Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumHouston Police: Celebratory gunfire against the law
Published On: Dec 22 2011 03:32:23 PM CST Updated On: Dec 22 2011 04:38:59 PM CST
With the holidays approaching, law enforcement officers are warning about the dangers of celebratory gunfire. Officials want everyone to know that it's not only dangerous, it's also illegal.
"Last year, in 2010, there were over 588 calls for celebratory gunfire. That's 58 calls per hour, but more importantly, a call per minute," said Assistant Police Chief Don McKinney with the Houston Police Department.
Crime Stoppers, Houston Police and Houston City Council Member Brenda Stardig hosted the 9th Annual Anti-Celebratory Gunfire news conference at HPD's Spring Branch storefront.
Quick Clicks
"It's not OK. Lives are in danger. We need to stop the madness. Enough is enough," Stardig said.
http://www.click2houston.com/news/Celebratory-gunfire-against-the-law/-/1735978/6461274/-/8nh5s8/-/index.html
Why do you think people engage in this behavior in populated areas? Do you think alcohol is a driving factor? Have you ever fired a gun skyward in celebration during a holiday?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebratory_gunfire
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
BiggJawn
(23,051 posts)A simple physics lesson that seems to be lost on some folks in urban areas.
About 50 grains of FFF black powder, in a muzzle-loader with some barely-damp newspaper rammed down tight on top of it makes a very satisfying "BOOM!", and no lead hailstones. Nowadays I prefer firecrackers. black Cats or Thunderbombs.
Firing live ammo up into the air is stupid and senseless, we can agree on that.
TupperHappy
(166 posts)A .50 replica muzzle loader rifle with a percussion cap, smokeless powder and wadding only. Fired it off at midnight on New Year's Eve. Nice snap-BOOM!
'Course, that was about 20 years ago...
BiggJawn
(23,051 posts)With just a cap. Fold the fuze back drop it down the muzzle and let 'er fly. the cap would propel the cracker up in the air and light the fuze.
That was out on the farm...
krispos42
(49,445 posts)...there are nail-driving guns that use .22 rimfire blanks to drive nails into concrete. Is it safe to shoot those in a modern .22 LR?
I understand that they probably won't feed from a magazine, but hand-loaded into the breech, with no payload. That's safe, right?
OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Knowledgeable gun owners know this is a bad idea, and violates basic tenets of gun safety, specifically #4.
Jeff Cooper's Four Rules
RULE 1
ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED
The only exception to this occurs when one has a weapon in his hands and he has personally unloaded it for checking. As soon as he puts it down, Rule 1 applies again.
RULE 2
NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT PREPARED TO DESTROY
You may not wish to destroy it, but you must be clear in your mind that you are quite ready to if you let that muzzle cover the target. To allow a firearm to point at another human being is a deadly threat, and should always be treated as such.
RULE 3
KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET
This we call the Golden Rule because its violation is responsible for about 80 percent of the firearms disasters we read about.
RULE 4
BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET
You never shoot at anything until you have positively identified it. You never fire at a shadow, or a sound, or a suspected presence. You shoot only when you know absolutely what you are shooting at and what is beyond it.
Logical
(22,457 posts)
JustABozoOnThisBus
(24,681 posts)I never did it, and usually went to an inner room or the basement at midnight during a New Year party.
One year, I was cleaning up empty bottles on New Year's day after a party (college years), and found some empty brass casings on the front porch. Somebody at the party was making noise at midnight. And yes, alcohol was most certainly involved.
I've read that shooting straight up is not a huge problem, that the bullets reach some "terminal velocity" on the way down that's not generally fatal. but the bullets shot at a 45 degree angle can be killers.
