10 people shot, 1 victim dead, at Detroit block party

[Lite Beer]

10 people shot, 1 victim dead, at Detroit block party

DETROIT (AP) — Ten people were shot and one of them died when someone opened fire at a block party on a basketball court in Detroit.

Police were not releasing the identity of the person killed in the shooting on Saturday night.

The Detroit Free Press (http://on.freep.com/1QJMyx8 ) said one other person was in critical condition.

Detroit Asst. Police Chief Steve Dolunt said authorities do not know the reason for the shooting.

No other information was immediately released.

-- (c) Associated Press 2015-06-21

[Seastallion]

Sorry for the injured and the dead. but I'm sure the perpetrator had the right to bear arms.

Perhaps he (I assume "he") thought the victims were a sleeper cell for a tyrannical government?

[NeverSure]

Don't go into these neighborhoods. The occupants tear them up, fill them with crime, and run the landlords off. This is where it happened.

[wangsuda]

Yeah baby! More guns! Dammit, where was the good guy with a gun to stop all of this?

/sarcasm

[HenryB]

I bet another mad white man

[Seastallion]

Yeah baby! More guns! Dammit, where was the good guy with a gun to stop all of this?

/sarcasm

I believe the correct quote of that Republican dude was "good guy with equal or superior weapon".

[Loptr]

Yeah baby! More guns! Dammit, where was the good guy with a gun to stop all of this?

/sarcasm

I believe the correct quote of that Republican dude was "good guy with equal or superior weapon".

And I believe you will find mostly democrats live in Detroit... Whether the shooter legally owned the weapon or not is a different matter, but we know, you don;t care...

[chuckd]

Sorry for the injured and the dead. but I'm sure the perpetrator had the right to bear arms.

Perhaps he (I assume "he") thought the victims were a sleeper cell for a tyrannical government?

I seriously doubt the gun was legally obtained and owned.

I'm sure you are wrong yet again.

[Seastallion]

Sorry for the injured and the dead. but I'm sure the perpetrator had the right to bear arms.

Perhaps he (I assume "he") thought the victims were a sleeper cell for a tyrannical government?

I seriously doubt the gun was legally obtained and owned.

I'm sure you are wrong yet again.

Childish snipes, and flawed ones at that, don't help the discussion.

In your haste to desperately try to find fault (which you rarely actually do), you have missed the sarcasm.

[daoyai]

I bet another mad white man

Don't think so, only 10% kill ratio.. the shooter doesn't go to the range.

[arjunadawn]

Sorry for the injured and the dead. but I'm sure the perpetrator had the right to bear arms.

Perhaps he (I assume "he") thought the victims were a sleeper cell for a tyrannical government?

Its highly unlikely that the perp had the right to bear arms. The percentage for felonious people in Detroit is shockingly high. The recidivism rate is stunning. It would never be a first refuge to presume that this man had the right to bear arms, a right that is forfeiting following felony convictions. The leap to connect the two is therefore topical or a drive by hit.

Detroit is among the most violent places on earth. The only reason 10 people shot 1 dead means anything to the US media is because of the current context it fits within. The single remaining civil option to save the lives of Detroit citizens, ironically, resides in the right to keep and bear arms for the law abiding citizens that remain in that hell. After years in Baghdad, Sunni Triangle, Sanaa, Islamabad, NWFP, Kabul and others, I would rather survive 24 hours there then in Detroit or Cleveland.

The police chief has made clear only citizens arming themselves may save their lives.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/aug/17/police-guns-detroit-crime-race-cost-issues

Obama et al intends to do for America what liberal/progressive polices have done for Detroit, Chicago, Phily, etc.

Detroit is nearly all black. Blacks in America traditionally vote en masse democratic/liberal/progressive. Therefore, it is not hard to see what destroyed this city. Detroit is not dead because it is black rather because it was liberal progressive recipient of dependency resulting in no human industry.

http://sbpdl.net/2012/03/28/detroits-collapse-is-100-percent-because-of-its-89-percent-black-population/

[Seastallion]

Drive by hit, AJD. Sarcasm. A poke at the 2nd amendment and the ensuing gun culture.

It can be argued that the OP incident, the Charleston incident, and 1000 others would never have happened if the US, both administratively and amongst the people, had a different attitude towards guns.

Edited June 21, 2015 by Seastallion

[daoyai]

Detroit is dead because the auto and supporting industry was moved overseas by god loving conservatives.

[arjunadawn]

Drive by hit, AJD. Sarcasm. A poke at the 2nd amendment and the ensuing gun culture.

