This ruling comes as no surprise to me. Only the most severe opponents of considering extenuating circumstances in criminal judgments, those who demand personal accountability for everyone's actions, could have a problem with this. Even the Prosecutor agrees.
"This was justice because the correct conclusion was reached," prosecutor Joyce Dalmyn said, according to CBC. "Mr. Li is a schizophrenic. Mr. Li had a severe mental disease. Mr. Li, in my opinion and in the opinion of the psychiatrists, had no idea what he was doing was wrong."Naturally, the Canadian Mental Health Association agrees with the Prosecutor.
Why do people have a problem with this? Is it the use of the word "victim" in reference to the offender? Do people think we somehow disrespect the real victim by recognizing that the criminal is also one? Or is it that assessment business? Is it the fact that he may be released from the mental hospital sooner than he would from a prison? I really don't see why that should be the case. Wouldn't a panel of psychiatrists in the State mental hospital be able to come to the same conclusions about Charles Manson that his Parole Board does each time they meet, as an example?"Mr. Li is also a victim here," said Ruth Ann Craig of the Canadian Mental Health Association, according to CBC. "What's going to happen to Mr. Li is not a cakewalk."
He will be housed in a locked psychiatric ward, Craig said, while he undergoes assessment and treatment to determine whether he is a risk to himself or society.
The point is, mentally ill people belong in hospitals not prisons. The decisions pertaining to the length of stay are another matter altogether, in some cases to be determined later.
What's your opinion? Would you rather see Mr. Li spend the rest of his life in prison? Do you think the Canadians are any better at handling this than we are in the States?
I was fascinated again reading that none of the other 34 passengers did anything to stop this. What do you think about that? Most men are reluctant to admit that when faced with a situation that cries out for intervention, they might hesitate, or cower. I'm able to admit that, if I had been one of the other passengers, and if I had seen this knife-wielding maniac attack his seatmate, I honestly don't know for sure what my reaction would have been. Probably I would have been with the crowd, slinking away in fear and shock and regretting it later. What about you?
Is this why people support carrying guns? Is this an example of how people need to be armed in order to overcome their fears and do the right thing? Or perhaps the typical concealed-carry guy is not the type who would slink away. Perhaps the guys who support guns are already able to overcome these fears, even without those gun. What do you think?
Please feel free to leave a comment.
People call the police and the fire department because they have the proper equipment and training to get the job done. When confronted with a person with a weapon of any sort is stupid to confront someone without some weapon of your own. Like the old saying goes, you don't bring a knife to a gun fight. In the case of the bus passengers, you don't confront a man who is willing to use a knife with your bare hands.
ReplyDeleteThe people who are against people carrying concealed guns are afraid that they don't have the training to confront an armed suspect willing killing innocent people in the process. People who do not support concealed weapons permits think of the wild west. More often though, the cops seem to be more trigger happy in America and that is more scary because they then run behind the Blue Wall of Silence. Remember the instance of the passenger in Miami airport shot in the back by a armed air Marshall. Shot in the back. WTF??
Mike,
ReplyDeleteAll address some of the other points later, but right now I want to deal with this sentence:
Is this an example of how people need to be armed in order to overcome their fears and do the right thing?
HEY ASSHOLE, I don't carry because I'm overcoming my fears. I carry because I have objectively evaluated many factors and have taken steps to be responsible for my own safety.
You wonder why gunnies get upset at your arrogant, egotistical, holier then thou bullshit, this is a classic example you pissant jerk.
It isn't out of fear that I care, it is so that I don't have any regrets about what could happen if I didn't. Fear isn't an issue and isn't an issue with most people.
The decision to carry, for most people, is a reaction out of strength, not fear. It is a decision not to be a victim, not to be "helpless" not to be forced to stand idly by while evil is being done.
This goes to Il principe also"
In the case of the bus passengers, you don't confront a man who is willing to use a knife with your bare hands.