The past few years, I've heard very few gunshots Dec 31, so hopefully it's a forgotten relic of the past.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,764 posts)...an article from the Los Angeles Times about the problem of falling bullets in L.A. around New Year's and the Fourth of July. An article from doctors at King/Drew Medical Center, a major L.A. trauma center, published a report in a medical journal (Journal of Trauma, December 1994) saying that between 1985 and 1992 they treated 118 people for falling bullet injuries around New Year's Eve or the Fourth of July. Thirty-eight of the victims died.
If I want to gamble, I buy a lottery ticket. 
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)...if they hit somebody.
"Bullets fired into the air usually fall back at speeds much lower than those at which they leave the barrel of a firearm. Nevertheless, people can be injured, sometimes fatally, when bullets discharged into the air fall back down. The mortality rate among those struck by falling bullets is about 32%, compared with about 2% to 6% normally associated with gunshot wounds.[5] The higher mortality is related to the higher incidence of head wounds from falling bullets."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebratory_gunfire
krispos42
(49,445 posts)If you fire straight up, the bullet falls straight to earth at terminal velocity as if it was dropped from tall building. Sideways, interestingly, which is just terrible for the aerodynamics
But fired at an angle, the bullet retains the pointy end forward throughout its trajectory. And because the total flight path is much shorter than a straight-up-and-down (which can reach 4 miles round-trip for a regular .30-06), the bullet generally retains much more velocity and thus energy.
A slick bullet from a .30-06 is still moving at 470 ft/s at 3 miles down-range, given a 32.5º angle. That's as much energy as a .25ACP bullet from a pistol. That's potentially lethal.
Naturally, if you hold the angle higher or lower, the bullet will hit closer. But probably at any angle less than a certain amount, probably around 80º or so, the bullet is still following a ballistic trajectory and will come down fast and nose-first.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)ellisonz
(27,776 posts)It seems to be a persistent problem.
Education?
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)...arrest and prosecution of those who do it anyway.
That's how we usually handle things of this nature.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(24,681 posts)Between protecting the high-end soirees and busting the drunk drivers, we got no cops left to look for people shooting guns in the air.
SteveW
(754 posts)
aikoaiko
(34,214 posts)I've been looking for .38/.357 blanks for my revolver.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(24,681 posts)If you live where it's legal, blanks should be easy to find, or make.
aikoaiko
(34,214 posts)Now I live outside the city limits and there is more leeway.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)1/2 lb of 2Fg and a wad of damp newsprint makes a hell of a bang!
Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas
DissedByBush
(3,342 posts)I haven't made any big booms since I left the Army.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)DissedByBush
(3,342 posts)
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)I have seen it done in Vietnam and heard it done in the states and in Puerto Rico.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Makes fixing an aircraft a nerve-wracking experience when there's a wedding party 300 meters away, outside the base fence-line, and you were taking fire from that general direction the day prior...
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)
one-eyed fat man
(3,201 posts)and the weapon involved was a .50 caliber muzzle loader.
A common misconception is that the bullet is always traveling the slowest at the furthest point in its trajectory. When shooting at max range or at high angles the slowest point is close to the maximum ordinate.
To simplify the explanation, picture that if you shoot straight up, the projectile will slow down at a rate of 32 fps per second until the speed reaches zero. At this point, there being nothing to hold it there, the projectile will return to earth picking up speed at the same rate it was shed.
This calculation disregards air resistance but a .50 caliber round ball, weighs 177 grains, dropped from 3000 feet, it will have an impact velocity of 462 fps. That would deliver about 83 foot pounds. By contrast, the .41 rimfire cartridge from a Remington derringer fired a 130 grain bullet at velocity of 425 feet per second and a muzzle energy of 52 foot-pounds force.
It was certainly lethal enough.
DissedByBush
(3,342 posts)His bullet for a .50 muzzleloader could look like this:
http://images.cabelas.com/is/image/cabelas/s7_216176_imageset_02?hei=127&wid=127
Air resistance is a killer on those old balls (the blunt back creates a lot of turbulence), having them hit terminal velocity long before they hit the ground. Something like this, if it stays on a parabolic trajectory, will attain much of that theoretical speed. Plus they're more along the lines of 300 grains.
one-eyed fat man
(3,201 posts)has a terminal velocity in the neighborhood of 180 fps. Caliber makes little difference.
