Car-to-car shootings are not uncommon in the area, Detective Kelle Baitx said, and the violence is often gang-related. He said he did not think Padilla was connected to any gangs.

I don't know about sunny california but here in the valley of the sun, 60% of the murder victims are hispanic and 50% of the peole doing thoes killing are illegals. That information came from the city police department yesterday.

Oh, if we'd just had tighter gun-control, none of those murderers would have killed anyone!

Oh, if we'd just had tighter gun-control, none of those murderers would have killed anyone!

Posted by jonryker

Thank you for pointing that out.

**** Oh, if we'd just had tighter gun-control, none of those murderers would have killed anyone!

Posted by jonryker ****

......car-to-car knife fights, rarely end in death to the combatants......

My trombone teacher in college was driving in L.A. with his daughter when a gang-banger in training who was at a house party shot him in the head as his car drove by. This was, according to the police, some type of initiation passage -- to shoot anybody for no reason. Luckily, he ended up being fine. But, to think about all this guy offered to the world, his family, and community (he was/is a top L.A. studio pro), that it could have all ended over something like this. It's insanity.

Jon, I certainly don't know what the solution is, but I don't know if I'd want tighter control or to start blasting myself (I am an NRA member) if someone I knew was an innocent victim in the freeway shooting. I don't think any of us could predict how we would behave in such circumstances.

Skizziks,

Only I'm guessing that psychomurderers would not confine themselves to knives just because the law says so. They've already shown contempt for the law by choosing to murder...

On the other hand, if the chick had pulled out a .38, perhaps no one would have been shot? She at least would have had a chance to shoot them first.

Over this period of time, how many people were killed in LA by simple car wrecks? More, I'd guess, yet I hear no clamor for CAR CONTROL..

No, it's not the deaths that is getting this reporter's panties in a wad...it is the EVIL GU
NS were involved...Irrational...stupid
....UnAmerican.

Another lame attempt by RCADE to invoke a 'gun control' battle.

Guns are legal. Get used to it!!!

Another lame attempt by RCADE to invoke a 'gun control' battle.

Guns are legal. Get used to it!!!

Posted by _2112_


So are Abortions. I agree...

.......the more guns in circulation, the more gun deaths........

........those of us who want a gun soaked culture, beget a culture of violence and senseless deaths.......

......cant argue with the idiots though, they really dont care who dies, how many dies......until its one that matters to them.......

Not so fast Skittlehead!!

Lower murder rates in foreign countries prove that gun control works?

False. This is one of the favorite arguments of gun control proponents, and yet the facts show that there is simply no correlation between gun control laws and murder or suicide rates across a wide spectrum of nations and cultures. In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel "have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States." A comparison of crime rates within Europe reveals no correlation between access to guns and crime.

The basic premise of the gun control movement, that easy access to guns causes higher crime, is contradicted by the facts, by history and by reason.

If gun control laws have any effect, it may be to increase crime. For instance:

New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46 percent and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.

In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures and its murder rate, then a low 2.4 per 100,000 per year, tripled to 7.2 by 1977.

In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134 percent while the national murder rate has dropped 2 percent.

When Morton Grove, Ill., outlawed handgun ownership, fewer than 20 were turned in.
After Evanston, Ill., a Chicago suburb of 75,000 residents, became the largest town to ban handgun ownership in September 1982, it experienced no decline in violent crime.

Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.

20 percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6 percent of the population - New York, Chicago, Detroit and Washington, D.C. - and each has a virtual prohibition on private handguns.
New York has one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation - and 20 percent of the armed robberies.
Even more troublesome is the fact that the places where gun control laws are toughest tend to be the places where the most crime is committed with illegal weapons

I told them not to flip me off.

Less guns and more illegals is clearly the answer here. Anyone who doesn't see that is stupid.

2112

......did I say gun control ?.......

.......the more guns in circulation, the more gun deaths........

