Students shot in New Orleans

[Evanauto]

Gunmen armed with an AK-47 rifle and a handgun opened fire in a packed high school gym Monday, killing a 15-year-old boy and wounding three teenage girls in a spray of more than 30 bullets that sent students scrambling for cover.

Four suspects, ranging in age from 15 to 19, were arrested in a sweep of the neighborhood near John McDonogh High School, about a mile north of the French Quarter. Police Chief Eddie Compass said he did not know if the suspects attended the school.

At least 200 students were in the gymnasium when the four suspects entered the building. The victim was apparently seated on the bleachers with other students when the gunmen confronted him. They shot repeatedly, striking the victim in the head and body and sending panicked students screaming.

Police identified the victim as Jonathan Williams. Police had not determined a motive Monday night, but students said the shooting was apparently gang related and may have been retaliation for a previous fight.

"They started shooting and I started running," said ninth-grader Garick Jacob, who was in the gym when the shooting began. "I was really scared."

The gunman managed to slip out of the gym and the suspects were arrested about three blocks away. Two were in a getaway vehicle and two others were at a nearby house.

It was not immediately clear how the gun got through metal detectors and guards at the school. Students and school security officers said there was a hole in the fence near the gym.

School board member Elliot Willard said students told him that the boy was the target and the girls were accidental victims.

Leon Myles, a 17-year-old junior, said he knew Williams. "He was an OK guy," he said. "It was probably gang stuff."

Charity hospital spokesman Jerry Romig said a 15-year-old girl had surgery because a bullet went through both her legs. Michelle Brown, 16, and Trakeido Barracks, 16, were both treated and released. They were grazed by bullets.

Christian Ransfer, 16, remained in the hospital with stomach injuries she suffered when she was trampled as students fled.

Word of the shooting swept through the school where many students had radios and cell phones. In the computer class, students used their Internet terminals to read reports of the shooting.

Parents rushed to the school only to find their way blocked by the police lines. Darlene Claiborn said her daughter called her from inside a classroom on a cell phone.

"How can this happen in a school?" she demanded. "They have guards in there. They're supposed to have security."

Anthony Amato, school system superintendent who has been on the job only since February, tried to calm parents by saying that officers had swept through the school and that the students were safe. He was repeatedly interrupted by cries of "where was the guard?"

When Amato said parents could go inside to get their children, the crowd rushed forward and tried to squeeze through the school door in a chaotic crush of pushing and shoving.

Many were still outside four hours later. When a group of adults tried to slip under the police tape, they were shoved back by officers, setting off a round of shouts and complaints.

Councilman Oliver Thomas, among city officials who went to the scene, said it was understandable that the parents were upset.

"He didn't go through the system. We don't have electrical fences around the building. How do you stop a kid if he wants to get in? He'll find a way."

In another unrelated campus shooting Monday, a gun went off in a Shreveport school — apparently accidentally — while one student was showing it to another, hitting the second boy in the stomach, officials said. The student who brought the gun ran away, and police were looking for him. The wounded student was in serious condition.

[bumcheekcity]

At 4/14/03 11:51 PM, Evanauto wrote: Gunmen armed with an AK-47 rifle and a handgun opened fire in a packed high school gym Monday, killing a 15-year-old boy and wounding three teenage girls in a spray of more than 30 bullets that sent students scrambling for cover.

Why? Im just going through the article paragra[ph by paragraph, but I hope you'll explain this.

Four suspects, ranging in age from 15 to 19, were arrested in a sweep of the neighborhood near John McDonogh High School, about a mile north of the French Quarter. Police Chief Eddie Compass said he did not know if the suspects attended the school.

Suspects aging between 15-19. With Sub-Machine Guns? How the fuck does a 15y/o or even a 19y/o get a submachine gun? They are weapons of death, nothing more.