According to Wikipedia, "a bullet traveling at only 150 feet per second (46 m/s) to 170 feet per second (52 m/s) can penetrate human skin, and at less than 200 feet per second (60 m/s) it can penetrate the skull."
The sling was a formidable weapon in antiquity. History has been changed by 5 smooth river rocks. Roman slingers used cast lead projectiles.
http://www.lloydianaspects.co.uk/weapons/sling.html
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)forgot the basic WGUMCD principle
sometimes
no
DissedByBush
(3,342 posts)"Why do you think people engage in this behavior in populated areas?"
Because they are f-u-c-k-i-n-g m-o-r-o-n-s, even if they are doing it in unpopulated areas (bullets travel rather far). For part of my childhood I had one such moron as a stepfather. I was 11 and could easily tell it was a very stupid thing to do. One of my "If I could go back in time" wishes is to call the police on him.
"Do you think alcohol is a driving factor?"
I'd say most of the time in our culture. In many Arab countries it's common at celebrations even with no alcohol (and it's often full-auto).
"Have you ever fired a gun skyward in celebration during a holiday?"
Hell no. I have never fired a weapon into the air, period.
Unless you count missiles, but we knew where those were going to land.
Oh, and shotguns with bird shot.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)...and others have noted. I'm a reasonable guy. I just want to stop the criminal, irresponsible, and mentally ill through measures designed to reduce the flow of arms to the black market.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)....for an arrogant person maybe.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)....than indifferent. 
Two can play this game.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)than ignorant.
You're not playing the game very well.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)nt
DissedByBush
(3,342 posts)Most of what you want is rights-killing restrictions on legal gun ownership, often hidden behind a mask of "reasonable regulation."
What we're talking about here is actual illegal USE of a gun, which we agree should be punished.
You normally talk about putting onerous restrictions on the mere acquisition or possession of a gun due to a potential for misuse.
I don't believe in restricting the rights of people due to potential. I don't support licensing printing presses because somebody may use one to threaten the President. I support arresting those who actually do. I didn't support the War On Drugs policy of limiting and tracking purchases of pseudoephedrine because some people use it to make meth. I support arresting those who actually do.
This idea of putting a heavy burden on, and invading the privacy of, hundreds of millions in order to catch the few criminals is entirely against my view of a free country.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)
We have a persistent epidemic of criminal gun use...countries with real gun control don't. That's a fact.
Pseudoephedrine restrictions work on average and if they were stricter they would work even better: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoephedrine#United_States
After that, I can't really take your arguments seriously - meth is an epidemic - and this again is further proof of governments compelling interest in public safety.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Because Prohibition 1.0 worked so well?
"I can't really take your arguments seriously" - the truest thing you've said to date. Too bad for you that it's not in the direction you think it is.
DissedByBush
(3,342 posts)That war has caused serious degradation of the 1st and 4th Amendments and a vast expansion of the surveillance state. No wonder you support it with your dislike of the 2nd also. Any more of the Bill of Rights you'd like to see the government further destroy?
"We have a persistent epidemic of criminal gun use...countries with real gun control don't. That's a fact."
Need I remind you of Jamaica and Mexico, both countries with absolutely draconian gun laws compared to ours, and murder rates of ten and three times ours, respectively?
Need I remind you of Vermont, the state with the most lax gun laws in this country and the lowest murder rate?
Care to revise your "facts"?
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)More like anti-meth head.
Don't put words in my mouth.
DissedByBush
(3,342 posts)In case you didn't know.
As is the usual case, the solution was to keep tabs on and harrass honest people ostensibly to try to keep legal items out of the hands of criminals.
Sound familiar?