It can be argued that the OP incident, the Charleston incident, and 1000 others would never have happened if the US, both administratively and amongst the people, had a different attitude towards guns.

Not only could it be argued that these incidents may never have happened it is actually the only argument that is discussed.The one sided presentation of demonizing weapons has a "..Gods Must Be Crazy" consequence where an ignorant population comes to believe that guns, like the Pepsi bottle that fell from the sky, must have inherent first cause. "It is the gun!" It is not the gun nor has it ever been the gun, it is people.

In decades of liberal gun control in large democratic/progressive cities the only thing that has been accomplished is turning law abiding citizens into unarmed targets; thus the cities emptied of the productive and fruitful members, the tax base dried up, opportunities plummets, and then the cries of help us help us rang out- more government. The only problem with gun control is that the only people targeted are the innocents. Where it might be argued (but is not) that yes, the innocents are getting swept up disproportionately first but the policies in time will bear fruit and simultaneously we are applying pressure through the illegal market by..x.. y..z. The problem is, they do not apply pressures through the illegal market with any utility. The Obama administration is more complicit in illegal firearms trade than all the Americans who have ever lived, in all times, combined! This government, both domestically and internationally, stimulates the underground trade in firearms demonstrating definitively that government is less concerned about firearms then they are concerned with you having firearms. This palpable fact makes the ownership of firearms more incumbent.

Is the analogy valid? Yes! It is valid because the only crap that comes from this liberal drivel is more incremental obstacles to regular innocent people owning weapons.

Only a fool thinks disarming a population makes everyone brotherly. Disarming a population just makes targets out of moms and dads and cheerleaders, and churches and schools, and grandmas and disabled, etc. Only in a world with historical linkage broken do people not grasp the final and only valid reason to own firearms, to check government. Every other comment is epilogue.

Note: I should have noted your sarcasm; missed that.

Edited June 21, 2015 by arjunadawn

[OccamsRazor]

Detroit is dead because the auto and supporting industry was moved overseas by god loving conservatives.

That wasn't the start of the decline, started much earlier and for several different reasons. Anatomy of Detroit’s Decline

[arjunadawn]

Detroit is dead because the auto and supporting industry was moved overseas by god loving conservatives.

A perfect example of both a true and false sentence, concealing pejorative and innuendo. Nicely done. Unfortunately, it is not smartly done.

Detroit was injured in large part because the industry moved overseas, correct. But this is not why Detroit could not evolve, adapt, and prosper. This is not why

Detroit is dead.

The notion that conservatives are responsible for NAFTA or any other mechanisms that sent jobs overseas is partially correct, but deceitfully offered.

Democrats are just as guilty of this crime. In fact, all the way up to the arguments today for the TTP etc dems and repubs have equally conspired

to destroy this nation under their nonsense visions of selling out America. So, there is great indictment to go around.

Yet your indictment is revealed in associating as a pejorative "god" with the conservatives, which means nothing... nothing at all generally and nothing regarding your point.

If it had meaning it might be deduced to state 'people who love god kill Detroit.' Thus the sentence is really bitter and pointless.

[Seastallion]

Drive by hit, AJD. Sarcasm. A poke at the 2nd amendment and the ensuing gun culture.

It can be argued that the OP incident, the Charleston incident, and 1000 others would never have happened if the US, both administratively and amongst the people, had a different attitude towards guns.

Not only could it be argued that these incidents may never have happened it is actually the only argument that is discussed.The one sided presentation of demonizing weapons has a "..Gods Must Be Crazy" consequence where an ignorant population comes to believe that guns, like the Pepsi bottle that fell from the sky, must have inherent first cause. "It is the gun!" It is not the gun nor has it ever been the gun, it is people.

In decades of liberal gun control in large democratic/progressive cities the only thing that has been accomplished is turning law abiding citizens into unarmed targets; thus the cities emptied of the productive and fruitful members, the tax base dried up, opportunities plummets, and then the cries of help us help us rang out- more government. The only problem with gun control is that the only people targeted are the innocents. Where it might be argued (but is not) that yes, the innocents are getting swept up disproportionately first but the policies in time will bear fruit and simultaneously we are applying pressure through the illegal market by..x.. y..z. The problem is, they do not apply pressures through the illegal market with any utility. The Obama administration is more complicit in illegal firearms trade than all the Americans who have ever lived, in all times, combined! This government, both domestically and internationally, stimulates the underground trade in firearms demonstrating definitively that government is less concerned about firearms then they are concerned with you having firearms. This palpable fact makes the ownership of firearms more incumbent.