Posted by skizziks

Australia has enacted very strict gun control in the past few years. Total homicide (all killings, not just guns) has only gone down a little over 9% while assults have gone up 50% in the same time peroid.

Here in the good old USA

Homicide Type by Race, 1976-2005
Victims
White Black Other
50.9% 46.9% 2.1%

Offenders
White Black Other
45.8% 52.2% 2.0%


Choak on these facts.

2112

......did I say gun control ?.......

.......the more guns in circulation, the more gun deaths........

........those of us who want a gun soaked culture, beget a culture of violence and senseless deaths.......

......cant argue with the idiots though, they really dont care who dies, how many dies......until its one that matters to them.......

Posted by skizziks



Well, you got me there Skittlehead.

I don't know WHAT led me to make the giant leap at gun control.

"Over this period of time, how many people were killed in LA by simple car wrecks? More, I'd guess, yet I hear no clamor for CAR CONTROL.."

Posted by jonryker

Please provide numbers of incidents in which the vehicle was used as expressly as a weapon to commit murder.

Otherwise, this line of argument has no merit.

"Careful now! I'm packin' a '69 Roadrunner with a 440 mag, 4-speed Hurst shifter, and posi-track. It'll rip you up!"

........those of us who want a gun soaked culture, beget a culture of violence and senseless deaths.......

I own dozens of firearms and am a member of the NRA. I don't believe its the gun-soaked culture-- its the violence soaked culture.

I have never been for "gun control", and never will be, and do not believe that social problems that are not solved by government intervention and restriction on liberty will never be solved otherwise. That is a myth.

H"ere in the good old USA

Homicide Type by Race, 1976-2005
Victims
White Black Other
50.9% 46.9% 2.1%

Offenders
White Black Other
45.8% 52.2% 2.0%"

Posted by Sniper

Hmmmmm...

So per your numbers, the other, being around 2%, consists of those who are non-black or non-white.

Estimated US population of Hispanics is around 15% (45 million), and Asians around 4% (14 million). Wow!!! I had no idea that Hispanics and Asians were so well behaved.

Perhaps when you post such stats, you provide a source.

"""Australia has enacted very strict gun control in the past few years. Total homicide (all killings, not just guns) has only gone down a little over 9% while assults have gone up 50% in the same time peroid."""

It seems logical to me that the fewer guns there are in circulation, the fewer people will be killed by them. I also understand (to a certain degree) the fervor with which some defend the 2nd, even though today's social context makes the original intent a moot point.

So real question: why is the u.s. such a violent nation? A country doesn't agree with you, you bomb it. Your neighbor pisses you off, you shoot him. The driver in the other car flipped you the finger, you kill him...what the fuck?!


Is it a result of your social priorities and beliefs? Your culture could be labelled as being based on violence, be it tv, music, movies, etc. Your country produces and exports more weapons than any other country in the world. Your military spending is about 10 times that of China, more than all other countries combined!

Then again, maybe you consider this violent social context as normal.

Perhaps when you post such stats, you provide a source.

Posted by ZOT

No problem. It was the US-DOJ web site.

I'm glad I got out of L.A. while the gettin' was good.

I've owned a pistol for years. The only time bullets have ever left it was during cleaning. It's rarely left my bedroom.

Walking in Europe, any city and almost anywhere, you never worry about getting shot. Guns created the culture of violence - starting with all the 50's and 60's Westerns where people got shot for looking at someone the wrong way.

We have way too many guns. In responsible hands, sure, they're fine. But, unfortunately they always end up in the wrong hands.

And I think the NRA goes way overboard in fighting checks on owners of all types of weapons. No sportsman with one good eye needs an AK-47

I also understand (to a certain degree) the fervor with which some defend the 2nd, even though today's social context makes the original intent a moot point.



I don't think I have EVER disagreed with something more.

So what militia are you part of 2112?


Come on over to my neck of the woods and find out Panchovilla.

A militia of one to care for me and mine.