No wonder you support it.
Did you know that the first arrest under this act was a guy who was stocking up on allergy meds for his son's trip to church camp?
Way to nail those meth heads!
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)I'm for legalization of marijuana and some of the other substances.
I'm firmly against legalization of heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine, and ecstasy.
Call me whatever you want. Use whatever cherry picked case you want.
Really, it just makes you look nonsensical.
Please, go share your opposition to this policy in GD. I'm sure they'd love to play with you.
DissedByBush
(3,342 posts)That was the first case. A man has a record of a conviction because he needed allergy meds for his son.
That is what your bullshit war on drugs does -- ruin innocent lives.
The damage is far worse than any possible benefit.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)Link? What was the final disposition of the case?
Are you defending methamphetamine producers and dealers?
DissedByBush
(3,342 posts)I'm sure you'll attempt a distraction by complaining about any source I supply.
Search "Tim Naveau Claritin"
Those evil allergy meds.
"Are you defending methamphetamine producers and dealers? "
I'm defending innocent people caught up in the War On Drugs, but there are just too many victims due to WOD support from people like you.
I'm also predisposed to be against any law that restricts a normally legal activity of law-abiding people because of what criminals may do. The criminals, of course, not being inclined to obey the law anyway.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)
I can't find a single source saying he was convicted.
What you're defending is doing nothing in the face of a great social ill - that's illogical.
DissedByBush
(3,342 posts)Oh, that's too hard. How about getting a tipoff from a pharmacy that some guy regularly comes in to buy a crapload of Sudafed, and one day trailing him to his meth lab?
Nah, those actually involve encountering dangerous criminals. It's too much like real police work.
Easier to nail someone at home for buying too much allergy medication for his kid.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)Also, please don't imply I agree with such foolishness, it makes your argumentative style look unbecoming of someone with your obvious level of intelligence - but it'd probably benefit you to get more life experience before making such absolute judgments about the nature of society - such as all illegal drugs should be legalized, but antibiotics should remain prescription only, it looks like verbal pretzel logic.
I'd suggest you perhaps go on a ride-along with a police officer in a populated area. What state do you live-in DissedByBush?
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)That's ever so much more fluffy and cuddly, eh?
The parallel would be saying beer is O.K., but whiskey, rum and vodka are not. Where have we seen this...
Again, welcome to Prohibition 2.0.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)Like your friend here, are you defending methamphetamine producers and dealers?
Beer and whiskey are both alcohol, marijuana and methamphetamine are totally different substances.
DissedByBush
(3,342 posts)Your law threw a dad in jail who was just trying to do that for his son.
Standard in your War On Drugs: Punish the innocent
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)Do you know how toxic and dangerous home meth production can be? Do you know anyone who's been hooked on meth? I know many, and they themselves will tell you it is an awful substance.
I cannot begin to list the litany of social and health ills caused by meth in this country.
Shame on the batu pushers; no ice in paradise.
DissedByBush
(3,342 posts)And why is it there instead of in safe, clean, well-managed labs with proper safety procedures and hazardous waste disposal?
Because it is illegal.
Thank you.
"I cannot begin to list the litany of social and health ills caused by meth in this country. "
I hear the same from the drug warriors against marijuana too.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)You'd literally have to lock every single one up in the looney bin. It's like HST said, "You can turn your back on a person, but never turn your back on a drug, especially when its waving a razor sharp hunting knife in your eye." - Meth destroys lives, period.
I imagine the vast majority of stoners are against meth too. Marijuana has never killed anybody, those who oppose its legalization are in deep denial. Those who support legalization of methamphetamine for sale are willfully blind to the realities of American life. Seriously.
DissedByBush
(3,342 posts)It was a hell of a party.
"Those who support legalization of methamphetamine for sale are willfully blind to the realities of American life."
Replace methamphetamine with the name of any other drug and that sentence still comes out of the mouths of the authoritarian drug warriors.