The people who carry concealed have made the decision not to stand by, not to be passive. That decision is reached long before we start carrying. People do confront people with weapons regardless of what they have or don't have.
Carrying a firearm only makes people who are willing to help MORE EFFECTIVE. Those unwilling to help won't; whether or not they have a weapon.
The bus was loaded with weapons. IPODs slung on ear buds, books, suitcases and back packs, a couple of knives or so.
People didn't act because they are being conditioned by the government, by anti-gun folks like Mike to be SHEEP. How many times have you heard some law enforcement talking head on TV say "While this case worked out, we advise people to cooperate with the criminal, give them what they want"???
How many times have we heard some mayor or JACKASS like Mike say "We've got to get guns off the street"?
Or perhaps the typical concealed-carry guy is not the type who would slink away. Perhaps the guys who support guns are already able to overcome these fears, even without those gun. What do you think?
Guess I answered your question, eh?
Bob said, "The decision to carry, for most people, is a reaction out of strength, not fear."
ReplyDeleteWhat's "most people" mean? 60%, 80%? Or are you going to try and say it's 99%?
Hell Bob, even Helmke says most of you gun guys are responsible. I've never said anything other than that. Our question always gets back to what percentage is not?
And you said, "You wonder why gunnies get upset at your arrogant, egotistical, holier then thou bullshit, this is a classic example you pissant jerk."
Yes, I do wonder, Bob. I wonder why, if you're in the right part of the ratio, why you get so upset. I've often said it's not you personally except in that general philosophical sense. In the concrete, like we're talking now, about you personally carrying a gun, I have no problem, except for all the name-calling, of course.
I do have a big problem with the small percentage who shouldn't be carrying for various reasons.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteCan you keep your arguments straight?
Hell Bob, even Helmke says most of you gun guys are responsible. I've never said anything other than that.
Your quote right?
But don't you also post about the Brady Campaign saying how many CHL holders are irresponsible and how they back it up with "hundreds" of examples.
Now which is it, are we responsible or not?
Are you a responsible driver? Are most people....but how large is the percentage of drunk drivers?
1 in 139 licensed drivers....now compare that to the incredible small number of issues with CHL holders.
I've often said it's not you personally except in that general philosophical sense.
It is personal, because you keep saying it over and over and over again, lying about the statistics and evidence to support the opposing side.
It is personal because I know many gun owners and you are insulting us.
It is personal because you are talking about our basic freedoms and rights.
It is personal because I choose to fight for this right. When you make a claim you are indicting me and most of the gun owners I know...I won't stop getting upset because I care.
I do have a big problem with the small percentage who shouldn't be carrying for various reasons.
Then focus on taking care of those people, here is a novel frakkin concept, WHEN THEY BREAK THE LAW
If they prove themselves to not be responsible, we have a system in place to take care of that...it's the justice system, it is criminal charges.
You, on the other hand, are talking about denying people, most people there basic inherent human and civil rights because of the actions of a few.
Can you show how your actions aren't impacting most people? How the actions of people like Helmke aren't denying people their basic rights?
Helmke supported the D.C. gun ban Mike...how does that target only that small number of irresponsible idiots?
The D.C. ban prohibited people from possessing handguns (unless they had them prior to 1976), prevented the people from exercising their right to carry protection in the streets, prevented people from being able to keep functional firearms readily available in their own homes. Heck the law was so strict it was ILLEGAL TO CARRY A FIREARM FROM ROOM TO ROOM.
Now, if most people are trustworthy, why don't the laws reflect that?
Why not let most people firearms, if they choose, and JAIL the ones that VIOLATE THE LAW?
Why not let people exercise their basic inherent human rights without trouble from do-gooding interfering, people like you and Helmke?
