Around 1:20 a.m. in the area of Fidelis Way and Washington Street. With the help of a couple other people, the victim got himself to St. Elizabeth's.
Police were looking for three men seen running from the scene: All white, heavyset and around 20, two not wearing shirts, one with long hair wearing an orange shirt.
That makes at least six shootings across Boston overnight.
Do you like how UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
What a way to mark the day the US Senate opposed a bill to expand background checks to gun shows and internet sales.
The US Senate filibustered the bill -- senators who opposed the law blocked the final vote on the bill that would require just a simple majority.
While 54 senators supported the bill, it takes 60 votes for cloture -- to end debate and vote on the bill.
What is remarkable is how disconnected the US Senate is from the American people. The public favors expanding background checks by an unbelievable margin, about 90%. Our gov't is so disconnected from the people's will that half of the US Senate opposes a simple measure 9 out of 10 Americans support.
Mark this day. Two days after the Boston Marathon bombings gun violence spiked in Boston and the Senate announced the right thing to do about gun violence in America is nothing.
It's very unlikely that any of the shooters you mention had background checks or purchased their guns on the Internet.
I support the defeated bill, but we're still not tackling the problem head-on.
As a community, we have to TAKE these (likely) illegal guns away from the people who would own and use them. As a community, we must speak out against violent speech and thought when we hear it.
Expanding background checks doesn't preclude taking additional steps such as making interstate gun trafficking illegal with real jail time. The combination of expanded background checks and criminalizing gun trafficking are the two of the best ways to dam-off the flood of "illegal" handguns coming from Virginia and Tennessee into Boston.
Whether any of the guns used last night were bought in Mass at a gun show without a background check or not, closing the loopholes and criminalizing gun trafficking together can improve gun safety.
How about closing the illegal search BS loophole instead? Why would cops even bother risking their life arresting a gun-toting thug when they know he will walk once some bleeding-heart, pony-tailed public defender from Cambridge says poor fella with mile-long arrest record was profiled and the gun charge gets tossed?
Those thugs would have turned in their guns and became model citizens the second the bill had passed. Are you really that delusional?
You can't legislate the evil out of a criminal. Your mythical world with universal background checks will do nothing to deter criminals from getting a weapon.
We all agree that the background check provision should have become law (or at least 90% of us do); but that would have done nothing to prevent the violence last night. Background checks will do nothing to prevent or ameliorate the gun violence that plagues our streets on a daily basis. What needs to happen there is to increase minimum mandatory sentences for unlawful possession of a firearm.
Background checks are important, and they should absolutely be law. I believe they will help prevent mass shootings like what we saw in Newtown, but they won't stop an H-Block Associate and a Heath Street Associate from popping off rounds at each other--for that you need to remove the shooters from the streets, and the best way to do that is minimum mandatory sentences on guns.
What people need to realize is that outside of metropolitan areas in the northeast, a majority of people own guns and are just fine with current gun laws.
Someone living in VT has no interest in their gun rights being curtailed over the actions of criminals in a few square miles of Boston. The people of VA enjoy their less stringent gun laws and aren't going to be convinced they need to change them because gang-bangers in Boston have illegal guns purchased in VA.
Gun owners aren't stupid. If you give an inch, the gun control advocates will take a mile. The people of NY agreed to 10 round magazine limits years ago, then after Sandy Hook, the number is arbitrarily reduced to 7. 7 rounds in your ten round magazine - OK. Put in 8, you're felon. This does nothing to deter crime or mass killing.
Lets be honest. Most of the pro gun control activists would like to see full scale confiscation and bans. Everyone paying attention knows that is their endgame. So gun owners have no incentive to offer concessions on their current rights. The gun control activists will simply be back the next time something tragic happens with additional "common sense" gun laws. It's the flipside of abortion in that the opposition will continue to chip away until it's banned in all but name.
Bottom line, the senators acted according to the wishes of a very vocal block of their constituents.
Most pro gun control activists agree with the overwhelming majority of law enforcement officers who want the citizens of the United States to take measures to protect public safety. Most pro gun control activists don't give a damn if hunters in Vermont shoot red herrings in the woods. Instead they care about murderers, straw buyers, madmen, and the corrupt bastards who use them to make a buck no matter how much it costs in human life.
We are held hostage by an anti-democratic organization, the NRA, which receives kickbacks from gun manufacturers whose interest is public fear of crime in order to sell more guns.
This is not a social club, it's an industry lobbying group. Their product is guns and their sales tools are murder and fear. They will go to any lengths necessary to preserve their profits. They will do anything necessary to prevent democracy and public safety, which might impact sales.
It is in their interest to make sure violent crime is the highest possible in order to sell more of their products, and they will oppose any measure that would reduce violent crime. To the end of increasing terror and reducing safety in the public, the NRA opposes any attempt to get illegal guns off the street or out of the hands of criminals, and all attempts to solve crimes committed with firearms or explosives.
One crime-solving technology that might have the Boston marathon bomber already in prison is the use of taggants in gunpowder. The Boston marathon bomber, however, knew the NRA has his back, as it does the back of any murderer or terrorist, and has prevented the use of taggants in gunpowder in this country.
