Anti-freedom mayor on warpath again

[jimpeel]

This time it is how late yopu can have a party in his town. Late night parties; banned in Boston?

Why is it that the ones who get killed are always the "Good person who was a straight A etc., etc. ..."? This one was high school valedictorian.

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Mar26/0,4670,AfterhoursShooting,00.html

Boston Mayor Urges End to Late Parties
Monday, March 26, 2007

BOSTON — An argument at an after-hours party erupted in gunfire, killing a woman and prompting the mayor to call for an end to the late-night parties.

"It's crazy. It's nuts," Mayor Thomas Menino told the Boston Globe. "We know all those parties bring bad events in our city. They always end up in some kind of violence."

Chiara Levin, 22, was shot in the head and pronounced dead about 4 a.m. Saturday, police said. No arrests had been made as of Monday morning.

Levin, who recently moved to New York City, was in Boston to celebrate a relative's birthday. She left a bar when it closed at 2 a.m. Saturday with two friends and went with a larger group to an after-hours house party in a high-crime area of the city's Dorchester neighborhood.

She was in a car getting ready to leave when the gunfire started.

There were five or six shots, a neighbor, Jocelyn Duran, 39, told the New York Daily News.

"I looked out the window and there were two black cars," she said. "A guy was screaming, 'Go, go, go!' and the two cars sped off in different directions."

Levin's friends took her to Boston Medical Center, where police were called at about 3:58 a.m. Boston Police Commissioner Edward Davis said there was a significant lapse in time between the shooting and when Levin arrived at the hospital.

Levin's closest friend, Robyn Sussman, told the Daily News she spoke with both people who had been in the car with Levin the night of the shooting. She said they had tried to get her to a hospital right away.

"These are good kids, good friends of hers, much more upset than we could be because they saw it happen," Sussman said.

Menino said police had recently increased street patrols in the neighborhood where Levin was shot. He didn't offer a plan for putting an end to the parties.

Levin had grown up in the small Kentucky town of Danville, where she was the valedictorian of her high school.

"She was such a terrific human being, struck down in her prime," said Angela Johnson, Levin's principal at Danville High School. "We looked forward to seeing what she was going to accomplish, and it's just not to be."

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

 

[applesanity]

As sad and tragic as each individual story may be (I'm seriously not trying or intending to trivialize this person's death),

Anecdotal sob stories that perform all sorts of gut-wrenching feats are the best catalysts for gun control or various infringements on our freedoms.

When rationality seems to prevent you from passing your agenda, resort to emotional tactics.

"How do you tell the family of four-year-old who accidentally shot his two-year-old brother that gun control is wrong?"

 

[BillCA]

+1 Applesanity.

Menino said police had recently increased street patrols in the neighborhood where Levin was shot. He didn't offer a plan for putting an end to the parties.

Maybe I missed something, but there is a world of difference between the rhetoric against late-nite parties and an actual call for legislation to prohibit them.

Besides which, I don't think such an ordinance would be constitutionally enforceable.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Besides which, I don't think such an ordinance would be constitutionally enforceable.

Nor do I. You could go for some seriously draconian enforcement of noise ordinances to curtail late-night parties, but I don't see how you could ban them outright. Then again, having lived in a college neighborhood I'm not sure strict enforcement of noise ordinances late at night is a bad thing anyway.

And seriously, is there no element of personal responsibility here? Good kid goes to late-night party in sketchy neighborhood, ends up victim of violence. News at...no, wait, it isn't news. What's the news? "Crime happens in bad neighborhood?"

This, like any other crime, is a horrible tragedy for the family and friends of the victim. But seriously, going to parties like this is a choice. A choice that, from time to time, has some pretty crappy consequences. The world isn't made out of Nerf.

EDIT: Also, while as I said this is tragic it always seems to me like stories like this portray a death like this (valedictorian, just visiting, etc.) as more tragic than when some poor schmuck who lives there catches a bullet. Coming from somebody who once lived in a sketchy neighborhood (the kind where gunshots weren't entirely rare and kids didn't play in the local parks) I say screw that. Same way I feel about the media frenzies that suggest that kidnapping/disappearances are only important when they happen to pretty blonde coeds.

