The illegal alien, 6 times deported / 7 time convicted felon who was illegally in the country when he used a gun stolen from a law enforcement vehicle to shoot and kill Kate Steinle, a 32 year old US citizen, as she walked along a San Francisco pier with her father… was found “not guilty” of murder by a California jury.
The man that did it stated he was in San Francisco specifically because it is a “sanctuary city”.
He admits firing the shot that killed her, but depending on which version of his story you use, he “found” the pistol… and either he was shooting at seals, or the firearm simply discharged 3 times all by itself. [That last explanation is of course perfectly plausible if you know less than nothing about firearms.]
Kate’s last words were “Help me Daddy.”
The case leaves me several things I’d really like to say about illegal aliens, sanctuary cities, California, Obama’s border enforcement, and bleeding heart liberals in general… but voicing these right now would definitely destroy the G-rating for my page. I leave it to your imagination. [Hint: It wouldn’t be highly complimentary.]
Suffice it to say you won’t find me banging the drum for a new “path to citizenship” for illegal aliens. We already have a path. It’s called “obey our immigration laws.”
Next time someone DEMANDS “common-sense” legislation of fire-arms on grounds recent advances in gun technology have made them so much more dangerous than before… Point out we’ve had rapid fire high capacity guns capable of mass murder for over 1 ½ centuries, and semi-automatic weapons have been available to the public for over a century.
So if we’ve had the technology for well over a century… why are mass shootings a comparatively new phenomena?
Some things that DO coincide with the advent of mass shootings:
raising kids without discipline or requiring respect
open disdain for religious precepts of moral behavior
letting children park for hours in front of shooter video games
a music genre that literally glorifies shootings/ homicide/ violence
the prevalence of children raised without a dad
“gun free zones” that ensure shooters a safe place to work
Common-sense says a problem that became prevalent over a century later was NOT caused by hardware we’d had access to for well over a century prior. The problem has to lie in changes more recent than guns.
So don’t try to legislate “common sense” while employing an argument that lacks it.
PS: Our right to bear arms is one of our original “civil rights”.
It was not “discovered” in the constitution a century or so later… It was written explicitly into the Bill of Rights to protect it from being challenged by subsequent legislators.
If you oppose rights protected by the US constitution, don’t pretend you have some mythical moral high ground. You are just an opponent of my civil rights, and will be treated as such.
“We must take action now! Harumph harumph harumph!”
Anyone familiar with handling a boat that hits whitewater knows the wrong reaction to hitting turbulence is a LOT more dangerous than none. The same applies with passing well meaning but ill-considered legislation.
I’m constantly amazed when I see folks that might otherwise be considered sane tell me that we need more gun laws because shooters keep shooting folks in gun free zones.
Ummm, does that not raise even a slight bit of doubt in your mind as to the effectiveness of what you humorously call a “gun free zone“?
What seems to be the problem? If it’s “gun free” how is there a “shooter”?
They didn’t post enough signs?
Should they print them in a different color for visibility?
Was the font too small for the shooter to read?
Is it a literacy issue?
If gun free zone signs are an effective method of disarming bad guys, shouldn’t the military post them in Iraq to disarm ISIS? If not, please explain why they’re useless as tits on a boar hog elsewhere, but a brilliant solution here.
But instead of carefully taking stock of what works and what doesn’t, we see hair-on-fire demands to do something, anything, immediately! And so we collectively double down on prior mistakes.
Any shooting instructor will tell you it is impossible to miss your opponent fast enough to kill him. Speed cannot take precedence to hitting the target. That same lesson applies to laws about guns. It doesn’t matter how fast you pass ineffective “solutions“.
Also worthy of note: Solutions that repeatedly fail to fix a problem are not solutions, and solutions that actually exacerbate the problem are called “problems“.
Gas may look a lot like water, but it’d be nice if we quit trying to use it to put out fires.
“…once again, innocent people were killed in part because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hands on a gun.”
Once again defenseless victims were methodically shot like fish in a barrel.
Once again it took place in what gun control advocates cynically call a “gun free zone“. Witnesses say the shooter reloaded 5 times. He had nothing to fear.
Once again cynical politicians score political points saying more laws would have stopped it. Because someone out to commit murder, which has been illegal since roughly the dawn of time, is going to be deterred by laws.
People who would laugh if you say unicorns are real are perfectly mollified when politicos pretend making something illegal makes it magically go away. You know, since it worked so well with pot, meth and heroin.
FUN FACTS ABOUT GUN CONTROL:
— Strict gun control in France did not prevent the Charlie Hebdo massacre.
