Talk:Drive-by shooting

Comparison

How does the number of drive by shootings in the US compare to the killing in Lebanon? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.66.229.203 (talk • contribs) .

That's a strange question to ask. Care to explain better what you want to know? --Dhartung | Talk 04:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the above question is meant to point out how the USA is sometimes demonized in the international media for its so-called "gun culture", while other parts of the world with comparatively greater carnage and warfare escape such labeling. Kepiblanc 18:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps there's a universal and unsurprising correlation between "lots of guns" and "lots of gun deaths". But this is off-topic; see Gun violence in the United States. --Dhartung | Talk 01:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Photo request?

Someone just added a photo request tag to this article. That's a terrible idea. Anyone with a camera in the vicinity of an actual drive-by will be more concerned with diving for cover than with taking pictures (and most criminals who engage in such criminal acts are smart enough to not create such incriminating evidence). And anyone with the skills and resources to actually stage one convincingly for dramatic purposes (e.g., motion pictures and television shows) will not be posting their work on Wikipedia for free. --Coolcaesar 06:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Drive-by shooting images could be sourced from a large selection of fictional works. Indeed, they are fairly common in film, television, and computer games, and this could/would aid in the contextualisation of the tactical manuveur and (removing any emotivity of course), its seemingly cult status (in fiction at very least). One could easily be sourced under a fair use licence.

This aside, I'm sure there are illustrators/graphic designers who would be able to render a diagram or illustration. Or even screenshots from CCTV footage.

There is a Wikipedia style guide that strongly recommends either an infobox or image be pegged to the top right corner of articles; I believe an image/screenshot/diagram would be a more suitable approach than a infobox. Jhamez84 13:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use would be difficult. It's easier to argue for fair use in an article about the work itself from which the image is taken (e.g., illustrating the article on Bullitt with an image of the movie poster). But when it comes to borrowing an image for a collateral purpose, U.S. copyright law is much, much more messy and unpredictable (and Americans will sue over anything). This is why the scope of permissible content under Wikipedia:Non-free content has narrowed over time. It's also the reason why the image of the Elvis Presley stamp was pulled from the United States article after several months. The image may be appropriate for illustrating the article on Elvis Presley, but inappropriate for illustrating the United States article to show Elvis as the King of Rock and Roll.

I know copyright law can be really annoying, but it serves the legitimate purpose of rewarding artists for their creative endeavors. Accurately staging a drive-by shooting for dramatic purposes is difficult, expensive, and dangerous. One has to hire a cast and crew, and obtain prop weapons, blanks, squibs, sugar glass (which is safer than real glass), and permits (so that if anyone calls the cops, which does happen, they know it's only a movie).

As for CCTV footage, they may be fair use depending upon the circumstances but the quality is usually very poor.

Finally, I agree that there are graphic designers/illustrators who could render an illustration and license it under the GFDL, but good luck finding one! --Coolcaesar 17:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

How does...

a death mean a pop culture reference?

I dont get that. You might as well add "In popular culture" to Knife then for all the people that have been stabbed.

Im sure the motive of that shooter was to get his shooting on Wikipedia as a popular culture reference for drivebys 77.99.186.110 (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

2Pac and Biggie spent their lives getting rich by glorifying violence/drugs/sex, so it was only fair that they died that way. Sometimes people forget just how violent 90% of rap music is. This article certainly does--MartinUK (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Mafia

Videogames based on the Mafia frequently include drive-bys - but have they ever actually been used by the Mafia, or in related films/TV shows?--MartinUK (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

   In some films maybe, but in real life, serious criminal organizations almost never committed drive-bys for the same reason real soldiers don't run around shooting at enemies from the hip. Things that look nice in the movies don't necessarily work well in real life, and guns are far harder o aim than one would think. Generally the few times a drive-by is done, the primary purpose is to instill fear rather than take out a target  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.119.94 (talk) 05:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC) 

George Moran, a member of the Northside Gang in prohibition-era Chicago is often credited with having popularized the drive-by shooting. They most certainly did do this in real life. Joe Esposito who was a rival of Capone, was killed on his front porch, in a drive-by shooting.

Shooting from a moving vehicle was always an obvious way to reduce the risk of capture or prevent any surviving victims from having time to shooting back. CleverTitania (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Unneccesary?

The "Television" section of "In Poular Culture" is a bit overdone- the mention of HBO's "The Wire" is reasonable enough, but the quotes from "Merry Christmas, Drake and Josh" and "Desperate Housewives" are merely fleeting references, which contribute little to the article. Perhaps they should be replaced with an actual instance of a drive-by occuring in the plot of a television show? MazelTav (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

In the movie Falling Down there is a drive-by gone wrong (the bullets only hit innocent bystanders and the car crashes immediately afterwards). Someone care to include that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.129.132.124 (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It would most likely be acceptable, considering that The Wire is, though it might take out a bit of neutrality if we start listing a bunch of instances that only show drive-bys going wrong. In other words, add it if you feel, but if you can, try to find an instance of a successful drive-by and add that too. Also, next time you're posting in a talk page, create a new section (unless you're replying to a section that's already there, of course). MazelTav (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

All right I will but you could have just done it yourself. SimonTrew (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. SimonTrew (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm quite new, and rather tentative about things. Anyway, thanks, it's much better now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MazelTav (talk • contribs) 22:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Bystanders

"Innocent bystanders" is surely redundant. By implication surely a bystander is innocent. (He may have commited other crimes but is not involved in the crime by which he is standing). And even if he has had a hand in it, it's not intentional that he got shot, so "bystanders" can just stand alone without "innocent". SimonTrew (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

"Innocent bystander" is a well-known phrase; it's not meant to be analyzed for redundancy. JöG (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

And yet it is usually used specifically rather than a general catch-all. e.g. when a reporter is talking on the news about known innocent parties. OP has a point about bystanders not necessarily being innocent. 87.115.148.180 (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there evidence that this phenomenon continues at all in the president day with any frequency? The expression certainly exists, but there appears to be very few events of this type. Where are the statistics demonstrating continued activity? 204.188.161.235 (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

uh 2600:1700:7D30:2200:28BC:D4DE:65C9:7A76 (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Assuming this comment was meant to refer to the present day, rather than Presidents' Day, and to the phenomenon of interest was drive-by shootings rather than bystanders, I suggest the following may be applicable:

* https://popcenter.asu.edu/content/drive-shootings-0

* https://missionlocal.org/2023/06/mass-shooting-nine-injured-sf-mission/

* https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/nyc-gun-violence-drive-by-shootings-nypd-a9617606.html

* https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/one-person-seriously-injured-in-santa-rosa-drive-by-shooting/

Thewellman (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Usage

It says "The Special Air Service used a form of drive-by shooting in its campaigns in North America and Paris during the Civil War." This is quite confusing and probably wrong in more than one respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.92.245 (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

To say the LEAST! I'm giving that one 24 hours for SOME form of correction, and then I'm removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.230.43.69 (talk) 23:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)