• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Man ambushes Firefighters responding to a fire.

Capster78

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 6, 2012
Messages
2,253
Reaction score
567
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
'Chaos:' Gunman ambushes, kills two firefighters at New York blaze - CNN.com

(CNN) -- A man convicted of killing his grandmother decades ago ambushed firefighters on Monday, fatally shooting two of them as they arrived to battle a blaze in upstate New York, police said.

Two other volunteer firefighters were wounded in the attack in the Rochester-area town of Webster. A police officer from the nearby town of Greece suffered minor shrapnel wounds when his vehicle was hit by gunfire.

Investigators believe the suspect, William Spengler, 62, set the original fire, then likely set himself up on a berm with a clear view of the scene and started shooting.
Investigators say that William Spengler, 62, deliberately lured firefighters to the house fire.
Investigators say that William Spengler, 62, deliberately lured firefighters to the house fire.

"It appears that it was a trap," Webster Police Chief Gerald Pickering said. "There was a car and a house that were involved in flames, probably set by Mr. Spengler, who laid in wait in armament and then shot the first responders."

Authorities do not know how Spengler -- who was found dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound hours after the four firefighters were shot -- obtained the weapon or weapons he used or why he opened fire, Pickering told reporters. As a convicted felon, Spengler was not allowed to legally possess weapons, but he had "several different types of weapons" Monday, the police chief said.

Spengler was convicted in 1981 of first-degree manslaughter in the death of his grandmother and had been released on supervised parole, Pickering said.

N.Y. man who shot dead 2 firefighters killed grandmother in 1980

He is believed to have lived in the home where the original fire erupted with his sister, who has not yet been accounted for, Pickering said. Their mother died sometime in the past year, the chief added.

In chilling audio heard over the scanner, a West Webster Fire Department firefighter reported "multiple firemen shot" -- including himself, with wounds to his lower back and lower leg -- and "shots still being fired."
Police: Gunman set trap for firefighters
2 firefighters shot dead at house fire

"I'm pretty sure that we have two DOAs" -- the term for dead on arrival -- "on the street," the wounded firefighter said. "... They're down and not good."

For several hours after that Monday, the threat of gunfire stopped firefighters from battling the blaze and forced police SWAT teams to evacuate 33 people in the neighborhood of small, waterfront homes.

Eventually, seven houses were "totally destroyed" by the fire. Although the fires were under control as of 2:30 p.m. ET, by then authorities still hadn't been able to get in any of the homes. Pickering said it's possible more victims could be inside.

"I'm hoping that everyone was able to escape from the inferno," he said. "Those houses were close together."

With 'raging inferno' and gunfire, scene described as 'chaos'

Firefighters first arrived at the Webster fire before 6 a.m., said Rob Boutillier, the town's fire marshal.

By then, Spengler had set up himself somewhere above the scene in a "natural hollow, a position of cover to actually be a sniper," Pickering explained.

The calls from firefighter came in soon after, reporting that four of them had been shot. Police officers rushed to the scene, and one of the first ones there exchanged fire, "in all likelihood, (saving) many lives," according to the police chief.

"When we get there, we have people down, we have raging fires, and we have gunshots going off," Pickering said.

"It's chaos. It's chaos."

Authorities worked quickly to set up a perimeter, trying to contain the situation and the shooter. Neighborhood residents were first told to "shelter in place" because the gunman was at large, but some left their homes because of the fire.

Several people could be seen running. Police tracked some of them down, found they were neighbors seeking safety and escorted them out. Eventually, residents were whisked from the area in armored personnel carriers. All the while, there was "this raging inferno, with black smoke everywhere," Pickering said.

No more gunfire was exchanged after that initial burst, though police did see a man they believed to be Spengler moving at times. The police chief said he didn't know if the police officer hit Spengler early on, but he said the medical examiner indicated that Spengler died after shooting himself in the head.

