[Archived] Gun Law Debate: Please keep posts civil and conversational

[Paul]

Just out of interest, because I know this whole discussion is circular, is the report saying on average 65000 criminals are shot by the people they are robbing, assaulting etc?

[jim mk2]

There's an old saying that the USA's top 3 exports are weapons, drugs, and entertainment. Guns are without doubt intrinsic to American culture so it will be interesting to see the reaction over there to the film that Hollywood movie mogul Harvey Weinstein is planning to make that he hopes will bring an end to the US gun industry.

Weinstein says the film will star Meryl Streep and will lampoon the NRA and the gun industry. "We're going to take this head-on," he said. "'I don't think we need guns in this country. I hate it. I think the NRA is a disaster area.

"They're going to wish they weren't alive after I'm done with them."

Weinstein said the gun industry would be hit hard by the film and that people will leave cinema's thinking: "Gun stocks — I don't want to be involved in that stuff.

"If we don't get gun-control laws in this country, we are full of beans. To have the National Rifle Association rule the United States of America is pathetic."

I don't go to the cinema much nowadays but that sounds like a film I would like to see.

[Steve Moss]

Just out of interest, because I know this whole discussion is circular, is the report saying on average 65000 criminals are shot by the people they are robbing, assaulting etc?

I don't think so, though one would have to dig into the details of the report to be sure. I'm speculating (i.e. read the report to be sure), but a significant majority is likely simply a victim displaying a firearm to run off the bad guy.

Weinstein says the film will star Meryl Streep and will lampoon the NRA and the gun industry. "We're going to take this head-on," he said. "'I don't think we need guns in this country. I hate it. I think the NRA is a disaster area.

"They're going to wish they weren't alive after I'm done with them."

Weinstein said the gun industry would be hit hard by the film and that people will leave cinema's thinking: "Gun stocks — I don't want to be involved in that stuff.

"If we don't get gun-control laws in this country, we are full of beans. To have the National Rifle Association rule the United States of America is pathetic."

I don't go to the cinema much nowadays but that sounds like a film I would like to see.

The first thing I thought of when I heard those quotes was Weinstein's mouth is writing checks he won't be able to cash. The second thought I had was all press, even bad press, is good press. So he's probably trying to drum up interest in his movie before it goes into production.

What he is, I believe, incapable of realizing, is that near 75% of the American public supports concealed carry for private citizens. He's dramatically limiting his audience by such comments. I think he is incapable of realizing it as folks like the Weisteins appear to live in a bubble and have very little connection to the theater goers whom he wants to see his movie and make some money. There is a large disconnect.

[jim mk2]

It needs someone like Weinstein to shake the US out of its complacency over guns and speak up for the growing anti-gun lobby. Jim Carrey, another anti-gun campaigner, would be good in it too. The film is bound to cause a furore in the US so I think it's almost guaranteed to be a commercial success. If it makes the pro-gun lobby look ridiculous I suspect Weinstein will be happy to have achieved his aim anyway.

[thenodrog]

There's an old saying that the USA's top 3 exports are weapons, drugs, and entertainment. Guns are without doubt intrinsic to American culture so it will be interesting to see the reaction over there to the film that Hollywood movie mogul Harvey Weinstein is planning to make that he hopes will bring an end to the US gun industry.

Weinstein says the film will star Meryl Streep and will lampoon the NRA and the gun industry. "We're going to take this head-on," he said. "'I don't think we need guns in this country. I hate it. I think the NRA is a disaster area.

"They're going to wish they weren't alive after I'm done with them."

Weinstein said the gun industry would be hit hard by the film and that people will leave cinema's thinking: "Gun stocks — I don't want to be involved in that stuff.

"If we don't get gun-control laws in this country, we are full of beans. To have the National Rifle Association rule the United States of America is pathetic."

I don't go to the cinema much nowadays but that sounds like a film I would like to see.

Harvey Weinstein? Never heard of him but for his family's sake I hope he's up to date with his life insurance.

[Guest Norbert]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Weinstein

[ultrablue]

What he is, I believe, incapable of realizing, is that near 75% of the American public supports concealed carry for private citizens. He's dramatically limit his audience by such comments. I think he is incapable of realizing it as folks like the Weisteins appear to live in a bubble and have very little connection to the theater goers whom he wants to see his movie and make some money. There is a large disconnect.

