13 Shot Outside Arizona Nightclub
Source: CNN
(CNN) -- Thirteen people were shot outside a nightclub in Tempe, Arizona, police said Saturday.
No fatalities had been reported from the shooting, which occurred late Friday, but two people were in serious condition, Sgt. Steven Carbajal said.
Police were searching for two men who left the scene.
Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/03/justice/arizona-club-shooting/index.html?eref=rss_latest&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_latest+%28RSS%3A+Most+Recent%29
Geez, it's getting to an everyday occurrence where there are mass shootings. Why is anyone packing at a nighclub, in the first place?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)
Here's a video of the artist who performed that night. Contains profanity, racially charged language, and misogyny.
Why is anyone packing at a nighclub, in the first place?
In this case I'll bet it's because he or she is a violent criminal, looking for trouble.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)...there's a Snoop Dogg cameo at the end of the video, which has garnered over a million views.
Nipsey's first recorded mixtape, was Slauson Boy Volume 1, and soon became the name of his own record label.[2] In 2008 Nipsey released two mixtapes, Bullets Ain't Got No Name, Vol. 1 and Vol. 2,[3] before signing with Epic Records.[4][5] In 2009, his debut single, "Hussle In The House", was released.
In 2009 he released a third mixtape, Bullets Ain't Got No Name, Vol. 3. He appeared with Drake on the song "Killer"[6] and on the song "Upside Down" on Snoop Dogg's album Malice n Wonderland.[7] A first studio album, South Central State of Mind, was expected in the summer of 2009 but was never released; it has been postponed indefinitely. The Marathon was released instead on December 21, 2010.[citation needed]
In 2010 he appeared on the song "We Are the World 25 for Haiti".[8] He was chosen as one of XXL Magazine's "Annual Freshman Top Ten", a selection of ten up-and-coming artists[9] as "Most Determined"[10] And continues to have success with the release of his new single "Feelin Myself" featuring Lloyd. The first single off The Marathon mixtape is "Keys to the City" (Produced By E.N.G. & Djay Cas).[11] He made a guest appearance on fellow rapper YG's 2012 single "B#$&%@ Ain't", also featuring Snoop Dogg and Young Money member Tyga.[12] It debuted on the Hot 100 at #100 and on the Heatseekers Songs chart at #11.[13]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nipsey_Hussle
vaberella
(24,634 posts)It's just violence cause someone's got beef. Secondly why is someone packin' in a nightclub...sometimes it's because they're protecting themselves from violent criminals looking for trouble. That would have been the case with Biggie and Tupac who were certain people were out to get them; they weren't wrong.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)If I have an opportunity to go to a concert at a venue where there is reason to expect violence, I won't go. It's much better to use one's brain to avoid trouble than to intentionally go into a dangerous place armed, when you don't have to.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)My crystal ball sez so.
me b zola
(19,053 posts)Sitting here shaking my head and biting my tongue.
I knew I shouldn't have clicked on this page.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)BTW, it looks like I was right:
"Tempe police detectives believe an argument took place between a couple groups in line for the concert," Horn said. "This quickly escalated to gunfire. We believe this shooting is gang related and investigators are still working to identify the additional suspects."
Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/community/tempe/articles/2012/03/03/20120303tempe-concert-shooting-injures-13-suspects-sought.html#ixzz1o9q0x1cL
Pacafishmate
(249 posts)I mean wow. Put down the Brady Kool-aid and use the soft mass inside your skull for thinking. First off, he said gang violence. You made it about race by assuming that gang violence only happens within a certain race. Second, to think that those criminals care what Arizona state law says is laughable. If they're willing to murder, why would a gun ban make any difference?
I feel like I have to repeat this in every goddamn thread on this subject, but here goes again. My rights shouldn't be restricted just because some moron chooses to abuse those rights. Why do the antis feel the need to call for guns to be banned any time something goes bang? No one does this for any other right. And yes it is a right, no matter how much you whine about it. Mind your own business and stop trying to tell other people how to live their lives.
Posts like yours really demonstrate what's wrong with our public schools. We really need to teach critical thinking.
me b zola
(19,053 posts)Critical thinking and brain function? Lets examine: The first bit of evidence you show against me in your hateful & pitiful screed against me is that the poster never mentions race. Mentions? He posted a video of the musical group that was performin that night. The poster mentions mysogny and some other thing that has nothing to do with gangs. Nothing. But as most people (you know with functioning brains and critical thinking abilities) know is that gangs are used by conservatives as code for race.
Please consider taking an on-line course in critical thinking and/or psychological help with your projection issues.
Now for your gun freekazoid screed. What? I'm unaware of anyone attempting to take away your gun rights, in fact gun "rights" have recently been expanded to include the ridiculous like allowing them in bars (because bar fights NEVER occur in bars, and that people become more rational when drinking
) in our national parks and on trains.
I guess, though, my "Brady kool-aid" has lost its efficacy because you have gleamed something about my thoughts on gun ownership that does not reflect my beliefs and practices.
In short, shove off.