Two firefighters also died at the scene.
Police have identified one of the firefighters killed as Lt. Mike Chiapperini.
Police have identified one of the firefighters killed as Lt. Mike Chiapperini.

One of them, Lt. Michael Chiapperini, was a veteran of the West Webster Fire Department and a police lieutenant. He'd been named Firefighter of the Year just two weeks ago, and not long before that, he had volunteered to go to Long Island to help those suffering after Superstorm Sandy, according to Lt. Gov. Bob Duffy.

The other slain firefighter was Tomasz Kaczowka, who was also a 911 dispatcher. He'd been with the West Webster Fire Department for just more than a year, fire department spokesman Al Sienkiewicz said.

One firefighter escaped from the scene in his own vehicle about an hour after he was shot and was taken to a hospital by an ambulance from another location, Boutillier said. Another wounded firefighter was conscious and speaking when he was removed from the scene, he said.

The wounded firefighters were in intensive care Monday at Strong Memorial Hospital in Rochester, New York, officials said.

The other person wounded was a Greece, New York, police officer who was on his way to work when his car was fired upon. He suffered shrapnel wounds that Pickering described as minor.

"We work with these people everyday; they're like our brothers," said Pickering of the slain firefighters, as he fought back tears. "It's terrible."

New shooting spurs more talk on gun control

Authorities have not said what weapons were found with Spengler, though Pickering said "probably at least a rifle was used" to shoot the first responders.

"I know that many people are going to be asking, 'Were they assault rifles?' I don't know that. I can't answer that at this time," he told reporters.

The shooting occurred amid a renewed gun control debate after the December 14 elementary school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, that killed 26 people, most of them children. The gunman in that case, Adam Lanza, also killed his mother and himself.

The head of a lobbying group that represents first responders said the Monday shooting was "senseless and cruel."

"The firefighters who responded today were performing a selfless, meaningful service to their community, unaware that a cold-hearted maniac was planning to ambush them and take their lives," said Harold Schaitberger, general president of the Washington-based International Association of Fire Fighters. "Coming on the heels of the horrific tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, and on Christmas Eve, this shooting is even harder to comprehend."

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo described the Webster shooting as "horrific." And the state's attorney general called it a "senseless tragedy"

President Barack Obama has set a January deadline for "concrete proposals" to deal with gun violence in the wake of the Newtown school shooting.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, has said she will introduce legislation to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004, while National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre has said his group will fight any new gun restrictions, saying most gun laws now on the books are rarely enforced.

Pickering, the Webster police chief, said it was important -- in the wake of the shooting in his town and others -- to "get a handle on gun control." He also said more needs to be done to make sure that dangerous people aren't in society, where they can kill.

"For the last 20 years we have been turning people loose and deinstitutionalizing people, and I think we've swung too far," he said. "I think there are still people that need to be in institutions that are a danger to themselves or others. And this is a classic example."

Are you there? Share your stories, pictures and videos, but stay safe.

How is gun control working out for us? Again, yet another example of why we should completely ban firearms. This guy was a convicted fellon and should not have been able to access firearms at all. Due to there being so many firearms floating around this country, it is easy to get one illegally. This guy did not have just one weapons either, they say he had several weapons.
 
'Chaos:' Gunman ambushes, kills two firefighters at New York blaze - CNN.com



How is gun control working out for us? Again, yet another example of why we should completely ban firearms. This guy was a convicted fellon and should not have been able to access firearms at all. Due to there being so many firearms floating around this country, it is easy to get one illegally. This guy did not have just one weapons either, they say he had several weapons.

How about a little compromise? If the anti gun group concentrates their efforts on illegal guns in the hands of those felons, mentally ill, and others not allowed possession, including those stolen from legal gun owners, and and also including prosecution of those using guns illegally, once these are rounded up and gun crime continues, then the legal law abiding gun owners will reconsider ownership.

A person who sets a fire for the purpose of luring firemen into a trap is sick. No amount of control of anything is going to stop this.
 
