Reply #2: a story worth reading [View All]

[iverglas]

Some will argue that the violence in Detroit involves only a small percentage of people, but the aftershocks touch thousands. Others believe that violence is a personal choice -- either you pull out the gun and shoot or you don't -- it's no more complicated than that.

"It's no more complicated than that" obviously just isn't true.

The man said he was out drinking with some friends and got into an argument. "Over what?" the officer asked. "Nothing," he said.

People, and in particular young men, have got into arguments that led to violence since the dawn of the species.

When such fights occur in public places, and the participants do not have access to firearms, deaths are less likely to occur. Plain fact.

It is also entirely arguable that individuals who are not armed are less likely to instigate arguments likely to lead to violence, or escalate arguments into violence.

And that's all without even considering people injured or killed by the gunshots fired in such situations who were not the intended targets, or who became involved in situations that would not have arisen had others not been armed.

Police investigated the case for months and believe there were three shooters, a triangle of death. Once the shooting started, it was inevitable that someone would die.

It simply cannot be said that "once the fists started flying, it was inevitable that someone would die".

P.S. I'm from southern Ontario, and the Sunday Detroit Free Press was popular in my house in the days before Ontario newspapers put out Sunday editions. I could distinguish it from the real "freep" Detroit paper, the Detroit News, at a very young age. ;)