Lax Knife-Control Laws in Toronto results in Four Stabbings in One Night

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 15th, 2014

Week in Review

International law restricts the kind of bullets we can use in war.  In general, they have to have a full metal jacket.  So they don’t flatten out in flight and make big holes in bodies.  Causing great suffering and trauma to anyone wounded.  Which is why today a lot of soldiers can survive from gunshot wounds.  Whereas the lead Minié balls of the American Civil War did horrific damage to tissue and bone.  Shattering bone such that any arm or leg wound typically resulted in an amputation.  And a belly wound meant death.  For it just did so much damage to the internal organs that there was no repairing them.  Much like another horrific belly wound.  From a bayonet.  As it made a long, wide wound.  Often running in one side of a man and out the other.  And doing irreparable damage.

Even today a knife wound can cause more damage than a bullet. Because it makes such a large hole through a body.  Making long and deep cuts in internal organs.  Also, a person has to be close to use a knife.  He can’t stab someone from a distance.  Like you can shoot someone with a gun from a distance.  So anyone willing to stab someone is pretty cold-blooded.  As you see, hear and feel a person’s death.  And anyone that can do that is a very dangerous person.  Especially with our lax knife-control laws (see Two dead, two wounded in separate GTA stabbings by Chris Doucette posted 2/13/2014 on the Toronto Sun).

TORONTO – Two men were killed and two others were wounded in three separate stabbings within hours of each other in the GTA [Greater Toronto Area].

The bloodshed began just after 9 p.m. Wednesday in Rexdale, Toronto Police said, and it kept emergency responders busy for several hours.

Every time there is a shooting in the United States the left calls for stricter gun-control legislation.  As if that would remove all violent crime in the country.  Because if a person can’t get a gun that person can’t shoot anyone with a gun.  And they would never think about picking up a knife to harm someone.  Which would leave the bad guys with nothing to do but to link arms and sing Kumbaya.  Like they do in Canada.  Well, everyone in Canada but those picking up knives to stab people.  Funny how in Canada they don’t blame knives for these crimes.  Or demand more restrictive knife-control legislation in Canada every time someone gets stabbed.  Like some Americans blame guns for gun crimes in the United States.  And try to restrict gun ownership every chance they get.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

FT196: “One life is important in gun control debate, 5 million lives are negligible if they lose their insurance because of Obamacare.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 15th, 2013

Fundamental Truth

Some of the Richest People in the United States live in the Suburbs of Washington, D.C. 

Liberals say they care about the people.  While they say conservatives only care about their money.  Conservatives want to cut taxes and government spending so they can keep more of their money to spend on their families.  Liberals want to increase taxes and government spending.  To take more money from taxpayers to spend on other people.  People who are more deserving of that money than the people who earned it.

Liberals say they want to tax and spend because they care about people.  And not money.  Like conservatives.  Yet the more money a liberal government collects in taxes the more powerful that government grows.  And the richer those in government get.  Just look at the wealth surrounding Washington, D.C., which includes six of the ten wealthiest counties in the U.S.  It used to be the military industrial complex.  Now it’s the government industrial complex.  For liberals do not like the military.  And gut defense spending to fund their welfare state.  Spending our money to reward their friends.  And buying votes by making people dependent on government.

Some of the richest people in the United States live in the suburbs of Washington, D.C.  Who got rich on taxpayer money.  Where those connected to the liberal aristocracy enjoy obscene levels of wealth.  While the median family income falls.  Leaving families in the rest of the country to get by on less.  While those connected to government enjoy those obscene levels of wealth.  Yet liberals care about the people.  And not these obscene levels of wealth.

Liberals have grown Very Wealthy by Caring for the People ‘instead’ of Money

So it’s no secret the more money the government collects the better liberals in government live.  The bigger government grows the more government jobs that are available.  Allowing liberals to spread the wealth.  Other people’s wealth, that is.  So it’s good for those inside the government aristocracy.  Which is why liberals ‘care’ about the people.  So they can run a massive welfare state.  With them at the top.  Like Old World royalty.  Passing alms out to the people.  Where the people grovel.  And are obedient.  Grateful for what royalty gives them.  Thanking them politely.  And never forgetting their place.  The dirt beneath their feet (to borrow a line from the musical Les Misérables).

It is hard, then, to believe liberals when they say they care about the people.  As caring for the people has made them very wealthy.  Wealth they acquired by taking it away from other people.  Via taxes.  It is harder still to believe them when you look at their actions.  Whenever there is a high-profile gun crime, for example, they immediately use it to advance gun control legislation.  As if America is suffering from a plague of gun deaths.  And that only when the government takes away guns from law-abiding gun owners will the dying stop.  Of course, others throughout history have wanted to take away the people’s guns.  Including the British in 1775.  When the shot heard ’round the world was fired.  Kicking off the Revolutionary War. 

