Manhunt underway in Pittsburgh area after 5 partygoers shot dead

If it is Black on Black killing, But we are also seeing increased attacks by neo Nazi groups and suspected KKK. So lets wait until someone is caught before we speculate. The important thing is catch the actual perps, and not just whoever the police find to be convenient , as has happened in some murders. Black deaths often are not investigated with the same vigor as the deaths of White people by our police. There is also a possibility that the wrong victims were targeted, we have had that even in crime shootings. It doesn't make the victims any less dead.

Serious examination of gun violence and gun regulation has been outlawed by the NRA and the accomplices in the US Congress. The five murders are not about race. They are about access to weapons designed for military assault and the GOP/Tea has eliminated all research and scientific analysis of gun violence at the demand of the NRA. This is a fact.

It is not outlawed at all, if universities and other NGOs want to spend their own money on gun violence research they can, it is perfectly legal to do that. All that has happened is that federal government can't fund a gun violence research project where its conclusion explicitly state or call for gun control. In other words if they did research breaking down the sex and age of the people most likely to be the perpetrators of gun violence but didn't explicitly call for an age restriction as a result of their findings then the government could in fact provide funding for that research.

But not having guns makes it harder to murder.

That is a true statement with every object, it is harder to kill someone if you don't possess anything.

That one is different. Junkies will buy heroin because they are junkies, and physically and mentally addicted. Gun addicts don't have that physical addiction, and the huge majority aren't going to rob their families to get money to buy a gun. So it's not really an equivalent comparison.

Marijuana isn't addictive and yet you have more people breaking the law than heroin junkies.

And America has a major problem with it - so guns should be removed to minimize the number of deaths that come from that lawless behavior.

Ah more hyperbole, how is a one hundredth of one percent mortality rate of the population a huge problem?

America has a bigger problem with Alcohol then it does with firearms in terms of the number of deaths, emergency room visits and violent crimes committed by people intoxicated. Do you believe that Alcohol should be removed to minimize the number of deaths comes from that lawless behavior?

How lawless do you think America is?

So why make any law? Why consider the source of poisoned water? Poisoned air?

To act as a guideline or best practices, especially for people who do not have malicious intentions. For people who have malicious intentions rules/laws are worthless, the only thing that stops people with malicious intentions is violence/force, and that is where law enforcement comes into play, to use force/violence against people who don't comply.

Rules/laws that make illegal the ownership of a product or service only really apply to those with malicious intentions. If you are someone who doesn't have malicious intentions then the law really shouldn't apply to you, it does really nothing to improve public safety.

Getting tough on gun crimes means people get punished after they shoot someone in the face. Getting tough on guns means they can't shoot someone in the face, for which they can be punished. Getting tough on gun crime and not guns is treating the symptom, not the problem.

Same argument used on drugs and yet it doesn't work on a practical basis. Gun violence is not evenly distributed among the population of gun owners. Gun violence, and violence in general, is extremely concentrated among a very a very small population of the larger population. For example Sweden found that 1% of its population is responsible for nearly 63% of its crime. I believe it is estimated that just over 400 people in the NYC metropolitan population of over 10 million+ people is responsible for around 40-50% of all gun crimes. Research has shown that in general that 5-8% of criminal population is responsible for around 50% of all violent crime.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2015/oct/06/dan-patrick/dan-patrick-says-all-crime-estimate-committed-15-p/

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131206111644.htm

In other words arresting people who commit the violent crimes has a much bigger impact on reducing violent crime then getting rid of firearms that are owned by non violent people. Confiscating the firearms of Montana ranchers does nothing for the gun crimes in Chicago; just like how confiscating the guns in Hawaii does nothing for the gun crime in LA California or Washington D.C.

Getting tough on guns or gun crime is treating the symptom and not the cause.

Truth hurts Wc guns don't kill idiot irrational people do. The same could be said with knives and last but not least computers don't make racial inferences and thoughtless comments idiots do. I get your point ironman and you are correct. Mr. OC area code 626 fell for the trap on the bait as his guilty conscious made him respond because he is quick to blame others.

No, attention should be focused on gun control.

