Friday, November 30, 2007
Even of not entirely altruistic (or not at all), this gesture may in time save a lot more lives
than all of the legal activism of all Gun control and gun rights movements combined.
Now, I'm perfectly willing to admit my selfishness, I support the right to self-defense, i.e. first me, then my family, then the rest of society. The only thing of you I will defend to the death is your right to a just trial and your right to free speech, I've got no intention to fool you into believing I'd be willing to exchange my life for yours.
Just so you know: next time a political lobbyist organization tells you they're doing it to save lifes, petty please point out that a few bucks could pay for lifesaving medication for a third world child, seriously, over 20 000 firearm deaths a year? what about 27 000 children per day!?
It makes me sick when the VPC tries to claim moral superiority over me. At least I'm not being a hypocrite about it, I'm looking after numbero uno, there, I've said it! All they're doing is trying to feel better about themselves.
The Judge was not charged because "There is insufficient proof to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. James knowingly possessed the handgun," (Konrad Siller, first assistant prosecutor in Washtenaw County).
Attorney Keith Brais, who claims he also took the gun with him unknowingly, WILL be charged however.
If you've been reading my recent posts, you probably know that I think both men should be charged. If you know me better, you'll also know I'd expect them to be let off with a slap on the wrist, forced to pay legal proceedings, a small fine, and take court mandated firearm safety classes at most.
What bothers me, is the difference between how these two men were threated, based on state law, maybe even their gender and by their profession. They were both equally careless, why should they not face equal (minimal) penalty for their trespasses?
Thursday, November 29, 2007
There's a lot to be learnt from that video up there too. She knew what her kid was in to, but she did not (could not) get him out, and she lost him. I hope to god that her other child has a better future cut out for him than his brother and father.
I'm glad to see that the mother is trying to make a difference. I don't support gun rights because I think guns are the answer to violence, they level the playing field at best. No, the answer to violence is education, hoping to turn people into productive and harmless citizens. I guess that woman knows it as well.
I don't pity the son because I never pity the dead, they might be better off than the happiest person here on earth* I only wish he would have lived a different life, for his sake and for that of those close to him. What I do pity is that he got on a train of consequences before being of age where one can realize the full scope of his decisions, which makes educating our youth even more important.
I do look in anger at organizations like the VPC, who will count this death towards children killed by guns and people killed by intimate acquaintances, without even stopping to talk to people about children growing up in a world with little perspective of a future. Where education is looked down upon, and kindness exploited. Where violence is glorified and where crime becomes a way of life.
Call me a bigot for being one of the most arduous supporters of gun rights if you which, but know that I'm not as narrow minded as the supporters of common sense gun control.
*I'm a devote agnost, and in spite of my disdain for organized religion, I profoundly believe in an afterlife.
Roughly a pound of better-than-weapons-grade uranium was seized by Slovakian police, who suspect it was going to end up in terrorist hands (Telegraph, Fox) Even though the uranium would have been "good" enough to manufacture a nuclear bomb (I'm not sure if was enough, mind that there's no such thing as a small nuclear weapon), the long half life of uranium 235 would have also made it prime material for a so called "dirty" bomb.
Another success was the uprooting of a liberty city based terror cell who planned to commit a 9-11 style terrorist attack. The Miami herald reports of how the group of seven was infiltrated by the FBI. That's what I call great work from the feds, which will hopefully mae the US a safer nation.
What I miss in both of these stories; where are all the guns? The Brady campaign has many convinced that the US legislation concerning firearms would be a major pull for terrorists, but where are they? Eastern Europe is riddled with small arms, where are the big busts of terrorists attempting to buy those guns? If a homegrown terror cell was willing to commit to staging a 9-11 imitation, surely there must exist such cells who intend to gun down people in ways only the violence policy center can imagine?
Next time somebody brings up the entire "terror guns" hoax, bring this up, please, bring him/her up.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
The required course of action is clear, if we make it illegal for this kid to buy a gun legally, this never would have happened!
... oh ... right ... it's already illegal.
Gosh, I guess he must have been ... (Priest, British steel album, track three)
Now ABC has published an article about the subject as well.
Here's the reply I've written
"You're right, police officers who die in the line of duty should be commemorated more often, but this article is an insult to those very people!