Why should presenting a point of view limit your audience? That only happens when people are so entrenched in their views one way or the other that they won't even listen to the arguements other side.

I've found this to be much more common in the US than in the UK, where you choose your news channel depending on your political persuasion and they simply rabbit back to you the views you already have or give you the correct response to fire back with if any of your misguided friends dare to challenge you.

The worst thing on Fox and MSNBC is when the talking opinionbots read out viewers tweets that simply agree with what has already been said so viewers know its not just them that thinks like that. It's like one big group therapy session that borders on a cult.

[Steve Moss]

Why should presenting a point of view limit your audience? That only happens when people are so entrenched in their views one way or the other that they won't even listen to the arguements other side.

I agree with you, but that's human nature.

And Weinstien is guilty of the exact same mistake. He cloaks himself in moral superiority blind to the fact that few, if anyone is interested in listening to him and he, likewise, is not interested listening to the opposition. Demonizing is far easier.

And what I think is hilarious about the Weinstein's recent comments is that the bulk of his 'successful' movies have heavily featured guns and/or violence.

Personally I think it's all talk to bolster his PC credentials and nothing will come from it.

[ultrablue]

I agree with you, but that's human nature.

And I have to disagree with you there. Human nature is to be curious and to test your views against challenges. That's why , despite the fact I disagree with many of your points on this thread, I do enjoy reading them.

But the way the American media has polarisesd itself and therefore sealed its consumers from intelligent criticism has led to this cult like inability to empathise and negotiate.

Bringing it back to guns, no one is allowed to consider common sense gun control reform because so much of the populus is conditioned to hear "gun control = imaginary King Hitler wants to take my gun away"

[Steve Moss]

As to human nature, my first Exhibit is any middle school history book of your choice. Civil discourse and peace is the exception, not the rule.

As to America's media being polarized that is true.

As to the American public's fear of gun bans, I believe it is well founded. I'm not sure who King Hitler may be, but I'm confident that Obama, Pelosi or Reid would gladly do so they could do so.

[ultrablue]

As to America's media being polarized that is true.

As to the American public's fear of gun bans, I believe it is well founded. I'm not sure who King Hitler may be, but I'm confident that Obama, Pelosi or Reid would gladly do so they could do so.

And there you go with the black and white polarised nonsense.

a. I said gun control, you changed it to gun ban.

b. Obama has always been at pains to say that he would never take guns away from their owners. There is no evidence whatsoever that he would support a ban. Pelosi only wanted to ban future sales of certain weapons. The fear comes from conservative commentators attributing to their enemy the exact opposite view to the one they hold. The reality is opinions are much closer than they would have you believe.

c. Even if, somewhere deep in his mind, Obama thought the US would be better without private firearm ownership, it is a political impossibilty. As you said, they can't do it.

So why does an imaginary scenario where King Obama comes to steal all your guns in the night, have to get in the way of a real world debate on re-tuning existing federal gun control laws so that mentally unstable people cant buy guns and then stockpile thousands of rounds of armour piercing bullets?

[Steve Moss]

And there you go with the black and white polarised nonsense.

a. I said gun control, you changed it to gun ban.

b. Obama has always been at pains to say that he would never take guns away from their owners. There is no evidence whatsoever that he would support a ban. Pelosi only wanted to ban future sales of certain weapons. The fear comes from conservative commentators attributing to their enemy the exact opposite view to the one they hold. The reality is opinions are much closer than they would have you believe.

c. Even if, somewhere deep in his mind, Obama thought the US would be better without private firearm ownership, it is a political impossibilty. As you said, they can't do it.

So why does an imaginary scenario where King Obama comes to steal all your guns in the night, have to get in the way of a real world debate on re-tuning existing federal gun control laws so that mentally unstable people cant buy guns and then stockpile thousands of rounds of armour piercing bullets?

Hint- Obama is not king, he's president- though with the way he is using executive orders and selectively enforcing existing laws, he might think he is one.

a. I did. My apologies. I equate one with the other, as one invariably leads to the other. Check your history books.

b. Obama says lots of things. And lots of things he says are outright lies ("If you like your plan, you can keep your plan", "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor", or It's not a tax, its a fine- unless its before the Supreme Court then is becomes a tax again, etc.). All of his promises have expiration dates, more so than most politicians.

c. It is. So is gun control. And I want to keep it that way.

