Category: Crime

Once again, de Blasio gets it wrong

A thug attempted to assassinate two New York police officers stationed in a crime-ridden area. The Mayor’s response?

“There’s too much hatred in general, there’s too much hatred being directed at our officers, and it has to end,” the mayor said. “We have to move forward in a situation like this and find a way to create a peaceful society, not one where those who protect us are in danger in this way.”

I’ve got some news for you, Mayor. It’s not hate; it’s just a small band of ruthless criminals that have already been identified by law enforcement. Put them in jail and peace will reign. It’s not a “feel-good, let’s all live in peace” issue; in terms even Mayor de Blasio can understand: “It’s the criminals, stupid.”

Unfortunately, recent New York bail reform laws prevent judges from holding non-violent offenders on bail, no matter their history of arrest or how violent-ridden their criminal enterprises are as a whole. What effect do you think it will have on crime when no one is jailed for their criminal activity? Do you think the streets will be safer, or that the criminals will be emboldened? How about we learn from past example; take a look at what happened when San Francisco downgraded certain drug and theft felonies to misdemeanors.

When recidivist criminals walk among us, expect crime – sometimes violent – to occur.

Edit (2/9/20 2:11pm): And as it turns out, the person allegedly responsible for this and other attacks against police appears to have a violent history, including a prior shoot-out with police and an attempted murder conviction.

Why I support the 2nd amendment

This story illustrates one problem faced by a disarmed society:

Off-duty FDNY firefighter attacked by teens after defending elderly couple, cops say

Without a way to fend off a physically or numerically superior attacker, we are at the whim of any brute or mob that happens by.

The gun is known as the “great equalizer” for a reason.

Failure to enforce existing laws

This was a terrible and tragic event. Several people were shot down by Gary Montez Martin, a disgruntled employee, as he was being let go by his employer of 15 years:

Illinois Gunman Opened Fire When He Learned He Would Lose His Job, Police Say

However, what is truly sad is that this event was completely preventable. Martin was a member of a prohibited class, forbidden to own firearms due to a previous felony conviction. Worse, the police knew this, knew he had acquired a firearm, and yet failed to seize it and arrest Martin.

The cause of this tragedy was a failure by the police to assert existing laws. Remember this when the anti-gun zealots come calling for more gun laws.

Why we need a wall

This really should just be common sense, but given how uncommon common sense has become…

We want to stop criminals from coming into the U.S. as illegal aliens. I think that this is something upon which we all can agree. If they are criminals where they are now, or criminals previously deported from the U.S., we need to keep them out. Simple.

How can we do this? Well, first we need to investigate how they enter the country. They can’t come in as legal refugees, asylum-seekers, visitors or legal immigrants – they would be stopped at the border due to their criminal past. What’s left? Just one option: jumping the border.

The fact of the matter is that the most important action we can take to prevent criminal illegal aliens from entering the U.S. is to protect our border. Admittedly, we have more than one option; for instance, we can build a wall, dramatically increase border patrols, or install expensive and maintenance-intensive intrusion detection hardware. I’ll leave it to you to determine which is cheaper (hint – we don’t have to supply health insurance or retirement benefits to a wall, and the wall does not become obsolete every few years).

Stop worrying about whether or not Trump supports something; it’s irrelevant. What matters only is which option works at the lowest cost per avoided criminal entry, and what is best for the American people. Simple.

Hammer control

From USA Today:

1 dead, 2 critically injured in hammer attack at Brooklyn restaurant

How much longer can we allow such acts of violence to continue? Even if only one life is saved, we must take action. Hammers should be banned, or a permit with background check be required for their purchase. Strict records should be kept so that confiscation can occur when hammer crimes spike. In addition, nail possession should be restricted to those with a hammer permit, and only in quantities sufficient for the task at hand.

OK, so I’m making light of a tragic situation. But it is important to understand that it is the person who is the danger, not the weapon. I also make this point to stress the futility of proposed “assault weapon” bans, such as the one making its way through Congress right now.

These proposed bans on so-called “assault weapons” (termed multi-purpose rifle, or MPR, by much of the gun industry) are as pointless as the hammer ban I propose above, and will do little to curb firearm related deaths. Want proof? I offer data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report database.

For example, between 2012 and 2017 rifles of all types – including assault weapons – accounted for only 2.3% of homicides. By comparison knives or sharp instruments account for 11.5% of homicides, personal weapons (hand, feet, fists) for 4.9%, and blunt objects for  3.3%. In summary, you are 5 times more likely to be stabbed to death and more that 3.5 times as likely to be beaten to death (without or without a weapon) than you are to be shot to death with an “assault rifle”.

Why then do some lawmakers, politicians and anti-gun organizations favor these restrictions? In my opinion, it is solely to punish those who are ideologically different from themselves. Consider it the ideological equivalent of racism; it’s not that these people hate guns, it’s that they hate gun owners. I have come to this conclusion because there is simply no reason to restrict the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens by creating onerous rules or restrictions that will have little to no impact on crime.