At least 200 students were in the gymnasium when the four suspects entered the building. The victim was apparently seated on the bleachers with other students when the gunmen confronted him. They shot repeatedly, striking the victim in the head and body and sending panicked students screaming.

Which is nice. You say they confronted him and they had submachine guns. I dont imagine that its very hard to hit some with a Sub-Machine Gun when you are confronting somebody and presumably standing in front of or very close to them.

Police identified the victim as Jonathan Williams. Police had not determined a motive Monday night, but students said the shooting was apparently gang related and may have been retaliation for a previous fight.

Which you have far too much off in the US because of your easy to get guns.

It was not immediately clear how the gun got through metal detectors and guards at the school. Students and school security officers said there was a hole in the fence near the gym.

They have guards at schools now? Is that normal practise?

School board member Elliot Willard said students told him that the boy was the target and the girls were accidental victims.
Leon Myles, a 17-year-old junior, said he knew Williams. "He was an OK guy," he said. "It was probably gang stuff."

I hope he said that less dismissively as it sounds. 'Oh dont bother them, its just a gang shooting.' What? This guy got killed and its 'Just gang stuff?'

Word of the shooting swept through the school where many students had radios and cell phones. In the computer class, students used their Internet terminals to read reports of the shooting.

Please dont say this was while the shooting was going on? Because thats the impression i got.

"How can this happen in a school?" she demanded. "They have guards in there. They're supposed to have security."

I think the question is WHY should this happen inside the school as 15y/os should not have AK-47s in their hands. For that matter neither should anyone. But children less so.

Anthony Amato, school system superintendent who has been on the job only since February, tried to calm parents by saying that officers had swept through the school and that the students were safe. He was repeatedly interrupted by cries of "where was the guard?"

Look, about this Guard thing. Is this like a security officer, who checks for breakins, or a guard who checks for nutters with guns who fancy shooting people? What exactly is the Guards job?

"He didn't go through the system. We don't have electrical fences around the building. How do you stop a kid if he wants to get in? He'll find a way."

Good point actually, especially if he is a student.

In another unrelated campus shooting Monday, a gun went off in a Shreveport school — apparently accidentally — while one student was showing it to another, hitting the second boy in the stomach, officials said. The student who brought the gun ran away, and police were looking for him. The wounded student was in serious condition.

Guns do not go off accidently. Guns do not shoot themselves. People shoot guns. On another note, you shouldnt be allowed to bring guns intos school. If i tried that i would be explled that day. No questions asked.

[AbstractVagabond]

Anyone wanna bet this would add to the debate of more gun control laws?

[Taxman2A]

At 4/15/03 02:18 AM, Ovalshine wrote: Anyone wanna bet this would add to the debate of more gun control laws?

No... not at all.
To get a weapon like an AK-47 the potential buyer would have to have a special license for submachine guns. This license can be obtained only after an EXTREMELY in depth look into your record by the federal government. The process of obtaining such a license usually takes somewhere around 6- 8 months. You of course cannot apply for this license without being at least 21 years of age, and at that the license is not likely to approved for someone so young. The license can be denied for many reasons, like "suspected gang/criminal involvement" as well.

Its pretty safe to say that these teenage kids did not get these weapons legitimately, but rather got them through illegal weapons cartels.

This is one of the chief reasons that many argue in favor of legal weapons- because if law abiding citizens are not allowed to legally obtain weapons like these, then all the firepower lies in the hands of those who obtain these weapons illegally.

[Taxman2A]

At 4/15/03 02:04 AM, bumcheekcity wrote:

Which you have far too much off in the US because of your easy to get guns.

I know this is tough for you, bumcheek, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to try and put a shred of thought into your posts. Just a little bit, I will send you 10 pounds in the mail if you can just once show the cognitive ability to think objectively.
These teenagers (who are referred to as being "gang related" in the article) obviously got their weapons through illegal weapons cartels. This has nothing to do with our gun control laws. You honestly think these guys had G3 licenses? I know it would take an incredible amount of dedication on your part to actually research one thing you say, as you have repeatedly proven yourself to be an idiot who just likes to type without any background.