[ultrablue]

Hint- Obama is not king, he's president- though with the way he is using executive orders and selectively enforcing existing laws, he might think he is one.

a. I did. My apologies. I equate one with the other, as one invariably leads to the other. Check your history books.

b. Obama says lots of things. And lots of things he says are outright lies ("If you like your plan, you can keep your plan", "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor", or It's not a tax, its a fine- unless its before the Supreme Court then is becomes a tax again, etc.). All of his promises have expiration dates, more so than most politicians.

c. It is. So is gun control. And I want to keep it that way.

No hint required. you made my point exactly. He is a president and does what presidents do. The "King Obama" thing is a quote from right wing shouty man Sean Hannity. Perhaps it is him that needs to learn how the threat of executive action is a well worn political manoeuvre used by many US Presidents to spur action in Congress.

a. Check the history books? OK you are no doubt going to trot out the usual crap about how Stalin and Hitler took the guns (That is why I mentioned imaginary King Hitler coming to American earlier.) But this cannot be stressed enough - Obama IS NOT a communist, socialist, totalitarian fanatic hell bent on taking your guns. He IS a twice elected President of the United States, subject to scrutiny from the electorate, the Congress and the Supreme Court.

If you want to talk American history, control has rarely led to bans. I can only think of Prohibition, and that only happened because ordinary Americans of all political affiliations were united and mobilised enough by religious movements to pass a constitutional amendment. President Wilson had very little to say about the matter.

Historically the American govt. has in fact been tragically slow to move from control to ban. Take slavery for example. The governments of the mid 19th century knew slavery was tearing the country apart but they still lacked the power or the will to settle it one way or another. The US failed to avoid war and a ban on slavery only came after thousands died.

In modern times the trend is to move from outright bans to common sense laws that control. And that approach is winning elections. Cannabis is one example. Marriage reform would be another. The current Democratic party seek to liberalise but control. The conservative Republicans are those who cling to outright bans, and they keep on losing.

Finally a point on c. Gun control is a political impossibility? You do realise that you already have gun control laws right? In fact they have been there for decades. Still no ban right? Expanded background checks would simply mean that more people would be checked for criminal history or mental issues, just as I would hope you were when you bought your guns.

[Steve Moss]

a. Check the history books? OK you are no doubt going to trot out the usual crap about how Stalin and Hitler took the guns (That is why I mentioned imaginary King Hitler coming to American earlier.) But this cannot be stressed enough - Obama IS NOT a communist, socialist, totalitarian fanatic hell bent on taking your guns. He IS a twice elected President of the United States, subject to scrutiny from the electorate, the Congress and the Supreme Court.

If you want to talk American history, control has rarely led to bans. I can only think of Prohibition, and that only happened because ordinary Americans of all political affiliations were united and mobilised enough by religious movements to pass a constitutional amendment. President Wilson had very little to say about the matter.

. . .

Finally a point on c. Gun control is a political impossibility? You do realise that you already have gun control laws right? In fact they have been there for decades. Still no ban right? Expanded background checks would simply mean that more people would be checked for criminal history or mental issues, just as I would hope you were when you bought your guns.

a. Has England's early gun control measures lead to bans? Australia's? I think yes. And considering our common roots, culture and language, its disingenuous to suggest we're somehow immune to demagoguery on the subject. As to your other examples guns are not the equivalent to slaves, alcohol, etc.

c. When I typed my original statement I was curious if you would pop back with that response (i.e. you already have gun control laws). I correctly anticipated your next move, which is disappointing. So since we're now in the splitting hairs portion of our discussion, I'll clarify my original comments to say I'm opposed to "additional" gun control laws.

As to Obama's positions, he has previously professed to supporting handgun bans and bans on semi-automatic weapons. He has opposed concealed carry. He opposed providing legal protections to gun manufacturers (a favorite liberal tactic is to bankrupt businesses in the courts when they can't beat them politically). He has referred to gun owners as "bitter" clingers. He has supported both the DC and Chicago gun bans.

Around election time he starts saying that he supports the Second Amendment and that he somehow was misquoted or a mistake was made in his original statements. He'll throw gun owners some minor fig leaf. The after elections he again starts talking "common sense" gun control measures.