It's just another piece loaded with gun politics rather than criminal information, without as much as a hint to increase welfare, education, a penal system reform or even a revalidation of the nuclear family. Gun control isn't about saving lives, but there are plenty of time tested, progressive methods on reducing crime that get little to no attention in the mainstream media.
They blame the killings on the lapsed assault weapons ban (AWB)? The AWB did not even ban AK-47's, those were already illegal under the national firearms act!
Even then, all of those so called "assault rifles" only account for a tiny fraction of all weapons used in violent crime. The US department of justice has got two great studies on the subject, "guns used in crime" and "weapon use and violent crime"
If police want to increase their odds in a firefight, I suggest they start by spending more time at the range, what was that last shooting in Miami, they fired 20 shots at a suspect and hit him eight times if I recall correctly (the one who claimed his hairbrush was a gun). Those cops for one don't need bigger and more powerful guns, they need to use their current ones better! The NRA provides free training to law enforcement, should any of Americas finest be reading this."
On another note, anybody have a link that documents the amount of officers killed by their service weapon? Fear that the amount of officers killed by "assault weapons" may shoot up by this evolution!
Monday, November 26, 2007
Knowing that most crime is committed with very simple guns whose main design features predate the before the second world war, this is obviously a dream. A dream which I sometimes wish were true, as I am one of the fools who would gladly trade my rights to own a firearm in exchange for the guarantee that I'd never, ever need one ever after. (I plink with air rifles, so there :p)
But those who would trade liberty for safety deserve neither right? I know it's a dream to believe that removing guns from society will make said society devoid of violence, so I'll defend my right to own arms as I will defend yours.
Now, you've hear it all before: "Guns? Maybe, but you don't need military style assault weapons!" Passing that said guns also date back half a century, and that the supreme court once stated that a weapon without military value isn't covered by the second amendment, what's the spirit of that phrase?
Civilians shouldn't have access to military grade equipment?
Don't forget, the military of today won't endure forever. The world is changing, and so are they.
"Cyber age prompts new war, The Miami Herald"
The article goes as far as to state that in the future, currently conventional weapons will be obsolete and that information based attacks would be far more effective than sending in grunts with guns.
Should we start fearing for our computers and broadband connection?
Computers have advanced beyond comprehension since the days of "bombe" code breakers and enigma/triton encryption devices designed by and for the military. A common cellphone today has more computing power than a PC from the years when the AK-74 was designed, and the current ease with which information can be spread stands in biblical proportions to the endeavor it was fifty years ago.
Should civilians be barred from owning military equipment? Will there be buyback programs to turn in my quad core processor in exchange for a pair of sneakers? Conveniently also eliminating all those nasty video games that are supposedly ruining todays youth (in spite of the 18+ label, opposed to parental absence and poor education).
Next up, Civilian radio ownership prohibited, radios are also military equipment, right?
An interesting read, though I dispute it's value.
It'll probably come down to which side shows up to vote, as always ...
Saturday, November 24, 2007
The judge who sent the three to jail made a questionable statement in this case. He said that carrying a knife makes you a coward, and that these three kids, who killed a man, were putting themselves at risk by carrying weapons.
That's right, these three killers were a hazard to themselves ... makes me wonder what the victim was carrying to have him end up in the morgue.
At least these three will be serving a "lifetime" sentence ... they'll probably be out in twelve years or so.
Friday, November 23, 2007
The laws response: the shooter is charged with involuntary manslaughter and reckless homicide.
This is exactly how the justice system should treat people like this, he *did* kill somebody, unintentional as it may be, the poor woman is equally dead. Had she not died, he still should have been charged with reckless endangerment, and the applicable "unsafe firearm discharge" charges if applicable in the state in question.
Make no mistake: I support the second amendment with fiery passion, as do I support the right of one to defend himself and his property and the DA's decision to charge this woman as (s)he did.
All for the same reason, I hold people responsible for their actions. A mugger who gets shot had it coming in my opinion, he made the conscious decision to commit a violent crime, and somebody defended himself.
This woman has to accept the responsibility for the accident she caused. She will probably get off with a relatively light sentence, she took a life yes, but didn't mean to, probably acted in a moment of panic (if she had young children in her house, this would play hugely into her advantage), and is probably as beat up over it as the deceaseds family. But she will hopefully be convicted, serving as a warning to all of us to be sure of our target, and what is behind it.
