Man in car shot on Stoughton Street

UPDATE: Photos of possible suspect released.

A man sitting in a white Mercedes outside 57 Stoughton St. was shot around 10:40 a.m.

A possible suspect is a male in a dark gray hoodie on a red Huffy bicycle, seen pedaling away from the scene. Although he fired several shots, the victim, 23, was not wounded seriously enough to require the homicide unit to be summoned, Boston Police report.

Police shut Stoughton Street for their investigation.

Neighborhoods: 

Topics: 

Free tagging: 

Comments

Can Americans reduce gun violence if we try?

Our country is awash in guns and because the media covers gun massacres and the public is aware and disgusted, we have a chance to do something about it.

Consider spending some of your time advocating for gun safety.

IMAGE(http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk143/nfsagan/GunDeathsByCountry_zpseb801100.jpg)

Right here in the Commonwealth, there are two plans to improve gun safety, one by Rep David Linsky, and one by Gov. Deval Patrick. In Washington, the president and Joe "f*cking" Biden have a proposal as does Sen. Diane Feinstein and others in the house and Senate. Let your legislators know you care about this issue.

Click on the link for the website, facebook, and twitter feed;

[center]IMAGE(http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk143/nfsagan/_65311537_gun_deaths_dev_countries_464_zps57bf6ba4.gif)[/center]

So now I see UniversalHub.com

So now I see UniversalHub.com is endorsing gun legislation?

The information posted above is ridiculously out of context, and there are reasons for the skewed data that anti-gun folks repeatedly run back to and hide behind.

Take those charts with a grain of salt people. Do your own research and you'll find what those statistics really mean.

Isn't there a filter for these posts for a reason?

Dearest anon ...

Couple of things:

I run Universalhub.com. I haven't endorsed anything.

One of the reasons to have open forums is to let people say what they think.

You are free to apply for an actual universalhub.com account, just like Anonymous above (yes, that is his user name; he's the wise-guy reason why actual anonymous users go by "anon" instead of "anonymous" - deal with it). People who sign up for accounts have their comments go up automatically. By itself, it's worked well as a filter - people who do commit to a permanent user name seem to not go off the deep end as actual anons sometimes do.

If you disagree with what he says, fine, present your case, as you did.

all your gun are belong to us

I'm presuming sarcasm, but sometimes it's difficult to filter through scribbled ideology. Though being sarcastic about something no one is proposing - to wit (and that is not in this case a form of address), 'outlaw private ownership of all gun,' is missing the target by a damn sight.

I'm a multiple-firearms owner and Class A license holder, and have been for decades, but I've long argued here and elsewhere that more reasonable safeguards are desirable and possible. I like mental-health background checks. I like stricter, surer punishment for violations. Linsky's measure seems designed for show. 'Assault weapons' - the term a bureaucratic invention - stored at one's club only means a short detour if one has nefarious intent; I have 24-hour key-card access to my club, and if I suddenly woke up vengeful and daffy, I can't imagine how a lockup provision would save anyone on my shit list.

One-firearm-a-month purchase limit? Solution in search of a problem - until you show me evidence that spree killers or mass murderers in any number walked into a gun shop and picked up seven at a blow, or that people with more than one gun at a time are more likely to be dangerous (Newtown crazyboy carried three, cops say, but used only one). Magazine capacity limit? Ditto - sure, there have been a very, very few cases of mass killings with semiautomatics, but when we're talking about American gun deaths, we're talking about handguns, and no one at any serious level in government is proposing to outlaw private ownership of handguns. (This isn't arguing that a perfect gun law should be enemy of a good one - this is arguing that if car crash deaths are preventable, one shouldn't begin by mandating airbags in Teslas.)

And I have to say, anyone who believes state-level gun restrictions will 'stop the violence' has likely never seen a car, or a highway, or a person. There are tough gun laws in Chicago, e.g., but given some time and maybe a Red Bull, depending on one's neighborhood, one can readily walk to a place where there aren't. Even if one walks back home again, one can still twitch one's index finger.

Back up YOUR claim that this

Back up YOUR claim that this data is skewed????? Pay attention to the local and national news much. Gun homicides homicides plural, every damn day...Lost a 19 year old son to a handgun. Murdered. One is too many

Well...

Russia is a developed country, and it's not on that chart. Russia has WAY more gun violence, and a much higher homicide rate than the U.S. Just pointing that out...

Correction: Russia is not considered a developed country. Disregard. However, there is a lot of skewed info up there.

I think universal criminal background checks

I think universal criminal background checks combined with federal legislation that makes gun trafficking illegal will go a long way (in the long run... it'll take time) to reducing the gun violence we see in cities like Boston and Chicago.

60% of the seized guns in Boston are illegal. When traced they're found to come from Tennessee and Virginia.

If we can shutdown the iron pipeline, also known as I-95 with these two laws, we may see less gun violence and fewer deaths.

I'm glad we agree on background checks.

Lots more...

