1 killed, 4 injured in Richmond church shooting (Homeless Outreach)

[Ichingcarpenter]

Source: SF Gate

Five people were shot in front of a Richmond church this morning as they were setting up for a homeless outreach event, Richmond police Lt. Mark Gagan said.

About 7:27 a.m. today members of the Church of the Living God were preparing for an event in the 400 block of Florida Avenue in the city's Santa Fe neighborhood when a red Chevy pickup drove by.

The truck's occupant, described as a black man wearing a red hooded sweatshirt, fired multiple rounds at the group, striking five people.

One person was killed, three were seriously injured and one was critically injured, Gagan said.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/baycitynews/a/2008/03/30/church30.DTL

---

I didn't see this posted on page 1 of LBN

[mike_c]

1. how much more proof do we need that gun laws are too restrictive...

...in this country?

:sarcasm:

[LeftyMom]

2. Well, maybe the homeless should shoot back next time.

:sarcasm:

[mike_c]

8. it was only a matter of time before someone responded similarly...

...but apparently seriously.

[Ichingcarpenter]

3. A homeless outreach event by a church

gets answered by gunfire.... I can't imagine the motive of the shooter.

[mike_c]

6. my feeling is that easy access to guns allows people to act out...

...their motives in especially violent and fatal ways, no matter what their actual motives are. Maybe he had a beef with someone, maybe he didn't like the event, or maybe he was just in a damned pissy mood. Without the guns, he would have likely gotten into a fight with someone, or kicked his dog, or whatever. Maybe nothing.

The primary reason I'm such a staunch advocate of gun control-- very strict gun control-- is that the actual motive is usually irrelevant. People WILL have issues with one another. People WILL do bad things to one another. Most people WILL be inexplicably violent a few times during their lives. At that crossroads in their lives the outcome often depends utterly upon whether the person with the motive, whatever that motive might be, has a gun or not. Right or wrong, the moment changes forever and someone is dead or maimed rather than angry and bloody-nosed, but with the rest of their lives to overcome the experience. Take away the gun, and the event will usually play out very differently, and everyone is much more likely to walk away.

[merwin]

10. Then explain why Canada, with very lax gun laws, doesn't have these issues?

I'm all for gun control, but taking away guns is not going to fix the problem.

[Moochy]

15. I'm not in favor of illegal guns

I'm in favor of some sort of illegal gun sweep in blighted high-crime areas... I know that's not very libertarian.

This economically divided city of Richmond (which I happen to reside in) has one of the highest gun death rates in the state.

Canada does not have these exact societal conditions, I believe because of their drug enforcement policy. but that's just a guess, I honestly think demographics, population density also play a role.

[merwin]

18. Along with better mental health care in Canada.

[mike_c]

16. I certainly don't have an explanation, but since you raised the issue...

...I presume you do? If you don't, then the argument boils down to obfuscation, don't you think? Personally, I don't know anything about Canadian gun laws-- perhaps you can enlighten me. Is it as easy to buy as wide a variety of guns in Canada as it is in the U.S.? Is the proportion of the population that owns/carries guns similar? What other factors might be involved? Again, I presume you have some ideas? Can those factors-- whatever they are-- be as effectively applied to Americans as they are to Canadians?

It's clear to me that what we're doing now isn't working. People are killed unnecessarily by gun violence every day in America. Getting guns out of private hands is one way I can think of to solve that problem. If that's not a solution that's palatable to you, what's your alternative? Or are you happy with the current level of gun violence?

[merwin]

17. I'm pretty sure it's easier to get a gun in Canada than it is here.

I could be wrong about that though. I think a lot of it is the way that many people are raised in the USA, with hatred of other races, classes, etc burned into them from youth, even if it's only subconsciously.

I'm not saying I have an alternative idea. I'm just saying that many nations allow their citizens to easily acquire guns, and we're one of the worst for gun violence.

Maybe guns aren't the problem. Maybe the culture is. Who knows.

[mike_c]

20. maybe it is a cultural problem after all...

...but that still suggests that taking away peoples' guns will save lots of lives *in this culture of violent hatred* or whatever. I mean, I agree wholeheartedly with the philosophical statement that "...people kill people," but even if we accept that the motives have nothing to do with guns, guns are nonetheless the instrument most often used. Maybe you're right, maybe the underlying problem is a violent culture, but that argues even more strongly for restricting access to deadly weapons in America, IMO.

What we're doing now isn't working.

[merwin]

22. People are resourceful, and our legislators make sure that loopholes exist.

People will still get guns. And if they are banned, a black market will turn up (similar to the black market for soft drugs such as Marijuana that exists now). The best answer in my opinion is proper mental health care. Get rid of the root of the problem, instead of just the method used by mentally ill people to act out.