I also understand (to a certain degree) the fervor with which some defend the 2nd, even though today's social context makes the original intent a moot point.

Applying your logic to other Amendments:

The First Amendment was written to protect freedom of speech and the press. Per your argument, anything besides a broadside parchment newspaper should not be covered by the 1st Amendment, since the founders knew nothing of TV, radio, etc.

Applying your logic to the 4th Amendment, your car would not be covered against illegal search and seizure, since the "personal effects" portion of the original wording could not have possibly refered to automobiles.

The often-repeated argument that the 2nd Amendment should somehow refer only to the social and technological times in which it was written, without applying that same argument to the other amendments, is sophomoric.

So what militia are you part of 2112?


Come on over to my neck of the woods and find out Panchovilla.

A militia of one to care for me and mine.

Posted by _2112_ at 2008-04-11 01:14 PM | Reply |

Thanks for proving my point: I ask an honest question and you answer with a thinly veiled threat that stinks of small-dicked blog machismo. You don't seem able or willing to defend you pov, so you threaten. Bravo.

Hey Dingaling why do You think Cops ask permission to search an automobile from the owner/Driver?? It ain't cause they just feel like being nice.

Larry Mohr

We have way too many guns. In responsible hands, sure, they're fine. But, unfortunately they always end up in the wrong hands.

Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2008-04-11 12:48 PM

Applying your logic to other Amendments:

The First Amendment was written to protect freedom of speech and the press. Per your argument, anything besides a broadside parchment newspaper should not be covered by the 1st Amendment, since the founders knew nothing of TV, radio, etc.

Applying your logic to the 4th Amendment, your car would not be covered against illegal search and seizure, since the "personal effects" portion of the original wording could not have possibly refered to automobiles.

The often-repeated argument that the 2nd Amendment should somehow refer only to the social and technological times in which it was written, without applying that same argument to the other amendments, is sophomoric.



Posted by nappyheadedho at 2008-04-11 01:20 PM | Reply |

Your talking technology, I'm talking about the interpretation of the amendment: individual or state? For the purpose of militia or individual armament?

Even so, let's take your examples:

Freedom of speech is pretty clear: it's a principle and a value... the medium has no relevancy.

In terms of illegal search: "personal effects" are personal effects, be it a log cabin or a space ship. Pretty easy interpretation.

Seems to me too many people spew the "it is because it is" argument...that's worse than sophomoric, it's cowardly.

Pancho,

You are the one that attacked my opinion with thinking that the 2nd was only for Militia.

You have your opinion and i have mine. My opinion has the law standing beside it. You seem to want that changed.

And it was not a 'thinly veiled threat". Come for me and mine, consider it a promise.

time for lunch, then off to Wyoming.

Not skating out on the argument, just have to go.

Take care Pancho

Pancho,

Not sure how you can characterize an interpretation of an amendment as cowardly, since that would imply simply running away from any discussion of the issue. Maybe you meant simplistic or avoidant? I could see how you may have that opinion, but not sure about how "cowardly" fits...

OK, so I misinterpreted your wording on the main issue -- I read it as a general "we live in different times" argument, which is usually framed in terms of the technology by those who oppose open interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Now that I understand your initial point, regarding the individual vs state(government) rights and individual vs militia, let me comment: I have always understood the phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." to mean "Since we need a well-equipped militia to make sure the country stays free, we need to make sure that the people who could comprise such a militia are not denied the right to own guns".

At the time this amendment was ratified (1791) the country had a separate and distinct army, so militia still retained its meaning of the "citizen soldier" who is called upon (or decides upon) impromptu service in extraordinary events.

Jefferson himself was quoted as believing that armed citizens were required as insurance against tyrannical government,

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787.

And there are those (I am not one of them) who believe that the primary driver behind government gun control is not citizen safety but, in fact, the natural tendency of the government to want to ensure the status quo.