Here's one for you: Guns do not save lives. Look at FBI gun statistics. Guns were used in some 8,000 murders last year. Justifiable homicide by firearm: 155. It is quite clear guns do not save lives.

Yet, the gun nuts site a survey which claims that guns prevent millions of crimes every year. How can this difference be explained?

Actually, I was addressing my request to kcjapan in response to the statement that the "GOP/Tea has eliminated all research and scientific analysis of gun violence at the demand of the NRA. This is a fact." ( kcjapan, thanks for the link.)

But as to your question, I think the best explanation for the difference we see between the FBI statistics and the claimed incidents of firearm related crime prevention is that they are two different subjects. The FBI is reporting the number of individuals intentionally killed with a firearm, justified of not. The claims you refer to are giving the estimated number of incidents where a crime was prevented by the use of a firearm. It's just two different things.

Now about the claim that guns prevent crime, where do those numbers come from? One source is the CDC. Back in the early days of Obama's second term he commissioned, through executive order,a study entitled "Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence" The goal was to compile data to use as a guide for future research on gun violence. The CDC was instructed to do research on the causes of gun violence and possible prevention strategies.

Later that year the CDC released it's report on the research conducted by the Institute of Medicine and The National Research Council. Here are some excerpts from their findings:

"almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.”

“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies,”

If we can trust the findings of an agency who's director is a Presidential appointee, working on direct orders from the President himself; then I think it is clear that guns do sometimes save lives.

The study also reported something that relates to the story above. African American men are disproportionately affected by firearm violence with “diminished economic opportunities . . . high levels of family disruption” and “low levels of community participation.” being the highest risk factors.

Maybe that's where we should be focusing our attention.

I used to live in Wilkinsburg. I see it hasn't changed. My sister's best friend was killed in a mass shooting many years ago on the other side of Pittsburgh. Overall though, it is a nice city in a area of the country.

I'd like to see criminals convicted of felons (and if "armed" during the commission of that felony) get an extra 10 yrs just for "being" armed.

That would definitely be a good move.

Getting tough on gun crime and not guns is treating the symptom, not the problem.

You're right. But I'd like to see criminals convicted of felons (and if "armed" during the commission of that felony) get an extra 10 yrs just for "being" armed. Or some other strict punishment to act as a deterrent for criminals thinkin of using guns in crimes in the first place.

I'm all for it. Get tough on gun crime. Not guns.

Getting tough on gun crimes means people get punished after they shoot someone in the face. Getting tough on guns means they can't shoot someone in the face, for which they can be punished.

Getting tough on gun crime and not guns is treating the symptom, not the problem.

Gun perverts are addicted to their guns.

This couldn't more true in the Black community. Where 9 year old youths are shot execution style by an (x-con) Black male adult in Chicago.

http://wbtw.com/2015/11/30/9-year-old-boy-shot-execution-style-in-alley-targeted-by-gang-members-police-say/

because the NRA doesn't like the thought of actually getting tough on gun crime.

I'm all for it. Get tough on gun crime. Not guns.

USA confiscation

Emote, why don't you?

if it were ever to happen

(pauses for reflection on cold, dead hands)

they would be made in back street shops and imported across the border

No back street for the people-haters selling the dildos of death. They have the politicians in their pockets!

The sins of the father shall be visited upon the unborn foetus?

Another opportunity for the gun perverts to gibbber "black on black' crime.

@iron man. The made no mention of "black on black" so what are you basing ur statement on?

Just as a quick word of support for those seeking information on gun violence and lack of regulation in the States. Here's one search result that may be a stepping stone for further research.

"One of those killed, Tina Shelton, was a mother of five who held down three jobs and was encouraged by family members to attend the barbecue as a way to relax after work,"

Does that help paint the picture of what the NRA has created? Yes, yes it does.

If this is truly a fact then it should be pretty easy to back it up with some factual evidence. Maybe you could provide us "good readers" with some. A link maybe?

Here's one for you: Guns do not save lives. Look at FBI gun statistics. Guns were used in some 8,000 murders last year. Justifiable homicide by firearm: 155. It is quite clear guns do not save lives.

Yet, the gun nuts site a survey which claims that guns prevent millions of crimes every year. How can this difference be explained?