 

[jimpeel]

Applesanity

Anecdotal sob stories that perform all sorts of gut-wrenching feats are the best catalysts for gun control or various infringements on our freedoms.

I covered that in my post http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=859324&postcount=4

Yes, we have to lose eventually. Not because we won't try but because we have no commonality between our forces. We have no leadership on our end and no victims to parade. It is much more effective to parade a wheelchair-bound cripple of gun violence across the stage than to have a healthy person come bounding out on stage because he wasn't crippled by gun violence. There is no "pity" or "sympathy" element for the healthy whose lives were saved by the presence of a gun. "Pity" or "sympathy" is reserved only for those destroyed by the presence of a gun. That is how our society has been structured by years Liberalism.

Remember, under Liberalism, the norm is the aberration. The many must shape their lives around the lives of the few. Hence, the healthy, those who make up the majority of the nation, are the aberration and the injured are the ones who get the press. Normality is the aberration while abnormality is vaunted. This is what I call the reverse effect of empathy. Those who see someone in a wheelchair have great empathy for them but have none whatsoever for those not so afflicted. Hence, there is no word for the lack of empathy for those undeserving of it. This is what the anti-gun forces have used, and will continue to use, to their great advantage.

 

[applesanity]

I'm sure the pro gun side has its own sob stories.

What about ____, a victim of domestic violence from the state of ___, who filed a restraining order against her estranged husband who threatened to kill her? She goes into a gun dealer, but because of some crazy gun law, can't get a gun to protect herself. two days later, her naked, dismembered carcass is floating dowstream.

Except that I'm not one to trivialize other's misfortunes by parading them around to futher my agendas. Just because the other side does it doesn't mean that I'm wiling to compromise my sense of human decency.

 

[rem33]

How do you tell the family of four-year-old who accidentally shot his two-year-old brother that gun control is wrong?"

HUH???

Like to explan that one for me?

 

[BillCA]

How do you tell the family of four-year-old who accidentally shot his two-year-old brother that gun control is wrong?"

HUH???

Like to explan that one for me?

Rem33 -- I think this works better if re-phrased:

How do you tell the family of a four-year-old who was accidentally shot by his five-year-old playmate that gun control is wrong?

 

[BillCA]

JimPeel - excellent post and spot-on.

AppleSanity - in re: emotional appeals
It used to be common to hear tales of people who died or were horribly injured in a car crash because they wore a seat belt. Either they weren't thrown clear or they were "trapped" by the seatbelt. I'm sure it happens, but like firearms, the lives they save outweigh the cases where they make things worse for the user.

Yes, there are "emotional appeal" cases that can be used for Pro-Gun arguments;

Ruth Brunell called the police on 20 different occasions to plead for protection from her husband. He was arrested only one time. One evening Mr. Brunell telephoned his wife and told her he was coming over to kill her. When she called the police, they refused her request that they come to protect her. They told her to call back when he got there. Mr. Brunell stabbed his wife to death before she could call the police to tell them that he was there. The court held that the San Jose police were not liable for ignoring Mrs. Brunell's pleas for help. Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App. 3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975).

In the Gun-Control Utopia of Washington D.C.
Warren v. District of Columbia: Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: ``For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers.'' The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a ``fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.'' Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).

And there are stories of "converts" too...

Bleeding and weakened from the bullet wound in her chest, Susan Gonzalez aimed her husband's .22-caliber pistol, the one she hated, and emptied it into one of the robbers who had burst through the front door of her rural Jacksonville home.

Those shots ended the life of one robber, led to a life prison term for another and became an epiphany for Gonzalez, a 41-year-old mother of five who runs a photography studio.

Gonzalez had always feared guns, never wanted a gun and argued with her husband, Mike, to please not keep guns in their home.

"I hated guns, all of them," she said. "I was that scared of them that I didn't want them around."

That all changed that terror-filled night nearly three years ago when Susan Gonzalez fought for her life inside her family's home near Jacksonville International Airport.

She and her husband, 43, no longer argue about guns, and she goes almost nowhere without her holstered Taurus .38 Special. She sits with it while watching television and takes it outside to do yardwork.

She joined advocacy groups such as Women Against Gun Control and the Second Amendment Sisters.