Pacafishmate
(249 posts)Instead of that you focused on gun laws which had nothing to do with the incident. While we cannot say for a fact that the incident was gang related, we can say there is a strong possibility. There is not even the smallest possibility that the incident had anything to do with Arizona gun laws.
me b zola
(19,053 posts)You didn't even have the decency to apologize to me let alone ask me just what are my thoughts on the gun issue.
Leave me alone.
Alexander
(15,318 posts)I remember at least two parties where some idiots thought it would be a great idea to fire guns into the air.
Needless to say, the mood quickly became less festive.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)...there are some pretty rough areas.
My aunt lives about three blocks north of the Guadalupe neighborhood, for reference. I missed her street while driving there one time. I felt like I was suddenly in a not-so-nice part of Tijuana.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)The worst looking slum I've ever seen in the US.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)yet there are those that would suggest that incidents like this are the reason to "pack" while headed to a bar.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)...to carry guns. But I'll take it a step farther and bet you that:
1. The Clubhouse in Tempe has a posted policy banning firearms from the venue, and
2. The individual or individuals who did the shooting are already prohibited by law from possessing a firearm due to a criminal record.
yet there are those that would suggest that incidents like this are the reason to "pack" while headed to a bar.
Personally, I take it as a reason not to go that bar.
Viva_La_Revolution
(28,791 posts)Everyone carries around there. Over 15 years ago, at my son's school, a 3rd grader brought a loaded gun. It belonged to his older brother, who was 12.
I was given a cute little pink pearled pea shooter by a friend because "I didn't have one" and it was viewed as silly and unsafe not to carry. I just never bothered to buy bullets for it, and started making plans to move back to the little rural town I grew up in where at least the shotguns everyone had were visible and handguns rare.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)with a gun, you're here to tell us how guns are actually a good thing? It's a deeply disturbing pattern. Keep your filth and your death away from here.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Remmah2
(3,291 posts)The bashing and stereotyping.
It's funny my democratic political shooting friends are much more tolerant and open minded (of everything) than the red-neck republican counterparts at the range.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)My neighborhood is separated by a county road from the "druggie" area of town.
So while the streets are calm around my block, the sound of automatic firing carries clearly, usually on a Fri/Sat night.
Last time we heard the shots, the police found a body.
Murder is rare here, attempted murder is increasing, almost all of it drug related.
And we only have a pop. of 6,000!
but meth is becoming more prevalent.
BlueToTheBone
(3,747 posts)It is truly a scourge.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)more local news reports of people arrested with meth bottle cooking in their cars.
BlueToTheBone
(3,747 posts)Is the idea to kill off as many people as possible? I do not understand this drug.
It is however, my belief that since the feds have lied about cannabis for the past 80 or so years and EVERYONE knows their spew is a lie; so ergo, all warnings about drugs are dismissed because of the big lie. I think that is why people start and of course, once and you're hooked. There after it is slow death brain cell chain, by brain cell chain. Soon there is only one firing neuron that screams "METH" and all pursuits are to that end. I think sometimes it may be the end of civilization because it seems so easy to make and is so prevalent.
I also think it is the drug of the hopeless and if the rightwingers would let up, there might be some light somewhere that would give people enough hope back by reality to resist begging for death, but afraid to jump.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)police, judicial, educational, and political arenas has a lot to do with anyone not taking any warnings or any "evidence" as reality.
Our war on drugs has been and will continue to be not only an outrageous failure, but actually seems by all accounts to have made drug usage more popular over the years rather than less. Anyway, judging by the # of folks busted for drugs and in jail for the same surely has increased rather than decreased.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)reports of people getting arrested for mixing it in Wal-Mart! I mean how freaking crazy is it to be mixing up dangerous chemicals in the damn store? Those two different reports were also in two different areas. It's insanity.
Meth is horrible.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)And your town is not swarming with BATFE agents because....?
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)"pop-pop-pop-pop" very fast, close together.
sharp loud noise.
I know rifle and shotgun firing when I hear it, there are lots of hunters around and we have woods around us.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)And please pardon my apparent sharp tone earlier, was still getting caffeinated, and I've got an admitted knee-jerk response to some of the misinformation about firearms that is often in evidence.
If it was truely automatic (i.e. machinegun) fire, it would be very odd to not shortly have the entire area swarming with local and federal LEOs. Don't get me wrong, if there is semi-auto gunfire in town, that should be investigated as well, unless you have a known, legal (or at least tolerated-by-officals) target range inside town limits, or very close by. As an example, I live approx. 1 1/2 miles from the firing range on Davis-Monthan AFB. I can clearly here them when live-fire is occuring. Nothing between me and there but scrub desert. That sort of sound can carry a long way.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)that is known for drugs.
We live across the highway from it, so can clearly hear the shots.
the local police are very aware, and one of my neighbors is a police dispatcher, so half the time I call to report it
she at the switch.
Fortunately, we have not had to contend with stray rounds, because of all the trees on both sides of the highway.
TexasBill
(19 posts)If you heard discrete "pops," it was semi-automatic fire. Most selective-fire or full-auto weapons fire 10 rounds per second or more. Some of them fire so fast you don't even hear individual shots.
Tansy_Gold
(17,860 posts)Viva_La_Revolution
(28,791 posts)I was in Chandler, so I'm sure my perspective was skewed. Thinking back now, I can't think of anyone there who didn't except maybe the exe's great aunt Grace. but she was fiesty, so I wouldn't put it past her. 