It's time to call a spade a spade. The NRA is a terrorist organization, as surely as if Wayne La Pierre had set the bombs in Boston himself. They were probably high-fiving each other in the boardrooms as they saw sales go up again. If you ally yourself with them, you are supporting terrorism as surely as if you donated money to Al Qaeda. Congrats. Wash your hands all you like, the blood's not coming off.
Out of all the "murderers" and "madmen," how many would actually be affected by the laws, and how many don't give a hoot about the laws, the NRA, you, me, Obama or anything else for that matter? Those feel-good legislations do absolutely nothing - crazies would still be able to get their hands on guns because calling a crazy a crazy is bigoted and unconstitutional, and last time I checked thugs responsible for 99% of gun-related murders already have plenty of guns and don't give a rat's as$ about the laws in the first place. Guns don't kill people, people do. A gun won't kill anyone if the person who was planning to use that gun to kill is locked up.
Eventually. Gabby Giffords shooter bought his guns the morning of, if I remember correctly. The Aurora shooter and Newtown shooter bought (or parents bought) their weapons, they didn't steal them or manufacture them or modify them, as much as some people would like you to believe. Same with Fort Hood and VT. On the other hand, they did purchase multiple high capacity weapons.
I don't believe in banning guns, they have many perfectly good uses, but I do consider anyone who thinks that 30 round magazines are perfectly fine for general use are a bit screwy themselves. Yes, people will probably always go nuts, and I'm even more opposed to the government getting heavily involved with psychological screening, but if it were me caught in the crossfire, I'd be happy knowing the shooter had to reload at some point, preferably sooner than later.
So, you're saying it's OK for crazies to get guns, as long as it's under 10 rounds per magazine? Wouldn't it make more sense to have a centralized database listing all mentally unstable individuals so we can ensure they can't get their hands on a gun in the first place? A skilled shooter can reload a handgun in under three seconds, do you really think that would help you?
PS: You can't just buy a gun online - it gets shipped to a FFL dealer who does a background check before you get the gun. Also, I highly doubt a private seller at a gun show would sell to anyone who looks like Adam Lanza or a garden variety thug.
The skilled shooter magic three second reload is a bunch of nonsense. At least two of those sprees I was referring to ended when the shooter was reloading. If someone opened fire in a room you were in, would you prefer they had 30 bullets ready to go, or 3?
I don't see what buying guns online has to do with anything. You can buy them at Walmart, you can borrow them from your friends and family, it's not hard to get them. On the other hand, it's not conceivable to create a Federal database of mentally "unsafe" (whatever that means) people.
So you know what's a good compromise? Reduce the number of bullets easily accessible. That's it. All we have to do is try it and see how it turns out, but good luck even getting that level of support in the USA.
Can someone please explain to me why it's all about background checks, smaller magazines and banning the mythical "assault weapons," but no one has said anything about ensuring those in possession of illegal firearms get prosecuted to the fullest extent possible? Shootings like Newtown and Aurora are a tragedy, no doubt, but why doesn't anyone say a word about all the shootings that are done with illegal handguns in poor inner city neighborhoods? Those account for 99% of all gun violence, but no one seems to care - it's all good as long as it doesn't happen in your lily white town, right?
I support putting away criminals caught with illegal guns. Heck, I'd love to see us just swap the war on drugs with the war on guns, but in the mean time, you'll note that the majority of these inner city shootings pretty quickly turn to shoot outs with many bullets fired, and a lot of innocent people get caught in the crossfire.
I also sincerely question how detrimental stricter gun laws would be to the average gang member, much like I doubt they'd have any effect on the average nutcase on a rampage.
"The NRA is a terrorist organization, as surely as if Wayne La Pierre had set the bombs in Boston himself. They were probably high-fiving each other in the boardrooms as they saw sales go up again. If you ally yourself with them, you are supporting terrorism as surely as if you donated money to Al Qaeda. Congrats. Wash your hands all you like, the blood's not coming off."
That's some unhinged shit. Just as stupid as saying you support terrorism if you buy weed. You are a perfect example of why gun owners are going to fight you tooth and nail.
It it just as stupid as saying using heroin supports terrorism. The Taliban should thank you for using their opium, just as mass murderers should thank you for supporting the NRA.
Al Qaeda appreciates your support, brother.
You make my point for me.
What's next on your agenda this weekend, after you shoot up some heroin and figure supporting narcoterrorists isn't your problem, then support straw purchases of guns for criminals and figure murder isn't your problem? Are you going to buy some child pornography and figure child exploitation isn't your problem?
Lets be honest. Most of the pro gun control activists would like to see full scale confiscation and bans.
oh please, show us your citation.
"Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat, will outline his proposal in his State of the State address, but even before he speaks, he has incited anxiety among gun owners by acknowledging in a radio interview that “confiscation could be an option” for assault weapons owned by New Yorkers. Since that interview, Mr. Cuomo has not mentioned the idea, and his aides have acknowledged that it would be impractical."
If you're too lazy to look more, that's your problem.
Some gun owners ARE stupid.
But they appear to be collectively smarter than their opposition at getting their way at the federal level.
2 wearing no shirts. 1 with long hair. Why is it always the fat dudes who are the first to take off their shirts when the weather starts to get warm?
They have less surface area to mass, and expend more energy carrying that mass around...so they get hot sooner...
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Copyright 2020 by Adam Gaffin and by content posters.Advertise | About Universal Hub | Contact | Privacy