And when push back comes, he'll go quiet for awhile only for surrogates like Sarah Brady come out and say to their supporters that Obama has told her he's working on gun control "under the radar."

So no, I don't trust Obama on guns. For other reasons (health insurance, Gitmo, drones, NSA, IRS, etc.) I don't trust Obama at all.

[Mike E]

Steve, may I ask about a compromise? Where would you stand if you were to have gun controls identical to ours APART FROM being able to own a handgun for the purposes of self-protection?

So basically, in this scenario (subject to criminal, mental health, general suitability and purpose of ownership checks), you'd be able to:

Posess an air gun if aged 14 or over (bought and owned by a responsible adult), but only fire in presence of an accompanying adult aged 21 or over.
Posess a shot/handgun if aged 15-17, but only fire in the presence of an accompanying adult aged 21 or over.
Own an air/shot/handgun if aged 18 or over.

The reason I would ban semi and automatic weapons is that these weapons are expressly designed to kill. Of course, so are other guns, but lesser guns (as listed above) can serve as a 'warning shot'. (I admit, I wouldn't even want the above compromise tbh, but I'm merely asking your opinion).

[Stuart]

Nice try, Mike. But I suspect you might get a 'thin end of the wedge' / 'erosion of rights' argument.

I don't understand need for such powerful weapons in the hands of the public either.

[Mike E]

Nice try, Mike. But I suspect you might get a 'thin end of the wedge' / 'erosion of rights' argument.

I don't understand need for such powerful weapons in the hands of the public either.

I think given America's culture, that's a very reasonable compromise. And tbh, it wouldn't need to come to our level of ban.

I sort of see their point in terms of more spread out propeties = further from help = need own protection. But why should even that extend beyond a basic handgun (I believe they hold 12 bullets), which is plenty of threat.

And frankly, airguns do a LOT of harm anyway.

[Steve Moss]

Steve, may I ask about a compromise? Where would you stand if you were to have gun controls identical to ours APART FROM being able to own a handgun for the purposes of self-protection?

So basically, in this scenario (subject to criminal, mental health, general suitability and purpose of ownership checks), you'd be able to:

Posess an air gun if aged 14 or over (bought and owned by a responsible adult), but only fire in presence of an accompanying adult aged 21 or over.

Posess a shot/handgun if aged 15-17, but only fire in the presence of an accompanying adult aged 21 or over.

Own an air/shot/handgun if aged 18 or over.

The reason I would ban semi and automatic weapons is that these weapons are expressly designed to kill. Of course, so are other guns, but lesser guns (as listed above) can serve as a 'warning shot'. (I admit, I wouldn't even want the above compromise tbh, but I'm merely asking your opinion).

Hi Mike.

The short answer is MAYBE. Yes, if I'm understanding you correctly but I think much of what you are already saying is the law, except that you might be too much of a "gun nut". For example, in most states you have to be 21 to own a handgun, 18 for a long gun, so you are actually lessening restrictions.

But what I think you are proposing is very much in the vein of ordered liberty, which I appreciate.

A longer answer is as follows:

1. As a practical matter, I don't think the other side (progressives) would see any regulatory measure as a final compromise. I think they would take it as an incremental step toward victory and act accordingly. So to the extent that you are proposing additional restrictions, the answer would be NO, as why would pro gun advocates surrender any ground to the opposition, especially highly defensible ground?

2. As a practical matter, to clarify I have no problem with the concept of a country, such as England, limiting their citizens to one handgun for self-protection purposes if that is what they (the citizens) want to do. Seems reasonable to me, but on the flip side I also have no problem with countries which allow their citizens a 100+ handguns.

3. As a philosophical matter, I would question why any nation would want to regulate the number of firearms a particular citizen might own. Whether I own 1 or a 100, I can only use 1-2 at a time, so I'm not certain there are any public safety advantages.

4. As a philosophical matter, and assuming the role of a wild-eyed progressive for sake of argument, if I were to seek an achievable gun control plan, from a legal and political perspective, I would push for limiting pistols to those of a 9 mm caliber and long guns to those of a .223 caliber, and argue that it's to better integrate the privately owned weapons with our regular military's weapons. All non-conforming weapons would have to be turned in and would be replaced on a 1 for 1 basis with a conforming weapon. I would mandate universal weapon training for 9 mm and .223 weapons in the senior year of high school. I would, essentially, adopt the arguments of the right and turn them against them, using the militia clause to enforce all of the foregoing for "national defense" and "public safety" purposes. Logically speaking, it might me a difficult one to rebut (though I think it could be challenged under the takings clause and fair compensation). Progressives won't ever do it, however, as guns=evil.

