You kind of got off track. When MrB said "From what I gather from the chief is that this happens at these things" he was talking about the second line parades in NOLA that they mentioned in the article, they happen all of the time down there. "These things" wasn't referring to Mother's Day parades.
Many are pretty buzzed one way or another in the second line.
Ummm are we on the Same Page Here? ORIGINAL POST: 12 injured during New Orleans Mother's Day parade shooting
I haven't read the latest on the incident this morning. I don't know exactly what happen. From what I read earlier there might have been three individuals shooting. We're they shooting at each other? Were they targeting each other specifically? Meaning, did one or more of them go there for that purpose? Was one trying to prevent the other from harming others? I don't know.
As for having armed citizens, it's not about the number of people being armed its more about having them trained and practiced. One of the big decisions when confronting a bad guy is determining if one can help the situation, not make it worse. Most traing classes stress the teaching of this. I haven't taken it yet so I dont personally know how effective it is. Evidently it is as there are extremely few, I mean rare, that a CCW holder gets in a gun battle.
And, one must have practice with it. It's a must, IMO.
I hope they get to the bottom of this. I'm sure they will.
Sooo... let me understand this. You are OK with classes to train gun owners. Just not a background check to make sure the person taking the class didn't obtain his gun in an alley? Do you really think that person will be taking classes?
As far as being able to determine if you can help... I think you only have a split second to make that choice... and with the stress of gunfire and people being shot at... I'm willing to bet that a huge portion of the time the wrong decision will be made. It took us quite a while to figure out what happened with recent mass shootings and the Boston Bombings, etc... much less figuring it out while it's happening. I think you would need very specific and intense training to get to that point... so now we are walking around "para-militarized" and locked and loaded. Sorry Dave....I detest the world you guys are portraying. Everyone packing. Makes me sick.
I think we may have taken some things different from the recent Boston Bombing. Like millions of folks, I watched the 24 hour news channels for those four days. At first I was wondering what was going to happen. If it was going to be escalating. (You can check my early post here about that). Concerned about the victims. And still am.
But then , what got me, was how the authorities reacted. To me, and I bet to many others, it came clear that the bombings were finished and that it was the act of a couple of individuals . Mostly amateurs then soon their names were discovered. The authorities went ballistic. It wasn't the bombers who kept the city terrorized, but the authorities, politicians . And the media keeping everyone stirred up while these two tried to hide. According to one report I heard they had over 3000 regular Boston police pulled away from their regular , though extremely important, duties for this. Not to mention the national guard keeping the populace contained and businesses shutdown. I wonder what crimes were being committed in other parts of the city while the police were pulled away. I wonder ended the at the time that crooks were busy.
Then we watched the police doing forced searches of the Boston populace. Pulling folks outof their homes at all hours of the night. The populace, were more scared of the police . We new those guys were no further danger. They caught the guy hiding in a frikkin boat, for cripes sake.
And the politicians: they were salivating over this like like a junkyard dog over a week old pound of rancid pork.
As for having some one with a gun shooting them when the first laid the bombs. There were prolly a few there with CCW but without any direct danger they wouldn't have done anything. Crap, the place was crawling with security people and they did nothing even though that's exactly what they were there for. Why didnt they notice that these two guys put heavy backpacks down and walk away from them? Isn't that what we've all been whipped up and scared up since 2001 to be looking for?
As for my getting a background check on my guns. It's not much of a bother for me, as I bought them from a dealer as do the vast majority of gun buyers do. This "gun show loophole" is just a crap topic. The 40% that is spouted by the politicians is so bogus. It is from a lame survey some 20 years old and at that was closer to 35%. Most people who looked at recent info say its around 10%. I'm not concerned about the current procedures but of the additional procedures. None of which would have stopped the bombers or any significant effect on crime or gun accidents. It's all political. Gives the politicians something for their creds instead of actually accomplishing anything to really help this country.
Okay, I'm done
If we don't count our blessings We are just wasting our time
OK. Maybe the correct stat is more like 10%. If you were going to try and buy a weapon, and you had ulterior motives, where would you buy your gun? At a shop with a background check... or the gun show without one?
My point being... even if the number is 5%, this is where people who don't want to buy one in an alley will probably go. Wouldn't it be worth stopping even 2% of gun buyers if they didn't pass muster?
Loc: Alexandria, VA
Wow. Where to begin?
I think we may have taken some things different from the recent Boston Bombing.
That may be a candidate for understatement of the year ;-)
According to one report I heard they had over 3000 regular Boston police pulled away from their regular , though extremely important, duties for this.
The Boston Police Department doesn't even have 3,000 employees, let alone officers ... as of 2011, it had 2,181 officers, including academy recruits ... so I'm pretty sure they didn't gut their manpower at the expense of letting crime run rampant (see below) ...
Not to mention the national guard keeping the populace contained and businesses shutdown.
How, exactly, was the National Guard doing this? The "shelter in place" request was just that: a request. Many Bostonians went about their chores and many businesses remained open -- it's not as if the National Guard was on street corners enforcing a curfew ...
I wonder what crimes were being committed in other parts of the city while the police were pulled away. I wonder ended the at the time that crooks were busy.
According to Crimereports.com the number of incidents in Boston were: April 15: 30 <--- day of the bombings April 16: 23 April 17: 23 April 18: 30 April 19: 11 April 20: 38
April 19, when the "shelter in place" request was issued, saw 1/2 to 1/3 fewer crimes ...
Using April 17 as a benchmark, a week earlier on April 10 there were 30 incidents, and a week later on the 24th there were 33 -- so the number of crimes on the 17th was actually lower, although still in he same range. In short, crime didn't appear to spike during the week of the 15th ...
The populace, were more scared of the police .
Yes. All those folks cheering afterwards and the widespread regard for the police and the job they did certainly convey the fear Bostonians had of their police department ...
We new those guys were no further danger.
We did? Show me one reliable report at the time that said the two fugitives represented no danger.
They caught the guy hiding in a frikkin boat, for cripes sake.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing ;-)
Crap, the place was crawling with security people and they did nothing even though that's exactly what they were there for. Why didnt they notice that these two guys put heavy backpacks down and walk away from them? Isn't that what we've all been whipped up and scared up since 2001 to be looking for?
Because in an open and relatively uncontrolled environment with thousands of people, it's probably pretty difficult to keep tabs on what every single person is doing. I actually did wonder about one of the victims, who said he saw one of the bombers drop his pack and walk away, why he didn't tell an officer about this, but maybe there wasn't enough time ...
Anyways, yeah. You definitely saw things differently than at least I did ;-)
I'd say that a couple of idiots with a bunch of bombs and guns represent something of a danger. Tell the dead MIT cop or the wounded Watertown cop, or the guy they kidnapped, or the citizens who live along Mt. Auburn Street that they represented "no further danger."
_________________________ MACTECHubi dolor ibi digitus
And while the point of my bringing up the Boston bombing was somewhat missed by Mr. B. ... you hit the nail on the head.
Anyways, yeah. You definitely saw things differently than at least I did ;-)
Everyone has a different perception of any given situation. Which is why, if anyone carrying a weapon is going to get involved in a public shoot out, I prefer it to be police officers with years of training and experience, not some guy who took a couple of classes. Classes are great... and I believe every gun owner should be required to take them to learn about safety around others and how to properly handle and store it, amongst other safeguards and general knowledge. But in no way do I see that as any kind of proper training for properly reacting in a crowd where someone is shooting weapons at civilians.
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.