Five People Shot On Boardwalk In Brighton Beach

[sharesunited]

Access to guns and ammo by the general public is a goddamn menace:

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/09/five-people-shot-on-boardwalk-in-brighton-beach/

[notesdev]

1. Guns are illegal there

Seems that denying people the right to self defense may be the menace in this case.

[sharesunited]

3. A seamless ban from sea to shining sea is what is needed.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[S_B_Jackson]

10. The only proper response is the Gonzales Flag....

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

31. This would require...

...federal laws that would overrule state authority.

This concept is counter to the existing Bill of Rights in more ways than one.


The Declaration of Independence does however offer a solution:

"...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."

Actually, I'm wrong; as the existing Constitution clearly DOES respect these rights, any attempt to abolish it would be invalid.


YOU LOSE.

[rrneck]

38. Whatsamatter?

Business slow at the gun store you gotta use the "B" word?

:rofl:

[rl6214]

68. Stupid post of this thread

I vote yes.

[geckosfeet]

7. Nonsense. NO. SENSE.

If everyone on that beach had been armed there would have been NOTHING DIFFERENT.

Six shots from a semi-automatic or revolver can be fired before most people draw a firearm and figure out who is shooting.

And just imagine 20 people in a ring around the shooter, guns out, surveying the scene, trying to figure out who to shoot.

Yeah. More guns just might have helped. Helped kill more people.

On edit:

And let me add - I am not against guns as a general rule. But to make a blanket statement that this would not have happened if people had been armed is not a slam dunk. I could have been worse. A circular firing squad is certainly worse than a single shooter.

[ergot]

9. And THAT is your 'rationale' for denying people the right to choose the means of their own

self-defense? I can't even begin to imagine what kind of sick mindset thinks like that.

[geckosfeet]

12. Yeah. I am sick. Good argument. Point is it would have been worse.

Try to tell me otherwise.

[ergot]

15. Well, your crystal ball is obviously superior to mine so I will just say

have a nice day and goodbye.

[geckosfeet]

16. Same here. Enjoy.

[sharesunited]

17. What are you're willing to subject all of society to, as a consequence of your unseemly affection?

[ergot]

20. If you can translate that into English, I'll try to process it.

...

[Atypical Liberal]

61. No worse than what you are willing to subject all victims of violent crime to.

You yourself are willing to condemn every single victim of violent crime to three choices: Run if they are fast enough, submit if they can survive submission, or engage in a physical contest of strength with their attacker to try and resist.

I'd rather let people have the ability to defend themselves from bad people even if bad people continue to use firearms to do bad things.

[GreenStormCloud]

64. Please find real-world examples of your circular firing squad.

There are 41 states that are shall-issue or looser in their carry laws. So your fantasy, if it really does happen, should be easy to find.

I won't hold my breath waiting while you find an example.

[ergot]

2. So how would you propose to "fix" the problem that gives you such apoplexy?

Give us a tell.

[sharesunited]

4. Shut down manufacture, importation, and sale. Turn off the spigot.

The first step to making them scarce.

[ergot]

6. While you're at it, just shut down disease, earthquakes, tornados, tsunamis, stupidity,

the manufacture of knives, scissors, pikes, motor vehicles, blunt objects, bricks, rocks and stones, bla bla bla bla..........

You're shitting us, aren't you?

[sharesunited]

11. Public policy against the mere possession of child pornography illustrates what is possible.

All it takes is the recognition of potential harm from the thing itself.

Despite, for example, a claim of first amendment protection notwithstanding its repugnance.

[ergot]

13. Are you operating under some strange delusion that there is no child porn?

Wow. Just Wow.

[sharesunited]

18. I happen to live in a society which has taken a stand against something which causes it harm.

Something for which we have adopted a zero tolerance.

Eradication is the goal, and no one can have no doubt about our uncompromising determination to get there.

[ergot]

22. Your profile says you're in Illinois..the state of my birth and which now is

dead to me.

You can come down here and try to take my guns away if you like.

[eqfan592]

27. lol, wow shares..

