Yet another shooting incident in the states

This from the NZ Herald website

Gunmen opened fire on dozens of people marching in a Mother's Day second-line parade in New Orleans on Sunday, wounding at least 17 people, police said. Police spokeswoman Remi Braden said in an email that many of the 17 victims were grazed and most of the wounds weren't life-threatening. No deaths were reported.

Police Superintendent Ronal Serpas told reporters that a 10-year-old girl was grazed in the shooting around 2pm. She was in good condition. He said three or four people were in surgery, but he didn't have their conditions. Officers were interspersed with the marchers, which is routine for such events. As many as 400 people joined in the procession that stretched for about three blocks, though only half that many were in the immediate vicinity of the shooting, Serpas said.

Police saw three suspects running from the scene in the city's 7th Ward neighbourhood. No arrests had been made as of late afternoon. Second-line parades are loose processions in which people dance down the street, often following behind a brass band. They can be impromptu or planned and are sometimes described as moving block parties.

A social club called The Original Big 7 organized Sunday's event. The group was founded in 1996 at the Saint Bernard housing projects, according to its MySpace page. The neighborhood where the shooting happened was a mix of low-income and middle-class row houses, some boarded up. As of last year, the neighbourhood's population was about 60 percent of its pre-Hurricane Katrina level.

Police vowed to make swift arrests.

"We'll get them. We have good resources in this neighbourhood," Serpas said

they definitely did the right thing in knocking back recent gun law amendments. The most ridiculous thing is that the NRA will use this incident to promote even higher gun ownership

I'm thankful that no one was injured. Still, it is alarming. I hope it will serve as a kick with a spur in tightening up the gun laws over there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phillipgr

injured

---

You mean killed? ha

When you're in the States or Canada for any amount of time and read the newspapers daily, there are ALOT of shootings that occur regularly. We only hear about a fraction of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bavarian_Hunter

You mean killed? ha

---

Hah whoops. The forum muppet strikes yet again!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoshC

When you're in the States or Canada for any amount of time and read the newspapers daily, there are ALOT of shootings that occur regularly. We only hear about a fraction of them.

---

It cant be justified in my opinion, their gun laws I mean.

What new law would have stopped this shooting?

There are multi millions of guns in the US currently and many of those millions are in the hands of criminals. Criminals are criminals for the simple reason that they ignore and break current laws. I doubt that adding a few more laws will stop criminals from committing crime.

Why do some people want to harm or kill others? That's what the powers at be need to focus on.

The issue with the last laws were they restricted the law abiding without disarming the criminal. For a law to work then it must target those causing the crime and not the law abiding. Enforcing current laws may be a good starting point.

Cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Littledog

What new law would have stopped this shooting?

There are multi millions of guns in the US currently and many of those millions are in the hands of criminals. Criminals are criminals for the simple reason that they ignore and break current laws. I doubt that adding a few more laws will stop criminals from committing crime.

Why do some people want to harm or kill others? That's what the powers at be need to focus on.

The issue with the last laws were they restricted the law abiding without disarming the criminal. For a law to work then it must target those causing the crime and not the law abiding. Enforcing current laws may be a good starting point.

Cheers.

---

All they basically wanted to do was introduce background checks on people before they were just allowed to buy any gun they wanted to. Granted it wouldnt stop everyone, but if those laws stopped one person from getting one gun and in turn saved one life arent they justified and fully worth it?

And how would you work that out? Seems like the "policy" of increasing firearm ownership is rather effective at reducing gun crime... Why don't you just carry on just beating the same drum as the rest of the uninformed opinion out there..... :ORLY:

May 9th, 2013
Major Drop in Gun Crime Not Understood by American Public
A recently-released study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) establishes, without a doubt, that serious gun crime has dropped dramatically in the last twenty years. The BJS Report showed a 39% decline in gun murders from 1993 to 2011 plus a 69% drop in non-fatal gun crimes.

In fact, according to the L.A. Times: “In less than two decades, the gun murder rate has been nearly cut in half. Other gun crimes fell even more sharply, paralleling a broader drop in violent crimes committed with or without guns. Violent crime dropped steeply during the 1990s and has fallen less dramatically since the turn of the millennium.”

A separate independent study by the Pew Research Center, affirms that “National rates of gun homicide and other violent gun crimes are strikingly lower now than during their peak in the mid-1990s, paralleling a general decline in violent crime[.] Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm — assaults, robberies and sex crimes — was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993.” The PRS findings were based on CDC data (for gun homicides) and on U.S. Justice Department data for “non-fatal victimizations”.

