Britain may not have a Gun Crime Problem but they have a Knife Crime Problem

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 6th, 2013

Week in Review

The American left believes guns make people commit crimes.  For these people wouldn’t kill anyone if there wasn’t a gun urging them to do so.  Just look at Great Britain.  Gun free.  And crime free (see Man accused of murdering Kieran Crump-Raiswell ‘sniggered’ after stabbing him posted 7/4/2013 on the Manchester Evening News).

A teenage gap-year student was knifed to death in the street in broad daylight by a “laughing” stranger in Manchester, a jury has heard.

Kieran Crump-Raiswell, 18, was heading to look for a job when Imran Hussain, 27, walked up to him and “without warning” stabbed him four times in the chest, Manchester Crown Court was told…

The killing was the second of two street assaults committed on total strangers within 12 days in January.

Mature student Hussain, from Bracknell, Berkshire, drove from his student flat in Coventry on January 4 and punched a man in the face in Nottingham and ran off…

Hussain went on to claim he had been hearing “threatening and abusive voices” and that he travelled to the two cities to confront them.

Apparently there are other ways to kill people besides guns.  As Britain is not crime free.  In fact, Britain has a big problem with knife crime.  Because they took away the people’s guns.  So killers turned to knives.  Proving the point it’s not the weapon that kills people.  It’s the person holding the weapon that kills people.  And taking away guns didn’t change that.  And it won’t change that in the United States.  As killers will just choose a different weapon to kill with.  Like they have in Britain.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , ,

More Forgotten Children die in Cars but there is no Demand for new Car Legislation

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 6th, 2013

Week in Review

Whenever a child dies accidentally because of a gun there is another push to pass gun control legislation.  While making derogatory comments about gun owners.  For if it wasn’t for these yahoos putting pressure on their representatives in Congress they would have already done the right thing.  And repealed the Second Amendment.  So there wouldn’t be guns in houses where children can find them.  But it is a little different when children die accidentally in other ways (see Baby boy dies after being left in car in Virginia by Clarence Williams and Martin Weil posted 6/6/2013 on The Washington Post).

An 8-month-old boy died Friday after he was apparently left in his mother’s car while she was at work, Alexandria police said…

Bergin said the mother intended to drop the child off at day care. It was not clear why she did not…

Also on Friday, Baltimore County police said a toddler died after being left in a vehicle in Lansdowne, police said.

A relative was supposed to take 16-month-old Sabriya Towels to a Head Start Center on Friday after picking her up at another location but instead drove to their home in Baltimore, went inside and slept for a few hours, police said.

Police said that about four hours later, the relative, who was not Sabrinya’s parent, went to the Head Start Center to pick up the toddler and realized she was not there. He then ran to his vehicle and found the girl inside…

The Web site Kids and Cars. org said that on average, 38 children die in hot cars each year after being trapped inside.

“Even the best of parents or caregivers can overlook a sleeping baby in a car,” the Web site says.

People who accidentally left a child in a locked car to die are not horrible people like those gun owners.  These people can be “even the best of parents and caregivers.”  While no such sentiments will ever appear about a gun owner.  Even though both may accidentally kill a child.  Horrible things to have to live with.  But is a forgetful person who doesn’t lock away their gun when the grandchildren come to visit any more horrible than a forgetful parent or caregiver who forgets a child in a car?  No.

Is this a commentary on today’s idea of what a woman should be?  Instead of a stay-at-home mom she should have both a career and a family?  As well as an intense schedule that can suck the life out of her?  While making her miss being a part of her children’s childhoods?  Instead farming a good portion of that out to childcare?  Perhaps.  Mothers should be able to enjoy being a mother without feeling guilty for not having a career, too.  For her job as mother is far more important and far more satisfying than any career she could have.  For even movie stars who have lives every woman envies does not feel complete until they become mothers.  And when they do we celebrate their motherhood.  And yet the left will disparage a woman who doesn’t pursue a career.  Choosing instead to be a stay-at-home mother.  As they did during the 2012 debate.  When someone said Ann Romney never had a real job in her life.  Because all she did was raise 5 children.

