I keep a us govt. M4 in my home? It works for the swiss. Geneva is one of the safest places on earth.

People problem.

:eyes:

choke her with a piece of rope, crush her head with a bat, etc...

get over it.

Why stop at guns, lets just make every possible means of murder available over the counter to anyone who wants them anytime they want them.

How about a little cyanide.
How about a little Plutonium 239.
How about easy access to high speed train tracks.

Go to the hyperbole, it just shows how much you care about preventing needless murders.

with a knife makes more sense. No police. It does not require special ability to kill a person with a knife.
I care plenty but am tired of the lazy blaming guns.
It is easier than addressing gangs, cultural problems, and drug policy.

IE why 1 in 9 blacks between 16 - 32 in in prison. This is obviously driven by poverty, stupid drug law, and some cultural aspects.

But the majority of gun crime is committed by people fighting in a drug war or killing themselves.

Fix the problems at work. I am tired of having smoke blown up my ass.

Just step back and look at the problem. Heroin is banned, yet I could make 3 calls and find it. Banning stuff does not work.

Address the tough issues and then this becomes a non issue.

The harder it is to get guns, the harder it will be for criminals to get guns.

above the line. That would fix it right? Your general criminal body stacker is not in the 25% bracket.

Wrong.

Fix the problem, people are tired of the gun control lie.

Any "Tom, Dick, or Harry" can buy a gun much easier in Washington state, Oregon, New Hampshire, Vermont, or Minnesota than in California. The most popular target rifles and defensive carbines in the nation are banned in California; CA is one of a minority of states that allow CHL denial to those who aren't sufficiently buddy-buddy with the local sheriff; and so on.

Of course, none of those measures are aimed at criminal gun users, merely responsible adults with squeaky-clean records. Hence the disconnect between the rhetoric and the results.

and of course, that'll never happen in America- so the country has cursed itself with ever rising levels of violence and the worlds' largest and most expensive prison system.

Gonna get interesting as gas prices rise to $6 $8 and $10 per gallon in Southern California.

:shrug:

Nope.




That's the result of our national drug policy. Just like alcohol prohibition, drug prohibition has been an unmitigated disaster, and is directly or indirectly responsible for most of the crime problems in the United States.


Gun policy HAS been set on a national level. Tight controls on all automatic weapons, sound-suppressed firearms, guns over. 50 caliber (except shotguns), and armor-piercing handgun ammo; no possession by felons or mentally incompetent allowed; background check for purchase. Non-automatic, non-sound suppressed firearms under .51 caliber may be owned by mentally competent adults with clean records.

THAT is our national gun policy. Just because you may not like it, does not mean that doesn't reflect the will of the people.

and, while you may be into denial, people in SANE countries don't have mass shooting every couple of months... or weeks. Why? Because they have tight controls on handguns and pump action shotguns.

They read about what goes on America in their papers... and damn near everyone I've spoken with abroad thinks that this country is nuts- actually obsessed is a common term I've heard used.

you can choose to not address it at all. Your choice.

Tens of millions of lawful and responsible adults in this country own guns, and we're keeping them. You can address criminal violence within that framework, or you can not address it at all. But the United States has always had a much stronger tradition of arms ownership by non-elites than most European nations, and that tradition is not going away.

The first shots of the American revolution were fired well before the Declaration of Independence, after all---when British law enforcement showed up in some rural Massachusetts towns to take some farmers' weapons. Didn't work out so well for the Brits, as I recall.

There is common ground to be found on addressing criminal violence; violent people misusing guns pisses me off just as much as it pisses you off. But banning the guns of mentally competent NON-criminals is off the table, as it should be.

along with correspondingly high rates of accidental shooting and suicides.

Yet apparently, you and many other don't care a lick about that- prefering instead to rationilize your pathological obsessions with exceptionalism and archaic analogies about revolution.

Australians on the other hand are a sensible people who also had a frontier tradtion that included individual firearm ownership.

After one mass shooting too many, they collectively decided to take a different path- and the undeniable result is that shootings are rare and make the front page of the papers for days when they happen.

Now with a proper shooters license, you can have certain types of pistols for target shooting and you can have bolt action hunting rifles and non-pump action shotguns, though unless you're an enthusiast or live in a rural area, the thought of owning one no longer crosses people's minds.

And that's as it should be in a sane and civil society.

including Canada, the UK, and Japan. And if you lump suicides into "violent death" as many gun-control-lobby press releases do, the USA has a lower "violent death rate" than many of your gun-banning utopias.

It is true that our homicide rate is higher than average, but not "astonishingly" high. Ours is 5.5/100K; that of Canada is 1.9/100K. The rate in South Africa is what I would call "astonishing," at 49.6/100K; looks like the recent gun bans in SA were counterproductive.