Bob S,
ReplyDeleteYou attack me for no reason. You know nothing of my prior experience (ie Military, EMS crew) or how I live my life. I don't shy away from responsibility when I see it. I was making the point in the situation like the bus, I probably would have done the same thing after everyone was out of harms way. Isolate the perp until the police or someone with something to subdue the perp. Slinging an iPod at the perp as opposed to securing the door with my body. I choose the latter. I don't think the government will buy me a new iPod for my good Samaritan actions. That fucker ain't worth my hard earned Ipod and all the music and videos I have on it. And BTW, if was in that situation in the states, I would pull out my Ruger P40 and shoot the fucker. Because it was in Canada I wouldn't be able to bring my weapon over the border.
Il Principe,
ReplyDeleteIf you took my general sentiments toward Mike to be an attack to you I apologize.
I was specifically referring only to your comment
In the case of the bus passengers, you don't confront a man who is willing to use a knife with your bare hands.
With my reply
The people who carry concealed have made the decision not to stand by, not to be passive. That decision is reached long before we start carrying. People do confront people with weapons regardless of what they have or don't have.
Carrying a firearm only makes people who are willing to help MORE EFFECTIVE. Those unwilling to help won't; whether or not they have a weapon.
The bus was loaded with weapons. IPODs slung on ear buds, books, suitcases and back packs, a couple of knives or so.
My point was that it isn't the concealed carrying of firearms makes makes people willing to confront someone, regardless of the weapon they have. It is the attitude, the philosophy of not being a victim, of not standing by that leads one to confront a criminal. The concealed carrying of firearms only makes a person more effective in dealing with a criminal.
This is a perception that I find with many anti-gun folks like Mike. That we are only "brave" because we carry. I've made the decision that I will fight as much as possible regardless of the situation.
After the one of the school shootings, I sat down and talked to my children. I told them that I expected them to fight if that type of situation ever occurred at their school. They aren't armed, but they understood and agreed that it is better to go down fighting then stand by and let murder occur.
I have discussed this issue with my wife and she understands and supports my decision. I WILL NOT BE A VICTIM NOR WILL I STAND IDLY BY. That decision was reached before, long before, I started the process to carry concealed.
It is the attitude of victimhood that I tried to counter in your statement and Mike's.
Why support the idea that people should wait to be murdered or stand by while someone else was murdered?
The folks on that bus greatly outnumbered the killer, knife present or not. Had the people, heck had even one person the courage to stand up and fight; the victim might have survived. Might not have survived, but at least they would have tried instead of running like sheep.
Here is an example of people deciding not to be sheep
After United 93 was hijacked, Beamer and other passengers communicated with people on the ground via in-plane and cell phones, and learned that the World Trade Center had been attacked using hijacked airplanes. Beamer tried to place a credit card call through a phone located on the back of a plane seat but was routed to a customer-service representative instead, who passed him on to GTE supervisor Lisa Jefferson. Beamer reported that one passenger was killed and, later, that a flight attendant had told him the pilot and co-pilot had been forced from the cockpit and may have been wounded. He was also on the phone when the plane made its turn in a southeasterly direction, a move that had him briefly panicking. Later, he told the operator that some of the plane's passengers were planning to "jump on" the hijackers. According to Jefferson, Beamer's last audible words were "Are you guys ready? Let's roll."[3]
And if you are serious about this statement (and I believe you are)
And BTW, if was in that situation in the states, I would pull out my Ruger P40 and shoot the fucker.
Consider this from Greyhounds website:
On Board Restrictions
For everyone's safety and comfort, Greyhound asks that customers please follow certain restrictions while on board. Federal law does not permit smoking on Greyhound buses. We have a zero tolerance for alcohol, drugs, weapons and unruly behavior.
Also consider the legal dangers of interstate travel with firearms. If the state you are entering does not recognize your concealed carry permit or requires firearms to be locked up, you have just committed a crime.
Isn't the federal and state laws interfering with a basic right of self defense? They can't argue things like this never happens.
It isn't the weapon that makes a person dangerous, it is the determination to do what it takes to do the right thing.