There are a lot of double standards when it comes to the left.  Whether it is the ‘best of parents or caregivers’ and ‘evil, rotten gun owners’ when it comes to the accidental death of children.  Or working moms and stay-at-home moms when it comes to their idea of a real woman.  Everything the left does has but one purpose.  To advance a political agenda.  Even if it means we place so many burdens on women today that they forget about their children in the back seat of their cars.  At which point they’ll rue forever the day they chose to build a career.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Women in Combat Zones have been issued Rape Whistles to Protect themselves from their Fellow Soldiers

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 6th, 2013

Week in Review

Watch a realistic war movie.  Like PlatoonSaving Private Ryan.  Or Band of Brothers.  And study the scenes where the combat is so close that it devolves into brutal hand-to-hand combat.  Where brute strength and dirty fighting kills someone.  Where men are reduced to animals in the wild.  Snorting and grunting and gasping for life.  Until someone can stab another to death.  Snap a neck.  Or choke someone to death.  For when the enemy gets this close you can’t use your rifle.  All you have is your physical strength.  And whoever is stronger typically wins these horrific hand-to-hand encounters.  This is combat at its worse.  Where the killing is close.  You hear the dying breath of the enemy.  And look them in the eyes as they die.

Now there is a drive to put women in combat.  Up to now they have only served in support roles that engaged in periodic combat situations.  Serving valiantly.  And paying a heavy price in the wounds they receive.  But they end their day in a rear area.  In a base with beds to sleep in.  Hot chow.  And showers.  They haven’t ‘rucked up’ and gone on extended patrols with the infantry or Special Forces.  But some say it is now time that women do (see ‘No girls allowed’: Iraq war vet Rep. Tulsi Gabbard on opening combat missions to women by Rick Klein, Richard Coolidge, and Jordyn Phelps posted 7/3/2013 on Yahoo! News).

Ask Rep. Tulsi Gabbard why she supports the military’s new policy to allow women to serve in combat roles, and the Iraq war veteran speaks from experience.

“I can tell you during my deployment, there were missions that I– volunteered for and was not allowed to go on, simply because I’m a woman,” Gabbard, D-Hawaii, tells Top Line. “They said, ‘Sorry, no. No girls allowed…’”

Gabbard also brings a first-hand perspective to the issue of sexual assault in the military, saying she “heard and saw incidents” of sexual assault within her military camp when she was in Iraq.

“We got issued rape whistles so that as we walk out of our tent or walk out of our hooch, we’ve got our body armor, we’ve got our helmet, our weapon, and we’ve got our rape whistle,” Gabbard recalls. “It was an eye-opening experience to have to consider that fact when we’re serving overseas in Iraq and…this is a risk or a danger that exists.”

Women have different physical standards in training.  To help them complete training.  Because they don’t have the same strength of men.  And can’t do what men do.  There are some who can but by and large if they didn’t have these different standards we wouldn’t have as many women in the military today.  Or have to issue rape whistles.  For if a women met the same physical standards as a man she wouldn’t need that rape whistle.  For she would be able to defend herself from a would be rapist.  Just as she would be able to defend herself if the enemy penetrated their defensive line and the combat devolved into brutal hand-to-hand combat.  Where blowing a rape whistle wouldn’t cause the enemy to stop trying to kill her.

Sure, some will say, a woman may be able to protect herself if it was one on one.  But what if she was being gang-raped?  Then she would still need that rape whistle.  If it was that bad in the military then we shouldn’t have women there in the first place.  For it’s an obvious distraction to the mission if we have to focus so much on sexual assault in these rear areas of deployed troops.  And what would happen once these troops left these rear areas and entered combat?  There were a lot of unpopular second lieutenants who were ‘accidentally’ shot by their own troops in Vietnam.  For putting men on report.  Or just being incompetent in leading men into battle.  When the bullets started flying accidents happened.  Grenades get tossed around and accidentally end up in the wrong foxhole.  And if they happen to have an enemy rifle, why, they could say the lieutenant fell gloriously in battle under enemy fire.  Any gang of soldiers who would try to gang-rape a soldier in their unit would have no second thoughts about making their problem go away in the field.  You can’t put them all in the brig.  If you did you wouldn’t have enough to send into the field.  So soldiers will enter the field with some possible bad blood.  And scores to settle.

Is it this bad in the military?  Probably not.  Can it be?  Perhaps.  For you’re always going to have trouble when mixing men and women together.  Officers may be gentlemen.  But soldiers are cold-blooded killers in the field.  Who revert to their animalistic past.  Where it’s kill or be killed.  Thinking that we can flip a switch on them to change them from cold-blooded killers to gentlemen is asking a lot of them.  And distracts from the mission.  For the few women who can meet the men’s physical standards is it worth it to play with these social experiments on the best military in the world?  Will these women make the best military better?  Will they not change it?  Or will they degrade it?  None of these three options make a compelling case to tamper with the best military in the world.  So why do it?