TheCruces
(224 posts)It doesn't faze me in the slightest, honestly.
TexasBill
(19 posts)It's okay to openly carry a handgun in the Land of Enchantment except in certain places defined in the law. Concealed carrying requires a license.
TheCruces
(224 posts)I was basically just saying that it doesn't bother me to see people openly carrying. I have nothing against conceal carry, either.
jillan
(39,451 posts)Yes - there are people like you mention.
But there is also alot of people like myself, that volunteer to try to turn this state back to blue.
People that protest at OWS-Az daily.
People that are easy-going and love this beautiful state even tho the current legislature is f-ing nuts.
And we never make it to the news because we are peaceful, law-abiding citizens.
I'm originally from Chicago. You constantly hear about violence in Chi town. Gangs.
But I never think that everyone who lives in Chicago belongs to a gang - inspite of the rw spin machine trying to make our President's home town sound like that.
But for some reason when it comes to Az and the crazies make it to the news, all Arizonans get labelled.
Enough already!
Tansy_Gold
(17,860 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Regional stereotyping, and sometimes outright regional bigotry, is alive and well and tolerated here on D.U.
'Tis a puzzlement. 
Fearless
(18,421 posts)Clearly that stopped this before it got out of hand!
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Fearless
(18,421 posts)Pro-gun people always hem and haw about how concealed carry laws will protect people when someone starts shooting. Clearly that's a stupid assumption.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)What you seem to be implying is that anti-restrictionists claim that allowing anyone to be armed will stop all crime. That is, of course, completely false. You are either badly informed, terribly confused, or inventing something.
Firstly, no-one is in favor of allowing criminals or those with violent criminal records to be armed.
Secondly, no-one claims that reducing restrictions on firearms will stop all crimes everywhere. The point is that it will help some people under some circumstances.
So clearly, the "stupid assumption" is coming from.... elsewhere.
TexasBill
(19 posts)While the unlicensed concealed carrying of weapons is relatively recent, Arizona has allowed the unlicensed open carrying of handguns since at least 1912.
What Arizona actually did adopt a legal structure that has been in effect in Vermont since Vermont became a state. In Vermont, the state has no laws governing the carrying of handguns by anyone over the age of 16. Alaska, where carrying a firearm is almost required in some parts of the state, has a similar legal situation.
While incidents like the one described are unfortunate, they are, in fact, rare. Especially considering that millions of Americans have the lawful ability to carry a concealed weapon and recent polls show that almost half of American households contain one or more firearms of some type.
Fearless: Your statement shows that you do not understand concealed carry laws or the responsibilities one assumes when one chooses to go armed.
Carrying a handgun does not make a person a law enforcement officer nor does a permit or license confer the powers and immunities the law accords to law enforcement officers. The only legal way to play cop is to be one.
The law permits the carrying of a lethal weapon for defense of self and, in some states, defense of property. That means a person who is in fear of death or grave bodily injury to themselves or a family member is entitled to use lethal force to prevent it. Some jurisdictions, but not all, authorize similar action to prevent the death or injury of an unrelated third person being attacked by a criminal assailant. This allows one to be a Good Samaritan under very limited circumstances. The use of force by a private individual must cease as soon as the threat is ended: you can't shoot the guy who tried to mug you as he's running away; if he stops the assault for any reason, your justification for use of lethal force has ended. If he decides to escape, you let him. You can help the police to make an arrest, but in most places you can't make the arrest yourself.
In the shootout under discussion here, any private citizen trying to play cop or intervene would most likely aggravate the situation and escalate the body count, quite possibly including their own.
Anyone who is familiar with the realities of concealed (or open) carry will tell you that in a situation like this, the best thing you can do is leave and call the police. Don't draw or even display your weapon; don't become part of the problem the cops have to clean up: even if you are in the right, you would most likely be arrested and taken to jail until the police could sort things out. Depending on the circumstances, you might even face criminal charges.
Whether a person makes the choice to carry a gun or chooses not to is a personal election that should be respected so long as the person who elects to be armed understands and accepts the responsibilities of their decision. This includes the absolute abstention from becoming intoxicated from anything that might impair reasoning or emotional control and avoiding situations where there is likely to be trouble.
Incidentally, as you might guess, I decided many years ago that I would prefer to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)and your rationalizing the carrying for guns only shows a larger disconnect, all for a hobby based on a paranoia of needing one. Gang bangers are paranoid too... you all have something in common... the need for guns.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)How asstute and fearful of you.
TexasBill
(19 posts)You don't know me and you don't know why I made the choice to carry a gun. Furthermore, I don't owe you any explanation any more than you owe me one for your position, silly though it is. Armchair psychology is wonderful for dinner party conversations but it's a rather poor basis for life's decisions.
What you see in the news every day is the misuse of guns by a tiny percentage of the population. Extrapolating that percentage to the entire population is an example of the "Socrates is a fish" school of logic.
Having dismissed your arguments with both insight and wit, I will leave you to sit and stew in them.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)or post signs prohibiting the carrying of guns, concealed or otherwise. I would think that ALL bars have that sign posted, don't you think?
