Clearly we do need restrictions, and better enforcement to prevent prohibited individuals from getting armed, as shown by this example from the current news cycle. We have too many guns, they are too easily available, and we should end our gun culture that glorifies violence and lethal weapons.
Because, clearly, while there is undoubtedly good in all human beings, it is not always the part of an individual human being that is in control of a dangerous lethal weapon.
Another Faux Nuissance report from the Murdoch Propaganda machine, by way of aol.com news:
Manhunt under way for landlord who allegedly killed tenants over rent money
A nationwide manhunt was under way Wednesday after cops said that a New Mexico landlord shot dead two of his tenants following an argument over rent money.An arrest warrant for Arthur "Arturo" Anaya of Santa Fe was issued on two counts of murder after Theresa Vigil, 51, and her daughter's boyfriend, 16-year-old Austin Urban, were shot dead Monday, the Santa Fe New Mexican reported.The two victims lived in a mobile home on Anaya's land in Santa Fe, along with Vigil's 17-year-old daughter Natalie, according to the newspaper.Anaya, 54, is accused of arguing with Vigil on the phone about rent she owed before walking to the mobile home armed with a handgun, the arrest warrant states.He then allegedly punched Vigil and her daughter in the face, before shooting Austin in the mouth. He then shot Vigil in the forehead, according to the police document.After the shooting, Anaya reportedly told Natalie to put the bodies of her mom and boyfriend in the trunk of her car and threatened to shoot her when she argued that they were still alive.Natalie eventually persuaded Anaya to let her take her mother to the hospital, where she was pronounced dead. Her boyfriend was reportedly left at the scene, and Anaya fled.Anaya, who previously was convicted of numerous crimes, including assault, false imprisonment and armed robbery, is described as having graying hair and brown eyes and is around 5-foot-6.It was not known if he remained in the Santa Fe area."He is considered to be armed and dangerous and violent, according to his prior criminal history," a statement from the Santa Fe County Sheriff's Department said.Newscore contributed to this report.
From the article:
ReplyDelete"Anaya ... was convicted of numerous crimes, including assault, false imprisonment and armed robbery".
Why do we coddle violent people like that and turn them loose into society after a few years in prison? This criminal scumbag is one of the reasons I want to have firearms ... because neither the police nor the criminal justice system are going to stop people like him from hurting families like mine.
"We have too many guns, they are too easily available, and we should end our gun culture that glorifies violence and lethal weapons."
ReplyDeleteAnd who do you think is glorifying this? You cannot turn on a TV without seeing commercials for video games of soldiers shooting up Iraq and Afghanistan or Special Ops carrying out some violent mission. You cannot watch footbal without seeing jet fighters or B52s flying over with gun-toting soldiers on the ground for some sort of honor guard. You can't watch the news without somebody supporting our killing troops, commercials inviting you to "Be all you can be" with scenes of soldiers blowing shit up.
I have yet to see a guns-rights group showing or encouraging any illegal activity or condoning violence - it is the government promoting this crap. And, oh goody, the guy that was responsible for slaughtering 24 innocent Iraqi civilians in Haditha gets less than a slap on the wrist.
You simply have no moral argument about gun violence if you sit quietly by and say nothing about a murder in Iraq, or Libya and then try to make a big deal out of a murder in UTurn Kansas.
You are blaming the wrong people.
And while we are at it, let's look at the liberal dominated media and entertainment establishment. It is next to impossible to find television or movies that glorify values which stabilize society. Instead we get garbage like The Sopranos or Jersey Shore.
DeleteThe days of I Love Lucy, Gilligan's Island, the Brady Bunch, and The Cosby Show are long gone. Is it any wonder that so many in our society love death and violence? As far as I am concerned, I have a hard time believing that there isn't more violence.
I think we do say something about the murder in Iraq and Afghanistan on this blog. Our main focus is US gun control, it's true.
DeleteAnd yet, half of you live in other countries. Why do you care about a nation that you've left? I don't presume to tell Italy what to do with its own internal gun policies.
DeleteWhat you call clear is only clear to you. As Capn Crunch said, what's clear to many of us is that this man has no business being out in public. Anaya is good evidence in favor of a three-strikes law.
ReplyDeleteIt was already illegal for Anaya to have a gun, yet criminals get them. You can restrict, ban confiscate or whatever from every law abiding gun owner and criminals will still get guns--that is what they do. Make it illegaller, that will help.
ReplyDeleteNO, FWM, with proper gun control, many criminals will not be able to get guns.
DeleteIt hasn't worked anywhere else yet. Criminals get guns because they are not concerned about breaking gun laws. Kind of the definition of "criminal".
Deletewell, here's a story about a criminal who couldn't get a gun.