Many U.S. jurisdictions have murder rates much more comparable to European and Canadian rates; criminal violence in the USA is largely concentrated into a few dysfunctional jurisdictions, many of which tightly control lawful gun possession already:



If you are not involved in the drug trade and do not have the misfortune to live in an area with a dysfunctional city government, the USA is actually on par with most other nations, and safer than many. Many of the states with highest gun ownership rates are actually safer than Canada even on a homicide-rate basis; gun-loving New Hampshire (demographically fairly similar to Canada, AFAIK) has a lower murder rate than Canada most years, for example. And I have heard it said that if the USA ceded either Chicago or Detroit to Canada, the U.S. and Canadian per-capita murder rates would be the same.

Looking at rates of nonfatal assault and burglary is also interesting. Burglary stats:



And a lot higher percentage of burglaries in the UK are "hot" burglaries (i.e., occurring when the victim is home and far more likely to involve assault) than here.

Two of my three officemates are from the UK (one from Bristol, one from Liverpool), and both say that they feel considerably safer here than they did back in England (IIRC, one was mugged twice in the UK, as I recall). Yes, there are more murders here, but nonfatal assaults seem to be endemic over there.

and btw: one of my best friends is from Bristol- and she certainly doesn't fell safe in the US (even Portland, Oregon) compared with her home town. Indeed, I've never met ONE SINGLE BRIT- EVER, who thinks that US guns laws are anything other than insane (paranoid and obsessive are also word I hear used). And most of them really don't enjoy discussing guns with Americans for that reason- it attracts insanity and sophistry.

As to homicide rates, it's much more accurate to look at the proportions in otherwise stable western nations. Let's use Sydney as an example (since as was mentioned, Aussies and Americans share some common historical themes with respect to firearm).

With a population of about 4.3 million has a murder rate of 1.3 per 100,000

Now lets look at the City of San Fransisco, population of about 765,000 has a murder rate 11.3 per 100,000!

In many respects the two cities are comparable -except that the city full of guns has an EXPONENTIALLY higher murder rate! As someone who's spent considerable time in both cities- I find that astounding. As I suspect most reasonable people would.

Regarding suicides- as expected, after Australia completed it gun buyback program, not only did murder rates fall, but suicides did as well (guns being an easy out and the primary means used by men). And there's no reason to assume the same wouldn't hold true in the US, if there wasn't such easy access to firearms

Then of course there's the issue of accidental deaths- or children and adolescents getting hold guns and causing (sometimes mass tragedies).

I assume you won't try to argue that point.

btw: since the Aussies implemented its program and ownership restriction there hasn't been even on mass shooting in all of Oz. Not one.

Whereas throughout the states, they've become commonplace.

And there's no reason whatsoever that they won't continue on in the same and more likely greater frequency.

to be fair. They have access to machine guns. Yet don't kill each other.

they do not have a drug war. No street gangs, no massive poverty. No general motive for PEOPLE to to shoot each other.

They do have occasional suicide and mental health related murders (domestic) but still rate safer than JAPAN. There is a gun ban in Japan.

So your position has just fallen apart. Untenable.

The real drivers behind this are things people dont like talking about, racial disparity and poverty and mental health.

People are tired of being bullshitted on this subject, now they expect the government to actually fix the drivers, rather than make a mag hold 10 rounds vs 19.

cheers

and since you apparently haven't been to Oz lately- people don't have access to machine guns- and yes, there's a growing problem with street gangs- it's a multicultural country that has PLENTY of problems with racism, domestic violence and a considerable disparity of income- which was made MUCH worse during the Howard era.

There's every bit of the sorts of "incentives" for people to shoot one another we see in most other nations- except that I'll grant the Aussies (and other nations) didn't abandon their social safety net , despite having a work ethic and history of "rugged individualism."

The biggest difference is that there's no ready access to the sorts of firearm most commonly used in crimes of violence or crimes of passion.

as well as perth. Issues with islanders and others long standing problems are not the same as the people playing drug war here.

No MS13 no crips or bloods.


I have been to geneva and zurich too. No problems among the armed people there. No problems among heavily armed american's deployed overseas.

Why is that?

Scary rifle in the hands of the masses..

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/data?pid=avimage&iid=iXFLdnJ_4R6M

but if you added firearms back into the current mix, you'd NO DOUBT have far more violence AND a much higher homicide rates.

For instance last month:

"Ike Ellis, who retired in 2000 as assistant police commissioner for NSW, said yesterday there should be no comparison of American gangs, which were based on well-established hierarchies, and the "group of unruly youths" that attacked a Sydney high school this week.

