via The Huffington Post
David Berkowitz says "society has to take the glory out of guns."
The "Son of Sam" killer spoke to the Daily News from the maximum security Sullivan Correctional Facility in Fallsburg, N.Y.
He's serving 25 years to life for killing six people during a 13-month shooting spree in the 1970s.
He lamented the latest fatal shootings in Colorado, Wisconsin and on
New York City streets, including that of a 4-year-old boy in the Bronx.
Berkowitz said "young people are losing direction and don't value life."
He said gun control was for legislators to work out. His hope is for
young people to realize "just how terrible this violence is."
Said Berkowitz: "When they use a gun ... they ruin their lives too."
Ah, you found yourself a supporter. Too bad he was already a prohibited person...
ReplyDeleteAAAAAHHHHHHHHhahahahahhahahhahahaha! This is the best support that the anti-rights crowd could dig up? Nothing makes a serial killer safer than a disarmed victim.
ReplyDeleteWasn't there gun registration in NY back in the 70's? Didn't the police question every registrant of .44 bulldogs? Didn't the police seize every one of those .44 caliber handguns and test them? YES and YES they did and it didn't help them. Gun control FAILED.
B3, nothing makes us all safer than a disarmed shooter.
ReplyDeleteIn many of the 60 mass shootings we have had to put up with since the Loughner shooting in Jan.2011, it was no secret that the person who did it was dangerously crazy. That turns out to be true as well of the shooter at the Sikh temple. It's true of Loughner, it appears to be true of Holmes, it was true of the Mt. Rainier ranger shooter, it was true of the Seattle cafe shooter......it is true of many of the shooters.
But we can't do a damned thing to stop them --- and NO, when he committed the crimes as Son of Sam, he was NOT a prohibited person.
Most of the mass shootings are with legally purchased weapons, legal weapons where law enforcement could have been standing right next to them, and not been ALLOWED to stop them from openly carrying up to the moment of them shooting people.
We need to crack down on the transfer of legal weapons to illegal persons. We need to ban assault weapons and expanded capacity magazines, both of which are common to mass shootings and to many murder suicides as well. We need to close the private sales loopholes, including gun shows. We need to crack down on massive private arsenals of weapons, providing some sort of exemption for LEGITIMATE collecters, as distinct from the HOlmes copycat wannabes.
We need to NOT be returning gun rights to so many former felons; they have a bad track record for reoffending violently with firearms, many times more than the rate of othe gun owners.
The reality is that idiots like you who think that having a gun is going to result in you stopping a bad guy instead of getting yourself shot is more likely to get you shot, or result in you shooting someone or something else, but not the bad guy.
Gun control is more successful than not having gun control. Shoot first and lots of people carrying hasn't reduced crime in the slightest, but in those states with the most lenient gun laws there are more domestic abusers shooting people, there are more firearm suicides, there are more firearm homicides, and there are more non-fatal shootings also. Wisconsin is a prime example for all of the above -- and that has ONLY been the case since they loosened up their laws.
YOUR preferred changes are the real failure. Your gun culture is a total failure, which is rather the point here. It has accomplished much that is bad, and NOTHING that is good.
dog gone said..."But we can't do a damned thing to stop them."
DeleteYou just hammered the nail on the head. There is NOTHING anyone can do to stop a determined killer, except shoot back.
You're right, Berkowitz wasn't a prohibited person and apparently he didn't register is handgun either, which was a requirement then and now, but it still doesn't stop people from killing or committing other violent acts.
"Gun control is more successful than not having gun control."
yeah, ask California, Chicago and DC about that. It's amazing that all those evil guns in the boarding states somehow migrate to those areas and go on a crime spree.
"Shoot first and lots of people carrying hasn't reduced crime in the slightest, but in those states with the most lenient gun laws there are more domestic abusers shooting people, there are more firearm suicides, there are more firearm homicides..."
Actually, I compared the violent crime rates and murder rates between the 25 states with SYG laws and the 19 states that require a honest citizen to retreat. The states that require their citizens to retreat have a violent crime rate of 391.71/100K and a murder rate of 4.67/100K whereas the states with a SYG law have a lower violent crime rate of 383.71/100K and a lower murder rate of 4.61/100K. While the SYG states don't have substantial lower rates of crime, it certainly shows that those laws don't increase crime.
I also compared the percent of murders where a firearm was used (table 20 of the UCR) between the Brady top ten restrictive states and the 10 most lenient states. In the Brady states, 63.24% of murders are committed with a firearm, whereas the states with the most lenient gun laws, 51.44% of murders are committed with a firearm. The national average is 67.5%.
I also compare the robberies where a firearm was used (table 21, UCR) in both sets of states. The national average is 41.4%. The Brady states have an average of 31.49% and the Baldwin states have an average of 23.64%. Again, in the least restrictive states, firearms were used in a smaller percentage of crimes than in the most restrictive states.
Table 22 of the UCR shows us that in the Brady top 10 states, 18.1% of aggravated assaults are committed with a firearm, but only 13.68% of aggravated assaults are committed with a firearm in the 10 states with the most lenient gun laws. The national average is 20.6%
What do we learn from all this? States with the most lenient gun laws have a LOWER percent of gun crime than states with the most restrictive gun laws.
Dog Gone, et al., will say that guns get shipped into restrictive states and cities from lenient areas, but she'll ignore the point there. Why is it that people in the states with good gun laws aren't going around shooting up the place? Why is it that people in the control freak states have such a yen to kill each other?