What doesn't just happen, is the following:
Said piece of scum starts harassing a couple by throwing chips at a woman, he proceeds to stab the boyfriend seven times when he objects to this.
And then people say guns cause murder ... if only.
If only guns caused murder, then this never would have happened.
Read the full story in the Telegraph.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
"A loving mother described as a "beautiful princess" by her family was murdered by a drunk teenage burglar in a "ferocious attack" at her suburban home as she planned her family's evening meal, a court has heard.
Laila Rezk, 53, was beaten to death by the "bare hands" of Lloyd Edwards who followed her in to steal, Kingston Crown Court was told."
Thank god nobody had a gun, right? Can you imagine how much more damage that punk could have done with a gun, or how badly that mother could have injured either party if she'd defended herself from being beaten into a pulp?
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
A woman was stabbed to death in Lexington N.C., her daughter and her boyfriend have been charged with the murder after tests have shown that they tried to clean up the crime scene.
Emphasis on "tried", because it obviously failed, so now their charges will be ever so heavier; they tampered with evidence, obstructed a criminal investigation concerning a felony, and it will be easier for the persecution to determine premeditation.
It should also be noted that a gun is not at all necessary to murder somebody close to you.
I'm starting to pale every time I see the word "good kid" and "honor roll student" in the news. Maybe we should profile them rather than legal gun owners? No, I'm not being serious, just patronizing.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Tasers have often been brought up as the perfect alternative to guns, because anything that replaces a gun is often portrayed as ideal, and the bad sides are left out. If they're so ideal, why do cops still prefer guns over tasers and stun guns? Very simple, a taser is designed to stop somebody while causing minimal damage, where as a gun is designed to stop someone, period.
And Tasers are called "less-than-lethal" for a reason, they can kill somebody just as dead as a firearm could, and not always senior citizens either:
"(CNN) -- A 20-year-old man died Sunday after being shot with a taser device during a scuffle with a sheriff's deputy in Maryland, a spokeswoman for the Frederick County Sheriff's Office said."
And this isn't a senior citizen, this is a kid my age whose life has been cut short by a law enforcement tool that's supposed to be safe enough not to merit having it's use regulated.
And this isn't an isolated event, over a 150 people have died after being shot/hit with one of these weapons since June 2001 according to amnesty international.
Still people ask, why do you worry about that? You're obviously willing to kill somebody in order to save your own life?
Well, the chance of taking somebody else's life is only worth it if you actually save your own. I'm not about to get close to an armed assailant in an attempt to tazer him, and get stabbed in the process, or bludgeoned with previously mentioned lethal baseball bat.
I'm not going to fire two darts into him preying that they'll both penetrate his clothing without getting deflected, and carry six tazer guns just in case one of them fails, or there are several threats that need to be taken care off, thugs often work in pack in case you didn't know.
Opposed to all of these potential failures? A weapon which has been around for centuries, compact, easy to maintain, doesn't have batteries that run dry or leaking O-rings as found in canisters of pepper spray. A small double action revolver doesn't require any difficult training, nor that much practice if all you need to hit is but a couple of yards away (typical across-the-room distance) But learning to use it properly is inexpensive as ammunition is cheap and plentiful.
Using said revolver will alert the entire neighborhood that you're in trouble, and is likely to send any secondary threat running scared. And work it will, much more reliably than any electronic gizmo whose success depends close to entirely on what the thug happens to be wearing.
I don't really get what the commotion is about, the technique can show that a certain bullet came from a certain batch of lead. A defense attorney can reduce the legal value of that by pointing out exactly how many bullets there were in that batch. Bullets are made by tens of thousands (with indiscernible lead composition, actual batches are larger, but *do* differ along the way), chances are that all of the cartridges of a type sold in one gun store are from the same batch, so it doesn't really prove anything that isn't already established by finding the suspect in possession of said cartridges.
Now, it would appear that the method used wasn't of acceptable scientific quality. Frankly, I don't see what you're going to prove beyond that the suspect was in possession of the same type and brand of ammunition used. But hey, my colleagues just run the tests they're told to do by the DA/defense, they don't have to consider juridical relevancy.