Hell, that's pretty much what the temperance movement said about alcohol to get Prohibition enacted.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)Please go re-post that exact sentence in the Lounge now.
Do you not care to share your views on methamphetamine with a larger audience?
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)except antibiotics, and regulating for purity, dosage and age-of-user and public intoxication limits similar to alcohol.
And the point is not of kind, but of effect. But I'm sure you knew that.
Fair Witness
(119 posts)Does the list vary from day to day?
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)I think this is a debate better had in another thread, suffice to say: it does not include heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine, or ecstasy or PCP for that matter
You're for legalizing everything?
Fair Witness
(119 posts)I'm not real big on penalizing people for activities that are less than healthy to their own corpus if it doesn't impact others to any significant degree. I do realize that some want to restrict what other people do, I see it every day from the Tea Party.
Fair Witness
(119 posts)awash in gun crime. So much for your bass ackward hypothesis.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6657203.stm
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)...and straddles major drug smuggling routes to North America. 
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Seems that your side claims "gun laws are the major reason" when it serves your purpose. When it does not, it turns into "it is more complex issue with a number of factors involved."
So which is it? The murder rates were low in Canada in Europe when their gun laws were just as lax if not laxer.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)...between a Third World Caribbean island state and the United States, Canada and Europe?
DissedByBush
(3,342 posts)You: "We have a persistent epidemic of criminal gun use...countries with real gun control don't"
That was your criteria, the implication being that "real gun control" successfully combats criminal gun use.
Jamaica has some seriously draconian gun control. Literally, life in jail by a secret court for possession of an unregistered BULLET, much less a whole gun.
In reality, the criminals will get their guns. How? They are criminals, so they don't care about your "real gun control" laws.
All you do is disarm honest, law-abiding people.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)I don't think you really like to consider the obvious answer to that question.
I think you'd probably find that Jamaica's firearm homicide rate is highly linked to drug gang activity.
So are you or are you not for the legalization of methamphetamine and other dangerous drugs?
DissedByBush
(3,342 posts)Many sources I'm sure, internationally if necessary.
But then your average machinist in a small shop can make a WWII submachine gun in under a day. The Libyan rebels were making a lot of their own guns.
"I think you'd probably find that Jamaica's firearm homicide rate is highly linked to drug gang activity."
So is ours. California has very strict gun laws compared to the rest of the country, and it has basically no impact on the drug gangs there.
"So are you or are you not for the legalization of methamphetamine and other dangerous drugs?"
Yep, except we don't agree on "dangerous." Remember, your government thinks marijuana is "dangerous."
One of the main reasons street meth is so dangerous is because it is illegal. There is no regulation of purity and strength. It illegal status also removes the possibility of it being used medicinally, as it was in the past. Same for LSD, which was showing great promise in psychiatry. Street heroin is especially dangerous as the purity can vary wildly, and doing a normal volume dose with an unknown much higher purity drug can lead to overdose.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)---------
Also, what don't you understand about how the drug cartels work and why they work where they work...there is a big difference between how they operate in the American market, how they operate in a transit point like Jamaica or the US Virgin Islands and how they operate in a base country like Mexico or Columbia. We do not live in a war-zone in which radical fanatics are prepared to do as they please; we live in a vibrant federal democracy where governments can and will regulate in accordance with the laws desired by the people.
My answer to the anarchist fantasies which seem to pervade the notion of defense against insurrection or government in this day is simple: nuts.
DissedByBush
(3,342 posts)You implied that strict gun laws mean less gun crime.
You were obviously incorrect.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)I've never implied, or stated that. I've simply said that stricter uniform gun laws would mean less destructive/deadly crime.
DissedByBush
(3,342 posts)Me: "You implied that strict gun laws mean less gun crime. "
You: "We have a persistent epidemic of criminal gun use...countries with real gun control don't."