But one insane note- was watching cable TV the other day and they were about to auction off a WW II era machine gun that fires 25 rounds a second. They found a buyer for $4k - I think in NV. Private sale - any gun owners can correct me if I'm wrong - but guessing NV + private sale = no background check? for an automatic machine gun that could mow down an entire basketball arena in a matter of minutes.

Remember it's not just Newtown:

almost 10,000 gun murders a year
1500 gun accidents
18,000 suicides w guns

Almost all the suicides and accidents occur simply because there is a gun (usually legal) in the house. I don't have the exact stats and while murders in Boston are often with illegal firearms - a large numbe (like) Newtown) involve fully legal guns that are improperly stored or (obviously) misused.

Number of times someone actually defends themselves with a legal gun approaches zero. odds you will defend yourself against a tyrannical government with guns less than zero.

Give me a good reason why you need a gun in the house other than it's convenient (and "It's my right" is highly debatable).

Yes they have

Research indicates you are 4-7 times more likely to commit suicide simply by virtue of having a gun in the house - has nothing to do with responsibility and everything to do with the convenience of having a gun around in a moment of desperation or despair. You can be a responsible gun owner and still shoot yourself. Not saying you wouldn't do it anyway -but simply by taking the guns out of a house you significantly reduce the numbers of suicides annually (plus a lot of accidents and murders as a bonus). Again - you can own all the guns you want - I just don't think you should have them in the house - and even a 24 hour notification period before signing one out of an authorized facility would probably save hundreds or even thousands of lives a year.

No stevil.

Only someone irresponsible will let their gun kill someone else. Can you find me once instance of a gun related death where the owner isnt irresponsible? ( let's agree that being mentall I'll is not the same thing as being "irresponsible")

depends on your definition

For example - as I recall Neil Entwhistle broke into his in-laws home, broke into their locked gun cabinet and then went home and killed his wife and child - I don't think the parent was being irresponsible. You might say because the gun was still accessible he was irresponsible - but from what I recall he did everything right and his son-in-law was a conniving nut job and took advantage of his trust.

Again - Pete - I start with the presumption that people SHOULD have guns - but "We the People" have proven ourselves not worthy of this right - maybe not all of us - but simply too many of us. I think that the probability ANYONE will ever use it in self-defense is astronomically small compared to the 25-30,000 a year who die from guns (and 100,000 who get shot). For hunters and target shooters, it's a small inconvenience and expense to properly store it.

I don't have kids myself - but I can't imagine the pain when I see these parents on TV after their kids get shot and I'm tired of it.

I playing a little devils advocate here but....

I believe Neil Entwhistle had access to that home and firearm, and actually returned it after the murders (which would make his inlaws irresponsible gun owners). I believe his father in law actually showed Neil how to shoot the guns.

It would be interesting to see how many legally locked guns in locked homes were stolen and used in crimes though. I know a lot of cops have been targeted recently by burglars who have specifically targeted these homes in hopes to find these firearms (south shore mostly I believe)

Logically speaking

Only criminal break laws, therefor why do we burden reasonable people with laws? Only traffic criminals break traffic laws, why burden reasonable people with having to get a license, registration, insurance, ect.

I'm sorry, but the "only criminals will have them" argument is childish and utter bullshit.

I've always assumed if you're not responsible to follow the letter of the law, and deal with the very small burdens of ownership; lets face it, you're probably not going to be a responsible gun owner in the first place. If reasonable requirements on registration, background checks for selling, and safety certifications are so much of a burden to make you throw up your hands and say screw it and not have a gun; I'd say they did their job because you're not going to hold up your part of your civic responsibility anyways.

I'll be the first to suggest the subjectiveness of LTC in this state needs to end. But that doesn't mean we should treat gun ownership like getting fast food takeout. Because if we do, there's going to be a lot of idiots with guns without a real understanding or respect of them.

I don't think its impossible to have a system where people can own guns legally and responsibly, while making it quite a bit more difficult for hose that probably shouldn't. That is unless we continue to allow the people at both fringes to dictate the debate (and I do have to say right now it's the ones on the right screaming about black hawks, zombie apocalypses, and the coming fiat money economic collapse that will push us into "The Road" sort of dystopian future).

Just looking at accidents

One death is too many, of course, but let's see things in context.

1,500 accidents involving guns. The statistic I see thrown about a lot is 300 million guns in the US. That's 5 accidental deaths per 100,000 guns in circulation. The number of gun deaths per citizen is slightly less.

Per this site http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/acc-inj.htm there's a lot more dangerous things out there than guns (cars, falls, accidetnal poisoning). We're not about to ban stairs or automobiles, right?

Seriously?

does modern society need guns to function, especially if even the most extreme suggestion is to store them in a controlled facility - not ban their use? Almost 100% of civilian Americans can get along just fine without a gun every day. I don't know about you - but my life would be very difficult without a stairs or a car - and I only drive a couple of times a week. The only reason to have a gun OUTSIDE a controlled facility other than moving it from one place to another is to kill things.