If we ban guns, we'll just have more things like Oklahoma City happen (in my opinion). People who want to hurt others will find a way.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

27. Here are the actual Canadian gun laws as per the Canadian Embassy

Doesn't get any more official than that.

http://www.canadianembassy.org/government/guncontrol-en.asp

The Act required Canadian gun owners to apply for a license by January 1, 2001, from the Canadian Firearms Centre, a branch of the Justice Department, and register their guns with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) by the beginning of 2003. Associated amendments to the Criminal Code in 1996 increased the penalties for using firearms to commit crimes and for the illegal trafficking and smuggling of guns.

The registration of all handguns has been required by federal law since 1934, and since 1968 permits to carry them have been restricted to a few specific circumstances, for example, use in target practice or competition, protection in extreme cases where police protection isn't adequate, and in certain jobs, such as transporting large amounts of cash or other valuables. Fully automatic weapons have been banned since 1977. The new law extends the registration requirement to unrestricted long guns such as shotguns and rifles and adds short-barrelled handguns and those discharging 25- or 32-calibre cartridges to the list of prohibited weapons...

...The violent crime rate has been steadily declining in Canada over the last two decades, and progressively fewer crimes are being committed with firearms. In 1978, Canada recorded 661 homicides, a rate of 2.76 per 100,000. Of these, 250, or 37.8%, were committed with guns. In 1998, Canada had 555 homicides, a rate of 1.83 per 100,000. Guns were involved in 151 of the homicides, 27% of the total, the lowest proportion since statistics were first collected in 1961. Robberies using firearms accounted for 18% of all such crimes in 1998, down from 25% in 1988 and 37% in 1978.

[davidinalameda]

21. Richmond has a very well deserved reputation as a violent town

lots of gang activity

I'm guessing that's what happened here

[krispos42]

5. Nobody had a gun to shoot back

Nice to see that the gun-control laws are working as advertized.


Seriously, how about we get some more facts about the circumstances? Hmmm?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

26. How many deaths are you willing to accept?

David

[jody]

4. Odds are the attacker was a convicted felon with prior sentences for gun possession. Sad but

sentences for crimes with a firearm are often served concurrently with other sentences making the sentence for possessing a firearm while committing a crime a useless sentence.

IMO sentences for possessing a gun while committing a crime should be served after all other sentences have been completed.

[VeraAgnes]

7. Maybe even mentally ill and homeless;

not able to get into a mental heath program where effective treatment could be given. Then again, they can refuse treatment and stay in their paranoid state of mind until they start shooting people.

[jody]

14. Agree re mental illness. It's a sin to ignore mental illness as our society does. n/t

[VeraAgnes]

23. Society is vulnerable and powerless

most of the time......Agreed, the available mental health service is an embarrassment for this rich nation.

[tomreedtoon]

25. Yeah. Only the mentally healthy do drive-by's.

Face it. Anytime a person picks up a gun, and not doing it to defend his own life or that of someone else, they're being...well, ornery at least. They are not happy and well-adjusted.

[merwin]

32. Unless it's target practice, which is perfectly legitimate.

[merwin]

13. I believe that a conviction of gun violence should carry a mandatory life sentence.

Not accidental shootings, of course... things like what happened here.

My son (two years old), will receive plenty of gun safety classes even though we don't own any guns. I want him to be very well informed about how to handle a deadly weapon, just in case he runs across one somewhere.

[-..__...]

29. Oh no!....

That's racist and we already incarcerate more people than any other "civilized"/industrialized nation.

Ban the guns... do it now.

There's the problem!

[merwin]

31. How is it racist to incarcerate someone for gun violence?

I'm not saying to only impose the sentence on one race.

[qanda]

9. Our church is helping to host one of these next week

I hope this doesn't discourage participation. I'm sure this is not common.

[merwin]

11. My wife just got finished with a church thing that our small group has been doing

for the last several weeks... cooking meals every Sunday for homeless youth in Seattle. We got news that one of the kids was "banned" for having a sexual assault record. Didn't faze any of the volunteers. I have a feeling this won't either.

[Occulus]

28. Wait, wait... having a sexual assault record means you don't get food from a charity now?

Ye gods. What nation am I living in?

[merwin]

30. We were volunteering for the YMCA. They have stricter rules.

Plus our children were helping out (between ages 3 and 12). That probably influenced their decision.

[Moochy]

12. Jimmy

I just heard the interview on the local NBC affiliate, and the pastor of that church described the victim as a homeless man named Jimmy who had been attending the sunday services for three weeks.

A seemingly random act of violence, without any immediately obvious motive.

[merwin]

19. What a tragedy.

And most likely avoidable if our country provided health care to its citizens.

[kineneb]

24. I am familiar with the area...not a nice place

lots of drug dealers and (prison) gang members. Not even a good place to drive through in broad daylight. The church folk and others in the area have been working on changing the neighborhood for years. Looks like they are not winning their battle.

[-..__...]

33. Waiting on the buzzing of the gun-grabber flies..

Hmmm, scratch that.

Looks like the predictable shit-eaters and sheeple have already chimed in.