Why would criminals go through the trouble and risk of all that travel when they could simply "one-stop-shop" i.e. commit their crimes where they buy the guns. Might it be that they just might be aware that others in that "lax" area might have guns as well?
From Fox News:
"A dispute between two groups of people in a New Orleans park Sunday escalated into a shooting that injured at least 16 people, police said late Sunday.
"The shooting took place at around 6 p.m. local time after approximately 500 people had gathered at Bunny Friend Playground in the city's 9th Ward to film a music video, the New Orleans Police Department said in a statement. Ambulances took 10 victims to area hospitals, and police later learned that another six victims had been taken to the hospital in private vehicles.
"Photos of the scene showed emergency workers wheeling some of the wounded to ambulances on gurneys while other people who appeared to be in pain lay on the ground. No deaths were immediately reported and police had few details on the extent of the victims' injuries."
"Detectives are still working to determine the extent of all of the victims' injuries,
"Information on the age and gender of all victims involved as well as the extent of their injuries will be provided when it is available," the NOPD said in a press release.
"This is a classic case where we need citizen help. People know who did this. We need them to come forward and tell us so we can bring these people to justice." NOPD Superintendent Michael Harrison said.
"At the end of the day, it's really hard to police against a bunch of guys who decided to pull out guns and settle their disputes with 300 people in between them. It's not something you can tolerate in the city," Mayor Mitch Landrieu
Here is video from the mass shooting at Bunny Friend Park in the 1900 block of Gallier Street.
Mayor Landrieu and Police Department Superintendent Harrison spoke to reporters outside Bunny Friend Park where at least 16 people were shot and injured.
Of course, the trends support a robust concept of armed self-defense. In the past couple decades, 40 states have passed right-to-carry laws. Many to most have seen crime decreases, and not one has seen an increase.
But, gun control is one of those topics where liberal orthodoxy and their version of "common sense" trumps empirical data and history. The gun-banners "know" that allowing greater access to guns is certain to create crime, to turn the law-abiding into macho vigilantes, to prompt "old-west" style shootouts, and to greatly spike the number of people killed by their own guns. They "know" and argue these points by claiming that they're obvious - forget the facts or the statistics (which they dismiss either by attacking the source, declaring without evidence that they've all been fudged, or declaring (again, without evidence) that they *could* just as easily find stats that support their positions).
This reminds me of an old gag from college math and science classes - you start solving the problem, then write the answer and claim that it's "intuitively obvious." Too bad professors don't give credit for "intuitively obvious."
The problem with all the gun control laws and statistics is that there's really no null hypothesis. If guns were banned in total, 100% of the crimes would be committed by illegal gun owners. If there were no gun control laws, 100% of the crimes would be committed by legal gun owners.
Human behavior has far more to do with it than anything else. If a criminal seeks to accomplish something, he's going to do it if motivated enough. However, guns can deter a spontaneous event, I believe.
Long story short, guns in the hands of the responsible will either do no harm or possibly help. Guns (or anything else for that matter) in the hands of the irresponsible and criminal element will do no good or do harm.
To me, that is the simple truth about gun control. It's government trying to fix a problem, except the problem is a symptom and not the source of the problem to start with.
Post a Comment