'Chaos:' Gunman ambushes, kills two firefighters at New York blaze - CNN.com



How is gun control working out for us? Again, yet another example of why we should completely ban firearms. This guy was a convicted fellon and should not have been able to access firearms at all. Due to there being so many firearms floating around this country, it is easy to get one illegally. This guy did not have just one weapons either, they say he had several weapons.

Maybe we should ban recreational (street) drugs too. Remember that banning things does not make them go away, it raises their prices and creates huge profits for criminal gangs that fill the legal supply vacuum created.
 
How is gun control working out for us? Again, yet another example of why we should completely ban firearms. This guy was a convicted fellon and should not have been able to access firearms at all. Due to there being so many firearms floating around this country, it is easy to get one illegally. This guy did not have just one weapons either, they say he had several weapons.

imagine that... another bad guy who chose to break our laws and killed honorable men.


we've been over your "ban firearms completely" idea.... you have a better shot at winning the Powerball 5 times in a row...stop trying to pass it off as a valid solution, it's not.
 
How about a little compromise? If the anti gun group concentrates their efforts on illegal guns in the hands of those felons, mentally ill, and others not allowed possession, including those stolen from legal gun owners, and and also including prosecution of those using guns illegally, once these are rounded up and gun crime continues, then the legal law abiding gun owners will reconsider ownership.

There have been concessions made already. As many gun owners have correctly pointed out, there is no way to control gun ownership. As long as gun ownership remains legal it will be impossible to have any type of control over it at all.

A person who sets a fire for the purpose of luring firemen into a trap is sick. No amount of control of anything is going to stop this.

So gun owners have given up also. I am right there with you, there is no way to stop this unless guns are completely banned. Once we get the number of guns out there down to a manageable number we can reduce the probability of things like this happening.
 
Maybe we should ban recreational (street) drugs too. Remember that banning things does not make them go away, it raises their prices and creates huge profits for criminal gangs that fill the legal supply vacuum created.

Drugs are a completely different issue. I don't know of anyone addicted to guns, and if they are, it is even more a reason they should be taken away from them. Your not going to fight drug's the same way you fight illegal gun ownership. Drugs needs to be decriminalized. Not legalized, but decriminalized. At least decriminalized at a personal usage amount. Anyone caught with an amount with the intent to distribute should still receive severe punishment IMO along with anyone caught MFRing drugs. The only way we will get the drug problem under control is if we start focusing on the big fish, not the user. Users need medical / psychological intervention to get them off their addiction.
 
imagine that... another bad guy who chose to break our laws and killed honorable men.


we've been over your "ban firearms completely" idea.... you have a better shot at winning the Powerball 5 times in a row...stop trying to pass it off as a valid solution, it's not.


You are probably right, but it does not mean I cant have an opinion. I think if we continue to keep having these kind of issues, the gun owners will have to make some major concessions.
 
Drugs are a completely different issue. I don't know of anyone addicted to guns, and if they are, it is even more a reason they should be taken away from them. Your not going to fight drug's the same way you fight illegal gun ownership. Drugs needs to be decriminalized. Not legalized, but decriminalized. At least decriminalized at a personal usage amount. Anyone caught with an amount with the intent to distribute should still receive severe punishment IMO along with anyone caught MFRing drugs. The only way we will get the drug problem under control is if we start focusing on the big fish, not the user. Users need medical / psychological intervention to get them off their addiction.

drugs are banned... private sales are banned.... legal sales and manufacture of drugs is banned.
yet they are easy to procure by anyone who wants them.

alcohol was banned at one time.. private sales were banned... manufacture and legal sales of alcohol were banned
yet alcohol was easy to procure if you wanted it.

and you are here trying to tell intelligent people that prohibition actually does work


I'm amazed that there are still prohibitionists who are befuddled why their idiot bans don't work..... "stuck on stupid" is putting it mildly
welcome to earth, where prohibition does not work when there is demand for the prohibited item.