"Very often what you will find are groups of people who come together out of school who have a common interest," he said. "The school culture has nothing to do with it.

"Very often what we have found is that groups of people will have some sort of disagreement away from the school and sometimes they seek to address that disagreement.

"They might not be able to find the person readily over the weekend but they know that they can find them at school on Monday."

The last serious incident in NSW schools involving gangs was six years ago, when students of Randwick Boys High went to Kingsgrove North High school, 25 kilometres away, and attacked students in a dispute over a girlfriend.

Nine students were charged with weapons offences, including carrying machetes."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/evidence-of-gang-culture-lacking/2008/04/09/1207420485930.html

Better machetes and cricket bats than Glocks and AK 47's.

(Unless you're an American, that is).

the problem is not the gun. The problem is the conditions that allow that business and culture to thrive.

You are aware there is a place called Switzerland where 20 percent or so of homes have machine guns. Yet the murder rate is lower rate than japan where a total ban is in place.

Nullifies the notion that the presence of a firearm causes people to use it in a crime.

though gun apologists love to rationalize their position from Switzerland's small distinctive and largely homogeneous culture.

And as long as we're discussing cross cultural deals- what do you know about Mara Salvatrucha anyway?

Would you recognize tags or the sort of "language" that they use if you saw it IRL?

you can pick any country that has reasonable common sense gun laws that does not have an insane crime problem.

People are so lazy here they make the argument against guns rather than for fixing the social problems that cause violence in the first place.

"Bottom line: easy access to firearms has condemned America to astonishing homicide rates along with correspondingly high rates of accidental shooting and suicides."

No. The bottom line, is that the studies that cite "astonishing homicide rates along with correspondingly high rates of accidental shooting and suicides", and the people that read them and swallow them hook line and sinker, don't bother taking into account just how many people own firearms in America, nor do they take into consideration just how many firearms those unaccounted for people own.


And that sinks your entire argument, every time.

That is indeed the overriding problem- and one of several curses that America has hoisted on its children.

Never said that America will EVER do anything meaningful about it- its a nation in decline, and no longer able to make rational policy decisions on almost any level.

If you think that baning all guns is the right thing to do, I'd say your right, how many people own them IS a problem, because they're a sizable enough portion to say "fuck you, fuck no" and make it stick.


If you think that 80 million people in possession of 280 million firearms is a problem in it self, I'd say your off your rocker. Rational policy doesn't dictate that 13 thousand firearm related homicides justifies banning and confiscating the 280+ million guns from the 80+ million guns that own them and theres just no way to make it do so, no matter how much anyone might want the contrary.



I also couldn't help but notice that you did not address anything I said in the post you replied to, while I tackled about every applicable point you made head on.


Both those things are why the anti-gun side of the debate keeps losing.

to the overriding problem of firearm proliferation either on the political level- or for many- on the individual level.

The country's dysfunction is WAY to far gone for that- though any mitigation will only be effective on the national level as opposed to piecemeal by states and cities.

Given that reality, you've essentially condemned yourselves to ever increasing levels of gun violence (that will worsen immeasurably as the economy tanks)- and to ever increasing prison populations.

That's the bargain that the country made in order to placate the very vocal minority of the gun obsessed.

Like the obsession with SUV's, it's just one of many ways that Americans have "screwn" themselves and their children through irrational indulgence.

please don't lecture us on suv use. I have seen some hooligan shit that puts out boy racer crowd to shame, on public roads no less.

hoons- and one suspects that you really don't know or care about much, if it interferes with gun obsessive exceptionalist thinking.

between oz and the uk you guys come up with some great slang. This is not about me personally. I live in a nice safe place. My biggest problem is if a neighbor's kid gets tuned up and hits my mailbox. I don't own guns that would be covered under any ban. Mine stay in a safe 300 days a year.

And in the same fashion as the ban is applied in NYC, the UK and Australia, if you have financial resources you can buy your way around it. You can own a concealed weapon in these places, you just have to pay. If my Beretta shotgun used for sporting clays became illegal I am sure a path would be left for me to buy an exception.

That is a socio economic reality. However a person who happens to live in the wrong place who has the SAME background as me can have a much higher chance of violent death.

Addressing root cause, why are people who are unable or unwilling to become part of society and be comfortable killing each other?

You can ban guns, but just like people sneaking heroin into Indonesia, under penalty of death, people will still do dumb things. It is impossible to ban guns, it is impossible to ban heroin. You can criminalize it.

The problem is, you don't have the foggiest idea what a workable solution is. How could you? You can't even seem to identify the problem with any degree of success.


