http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/26/chicago.violence.ap/index.html
It seems that violence is so bad in Chicago, IL that they've determined they have a "killing season" going on right now. The decision has been made to increase police patrols throughout the streets of Chicago, as well as using a helicopter, and even opening more churches to protect people from gunfire.
Here's a good question, what's going to happen when somebody sneaks into one of the churches and opens fire on the unarmed churchgoers and kills them? What good will the police be if they can't get there in time? Chicago is an awfully big place, they don't have nearly enough police and SWAT members to cover every city block.
If Chicago wants to put a permanent end to their season of death, they need to stop blaming guns for all their problems and start blaming the people that're actually doing the killing.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Friday, April 25, 2008
FFL dealer comes to Virginia Tech
In this article we see that the FFL dealer, Eric Thompson, who sold the .22 caliber handgun that was later used by the VT killer has been invited to Virginia Tech to talk about the subject. And in all the other blogs and the talkbacks it seems that just about everybody wants to crucify Mr. Thompson for the actions of a deranged madman.
It isn't right, some people calling for Mr. Thompson to be thrown in jail for supposedly contributing to the death of 32 innocent people. I don't buy it. Mr. Thompson was just running his business the only way it can be done; you sell to those that qualify, and you don't sell to those that don't. Since nobody treated the VT killer like a serious threat and instead just passed him on like he was nothing, he was able to qualify. If anyone should be blamed it should be the judge that didn't have him committed when he had the opportunity.
I don't think Mr. Thompson is to blame, anymore than anyone else is. Afterall, if someone gets drunk and runs over a child should we blame the used car dealer that sold the car in the first place? Should we blame a supermarket if somebody bought matches there and later used them to burn down a house?
Instead of blaming somebody that wasn't a part of the problem, how about we blame the person that actually did the wrong act. Stop passing the buck, start focusing on the one who actually carried out the act, it's nobody else's fault but theirs.
It isn't right, some people calling for Mr. Thompson to be thrown in jail for supposedly contributing to the death of 32 innocent people. I don't buy it. Mr. Thompson was just running his business the only way it can be done; you sell to those that qualify, and you don't sell to those that don't. Since nobody treated the VT killer like a serious threat and instead just passed him on like he was nothing, he was able to qualify. If anyone should be blamed it should be the judge that didn't have him committed when he had the opportunity.
I don't think Mr. Thompson is to blame, anymore than anyone else is. Afterall, if someone gets drunk and runs over a child should we blame the used car dealer that sold the car in the first place? Should we blame a supermarket if somebody bought matches there and later used them to burn down a house?
Instead of blaming somebody that wasn't a part of the problem, how about we blame the person that actually did the wrong act. Stop passing the buck, start focusing on the one who actually carried out the act, it's nobody else's fault but theirs.
When seconds matter, the police really are minutes away
Here's another story in the news, highlighting the fact that the police tend to be too far away to save you if you face a life-threatening situation.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352457,00.html
A woman was murdered in her home, by who we're left to assume is her husband. The police arrived within three minutes of being dispatched after the call came in. Out of all the cases I've read where the police are called for help because someone is in danger, that's the quickest time of arrival I can remember seeing. Unfortunately it seems that even three minutes is far too long for the police to get there in time to prevent somebody from being killed.
Remember, anytime tells you "You don't need a gun, that's what the police are there for" or anything along those lines, point out a story like this and remind them that such events tend to be the rule rather than the exception. The police aren't there to protect you, they're not there to keep you safe, they're only there to generally enforce the law. And if somebody gets killed because the police decided not to head out after receiving a call, that's not their fault and you can't sue them for it.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352457,00.html
A woman was murdered in her home, by who we're left to assume is her husband. The police arrived within three minutes of being dispatched after the call came in. Out of all the cases I've read where the police are called for help because someone is in danger, that's the quickest time of arrival I can remember seeing. Unfortunately it seems that even three minutes is far too long for the police to get there in time to prevent somebody from being killed.
Remember, anytime tells you "You don't need a gun, that's what the police are there for" or anything along those lines, point out a story like this and remind them that such events tend to be the rule rather than the exception. The police aren't there to protect you, they're not there to keep you safe, they're only there to generally enforce the law. And if somebody gets killed because the police decided not to head out after receiving a call, that's not their fault and you can't sue them for it.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Violence in Chicago
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/21/chicago.shootings.ap/index.html
It seems that Chicago, despite their numerous gun bans and restrictions placed on the Second Amendment, is still just too dangerous a place to live. Over the weekend they reported 32 shootings and six killings. And what do they blame this violence on?
Police Superintendent Jody Weis blamed an excess of guns and gangs for the rash of violence.
"There are just too many weapons here," Weis said at a news conference Sunday. "Too many guns, too many gangs."
That's right, they say that there's just too many guns in the city to be safe. They're basically admitting that their ban on handguns and "assault weapons" is failing since this attack was able to take place.
Now, since this admission of failure has been made we need to ask a question: If these laws aren't working, why are they still on the books?
Look Chicago! If you want to be safe then enforce the laws you've got and quit whining and crying about their ineffectiveness and decrying the fact that you've got armed criminals running around and killing people. That's what you get when you ban guns and accept crime.
Here's what you should do. You should take the failed "If we ban it then the criminals won't have it" mentality and pass a complete and total ban on crime. Make it a crime to actually be a criminal. That way, since crime is banned, nobody will be a criminal anymore. See how it works?
It seems that Chicago, despite their numerous gun bans and restrictions placed on the Second Amendment, is still just too dangerous a place to live. Over the weekend they reported 32 shootings and six killings. And what do they blame this violence on?
Police Superintendent Jody Weis blamed an excess of guns and gangs for the rash of violence.
"There are just too many weapons here," Weis said at a news conference Sunday. "Too many guns, too many gangs."
That's right, they say that there's just too many guns in the city to be safe. They're basically admitting that their ban on handguns and "assault weapons" is failing since this attack was able to take place.
Now, since this admission of failure has been made we need to ask a question: If these laws aren't working, why are they still on the books?
Look Chicago! If you want to be safe then enforce the laws you've got and quit whining and crying about their ineffectiveness and decrying the fact that you've got armed criminals running around and killing people. That's what you get when you ban guns and accept crime.
Here's what you should do. You should take the failed "If we ban it then the criminals won't have it" mentality and pass a complete and total ban on crime. Make it a crime to actually be a criminal. That way, since crime is banned, nobody will be a criminal anymore. See how it works?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
