The Musings of a Right Wing Extremist: crime

Showing posts with label crime. Show all posts

Friday, July 20, 2012

Colorado Shooting: Follow-up

I don't want to really get into this because mostly I don't want to be someone that exploits a tragedy. Our opponents do that.

In fact, here's a few examples from twitter. Calling for Gun-Control on Twitter.

The best thing I heard on this horrific tragedy, so far is this “Others may blame Hollywood. In both cases, it’s a mix of opportunism and a desire not to confront the existence of evil.” READ MORE>>>

If you really desire to envelop yourself in the details read to your heart's content:

Cinema Shooting, Theatre was "gun free zone"

I don't have time to write too much more, but apparently Cinemark (the parent company) has a no guns policy.

Cinemark has No Guns Policy

John Lott likewise has confirmed this.

Private business owners who invite the public onto their own premises can set their own policies: “Nothing in this part 2 [establishing the scope and limits of a Colorado concealed carry permit] shall be construed to limit, restrict, or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of a private property owner, private tenant, private employer, or private business entity.” Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 18-12-214(5). Source.

13 Shot Dead at Batman Premier

At least 12 people were killed and 50 were being treated at Denver area hospitals after a shooting at a midnight showing of Batman, the youngest a 3-month-old baby. READ MORE>>>

I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this, but I will say a few things.

If it weren't an election year, you could expect that this tragic (and thankfully rare) event would be one of the main reasons those in the anti-~~gun~~liberty movement would be pushing for stricter gun laws.

Next, if you have a gun you need to carry it and carry it everywhere. I have at least one gun that I carry with me everywhere (including to work and church). Yes it's much less likely that you'll be involved in a life-threatening situation in a movie theater, but those odds just changed for the worse today. I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it. Likewise I'd rather be a little uncomfortable at a movie because a gun is digging into my back than have to live with myself knowing that I could've saved my life or the life of another but chose to leave my gun at home.

Lastly, my thoughts and prayers go out to those murdered, injured, and affected by this shooting.

May God bring swift justice to the murderer and comfort those affected by this demonic event.

Monday, April 27, 2009

The Problem with "Hate Crime" Legislation

I just received my all too annoying MegaVote (from Congress.org) email notifying me of upcoming votes in the House and Senate and the first bill listed for the house was H.R. 1913 "Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009".

The email gave it the very vague description of: This House bill would provide local jurisdictions with funds to prosecute hate crimes.

This bill (and Hate Crime legislation in general) carries with it two obvious problems.

1. The bill seeks to give harsher penalties for the murder of a person because he/she was gay (or Black, White, Asian, Muslim, a woman, or whatever). Thus creating a new 'protected' class of people.

You might wonder, What's wrong with a harsher punishment for the murder/rape/assault/etc of a homosexual (or whatever) because the person is a homosexual? Well, is it more wrong to kill someone because they're a Jew than it is to kill because of jealousy or out of envy? Is it more wrong to kill ... than to kill? It's a non-sequitur.

I believe that crime is BAD, regardless of the motivation of the attacker or status of the victim. Criminals should be brought to justice and made to face the consequences of their crimes regardless of who the victims were or for what reason the crimes were committed.

The murder is the crime, not the motivation. Prosecuting attorneys can still use the motivation to prove the commission of the crime by an alleged suspect, but the motivation shouldn't be what's on trial.

2. The bill will vilify and quite possibly make free speech (especially speech you disagree with) illegal.

I'll quickly add that a cursory reading of the bill doesn't reveal this, but the testimony given by members of Congress allude to it.

HumanEvents.com provides this insight and dialog between members of Congress (debating a similar "Hate Crime" Bill) in their article titled "Is Your Minister a 'Hate Crime' Peddler?":
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) debated Rep. Artur Davis (D-Alabama) last Congress.

Here is a very telling portion of that exchange:
Mr. Gohmert: Even with your amendment, you still have to go back to the "rule of evidence" at page 15 of the underlying bill. And it says that these things may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial unless the evidence specifically relates to the offense.