And

We're actually trying to bring deaths from other causes down. I can't see anywhere that we've tried doing so with firearms, because "socialism".

Remember those horrible burdens of motorcycle helmets, cracking down on OUI, and seat belts? Damn fascists!

Bias Much?

Funny how the sign and you opinion only includes countries with fewer gun deaths than the US. You know guns have been present for quite some time now!

Why don't we bring up the real issue like mental health or lack of accountability and respect for human life that young Americans have, particularly in the African-American community! And don't call me racist for using statistical facts.

More African-Americans are killed by firearms at the hand of other African-Americans each year in the US than any other race.

The real issues driving gun violence

the real issue like mental health or lack of accountability and respect for human life that young Americans have, particularly in the African-American community! And don't call me racist for using statistical facts.

Well let's see them, these statistical facts that support your assertions;

  • The real issue is mental health.
  • The real issue is the lack of respect for human life that young Americans have.
  • The real issue is lack of respect for human life that young African-Americans have.

ban on firearms?

no one is proposing a ban on hand guns but if they were the data shows a marked decrease in accidental and intentional gun injuries and deaths including suicides in the home when gun ownership is banned.

Let's see your data supporting that homicide rate is lower when gun ownership is higher.

Heh

IMAGE(http://www.brainygamer.com/the_brainy_gamer/images/2008/08/14/oz_scarecrow_1.jpg)

If you can please show me anyone besides the JPNC that wants a full ban on all weapons (and has the ability to), please, proceed. And we all know how relevant they are.

Arguing against a fantasy doesn't help your cause. In fact, it makes it more likely you'll lose more in the end because people stop listening to you.

Firearm-related Death rate

Firearm-related Death rate

  • Japan 0.07
  • Azerbaijan 0.07
  • South Korea 0.13
  • Qatar 0.18
  • Hong Kong 0.19
  • Mauritius 0.19
  • Romania 0.20
  • Singapore 0.24
  • United Kingdom0.25
  • Poland 0.26
  • Ukraine 0.35
  • Belarus 0.38
  • Taiwan 0.42
  • Netherlands 0.46
  • Spain 0.63
  • Uzbekistan 0.68
  • Cyprus 0.83
  • Hungary 0.85
  • India 0.93
  • Kyrgyzstan 1.01
  • Ireland 1.03
  • Macedonia 1.04
  • Moldova 1.04
  • Australia 1.05
  • Germany 1.10
  • Kuwait 1.25
  • Iceland 1.25
  • Italy 1.28
  • Bulgaria 1.35
  • Latvia 1.43
  • Denmark 1.45
  • Sweden 1.47
  • Greece 1.5
  • Georgia 1.54
  • Lithuania 1.61
  • Slovakia 1.75
  • Czech Republic1.76
  • Portugal 1.77
  • Norway 1.78
  • Luxembourg 1.81
  • Israel 1.86
  • Peru 1.87
  • Canada 2.13
  • Malta 2.16
  • Belgium 2.43
  • Slovenia 2.44
  • Estonia 2.54
  • New Zealand 2.66
  • Austria 2.94
  • Barbados 3
  • France 3.00
  • Croatia 3.01
  • Uruguay 3.24
  • Costa Rica 3.32
  • Finland 3.64
  • Chile 3.73
  • Switzerland 3.84
  • Serbia 3.90
  • Zimbabwe 4.75
  • Argentina 5.65
  • Nicaragua 7.14
  • Paraguay 7.35
  • Montenegro 8.55
  • Philippines 9.46
  • United States 10.2
  • Panama 10.92
  • Brazil 11.01
  • Mexico 11.07
  • Colombia 11.10
  • South Africa 18.5
  • Swaziland 37.16
  • Guatemala 38.52
  • Honduras 46.70
  • Jamaica 47.44
  • El Salvador 50.36

I love when liberals say laws

I love when liberals say laws can't stop drugs from getting to users because people want them, but then they think they laws can stop guns from getting into the hands of violent people. I wonder if Liberals really would be happier with less guns even if it meant only the criminals had them? They love all the freedom as well as material items of a great democracy, but don't respect people, soldiers or weapons that protect that certain property or freedoms. They don't respect soldiers, cops or prison staff. "You Want me on that line you need me on that line"

Liberals are for gun regulation / drug regulation

Maybe you teabaggers are just too stupid to see that, but there's nothing inherently hypocritical about it. They also don't discount the negative effect decriminalizing drugs will cause, and look to offset it with more mental / substance abuse care.

Banning all guns is not a position of 95% of the Democratic party. Regulating guns, requiring regular safety and education, registration, and responsible use is.

But, that's communism, or something. liberal liberal liberal, boogy boogy boo!

For all this gun talk there

For all this gun talk there have been a lot of stabbings lately. Remember we have a violence problem! It dosen't help when the governer is paying gang members and drug dealers to combat violence and they are shooting people with illegal guns with filed off serial numbers. Just a thought..

Location