You call it the "overriding problem of firearm proliferation". And from someone such as yourself that appears to dislike firearms and sees them as THE problem, I expect no less. You make no distinction between lawful use, and unlawful misuse. That in itself says alot about your position. If you did, you wouldn't be able to say the things you say.

Of course, anyone that can and DOES differentiate between use and misuse...and isn't blinded by willful ignorance on the issue...well, they iether aren't on your side to begin with, or they don't have much to say.

I'll say it again, and maybe you'll actually address it this time:

13-ish thousand gun homicides are not evidence that the 80 + million people that own some 280+ million firearms can not be trusted with them, or that they are misusing them.


Address that, if your convictions are so strong, and your logic able to withstand criticism.

People...namely the 80+ million that own firearms, are not a bunch of children, nor do they respond well to being treated as such. Banning the firearms of those 80+ million because of the actions of a relativve few, would be doing just that.


As to our "ever increasing levels of gun violence" you've been shown charts and graphs in this very thread that are concrete proof that quite the opposite is in fact the case, and you've ignored them.

You've been given logical arguments, and you've ignored those too.

"Like the obsession with SUV's, it's just one of many ways that Americans have "screwn" themselves and their children through irrational indulgence."

And that right there is why people with attitudes like your will NEVER gain any traction on this issue. Because to people with attitudes like yours "irrational indulgence" is the meme, in spite of the fact that its a tiniest fraction of a percent of firearms or the people that own them that misuse them, and the great majority that don't. And there will always be people correctly calling that out as the bullshit it is.

You just essentially said that 80 million firearm owners who don't misuse thier firearms, are somehow like the people that own and drive SUV's and burn up all the fuel.

Me, I'd say that the 80+ million firearm owners that don't misuse thier firearms are more like the people that drive economy cars, and the tiny fraction of a percentage of people that do misuse firearms are more like the people that own and drive SUV's.

Not to mention that owning an SUV isn't an indulgence, using it is. Just like owning a firearm isn't an indulgence, but misusing it certainly is in that context.

Address that too,, if your convictions are so strong, and your logic able to withstand criticism.

On edit:

If a government sent 80 million people, even untrained ones, armed with 280 million firearms into a shooting war, and managed only to kill 13 thousand people, it would be viewed as an epic failure of of historic proportions.

and protesting that "you're not a bunch of children" -when collectively, everyone else in the western world sees that you are exactly that.

In fact, I'll go you one step further- not only is this sort of behavior child like- but it's cowardly.

How else to describe a set of people who had everything going for them, yet chose to live in fear?

If "rationalizing" is defined as showing how irrational your argument is, then yeah, I am doing that.




The perceptions of "everyone else in the western world", much of which ARE treated like children and like it that way - where this topic is concerned - just aren't my problem, nor are they any concern to me. Well, other than when they try to push that garbage on over here. I have to ask, if you think we all live in "fear", why are you here, instead of back in Australia? Choose to live with people that are "a bunch of children" do you?

You can go ahead and call it cowardly if you like but it seems to me that its people who are afraid of guns and refuse to understand the issue, and especially the ones support taking action based on that, that are the cowards.

You claim we "choose to live in fear". I don't live in fear. Nobody I know chooses to live in fear. Law abiding folks that own guns don't own them because they "live in fear" anymore than people that own fire extinguishers "live in fear" of fire, or people that have homeowners insurance live in fear of tornado, or people that own a generator live in fear of power outage, or people that own a spare tire and a jack live in fear of a flat tire.


You don't know the people of the US anywhere remotely close to any degree that might make you able to understand them. Your posts make that abundantly clear. Most people in that boat would, being self aware, acknowledge such a thing and in an effort not to look ignorant, refrain from making such judgements as you have.

You, not so much.

I'm sure nobody noticed.

David

The disconnect needs to be between the manufacturing and the selling point.

The less guns in the public domain results in less guns in the hands of criminals.

Very strict laws addressing the loss of a gun by a gun owner need to be passed.

Good fucking grief.

Which is sad, of course, that those of us who live in the Detroit area are so numb to the weekly body count.

I don't know if Detroit is still the "Murder Capital", though. Some years, we are, some years, DC or Miami outdoes us.

I have been watching the area get worse. On the other hand, there is the NoHo gentrification going on, closer to Toluca Lake.

Guess it doesn't fit their agenda.

David

It seems to be a little hotter lately.

We could blow this problem out of the water if we treated drug use as a medical problem rather than a criminal problem.

The "war on drugs" mentality creates warlike conditions, here in the United States and in all the other nations involved in the drug trade. Duh.

The corruption within our own political and economic system is as vile as the obvious street crime, but the stink of it is hidden by big money.

guns should be 0utlawed.