5. Air guns? Is that the same as a BB gun? If so, my brothers and I had those when we were 4. We, and all the boys in the neighborhood, chased and shot each other with them continuously in playing "War" or Cowboys and Indians", at least until we became teenagers and began chasing girls for other reasons. I really don't consider them "weapons" though pigeons might have cause to fear them.

6. Automatic weapons are already effectively banned over here, unless you have a class III firearms license which is rare.

7. I personally prefer revolvers for a variety of reasons outside the home, and a shotgun for home self-defense, but I've always been curious why some are opposed to semi-automatics. Both equate to one bullet per pull of the trigger. I suppose a semi-auto might have a larger magazine, but those with large magazines tend to use smaller calibers, like 9mm (and I prefer .45. or .357 which are much more effective man-killers).

8. In my opinion, if in the unlikely event you find yourself in Arizona and in desperate circumstances, don't fire a warning shot. If you have cause to fire a warning shot (and you probably don't, so think twice), you have cause to shoot someone if you are in that extreme of circumstances (95%+ of potential life threatening situations are resolved by simply avoiding gang neighborhoods, and drug users and sellers). And as you may only get one shot, don't waste it on a "warning".

[Mike E]

Thanks for a well thought out answer given that the US is a vastly different culture to ours (essentially born from war), I can sort of understand what you mean

As for airguns, they are often different to BB guns in that they use specially designed metal pellets (rather than simple ball bearings or plastic pellets). But that's pedantry, as I'm fairly certain BB guns fall under the airgun umbrella.

[jim mk2]

Looking at US websites, the problem with the gun debate is that it is seen as an all or nothing issue, with even the slightest suggestion of compromise being derided in explicit terms. US politics is similarly black and white and mirrors what appears to be a fundamental divide in US society, which appears to have a vanishing centre of common sense.

It is apparent to people outside the US that unless something truly awful happens – and it is clear that the Sandy Hook horror was not enough to shake the swivel-eyed gun lobby out of its complacency – that the US’s moral decline will continue.

When Nancy Reagan can say: “I only have a teeny weeny li’l gern” (presumably to kill teeny weeny l’il people) why is anyone surprised when the rest of the world regards the US as an out of control rogue nation?

[Mike E]

That's very much like British politics too imo.

I reckon most people hold some views to the left and some views to the right, which is why 'Left, Right and Centre' is a @#/? spread of political party view.

[K-Hod]

Wilpshire blue with the most sensible post I've read in a while in the Steve Moss vs The World thread!

That's not to discredit Steve, as he's a very good poster- but there has to be some change in the gun laws in the US imo, the situation as it is can't continue.

How many more Columbines do there have to be before someone sees sense??

[ultrablue]

a. Has England's early gun control measures lead to bans? Australia's? I think yes. And considering our common roots, culture and language, its disingenuous to suggest we're somehow immune to demagoguery on the subject. As to your other examples guns are not the equivalent to slaves, alcohol, etc.

c. When I typed my original statement I was curious if you would pop back with that response (i.e. you already have gun control laws). I correctly anticipated your next move, which is disappointing. So since we're now in the splitting hairs portion of our discussion, I'll clarify my original comments to say I'm opposed to "additional" gun control laws.

Around election time he starts saying that he supports the Second Amendment and that he somehow was misquoted or a mistake was made in his original statements. He'll throw gun owners some minor fig leaf. The after elections he again starts talking "common sense" gun control measures.

a. Well there you are completely wrong. Our two countries may share certain cultural traits but after contributing so much to this thread over the past years, surely you've realised as nations we are miles apart on our thoughts on private gun ownership.