DeleteOr, no gun, no problem, just make a pipe bomb
This shooter clearly shouldn't have had access to guns, given his past criminal activity. But if he purchased his gun from a private seller, no background check was required. It's just cash-and-carry.
ReplyDeleteMy post on this at the Kid Shootings blog:
http://kidshootings.blogspot.com/2012/01/teen-shot-and-killed-by-landlord-in.html
I see we can no longer comment on your blog Baldr. Has Reasoned Discourse kicked in already? Did you get too many comments disagreeing with your world view? Oh well, it's a well worn and predictable path for blogs on your side.
Delete@ NMRN: I use the same rules on the net that I use in real life (despite the expectations to the opposite): If you won't engage in civil discourse, without denegrating me in some manner, using foul language, or trying to shout me down, then I'm not interested in talking. I gave it a year, and had a few commenters who were civil, but I got tired of the constant disrespect and threats from "your" side. I would hope you would expect the same of people you talk with, but who knows? Maybe you enjoy arguing and snide remarks.
Delete"but I got tired of the constant disrespect and threats from "your" side. I would hope you would expect the same of people you talk with, but who knows?"
DeleteYes I do, but instead we get Laci and Democommie. I haven't seen the level of disrespect from our side as I see from them, but then you can simply say that you didn't publish those. Because of moderation, I guess we just have to take your word for it.
I can attest to the fact that the worst from democommie and Laci is nothing compared to some of the stuff we've deleted and the stuff which has prompted me to use comment moderation.
DeleteI understand Baldr's situation completely. My only hope is that we see more of him over here.
I've noticed that the blogs of gun rights supporters don't have this problem, and they tend to be unmoderated. On my own weblog, I take the position that bad comments tell us about the commenter. I respond to them when it seems appropriate, but I let my readers say whatever they wish.
DeletePerhaps we're both being consistent in our beliefs: I support freedom, while you don't.
Greg, many pro gun blogs use comment moderation, and probably for the same reason I do. To generalize from that to one's support of freedom is silly.
DeleteBefore we met, I had several good long periods of no moderation. They always ended the same way and that you cannot blame on liberals or gun control supporters.
In 2005, he was sentenced to 18 years in prison. He made early parole in 2009 and then released from probation in 2010.
ReplyDeleteArthur Anaya Criminal history:
aggravated battery
armed robbery
false imprisonment
aggravated burglary
aggravated assault
attempted armed robbery
battery of a police officer
felon in possession of a handgun
The question isn't why did he have a gun, but why wasn't he locked up.
Thank you for making my point someguy ... this criminal is the poster child for why I want to be armed. Our government certainly didn't "provide for the common defense and general welfare".
DeleteOh, and I also want to be armed when our government cedes control of several thousand square miles of a state to drug smugglers like they did in southern Arizona in 2010.
I agree completely with you that this guy and all the other guys like him should spend much more time in prison. That is a different argument than the one we make about gun availability. It's not an either/or deal. We need both stricter sentencing guidelinies for violent criminals and stricter gun control laws to cut down on the gun availability.
ReplyDeleteWe can get broad agreement to keep dangerous criminals like this in prison. There isn't the same agreement for gun control. Why not try the former and see what happens? Especially since gun control will affect good citizens far more than criminals.
DeleteMikeB we are back to my assertion from several posts earlier that some of the stuff you propose "looks good on paper" but doesn't fly in the real world. On paper this criminal should never have been released. And yet our government (via the criminal justice system) screwed up -- whether literally or because sentencing guidelines are way too lax -- and let this guy out.
DeleteThat is the problem. Government manages to screw up ... a lot! Why wouldn't government screw up your proposals?
And therein lies the crux of my position. Even without government screw ups criminals subject all of us to peril. Add in government screw ups on top of everything else and we have what we have today.
Both Mikeb and Laci are U.S. citizens, giving them the exact same full and complete right to an opinion and a vote as to what happens in this country, and to a legitimate opinion about the direction it follows politically and legally.
ReplyDeleteYou are out of line Greg, you have neither moral nor any other legitimate argument that either Laci or Mikeb don't have EXACTLY as valid an opinion as your own about this country. Shame on you.
I would also point out that UNLIKE you, Mikeb has done military service to protect this country, and Laci has done his turn at government service for the DoJ as well.
DeleteYou really like to limit other peopel's freedom don't you?
Hypocrite.
I have no interest in limiting anyone's freedom. I just find it ironic that two of the writers here are suggesting changing laws that won't end up affecting them. But I didn't say that they have no right to an opinion. I asked why they would care.
DeleteGreg, It's incredibly small minded of you, or is it American superiority that makes you say "laws that won't end up affecting them."
ReplyDeleteEven if I never again set foot in the land of the free and the home of the brave, it affects me.