Two shot, one in the back, in Roxbury
By adamg - 2/13/11 - 12:10 am
For the second night in a row gunfire rang out in the area of Eustis and Dearborn streets. Unlike yesterday, however, two men were shot tonight, shortly before 11 p.m., according to NEFirebuff. Both victims were taken to Boston Medical Center, expected to survive.
Location
Javascript is required to view this map.
Comments
tracetheguns
http://www.tracetheguns.org/#/states/MA/exports/
http://www.tracetheguns.org/#/states/MA/imports/
Do you have an opinion to go
Do you have an opinion to go with your link?
Mass is one of the most restrictive states in the union. Maybe you should start focusing on the judges who constantly release repeat offenders.
I believe
I believe we are to assume that other states are to blame for Massachusetts residents killing eachother. I disagree.
Don't Blame Judges for Congress' Decisions
There is only one reasonable inference from the data: that weak gun laws in other states bring crime guns into Massachusetts.
Massachusetts has a series of strong gun laws that are enforced. Plenty of people are locked up on minimum mandatory first-offense sentences and as armed career criminals or habitual offenders. Guns from New Hampshire and Georgia don't wind up here because of our judges' reputations.
The guns keep coming in from other states because so many members of Congress have been bought off by gun manufacturers and the NRA, who are more than happy to arm criminals and the mentally ill as long as it means another dollar.
But do those weak law states
But do those weak law states have the same murder rate as Massachusetts? What is the per-capita murder rate in New Hampshire by comparison?
I've never owned a gun. I
I've never owned a gun. I think we should have national strong gun laws that are applicable to all states; however, that's unlikely to happen for some time.
Some "well-armed" states have much lower incidents of gun violence than Mass; Maine for instance. So really we're asking people in Maine to give up something (in my opinion very little) for the sake of US citizens of other states... but that argument doesn't get much traction.
Not all guns are alike
I do own a gun - it is now at my uncle's house because the hassles of bringing this heirloom .22 rifle to MA would be noxious and ridiculous.
That said, automatic weaponry can and should be heavily regulated.
Canada does a pretty fair job of separating out guns used for target practice and hunting from guns with ridiculous firepower and high throughput. MA? Not so much. That's what happens when those who are ignorant of different types of weapons and hate guns push for gun laws, and those who worship firepower throw fits over any and all sensible regulations and lack perspective on their obsessions.
By stating that there is only
By stating that there is only one reasonable inference, I conclude that you aren't interested in discussing the facts. You just want to spew random facts from anti gun websites without any thought.
It is, in fact, the judiciary that is to blame. There is no state with stronger gun laws than Ma. The hurdles for law abiding citizens to become licensed and purchase a gun are extraordinary.
How many times do you read about murderers in Dorchester, Southie, Mattapan, JP, Lynn, etc who are on probation for gun laws, or are multiple prior offenders? It is very common. If the judges would lock up these criminals the first time, we wouldn't be seeing nearly as much gang violence in this state.
This was a big story in June:
http://www.universalhub.com/crime/20100611-dorchester-men-charged-trying-murder-roxbury-15-ye.html
In 2005, Blalock was arrested as part of a group that allegedly stomped a man at gunpoint. And in 2003, he was one of 36 people arrested in a joint city/federal sweep of "men and women who have been negatively impacting the daily lives of our neighbors conducting drug activity mainly in Roxbury and Dorchester."
May 2010
http://www.wbur.org/2010/05/31/shooting
both suspects are known to Boston police and one has a “significant” criminal record involving firearms, he added.
Oct 2010
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/10/man_arrested_in_16.html
Criminal history: Kimani Washington has had many prior convictions that make him an armed career criminal. http://www.metro.us/boston/local/article/662129?rand=967
Other Inferences?
So what's your inference? That any of those criminals bought their guns legally, as they could in New Hampshire?
States with lax gun laws allow criminals to buy guns and bring them back to states with strong gun laws.
Congress could make it harder for criminals, terrorists, and insane people to arm themselves, but its members have chosen not to and instead contribute to the 67% of murders nationwide committed with guns, almost all of them purchased illegally. That's more than all other weapons combined, if you don't want to do the math.
There is no inference. If
There is no inference. If these criminals had been locked up at their prior convictions, they wouldn't be on the street shooting up people now.
If you knew anything about gun laws, you would know that it is a federal offence to sell a firearm to a convicted person. It is illegal in Ma. It is illegal in NH. It is illegal anywhere.
Also, it is illegal to sell a handgun to anyone from a different state (federal law). I can go to NH and buy a rifle. I can't go and buy a pistol.
Criminals can't buy guns legally, anywhere. But, being criminals, they tend to disregard the law and buy guns illegally. I don't see how adding new laws will stop criminals (who by definition do not obey the law) from buying guns.