DeleteGreg, that's one thing that I could never understand, those same firearms are available to people in those less restrictive areas, but aren't going about causing their owners to kill people or to commit violent acts. It looks like restrictive gun laws cause gun crime. Of course Mike will accuse me of twisting the data to achieve the desired results.
DeleteBill, that's because gun availability is not the only factor.
DeleteGood evening mikeb. I guess we need to find out what it is that's causing the violent crime then. What I see among most of the most violent areas is restrictive gun laws and......
DeleteWhen I look at the maps of violent crime, I see that they are strongly correlated with high populations. Perhaps we should ban people.
DeleteDog Gone, do you ever have a relevant thought? Once again, you're repeating a lot of nonsense that is off point. But let's go through what you had to say--in hopes that this time, you'll actually address a reply to you.
ReplyDelete1. Berkowitz was a prohibited person at the time that he made this statement. At that time, he was a convicted felon.
2. You exaggerate the number of crimes committed by crazies. Mass killings are rare. You're trying to trump up fear by telling us that we're all in danger from nut cases, but the truth is far from your position.
3. We don't need to do any of the things that you demand. You want those done, but few are listening.
4. You want to return voting rights to felons, but at the same time, you recognize that felons are often repeat offenders. We've called for longer sentences for violent criminals. Who's more realistic here?
5. Violent crime has dropped during the period in which gun laws have loosened. I don't claim a cause-effect relationship there, but what has happened is the opposite of what you said. And before you raise it, I don't give a damn about how someone is murdered. The point is that murder and other violent crimes are down. You're proposing chemotherapy and radical surgery to cure a case of the flu when the patient is already getting better.
6. At one point in your life, at least, you felt safer with a gun and carry license of your own.
7. Your willingness to welcome Berkowitz into your control freak crowd shows your desperation.
"We need to crack down on the transfer of legal weapons to illegal persons. We need to ban assault weapons and expanded capacity magazines, both of which are common to mass shootings and to many murder suicides as well. We need to close the private sales loopholes, including gun shows. We need to crack down on massive private arsenals of weapons, providing some sort of exemption for LEGITIMATE collecters, as distinct from the HOlmes copycat wannabes."
ReplyDeleteUmmm, nahhhh. We'll pass. Better go find some other crusade to concern yourself with. We will not permit your silly control schemes.
We haven't pointed out one thing yet: Berkowitz is only hanging about plaguing us still because he was not put to death. Here is an excellent argument for the death penalty.
ReplyDeleteThat's wonderfully enlightened of you, Greg, execute mentally ill people.
DeleteI learned a long time ago that when person X says that person Y is unenlightened, it often means that Y simply disagrees with X. I don't really care if we execute him or not, but at the very least, he should be locked away and never given a voice again.
DeleteYour problem is that he's found religion. He's claiming to be on your side.
"That's wonderfully enlightened of you, Greg, execute mentally ill people."
ReplyDeleteSo you believe he is mentally deficient yet you think his counsel wise. Interesting. The ramblings of a nutjob.
Where did I say "wise?"
DeleteYou gotta stop putting words in my mouth, FWM.
You citied him, Mikeb. You said that even he is on your side. You may have him.
DeleteWell of course guns are dangerous. There is a direct correlation between accessibility to guns and the homicide rate.
ReplyDeleteHere's an interesting comparison between the US (limited gun control) and Canada (strong gun control): Firearms: Canada/United States Comparison
It is not surprising that David Berkowitz would say that "society has to take the glory out of guns." His life story is rather interesting; you can read it here.
Thanks for that link. I made a post out of it.
DeleteAlex B.H., I see on your blog that you accept Berkowitz's conversion to Christianity as genuine. Did you believe in Ted Bundy's as well? If so, I have a bridge or two and some land east of Daytona to sell you. These monsters are degenerate liars and sociopaths. They'll say anything to get what they want.
DeleteBut this adds more evidence that people who support gun control are inherently gullible.
Greg, why would Berkowitz ''fake'' being a Christian?
DeleteLet's pretend the whole thing is a lie. People always lie to benefit or protect themselves. What is Berkowitz's motive, then? Does he want attention? Well, it doesn't seem like getting ''Christian attention'' would be just what a serial killer would seek.
Maybe he's trying to make everyone believe he's a good guy so he can be released earlier? Too bad he's serving six consecutive life sentences. He has been denied parole 5 times and said he won't seek parole in 2012.
I've come to think that Berkowitz's conversion was genuine after researching the subject, but I'm open to reconsidering my opinion if you give me strong arguments.
That's the thing Alex. You've researched the subject and shared a valid conclusion. Greg just takes shots. He is contentious and disagreeable, that's all.
DeleteAlex, you've left out a motive--one that sane people have a hard time understanding. Berkowitz is a sociopath. Such people lie. It's a habit. It gives them the illusion of control. (Kind of like gun control advocates...) Of course, their motives make no sense to most of us. Do you recall Ted Bundy being interviewed by James Dobson? I had the same doubts with that one. These men have shown themselves to be untrustworthy. For me to believe anything they say, they would have to provide extraordinary evidence.
DeleteBy the way, you'll want to be careful around here if you're a believing Christian. The gun control folks on this blog have expressed their contempt for religion many times in the past.
Mikeb, you have no clue what research means. You say that I just take shots. You're talking about the fellow from Oregon. I make points, but you never address them. Neither does Dog Gone. When the pot calls the table linen black, it's just pathetic.