i'd love to ban stupidity, but there is obviously a high demand for it.... so it will never work.
 
drugs are banned... private sales are banned.... legal sales and manufacture of drugs is banned.
yet they are easy to procure by anyone who wants them.

alcohol was banned at one time.. private sales were banned... manufacture and legal sales of alcohol were banned
yet alcohol was easy to procure if you wanted it.

and you are here trying to tell intelligent people that prohibition actually does work


I'm amazed that there are still prohibitionists who are befuddled why their idiot bans don't work..... "stuck on stupid" is putting it mildly
welcome to earth, where prohibition does not work when there is demand for the prohibited item.

i'd love to ban stupidity, but there is obviously a high demand for it.... so it will never work.

Alcohol and drugs are mental addictions. They are completely different than firearms. You are not going to have withdrawls and severe physical issues because you can't own a gun. You are comparing apples and oranges.
 
'Chaos:' Gunman ambushes, kills two firefighters at New York blaze - CNN.com



How is gun control working out for us? Again, yet another example of why we should completely ban firearms. This guy was a convicted fellon and should not have been able to access firearms at all. Due to there being so many firearms floating around this country, it is easy to get one illegally. This guy did not have just one weapons either, they say he had several weapons.

isn't New York a wet dream for the Brady gun haters.

looks like it failed

and tell me-if capital murder sentences doesn't deter someone how would your silly gun bans prevent them from engaging in premeditated capital murder

Oh and if you are going to make the silly claim it would keep them from getting the guns tell me how prohibition and the war on drugs worked out
 
Alcohol and drugs are mental addictions. They are completely different than firearms. You are not going to have withdrawls and severe physical issues because you can't own a gun. You are comparing apples and oranges.

nah many people will just violently resist attempts to deprive them of their right to KBA and target people who have advocated gun confiscation
 
You are probably right, but it does not mean I cant have an opinion. I think if we continue to keep having these kind of issues, the gun owners will have to make some major concessions.
you can have an opinion, sure... but why you would want to hold an opinion that is contrary to history and reality is beyond me

gun owners may have to make concessions... i'm sure anti-gunners will try to force the issue.
...and then they will then sit in puzzlement as to how their well laid plans failed yet again.

stuck on stupid.
 
you can have an opinion, sure... but why you would want to hold an opinion that is contrary to history and reality is beyond me

gun owners may have to make concessions... i'm sure anti-gunners will try to force the issue.
...and then they will then sit in puzzlement as to how their well laid plans failed yet again.

stuck on stupid.

Its not contrary at all. Its simple logic. If we severely reduce the amount of firearms available for these violent people to buy illegally or steal then the amount of crime committed by firearms will be reduced considerably. Simple math, the less there is of something, and the harder that something is to obtain, will cause crime rates relating to gun violence to go down. Its simple logic / math.
 
There have been concessions made already. As many gun owners have correctly pointed out, there is no way to control gun ownership. As long as gun ownership remains legal it will be impossible to have any type of control over it at all.



So gun owners have given up also. I am right there with you, there is no way to stop this unless guns are completely banned. Once we get the number of guns out there down to a manageable number we can reduce the probability of things like this happening.

Do you not understand the point or do you deliberately ignore it? Not all mass murders are committed with guns, and in areas where guns are banned, say Mexico, there are more murders. Two women that I remember drowned their kids, one in a bathtub and the other in a lake. The largest mass murder in the US was done with box cutters and stolen airplanes. McVeigh used common fertilizer, the Nazis used mostly gas. Knives have been used, automobiles have been driven through crowds. Arson, poison, you name it.

By the way, the largest mass murder by firearms was F & F, where politicians at the highest levels of our government deliberately put illegal guns in the hands of known criminals. If you suggest the banning of politicians, I might agree with you.
 