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

If Marijuana is Legal Kids will buy it off the Internet just as they buy Alcohol off the Internet

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 6th, 2013

Week in Review

The American left has used the heavy hand of government to protect the children.  They’ve taken candy and chips out of school vending machines.  They put vegetables on their lunch plates (which our kids promptly throw away).  They’ve restricted smoking in all public areas.  Placed restrictions on second-hand smoke.  Even on third-hand smoke.  Some have tried to limit the size of soda they can buy.  The kind of toys they can play with.  Even the words they can say in school.  The left has made a police state for our children.  To protect them.  And to make sure they grow up and think correctly.

But they have not brought their jackbooted oppression of our children into one area.  Marijuana.  In their drive to allow medical marijuana—as well as simply decriminalizing marijuana just to get high on—they are strangely quiet when it comes to the children.  For apparently they can protect the children from marijuana just like they can protect them from alcohol (see Concern over teenagers buying alcohol via online shopping posted 7/1/2013 on BBC News Wales).

Young people are increasingly using online supermarket delivery services to buy alcohol, figures show.

A total of 21% of 14-15 year olds questioned for the Alcohol Concern Cymru Wales-wide survey said they had bought alcohol online…

Meanwhile, four out of nine under-age test purchasers working with police in Cardiff bought and received alcohol online in March…

In four of the nine cases (44%), alcohol was handed to the underage test purchasers by delivery drivers with no proof of age requested after agreeing to online terms and conditions when making the purchases.

Canada has medical marijuana.  But their pharmacies don’t want to dispense it.  And doctors don’t want to prescribe it.  As there are no drug studies with marijuana as there is with every other drug.  So they don’t know how to prescribe dosage.  And the pharmacies don’t want a highly demanded drug on site that people will want to steal.  So in Canada if you want your medical marijuana you will have to order it directly from the producer.  By phone.  Or over the Internet.  Making Canadian stoners very, very happy.

Once upon a time selling marijuana was a crime.  Which limited the number of people willing to sell it to kids.  But if it’s not a crime there will be a whole lot of people willing to sell it to kids over the Internet.  Especially when they can say, “They checked the box on the online order form stating they were of legal age.  What more could I have done.  Here’s my wrist.  Please slap it and go on your way.  For business is good and I have more orders to fill.  All of these orders, incidentally, are for adults.  Because they checked the box on the online order form.  So they have to be adults.  I mean, why would anyone lie about their age when buying marijuana?”

Our kids may not be able to play with a toy gun or eat a candy bar in school.  Thanks to the oppressive police state they live in.  Which strangely looks the other way when it comes to marijuana.  Even though it would be safer for our kids to enjoy a candy bar in school than smoking dope that they bought over the Internet.  Why?  Is it just to help them keep the youth vote?  For high school kids and college kids like smoking dope.  And vote Democrat.  Or is it because the left are nothing but a bunch of pot smokers themselves?  Funny for a group of people who have all but legislated cigarette smoking out of existence to have no problem with smoking marijuana.  Either way (the youth vote or their desire to get high) the left clearly have put their own desires above what’s best for our children.  Talk about your selfish bastards.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

President Obama’s Anti-Business Economic Policies Responsible for Rise in Gun Crime

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 6th, 2013

Week in Review

Following the Sandy Hook Shooting, the Aurora movie theater shooting, the shooting of Gabriella Giffords in Tucson, etc., there has been a movement by those on the left to push for gun control.  Because guns were to blame for all of these shootings.  Not the shooters.  President Obama and other Democrats said it was elementary.  Get rid of the guns and you get rid of these crimes.  For without these guns these shooters would have been placid and congenial members of their community.  Greeting their fellow citizens with friendly salutations and helping little old ladies cross the street.  Yes, that’s the world we could have.  According to Democrats.  If only we get rid of our guns (see Wave of street violence shakes Baltimore by Justin Fenton, Justin George and Luke Broadwater posted 6/29/2013 on The Baltimore Sun).

The ongoing violence — three more shootings, one of them fatal, occurred Saturday — is calling attention once again to Baltimore’s homicide rate and gun violence problem, which had been in decline in recent years. Last year, however, the number of people killed in Baltimore increased 10 percent. And at the midpoint of 2013 the number of homicides — 117 — is the highest in six years, raising questions about whether the city is backsliding.