I wrote my little rant when I was a little perturbed. I did not mean to insult you, just Mike.
I find the gun owners have fear meme to be denigrating to us and it is used way too often. I actually think there is a lot of psychological projection going on, given Mike's words.
By the way, if you are every passing through DFW and have time to hit a range, let me know. We'll work something out.
Bob said, "I wrote my little rant when I was a little perturbed. I did not mean to insult you, just Mike."
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you admit it, Bob. For my part I deny doing any insulting or name calling. I simply question your politics, your philosophy, your insistence that guns are good for America. I think you're wrong about that stuff. Is saying you're wrong equal to insulting you? I don't think so.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteYou question whether or not we gun owners, concealed carry holders carry out of fear.
Is this an example of how people need to be armed in order to overcome their fears and do the right thing?
You insult us by implying without firearms to overcome our fear we wouldn't, couldn't do the right thing. And that isn't an insult?
This isn't the first time, and knowing you it won't be the last. A polite phrased insult is still an insult. Be ready to answer for your insults.
You continue to associate good people like Third, like Mike W. Like Weer'd, like Nomen, like me with the criminals that commit crimes. As gun owners you've stated with regularity, that we are responsible....isn't that calling us accessories to murder, rape and assault?
Be ready to answer for your accusations. And saying that you don't mean us but the rest of the gun owners doesn't work because you indict us all with your unsupported claims.
Bob, You know what's really funny. You claim to be a guy who carries a gun so as not to be a victim. Yet, you keep twisting my words in such a way that you are exactly that. Poor you, continually being insulted by guys like me. Poor you, continually being associated with criminals by the likes of me. It's crap Bob.
ReplyDeleteTake the fear thing. Some, not all, but some of you guys are arming yourselves out of fear and insecurity out of some weakness of character. Let's say it's a small percentage, and let's say it doesn't apply to any of the commenters on this blog. But, I don't feel comfortable with those guys, do you? The reason I don't is because those are the guys who get in trouble with their guns. In a difficult moment they can't be counted on to act right. And you know what happens? When they don't act right, it often gets covered up as a righteous defensive gun incident, further inflating that ridiculous stat you keep using.
Are you so defensive that you deny this even exists? Gun owners are like everyone else, right?
That I associate you guys with criminals is also a trumped up charge, it's crap so you can be the victim again of my slander.
I say there are too many guns and although you personally may be a shining example of responsibility, all gun owners are not. It's the percentages, Bob.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteThis is where you go wrong. You assume that motivation is the ONLY factor involved.
But, I don't feel comfortable with those guys, do you? The reason I don't is because those are the guys who get in trouble with their guns.
So what if the people start their journey out of fear. Can you show that those people don't get training? Don't master their firearms?
Can you show any evidence supporting your position that it is those people getting in trouble with their firearms?
Can you provide anything to back up your assertion?
See the thing is, I believe you are projecting your fears and issues onto gun owners. I don't care why someone starting carrying or not.
Gee, you wonder why I see you constantly insulting gun owners, then you turn around and accuse people of crimes Mike
When they don't act right, it often gets covered up as a righteous defensive gun incident, further inflating that ridiculous stat you keep using.
You say the cops and gun owners are conspiring to cover up wrongful deaths.....you are accusing people of crimes again.
Any evidence?
Then you insult the statistics that we have give. We've given a wide variety of numbers to make it more palatable. 1 Million defensive guns uses was too incredible for you, so we reduced it to 100,000. Still too wild, how about 50,000?
Mike how few lives have to be saved before you believe?
If there is just 1, isn't that enough?
The argument for gun control is that if more laws can save just 1 life it is worth it. Isn't it the same argument FOR defensive gun uses, IF IT SAYS JUST 1 LIFE, ISN'T WORTH IT TO LET PEOPLE CARRY? TO OWN FIRERARMS?