Is the analogy valid? Yes! It is valid because the only crap that comes from this liberal drivel is more incremental obstacles to regular innocent people owning weapons.

Only a fool thinks disarming a population makes everyone brotherly. Disarming a population just makes targets out of moms and dads and cheerleaders, and churches and schools, and grandmas and disabled, etc. Only in a world with historical linkage broken do people not grasp the final and only valid reason to own firearms, to check government. Every other comment is epilogue.

Note: I should have noted your sarcasm; missed that.

A variation of guns don't kill people, people kill people.

But people without guns can't kill nearly as many people! Take the gun away from people, and people can't kill people (as easily,...for the pedantic readers)

But my poke at the 2nd amendment is not all about "taking your guns" (a phrase that is used in a way and tone tantamount to "they're trying to take our children!!!!"), it's about the culture, the mindset, the attitude.

You only have to look at the countries where there are strict gun controls and the citizens are comfortable with those controls, to see that it does make a difference to the number of innocent people that are killed. A vast difference.

The difference in population between NZ and the US is a factor of about 80. Cops killed "feloniously" (FBI) from 1980 to 2014 total 2176. Cops shot in NZ over the same time, 6. Take the factor of 80...480. 480 in a gun controlled and accepting of gun controls society vs 2176 in a no gun control and little tolerance for gun control society.

480 vs 2176. Staggering.

Either the cops are smarter, tougher, and better trained in NZ or gun control works.

[willyumiii]

Don't go into these neighborhoods. The occupants tear them up, fill them with crime, and run the landlords off. This is where it happened.

dcfy.jpg

And that makes it o.k.?

America's enemies do not need to attack.

America's love of guns is killing them off quite nicely.

[MaeJoMTB]

I bet another mad white man

You've never been to Detroit then?

[arjunadawn]

A variation of guns don't kill people, people kill people.

But people without guns can't kill nearly as many people! Take the gun away from people, and people can't kill people (as easily,...for the pedantic readers)

But my poke at the 2nd amendment is not all about "taking your guns" (a phrase that is used in a way and tone tantamount to "they're trying to take our children!!!!"), it's about the culture, the mindset, the attitude.

You only have to look at the countries where there are strict gun controls and the citizens are comfortable with those controls, to see that it does make a difference to the number of innocent people that are killed. A vast difference.

The difference in population between NZ and the US is a factor of about 80. Cops killed "feloniously" (FBI) from 1980 to 2014 total 2176. Cops shot in NZ over the same time, 6. Take the factor of 80...480. 480 in a gun controlled and accepting of gun controls society vs 2176 in a no gun control and little tolerance for gun control society.

480 vs 2176. Staggering.

Either the cops are smarter, tougher, and better trained in NZ or gun control works.

The data is pretty overwhelming that gun control does not work.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/09/24/how-gun-control-made-england-the-most-violent-country-in-europe/

http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

I suppose the nature of the problem is that data both supports and refutes gun control. But the most pressing point with regard to the US is the Bill of Rights. There is a reason it is number two and this is not to hunt for food. Everyday violent data in the US supports not that guns should be controlled but that those who should not have guns should be controlled. There is no formula to address this. The only people who suffer under gun control are those who would have followed the law in any event, generally.

[willyumiii]

Drive by hit, AJD. Sarcasm. A poke at the 2nd amendment and the ensuing gun culture.

It can be argued that the OP incident, the Charleston incident, and 1000 others would never have happened if the US, both administratively and amongst the people, had a different attitude towards guns.

Not only could it be argued that these incidents may never have happened it is actually the only argument that is discussed.The one sided presentation of demonizing weapons has a "..Gods Must Be Crazy" consequence where an ignorant population comes to believe that guns, like the Pepsi bottle that fell from the sky, must have inherent first cause. "It is the gun!" It is not the gun nor has it ever been the gun, it is people.

In decades of liberal gun control in large democratic/progressive cities the only thing that has been accomplished is turning law abiding citizens into unarmed targets; thus the cities emptied of the productive and fruitful members, the tax base dried up, opportunities plummets, and then the cries of help us help us rang out- more government. The only problem with gun control is that the only people targeted are the innocents. Where it might be argued (but is not) that yes, the innocents are getting swept up disproportionately first but the policies in time will bear fruit and simultaneously we are applying pressure through the illegal market by..x.. y..z. The problem is, they do not apply pressures through the illegal market with any utility. The Obama administration is more complicit in illegal firearms trade than all the Americans who have ever lived, in all times, combined! This government, both domestically and internationally, stimulates the underground trade in firearms demonstrating definitively that government is less concerned about firearms then they are concerned with you having firearms. This palpable fact makes the ownership of firearms more incumbent.