And she became a vocal opponent of gun control, traveling to Washington in May to meet with President Clinton and counter-organizers of the Million Mom March, which organized a huge Mother's Day rally to support gun control legislation. She recently taped a segment scheduled to air on ABC-TV's 20/20 in the fall. And this month, she was filmed by a British TV crew for a documentary on Americans and guns.

Gonzalez's story is naturally compelling because she was anti-gun and because she successfully defended herself against an armed intruder after being shot herself, said Janalee Tobias, founder and president of Women Against Gun Control.

"She actually fired a gun," Tobias said. In most cases where potential victims protect themselves, Tobias said, a person is able to scare off an intruder simply by displaying a weapon.

Gonzalez never imagined herself advocating gun owners' rights. She still weeps at the memory of taking a man's life.

But she said she thinks it's important that stories like hers get told.

"Two and a half years ago I felt just like all them other women [at the Million Mom March]," she said. "You hear about criminals with guns, and you hear about kids committing suicide with guns, but you never hear about the self-defense aspect."

 

[applesanity]

Like to explan that one for me?

Was playing the devil's advocate there, brother. Hence the quotes around the sentence.

 

[rem33]

Was playing the devil's advocate there, brother. Hence the quotes around the sentence.

How do you tell the family of a four-year-old who was accidentally shot by his five-year-old playmate that gun control is wrong?

OK I just missed how gun control has anything to do with a 5 year old getting a gun in his hand in the first place.
Lets not argue about it I misunderstood gun control versus parental responsibility.
Devils advocate it is.

 

[applesanity]

Of course it's all about parental responsibility.

Just showing an (okay I admit it, badly worded) example of how using lots of emotion can obscure any rationality.

 

[samoand]

This is a tragic story with morbidly ironic twist. Massachusetts gets A- from Brady... Gun control groups can hardly even use this incident to their advantage, bradies already have their way in Boston. Blaming late parties is a lame explanation of failure of gun control laws to bring safety to the streets, and here is the irony: mayer seriously suggests it to the public that the way to fix lack of positive result of one infringement (anti-constitutional firearm laws) is by introducing another one. This goes quite well to show modus operandi of anti-freedomers (erroneously called liberals)

Oh, an unrelated observation.

Police said Monday they have already been cracking down on the illegal parties, where organizers serve alcohol and take a cover charge. The events are promoted on the Internet and other underground media.

Internet and other underground media.. yeah... welcome back to early 90-s

 

[JuanCarlos]

Yes, there are "emotional appeal" cases that can be used for Pro-Gun arguments;

*goes on to provide good ones*

I think the difference (at least to many) between the pro-gun emotional appear and anti-gun emotional appeal arguments is that often (though obviously not always) the tragedies that anti-gunners bring up would definitely have been prevented by the laws they propose.

For instance, Billy and Danny, ages 5 and 6, and playing around in the house while mom is downstairs. Billy finds Danny's dad's gun, shoots Danny in the face by accident. Or some such. Were guns illegal, it's presumed that Danny's dad (being a law-abiding citizen) wouldn't have had one, and the tragedy would never have happened. Same goes for requiring stupid things like trigger locks, safe storage, etc.

Sure, Danny may have been hit by a bus the next day...but the point remains that often the measure being proposed would logically have prevented, beyond any reasonable doubt, the incident that occurred.

On the other hand, with many of the crime victims that the pro-gun side brings up there is a very real possibility that the introduction of a gun into the victims possession would not have prevented the crime. It's possible that given a nice compact pistol a woman would still have been raped in the alley, or given a pistol or shotgun the woman murdered in her apartment would still have been killed. The addition of guns often doesn't reduce the chances of Tragedy A occurring nearly as much as the removal of a gun prevents Tragedy B occurring (which is almost definite, in the example provided).

Of course, the anti-gun stance totally ignores several glaring flaws: right off the bat you've got unintended consequences (say, slightly older children killed because attacker came when parents weren't home and guns were locked up) as well as the idea that often Tragedy B (Billy shooting Danny) can be prevented by other means (education, parental supervision, etc).

However, to somebody with preconceived notions regarding guns (and who is thus unlikely to see those flaws) the anti-gun stance makes much more sense. Which is why education and outreach is so important.

 

[SecDef]

However, to somebody with preconceived notions regarding guns (and who is thus unlikely to see those flaws) the anti-gun stance makes much more sense. Which is why education and outreach is so important.