So Americans are very suspect whenever anyone comes after their guns.  Because that means only one thing.  Those trying to take away those guns want to make these gun owners weaker.  The question is, why?  Why do governments want to make their people weaker?  Probably for the same reason ruling elites everywhere do.  When you’re greatly outnumbered you don’t want the people you’re oppressing to be able to fight back.

For Every Person who ‘picked’ an Obamacare Policy 38 People lost the Insurance they Liked and Wanted to Keep

Listening to liberals you would think that the only way people are dying in America is from gun violence.  Is this true?  If not exactly how are people dying?  Well, according to the Centers for Disease and Prevention (see Table 2. Deaths, death rates, and age-adjusted death rates for 113 selected causes, Injury by firearms, Drug-induced Injury at work, and Enterocolitis due to Clostridium difficile: United States, final 2010 and preliminary 2011) the total deaths in 2011 was 2,512,873.  Some of the leading causes of death were cardiovascular diseases at 778,503 (31.0%).  Cancers (Malignant neoplasms) at 575,313 (22.9%).  Chronic lower respiratory diseases at 143,382 (5.7%).  Just with these three groups of diseases we’re at 59.6% of all 2011 deaths.  And that’s before we get to non-disease related deaths.  Such as Drug-induced deaths at 40,239 (1.6%).  Motor vehicle accidents at 34,677 (1.4%).  Falls at 26,631 (1.1%).  And one of the least causes of deaths.  Assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms at 11,101 (0.4%).

Gun deaths account for less than one half of one percent of all deaths in 2011.  Yet they want to take guns away from law-abiding gun owners to stop an epidemic of gun deaths totaling 0.4% of all deaths in 2011.  That’s what liberals are focused on.  That.  And the decriminalization of drugs.  Because drugs are a victimless crime.  Something only responsible adults choose to do.  Despite drug-induced deaths being more than three and half times greater than gun deaths.  But liberals are hard on guns.  And soft on drugs.  Even though more people die from drugs than from guns.  Yet liberals care about people. 

The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was to provide affordable health insurance to about 50 million of uninsured people.  With the rollout of Obamacare only 106,185 ‘picked’ an insurance policy in October (some may have bought a plan or simply placed one in their shopping cart).  While 4.02 million people in 28 states have lost their health insurance (see White House to Allow Insurers to Continue Canceled Health Plans by Carol E. Lee and Louise Radnofsky posted 11/14/2013 on The Wall Street Journal).  So for every person who ‘picked’ an insurance policy 38 people lost the insurance they liked and wanted to keep.  Considering 59.6% of all deaths in 2011 were from heart disease, cancer and chronic lower respiratory diseases taking away health insurance from 4.02 million people could very well cause more people to die from these diseases.  For they are very common diseases.  And these policy cancellations are only from the individual market.  When the cancellations for the employer-provided plans start hitting next year we may be seeing hundreds of millions who will lose their health insurance.  Which is by design.  To force the people who already have insurance into costlier plans to pay for those who don’t.  And, of course, to make government bigger.  As well as making liberals in the government aristocracy wealthier.

Whenever there is a high-profile gun death the left renews their push for new gun control legislation.  Even if it saves only one child.  They say this despite guns being responsible for less than one half of one percent of all deaths.  Yet when they take away health insurance from 4.02 million people who may die from heart disease, cancer and chronic lower respiratory diseases, these deaths are negligible.  Acceptable.  A small percentage of the population whose deaths won’t mean a thing in the grand scheme of things.  All that is important to them is protecting and growing the government aristocracy.  So they can continue to live in the wealthiest counties in the U.S.  While enjoying their regal lives paid for with other people’s money.  Yet it’s the liberals that care about people. 

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Democrats push for Gun Control Legislation despite Fall in Gun Crime

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 21st, 2013

Week in Review

The left hates guns.  They want to take away our guns.  And repeal the Second Amendment.  Which is why they exploit every tragedy that involves a gun that they can.  (Except for the horrible gun crimes in Chicago that rarely receive any media attention.)  To foment anti-gun sentiment.  And it’s been working.  For the America people believe that gun crime is out of control (see Mass shootings are up; gun murders down posted 9/21/2013 on The Economist).