Is the analogy valid? Yes! It is valid because the only crap that comes from this liberal drivel is more incremental obstacles to regular innocent people owning weapons.

Only a fool thinks disarming a population makes everyone brotherly. Disarming a population just makes targets out of moms and dads and cheerleaders, and churches and schools, and grandmas and disabled, etc. Only in a world with historical linkage broken do people not grasp the final and only valid reason to own firearms, to check government. Every other comment is epilogue.

Note: I should have noted your sarcasm; missed that.

Your research is flawed, if you did any.

It was not a Pepsi bottle.

It was a Coke bottle.

[ToS2014]

Yeah baby! More guns! Dammit, where was the good guy with a gun to stop all of this?

/sarcasm

Not to infer that you have a silly position; however, guns DO NOT kill people, period. People kill people period.

[squarethecircle]

And make no mistake, the bureaucrats who helped to generate this are not living in these neighborhoods. They are basking it up in gated communities with their fancy sports cars. Socialism 101

[bangon04]

A variation of guns don't kill people, people kill people.

But people without guns can't kill nearly as many people! Take the gun away from people, and people can't kill people (as easily,...for the pedantic readers)

But my poke at the 2nd amendment is not all about "taking your guns" (a phrase that is used in a way and tone tantamount to "they're trying to take our children!!!!"), it's about the culture, the mindset, the attitude.

You only have to look at the countries where there are strict gun controls and the citizens are comfortable with those controls, to see that it does make a difference to the number of innocent people that are killed. A vast difference.

The difference in population between NZ and the US is a factor of about 80. Cops killed "feloniously" (FBI) from 1980 to 2014 total 2176. Cops shot in NZ over the same time, 6. Take the factor of 80...480. 480 in a gun controlled and accepting of gun controls society vs 2176 in a no gun control and little tolerance for gun control society.

480 vs 2176. Staggering.

Either the cops are smarter, tougher, and better trained in NZ or gun control works.

The data is pretty overwhelming that gun control does not work.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/09/24/how-gun-control-made-england-the-most-violent-country-in-europe/

http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

I suppose the nature of the problem is that data both supports and refutes gun control. But the most pressing point with regard to the US is the Bill of Rights. There is a reason it is number two and this is not to hunt for food. Everyday violent data in the US supports not that guns should be controlled but that those who should not have guns should be controlled. There is no formula to address this. The only people who suffer under gun control are those who would have followed the law in any event, generally.

The wonderful companies who make and sell guns in the US do not have a division making "illegal" guns. They make legal guns and they sell them to millions of not very smart US citizens, who for various reasons are unable to keep their legal guns safe from passing criminals, small children and more than a few lunatics on the fringes of society.

The legal guns become "illegal" guns, and the wonderful companies who make legal guns then sell more of them to the not very smart US citizens who have the inalienable right to own them.

Of course a country which has strict gun controls cannot claim to be free of illegal guns, but just do the maths.......

[Inepto Cracy]

Yeah baby! More guns! Dammit, where was the good guy with a gun to stop all of this?

/sarcasm

Not to infer that you have a silly position; however, guns DO NOT kill people, period. People kill people period.

While you having periods, none of your answers are correct sir.

The answer you need is that it is the bullets fired, that kill people.

[UKJASE]

Yeah baby! More guns! Dammit, where was the good guy with a gun to stop all of this?

/sarcasm

Not to infer that you have a silly position; however, guns DO NOT kill people, period. People kill people period.

this is such a poor argument by the gun lobby. it is like saying "dont ban crack, crack doesnt kill people, people kill people".

of course crack kills people, and of course guns kill people.

[Soutpeel]

Yeah baby! More guns! Dammit, where was the good guy with a gun to stop all of this?

/sarcasm

Not to infer that you have a silly position; however, guns DO NOT kill people, period. People kill people period.

this is such a poor argument by the gun lobby. it is like saying "dont ban crack, crack doesnt kill people, people kill people".

of course crack kills people, and of course guns kill people.

The argument itself is a philosophical in nature only, one could argue its a persons decision that kills people

ergo

crack in itself kills no one, but its someone's decision to ingest crack is what kills them

A firearm as an inanimate object,doesn't make the decision to discharge a round, its the person who holds said firearm who makes that decision.

BTW I am not part of the gun lobby either

[Seastallion]

Yeah baby! More guns! Dammit, where was the good guy with a gun to stop all of this?