...you know, I think you need a little more blind, self-righteous indignation! I just don't sense enough of it from you yet.

It's so sad, really. You have uncompromising determination to do something that will have zero benefit for society, yet you are incapable of seeing that.

[sharesunited]

32. Japan, England Australia. Canada. Greece, Italy, Spain.

Look to our role models.

[eqfan592]

33. LOL!

You should try looking to your own roll models a little more closely.

And maybe take a look at another; Switzerland.

Edited to remove some of the sting.

[sharesunited]

34. Swizerland loves guns too much-but even they aren't as crazy as we are.

And I'm looking at YOU.

[eqfan592]

35. They have honest to god military equipment...

...in their homes on a large scale. The same can't be said for us even. But hey, no sense letting reality to get in the way, right?

And the awesome thing is that there is nothing crazy about it. They have one of the lowest violent crime rates in the world. All in spite of them being "crazy." Yet England has one of the highest violent crime rates in the world. Gee, kinda makes you wonder if maybe there is something else to this whole crime thing than firearms?

But no, you can't see that, can you shares? Anyway, I believe this is all done with. Have a good rest of your night, shares.

[sharesunited]

36. You mean we might be particularly unfit to have access to guns and ammo?

Here ya go, this is for you.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304259304576376370090913528.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[eqfan592]

37. No, I mean...

...that there are other socio-economic factors at play that need to be addressed that people like yourself are distracting us all from.

And your story just underscores the need to address those other factors as opposed to the insanity that you propose.

Good day.

[sharesunited]

39. Am I the one who supports Jared Loughner's right to keep and bear arms?

I never need to backpaddle or pick the fly shit out of pepper.

Only you do.

The most I ever need to do is award a highly infrequent pro-gun point to a published story.

A rational life is easy for me to lead.

[rrneck]

40. Don't underestimate the task at hand.

You have yet to consider those who would be injured or killed without a suitable means of self defense.

What if them? Or don't you care?

[sharesunited]

41. I'll see your collateral damage and raise you my collateral damage.

Check out today's Brighton Beach story.

[eqfan592]

42. Your raise doesn't even come close...

...even by conservative estimates. But hey, nice try.

And shares, your entire existence appears to be picking fly shit out of pepper. ALL YOU HAVE is anecdotal evidence and the appearance of a correlative relationship. You have consistently failed to support your position with the sort of data to support a causal relationship between firearms and crime, because no such relationship has ever been established. Not by you, not by the VPC, and not by anybody else. You also consistently ignore data contrary to your position, though you try to white wash this with your vile "points system."

And shares, you seem to exist in a fantasy land where firearms control the wills of their owners through some mystical force that only you can see. So please, don't talk to me about sanity.

EDIT: Oh, and Jared Loughner has been deemed mentally incompetent by a judge. This, and his indictment would make it illegal for him to possess a firearm under federal law. So no, I do not in fact support his right to keep a firearm. But hey, never pass up a chance to demonize folks that disagree with your insanity, right shares?

[Name removed]

43. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Straw Man]

44. No, and neither is anyone else here.

It's a foul lie and a sleazy innuendo, and I alerted on it.

"Rational life" my ass. Have a nice day.

[sharesunited]

45. Sure. Now. Everything is 20-20 hindsight with the imaginary RKBA crowd.

[Straw Man]

46. What on earth are you talking about?

Please make your accusations plain. If you think anyone here believes that homicidal schizophrenics should have access to firearms, just go ahead and say so.

BTW, Brighton Beach is predominantly Russian. Perhaps you've heard of "Little Odessa"?

[sharesunited]

47. Since you don't have ESP which would empower you to predict violent acting out,

then you consistently err on the side of the imaginary RKBA without regard to mental health.

On the brilliant theory that everyone is law abiding right up until the moment they aren't.

[Straw Man]

48. Loughner had a history.

No ESP was necessary -- just someone with the gumption to take the necessary legal steps. No one did.

You would deprive everyone of the most effective tool for self-defense on the grounds that a very small minority may someday act out violently. Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.