Nothing really to add. Just want to repeat it so it is not ignored. I'm sure there will be replies to the bulk of your post, ignoring this last part which is the true point.

 

[joab]

Saturday with two friends and went with a larger group to an after-hours house party in a high-crime area of the city's Dorchester neighborhood.

Why not just ban high crime areas? Seems like that would be at least as effective as banning the shooting of people in high crime areas

But wouldn't expecting people who frequent high crime areas to take responsibility for their own protection be more appropriate in this case.
Of course that responsibility would probably include not partying in high crime areas

 

[CobrayCommando]

Why is it that the ones who get killed are always the "Good person who was a straight A etc., etc. ..."? This one was high school valedictorian.

Those are probably just the ones that make the news and/or catch peoples attention. As already mentioned, it's mostly when pretty blonde coeds dissapear in Aruba that "the nationwide manhunt is on!" It takes a spectacular twist for a missing black girl to start a nationwide manhunt.

Why not just ban high crime areas?

 

[jimpeel]

I think the difference (at least to many) between the pro-gun emotional appear and anti-gun emotional appeal arguments is that often (though obviously not always) the tragedies that anti-gunners bring up would definitely have been prevented by the laws they propose.

The laws, as proposed didn't reduce the murder rate in DC even though the mere possession of a firearm in DC can get you sent to prison.

For instance, Billy and Danny, ages 5 and 6, and playing around in the house while mom is downstairs. Billy finds Danny's dad's gun, shoots Danny in the face by accident. Or some such. Were guns illegal, it's presumed that Danny's dad (being a law-abiding citizen) wouldn't have had one, and the tragedy would never have happened.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27528

Same goes for requiring stupid things like trigger locks, safe storage, etc.

After the Kala Rowland shooting, Clinton said someting like even crack dealers would respect trigger lock laws if it would protect children.

Sure, Danny may have been hit by a bus the next day...but the point remains that often the measure being proposed would logically have prevented, beyond any reasonable doubt, the incident that occurred.

This is what the antis state would happen with suicides if all firearms were banned -- while totally ignoring other means; or the suicide rate in Japan where firearms are strictly regulated.

On the other hand, with many of the crime victims that the pro-gun side brings up there is a very real possibility that the introduction of a gun into the victims possession would not have prevented the crime. It's possible that given a nice compact pistol a woman would still have been raped in the alley, or given a pistol or shotgun the woman murdered in her apartment would still have been killed. The addition of guns often doesn't reduce the chances of Tragedy A occurring nearly as much as the removal of a gun prevents Tragedy B occurring (which is almost definite, in the example provided).

All we want is to have a 50-50 chance -- parity, as it were -- with the criminals. No one says the outcme will always be with the good guy.

If you both have a firearm your chances of survival start at 50-50. If only the prepetrator has a firearm, your chances of survival start at zero and only improve at the benevolence of the perpetrator.

Of course, the anti-gun stance totally ignores several glaring flaws: right off the bat you've got unintended consequences (say, slightly older children killed because attacker came when parents weren't home and guns were locked up) as well as the idea that often Tragedy B (Billy shooting Danny) can be prevented by other means (education, parental supervision, etc).

You mean LIKE THIS?

However, to somebody with preconceived notions regarding guns (and who is thus unlikely to see those flaws) the anti-gun stance makes much more sense. Which is why education and outreach is so important.

 

[applesanity]

You mean LIKE THIS?

Like I said, I'm not too keen on using anecdotal evidence, especially emotional ones.

But hey, if the other side likes to talk about killing children - I swear, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) probably jumps up and down in ecstasy every time a five year girl gets her head blown off. "Another martyr for our cause! Rock on!"

I have some self-respect.

 

[jimpeel]

I posted this on TFL 02-19-2000

Thread title: VPC says that Eddie Eagle is Joe Camel with Feathers:

Josh Sugarman started spouting this crap two years ago to which I responded. These people have no love of any program that educates kids to the dangers of firearms. They need victims, especially young victims, to justify their own existence. Their entire organization(s) is built on victims and without them they are nothing. They need stupid kids because they need victims. That is why these people are soulless vestiges of evil. The problem is, everyone knows that but them.

Read HERE to see the full letter to the editor that I wrote at that time.