/sarcasm

Not to infer that you have a silly position; however, guns DO NOT kill people, period. People kill people period.

this is such a poor argument by the gun lobby. it is like saying "dont ban crack, crack doesnt kill people, people kill people".

of course crack kills people, and of course guns kill people.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Ok....how about, People who don't have guns don't kill people. Take the guns away, and you have people who don't kill people.

So take their guns away!

[arjunadawn]

A variation of guns don't kill people, people kill people.

But people without guns can't kill nearly as many people! Take the gun away from people, and people can't kill people (as easily,...for the pedantic readers)

But my poke at the 2nd amendment is not all about "taking your guns" (a phrase that is used in a way and tone tantamount to "they're trying to take our children!!!!"), it's about the culture, the mindset, the attitude.

You only have to look at the countries where there are strict gun controls and the citizens are comfortable with those controls, to see that it does make a difference to the number of innocent people that are killed. A vast difference.

The difference in population between NZ and the US is a factor of about 80. Cops killed "feloniously" (FBI) from 1980 to 2014 total 2176. Cops shot in NZ over the same time, 6. Take the factor of 80...480. 480 in a gun controlled and accepting of gun controls society vs 2176 in a no gun control and little tolerance for gun control society.

480 vs 2176. Staggering.

Either the cops are smarter, tougher, and better trained in NZ or gun control works.

The data is pretty overwhelming that gun control does not work.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/09/24/how-gun-control-made-england-the-most-violent-country-in-europe/

http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

I suppose the nature of the problem is that data both supports and refutes gun control. But the most pressing point with regard to the US is the Bill of Rights. There is a reason it is number two and this is not to hunt for food. Everyday violent data in the US supports not that guns should be controlled but that those who should not have guns should be controlled. There is no formula to address this. The only people who suffer under gun control are those who would have followed the law in any event, generally.

The wonderful companies who make and sell guns in the US do not have a division making "illegal" guns. They make legal guns and they sell them to millions of not very smart US citizens, who for various reasons are unable to keep their legal guns safe from passing criminals, small children and more than a few lunatics on the fringes of society.

The legal guns become "illegal" guns, and the wonderful companies who make legal guns then sell more of them to the not very smart US citizens who have the inalienable right to own them.

Of course a country which has strict gun controls cannot claim to be free of illegal guns, but just do the maths.......

Keeping guns safe from passing criminals... you mean, those on the avenue, riding the elevated train at night, or those breaking in the windows and robbing you before you are home, or after? ...the criminals you meet in the park or those breaking in, raping your wife who cant access the gun in time and stealing it? "Passing criminals" is not only an odd use of language but it appears to minimize the role of criminals as being the singular problem irrespective of the nature of gun acquisition. Because 1 out of x violent or not robberies results in a stolen weapon and not a dead criminal does not mean that therefore home owners should forfeit their right to own a weapon for some perceived liberal experiment- that has not worked in one single location ever! The world is also full of statistics that have the criminals shot dead when they come into the basement window with a knife, while a child hides in a closet, before the weapon is stolen. Legal gun owners are not the problem> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

Well, gun control ostensibly seeks not to rid a country of guns but to rid a country of... violence. Lets consider UK, how has it worked out there? If the effort is guns and not violence it demonstrates the inherent magic and primal fear or the unknown liberals have in inanimate objects. It remains overwhelmingly clear that cars and knives should be outlawed long before guns. The absurdity that guns have a special place is both illogical and unsupportable. If the objective is minimizing violence, then address hammers and blunt objects first. http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/09/24/how-gun-control-made-england-the-most-violent-country-in-europe/

In closing, I thank you for making my argument for me: "Of course a country which has strict gun controls cannot claim to be free of illegal guns, but just do the maths......"

"...maths"-

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/crime-and-guns/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/

[Soutpeel]

Yeah baby! More guns! Dammit, where was the good guy with a gun to stop all of this?

/sarcasm

Not to infer that you have a silly position; however, guns DO NOT kill people, period. People kill people period.

this is such a poor argument by the gun lobby. it is like saying "dont ban crack, crack doesnt kill people, people kill people".

of course crack kills people, and of course guns kill people.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Ok....how about, People who don't have guns don't kill people. Take the guns away, and you have people who don't kill people.

So take their guns away!

but the fact is, if some one wants to kill, some else in the absence of a firearm, they will just use another "tool" anyway

I will a agree with you in fact, that a firearm makes it "easier" to kill some one, but taking away a firearm doesn't infer "you have people who don't kill people"