[DWC]

56. Please correct me if I am wrong, but...

in America and concerning its citizens, everyone IS law abiding right up until the moment they aren't.

Semper Fi,

[eqfan592]

49. What shares is saying...

...is that we need to start treating everybody as mentally ill criminals from the onset. Somewhat like guilty until proven innocent, but nobody can be proven innocent because you can always become guilty of something at some point. Interestingly enough, shares only seems to feel this way about firearms.

Because those of us who believe in the "imaginary" RTKBA (HA!) don't believe people should be treated as mentally ill criminals from birth, then we must support arming mentally ill criminals. Yes, I know, it's a totally insane line of reasoning, but there it is.

[sharesunited]

50. Let everyone arm themselves with the convenient and efficient means of inflicting death.

And then observe who shouldn't have it.

So we know.

After the fact.

[eqfan592]

51. They are also the most effective means...

...of defending ones self, especially those who are not physically strong. But hey, who cares about those people?

And yes, shares, as has been stated several times already, we can't treat people like criminals until after they have committed a crime. That's the draw back of a free society. Even the founding fathers recognized this.

[sharesunited]

52. And seek vengeance for those who have had bullets fatally enter their bodies?

Your idea of justice? It makes a mockery of all our genuine Constitutional rights.

[eqfan592]

53. Well...

..thanks for dropping all pretense that you were attempting to have a rational conversation. ;)

G'night, shares

[Straw Man]

54. Self-defense has absolutely nothing to do with vengeance or justice.

It has to do with self-preservation. Is that so hard to understand?

[DWC]

60. That would level the playing field. n/t

[Atypical Liberal]

62. Exactly. That is all you can do.

Let everyone arm themselves with the convenient and efficient means of inflicting death.

And then observe who shouldn't have it.

So we know.

After the fact.

EXACTLY!

This is all we can do. We are in a free society and live in a time where modern, semi-automatic firearm technology is now over 100 years old. Everyone has access to such weapons, and some people do bad things with them.

You have two choices:

You can wait and observe who shouldn't have them, and then punish those people after the fact, or you can take firearms away from everyone, in an attempt to prevent all firearm crime.

But there are two serious things to note about the latter choice - your choice:

Firstly, you will never get firearms out of the hands of criminals, nor will you get them out of the hands of the rich, the powerful, and the connected.

Secondly, and more importantly, regular people will be deprived of the only tool which lets people resist violent crime without resorting to a physical contest of strength with their attacker. This means that every victim of violent crime will be at the mercy of anyone stronger then them. The weak will be at the mercy of the strong.

I don't understand why you don't see this. You are so bent on this utopian vision of all firearms vanishing that you refuse to realize the consequences of what you are wishing for.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

19. What other contents of the Bill of Rights do you oppose

What other basic freedoms would you deny?

[sharesunited]

21. I seek to preserve freedoms which are otherwise being terminated with extreme prejudice by gunfire.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

23. You methodology is self defeating and more dangerous to society as a whole

But then again, you already know that

[rrneck]

30. Sooooo,

how about the freedoms that are terminated with extreme prejudice because people could not defend themselves or at least appeared to the criminal able to do so?

You don't give a flying fuck about them do you? Your opinion is much import than the lives of those victims, isn't it?

[PavePusher]

57. I find it difficult to understand how you would "preserve freedoms"...

by destroying freedoms. You have repeatedly advocated actions that are counter to, and would destroy, all of the first ten Amendments to the Constitution.

