Besides the trip down memory lane for those who are old enough, the last five seconds is what I'm talking about. (h/t to DeRosaWorld)
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Houston Teen Shot and Killed - Part II
The Houston Chronicle reports on the tension which has escalated as a result of the fatal shooting of a Hispanic 17-year-old last Wednesday.
The other day when we discussed this, one of our commenters suggested I was playing the "race card." Beyond pointing out the obvious, I don't know what he thinks I was doing. This article in the Houston Chronicle is dedicated to that idea. One doesn't need to live near Mexican immigrants in Houston to know that racial tensions run deeply whether you're in the deep South or in Newark NJ.
The entire article seems like an attempt at justifying the shooting. The neighborhood had gone to hell, the young Hispanics were up to no good, especially Herrera, pet dogs had been killed, Mr. Austgen was about to be robbed.
The attitude of the Houston Chronicle is clear, and perfectly expressed by Mrs. Austgen.
What's your opinion? Is this another justified shooting, another DGU? Or is this a type of pre-emptive vigilantism? Is "walking towards him" to be considered lethal threat? What do you think about that apology from the wife, "sorry it had to happen?"
Supposedly there were lots of burglaries in and around this neighborhood. Why would that be? I thought when the thieves know the residents are armed they stay away. I thought the high percentage of guns in the home in Houston is supposed to prevent this.
My idea is that guns don't prevent anything. The fact that there are break-ins in neighborhoods like this means that guns are being stolen and transferred into criminal hands. Other than the occasional vigilante killing, "gun flow" is the main result of all those weapons.
What do you think?
Police say 69-year-old Dwayne Austgen shot Vidal Herrera after the 17-year-old confronted Austgen at his house in the 5500 block of Susanna Lane.
The case will likely be presented to a grand jury once authorities are done investigating, but Austgen has not been charged with a crime.
Herrera lived within walking distance on Jimbo Lane — known among some in the area as the “Hispanic street.” Austgen lives on a mostly Anglo street.
The other day when we discussed this, one of our commenters suggested I was playing the "race card." Beyond pointing out the obvious, I don't know what he thinks I was doing. This article in the Houston Chronicle is dedicated to that idea. One doesn't need to live near Mexican immigrants in Houston to know that racial tensions run deeply whether you're in the deep South or in Newark NJ.
The entire article seems like an attempt at justifying the shooting. The neighborhood had gone to hell, the young Hispanics were up to no good, especially Herrera, pet dogs had been killed, Mr. Austgen was about to be robbed.
The attitude of the Houston Chronicle is clear, and perfectly expressed by Mrs. Austgen.
A woman who identified herself as Austgen’s wife at his home said the shooting was a “tragedy and we’re sorry it had to happen.” She said her husband didn’t want to speak to the media.
What's your opinion? Is this another justified shooting, another DGU? Or is this a type of pre-emptive vigilantism? Is "walking towards him" to be considered lethal threat? What do you think about that apology from the wife, "sorry it had to happen?"
Supposedly there were lots of burglaries in and around this neighborhood. Why would that be? I thought when the thieves know the residents are armed they stay away. I thought the high percentage of guns in the home in Houston is supposed to prevent this.
My idea is that guns don't prevent anything. The fact that there are break-ins in neighborhoods like this means that guns are being stolen and transferred into criminal hands. Other than the occasional vigilante killing, "gun flow" is the main result of all those weapons.
What do you think?
Heartattack and Vine
liar liar with your pants on fire,
white spades hangin' on the telephone wire,
gamblers reevaluate along the dotted line,
you'll never recognize yourself on heartattack and vine.
white spades hangin' on the telephone wire,
gamblers reevaluate along the dotted line,
you'll never recognize yourself on heartattack and vine.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Gun Politics in Canada
Wikipedia has a wonderful article, which is fairly brief yet full of interesting data and citations. I've wondered why our pro-gun commenters so often cite the U.K. but never Canada.
Our northern neighbor has experienced increasingly stringent gun control regulations over the last few decades. "In the late 1970s, controls of intermediate strength were introduced. In the mid 1990s significant increases in controls occurred." I wonder how that's been working out for them.
Shame on you America. With this example of what we could have with a little sacrifice and a little cooperation, I would think gun control laws would be welcomed by all. Instead, the ones who know about these things keep mum. Mum's the word when it comes to whether gun control laws can work or not.
What's your opinion? Do you think it would be worth the inconvenience to gun owners to have to get licensed and register their guns, if we too could experience these types of improvements?
Please leave a comment.
Our northern neighbor has experienced increasingly stringent gun control regulations over the last few decades. "In the late 1970s, controls of intermediate strength were introduced. In the mid 1990s significant increases in controls occurred." I wonder how that's been working out for them.
The firearm homicide rate was 1.15 per 100,000 in 1977 and dropped to 0.50 in 2003 while the non-firearm rate went from 1.85 per 100,000 to 1.23 per 100,000 in the same time period.
Spousal homicides committed with firearms dropped by 77% for women between 1974 and 2000 and by 80% for men during the same time period.
The number firearm suicides in Canada dropped from a high of 1287 in 1978 to a low of 568 in 2004 while the number of non-firearm suicides increased from 2,046 in 1977 to 3,116 in 2003.
Shame on you America. With this example of what we could have with a little sacrifice and a little cooperation, I would think gun control laws would be welcomed by all. Instead, the ones who know about these things keep mum. Mum's the word when it comes to whether gun control laws can work or not.