On September 16th a former navy reservist, Aaron Alexis, shot 12 people dead at a military base in Washington, DC. Though rare, such tragedies are increasingly common in America. The past 30 years have seen 67 mass shootings (in which four or more people were killed by a gunman not involved in a conventional crime), says Mother Jones magazine. There have already been five this year, after seven last year. Massacres grab headlines, and so may explain why many Americans believe, incorrectly, that gun crime is on the rise. In fact, gun murders have fallen by half in the past 20 years.

In 2012 there were about 500 people shot to death in Chicago.  Which receives scant news coverage.  But every time there is a mass shooting (Sandy Hook, Aurora, Tucson, Virginia Tech) it is not only front-page news but there are calls for new gun control legislation.  Because gun crime is out of control in America.  This is the narrative.  And why the left loves mass-shootings.  For it inflames the people to perhaps accept something they don’t want in the heat of the moment.  Further gun control legislation.

But gun crime is not out of control.  Apart from the Democrat-controlled Chicago.  Actual “gun murders have fallen by half in the past 20 years.”  Despite Sandy Hook, Aurora, Tucson, Virginia Tech.  But you wouldn’t know that listening to the Democrats.  As they are apparently lying to the American people to take away our guns.  Which begs the question.  Why?  If gun crime is actually falling then why do they want to take away our guns?

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Knife Crime in Canada claims two Lives in Toronto in possible Murder/Suicide

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 21st, 2013

Week in Review

Canada has stricter gun laws than the United States.  The American left would love to have some of their laws.  For there is simply too much gun crime in the United States.  From mentally unsound people killing people because of voices in their heads.  To murder/suicides that would simply not be possible if there was not a gun in the house (see Two dead after stabbing at Keele and Eglinton apartment building by Canadian Press posted 9/13/2013 on the National Post).

Toronto police are investigating a possible murder-suicide at an apartment building in the city’s northwest.

Officers went to the building (near Keele Street and Eglinton Avenue West) at about 7:30 a.m. Friday after neighbours called 911 to report a woman was found with stab wounds in the hallway…

Officers located the body of the man outside the rear of the building.

The United Kingdom also has strict gun laws.  And a knife-crime problem.  For it would appear taking guns away from people does not prevent people from killing other people.  Or themselves.

While a small percentage of any population may own a gun pretty much 100% of the population owns a knife.  Except, perhaps, the person living alone who never cooks.  And these instruments of death are often on full display in people’s kitchens.  In a big block of wood on the kitchen counter.  With the handle conveniently sticking out for anyone to walk by and grab.  A child.  An intruder.  Or a homicidal spouse.

But we don’t hear the same concern for knife-crime as we do for gun-crime.  Possibly because killing with a knife requires someone to get up close and personal to someone.  Unlike a gun.  Which can be fired safely from a distance.  Which gives a woman a better chance of defending herself from someone trying to harm her.  Because if she used a knife she would have to get close enough to her assailant that her assailant could probably take her knife away.  And perhaps use it on her.

Unless a woman has been trained in hand-to-hand fighting she will likely lose in a knife fight.  While her odds of winning a gun fight are just as good as her assailant.  That’s what a gun does.  It lets someone who is greatly out-muscled to defend herself.  And in this day and age where more and more women are living alone and raising their children alone perhaps they would like to even the odds with any would-be assailant.  And own a handgun with a large capacity clip.  So she doesn’t have to fight hand-to-hand to save her life.  Against someone twice her size.

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Taking Guns away from the People Least Likely to use them will not reduce Gun Violence

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 5th, 2013

Week in Review

There’s a lot of talk about some kind of national gun control after Newtown.  Anything to take guns out of the hands of people.  Even the most law-abiding among us who have guns in their homes for self-defense.  The least likely among us to use that gun in a gun crime.  So you imagine they are going to get even tougher on those who may be more likely to use a gun in a gun crime (see A Question for Gun Control Liberals by David Frum 1/2/2013 on The Daily Beast).

How can you support gun control and oppose stop-and-frisk? Seriously, how otherwise do you imagine that get-tough rules on illegal handguns would ever be enforced?

Or not.

Apparently the safest place to hide a handgun is under your coat while walking the streets.  It may be profiling.  But if you’re in an area known for gun violence where people illegally carry handguns and sometimes use them in street altercations resulting in innocent bystanders getting shot then that intrusion on personal liberty may do more to protect people from gun violence than taking guns away from the homes of law-abiding citizens.

If we take guns away from people who aren’t using in gun crimes but do nothing to take them away from people carrying them illegally we unarm the good guys while leaving the bad guys armed.  It may stop someone from mass killing people in a theater with a gun.  But they may just find some other way to commit mass murder.  While those with illegal handguns will continue to fire their weapons indiscriminately in places like the south side of Chicago.  A place with some of the most restrictive gun laws.  And some of the worse gun violence.  But since a lot of it is black-on-black crime in a Democrat-controlled city the Left doesn’t like to talk about it.  So they don’t.  And instead propose legislation that won’t address the true problem.  Societal decay.