Alcohol and drugs are mental addictions. They are completely different than firearms. You are not going to have withdrawls and severe physical issues because you can't own a gun. You are comparing apples and oranges.

demand for a product is not reliant on an addiction to that product.... and addiction surely helps, but it isn't necessary.

what have you to say about Marijuana?... are you arguing that Marijuana is addictive?.. .are you arguing that one must be addicted to Marijuana to want it?
you'll have a very difficult time with the addiction angle you are pushing... the facts just aren't in your favor.


give it a rest dude, prohibition fails every time there is a demand for the prohibited product....
 
'Chaos:' Gunman ambushes, kills two firefighters at New York blaze - CNN.com

How is gun control working out for us? Again, yet another example of why we should completely ban firearms. This guy was a convicted fellon and should not have been able to access firearms at all. Due to there being so many firearms floating around this country, it is easy to get one illegally. This guy did not have just one weapons either, they say he had several weapons.

You can't unring the damned bell. And you can't stop black market weapons sales. There are plenty of laws on the books that should have prevented this nut job from having guns. In effect, there was already a gun ban in place -- for HIM. And it couldn't be enforced.

Before anybody starts talking about banning guns, prove to the rest of us that current laws can be enforced. If they can't be enforced? If people who can't legally possess firearms can still get them? Then all a damned gun ban will do is take away the guns of law-abiding citizens.

Instead of clamoring for gun control, gun bans, yada yada yada -- how about clamoring to enforce the laws already on the books??
 
Do you not understand the or do you deliberately ignore it? Not all mass murders are committed with guns, and in areas where guns are banned, say Mexico, there are more murders.

And where does a good portion of their guns come from. AHHH, wait, the US. Yes, I agree completely. That is why banning guns in the states is the answer. If they are banned here and banned in mexico, and both governments make concerted efforts to police the illegal gun trade, it WILL reduce crime.

Two women that I remember drowned their kids, one in a bathtub and the other in a lake. The largest mass murder in the US was done with box cutters and stolen airplanes. McVeigh used common fertilizer, the Nazis used mostly gas. Knives have been used, automobiles have been driven through crowds. Arson, poison, you name it.
None of these are nearly as common as gun violence. Gun's now kill even more people than careless drivers. The difference between guns and cars is you NEED a car if you want to live in today's society. Its a definate need that otherwise would limit your job prospects and your financial health. A gun is not needed in the same regaurd, especially if there are fewer people walking around with them.

By the way, the largest mass murder by firearms was F & F, where politicians at the highest levels of our government deliberately put illegal guns in the hands of known criminals. If you suggest the banning of politicians, I might agree with you.

It was a risky operation that bit them in the butt, you wont get any argument from me on that one. However, I am almost positive they got some intelligence out of it that will be helpful in the fight against the trafficing of firearms across the boarder.
 
You can't unring the damned bell. And you can't stop black market weapons sales. There are plenty of laws on the books that should have prevented this nut job from having guns. In effect, there was already a gun ban in place -- for HIM. And it couldn't be enforced.

Before anybody starts talking about banning guns, prove to the rest of us that current laws can be enforced. If they can't be enforced? If people who can't legally possess firearms can still get them? Then all a damned gun ban will do is take away the guns of law-abiding citizens.

Instead of clamoring for gun control, gun bans, yada yada yada -- how about clamoring to enforce the laws already on the books??

This is correct, you will probably never stop black market sales of weapons. However, by severely reducing the pool of weapons easily available, it will make the weapons trade much more expensive than it is now. Which will reduce the amount of crime because if these weapons are very hard to get they will be to expensive for the average street criminal to purchase one.

The only way to reduce the amount of easily available weapons is to ban or severly restrict legal sales of them. All weapons, unless they are locally MFR'ed illegally, start out in the hands of a legal owner / dealer.
 