So, if your argument is that we the citizens do not need to keep vigilant against tyrannical government and that we the citizens do not qualify under any interpretation of the word "militia", then I have to disagre with you on that.
I guess, finally, we will have a ruling from the Supreme Court on some aspects of this issue, sometime later this year in the case of Heller vs District fo Columbia. That will hopefully quell these kinds of gray area discussions, although one side or the other is bound to be unhappy...

Pancho,

You are the one that attacked my opinion with thinking that the 2nd was only for Militia.

You have your opinion and i have mine. My opinion has the law standing beside it. You seem to want that changed.

And it was not a 'thinly veiled threat". Come for me and mine, consider it a promise.

Posted by _2112_ at 2008-04-11 01:46 PM | Reply |

It does seem to be the a good chunk of the debate: militia or personal? In terms of wanting change? I honestly couldn't care less, your gun laws have no effect on me in MTL.

I'm just interested in understanding why a bit of gun control is so terrifying for some people in a context where your society is the victim of some of the world's highest rates of gun-related crimes.

I can only talk about personal experience and I have never felt the need to be armed in my city, but that's canada for ya, eh?

Later.

And I think the NRA goes way overboard in fighting checks on owners of all types of weapons. No sportsman with one good eye needs an AK-47

Posted by AMERICANUNITY

Please show me where in the 2nd amendment it says that it is for sport hunting?

I'm just interested in understanding why a bit of gun control is so terrifying for some people in a context where your society is the victim of some of the world's highest rates of gun-related crimes.

I can only talk about personal experience and I have never felt the need to be armed in my city, but that's canada for ya, eh?

Posted by panchovilla

If you don't want to own a gun then don't.

What part of "gun control" fits with "shall not be infringed"


A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

"""Not sure how you can characterize an interpretation of an amendment as cowardly, since that would imply simply running away from any discussion of the issue. Maybe you meant simplistic or avoidant? I could see how you may have that opinion, but not sure about how "cowardly" fits..."""

Not very clear I'll admit. I was suggesting that many supporters of the 2nd state "it's always been that way" to defend their pov. That is cowardly from an intellectual perspective: afraid of an open debate on an issue.


"""So, if your argument is that we the citizens do not need to keep vigilant against tyrannical government and that we the citizens do not qualify under any interpretation of the word "militia", then I have to disagre with you on that. """

A few points:

I wholeheartedly believe people should always be vigilant and take their gov't to task when need, to the point of revolution if that is the only remaining option.

All i've read up to now on the right to bear arms is that its intent was to allow people to organize themselves against a gov't they no longer wanted or that had become repressive, especially in the context of a new form of government, in a new country.

My interpretation of militia is an organized military group. So you, as individual citizens are not part of, nor do you as a whole constitute a militia.

If the original intent was to keep the gov't in check by force, I'm not sure what all of the personal weapons could hope to accomplish against a rogue gov't's armed forces.

So when I call the original intent a moot point, that's where it's coming from.

If you don't want to own a gun then don't.

What part of "gun control" fits with "shall not be infringed"


A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Posted by Sniper at 2008-04-11 02:33 PM | Reply |

I don't own a gun, unless I move back to the country, I don't think I'll ever need one.

I get the feeling that your interpretation of "shall not be infringed" means ensuring easy access and the free flow of weapons for citizens. I view it more as making sure it does not become illegal to own guns. Banning some forms of weapons, requiring an extensive background, registries to keep track of, etc. do not infringe, they safeguard. At the end of the day, you've got your gun, and maybe some frustrated college student doesn't.

My interpretation of militia is an organized military group. So you, as individual citizens are not part of, nor do you as a whole constitute a militia.

If the original intent was to keep the gov't in check by force, I'm not sure what all of the personal weapons could hope to accomplish against a rogue gov't's armed forces.

Got it, Pancho. And those are the 2 exact intersection points where we disagree, in that I believe militia to be comprised the general citizenry, and I believe that (as asinine an endeavor as it may be) that I have the right to use my Ruger .22 pistol against their Abrams M1-A1 tanks if the government ever turns to outright tyranny.

