2 PEOPLE ARE IN JAIL TONIGHT, FACING CHARGES IN CONNECTION WITH A DRIVE-BY SHOOTING IN Wahpeton.
ANDREW LOPEZ FACES A RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT CHARGE, AND CRYSTAL GARCIA FACES THE CHARGE OF BEING AN ACCOMPLICE.POLICE SAY LOPEZ FIRED SEVERAL SHOTS OUT HIS CAR WINDOW, AT A MOBILE HOME AT 905 HARRISON ROAD, ABOUT 9 O'CLOCK WEDNESDAY NIGHT.
8 SMALL CHILDREN WERE PLAYING IN THE HOME OR YARD. NO ONE WAS INJURED.
The video includes the expected comments by the owner of the mobile home. She had no idea why someone would do such a thing. Yet, some of the neighbors seemed to know. They had reported criminal activity in the neighborhood to the police for years. What do you think? Do they have drugs and crime in peaceful North Dakota? I think we've had ND mentioned before as a place with lots of guns and very little gun crime. This must be an exception.
The gun, a .22 the police said, would have been in Lopez' possession illegally. Is it possible that the lax gun laws in North Dakota made it easier for someone like him to get his hands on a gun?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Do they have drugs and crime in peaceful North Dakota?
ReplyDeleteOf course. The idiotic "war on drugs," and its consequences, is everywhere in the U.S. (and in much of the world under excessive U.S. influence).
Is it possible that the lax gun laws in North Dakota made it easier for someone like him to get his hands on a gun?
The oppressive gun laws of Chicago don't stop Chicago thugs from getting guns. The oppressive gun laws of Mexico don't stop Mexican thugs from getting guns. The oppressive gun laws in New Jersey don't stop New Jersey thugs from getting guns. Do you really thing North Dakota could stop thugs from getting guns, by instituting oppressive gun laws?
Wanna know what I think would have helped? From the article:
LOPEZ WAS RECENTY RELEASED FROM PRISON, AFTER SERVING TIME FOR A 2006 STABBING...
Giving violent criminals more than a three year slap on the wrist for stabbing people (or is the stabbing not his fault, but the fault of "knife flow"?).
45, I think we agree on more than I realized. The "war on drugs" is an awful waste of resources and a totally futile effort. The short prison sentences for violent criminals is a major problem. Society needs to be protected from these people, no question.
ReplyDeleteAlert the media! Mike B and I have found a point of agreement ;-). I thought about changing my position, just to get back to the disagreement we're accustomed to, but I guess I'll stand pat.
ReplyDeleteMikeB,
ReplyDeleteSociety needs to be protected from these people, no question.
Do you understand why I see statements like this as being hypocritical?
Society needs to protect themselves from people like this, yet you call for a restriction on the means to do that.
Instead of calling for more cops on the streets, you call for background checks on private sales.
Instead of calling for longer prison sentences, you call for one gun a month laws.
Instead of calling for 3 strikes and out laws, you call foul on the number of reported defensive gun uses.
Great Britain has implemented just about every gun banners dream laws and yet the violence has gone up. Yet you deny the reports published by the BRITISH news are accurate.
If the War on (some) Drugs is a futile and wasted effort, don't you think banning/greatly restricting firearms will be just as futile?
Bob, I'm afraid you're all over the place with those remarks. In fact, if I remember correctly, you and I agree on letting non-violent offenders out and keeping violent offenders in longer.
ReplyDeleteBy protecting society from these people, I don't mean guys like you shooting them with your little guns, I mean the police arresting them and the courts locking them up.
One thing you did say right is that I oppose the "three strikes your out" rule. It's been abused terribly.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteSo when you say that society needs to be protected from these violent people, what you are really are saying is this:
We need to let these violent people do what they want UNTIL THE POLICE CATCH THEM, the COURTS FINALLY GET AROUND TO CONVICTING THEM, then WE can PUT THEM AWAY IF THEIR CRIME was VIOLENT ENOUGH?
Does that about sum it up?
After they've committed horribly violent crimes against people, after people's lives have been shattered by the crime, then and only then should something be done???
You don't want people to be able to stop violent criminals, you want the cops to catch them AFTER THE FACT.
Yet, in the mean time...because gun owners MIGHT conceivably do something wrong someday; you want to disarm them.
ReplyDeleteIs that right?
No, Bob, I'm not talking about disarming anybody. I'm talking about you admitting that your 80 million buddies aren't all the shining examples of responsibility you try to say they are.
ReplyDeleteMikeB,
ReplyDeleteAren't you being a little dishonest?
If there are people who shouldn't have firearms...what are you going to do about it?
Stop them from getting them or take them away?
You've talked repeatedly about REDUCING the availability of firearms. Well those firearms are out there.
So what are you going to do?
By the way Sparky, I never said that all 80 million gun owners are shining examples of responsibility.
What I and many others have said that by comparison to the general population they are MORE responsible.
What you've never shown is that the "lawful" gun owners are the problem.
The FBI says that 80% of all crime is related to Drug & Gang activity....yet you want to think it is lawful gun owners. Guess you think you know more than the FBI.
The U.S. Justice Department lists approximately 500,000 firearm related crimes a year....yet you want to think that 8,000,000 gun owners are the problem (your 10%). Care to explain that discrepancy?
It would take 16 years of nothing but law abiding gun owners breaking the law to reach your numbers....yet you think you know better than the Justice Department.
I can show you statistics collected by various states, Texas included, that show Concealed Carry license holders have a conviction rate LOWER THAN the LAW ENFORCEMENT personnel in that state....yet you think it is the law abiding gun owner that is the problem.
And what evidence do you offer to support your ideas (can't really even dignify them with the title of hypothesis)?
Joyce Foundation funded "studies" and your own imagination.
"No, Bob, I'm not talking about disarming anybody."
ReplyDeleteActually you ARE talking about exactly that. That is what the policies you support DO.