I live in TX, too. I've seen "guns not allowed" signs posted in a number of places, which is telling concealed carriers to de-pack before entering.
My point being that the guns in this instance were being illegally carried, like in the school where the shooting incident happened just a few days ago.
I didn't mean, by my OP, to imply that the problem was the guns, although that was no doubt the reason that the count was 13. But I think that even if the perpetrators hadn't had guns, they would've used knives or something else.
There seems to be a wave of violence in pubic places, with mass injury and murder, going on. Guns do make it easier, though. It's easier to use a gun than a knife and it's more impersonal.
TexasBill
(19 posts)In Texas, it is against the law for even a person who has CHL to enter any establishment that derives 51% or more of its income from the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption. It is also a crime to carry a handgun into any premises that has the required 30.06 sign posted. In some other states, it's not an offense unless you refuse to leave when asked, but in Texas, it is a separate misdemeanor offense.
Firearms can be an enabling device to escalating violence but, contrary to popular belief, they don't seem to be needed to incite or inflame violence. Just look at the violence that accompanies international football (soccer). People actually get killed in those riots without a gun in use anywhere.
The reality is that if guns weren't carried illegally, there wouldn't be much need to carry them legally. However, as has been proven over and over and over again, wishin' don't make it so.
The disconnect is that someone who uses a gun to commit an illegal act is already a lawbreaker. It doesn't matter whether a murderer uses a gun, knife, or frozen leg of lamb to commit the crime, they are now a criminal. Use of a firearm in the commission of an illegal act is already an aggravating circumstance in most, if not all, states and carries additional penalties. In this way, society targets the problem (the criminal) without making a new class of criminals who have done nothing wrong.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)just the phenomena of the information age throwing every incident in your face 24 hours a day.
"It's easier to use a gun than a knife and it's more impersonal." Not at all. Knives are very easy to use, are silent (though the victims generally aren't) and very easy to conceal. And they are in effectively 100% of all households, almost entirely unregulated.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)It's easier than stabbing, where you have to be up close and personal and see the whites of their eyes. It also requires more skill and strength to stab. If you're a woman, esp., a gun gives you an advantage. Because a woman has shorter arms than a man, it's hard for her to get close enough to stab a man, w/o him being able to reach out & grab her first. He's also stronger.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)By what criteria is it "easier" than being in close proximity? I've seen this claim many times, but never an explaination for it.
And yes, it takes more strength. So what? By denying guns to potential victims, you make defense a matter of strength.
And again you ignore the stealth aspect of the process. It is quite easy to non-chalantly amble into close proximity to an unsuspecting person, stab them and walk away.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)I'm merely stating a fact.
Gangs in older days used knives. They would kill 1 or 2, and it was a fight, because the gangsta was up close and personal, so the other guy could fight back.
Gangs nowadays use guns. They kill multiple people at a distance. There's no fight, no defense. The gangsta can be a skinny little guy while the victim is big and burly. Doesn't matter. And the death is more impersonal: a guy in the distance drops.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Ironically, something I call others for with some frequency. Mea Culpa.
I still don't see any evidence to back up your assertion of "easier". Gangs today rarely kill more than 1 or 2 people at a time. They are (thankfully) generally poorly trained and terrible marksmen, using a spray-n-pray method that makes it difficult to hit the right house, let alone a specific person or group of persons. The distances involved are rarely more than a few feet or yards (according to DoJ/FBI murder stats). I've never known of a dedicated murderer who used a knife who had any particular "personal" feelings about killing someone that way.
The entire point of guns for defensive purposes is that the "skinny little guy" legal Citizen does not have to try to go hand-to-hand with the frequently "big and burly" criminal.
P.S. "Gangs nowadays use guns." Gangs have used guns for quite some time. They may not have been particularly common among some demographics of young urban criminals for a variety of reasons. My primary guess being that those frequently immigrant/first-generation gang members were too poor to buy reliable, quality firearms and cheap, reliable transportation to sources to buy or steal such was not readily available (in the years before widespread drug trafficking and the ubiquitousness of automobile and good rural roads).
I may be completely wrong... 
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)Only the illegally carrying would be doing that. So unfortunately your idea doesn't fit in here. Additionally in the classes I had to take, we are warned not to interfere unless we are certain #1 we know which is the bad guy, we'd hate to shoot a undercover cop for example, #2 have a clear shot not risking others' in the way, and #3 only if no other option is available, like dialing 911 with a cell.
So actually unless and until you go to get your CCW and take the courses and sign the commitment to honor those rules and get the FBI background check and the firearm safety and shooting test, perhaps you should quit talking like you know anything at all about CCW.
Last edited Wed Mar 7, 2012, 03:51 PM - Edit history (1)
Pro-gun people are of the mind set that laws give us permission to carry the inantimate device by which to protect ourselves. CCW laws allow us to protect ourselves but do not require us to defend another.
Was there a CCW at the night club? Maybe, if a CCW person was present, they retreated as per law. This is something anti-gun people want them to do.