What's your opinion? Do you think it would be worth the inconvenience to gun owners to have to get licensed and register their guns, if we too could experience these types of improvements?
Please leave a comment.
Consumer Product Safety Standards
Last week, The Gun Guys posted a very informative article about the lack of regulations on guns compared to other consumer products.
What does this sound like to you? Does it mean that the gun lobby is unconcerned with safety if it would interfere with profits to the manufacturers? Or is the lobby's main concern that the 50 or 80 million gun owners not be inconvenienced?
What's your opinion? Should the gun industry be exempt from standard practices that are binding on others? Why would that be?
Wouldn't this type of regulation be in the best interest of the gun-owning public? If, by means of setting safety standards, a decrease in accidental deaths from firearms could be realized, wouldn't that work against the need for gun banns?
Please leave a comment.
As surprising as it might be, other than tobacco, firearms are the only consumer product not regulated for health and safety by a federal agency.
Teddy bears, radios, and hairbrushes, which combined kill less than 100 Americans each year, are all regulated for safety. Guns, on the other hand, kill 30,000 and injure another 70,000 Americans annually but are not regulated. Why?
In 1972, pro-gun special interest groups used their powerful lobbying influence to achieve an exemption from government regulation for firearms. This precedent continues despite the fact that guns are among the most deadly consumer products made.
What does this sound like to you? Does it mean that the gun lobby is unconcerned with safety if it would interfere with profits to the manufacturers? Or is the lobby's main concern that the 50 or 80 million gun owners not be inconvenienced?
What's your opinion? Should the gun industry be exempt from standard practices that are binding on others? Why would that be?
Wouldn't this type of regulation be in the best interest of the gun-owning public? If, by means of setting safety standards, a decrease in accidental deaths from firearms could be realized, wouldn't that work against the need for gun banns?
Please leave a comment.
Cat-Killer Today, People-Killer Tomorrow
The Miami Herald reports on the fascinating story of the Miami cat killer.
The evidence against him which led to the arrest has not been released. The police referred to confidential sources. And naturally the defense attorney and the family are proclaiming his innocence. We always take that with a grain salt, but then there's this.
So, he's a rich kid, smokes dope, drives without a license, but does he break into houses and kill cats? Could there be more than one disturbed teenager in Miami doing this? Does this kind of animal cruelty really lead to serial killing of humans? Or is that a myth like marijuana leads to heroin?
What's your opinion?
Tyler Weinman, the teen accused of mutilating and killing 19 cats across South Miami-Dade, was released from jail Wednesday to await a trial as friends and family continued to proclaim his innocence.
Weinman had been jailed pending a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation. After reviewing a doctor's findings that Weinman posed no ''risk of harming himself or others,'' Miami-Dade Circuit Judge John Thornton allowed him released on $249,500 bond.
Weinman, 18, faces arraignment July 6. He is charged with 19 counts of felony animal cruelty, 19 counts of improperly disposing of an animal body and four counts of burglary.
The evidence against him which led to the arrest has not been released. The police referred to confidential sources. And naturally the defense attorney and the family are proclaiming his innocence. We always take that with a grain salt, but then there's this.
Weinman also acknowledged he was driving with a suspended license, the report said. He was charged with marijuana possession and driving with a suspended license, and signed a notice promising to appear in court.
After that, the cat killings stopped in Cutler Bay, where Weinman's mother lives. But several more cats were killed in Palmetto Bay, where his father lives.
So, he's a rich kid, smokes dope, drives without a license, but does he break into houses and kill cats? Could there be more than one disturbed teenager in Miami doing this? Does this kind of animal cruelty really lead to serial killing of humans? Or is that a myth like marijuana leads to heroin?
What's your opinion?
Supreme Court Denies DNA Test for Alaska Rapist
CNN reports on a disappointing decision handed down by the Supreme Court.
Isn't DNA testing the very means by which so many innocent people have been exonerated? Is the question for the conservative Justices simply whether the man has a constitutional right or not? Doesn't the dissenting idea that there "is no reason to deny access to the evidence" sound more reasonable? Do you think this sums up pretty well the difference between the conservative and liberal views?
Jeralyn referred to the opinion as a "setback," providing a link to the Inocence Project where they explain that this ruling will not affect the majority of cases.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
A convicted rapist seeking to prove his innocence with a new DNA test lost his appeal Thursday at the Supreme Court.It seems unbelievable that the Justices would vote against something like this. By way of explanation, here's what the opinion offers.The justices ruled 5-4 that inmates cannot use a federal civil rights law to press for advanced DNA testing that was unavailable at the time of the crime.
Forty-four states and the federal government have laws allowing post-conviction access to biological evidence for such testing, but that number does not include Alaska, where William Osborne was sentenced 15 years ago for a vicious attack on an Anchorage woman.
"He has no constitutional right to obtain post-conviction access to the state's evidence for DNA testing," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. He was supported by his conservative colleagues Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said, "There is no reason to deny access to the evidence and there are many reasons to provide it, not the least of which is a fundamental concern in ensuring that justice has been done in this case." Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer backed his conclusions.
Isn't DNA testing the very means by which so many innocent people have been exonerated? Is the question for the conservative Justices simply whether the man has a constitutional right or not? Doesn't the dissenting idea that there "is no reason to deny access to the evidence" sound more reasonable? Do you think this sums up pretty well the difference between the conservative and liberal views?
Jeralyn referred to the opinion as a "setback," providing a link to the Inocence Project where they explain that this ruling will not affect the majority of cases.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)