[Atypical Liberal]

63. And in so doing you would deprive every victim of violent crime the means to resist.

[rl6214]

69. Riiight, you are going to put legitimate business out of business

[valerief]

5. You got that right. nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

24. Not really. For those ignorant of the history of crime in New York City:

Criminals will use whatever weapon comes to hand, and can do a fine job of raising hell without firearms. And as you can see,

gangbangers have been terrorizing NYC for a long time:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Rabbits_Riot

...On the evening of July 4, 1857, while the rest of New York was celebrating Independence Day, members of the Dead Rabbits led a coalition of street gangs from the Five Points, with exception of the Roach Guards with whom they had been fighting,<1> into The Bowery to raid a clubhouse occupied by the Bowery Boys and the Atlantic Guards. They were confronted outside the building by their rivals and were driven back after vicious street fighting, the Five Pointers retreating to Paradise Square. Some fighting continued as far away as Pearl and Chatham Streets, in the northern half of Park Row, but no police were dispatched. With the exception of a few nearby Metropolitan patrolmen, who were seriously injured, each police faction claimed the responsibility lay with the other. Police inactivity caused the situation to escalate in the next few hours.<2><3>

The following morning, the Five Pointers returned to the Bowery with the Roach Guards and attacked the Green Dragon, a popular Broome Street resort and meeting place for the Bowery Boys and other local criminals. They managed to surprise the Bowery gangsters inside the building and, armed with iron bars and large paving blocks, they proceeded to wreck the bar room, rip up the floor of the dance hall and drink all the alcohol in the place. News of the incident quickly reached the Bowery Boys, who then called upon other gangs of the Bowery to join them and confronted the Five Pointers at Bayard Street where one of the largest street gang battles in the city's history occurred.<2>

At around 10:00 a.m., in the midst of savage fighting, a lone patrolman used his club to move through the gangsters in an attempt to take the ring leaders into custody. He was knocked down and attacked by the crowd however, stripped of his uniform and beaten with his own nightstick. He managed to crawl back to the sidewalk and, wearing only his cotton drawers, he ran towards the Metropolitan headquarters on White Street, where he informed the precinct of the fighting before he collapsed. A small police squad was sent out to break up the fighting but, upon reaching Centre Street, the gangs turned against the police, who were forced to retreat after several officers were injured. They made a second attempt, this time fighting their way into the mob, and arrested two men believed to be the leaders. The gangsters responded by storming into the low houses lining Bowery and Bayard Streets, forcing out the residents, and climbed to the rooftops where they proceeded to shower the Metropolitan officers with stones and brick bats until they fled from the area.<1><2>

When the police left without their prisoners, the fighting stopped for a few moments. This temporary truce lasted only an hour or two as fighting resumed near The Tombs,<1> supposedly brought about by a group of women from the Five Points who had provoked the Dead Rabbits into attacking the Bowery gangs. Bringing reinforcements with them, the participants were estimated at between 800–1,000 and armed with bludgeons, paving stones, brick bats, axes, pitchforks and other weapons. Several hundred other criminals also arrived in the area, mostly burglars and thieves, who were not affiliated with either side and simply took the opportunity for looting....

[TheCowsCameHome]

26. File under: LBN

1857.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[eqfan592]

29. No, what is really funny....

....is your total inability to see how much we can learn from the past. "It's from 1857? DISMISS IT AS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT! NOTHING IMPORTANT EVER HAPPENED THEN THAT WE COULD LEARN FROM!"

Actually, it's not so much funny as it is sad. Very, very sad.

[TheCowsCameHome]

55. And this has to do with Brighton Beach boardwalk shootings, 2011?

N-o-t-h-i-n-g.

0

Nada.

[friendly_iconoclast]

66. It shows violent gangbangers will be violent with whatever comes to hand....

....and those who think that criminals won't do what criminals do if they don't have guns are fools...

[TheCowsCameHome]

25. And so the long, hot summer begins.

More idiocy on the streets, and for what?

[petronius]

58. Technically, it's not officially summer until we've had our first breathless and

statistically-challenged report of a shark attack...

[ileus]

28. Not my firearms not my ammo...

[Atypical Liberal]

59. Access to guns and ammo allows the general public to resist assault.

Without firearms, every victim of violent assault who wishes to resist their attacker will have to resort to a contest of physical strength. The weak will be at the mercy of the strong.

I'm not willing to give up my means to protect myself and my family because of the actions of criminals.

[GreenStormCloud]

65. Texas, New Mexico, Arizona it is already 100+ daily.

We don't have that kind of problem here.

[rl6214]

67. NO, you are a goddamn menace to constitutional rights.