If you're interested in the full story:
Fox: Hundreds of Inmates Wrongly Convicted By Faulty Forensic Tool
Washington Post: FBI's Forensic Test Full of Holes
Sunday, November 18, 2007
"EAGLE POINT — A first-grader was suspended Tuesday for drawing a stick figure shooting another in the head with a gun and allegedly threatening students."
If you like guns, just drop out right? When will it end?
I don't carry a gun to kill people. I carry a gun to keep from being killed.
I don’t carry a gun to scare people. I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.
I don’t carry a gun because I’m paranoid. I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.
I don’t carry a gun because I’m evil. I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.
I don’t carry a gun because I hate the government. I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.
I don’t carry a gun because I’m angry. I carry a gun so that I don’t have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.
I don’t carry a gun because my sex organs are too small. I carry a gun because I want to continue to use those sex organs for the purpose for which they were intended for a good long time to come.
I don’t carry a gun because I want to shoot someone. I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.
I don’t carry a gun because I’m a cowboy. I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.
I don’t carry a gun to make me feel like a man. I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.
I don’t carry a gun because I feel inadequate. I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.
I don’t carry a gun because I love it. I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
There must be butchers, or even housewives, carrying deadly knives on trains. There must be doctors carrying syringes. There are probably still old ladies with hatpins. There is me with my gun. All have the power to kill, but none remotely intends to. We are not a threat.
A free society can function properly only if it works out what is a threat and what isn't. If it ignores threat, it will be attacked. If it treats everyone as a threat, it will grind to a halt."
Taken from the Telegraph; Ideology biggest threat to 'improved security'
I was walking the dogs when I saw them trying to hit rocks placed on top of a dumpster. After the obligatory "don't shoot those things out in the streets, and use proper stance when you don't!" I went on my way.
Not long after, they (well, two of them) came ringing my doorbell with the casualty, one of the springers. A very nice looking replica of a walter target pistol if I remember correctly ... anyhow, the bolt didn't lock back so they came knocking, it' not the first time I've repaired one of their toys for them, though that won't last if they don't listen to their fathers and stop shooting those dang things out in the streets.
BB guns are a lot like ordinary handguns, everything's different of course, but analogue.
Same way of feeding, just a lot smaller, and there's no need for an extractor. Instead of a firing pin they've got a little piston, instead of a hammer they've got a spring loaded bolt.
This time, the crude trigger mechanism was malfunctioning. The triggers spring had come undone, and te trigger was too tight, so it jammed, and the catch which hold the bolt back was permanently down.
Put everything back in its place and filed some excess plastic of the trigger, removed the weights while I was at it and restored the follower from the magazine to the proper orientation before sending them off, right after a little speech on gun safety.
Great kids, maybe I'll give em a few pairs of safety glasses for christmas.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Oh the joys of living in the utopically peaceful California.
Note: I'm well aware that most police officers are great folks who do their job, as hard as it often is, as well as they possibly can. I have little besides respect for those men and woman who have made it their job to increase our quality of life.
Just don't tell me I can trust them without condition.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
In this post, he/she said:
"When it’s pointed out that countries with strict gun control have amazingly low gun homicide numbers (e.g., Japan in 2005 had 19 firearm-related homicides, etc.)–the gunloons go nuts (well, more nuts) and pretend the Japanese are of a different species."
Our obvious response is, obviously, to point out that their are plenty of countries with less guns and more homicides. Should be clear seeing as the US has the most heavily armed civilian population, but is the 24th in line for most homicides per capita. 14th in number of fire-arm related homicides. I pointed out (check two posts back) that there are countries in south America that are far worse off than we are when plotting out gun ownership vs Homicide.
What did Jade reply?:
"Yes, we’re number 13 behind places like Columbia, Brazil, Jamaica and Honduras. Pretty good company. Yup, we want to be measured against a country like Columbia or Jamaica than, say, a Germany or UK. (comment 18)"
So, the Japanese are the same species as we are, and the Brazilians aren't? The Colombians and South Africans are a different breed of human than we are, but we are exactly like the British and Germans?
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Police say they have charged the 16-year-old with attempted murder, possession with intent to deliver drugs and aggravated assault"
As Reported by Fox.
The necessary course of action is obvious!
We must ban minors from buying guns, and let's make dealing drugs illegal too while we're at it!