Here is how: The majority of NRA's funding comes from large firearms manufacturers. The NRA does not care about safety or doing what is right, they care about getting that money every year.

Everytime there is a shooting, the NRA trots out some hairbrained idea like arming teachers or hiring veterans for security guards, because the NRA doesn't like the thought of actually getting tough on gun crime.

Quick note for those who cannot operate search engines. Think of what you are interested in: "NRA influence in gun research". Then copy and paste into the search box provide by Google, Alta Visa, Netscape ect. PRESS> ENTER. Read results. Example: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/04/24/5-facts-about-the-nra-and-guns-in-america/

Serious examination of gun violence and gun regulation has been outlawed by the NRA and the accomplices in the US Congress. The five murders are not about race. They are about access to weapons designed for military assault and the GOP/Tea has eliminated all research and scientific analysis of gun violence at the demand of the NRA. This is a fact.

If this is truly a fact then it should be pretty easy to back it up with some factual evidence. Maybe you could provide us "good readers" with some. A link maybe?

Lawless behavior is the problem - comments

And no regulations will ever stop lawless behavior. No penalty or expense can stop drink drive. No penalty or expense can stop anything that harms anyone. No environmental regulation. No transportation safety code. No Public Health regulation. Killing with a gun is what people do. AND NOTHING can stop that, ever.

So why make any law? Why consider the source of poisoned water? Poisoned air?

Let the good reader see one common denominator in the American gun slaughter. The NRA has outlawed knowledge, education, discussion and analysis. And that can NEVER be stopped.

Good point.

Lawless behavior is the problem.

And America has a major problem with it - so guns should be removed to minimize the number of deaths that come from that lawless behavior.

The reality is guns do exist. USA confiscation if it were ever to happen they would be made in back street shops and imported across the border unless Trump builds that wall then Mexican imports of drugs and guns would be more difficult.

Lawless behavior is the problem. Europe now has lawless behavior by some who arrogantly immigrated into a very different culture than they know. USA has a similar problem with the southern border. Break the law to enter US then break more laws driving w/o a drivers license, and break even more laws paying no taxes and some even make a good business selling drugs.

More deaths of innocent people who have never touched the vile instrument of their destruction.

Well, it definitely leads to more deaths.

I agree,

Its worse.

I agree, but not in the same way heroin junkies are addicted to heroin.

Strangerland

Gun perverts are addicted to their guns.

I'd say the greater problem is those who choose to ignore the laws. - comments

And maybe those who dictate the laws from very nice offices at National Rifle Association of America, 11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030?

Hypothetically here, IF all guns were confiscated dou any of you really think gangs would not have guns?

If all guns were confiscated, yes. All guns being confiscated would mean there are no guns - so how would the gangs have guns? They wouldn't, because they would have all been confiscated.

Murder is illegal yet it didn't stop these scumbags.

But not having guns makes it harder to murder.

Driving drunk is against the law.....happens everyday.

Not as much as if it were legal.

Heroin use is not legal, we have a ton of junkies.

That one is different. Junkies will buy heroin because they are junkies, and physically and mentally addicted. Gun addicts don't have that physical addiction, and the huge majority aren't going to rob their families to get money to buy a gun. So it's not really an equivalent comparison.

Hypothetically here, IF all guns were confiscated dou any of you really think gangs would not have guns? Murder is illegal yet it didn't stop these scumbags. Driving drunk is against the law.....happens everyday. Heroin use is not legal, we have a ton of junkies.

I have known people killed by drunk drivers. I have known heroin users who have died of overdose. I know of only one man killed by an armed robber. I'd say the greater problem is those who choose to ignore the laws.

Serious examination of gun violence and gun regulation has been outlawed by the NRA and the accomplices in the US Congress. The five murders are not about race. They are about access to weapons designed for military assault and the GOP/Tea has eliminated all research and scientific analysis of gun violence at the demand of the NRA. This is a fact.

ooooo goody! Another opportunity for the gun perverts to gibbber "black on black' crime.

Police recovered 49 bullet casings from two different guns at the crime scene.

As one poster has already observed, gun control doesn't work when there isn't any.