Its not contrary at all. Its simple logic. If we severely reduce the amount of firearms available for these violent people to buy illegally or steal then the amount of crime committed by firearms will be reduced considerably. Simple math, the less there is of something, and the harder that something is to obtain, will cause crime rates relating to gun violence to go down. Its simple logic / math.

you should go to the school that taught you math and logic and demand your money back.

prohibition has little effect on supply if the demand is present.
if there is a demand, there will be a supply.... you can bank on it.
9 i'd like to see you offer an argument as to how you think demand for firearms would disappear :lol:)

additionally, banning an item does not make it magically disappear.... it simply moves the transactions into the black market.
those are transaction you will not gain tax revenue from.. those are transactions you cannot control... those are transactions that will occur whether you like it or not.

by enacting the ultimate in control measures (a ban) ....you lose total control over the products and the transactions ... you end up with the exact opposite of what you were shooting for.
 
you should go to the school that taught you math and logic and demand your money back.

prohibition has little effect on supply if the demand is present.
if there is a demand, there will be a supply.... you can bank on it.
9 i'd like to see you offer an argument as to how you think demand for firearms would disappear :lol:)

additionally, banning an item does not make it magically disappear.... it simply moves the transactions into the black market.
those are transaction you will not gain tax revenue from.. those are transactions you cannot control... those are transactions that will occur whether you like it or not.

by enacting the ultimate in control measures (a ban) ....you lose total control over the products and the transactions ... you end up with the exact opposite of what you were shooting for.

On alcohol / drugs, I completely agree. Prohabition is not the answer. Again, apples and oranges...... Drugs and alcohol are psychological addictions, guns are not.
 
This is correct, you will probably never stop black market sales of weapons. However, by severely reducing the pool of weapons easily available, it will make the weapons trade much more expensive than it is now. Which will reduce the amount of crime because if these weapons are very hard to get they will be to expensive for the average street criminal to purchase one.

The only way to reduce the amount of easily available weapons is to ban or severly restrict legal sales of them. All weapons, unless they are locally MFR'ed illegally, start out in the hands of a legal owner / dealer.

In 2009, there were 12,600 handgun homocides in the United States. Less than 1/2 of 1% of total deaths. Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In that same year, there were 10,800 people killed by drunk drivers. Far more, far more! innocents are killed by drunk drivers every year in the United States, since far and away, most gun violence is bad-guy-on-bad-guy.

In fact, the cold, hard fact is that gun violence in the United States is statistically insignificant.

(It's a good thing no one can reach thru my screen. I think I'd be bloodied for that seemingly heartless statement. Yet, it is true.)
 
And where does a good portion of their guns come from. AHHH, wait, the US. Yes, I agree completely. That is why banning guns in the states is the answer. If they are banned here and banned in mexico, and both governments make concerted efforts to police the illegal gun trade, it WILL reduce crime.

None of these are nearly as common as gun violence. Gun's now kill even more people than careless drivers. The difference between guns and cars is you NEED a car if you want to live in today's society. Its a definate need that otherwise would limit your job prospects and your financial health. A gun is not needed in the same regaurd, especially if there are fewer people walking around with them.



It was a risky operation that bit them in the butt, you wont get any argument from me on that one. However, I am almost positive they got some intelligence out of it that will be helpful in the fight against the trafficing of firearms across the boarder.
e

(1) The statement floated that 90% of the guns in Mexico originated in the US is false. The origin was a group of weapon serial numbers sent to ATF by the Mexican government for verification that they originated in the US. These were already believed to originate in the US. The majority of drug lord guns in Mexico are either stolen from the Mexican government or come in from the south and overseas and are generally not available in the US. It might pointed out that F & F was not a joint effort between the US and Mexico. Mexico authorities were not informed.

(2) Again false. Depending on your definition of mass murders about half are committed with firearms, and the largest are committed by other means. Guns are not too efficient for mass killings. Slightly less people die from gunshot than autos in the US each year, 30000 to 32,000 but only 8000 are homicides. Twice that number are suicides. I can find no numbers on vehicular homicides.