Monday, November 12, 2007
Supposedly, because I already disproved that months ago in an article called "How many guns does it take to kill a man" Now, I was not born an avid supporter of the second amendment, as a matter of fact, I long supported what I believed to be "common sense" gun laws. But I studied the subject, and found that my ideas were wrong.
Looking for a correlation between civilian gun ownership and the homicide rates was one of the things I did to realize that we cannot blame guns, or as I said back in September:
"The cause of our murder epidemic is not that people own a large amount of firearms, the problem lies with the small minority willing to abuse them."
Oh well, here's a nice little graph to ponder over, the amount of homicides per 1000 guns.
(Mexico, South Africa and Colombia omitted, their values (0.9 3.8 and 8.6 in that order) were completely off the charts.
Wonder what part two will bring us ...
Sunday, November 11, 2007
So, they're not around when a crime is committed (ex: you get assaulted, beaten, raped, robbed, ...) and then they don't even investigate the event? They can't be assed to even go out and look for a culprit?
"No officer visits the scene of the crime and no attempt is made to catch the culprit. As many as two-thirds of burglaries are not investigated in some areas, according to police figures.
Even robberies and violent crimes can be screened out, while other cases involve fraud, theft and vandalism." (From the telegraph, emphasis by yours truely)
So ... self defence anyone?
Friday, November 9, 2007
Shooting a couple of pictures would have been the better option here I guess ... goes to show you what criminals will do to get away with their crimes.
No, it's not just in the US.
No, it's not just guns.
No, the general public won't be distracted by yet another feel-good victim disarmament law ...
It's time to reform the education system and penal code. Time for a different approach, a better approach, or at least something that hasn't failed elsewhere yet.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Sure, there's being stoïcist and respectfull to authority, but Jesus ... and they expect that our kids will grow up to be warm sociable beings and not psychotics?
Crud, I can't ... I can't do this ...
Alice, help me out here will you ...
/Pulls up "cold machines" from Alice Coopers "brutal planet" album
"You don't know my name
You don't know my number
You don't know my face at all
We walk right past each other
Every single day
Like cold machines
We're marching on and on and on and on and on"
Youtube video feauturing "Cold machines"
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
CNN reports that Eric had posted videos of him and his guns on youtube for the world to see.
Just to show you, it's not just an American problem.
Finland has an elaborate gun licensing system which requires a permit for every single firearm, and every single person who uses that firearm must be licensed for it. Sadly, that didn't stop Eric.
Monday, November 5, 2007
"In the Bronx, where Rosado was born and raised and had scores of relatives, shock spread through his funeral.
''We were amazed,'' said Rosado's older sister, Jackie Alvarado, upon hearing the news that her brother had been killed. ``It was not the person that we knew.''
Those who knew Rosado before he moved to Florida described him as a serious student.
''He was always trying to protect people, not hurt them,'' said Jennifer Avallone, his fifth-grade teacher at PS 280. ``All the teachers loved him.''"
These people, whose statement can be found in the Miami Herald, are talking about the recently deceased , 14-year-old Eric Rosado, a.k.a., Eric Rosado, the 14-year-old who was shot and killed while robbing a South Miami-Dade grocery store last week.
For gods sakes ... 14!? A Fourteen year old kid who -for reasons unknown to me- thinks it's a good idea to rob a hardworking man at gunpoint? Some thing's seriously wrong here, I guess the crowd of control proponents will be telling me it's because he had a gun (which he held illegally, during the perpetration of a crime), or because the store owner had one (which he used within the confines of Florida law), or because of whatever ...
What do you think? What do you think drives a friggen kid, a 14 year old child to do something like this?
Guess I'll use today to finish a paper or something
Saturday, November 3, 2007
I've got to admit that both sides of this debate have members in their ranks who hardly qualify as the brightest stars in the sky, but some of the things I read ...
Still, there was some quite inspirational material in there, especially concerning the amount of firearm homicides that were of "felonious nature".
"The first is that crime killings are in fact one of the smallest categories of firearms death. Of the 30,565 (10,895 homicides, 18,169 suicides, 1,501 unintentional injuries) firearms deaths reported in 1988, only seven percent (2,179) stemmed from actual or suspected felony activity.(...) Yet to categorize gun violence solely as a crime issue dismisses more than 90 percent of all gun deaths."
This is most interesting material, I'd say.