Other cities have seen a similar trend, though crime rates have dropped significantly in Washington, New York and Dallas. Last year, violent crime rose in the United States for the first time in six years, with the largest increases occurring in cities like Baltimore with populations between 500,000 and 1 million, where homicides increased 12 percent. Among cities in that population range, Oklahoma City, Louisville, San Francisco and Memphis saw significant percentage increases, though none has a murder rate approaching Baltimore’s…

So there had been a decline in gun crime in “recent years.”  Odd.  I don’t recall any new gun control legislation in “recent years” to account for that decline in gun crime.  If guns cause gun crime than any fall in gun crime must correspond to new laws restricting gun ownership.  At least, according to those on the left.  Yet we’ve had a decline in gun crime without a corresponding rise in restrictions to gun ownership.  Puzzling.  Because those on the left say that this is just impossible.  For if we can have a fall in gun crime without new gun control legislation then all of their arguments to pass new gun control legislation are nothing but lies.  Which they probably are.  For there are other reasons for a rise in crime.

“We can’t stop, we can’t let up, because I know there’s still a lot of active gangs, and as long as those gangs are still in business, you have the potential for crime,” [Jim] Graham [Washington City Councilman] said…

And it’s not just because of job growth in those cities, Roman suggested. Huge surges of immigrants filling those cities have contributed to lowering crime, he said. Immigrants move into blighted areas and create cohesive communities with low crime — contrary to stereotypes that such communities cause societal problems, he said.

“It’s about racial and economic segregation,” Roman said. “It’s about immigration and gentrification…”

So it’s not guns but racial and economic segregation.  And gentrification.  In other words government is the cause for this rise in gun crime.  For their anti-business economic policies cause unemployment.  Especially for the unskilled.  And the young.  These policies are responsible for urban decay.  They first chased businesses out of their cities.  And those who did not follow the jobs went instead on government subsistence.  Giving these people little reason to get out of bed in the morning.  Little reason to work on any job skill.  But they only subsist on government subsistence.  While having a lot of spare time on their hands.  Where they spend time thinking about a better life.  A better life that takes more money than the government gives them.  So they turn to gangs.  And the drug trade.

Meanwhile immigrants move into little pockets of distressed areas.  Because it’s all they can afford.  And they work hard.  Building a business.  And a community.  Among themselves.  Leaving those on government subsistence on the outside looking in.  Meanwhile affluent middle class move into areas with great potential.  Areas on the water.  Old warehouse districts.  Etc.  Build them up.  And push their little borders out.  Displacing those remaining in what little was remaining of their old neighborhoods into other distressed neighborhoods.  Creating that racial and economic segregation.  And gentrification.

Ander said [Chicago] appears to have headed off a sustained increase in gun violence by broadening its approach to include funding for school-based programs for at-risk youth and a private-sector fundraising drive to expand other youth programs.

“If you rely only on the police to suppress and reduce crime, there are other unintended costs,” she said, referring to policies that strain relations with the public…

Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League and mayor of New Orleans from 1994 to 2002, said Baltimore’s crime is an economic problem that many cities struggle with. One in four residents in Baltimore lives under the poverty line, and the unemployment rate was 10 percent at the end of May.

A major factor is unemployment among youth and young adults, Morial said. “So when you take the illegal narcotics and trafficking in dope, and on top of that you have easy access to guns combined with high unemployment and very difficult economic conditions, it exacerbates the problem.”

In these cities with high rates of gun crime it is often black on black crime.  Those left behind by any urban renewal.  Some who have nothing but gangs and drugs to turn to.  So you have armed gang members on the streets.  Often of one racial group.  But police don’t dare be proactive.  Trying to ward off potential crime.  With programs like ‘stop and frisk’.  Because that will only strain relations between the police and the communities they’re trying to protect.  For these people have enough to deal with without turning their communities into police states.

Easy access to guns?  Yes.  That is a problem when criminals have easy access to guns.  But taking away the guns will not prevent people from becoming criminals.  If it did they would not be broadening their approach to reach at-risk youth.  Which is clearly an admission that it is not the guns.  But an environment that places youth at risk.  An environment created by anti-business economic policies.  Especially since President Obama entered office.  For his policies have given us the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression.  With Obamacare being at the top of the list of those anti-business policies.  With his energy policies a close second.  Causing businesses to stop hiring people.  The source of all these cities’ crime problems.

So who is responsible for this rise in gun crime?  Those who have put forward anti-business economic policies.  That have left our cities with high unemployment rates.  Giving these gangs a lot of recruits.  So it is President Obama who is responsible for the rise in gun crime that occurred during his administration.  Those who campaigned for him.  The mainstream media who protected him and dispensed his propaganda.  And those who elected him to office.  All share responsibility for the economic decline during the Obama presidency.  Which has caused this increase in gun crime.  For there is no better way to help at-risk unemployed people than by giving them jobs.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,