Ignorant Americans Believe Gun Crime is Rising
Ironically, though it is absolutely clear that serious gun crime has dropped while gun ownership has increased, the majority of Americans believe that gun crime is on the rise. According to a survey by the Pew Research Center, the majority of Americans believe that serious gun crime is on the rise.
A recent Pew Research Center survey asked the question: “Compared with 20 years ago, has the number of gun crimes in America gone up, gone down, or stayed the same?” Among those surveyed, 56% said gun crime had gone up, 26% said it had stayed the same, and 12% said it had gone done. 65% of women said gun crime has gone up compared to 46% of men.
As to why most Americans don’t understand that gun crime has gone down, one can only speculate. Certainly, the way firearms-related subjects are reported by the mass media may play a role in confusing the general public.
We recommend that you read the Overview of the Pew Research Center Study, which presents many interesting (and thought-provoking) points. After “crunching the numbers”, the Pew researchers analyzed why gun crime rates have declined so dramatically over the last two decades. A variety of factors are discussed, including demographic changes, increased policing, and tougher laws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sidney

And how would you work that out? Seems like the "policy" of increasing firearm ownership is rather effective at reducing gun crime... Why don't you just carry on just beating the same drum as the rest of the uninformed opinion out there..... :ORLY:

May 9th, 2013
Major Drop in Gun Crime Not Understood by American Public
A recently-released study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) establishes, without a doubt, that serious gun crime has dropped dramatically in the last twenty years. The BJS Report showed a 39% decline in gun murders from 1993 to 2011 plus a 69% drop in non-fatal gun crimes.

In fact, according to the L.A. Times: “In less than two decades, the gun murder rate has been nearly cut in half. Other gun crimes fell even more sharply, paralleling a broader drop in violent crimes committed with or without guns. Violent crime dropped steeply during the 1990s and has fallen less dramatically since the turn of the millennium.”

A separate independent study by the Pew Research Center, affirms that “National rates of gun homicide and other violent gun crimes are strikingly lower now than during their peak in the mid-1990s, paralleling a general decline in violent crime[.] Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm — assaults, robberies and sex crimes — was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993.” The PRS findings were based on CDC data (for gun homicides) and on U.S. Justice Department data for “non-fatal victimizations”.

Ignorant Americans Believe Gun Crime is Rising
Ironically, though it is absolutely clear that serious gun crime has dropped while gun ownership has increased, the majority of Americans believe that gun crime is on the rise. According to a survey by the Pew Research Center, the majority of Americans believe that serious gun crime is on the rise.
A recent Pew Research Center survey asked the question: “Compared with 20 years ago, has the number of gun crimes in America gone up, gone down, or stayed the same?” Among those surveyed, 56% said gun crime had gone up, 26% said it had stayed the same, and 12% said it had gone done. 65% of women said gun crime has gone up compared to 46% of men.
As to why most Americans don’t understand that gun crime has gone down, one can only speculate. Certainly, the way firearms-related subjects are reported by the mass media may play a role in confusing the general public.
We recommend that you read the Overview of the Pew Research Center Study, which presents many interesting (and thought-provoking) points. After “crunching the numbers”, the Pew researchers analyzed why gun crime rates have declined so dramatically over the last two decades. A variety of factors are discussed, including demographic changes, increased policing, and tougher laws.

---

I am very dubious of statistics as they can be manipulated very easily into saying exactly what someone wants. For example lets take your fine country, are you aware that statistically the average New Zealander has one tit and one testicle?

I still believe having mandatory background checks on people will in no way hinder legitimate gun owners and users. We have a fairly rigourous system here in Aus and it works well, I still have guns, so does my brother and all my mates but a lot of drugged out deros who would be dangerous do not. Granted its impossible to completely eradicate gun crime but common sense should take a seat in gun politics in my mind.

No its actually 1.something - and you should have said "statistically less than 2"...

If you understood anything about probability you might be able to draw some conclusions about an almost 50% drop in serious gun crime over 20 years. If you bothered to check the sources of the information, you might find out they are reputable. And clearly your opinions seem to be based on popular media.... I think that I would rather use statistics.

You are obviously unaware that much of the states has cool off periods, vetting and checking and waiting periods before people can acquire guns. But don't let me stop you from recycling popular opinion...

You also fail to understand that criminals don't bother with these sort of proceedures... So how many people are you going to save by making more rules - give me some statistics.... had enough of the opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bavarian_Hunter

they definitely did the right thing in knocking back recent gun law amendments. The most ridiculous thing is that the NRA will use this incident to promote even higher gun ownership

---

NRA will probably argue now for armed guards for parades :D

the only thing stopping a bad guy at a parade is a good guy armed

Also keep an eye on this page here, it lists gun deaths in the USA since Sandy Hook shootings. Overall it makes for pretty horrific and sad reading. 3,695 since Dec 14 2012.