So, truly felonious crimes like those school shootings, drive-by's and assassinations only amount to 7% of all shootings?
That's why you're bent on banning standard capacity magazines from civilian ownership? And how exactly is that limit going to do anything about those suicides which account for nearly 60% off all victims? Oh you're going to ban cheap handguns are you? Wonder how Kurt Cobain feels about that ...
They started by blaming woman-oriented marketing by the gun industry on the increase of gun suicides by females, after they stopped poisoning themselves. The VPC casually omitted that this was all after barbiturates had been banned under Nixons war on drugs, so yeah, there's your reason for the increase.
But hey, if it'll help you keep all of those weapons out the hands of a whopping 7% of all triggermen, who cares about the truth right?
Friday, November 2, 2007
Said scary gun was a 1940 Colt Woodsman Match Target Bullseye (.22) worth approximately 1800 us dollars, the loot all of the robberies combined doesn't come close to that amount.
Unless the legal owner shows up, it'll be destroyed ...
I think it's such a pity that such an antique would be destroyed, selling it would fatten the local authorities wallet, allowing them to put the assets to good use. And seriously, somebody who'd put down over a grand on an antique, low caliber target pistol, doesn't strike me as likely to go off knocking over grocery stores or robbing people.
Deactivate it and send it to a museum for Christs sakes, would be cheaper than destroying it, because the museum would probably deactivate it themselves and foot the bill for shipping.
Seriously, you'd pay good money to take a good look at one of these right?
I know I would, though I doubt I'd find it scary ...
Do I trust the Police to keep me safe?
I do, however, absolutely but positively trust that they will try.
Posted by Don Hughes
No! What police - we never see any.
Posted by Lavandula
I have never seen a policeman patrolling a street at night. I have seen PCSO's patrolling on a bus.
Do i trust the police to keep me safe? No, i trust the police to give my future-killer early parole.
Posted by Luke B
No, as in I do not trust the police, especially armed
ones, having witnessed these cowboys on military
The word gung ho comes to mind !! enough said
Posted by Mark
When I was caught exceeding the speed limit in a place where, and at a time, the policeman agreed it wasn't dangerous to do so I was fined and given 3 points on a licence which, until then had been clean for over 30 years.
When a tea leaf broke into my garage and stole circa £5.5k worth of my goods the policeman told me I would never see the goods again (he was correct!) and to expect a repeat visit once the tea leaf had given me time to replace the goods via my insurance. (fortunately not the case....yet!) Roughly 2 weeks later the police sent me a booklet - I forget the exact title, but the gist was "How to be a victim of crime"!!!!
Earlier this year there was a spate of similar thefts in this area and our local newspaper carried an article in which the police advised us to:
1. Remove property to a more secure location.
2. Install alarms and fit robust multiple locks.
3. Use high visibility property marking, ideally with a postcode, complimented (sic) by hidden markings.
4. Anchor plant and equipment like quad bikes and lawn mowers to the ground or building.
5. Thread accreditedsecurity chains or cables through smaller tools like strimmers and chain saws.
6. Build shell re-inforcement like bars, wall and roof cladding, interior or exterior secured gates, anti-prize (sic) strips.
7. Fit strong rooms, cages or boxes.
8. Install proximity detectors in the grounds or immediately outside buildings to detect trespassers, that could also trigger simple alarms.
I wrote to our Chief Constable (Dorset) suggesting that as the police clearly seemed to have abandoned the thief catching solution in favour of residents building themselves fortresses we should all receive a Council Tax rebate.
Guess what? - not even the courtesy of a reply!
Posted by Realist
It goes on like this for eight pages ...
Thursday, November 1, 2007
The sentences are in, and the ruling judge has stated:
"At the heart of this case is the status of handguns in certain parts of our society, in this city and elsewhere, Mr Justice Holland said.
A handgun in circulation gives the holder a spurious self-confidence and a perverted self-respect, the status of the armed man."
This just one day after the stabbing of a 62 year old man by the father of a girl who he had thrown out of his house when they were having a party there without his permission.
So I ask, why is it that this judge is calling gun-culture perverse, but hasn't a bad word to say about the cult of violence? Why is it that guns are such a great evil, when knives are at least equally dangerous, or even more dangerous according to the US department of justice?
There's a problem with violence, violent people cause violent crime.