Bob said, "You say the cops and gun owners are conspiring to cover up wrongful deaths.....you are accusing people of crimes again."
ReplyDeleteWhat are you saying Bob, they don't? What, never?
Mike,
ReplyDeleteIt is just like you to narrowly focus on one section of my response and ignore all the rest.
Ignorance or deliberate attempt to mislead?
Can you prove any cases where the police and citizens are engaged in a cover up? You are accusing good honest people of crimes, then try to cover it with "well, some where, some time, some one must have done it at least once" type approach". It is still a crime, prove that it is being done.
By the way, I have several friends who are in law enforcement. Please stop accusing my friends of crimes without evidence.
Now, how about answering the question.
Since the Brady Campaign and many other pro-ignorance anti-freedom groups claim that we need to remove guns from society because if it just saves one life it will be worth it.
Can't the counter argument, shouldn't the counter to that be: If concealed carry saves just one life, wouldn't it be worth it?
No Bob, I don't think that "saves one life" is a good argument. Sevesteen often mentions the real issue, as I do myself, it's in the ratio. If guns saved more lives than they cost, I'd have to acquiesce. But, so far, I'm not convinced of that. I think you guys overplay the defensive use and underplay the violence. When confronted with the violence, you go into that old "it's not the gun" routine. As you know, I don't buy it.
ReplyDeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteNo Bob, I don't think that "saves one life" is a good argument.
So are you going to take the pro-ignorance anti-freedom groups like Brady to task when they use the argument?
This is where I disagree, completely.
Sevesteen often mentions the real issue, as I do myself, it's in the ratio.
That is too simplistic of an argument Mike, it isn't about the ratio. It is about our inherent, specifically enumerated constitutionally protected rights.
It is about the right of every human being to have access to an effective means of self defense, It is about your attempt, the Brady Campaign's attempts to take away those rights.
Putting it in terms of ratios is distracting from that fundamental argument. You want to restrict our rights.
Now in order to show just cause why the restrictions of our rights is necessary, shouldn't you have to present evidence showing that there is an overwhelming need to infringe on our rights.
Constitutional lawyers and civil rights advocates call this "strict scrutiny"
o pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three prongs:
First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.
Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (over-inclusive) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest (under-inclusive), then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.
Finally, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. More accurately, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest, but the test will not fail just because there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this 'least restrictive means' requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it as a separate prong.
Now many gun laws have passed these tests previously, but I doubt that all of them will survive since the Heller decision.
So, can you show the compelling reasons?
If guns saved more lives than they cost, I'd have to acquiesce.
Guns don't have to save more lives then the costs. That isn't the standard. What about rapes? Assaults, Burglaries? Theft, Vandalism?
Are you claiming that the only acceptable measure of defensive gun use is if the person was going to be killed? Isn't that a little misleading?
Be sure to tell your wife not to use firearms to defend herself against rape.
But, so far, I'm not convinced of that. I think you guys overplay the defensive use and underplay the violence
What violence Mike? The violence criminals perpetrate against the law abiding? You have shown nothing that would protect the innocent while disarming the law abiding.
We have shown, repeatedly that the level of violence, the level of crime by concealed carry holders is smaller then the level of crime committed by cops.
We've shown, repeatedly that the number of firearms is less then 1% of all firearms owned in America.
Show me evidence to back up your claims that we are lying! If the violence is understated and the defensive gun used overstated, PROVE IT.
When confronted with the violence, you go into that old "it's not the gun" routine. As you know, I don't buy it.
What don't you buy Mike? That only 1 in 10 crimes or less involves firearms?
Let's see how pro-ignorance logic works. Statistics gathered by the FBI, ATF (which have an interest in disarming citizens,since it would make their job easier) show consistently that less then 10% of violent crime is committed with firearms...but we have to get rid of guns because guns cause/are a factor in violent crime?
What frakkin fantasy world are you living in ???
Denial - it isn't just a river in Egypt.