BTW: Laws do not protect people from criminals. Laws are a mutual agreement between honerable people and their society. Laws may punish criminals after the fact, after the damage is done. But only if they're caught. A firearm is a reinforcement device that backs up the paper that laws are written on.
Paladin
(28,261 posts)"A firearm is a reinforcement device that backs up the paper that laws are written on."
When gun control advocates say negative things about guns, your side goes ape-shit about it, making snide remarks about guns supposedly shooting people all by themselves. You're doing the same thing, here.
Just goes to prove my long-time assertion that guns are a lot more alive to you Gun Enthusiasts than they are to to gun critics.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)It's one thing to say negative things, another to lie. "When gun control advocates say negative things about guns"; this implies that from your debate position a lie could be used.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=69994
Paladin
(28,261 posts)Remmah2
(3,291 posts)
greiner3
(5,214 posts)For starters. That way there are less guns. With less guns there will be less guns going to everyone much less people who have no reason to have them in the first place.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)
TexasBill
(19 posts)If the manufacture of firearms ended today, there would still be an estimated 100 million in private hands in the U.S. alone.
Outside of the battlefield, guns generally last a very long time. Some gun manufacturers warrant their products for the lifetime of the owner and nobody yet has gone out of business because of that. The weapons manufactured today are descended from those made more than 100 years ago. The Smith & Wesson revolver that is the pattern for every S&W revolver made today was introduced in 1899. The Colt .45 semi-automatic pistol was adopted by the U.S. Army in 1911. Many of the guns manufactured in those days are still perfectly capable of being fired today.
There are already laws in place designed to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. In addition to state laws, some dating back to the Nineteenth Century, federal laws in effect since 1968 prohibit the sale or transfer of a firearm to a convicted felon, a fugitive from justice, persons judged to be mentally incompetent, persons addicted to, or habituated to, drugs, persons under the age of 18 (21 for handguns), persons in the country illegally, persons convicted of domestic violence or abuse. It is also a federal offense for someone who is legally qualified to purchase a firearm to purchase one for someone who is not.
Incidentally, before anyone brings up the so-called "gun show loophole," the truth is that someone who is not licensed as a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) is not only not required to conduct the instant background check required by the Brady Act, they can't! Use of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is restricted to FFLs so even if a seller wanted to check out a potential buyer, there is no way for them to do so.
So how is it that criminals have guns? Simple: they're criminals - breaking the law is what they do. Even in countries with very strict guns laws, a determined criminal seems to have very little difficulty obtaining one. For the first time ever, there are armed British police officers patrolling in London and various other parts of the country and there is even talk of arming all British police who have traditionally not carried firearms since the Metropolitan Police force was created 200 years ago.
And why should there be a restriction on the manufacture of firearms for those who want them and a legally qualified to own them? they have done nothing wrong.
Guns are purchased for a variety of reasons: hunting, target shooting, self-defense, collecting and just because a person likes them. The overwhelming majority of firearms are never used in a criminal act of any sort: not even out-of-season game hunting.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,173 posts)You are sadly correct that it cannot be closed now.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/28/us-world-firearms-idUSL2834893820070828
The US has an astounding ownership rate of 90 guns per 100 people.
The closest country in second place? India at 4 guns per 100 people.
But do not pull out that tired old talking point that "Even in countries with very strict guns laws, a determined criminal seems to have very little difficulty obtaining one" as a defense of arming everyone.
1. Yes criminals can find a hand gun in countries with strict gun control, but it is still much more difficult to find one, legal or otherwise, floating around to either steal or buy.
2. Most murders are crimes of passion that occur among people who know each other. If in that sudden rush of adrenalin a gun is not available, they may grab a knife, but that is a messy option and usually has a much less lethal result. A gun is too easy a solution to end a quarrel.
I live in a part of the world with hand gun control and like it that way. I can go out in my neighborhood and know that no one else is carrying. If they are they are stupid, because they would be in a lot of trouble if caught with one. It is a much more peace of mind way of living.
But I fear, for my friends in the US, that your orgy of gun love has swung so far that there is no turning back.
Hypothetically, if guns were not an invention, and the closest thing we had to a weapon was dynamite...imagine an America today with the same attitude. 90% of people walking around with dynamite strapped to themselves, ready to light and throw in a heartbeat. That's the kind of powderkeg society you want to live in if you blindly accept this twisted logic of everyone is safer if everyone is armed all the time. Scarey.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)No-one is seriously suggesting "arming everyone".
And you apparently are not aware of crime/murder rates before guns. "Powderkeg" indeed.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,173 posts)Then you are one of the few aficionados that don't share that believe. So you want to volunteer as one that isn't armed?
From what I hear from rabid gun "rights" folks they believe, like John Lott who wrote "More Guns Less Crime", that if just more people would carry, there would be inexplicably less gun violence. So those are the people I am addressing that response to. Not yourself, who is volunteering not to have a gun. (yeah right)
And on your other point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom
"The United Kingdom has had one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world since before gun control legislation became stricter from the late twentieth century. In the United Kingdom in 2009 there were 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants; for comparison, the figure for the United States was 3.0, about 40 times higher"
New York City's handgun ban seems to also be resulting in a drop in the murder rate.