Don't get me wrong its unacceptable, any of it.. but the americans have a system.. a dramatic change to the system will have catastrophic effects... the law abiding will comply, those that don't are by definition not law abiding... more guns in a criminal world, with less fear of the law abiding. Moving from the cold war mentality of deterence by equal or greater force in the american psyche would take some radical change in direction..

I don't like it, I wouldn't want what they have... but I don't do trite either

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bavarian_Hunter

I am very dubious of statistics as they can be manipulated very easily into saying exactly what someone wants. For example lets take your fine country, are you aware that statistically the average New Zealander has one tit and one testicle?

I still believe having mandatory background checks on people will in no way hinder legitimate gun owners and users. We have a fairly rigourous system here in Aus and it works well, I still have guns, so does my brother and all my mates but a lot of drugged out deros who would be dangerous do not. Granted its impossible to completely eradicate gun crime but common sense should take a seat in gun politics in my mind.

---

I watched a show where a leb gang member boasted that he could find a handgun in under 15mins. He did this for the camera in broad daylight.

I Truly believe that NZ has the best system in regards to firearms. It's not perfect but people have a lot of freedom, while being checked on from time to time by the police if need be.

Just because a law won't stop all crime doesn't mean it shouldn't be introduced.

The background checks they were pushing for in USA was a perfect example, they wanted to make it harder for criminals to get firearms without effecting the law abiders, sure it wouldn't stop all but it may stop some but still people fought it, crazy.

America is paying for its lax gun laws and culture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sidney

Don't get me wrong its unacceptable, any of it.. but the americans have a system.. a dramatic change to the system will have catastrophic effects... the law abiding will comply, those that don't are by definition not law abiding... more guns in a criminal world, with less fear of the law abiding. Moving from the cold war mentality of deterence by equal or greater force in the american psyche would take some radical change in direction..

I don't like it, I wouldn't want what they have... but I don't do trite either

---

Yup, it would take a monumental shift in American culture to move away from the answer of violence. Personally I don't think they ever can, it's too deep in their psyche. Their obsession with the word 'freedom' borders on the insane :D

What we have here in NZ isn't perfect, but it's pretty good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bavarian_Hunter

All they basically wanted to do was introduce background checks on people before they were just allowed to buy any gun they wanted to. Granted it wouldnt stop everyone, but if those laws stopped one person from getting one gun and in turn saved one life arent they justified and fully worth it?

---

The law got shot down because they tried to tack the assault weapons ban and a magazine ban onto it.

Also the background check system in the states is fucked and easily circumvented = achieve fuck all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bavarian_Hunter

I am very dubious of statistics as they can be manipulated very easily into saying exactly what someone wants. For example lets take your fine country, are you aware that statistically the average New Zealander has one tit and one testicle?

I still believe having mandatory background checks on people will in no way hinder legitimate gun owners and users. We have a fairly rigourous system here in Aus and it works well, I still have guns, so does my brother and all my mates but a lot of drugged out deros who would be dangerous do not. Granted its impossible to completely eradicate gun crime but common sense should take a seat in gun politics in my mind.

---

The statistics come from a study done by the Department of Justice (in charge of the FBI)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Savage1

Just because a law won't stop all crime doesn't mean it shouldn't be introduced.

The background checks they were pushing for in USA was a perfect example, they wanted to make it harder for criminals to get firearms without effecting the law abiders, sure it wouldn't stop all but it may stop some but still people fought it, crazy.

America is paying for its lax gun laws and culture.

---

Let me paraphrase that for you....just because a law doesn't do what it is supposed to, doesn't mean we shouldn't make it anyway....:yaeh am not durnk:

Where is the evidence that these sort of laws stop any crime? Everybody talks hypothetically about this issue. It sounds like a great idea to make it harder to get firearms - perfectly logical....but not backed up by data when it happens... have a look at the UK or Australia... the statistics not the continuation of the mob opinion..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sidney

Let me paraphrase that for you....just because a law doesn't do what it is supposed to, doesn't mean we shouldn't make it anyway....:yaeh am not durnk:

Where is the evidence that these sort of laws stop any crime? Everybody talks hypothetically about this issue. It sounds like a great idea to make it harder to get firearms - perfectly logical....but not backed up by data when it happens... have a look at the UK or Australia... the statistics not the continuation of the mob opinion..