[AbstractVagabond]

At 4/15/03 02:33 AM, Taxman2A wrote:

At 4/15/03 02:18 AM, Ovalshine wrote: Anyone wanna bet this would add to the debate of more gun control laws?

No... not at all.

But it's shooting like this that spark such debate. How many of these kinds of shootings were done with a legally bought gun? They could eliminate the second amendment and that shooting would've still happened. My question can be rephased into "Anyone wanna bet we'll have morons who will distort this news to suit their cause?"

[Taxman2A]

At 4/15/03 02:52 AM, Ovalshine wrote:

My question can be rephased into "Anyone wanna bet we'll have morons who will distort this news to suit their cause?"

Sorry for the misunderstanding then. I would say that this certainly could be used and distorted to support an anti-gun cause (looks in Michael Moore's general direction). But to be honest, this sounds like a ghetto shooting to me, and these don't tend to get much publicity, especially with a war going on.

[bumcheekcity]

At 4/15/03 02:40 AM, Taxman2A wrote: I know this is tough for you, bumcheek, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to try and put a shred of thought into your posts. Just a little bit, I will send you 10 pounds in the mail if you can just once show the cognitive ability to think objectively.
These teenagers (who are referred to as being "gang related" in the article) obviously got their weapons through illegal weapons cartels. This has nothing to do with our gun control laws. You honestly think these guys had G3 licenses? I know it would take an incredible amount of dedication on your part to actually research one thing you say, as you have repeatedly proven yourself to be an idiot who just likes to type without any background.

er... thats kinda like my point. its quite hard to get weapons in the UK. its possible by all means, but it shows when you think that britain has no school shooting of this kind. (if i am wrong and we have could someone tell me) i will grant we have had some where adults have broken in but never children. the fact that in the US a kid can get an AK-47 says something. i could never get an AK, ever.

and of course, resorting to childish insults only makes you seem very pathetic indeed.

[Taxman2A]

At 4/15/03 06:55 AM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 4/15/03 02:40 AM, Taxman2A wrote:

er... thats kinda like my point. its quite hard to get weapons in the UK. its possible by all means, but it shows when you think that britain has no school shooting of this kind. (if i am wrong and we have could someone tell me) i will grant we have had some where adults have broken in but never children. the fact that in the US a kid can get an AK-47 says something. i could never get an AK, ever.

OK I see what your saying now-
The thing is though, that I would have never known how to get an AK-47 as a kid either. I grew up in a big city in America, and did not live a sheltered life. Still, assault rifles are not easy things to come by in America, as even today I wouldn't know how to go about obtaining one, (barring of course going through the hassle and fine tooth comb examination of getting a G3 license). The only way minors can get guns would be to illegally obtain them. I'm really not sure what the fact that there are somehow illegal ways to obtain guns for some isolated people really says about the US though. Does it speak on the US's higher crime rate? Do American's have a shorter fuse for violence? I'm not sure what answers there really are on this subject.
I'm not sure though if there is any way that this can be traced back to our loose (when compared to European nations) gun policy. These people who commit these crimes are not committing them with legal guns, so how would increased gun control in the states really help this situation? (I'm not saying that you made this argument, I'm just throwing it out there for anyone who is in favor of the abolishment of our 2nd amendment.)

[Spaztaztic]

I have an idea, since the gunman there can get past all those security guards, and all those metal detectors. How bout' my school gets rid of the id's and the guards and start spending the money on a friggn' working AIR CONDITIONER. I'M DYING OF HEAT HERE!!! Not to mention, security measures in schools across america take up a big hunk of school budgets...and they don't do credap!