— Strict gun control in Australia likely contributed to the success in December of a single nutty cleric with an illegal gun taking an entire cafe in Sydney hostage. [Psst. Try that in a Texas cafe]
— Strict gun control in Norway didn’t deter Andre Brevik from taking 77 human lives.
— Strict gun control in DC has not kept it from having one of the highest murder rates in the country despite reporting virtually the lowest gun ownership.
— Strict gun control has not stopped Chicago from being ground zero for murder in the USA.
Historically mass shooters tend to do one of two things when armed resistance arrives. It does not matter if it is a civilian or police that are armed… the shooter typically either surrenders or he kills himself. No matter how well armed or how much body armor he has, they do not in most cases shoot it out. They are bold ONLY while they are the only one armed.
There may be exceptions, but that is the norm. Gun free zones serve only to give them a less hostile work environment.
BUT GUN CONTROL LAWS MAKE ME FEEL SAFER!
OK, but do they MAKE you safer? Some, like “gun free zones”, actually make you LESS safe.
Returning to the American people once again to propose a cure that has actually exacerbated the problem thus far is like a child complaining to the wood shop teacher that he’s sawed this board three times and it’s STILL too short. Not bright.
Don’t be fooled. As always, gun control is NOT about guns. It’s about control.
KEEPING SENSATIONAL NEWS IN PERSPECTIVE
A lot of internet exposure about the guy that shot at police HQ in Dallas. Yes, he was white. He also killed NOBODY white or black before dying, but somehow ignited the race-baiters on the left to harumph a lot on the net.
Either way, kudos to the DPD for a job well done.
Meanwhile in the inner cities, life is so cheap nobody mentions the deaths unless a white cop kills a black guy. Then it is “news“.
Speaking of news, let’s talk for a minute on how they handle sensational murder stories.
INCREASINGLY USELESS NEWS CLICHES “Hate Crime” – in general use this has devolved to simply mean either a white guy killed a black guy or a straight guy killed a gay guy. We realize some violence is motivated by hate of another’s race (or nationality, etc), but if a black crowd beating a Serbian guy with hammers is not a hate crime, don’t bother using the phrase just because the perp is white. I’m almost sure most murders, regardless of whether the participants are the same color/sex/etc, are not “love crimes“. At least try for some measure of consistency.
“Racist / Racism” – The simple act of disagreeing with someone of another race is not “racism“. Even violent conflicts between people of opposite colors is not automatically “racism“. If two guys start shooting at each other because their drug deal went bad or one cut the other off on the road, their respective colors are probably a superfluous factor. If the term is to have meaning, it should be applied only when a conflict is actually motivated by race. Throwing it out when it is not applicable ends the possibility of rational discussion.
“The suspect” – I gave a newsman grief on twitter for calling a guy that was killed inside a van from which gunfire was directed at a police station “a suspected gunman“. He was the only person in the van. The news guy replied he has not been convicted. Seriously? After he’s been shot with a .50 cal and baked in his van… It’s a tad late to worry about his civil rights. Just call him “the shooter“. Common sense, ya know?
“Disturbed individual”– When there is a mass shooting, news outlets helpfully point out that the shooter is a “disturbed individual“. Thanks a lot for differentiating this from all the mass shootings performed by happy and well adjusted individuals. It means a lot to us.
“Time for a national discussion…” – Don’t bother finishing. We KNOW what follows. Just say what you mean: “Hi kids, we’d like to use this tragic event to renew our objection to anyone but the politically connected having the opportunity to keep and bear arms.” If you have a problem with the 2nd amendment, see the methods noted in the constitution for removing that. Until you can accomplish changing it… Remember the words “shall not be infringed” are pretty unambiguous.
WHY MENTION THIS TODAY?
There was a shooting in SC yesterday. It very likely IS a true “hate crime“. The fact he shot 9 people tells you he’s definitely disturbed. And given that a white guy went to a black church he does not normally attend to shoot everyone present, he very likely IS a racist.
Hopefully he’s caught quickly. A good public hanging would probably discourage this type of behavior… But that’s not as politically acceptable to point out as is the “time for a national discussion” stuff.
But for the record… He does not reflect poorly on all white people any more than the plethora of black on black murders in Chicago every weekend reflect poorly on all blacks. He needs to be caught and hung, but so does every single gang-banger that killed someone of any color this weekend.
Nor does he reflect poorly on the NRA or all gun owners. We don’t have a “national discussion on car ownership” every time a drunk plows into a pedestrian.
Quit falling for the politicians and media’s use of every tragedy to promote their unrelated agendas.