And if I understood the gentleman's amendment -- and I will put the question back to you -- if a minister preaches that sexual relations outside of marriage of a man and woman is wrong, and somebody within that congregation goes out and does an act of violence, and that person says that that minister counseled or induced him through the sermon to commit that act, are you saying under your amendment that in no way could that ever be introduced against the minister?

Mr. Davis. No.
If you parse your way through that thicket of legalisms and double negatives, you’ll find that Cong. Davis was saying that the sermon could be used as evidence against the minister.
H.R. 1913 broadly defines “intimidation.” A pastor’s sermon could be considered “hate speech” under this legislation if heard by an individual who then acts aggressively against persons based on any “sexual orientation.” The pastor could be prosecuted for “conspiracy to commit a hate crime.”

Andrea Lafferty, who wrote the HumanRights.com article, sums it up as:

The question of which “sexual orientations” will be protected is left wide open so a great deal of discretion will be granted to judges and prosecutors to determine what is a “sexual orientation” and which ones will be covered. . .

No reasonable person could conclude that the Founders had any of this in mind when they drafted the Constitution and said which “rights” should be protected and which should be prohibited.

At the least, this bill wastes your and my tax dollars by wasting our Congressmen and Senators' time to push legislation against crimes already covered by our existing criminal code.

And at the worst, it's a way to demonize traditionally held beliefs such as: homosexuality is a sin and it's wrong and people's genders are encoded in their DNA and are NOT subject to 'interpretation'.

Take it as you will and I'll continue to just believe that...
Murder is Murder. Rape is Rape. Crime is Crime.

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Man stabbed waiting in line for GTA IV

From Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,353157,00.html

By 11 p.m., about a hundred people had gathered at Gamestation in Croydon, south London, when a 23-year-old man standing in the queue was stabbed several times by a passer-by.

Who says violent video games are a bad influence?
On a related note, check out today's comic at Ctrl+Alt+Del (Direct link)

Saturday, August 18, 2007

Harvard study confirms More guns = Less Crime

Once again American Universities are playing catch up with common sense, but it's still refreshing to see studies that confirm what we already knew.

From: CFIF.ORG

Very simply, the ability of law-abiding citizens to possess firearms has helped reduce violent crime in America.

Now, a Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy study shows that this is not just an American phenomenon. According to the study, worldwide gun ownership rates do not correlate with higher murder or suicide rates. In fact, many nations with high gun ownership have significantly lower murder and suicide rates.

In their piece entitled Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and some Domestic Evidence, Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser eviscerate "the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths." In so doing, the authors provide fascinating historical insight into astronomical murder rates in the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and they dispel the myths that widespread gun ownership is somehow unique to the United States or that America suffers from the developed world's highest murder rate.

It's great to hear this coming from Harvard Law. I'd recommend printing it out, reading it, highlighting a few passages and slip it in a catalog envelope with a letter and send it off to your Congressmen and Senators explaining that this is one of the many reasons why you support less restrictions on gun ownership.

You can find a copy of the study at Harvard Law: PDF (best to Save and read) and you can also find it at law.bepress.com

Monday, April 16, 2007

Put the blame where it lies: Criminals

It's slightly old news, but reading it is a breath of fresh air. It's comforting to know the whole world hasn't gone mad.

Originally Posted by Dave Markowitz

From the Philadelphia Inquirer|Letters.

...We have to stop pointing the finger everywhere but at the very people who prey on us each day. Over time we have allowed our value system to erode. We refuse to hold people accountable for their actions and constantly make excuses for their inexcusable behavior. The incessant cry for tougher gun laws is a good example. Until we're ready to strictly enforce the current laws there is no reason for tougher ones. . . .

Joseph Fox

Chief of Detectives

Philadelphia Police Department

Philadelphia

The Musings of a Right Wing Extremist