Its like if drinking and driving was legal. Its fun, why not? Hey if a drinking driver kills someone, well then he should go to jail, but its not drinking and driving that kills people, its individual bad apples that don't know how to drink and drive responsibly, right?
What I don't get is why don't you gun nuts just admit you enjoy having your fingers on such an exciting, life and death, invention. It gives you a thrill that you do not want to give up. Embrace it. I also love my independence and personal freedom so I can at least understand that way of thinking.
But its pointless to try and pretend that a country is not safer, that citizens feel safer, that murder, and suicide rates are not lower in places that have strict handgun controls and semi and automatic weapons banned. That doesn't mean banning ALL guns. Rifles meant for hunting and other guns meant for collecting are still allowed in Canada, where I live and the murder rate is 1/3 what it is for my neighbors down south. The spread of weapons whose sole purpose is to kill human beings is a bad idea. Its just common sense.
You and others of your ilk would rather have that thrill and gladly pay the price of having to live in a more paranoid dangerous society, than the other way around. I get it. I don't want that kind of society where I live, but some do. Each to their own. Enjoy.
TexasBill
(19 posts)Let's look at a more instructive set of statistics: the overall homicide rates. This way, we look at the important number - the quantity of murders. It doesn't matter if they are accomplished with guns, knives, sporks or nuclear weapons, we're looking for the number of bodies. And we find some surprises...
The homicide rate in the U.S. has been steadily declining since 2006, while handgun ownership has been rising.* The rate in the UK had been declining, albeit at a slower rate, until last year, when the rate increased slightly. In Japan, which has even stricter gun laws than the UK, the murder rate rose sharply in 2010. In Canada, the rate is fairly steady; as with everything else, you folks seem to have found a nice, moderate level for offing each other that consistently runs somewhere between 31 and 35 percent of the U.S. rate.
Also note that some UK stats may not be reliable: there was a real firestorm in Great Britain when it was discovered Scotland Yard was underreporting crime.
Now, just for grins 'n giggles, let's look at the Bahamas. Bahamian gun laws are pretty restrictive; there are only about 1,000 handguns in civilian hands. So why was the homicide rate in the Bahamas 5.6 times higher than that in the U.S.?
Switzerland, as everyone knows, has guns in most households because the majority of males from 18 to as old as 50 is in the army. In addition, it is comparatively easy to get a permit to purchase a firearm, including a handgun, from the local police. Yet Switzerland's homicide rate is nearly 44% lower than Great Britain's.
I have lived in Canada (well, Montreal) and it's a very nice country. Much better beer than we get down here and the ice cream's good, too. But for all we might share, we're not the same. We're not as nuts as the Hondurans, who have a homicide rate 16 times higher than ours, nor are we as peaceful as the citizens of Monaco, which apparently doesn't even have a homicide rate.
You said, "But its pointless to try and pretend that a country is not safer, that citizens feel safer, that murder, and suicide rates are not lower in places that have strict handgun controls and semi and automatic weapons banned."
Sorry, but the facts just don't support you. Our rate of overall violent crime is declining even as gun ownership is increasing. Unlike some, I don't attribute the one to the other; that's a bit too simpleminded. But to cite guns as a causative factor in the way in which you are flies in the face of reality.
*In 2008, when Barack Obama was running for his first term in office, handgun sales went through the roof; manufacturers couldn't keep up with demand and prices rose. Some called Obama the "Salesman of the Year" for the gun industry.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,173 posts)I do think however that you have far from proven anything.
Pulling out two countries that buck the trend does not counter the many countries that do not. Both have unique situations.
The Bahamas are unique in their proximity to the mainland USA. Gun running is rampant. They have more guns there than anywhere. (Although if the US had tougher gun laws there'd be less around to smuggle.)
In Switzerland the military is compulsory. That means everyone that has a gun is trained and respects the weapon. Many simply take the gun they are given in their service, which is standard and explains much of the proliferation. Its a whole different attitude.
The drop in overall crime rates is a phenom that is worldwide, at least in Democracies. But you can never win the argument that over all, places with stricter handgun control, do not have less proportion of gun violence.
It just makes sense. If you raise a child in a room full of candies laying everywhere, and one where they are strictly rationed, the first one will most likely get more cavities. I don't know how many analogies you need to see the point. The more hand guns laying around the more they will be used, accidentally or otherwise.
Once again I understand not wanting to give up a right like to have every kind of personal firing device ever invented, and the lure of such powerful deadly things is intoxicating. Its an addiction that America will probably never kick because its so ingrained into not only the Constitution (I think) but the entertainment culture and political culture as well.
I am just so thankful that I live in a place where guns are not easily accessible. We have our share of right wing unstable morans up here too and I shudder to think of all of them walking the streets with concealed hand guns.
On another note, you guys have some fine breweries down there as well. More of your choices are coming up here now. I finally get to buy Rolling Rock locally now! Yum.
TexasBill
(19 posts)You remarked that firearm homicides are down in the UK. I noted that total homicides have increased in the UK. Therefore, the facts would indicate that the number of firearms available is not as much a causative factor in the overall incidence of crime as you believe. Perhaps it also indicates the British are a resourceful lot when it comes to killing each other.