By the way, since you're in Montreal, can you ask the Habs to please stop kicking the Bruins' asses, and let them win at least one game in the series? :-)

LA ROAD WAY SHOOTING....DO YOU MEAN LA THE CITY OF GANGS??? I WONDER IF CRIMINAL GANGS (WHO TRAFFIC DRUGS AND GUNS) ARE INVOLVED

I SAY DISARM THE GANGS IF YOU ARE GOING TO DISARM SOMEBODY.....I BET NO AMOUNT OF LAWS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT CAN EVER DO THAT

Got it, Pancho. And those are the 2 exact intersection points where we disagree, in that I believe militia to be comprised the general citizenry, and I believe that (as asinine an endeavor as it may be) that I have the right to use my Ruger .22 pistol against their Abrams M1-A1 tanks if the government ever turns to outright tyranny.

By the way, since you're in Montreal, can you ask the Habs to please stop kicking the Bruins' asses, and let them win at least one game in the series? :-)

Posted by NappyHeadedHo at 2008-04-11 03:25 PM | Reply |

I guess that's my point when I question the relevance of the statement to today's reality, especially when the freeflow of weapons could be interpreted as more of a danger to citizens than an assured protection.

As for the bruins: no fucking way. I've been waiting for a while to not be completely embarrassed by the habs. But fear not, my bet is that they'll crumble in the 3rd round.

these shootings always seem to escalate during political campaigns. we were told to imagine the unimaginable after 9/11. could the dems be encouraging such shootings to force gun control much as the taliban recruits human bombs? the dems always like to create "a crisis".

What's in the water out there?

True Judas. The criminals are the last ones to be disarmed.

Our country is too soft on homicide. Our court systems are full of petty crimes and it takes years to try people.

The more swift, severe and certain the punishment... the best detorent.

Forget jail, get rid of the violent offenders. Ship them to France!

Maybe we can buy devils island from the french. Send 3/4s of the lawyers there to speed up our system and we are off and running.

Gotta let the dopers that haven't done any other crime out first.

Another lame attempt by RCADE to invoke a 'gun control' battle.

Guns are legal. Get used to it!!!

Posted by _2112_ at 2008-04-11 11:50 AM | Reply |

Seriously are all of you this dense? This should not have been a gun control debate thread LOL.

I've owned guns since a teenager. I've never killed or threatened anyone with'em. I own guns now, and have a permit to do so. They are for the protection of myself and my family. Bust my door down, or attack us....God be with you, for I am lethal. Take your pussy, gestapo gun control back to der reicht.

See these stupid libs who spew nonsense like "more guns = more deaths?"

Every single study out says otherwise, but they don't get it.

You know what they say, liberals are only lib because they have never been told the facts.

Hey libs, here is the facts.

The LA Sherrif's department issued a strong warning that one of the largest gangs in the USA was initiating people by making them shoot a random innocent person. Then they get in the gang.

You think those guns are bought legally? you stupid dumbshit ass liberal?

Thats called the black market, all the gun laws on earth are not going to stop that gang banger you fool.

Wake up and pay attention to reality dumbass.

Also, most of the gang members are illegal immigrants, and because of special order 40, the LAPD and Sherrif's department cannot turn them into ICE, and deport them, even if they commit a crime.

You know what all those 6 deaths are called?

its called "Liberal policies working for the American people"

Everyone knows Libs favor illegal immigrants over the rights of dead Americans.

You don't believe me? youtube the LA City Council hearings on the matter, and listen for your damn self. They favor the gang bangers, and it was like a "social" event when the parents of the dead victims speak, the council didn't give a shit.

LA city council: "we can't check people's legal status when they are arrested" Then they get let out and less than 24 hours later, Americans are dead.

What do you have to say about that Liberals? Thats YOUR POLICY.

Kuma

Kuma,

Could you post a link to the LA city council meeting or at least the date of the meeting?...couldn't find it on youtube.

thanks