I'm pretty sure its against the law to shoot people? That doesn't seem to be a big hurdle either.
extraordinary licensing and purchasing hurdles
How are gun licensing and purchasing laws extraordinarily difficult and burdensome, and what would you change?
For starters ...
The classification of any and all guns with the same broad brush requirements is ridiculous. To bring home an heirloom weapon that takes some knowledge to load and some skill to shoot, I would have to go through a huge process of permitting that is well beyond what this state requires for people to drive. Permitting for a much easier to load and shoot weapon would be similar.
MA gun laws were written by people who are wholly ignorant and completely fearful of guns. The do not do what most of Canada does: separate out weapons that are rarely used for and not terribly useful for murder, and weapons that rarely result in accidents in the home, from those which have the ease of use, concealability and firepower to be far more dangerous.
thanks Swrrly
I'm wondering about the details of the onerous "huge process of permitting." Did you research it and decide not to?
Is it worse than, say for example, applying for MassHealth?
I wrapped it in a shawl
Put it in the trunk and took it to my uncle's house for safe keeping.
In Oregon, I didn't need to get a special permit for that and neither did my uncle. It isn't concealable like a hand gun, isn't automatic, doesn't load fast, etc.
I find it ridiculous that I need a permit for it at all and that such permits are at the discretion of too many different people. My lawnmower is more dangerous than an 80 year old kit-built .22 rifle. So is a driver who did a non-comprehensive 10 question test and a parallel parking celebration to get a driver's license that is impossible for even a doctor to revoke.
Disable it
How likely are you to ever use it for anything? It sounds not likely. Why not just disable it and keep it as an heirloom dummy gun?
why should she have to
why should she have to disable it? Maybe she will shoot it in the future, or decide to hand it down to someone later on.
Also, if it has any value, disabling it would be destroyed instantly.
A number of reasons
I'd like to take to the rifle range and target shoot now and again.
I'd like to teach my sons how to properly handle a gun, ammo, and to target shoot.
I don't want to wreck an heirloom that I fondly remember finally being considered old enough and trustworthy enough to handle, if only to plunk cans off a fence.
Finally, we're talking Massachusetts, here. Disabling it may not even be enough to comply with the law.
Boston gun license process
I can only speak for Boston. My last License to Carry renewal was 2007, ie before the Heller case in the US Supreme Court so it may be different now, though I doubt it. The licensing unit makes it as onerous/slow as possible.
I am totally in favor of background checks, having to demonstrate safety & proficiency (target shooting test at Moon Island). What I object to were the purposeful hassles and delays.
"you have to come back,it's too early to renew" (2 months before expires?)
"you need a go get a letter from a gun club"
"you need to write a request letter to the commissioner"
I believe it took five trips to BPD HQ and one trip to Moon Island and that was for a Renewal! You would also need to take a safety course for initial license.
thanks
That's exactly what I was looking for. And I get it why law abiding gun owners are frustrated with the process. It also looks like those problems could be fixed.
I wonder why the NRA doesn't expend some of it energy lobbying to reform licensing and registration rather than advocating for assault weapons access and 30-round clips. Is it becuase they actually work for manufacturers, not gun owners?
I've had my License to carry
I've had my License to carry for about 20 years! I moved to Boston a few years ago, JP exactly, and when I tried to renew my license last year the licensing officer at BPD Headquarters simply told me..."we don't issue Class A License To Carry to Boston residents". The fact that I have had an LTC most of my adult life without incident, have proved myself proficient in the safety, storage and handling of my firearms, and have a squeaky clean record didn't seem to matter. He was actually very rude and condecending to me. He made me feel like I was some kind of criminal just for inquiring. I left feeling very frustrated and thought it to be very unfair & unconstitutional. Of course I had to put my firearms in storage with a family member until I could figure it out. I didn't want to get a "restricted" license because I would get stuck with it until it expired. This was one of many reasons I ultimately moved out of the city limits. Just over the river and I had no problem renewing it (keep in mind I've had previous LTC's, have no criminal record, and have proven myself a responsible gun owner for decades). The licensing officer in my new town expressed how "f'ed up it is that the city of Boston denies there law abiding residents the right to an LTC while every other criminal gang banger in the city is seemingly walking around packing serious heat". It's not just the city of Boston either...each police cheif of each town in the Commonwealth is allowed to determine whether there town/city will issue LTC's based on there own personal bias. The issuing policy should be the same for everyone, in every town, in every state in the country. To get reciprocity and be able to legally carry in most parts of the country when I travel I've had to get several non-resident licenses in other states that cover most states across the country (MA license isn't honored in alot of places because we don't honor other states licenses here). It doesn't make sense. Anyways...glad I moved out of Boston! That being said...I'm all about strict licensing requirements, thorough background checks and having to prove proficiency in handling firearms safely. But after I or anyone meets all the requirements, they should never be denied a LTC because of one towns police cheifs personally biased opinion. It should be the same for everyone across the board!