[Taxman2A]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2279468.stm

Germany School Shooting-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/showbiz/2049076.stm

It is interesting, because while the US is the most famous of all for its school shootings, quite a few have taken place in Germany (seemingly none in England, as you mentioned). Germany, however, has rather restrictive laws on who is and who is not allowed to own weapons.

Here is an article outlining some of the more famous (and terrible) gone shooting cases to exist so far:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/1953425.stm

[implodinggoat]

At 4/15/03 06:55 AM, bumcheekcity wrote: er... thats kinda like my point. its quite hard to get weapons in the UK. its possible by all means, but it shows when you think that britain has no school shooting of this kind. (if i am wrong and we have could someone tell me) i will grant we have had some where adults have broken in but never children. the fact that in the US a kid can get an AK-47 says something. i could never get an AK, ever.

Believe me if you put some effort into it you can get an AK pretty much anywhere on the planet. Fully automatic weapons are just as illegal in the United States as they are in England.

Blaming an object is a fool's excuse for mankinds vices. In 1918 (maybe 1917) prohibition was passed believing that it would dispose of drunkeness, domestic abuse, and crime in one fell swoop.

The result? Drunkeness climbed as people went to speak easies and drank even more per sitting due to it's illegality. Domestic abuse stayed steady and crime skyrocketed culminating in the rise of the Mafia which grew out of the profits reaped by bootlegging.

Lets say that the U.S. repealed the 2nd ammendment (which would set a disturbing precident, but that is another issue.) and guns were outlawed. All of the illegal unregistered guns such as the afore mentioned Ak-47 would remain unfound and the handguns belonging to the legal public would be taken away. Criminals could then easily get guns from organized crime which would once again prosper on a new market as it did with prohibiton and more recently with drugs. Criminals no longer having to fear that the goodly Indian immigrant behind the counter of the local 7-11 might whip a shotgun and take their head off would have a field day.

Hypothetically this could result in the end of the United States if the following events occured.

Following the explosion of crime the presumably unarmed police (if we take England's example) would get slaughtered on the street. The inner cities would turn into war zones run by gang warlords and marshall law would be regularly declared in U.S. cities.

Then an unforseen horror would take place as deer populations no longer controlled by hunters would run rampant. Crops would be destroyed as hoards of deer would overrun the midwest. Once these crops were gone mass starvation would set in, in the United States. The deer no longer having any normal source of food would turn predatory and turn on the unarmed human population. As armies of deer ran across the nation killing millions the government would have to resort to tactical nuclear strikes on its own soil to maintain conrtol. Radiation would spread across the world destroying the enviorment and having the unforseen effect of making superpowerful and super intelligent deer which would then go to war on the human population. As WWIII was fought between the deer and the remaining humans the outbreak of fullscale thermonuclear war would be unavoidable. nuclear winter would take over billions would die and a radioactive cloud would irradiate and destroy all life on earth.

Thus the reppeal of the 2nd ammendment will not only cause a crisis in crime it will culminate in the extinction of the human race and the end of the world!

Repeal the 2nd ammendment? Dear God, are you mad bumcheekcity?

[EvilGovernmentAgents]

ROFLMAO
Man.... That's hilarious, but I can see it happening..

[implodinggoat]

With the possible exception of the take over of U.S. cities by gang warlords, the evolution of mutant deer, and the global thermonuclear war, the rest of it is very possible.

[karasz]

lets just remember that the 2nd amendment was created for the sole purpose to make sure that if the GOVT got too greedy the citizens of the US would defend themselves....

and believe me, anyone tries fucking with my inalienable rights will meet their demise with a face full of lead...

[Taxman2A]

At 4/16/03 12:58 AM, implodinggoat wrote:

Repeal the 2nd ammendment? Dear God, are you mad bumcheekcity?

First off, I'd like to say that I'm seeing alot of good points here... However, Bumcheekcity has not yet said he would like to see guns made illegal. (He has seemed so far to be in favor of increased gun control, but hasn't really stated a position yet).