Okay, you want apples to apples: Germany and New Zealand both have identical homicide rates of 1.17 per 100,000 population. In Germany firearms are used in 40% of homicides; in New Zealand, they are used in 15% of homicides.
Rolling Rock is good but I wish we got Brador down here and I miss Molson Ice.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,173 posts)No one is probably reading this thread by now but I thought I'd respond once more.
Yes I saw that murder rates went up 5% in England and Wales last year. But couldn't that be just a natural fluctuation? They did have those riots. Isn't the USA still ahead on all murder stats per population?
Germany is different than New Zealand. Germany has a much longer history involving wars and military service. I'm sure there are more than a few leftover Lugers still floating around from the second world war. Its only natural they'd be more gun happy than New Zealand.
All I am saying is look at it from a common sense point of view. The more guns scattered throughout society, whether it be gun trade shows, gun stores, flea markets, second hand sellers, and then the underground market of guns that are there to be stolen or bought under the table just because of the sheer volume.
Combine that easy accessibility with human emotion and its no wonder that gun violence is so high in your country.
I am thankful to live in a peaceful society, and by peaceful I don't mean the kind of false "peace" of a cold war. I mean literally I am relaxed when I go about my daily business knowing that there is such an infantile chance that someone I interact with will be carrying a gun that I don't even have to think about it. I've only ever seen a pistol up close once when younger and had a couple of unsavory acquaintances....and that was an illegal one smuggled up from the land of guns down south. And yeah it was a thrill, feeling the weight of it, knowing what it could do.
Saying all that, coming from a Mennonite heritage with a long history of pacifism, if I lived in the deep south of America, I can't say that I wouldn't buy a gun for protection either. The pendulum has swung so far there is no going back. Its like Obama giving in to Citizens United and declining public financing. He knows he can't compete with the Republicans if he doesn't. I guess I just feel sorry for y'all having to live that way. But I guess if you never know what its like to live in a more gun-free society you don't know what your missing.
And FYI, Molsons is considered the "Macdonalds" of beer makers up here. There are so many more cottage breweries that have sprouted up (down there as well!) that I prefer. As far as older established choices I like Kokanee, Sleemans, Okanagan Spring, Granville Island....well lets face it anything with hops, barley and yeast in it I'll give it a go!
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)except for your own false extrapolation of one person's statement about "more people".
"more people" does not equal "everyone".
And yes, more people are carrying and crime rates are down. No-one has yet proved a direct causational relationship, but the coorelation is certainly interesting.
Please demonstrate when the NYC crime rates started dropping. IIRC, it was well after their gun bans (which doesn't seem to lend weight that it was the bans that did it), and they also had to start throwing the Fourth Amendment out the window by doing stop-and-frisk searches of people out on the street, with no RAS required. Mostly minorities, I might add.
Please start your effort to repeal the Second Amendment. Hint: it has nothing to do with hunting or collecting.
TexasBill
(19 posts)I am not arguing with the Reuters article; a poll conducted last year showed that 49% of American households have at least one firearm of some sort.
But in Switzerland, almost every household has a firearm. Households with more than one male over the age of 18 have one firearm per male. These range from older, semi-automatic rifles to the latest, selective-fire assault weapons. All issued by the Swiss government. Aside from that, it's relatively easy in most Cantons to get a permit to purchase a handgun. One applies to the local police, pays the fee and makes the purchase.
Firearm ownership is also high in Norway and Sweden, both of which have strong hunting traditions. The tragedy in Norway last year was aggravated by the fact most Norwegian police officers, though they are issued sidearms, don't carry them even on duty and never carry them off duty. The brave Norwegian police officer who was gunned down confronted the killer unarmed.
75%-80% of victims of handgun violence survive their wounds. Stabbings, especially involving family members, typically involve more than one wound but, again, many victims survive. Human beings are remarkably tough to kill, which is a good thing. I should note that the survival rate among those shot with a rifle or buckshot from a shotgun is far lower than among those shot with a revolver or pistol. Rifle rounds are sufficiently powerful that factors like hydrostatic shock come into play and buckshot rounds create such a massive injury that bleedout is fairly rapid. Birdhshot rounds, on the other hand, while messy and annoying, are quite survivable; just ask Dick Cheney's shooting buddy.
Incidentally, in a few high-profile family murders involving children, the weapon of choice was an SUV and a body of water.
You say that if guns were not an invention, the closest thing we would have is dynamite? Weird. I would have thought you would have said black powder as it was the propellent in early firearms. The Chinese developed it somewhere between the 9th and 11th centuries and did use it in warfare. Dynamite was an entirely different invention. Actually it was two 19th Century inventions: nitroglycerine, synthesized by Ascanio Sobrero, and dynamite, which made nitroglycerine safe to handle, by Alfred Nobel.
What about crossbows? Silent, extremely deadly and not hard to conceal under a long coat. The Pope condemned the crossbow, calling it the ultimate weapon and saying meant the end of the world. And of course, knives, dirks, daggers, swords, spears, clubs, maces, halberds and whatnot. The human race has never seemed to want for weapons or lacked ingenuity in developing them. We are, after all, the most successful predators of all time.