Federal "Offense"
There is no federal regulation of the secondary gun market and its no-background-check benefit. There is as a result no federal prosecution of gun dealers who pose as private sellers as they sell guns to criminals, terrorists, and insane people.
Jared Loughner didn't find it particularly onerous to buy a crime gun in Arizona. Philip Markoff knew he'd be caught if he bought his crime gun in Massachusetts, so he drove to New Hampshire to do it. I'd love to hear your inference on that.
Neither would have killed people with those guns if federal gun laws were as harsh as some people want to pretend they are.
federal gun laws
are just where gun manufactures (reads NRA) and their right-wing advocates in the US Senate and Congress want them.
They allow for maximum profit including the sales of assault weapons in states with lax gun laws, such as Virginia and Arizona.
The east coast along I95 is know as the "Iron Highway" because guns purchased legally in Virginia are sold in cities up and down the east coast on I-95 including Boston.
Scott Brown says gun safety laws are a "local issue." I've written him multiple times and asked him to meet with Mayor Menino and Mayor Bloomberg to discuss the role of federal law in gun crime in Boston and New York. Scott Brown is wrong in claiming local law (State law) is all we need to address gun safety in Massachusetts. Obviously, Scott Brown is opposed to revisiting the assault weapons ban. That's why I want to undercut his BS talking point and make him confront his responsibility as a Federal lawmaker. His is a responsibility that will affect life and death of criminals and innocent bystanders alike.
Well, Loughner wasn't a
Well, Loughner wasn't a criminal until he went on his shooting spree. Markoff wasn't a criminal at the time either, but he did steal someone's ID to purchase in NH.
Neither gun shop did anything wrong when they sold both psychos guns.
Before you go infringing upon
Before you go infringing upon the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens, please get this through your head:
The people making the illegal gun purchases to commit violent crimes USUALLY COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE MAKING THEM IF SOME WEAK KNEED JUDGE HADN'T LET THEM OUT OF PRISON IN THE FIRST PLACE.
blaiming gun crimes
on judges is stupid for two reasons. Judges don't release convicts unless they were wrongly convicted. Convicts are released when their sentence is up or the parole board authorizes early release with supervision.
To prove your point, find statistics on the percentage of illegal gun crimes by ex-cons released before their sentance was up versus gun crimes by people released after thir sentance is up plus gun crimes by people with no prior record.
I wouldn't blame judges either but...
often times criminals get sentenced to 1/2 of what they could have. Sure the sentence is up or the parole board decides to let them out early, but initially a judge decided not to sentence them to the fullest extent of the law.
Before and After
Criminals go to jail after they commit a crime. Federal gun laws should make it harder to get a gun before that crime is committed.
For the 80 billionth time
For the 80 billionth time guns aren't the problem. The repeat offenders using them are. The UK banned private gun ownership to a large degree, and much like the major US cities which have followed suit, there has been a surge in gun crimes and the use of knives in crime. The real issue is violent repeat offenders whom are going to stop at nothing to get their hands on some sort of lethal weapon. Disarming the entire law abiding public just makes it easier for criminals to run amok.
Don't bring knives to a gun law fight
Using rising knife violence due to strong gun laws as a claim that strong gun laws are bad/useless is asinine.
Nobody ever died in their bed sleeping because 2 guys were having a knife fight outside their house and one of them missed with the thrust of their knife. Nobody's kid ever got a hold of the knife they were keeping in a drawer "just to protect their house" and ended up putting a hole in their cousin's head with it accidentally. No criminal has ever gone to a grocery store parking lot armed with 33 knives and ended up killing 6 and wounding 13 others or knifed up their entire school.
The difference in lethality between guns and knives is huge. Arming the law abiding public would have changed NONE of the situations I describe. In fact, common sense when examining Tucson says that a second armed individual attempting to shoot Loughner would have created a far bigger problem...and now imagine a 3rd or 4th armed individual getting involved.
Finally, the data has been examined. Disarming the public doesn't do one goddamn thing to criminal behavior. Here's the result of attempting to correlate the strictness of gun laws by state to the gun-involved crime (more guns means less gun crime, right?) or burglary crime (more guns means less burglary, right?) statistics. There was zero correlation. Some states have weak gun laws and no crime. Some states have weak gun laws and tons of crime. There's no proof that strict gun laws leave the populace at the mercy of the criminal...however, they do help reduce non-homicide (aka preventable) gun-related deaths.
Don't take your guns to town son
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlBzre4-Krc