You can see it on television.  You can see it in the movies.  You can hear it in the music.  You can see or hear something that was shocking and scandalous in the Eighties and kids will scratch their head today and ask why?  And then go back to their videogame in the basement where they will kill people indiscriminately while snacking on a bag of Cheetos.  And washing those cheesy snacks down with some ice cold Mountain Dew.  When kids in the Eighties went to the arcade with other kids and tried to get a frog across a busy street.  Or tried to get an Italian plumber to hop over things a gorilla threw at him to save a damsel in distress.  While chowing down pizza slices.  And drinking ice cold Mountain Dew.  With their in-the-flesh friends.

Kids were still innocent in the Eighties.  Today television, movies, music and videogames have desensitized them to some of the most graphic violence.  And our electronic world has turned them away from human interaction.  Creating a lack of empathy for real people as their world consists of impersonal videogames and social media.  Throw in a breakdown of the family and a turning away from God and religion and it gets worse.  In short, societal decay.  Which is a far greater problem than guns in the home of law-abiding citizens.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Gun and Knife Violence in UK Despite Ban on Gun Ownership

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 29th, 2012

Week in Review

The American Left loves the United Kingdom.  Not for their rich history of farming advances, representative government, laissez-faire economics, the Industrial Revolutions, etc.  No.  In fact, they’re not big fans of what made the English-speaking world some of the best places to live.  And for those of us lucky to live in that world we say thank you for making us English.  No, what they like is their National Health Service (NHS).  Which they hope to turn Obamacare into one day.  Despite the NHS suffering from massive costs, long wait times, shortages and rationing.  As a national health care system is wont to do.  And the other thing they love about the United Kingdom are their gun control laws.  In the UK the average person cannot own a gun.  Which, of course, according to the Left results in a safer and a less dangerous society (see Knife Crime: Funding To Tackle Youth Violence by Niall Paterson posted 12/27/2012 on Sky News).

The government has announced extra cash to help tackle youth violence and gun crime.

Half a million pounds [about $808,500 US] will be given to the voluntary sector, charities and other organisations working directly with young people at risk of becoming violent offenders and those already involved in knife and gun crime.

In addition, the Home Office intends to expand the “priority areas” in which its Ending Gang and Youth Violence frontline team works from 29 to 33.

Home Secretary Theresa May said: “Serious youth violence has a devastating impact on communities and needs to be stopped.

“We need to change the life-stories of the young people who too often end up dead or seriously injured on our streets or are sucked into a life of violence and crime.

Imagine that.  No guns but there is gun violence.  And a lot of knife violence.  Guess there is more to ending violence than just taking away weapons.  Some areas sound so bad that they could be the south side of Chicago.  Which is a city with very restrictive gun control laws.  And where there is a lot of gun crime.  Where the criminals have the guns to commit the crimes.  But the citizens subjected to this violence cannot own a gun to protect themselves from these crimes.

Guns aren’t the problem.  It’s people who are intent on hurting others.  Whether it is with a gun.  A knife.  Or pure blunt force trauma like that poor woman in India that just passed away after a vicious gang-rape on a bus (see Body of India rape victim arrives home in New Delhi by Adnan Abidi posted 12/29/2012 on Reuters).  People who are intent on hurting others will use the weapon available to them.  Whether it be a gun, a knife or a metal rod.  The choice of weapon may change.  But their intent rarely does by a simple weapons ban.

If they want to hurt someone they will find a way to do so.  Which is why new gun control legislation is a bad idea.  For it won’t change the intent of these people.  For unless we can change or interdict these individuals intent on doing harm they will find a way to do harm.  Perhaps even in a more harmful and indiscriminate way.

What we need is not new gun control laws.  We need a way to prevent these people from wanting to hurt others.  And the root cause for most of these people going astray lie in the policies of the Left.  Their attacks on religion and families (especially ‘predatory’ men) have left our inner cities virtually fatherless (see Fathers disappear from households across America by Luke Rosiak posted 12/25/2012 on The Washington Times).  And Godless.  Without a father to provide a positive male role model a lot of kids turn to the streets.  And gangs.  Inoculating them into violence.  While inoculating them from the Golden Rule.  Where they commit acts of violence with the ease and nature of an animal in the wild.  Who are also raised by a single mom.  And have no concept of the Golden Rule.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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