Pretty clear there.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)
I still believe that when you have to go to examples such as Jamaica or the US VI - you are comparing apples and papayas.
DissedByBush
(3,342 posts)I showed you where you are incorrect.
Time to change your criteria.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)DissedByBush
(3,342 posts)And you're probably thinking of the wrong Bush.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)older societies, which had equally low rates before they had any gun control laws, less racism, less diverse, less inequality of wealth, less organized and semi organized crime, a race based underclass that is still a residue of slavery, that have higher suicide rates, are culturally less individualistic, less materialistic
to us.
Although Canada is as young and diverse as we are, but their culture and history is still very different.
I'm simply pointing out your side's inconsistency.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)See the 2005 Paris Riots and the 2011 London Riots if you think Europe has 'less racism, less diverse, less inequality of wealth, less organized and semi organized crime, a race based underclass that is still a residue of slaver... are culturally less individualistic, less materialistic"
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)to me again why their murder rates were no different before the gun laws? Did Canada have more handgun murders before 1934? Machine gun crimes before 1977? That's right, you haven't. Sorry, my post is very accurate. Yours on the other hand, are often not logical.
Wow, one time riots because people there get pissed off rather than take it in the ass because the media says to.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)Bottom line - people you like care about their guns more than they care about their fellow citizens well-being. You're basically prohibiting the future from surpassing the past and bettering itself because of a misplaced pessimism about your fellow citizens intention should you be compelled to behave in a more sobered, and responsible manner. God forbid we imagine ourselves as being like any other society for the purpose of self-improvement.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)that is such inane bullshit.
I care very much about my fellow citizens. My guns are not a threat to their well being. I am not at all pessimistic, just mature, sober, and balanced that comes with living in the real world on its own terms.
As myself and others pointed out, these societies did not do it for "self-improvement" nor did they achieve any level of greater civilization or enlightenment.
Since you could not counter my points with anything approaching rational or reasoned, it seems that your brain is fogged with naive and inane ideology. It is like explaining to a libertarian that the "private sector" will become the defacto government to fill the vacuum, kind of like a feudal warlord.
one-eyed fat man
(3,201 posts)it would be a little tiny fucking island in the middle of nowhere.
Perhaps North Korea would be more to your liking.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)
Jamaica straddles major drug transit routes from South America and the Caribbean and is a major producer in its own right.
But you knew that didn't you?
one-eyed fat man
(3,201 posts)Criminals doing criminal things. Criminals have never found the law to be more than a minor inconvenience. It hardly inconveniences them, after smuggling is their trade. They don't care much what the commodity is, as long as it's against the law someplace those who feel the risk is worth the reward will do what they want.
You have no difficulty getting all the weed you want, as you freely admit. Your desire negates any law. Your cash underwrites a criminal enterprise; suppliers will rob, cheat, steal and kill to get your money. You standard of criminality is possibly higher than some and lower than others. Criminals on Jamaica have no more difficulty obtaining guns than you have obtaining dope.
There is little doubt that the guy who supplies you with your dope can just as easily supply you with a gun. He is even likely to take guns, jewelry, or anything he can fence in trade.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)I don't know what you're projecting but I don't roll in those circles - you've watched too many episodes of cops
Other posters here readily agree that less guns and less access means less gun crime, you're just wallowing in self-delusion. Europe doesn't have these problems and they straddle several major smuggling routes from the Middle East and Africa. You know what the difference is...less guns.
And pray...what does the firearms industry in the United States underwrite...
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)there is no place that gun laws improved anything.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)you'd realize it is actually in the fucking middle of nowhere.
Fair Witness
(119 posts)
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)
Jamaica attacks on police and soldiers continued for a second day on Monday.
By David McFadden, Associated Press / May 24, 2010
Police and soldiers came under heavy fire in barricaded battle zones in the West Kingston stronghold of Christopher "Dudus" Coke, who is trying to avoid extradition to the U.S. on drug and arms trafficking charges. Military helicopters with mounted guns buzzed above the impoverished area, between plumes of black smoke.