[bumcheekcity]

At 4/16/03 02:04 AM, Taxman2A wrote:

At 4/16/03 12:58 AM, implodinggoat wrote:

Repeal the 2nd ammendment? Dear God, are you mad bumcheekcity?

First off, I'd like to say that I'm seeing alot of good points here... However, Bumcheekcity has not yet said he would like to see guns made illegal. (He has seemed so far to be in favor of increased gun control, but hasn't really stated a position yet).

the second amendment being the right to bear arms? you have to remember im a brit. no amendments this side of the pond. we work on chivalry still...

well, anyway. i am in favour of very strict rules on gun control. in the UK we have a new system whereby if someone is carrying a handgun and they cant show proper documentation the police will arrest them on spot. if the documentation is not at the persons home the sentances are very steep. i know this is partly because we are having a clampdown, but the gun laws are getting stricter.

this follows the death of two black girls that werre caught in gang crossfire. one of them came from my area but i didnt know her. the case sparked off a month-wide gun amnesty and guns and weapons are being bought in 50-a-day to some police stations.

i live in a medium-large town called Northampton, about 60 miles north from London. we hae seen days where 70 guns were handed in. true, its usually more like 30-40. all sorts of things, too. its very worrying. there are a hack of a lot of pistols as they are easily concealed. but there have been serrated knives (NOT the kind you use or carving chicken) and there have been sawn-off shotguns, machine guns in my area.

the point is yeah, i think guns should kinda be banned, but im being realistic, so i know thay wont. but the people that get shot are the people with guns. if i had carried a gun yesterday when i was jumped by 3 lads, then i might have shot them and got on a triple murder charge. either that, or they might hav felt it on the inside of my coat and got me with it.

can anyone think of a practical use for a gun? thats the point. i can think of one - to put a dead animal out of its misery.

oh, and by the way, defense is not an answer. a gun is an attack weapon in the same way a bomb is. a bullet's just a bit smaller.

[implodinggoat]

Defense is a very viable answer. A gun is the great equializer. A 90 pound woman with a handgun is just as dangerous as a 300 pound weightlifter with a gun.

If you had yanked out a gun when you were jumped those three lads would have run for their life.

The fact that you were mugged without being threatened by a gun further proves my point. Man does not need a gun to kill his fellow man. A knife, a rock, a pointy stick, or ones bare hands can be implemented as lethal weapons.

[Commander-K25]

At 4/16/03 02:36 AM, bumcheekcity wrote: if i had carried a gun yesterday when i was jumped by 3 lads, then i might have shot them and got on a triple murder charge. either that, or they might hav felt it on the inside of my coat and got me with it.

If they 'jumped' you and you defend yourself, then it's not murder, is it?

oh, and by the way, defense is not an answer. a gun is an attack weapon in the same way a bomb is. a bullet's just a bit smaller.

You're saying that one cannot defend oneself with a gun? If someone attacks me and is trying to kill me, then shooting him is not a form of defense? You can argue that its defense by offense, but isn't that what all defense is?

Buy-back programs are great because they're voluntary, but what we need to crack down on crime is strict enforcement of existing laws. Creating a new gun law does not take guns out of criminal hands, just the hands of ordinary citizens. Why? Because it's the ordinary citizens who are willing to follow the law. Criminals don't, that's why they're criminals. The way to solve crime problems is not to disarm the victims while pretending that we are taking guns out of the hands of criminals. The way to solve crime problems is simple, arrest criminals.

[bumcheekcity]

At 4/16/03 05:05 PM, implodinggoat wrote: Defense is a very viable answer. A gun is the great equializer. A 90 pound woman with a handgun is just as dangerous as a 300 pound weightlifter with a gun.

Yer, but if the weightlifter doesnt have a gun, hes fucked.

If you had yanked out a gun when you were jumped those three lads would have run for their life.

Yer, but then one of two things could have happend

a) I might have had to shoot one of them.
b) They might have got the gun off me.