I am glad you like it the way it is in your part of the world. I like it the way it is in my part of the world. I don't care if none of my neighbors has a gun or if they are all packing heat every time they walk out the door. As in your part of the world, everything is fine, so long as nobody gets out of hand.
RockWarrior
(10 posts)The US has an astounding ownership rate of 90 guns per 100 people.
The closest country in second place? India at 4 guns per 100 people.
It is difficult to understand or agree with your argument when you provide information that is clearly untrue. How can you even expect people to want to read your opinion when your argument is based on false information? Seriously, thats not even a typo!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
Wow, not even close...
LiberalLovinLug
(14,173 posts)Those were those figures from the link I posted. I guess you can't believe everything you see on the internets.
I'll be generous and except Wikipedia's numbers over a supposedly well respected news organization.
Still it doesn't change the high almost 90 per 100 that the US has.
Still second on your Wiki link is Serbia at 58.2, and that's in a recent war torn region. And its still well below the USA.
I still stand by my basic premise. Violence begets violence. And guns are the easiest way to create deadly violence. The less of them around, the more peaceful a society.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Good luck with your Prohibition III.
Also, you seem to be making the assumption that there was less violence before the invention of guns. History seems to contradict that assumption.....
Robeysays
(673 posts)specifically let people carry guns in to bars or on the premisses in their car if the establishment doesn't let it in side.
that being said the main reason this was pushed through was for "safety concerns of the public" so they could protect them selves in such an action.
this event and about six others over the last 2 years are a direct result of the fools that are in our capitol.
i live in tempe, a maybe 300 ft down from this location. that bar is never full of gang bangers.
young kids looking for a venue. not gangsters. you guys are so ignorant about AZ. i swear. in 7 years on this board, still hating on my state.
yes everyone here carries pretty much. any one who says otherwise either doesn't know or isn't paying attention. It's not because we like flashing them, it's our heritage as arizonans. like baseball hats out east and hemp necklaces form the northwest. Arizonan's define themselves as modern cow punchers, the side arm is a req.
TexasBill
(19 posts)But Arizona law does frown on carrying a gun while intoxicated. It also frowns on driving while intoxicated, public intoxication, etc.
My first trip out to Arizona was about 26 years ago. For a variety of reasons, mostly to do with the fact we were spending a lot of time in the desert, my friends and I carried handguns. It was nice to be able to go into a convenience store for a soft drink and snack and have the clerk not even bat an eye.
I like Arizona for a variety of reasons: it's a beautiful state with some of the most magnificent scenery anywhere; there are lots of good places to go, though some places can be a little tough on a liberal. I also like the climate.
Hangingon
(3,071 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)If they have any sense at all (plus the fact that there are no licenses required for concealed carry in Arizona in general.)
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)one must have the optional concealment permit.
www.handgunlaw.us
Hangingon
(3,071 posts)I too suspected that lefal carriers would not be there
OffWithTheirHeads
(10,337 posts) 
Response to Honeycombe8 (Original post)
MikeOlsen This message was self-deleted by its author.
Alexander
(15,318 posts)That right-wing rag certainly earns its reputation.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Not that it will help much in tracking them down.
jpak
(41,758 posts)yup
Response to jpak (Reply #18)
MikeOlsen This message was self-deleted by its author.
yup!
Johnson20
(315 posts)Sterotyping in your line of work?
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)I could be wrong.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)It's stochastic terrorism.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)The rest is just poetry.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)
Skittles
(153,160 posts)is that from the great Nipsey Russell?
I am a bachelor, and I will not marry
Until the right girl comes along
But while I'm waiting, I don't mind dating
Girls that I know are wrong.
lunasun
(21,646 posts)
Crunchy Frog
(26,587 posts)It's great to be an American!
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)
...or something...
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts) Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)
valerief
(53,235 posts)
muntrv
(14,505 posts)maintains order!
lunasun
(21,646 posts)JonLP24
(29,322 posts)Recently as Friday--Though I never stepped foot in that bar.
Tempe concert shooting injures 14; 1 of 3 suspects arrested
Tempe arrested one man Saturday and are seeking two others they say opened fire outside a rap concert Friday, injuring 14 people, two seriously, in a gang-related .
As many as 300 people were on line outside The Clubhouse Bar at 1320 E. Broadway Rd. to see controversial rapper Nipsey Hussle when three men opened fire at about 11:30 p.m. and fled, said Tempe police Lt. Mike Horn.
"Tempe police detectives believe an argument took place between a couple groups in line for the concert," Horn said. "This quickly escalated to gunfire. We believe this shooting is gang related and investigators are still working to identify the additional suspects."
The shooting is one of the largest Tempe has seen, officials said.
Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/community/tempe/articles/2012/03/03/20120303tempe-concert-shooting-injures-13-suspects-sought.html#ixzz1o8I12SWk
I wouldn't say it is a particularly dangerous area. Safer than most.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Or alleged assholes.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)You'd be free to have all the guns you want.
But if you shoot another motherfucker, they must have really deserved it.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)that place is just barely what I would call civilized at this point. And the 2010 teabagger governors want to turn the whole country into AZ.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)This might be persuasive to someone who doesn't teach University-level logic. Or maybe not.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)...to pack a gun at all times.