---

Lol sounds like Biden

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bavarian_Hunter

All they basically wanted to do was introduce background checks on people before they were just allowed to buy any gun they wanted to. Granted it wouldnt stop everyone, but if those laws stopped one person from getting one gun and in turn saved one life arent they justified and fully worth it?

---

JUST ONE LIFE

Ban swimming pools, they kill way more people than guns. It's worth it if it saves JUST ONE LIFE


There are background checks already for all transfers through FFLs, making them mandatory for private transfers

-is unenforceable
-allows FFLs to price-rape the only people who would bother complying, lawful gun owners


Murders in the US are at something like 1/2 the rate of the 1990s and not that much higher than NZ, largely the difference is violence between gangs, mass shootings are statistically insignificant

USA has 5x the murder rate per capita of NZ and 18x the firearms homicide rate per capita over NZ. Source, Wikipedia.

USA is hardly an example to follow.

True. I mis-remembered the rates.

Agree that we don't need the inequality, poverty, corruption, religious fundamentalism, etc, of the US ;)


Definitely don't need their foreign policy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sidney

No its actually 1.something - and you should have said "statistically less than 2"...

If you understood anything about probability you might be able to draw some conclusions about an almost 50% drop in serious gun crime over 20 years. If you bothered to check the sources of the information, you might find out they are reputable. And clearly your opinions seem to be based on popular media.... I think that I would rather use statistics.

You are obviously unaware that much of the states has cool off periods, vetting and checking and waiting periods before people can acquire guns. But don't let me stop you from recycling popular opinion...

You also fail to understand that criminals don't bother with these sort of proceedures... So how many people are you going to save by making more rules - give me some statistics.... had enough of the opinion.

---

The irony of that is that I got a distinction in the statistics and mathematical probability topic I did at uni. I never said the report was wrong, I simply stated that I am hesitant in believing statistics that are thrown at me because I have seen how they can be easily manipulated. I also don't recall saying that gun ownership or the increase of it will necessarily increase gun crime - that would be a bold statement. When you don't put basic control measures of who can own a semi automatic military weapon though I do believe you are playing with fire. The issue with gun crime is that a higher proportion of people involved in gun crime are fatally wounded in comparison to other weapons.

And yes gun crime may have decreased over the past few years but so has every other type of violent crime leading to murder. It just means that you have less of a chance to die in general; you still have a proportionately similar chance to die from a gun now than you did in 1993.

There are a lot of questions you can ask about statistics and for me the most blatant one is why did they choose 1993 as the benchmark to compare today’s violence?
I haven't looked it up but I'd be fairly confident you will find that it was the highest peak in US gun crime and anything deviating down from that will give you a much higher perceived percentage drop. It does look impressive I agree, I myself have seen it first hand at uni when we were "fortunate enough" to have a lecture from one of Australia's top "Climate Change Experts". He showed us this damning graph with a huge percentage decrease in rainfall for Australia from 1970 to 2011 which conclusively proved the effects were so disastrous already that more money had to be invested into climate change research and this and that. He then went on quoting that high percentage increase to talk about global warming over the past 100 years. Why 1970s? And why to 2011 when talking about a century of change, why not start your graph from a century ago?
1970s in Australia is the wettest recorded decade over the past 110 years included in his argument. He then linked this to the most recent decade which was the driest, thus giving a exasperated percentage which in no way represented the real difference over the past century – which was around a quarter of the percentage he gave. It may pay to note that I believe in global warming and advocate strongly that we address it, just with genuine fact not twisted stats.
My point is that despite the fact that you believe I am a follower of mainstream media (which I take offense to), I, apparently unlike yourself do not readily accept things that are put in front of me just because they suit my ideals. I also feel compelled to question why because through my naivety of the past have learnt it is dangerous not to do so. It may surprise some that people from politicians to climate change experts and even the humble FBI have their own agendas and will make sure that their best interests are kept in check.
Personally if I were Robert Mueller I too would feel compelled to show a report or some statistics to justify my $8.1 billion annual budget (from 2012).
Lastly for you to attempt to correct my informal syntax on a forum like this is a clear indication that you are trying very hard to assert your intellectual dominance over me; I won’t fight you for it, I just wanted to give my opinion.
Cheers,
BH

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimp

JUST ONE LIFE

Ban swimming pools, they kill way more people than guns. It's worth it if it saves JUST ONE LIFE

---

Touche' Gimp, I've used that line before (although my weapon was bunk beds not swimming pools haha), very well played

The facts of the matter are that unless we can stop the criminally minded from wanting to harm and kill and also stop those with serious mental disorders from wanting to be like action movie villians we are still going to see gun deaths, knife deaths, cooking pot deaths etc etc.
Adding new laws to the equation will not stop the killings. Its easy to find a clean buyer!