I do not like either of these. A results in me being charged with murder and B results in me being dead.

If i didnt have the gun (which i didnt) i would have got away with a hurt shoulder, cut lip and dented pride (which i did) I was fine without the gun and it would only have hindered me.

The fact that you were mugged without being threatened by a gun further proves my point. Man does not need a gun to kill his fellow man. A knife, a rock, a pointy stick, or ones bare hands can be implemented as lethal weapons.

Yer, but the gun is the completely lethal one. If i walk into a crowded shop with a stick and say 'Get on the Ground! This stick is POINTY!' I will be laughed out of the shop. The gun is instant, quick, automatic and light.

And unfortunately, all too accessible (everywhere, not just in the US.)

[Commander-K25]

Why does no one seem to respond to my posts? (see above)

[implodinggoat]

At 4/16/03 06:16 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 4/16/03 05:05 PM, implodinggoat wrote: Defense is a very viable answer. A gun is the great equializer. A 90 pound woman with a handgun is just as dangerous as a 300 pound weightlifter with a gun.

Yer, but if the weightlifter doesnt have a gun, hes fucked.

Thus he will most likely decide against mugging or raping the 90 pound woman.

Yer, but then one of two things could have happend

a) I might have had to shoot one of them.
b) They might have got the gun off me.

I do not like either of these. A results in me being charged with murder and B results in me being dead.

You would only be charged with murder if you chased them down after they ran in fear. In general I would concur that merely submitting to being mugged is the best and least dangerous course of action, however if you want to defend yourself with a firearm you should have the right to do so.

Yer, but the gun is the completely lethal one. If i walk into a crowded shop with a stick and say 'Get on the Ground! This stick is POINTY!' I will be laughed out of the shop. The gun is instant, quick, automatic and light.

And unfortunately, all too accessible (everywhere, not just in the US.)

While people may laugh at your pointy stick at first if you stabbed someone to death with it they would lose their jovial nature quite quickly.

I personally could take out about twenty people with nothing more than a samurai sword and a very limited background in fencing. The point is, if someone truly wants to commit violence they will.

The gun is even benfitial in that the mere threat of a gun is usually all that is recquired to intimidate someone thus most robberies don't result in deaths.

[implodinggoat]

At 4/16/03 05:16 PM, Commander-K25 wrote: Buy-back programs are great because they're voluntary, but what we need to crack down on crime is strict enforcement of existing laws. Creating a new gun law does not take guns out of criminal hands, just the hands of ordinary citizens. Why? Because it's the ordinary citizens who are willing to follow the law. Criminals don't, that's why they're criminals. The way to solve crime problems is not to disarm the victims while pretending that we are taking guns out of the hands of criminals. The way to solve crime problems is simple, arrest criminals.

An excellent point, it all goes back to the principal of accountability. The liberal logic would be that the criminal is not responsible but is merely a victim because he might have been abused as a child in some vague manner, he didn't grow up in a mansion, and he was able to get his hands on a gun because of the evil firearm companies.

It seems like liberals truly don't respect the human intellect. A man is able to make his own decisions and he should thus be responsible for them. Men do not need the government to act like a father who bails them out and excuses their actions.

I would have responded to your post but I usually don't to ones that I agree with so completely.

[Deathman33]

Well if you look at todays school and compare it with older schools you can see the safety factors. Back in the 50's and 60's I bet that you would scared of a Gang beating the living daylights out of you...today, being a teenager and all have to look around my school with a careful eye and say to myself "Is my school really ready if someone pulls a gun...?" A few months ago we had a "Bomb Threat" made to our school and the cops were called in. That next day I counted 15 different police officers in our school...that says something to anyone. No person in the right mind would not take a threat seriously. These threats remind us that we should never underestimate the power of a few kids and guns... and no matter where these guys got the sub-machine guns and rifles, the same thing always happens...the chance of survivng is not what you would expect.