Is the Family Research Council Shooting a Hate Crime?

 Yahoo News reports

FBI officials said Thursday that the shooting of a security guard at the Family Research Council's D.C. headquarters on Wednesday may fall in the "hate crime/terrorism nexus," depending on the shooter's motive. 

FRC is a socially conservative Christian advocacy organization that opposes gay marriage and abortion, among its other causes. In an interview on Fox News Thursday, FRC President Tony Perkins said he thought the attack should be classified as "terrorism," but some other commentators have suggested that the shooting may also qualify as a hate crime, if it can be proven that the attacker was targeting the group's religious beliefs.

Suspected shooter Floyd Lee Corkins II "has strong opinions with respect to those he believes do not treat homosexuals in a fair manner," according to his parents, and Corkins is said to have yelled that he did not like FRC's politics before opening fire. He was also found with a backpack that contained more than a dozen Chick-Fil-a sandwiches.

This is the story about which Fat White Man quipped, "Why are Lefties so violent."

Well, I guess on the surface that's a fair question.  What do you think? Does this case prove that the lunatic gun maniacs are not limited to the Right side of the political spectrum?  Or is this the exception that proves the rule?

There's no denying that by targeting a notorious right-wing organization one probably belongs to the Left, but what about those Chick-Fil-A sandwiches in his backpack?  What could that be all about? It sounds to me like Floyd was just another mixed up gun owner.

No, I'm afraid it's not as simple as Left vs. Right.  There are plenty of fanatical gun owners who hold certain "Lefty" ideals. Some of them feel sympathetic towards homosexual cases, I suppose some of them are gay themselves.

No, the distinction when it comes to gun ownership is not whether a person is left-leaning or right-leaning politically, but whether they are of sound mind and responsible.  Guys who fail in those categories and believe the gun is the answer to whatever problem they have are a danger. And as much as the rest of the gun-loving community tries to deny it, they are too many.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

Jon Stewart on the Republican Hypocrisy about Vitriolic Rhetoric

via The Immoral Minority 

Obama is Sincere - Romney is Not

When is it Appropriate to Disarm Someone?

NPR reports

Timothy Courtois' family had been worried about him for weeks. They repeatedly told police in Biddeford, Maine, that the 49-year-old was off his meds for bipolar disorder. And police were also told he had guns. But still, because he wasn't doing anything that rose to the legal definition of imminent threat, police said their hands were tied.

"We're very limited — very, very limited to what we can do," says Biddeford Police Deputy Chief JoAnne Fisk. "Just because somebody has a hunch, we will investigate it. But everybody has rights, and you have the right to bear arms in this country."

It was both frustrating and a relief to police and the family when Courtois was finally arrested for speeding down the highway to what could have been a tragedy. Police found an AK-47, handguns and several boxes of ammunition in Courtois' car as he drove toward New Hampshire, he reportedly told police, to shoot a former employer.

This little story, which is being repeated in every city all over the country, perfectly illustrates a serious dilemma we're facing.

All people, including gun owners, have the right to privacy and should be able to conduct their affairs without outside interference.  This is basic.  But, when the public safety is at risk, something needs to be done.  What's the solution?

In my opinion, the criterion which is generally used now is not sufficient,  It says if a person has "ever been deemed by a judge to be mentally incompetent or involuntarily committed," only then would they lose their right to own guns. Even if the reporting of such cases were 100%, which it is not, that would be setting the bar too high. We have daily examples of people who qualify under this lenient ruling and yet wreak havoc with their guns.

The only way I can see to address this problem would require a major overhaul of our gun control policy and attitudes.  It would require licensing of  gun owners with a "may issue" stipulation by the local authorities.  When an obvious situation is developing, the license can be suspended and guns forfeited.  Many lives would be saved.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

The Soaring Cost of the Aurora Shooting

Denverpost.com reports

Police spent nearly 26 percent of the year's law enforcement budget for overtime pay in responding to the July 20 mass shooting in a movie theater.

The city so far has spent $462,600 on overtime costs for police officers and civilian employees following the midnight movie killings at the Century Aurora 16 theater and has applied for a federal grant to help cover the costs. The costs include investigators and responders on the morning of the shooting, security at a large vigil held later and protection for visiting dignitaries.

The article goes on to explain that police overtime, which all happens AFTER the shooting is over is just the tip of the iceberg. The lawyers get into the act too.

CU has agreed to pay $505 an hour for a single lawyer to review what officials there knew about Holmes and when they knew it. As that lawyer brings in associates and paralegals from his firm, Perkins Coie, they will be billed to the university at $245 an hour or more and $205 an hour, respectively, according to an agreement signed July 30.

Sadly, we're still talking about a small fraction of the cost. Some of the victims had inadequate or no medical coverage. These costs must be added to the toll.

Wouldn't an ounce of prevention be worth a pound of cure in this case? Isn't this a good argument for proper gun control which would prevent some of these major incidents?

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

Gun Crime is Up in St. Louis

CBS St. Louis reports

The latest crime report for July shows assaults with a weapon are up more than 14 percent from a year ago, underscoring what Chief Dan Isom says is a problem of more guns on the street.

“Many people have talked about the gun show loophole, which allows people to buy guns and basically there’s absolutely no background check,” Isom said, “So, just the way the laws are structured today, there is a proliferation of guns in our community.”

Isom says police chiefs from around the country are complaining about lax gun laws, and Mayor Francis Slay, a member of the police board, says gun proliferation was also a hot topic at the recent U.S. Conference of Mayors.

It often seem like everyone is in agreement about gun availability except the fringe-lunatics who blindly support gun-rights above all else.

Gun availability is a major factor in crime.  Why is that so difficult for some people to understand?

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

Accidental Shooting of CCW Holder by Himself - No Charges Yet

via Gawker h/t to Southern Beale, who had this to say about it.

Here's another one for you: one of those super-responsible CCW holders we're always hearing about took his gun to the movies with him (no doubt to save us all from the next movie theater mass shooting). Instead, his gun fell to the floor and He accidentally shot himself in the ass.

Stupid gun loons.  

I couldn't agree more.

A Nevada movie theater patron sustained a buttock injury last night when the handgun he was carrying in his pocket accidentally went off after falling to the floor.

The 56-year-old, who has a permit to carry a concealed weapon, proceeded to apologize to other moviegoers in his immediate vicinity and exit the theater. Police tracked him down to a Reno hospital; his injury was not considered life-threatening.

Police say they will hand off the case to the Sparks City Attorney's Office, which may decide to bring charges against the man.