I am dismayed at the democrats for pushing the semi auto ban and magazine ban in with the background check bill as on its own it may have been passed by the senate. The powers at be knew that the AWB and Mag ban bill would be lost but they pushed the background check bill thru with it anyway. It was just bollocks politics so a president could get up on stage and frown alot!

Tackle the crime and the mental health issue and we are on the right path to safer communities. So many of the shooters involved in mass shootings in the US are on psychiatric medicines and a disproportional number of gun murders are from gang and criminal groups.
The gang members currently pay clean associates to purchase for them. Introduce new laws and they will still continue to do the same.

Cheers.

BH... congratulations on your distinction on the statistics topic you studied... I completely understand why you would want to discount facts if they don't suit your opinions.

Yes we all know about statistics, but I have a question... would you consider opinion without fact more or less dangerous?

Perhaps you could explain to me also how Mr Mueller would substantially improve his budget with such a downturn in requirement. Are you into conspiracy theories as well.. They are great places for opinion in the absence of facts. Heck that is what the whole anti gun debate is based on.

No offense to anyone but this shit comes up every 5 minutes from where ever in the world it happens- not here.
Population plays a big place percentage wise but is this topic something we need to draw attention to NZ wise given this forums search engine 'appeal' ?
We rank VERY highly- the anti vote prob isn't the look we're wanting and the position of those making their point chooses what we portray as a whole.
It's not a vote, but surly this shit isn't in our favor as gun owners as a whole ?

If you want to give those who want to moan about how NZ is just like LAs gang banger suburbs more ammo then by all means go ahead, but end if the day the more attention drawn to this minority US rubbish that's being given in the media etc the worse OUR chances are of a normal firearms existence.

Personally I'm sick of hearing about the whole thing and just want to be left alone to have fun and shoot stuff with cool guns. I don't want to shoot people or talk about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimp

Personally I'm sick of hearing about the whole thing and just want to be left alone to have fun and shoot stuff with cool guns. I don't want to shoot people or talk about it.

---

Hear hear!
My point exactly

Not contributing alternative opinion to the simplistic routine beatup, that happens every time this happens is a strategy you think is working?

I'm just sick of having the same argument over and over again every week with different people who have the same dumbass ideas


BUT PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO HAVE THOSE SCARY THINGS BECAUSE I JUST WANT A HUNTIN RAHFUL

With the amount of guns in the U.S. more people die at the hands of doctors than firearms

As I've said before, AR's have been available on A cat for some time now, since they were first imported, but more recently in large numbers, I'm still yet to see an explosion in gun violence. Maybe it's because they are being bought up by people with a firearms license, and being used for hunting and target shooting? :ORLY:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spanners

Hear hear!
My point exactly

---

Thought one of you may have pulled the political plug and pushed the leave it alone button by now. Where does this always lead to... NO where..
Deja Vu from last weeks episode ?? Feels like ..

Seems to me,that with the world wide "beat up" by media and the negative light that they try to portray Gun owners and shooters in we should be hoping the NRA and pro gun lobbies in the States are successful in there resistance to the Obama admins proposed changes,because any changes or restrictions imposed there also have the potential to effect us down here.
Yes we have a good system here in NZ but lets not kid ourselves that there's still a liberal left wing element in NZ that would love to see our laws even more tightened up,Phillip Alpers and co would be rubbing there hands together in glee at the thought of changes in the US mandated by the UN and would relish the though of implementing more of them here.Therefore i support the NRA in the states in resisting any proposed changes World wide its a slippery slope.Besides they wouldn't make one iota of difference apart from restricting and persecuting legit gun owners the crims will still have as much fire-power as they have always had....look at the gun crime in Aussie if you want examples of that .Below is a link to ponder ,Its not just ARs that are in there sights its clearly all guns.
Philip Alpers demonises legal firearms

It was reportedly gang related, likely using an illegal .25ACP Jennings pocket gun piece of shit or similar, and has dropped out of the US news cycle already

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tussock

Meanwhile my pro gun news feed has 888 stories of little old ladies shooting home invaders and such.

Given we live in a country where if you come home and find your door kicked in the police will not come around, even if your not sure if they intruders have left, maybe we should be getting concealed carry instead of gun restriction.

The above happened to my mother in law twice.

If concealed carry saves JUST ONE LIFE is it not worth it?

---

Absolutely 100% plus one to that.