Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Blaming the Instrument Rather Than the Actor


First, my heart and prayers go to the victims of the recent shootings. One of my favorite companies is owned and operated by a Sikh family. I have great appreciation for the Sikh culture and history. However, I'm sure the liberals in the media really could care less about Sikh contributions, but that shouldn't stop them from obscurring the actor and villifying the instrument, and ultimately decrying an American's ability to defend oneself.

It only took a few days, but sure enough, the gun controllers and liberal crisis mongers have found another tragedy to exploit. This time we see it passed as news complete with ridiculous headline.

Many moons ago, I worked for a criminal defense attorney. We had a "client" that was serving 20 to life for brutally stabbing a defenseless woman (22 times) with a "kitchen knife".
What is a kitchen knife? More appropriately described by the prosecutor at the time of trial as : "a 9 inch long, sharpened steel blade, approximately 2-and-half inches wide where the blade ends at the handle... a chef's carving knife or a slicing knife".
That wasn't the only case we saw that year where an innocent woman was murdered by a suitor with a similar apparatus. We had two other cases emerge within a 12 month period where we were confronted with a "kitchen knife" as the instrument. Quite a lot for a small general purpose law firm.
At least the Judge and Jury came to the conclusion in all cases that "The Actor" or "The Killer" would need to be punished.
There was no outcry from the press demanding that locks be placed on kitchen knives nor were opinions by Kitchen Knife Control Inc or other Knife Control organization quoted in the news.
It was a tragedy and the Killers were rightly punished.

Is it possible that knife weilding killers select "the Kitchen Carving Knife" as a "Weapon of Choice"? I'm sure the person that provided the research below could come to that conclusion.
There are many quotes from this fellow that make so many assumptions without merit, but there are caveats to those that "feel" that it's time to eliminate or severely restrict our rights. The article then points to a handful of cases where a perpetrator or actor had a semiautomatic handgun in possession at the time of the crime.
"The common thread binding the mass attacks together is that they all used semiautomatic handguns with high-capacity magazines, Spearman said."
I would suggest that the true common thread is that a person with ill-intent sought to harm or kill as many people as possible in a confined or localised area. If these perpetrators had access to other devices of destruction (which in many cases - they did) the tragedy might not have been averted or could have been even more diabolical as is the case with car and truck bombings.

A common thread is usually an area where the right to carry is infringed, limited or not excercised by the targeted victims.

Here is the most obnoxious quote:
"There is no valid reason for civilians to have assault rifles, semiautomatic handguns and high-capacity magazines," he said. "We have to start ratcheting down the firepower in civilian hands in the United States."
Espescially when you want them to obey at all costs...
%%%%%%%%%UPDATE%%%%%%%%%%%%


In an effort to understand the prohibitionist mentality, there is an old English Parable titled "The Three Sillies". It always comes to mind when confronted with liberal-logic. I'm sure some of you will recognize it.
I do recall blurting-out "Oh my! There's an Axe in the Ceiling!" on one occassion. It does come in handy whenever gun-control enters the discussion.

3 comments:

Tom said...

The shooter used a Springfield XD9, a glock style 9mm semi-automatic pistol which has a combination grip and trigger safety. This is exactly the kind of firearm that my wife owns for her personal protection.

My wife's gun hasn't managed to kill anyone yet - we're not sure exactly why. We're keeping a careful eye on it though just in case it decides to go on some sort of rampage.

ikaika said...

recently when I was back in NJ, my FiL kept hammering our choice for living in Fl. "You live in a gun state" he would say as if it were Post Apocalypse Detroit.
I asked what he meant by that.
He assumed that since there were more law-abiding citizens with CnC, therefore the criminals would have greater access to firearms because of volume.
I asked if he ever bothered to compare the violent crime stats between NJ and Florida before spouting this as gospel.
He sometimes thinks I'm not up to his caliber, because being a trader doesn't garner the same respect as manual labor. I've even taken him to the range where he considered owning a firearm afterwards, but never pursued it.
I must say, with zero experience, he handled the recoil from my .357 like it was nothing.
But I was persistent about "gun states" and why he assumed I was "safer in NYC or Camden than Miami". It's a pervasive myth.

The other myth I just recalled was offered bby a former associate. He suggested that the number of Suicides would decline if people could not access handguns. This a was a rudy Giuliani conclusion.

Chess said...

BHO has been pretty quiet on this. In my opinion that wont last all the way through November. I fully expect whatever libtard is moderating to lob the gun issue out there at a debate. Mitt better be fully prepared to answer smartly and quickly. BHO will seem tough so he can pick up some soccer moms.