West Kingston, which includes the Trenchtown slum where reggae superstar Bob Marley was raised, is the epicenter of the violence. But on Monday, security agents were also under attack in troubled areas outside that patchwork of gritty slums.
---------
Ellington said "scores of criminals" from gangs across the Caribbean island had joined the fighting in the Kingston area, where the fear of gun violence has driven many to live behind gated walls with key-pad entry systems and 24-hour security.
--------
Coke leads one of the gangs that control politicized slums known as "garrisons." Political parties created the gangs in the 1970s to rustle up votes. The gangs have since turned to drug trafficking, but each remains closely tied to a political party. Coke's gang is tied to the governing Labor Party.
http://www.csmonitor.com/From-the-news-wires/2010/0524/Jamaica-attacks-Gun-battles-intensifying-spreading
http://www.coha.org/jamaica-in-the-drug-trade%E2%80%94big-and-getting-bigger/
You owe me an apology.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Yes, let's produce a drug that involves and contains WWI war gasses, yes, people would totally do that if 'drugs' as a whole, prior to the invention of Meth, were legal.
SteveW
(754 posts)"After that, I can't really take your arguments seriously - meth is an epidemic - and this again is further proof of governments compelling interest in public safety."
I note also another ground by which you "...can't really take your arguments seriously." Do you dismiss argument from here on out, or just that one particular argument?
Here's a fact: Most violent "gun-crime" is committed by repeat offenders, often in the same concentrated areas of repeated crimes.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)1. Stupidity
2. Possibly
3. Absolutely not
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)Why do you think people engage in this behavior in populated areas? Do you think alcohol is a driving factor? Have you ever fired a gun skyward in celebration during a holiday?
1) I've heard this was a cultural thing for some ethnic groups, wiki seems to confirm this.
2) Alcohol could be a factor, although the list of intoxicants could be expanded depending upon the location.
3) Absolutly not, thought never even crossed my mind.
ileus
(15,396 posts)We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)Everything OK or are you referring to the whole 2012 doomsday thing?
ileus
(15,396 posts)Woo Hoo...
spin
(17,493 posts)The members of Congress act like the end of the world is coming and nothing they do will make any difference anyway. Consequently they don't do anything.
Maybe they have some insider information.
Kennah
(14,578 posts)Remmah2
(3,291 posts)nt
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,764 posts)...to fire into the air!
"Why do you think people engage in this behavior in populated areas? Do you think alcohol is a driving factor? Have you ever fired a gun skyward in celebration during a holiday?"
- They are careless, stupid and/or crazy.
- Any intoxicating substance can be a factor.
- Hell no! I have never fired in any direction other than my intended target.
I hope such activities which result in death or serious injury would be covered under "depraved indifference" statutes and that those states lacking such laws would expand their codes to include the same or equivalent legislation and punishment.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)They brought this with them from Mexico, where it is believed to scare off evil spirits.
Do they not know any better?
Should we discourage this, it is after all a very old tradition in their contry.
Do you believe that they even care what happens when the bullet falls back to earth?
Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,764 posts)...look at it as evolution at work if only the shooters were the ones injured but, generally, that's not the case.
SteveW
(754 posts)You ask "Why do you think people engage in this behavior in populated areas?"
One reason is Houston also has a prohibition on fireworks (about as flawed as the one against pot).
http://www.houstontx.gov/fire/publiced/fireworks.pdf
People have been enamored by the "Booms!" of fireworks since the Chinese inflicted that exquisite punishment on humans, centuries ago.
Yes, I have fired a shotgun into the air at night on Christmas Eve, New Year's, 4th of July, etc., and on B-days. Did so a few hundred yards outside the city limits of another firework-banning municipality.
Don't know about the alcohol. Whaddaya think?