2 killed, 4 wounded in Oakland restaurant shooting

[MyrnaLoy]

"The shooting happened at Sweet Jimmie's restaurant and bar at 311 Broadway at about 12:45 a.m.

Police said they were investigating reports that four men in a car had pulled up to the restaurant and tried to get in but had been denied entry. One of the men pulled out an assault rifle and opened fire inside the establishment, police said."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/04/25/BAAD1J6TA8.DTL&feed=rss.news

[slackmaster]

1. A gang hit in Oakland?!?!?

Claude Rains is SHOCKED!



One of the men pulled out an assault rifle and opened fire inside the establishment, police said.

In California? Impossible!

[Glassunion]

2. Unpossible...

Bad people... doing bad things... in a bad neighborhood... NoooooO!

[DonP]

3. Error

[DonP]

4. If you are suggesting that gangs not be allowed to own rifles - I'm with you

I'm not sure what the Public Policy or Gun Law implications of this post are. Perhaps in GD or the CA forum might make more sense?

[MyrnaLoy]

5. it's funny

I never see you post this exact same message on the "good shoot" posts. Why is that?

[slackmaster]

7. Maybe because no reasonable person would regard a gang hit as a "good shoot"

Did that every occur to you?

[DonP]

9. No, what's "funny" is I've never posted anything on a "good shoot" post

Typically posts here about any criminal shootings are posted as fast as gun control people can find them to make some obscure and usually irrelevant point. Almost every time, we find out the details later and it's never as clear cut as people thought it was so I usually avoid any POV posts on shooting incidents from either side until more details come out. By then it's usually pointless or locked as flame bait. So oyu won't find any from me.

In this case I made an exception because it is so incredibly pointless and irrelevant to the defined issues of this forum, public policy and gun laws.

It's just another poorly thought through attempt to conflate law abiding gun owners with criminals.

Congratulations, you discovered gang crime in Oakland California. I'm sure you'll have some relevant public policy recommendations any minute now.

[high_and_mighty]

11. Skinner says posts about self defense using a firearm is A-OK

Stickied at the top of the guns forum http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x95935

"Discussion of gun-related public policy issues or the use of firearms for self-defense belong in the Guns Forum."

[MyrnaLoy]

12. are you then suggesting

the misuse of firearms should not be allowed?

[slackmaster]

13. Criminal misuse of firearms is prohibited already, as is all other criminal behavior

HTH

[MyrnaLoy]

14. you don't seem to understand

I'm asking does the gun forum want to EXCLUDE postings about the misuse of firearms? That was the question I was asking. Maybe you know that or didn't. Try to keep up.

[slackmaster]

16. I was just exploiting your poorly written post

;-)

I think stories about criminal misuse of firearms are fine, provided that the person who posts them makes some logical connection to defensive use of firearms or to gun policy.

[Euromutt]

17. When used to illustrate an argument about public policy, such stories are perfectly appropriate

Yet another news story of an illegally possessed firearm used to commit an illegal act isnot, in and of itself, all that interesting in the Guns forum if posted without some comment on one's own part.

Try to keep up.

In your post #12; you asked whether "the misuse of firearms should not be allowed," not whether "discussion concerning the misuse of firearms should not be allowed." As XKCD put it so beautifully, "Communicating badly and then acting smug when you're misunderstood is not cleverness" (http://xkcd.com/169/).

[high_and_mighty]

18. No, I am not suggesting that.

Self defense posts are specifically singled out as being appropriate to be posted in the guns forum by Skinner. That is what I was pointing out when replying to your post about questioning if someone asked if perhaps another forum might have been a better choice.

I think it would be a good idea to actually post what you think about the article or perhaps a public policy idea you have to help prevent this kind of situation. Helps frame the discussion.

[villager]

6. "One of the men pulled out an assault rifle and opened fire inside the establishment, police said."

n/t

[ManiacJoe]

8. That line seems to conflict with the "denied entry" statement before it.

:shrug:

[RSillsbee]

10. "One of the men pulled out an assault rifle and opened fire inside the establishment, police said."

Does the n/t stand for Not True? I ask because assault rifles are not available for civilian ownership. That was a good catch on your part though

[DonP]

15. Anyone here really think it's a select fire assault rifle?

I guess it's possible, if the gang was big enough and had enough cash to get their hands on one from the black market and Oakland is a major port, probably a special deal, run up from a Mexican cartels used guns department or a BATFE end of the month special that was "walked to Oakland".

But I'm gonna guess that in typical media and local cop fashion, we'll eventually find out it was a scary looking semi auto something or other.

[rl6214]

19. Point?