Your statement that you are almost positive that the US got some intelligence out of F & F that may help in the future sounds like fantasy speculation. Once again, very few guns actually float across the border from the US. Most gun dealers are honest, and the US does not have much market for machine guns.
 
Its not contrary at all. Its simple logic. If we severely reduce the amount of firearms available for these violent people to buy illegally or steal then the amount of crime committed by firearms will be reduced considerably. Simple math, the less there is of something, and the harder that something is to obtain, will cause crime rates relating to gun violence to go down. Its simple logic / math.

OR we could leave the law abiding alone and crackdown on the stolen gun market. Make penalties for possession of a stolen firearm so severe that burglars will be afraid to touch guns. Do something to encourage the individual purchase of gun safes.
 
In 2009, there were 12,600 handgun homocides in the United States. Less than 1/2 of 1% of total deaths. Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In that same year, there were 10,800 people killed by drunk drivers. Far more, far more! innocents are killed by drunk drivers every year in the United States, since far and away, most gun violence is bad-guy-on-bad-guy.

In fact, the cold, hard fact is that gun violence in the United States is statistically insignificant.

(It's a good thing no one can reach thru my screen. I think I'd be bloodied for that seemingly heartless statement. Yet, it is true.)

During the 1980s and early 1990s, homicide rates surged in cities across the United States (see graphs at right).[22] Handgun homicides accounted for nearly all of the overall increase in the homicide rate, from 1985 to 1993, while homicide rates involving other weapons declined during that time frame.[23] The rising trend in homicide rates during the 1980s and early 1990s was most pronounced among lower income and especially unemployed males. Youths and Hispanic and African American males in the United States were the most represented, with the injury and death rates tripling for black males aged 13 through 17 and doubling for black males aged 18 through 24.[12][18] The rise in crack cocaine use in cities across the United States is often cited as a factor for increased gun violence among youths during this time period.

The statistics don't lie. This is why we need a two pronged attack on both drugs and gun ownership. Decriminalize drugs and treat the people who have become addicted, while going after the distributors and manufacturers. Ban firearms completely...If we do this, gun violence will be reduced greatly.


People with a criminal record were also more likely to die as homicide victims.[12] Between 1990 and 1994, 75% of all homicide victims age 21 and younger in the city of Boston had a prior criminal record.[36] In Philadelphia, the percentage of those killed in gun homicides that had prior criminal records increased from 73% in 1985 to 93% in 1996.[12][37] In Richmond, Virginia, the risk of gunshot injury is 22 times higher for those males involved with crime.[38]

In 2005, 75% of the 10,100 homicides committed using firearms in the United States were committed using handguns, compared to 4% with rifles, 5% with shotguns, and the rest with unspecified firearms.[39] The likelihood that a death will result is significantly increased when either the victim or the attacker has a firearm.[40] For example, the mortality rate for gunshot wounds to the heart is 84%, compared to 30% for people who sustain stab wounds to the heart.[41]

A ban on rifles is not going to lower gun violence. As was said above, must gun violence is perpetrated by ex-convicts on other ex-convicts (people with criminal records). Most of these people are lower income and can not afford a rifle so they generally can only afford cheap handguns. Not only does this point out the fact that if we banned guns the fact that they would be so much more expensive on the black market might alone lower gun violence, but that in general, if your not involved in criminal activity, there is very little risk of ever having to defend yourself against someone with a gun.
 
OR we could leave the law abiding alone and crackdown on the stolen gun market. Make penalties for possession of a stolen firearm so severe that burglars will be afraid to touch guns. Do something to encourage the individual purchase of gun safes.

There is no way to do this at all. If they were the least bit scared of going to jail, they would not be committing a crime to begin with. Harsher punishments only put more a burden on the tax payers who will have to pay for them to live a comfortable life behind bars without contributing to society at all.
 
Back
Top Bottom