Furthermore, neither the UK or Australia have ever had a codified constitution with an amendment that gave citizens the express right to own guns. People who would ban firearms in the US would not only have to hope for a complete sea change in public opinion, but also convince the nation to amend the Bill of Rights. Compare that to our handgun ban which took all of 6 months to pass into law. No you are not immune from demagoguery. But I'm saying on this matter, potential demagogues who want an outright ban are pissing in the wind.

c. No additional gun laws, I hear you. Where we can split hairs though is what we call "additional". I saw the Manchin-Toomey Bill not as adding to legislation. It was a bi-partisan bill that expanded background checks to cover gun show and internet sales.

They were nonsensical commissions in the first place - this bill would have correct that mistake. Why should you have to go through a background check when you buy from a licensed gun dealer but not when you buy from Johnny Rifle's private stand at the gun show? It makes no sense.

As a graduate in American history and one time student of Texas A&M (Whooop!), I have learnt to be pragmatic when it comes to Americans and their guns. Expanded background checks are the only piece of legislation I have called for on this thread. This recent poll shows that the majority of Republican voting men agree with the Manchin- Toomey Bill, meaning, hopefully it will pass in some form if it is reintroduced after this Congress is sent packing next year. http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressional-connection/coverage/poll-majority-of-republican-men-support-universal-background-checks-on-gun-sales-20131206

And as for Obama, you may not trust him but you have to give him a little credit on the gun issue. He didn't just start talking about "common sense" gun control measures after his re-election. He started talking about them after he heard that 20 elementary schoolchildren and 6 adults were murdered in their classrooms.

[Audax]

a. Well there you are completely wrong. Our two countries may share certain cultural traits but after contributing so much to this thread over the past years, surely you've realised as nations we are miles apart on our thoughts on private gun ownership.

Furthermore, neither the UK or Australia have ever had a codified constitution with an amendment that gave citizens the express right to own guns. People who would ban firearms in the US would not only have to hope for a complete sea change in public opinion, but also convince the nation to amend the Bill of Rights. Compare that to our handgun ban which took all of 6 months to pass into law. No you are not immune from demagoguery. But I'm saying on this matter, potential demagogues who want an outright ban are pissing in the wind.

c. No additional gun laws, I hear you. Where we can split hairs though is what we call "additional". I saw the Manchin-Toomey Bill not as adding to legislation. It was a bi-partisan bill that expanded background checks to cover gun show and internet sales.

They were nonsensical commissions in the first place - this bill would have correct that mistake. Why should you have to go through a background check when you buy from a licensed gun dealer but not when you buy from Johnny Rifle's private stand at the gun show? It makes no sense.

As a graduate in American history and one time student of Texas A&M (Whooop!), I have learnt to be pragmatic when it comes to Americans and their guns. Expanded background checks are the only piece of legislation I have called for on this thread. This recent poll shows that the majority of Republican voting men agree with the Manchin- Toomey Bill, meaning, hopefully it will pass in some form if it is reintroduced after this Congress is sent packing next year. http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressional-connection/coverage/poll-majority-of-republican-men-support-universal-background-checks-on-gun-sales-20131206

And as for Obama, you may not trust him but you have to give him a little credit on the gun issue. He didn't just start talking about "common sense" gun control measures after his re-election. He started talking about them after he heard that 20 elementary schoolchildren and 6 adults were murdered in their classrooms.

Your last paragraph brings up an interesting piece of information, probably even covered in this thread, a Sandy Hook happens in Chicago sometimes every month, Chicago with its strict gun control laws. We've heard this before. Chicago is notorious for the violence that has occurred there in recent years, websites devoted to the victims.

http://crime.chicagotribune.com/chicago/homicides

I have to admit, may have come down, not sure in Jan. 2014 though December 2013, 39 murders.

Yet, there we have it, Jan. 2013, 44 victims, Summer months, May 46, June 45, July 49, August 50, September 42.

Though I thought I have heard Chicago and Cook County have strict gun control.

Obama's backyard by the way.

I think this problem has been so real that there was a shooting near Obama's home in Chicago and in another incident, a young girl who sang at some ceremony, in fact the Presidential Inauguration was shot and killed in the Windy City: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/30/16771949-walking-angel-girl-who-performed-at-obamas-inauguration-shot-dead-in-chicago?lite

Washington DC, strict gun control, another bad place for this type of crime.

I believe they say there is a correlation between places where gun control is more strict and high murder rates.

[ABBEY]

Today's Daily USA Shooting....http://www.theindychannel.com/news/local-news/person-shot-in-parking-lot-on-indys-east-side