Posted on 08/01/2008 7:15:03 AM PDT by Turret Gunner A20
Didja year about this one? Some maniac with a huge knife beheaded a man on a Greyhound bus in Canada. If you want a description of what happened, you can click here.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/global-video/index.html?video=2805319
When the attack occurred the other passengers abandoned ship. Hard to blame them. Who wants to rush this maniac with a knife when everyone can get away? I do have a question though. What if someone – just one person on that bus – had a concealed carry permit and was carrying a gun. How would things have been different?
There's a problem though. This is Canada. No guns. No carry permits. No way to save this victim.
Oh well.
Free republic has many threads where law abiding gun owners act in self defense. They have much happier endings than this Greyhound bus one.
I can't find it now, but one of my favorites happened in Spain, when a tour bus was attacked by bandits, apparently a common practice in Europe. The robbers thought they were preying on a bunch of defenseless elderly Americans- until a retired officer pulled out his service revolver. Now the bandits are taking the proverbial dirt siesta.
The newest thread ID’s the perp as Vince Weiguang Li age 40.
Only second-degree murder?
You are just determined to take all the conspiratorial fun out of this, aren't you? Do you know how many people are waiting with fingers and toes crossed that the perp in one of these horrible stories will finally be a "muzzie" so they can sit behind their computers and tell everyone else to go vigilante on Muslims all over the US? And you just wanna spoil it.
Well, I am depressed.
Say, Mr. Taggert - would it help if I were to shoot that muzzie dead?
In all fairness, it’s understandable that people might suspect the perp in a beheading is an Islamic terrorist (or a Mexican drug lord, as another poster suggested) because Islamic terrorists and Mexican drug lords have been beheading people.
Though I didn’t post a comment saying so, my initial thought was, “Islamic terrorist?” But I brushed it off because the crime didn’t seem to fit. It sounded more like a crime committed by a lunatic or someone high on something like meth.
After a preliminary squirt in the face.
If that's true, explain why the most gun-rights friendly jurisdictions in the US are also the ones with lower crime rates? And why when these massacres take place even in geographical areas friendly to guns, is it always in a school, church or other area where the shooter expects others to be unarmed? Why are the English even now moving to control the sale of knives if guns are so inherently dangerous in the hands of ordinary citizens?
Hmmm, I wonder what, if any, religious affiliation Mr. Li has?
My problem is that in South Texas, wearing a vest is practically screaming, “I’m armed!” - ‘specially when you’re a hot-body like I am. I can get away with a t-shirt and guayabera or other button-up that I just leave unbuttoned and untucked.
The pussified prosecutor doesn't want to have to deal with the death sentence.
In fairness, a beheading with a big sword and no other info, you would be right — look for an Islamic. — a beheading with a stabbing knife, after stabbing 50 or 60 times, on a bus in the middle of nowhere, with no chanting or shouting — not top of my list!
“You are just determined to take all the conspiratorial fun out of this, aren’t you? Do you know how many people are waiting with fingers and toes crossed that the perp in one of these horrible stories will finally be a “muzzie” so they can sit behind their computers and tell everyone else to go vigilante on Muslims all over the US? And you just wanna spoil it.”
I’m just not a fun guy.
Canada's murder rate, especially with firearms, is very low compared to the US. Toronto, a city of nearly 5 million, has a murder rate of 1.9 per 100,000. Compare that to Atlanta (34.5), Boston (5.5) New York City (9.1), Vancouver (2.8) and Washington, DC (45.5). The overall crime rate in general is an average of 48 incidents per 100,000 people, compared to Cincinnati (326), Los Angeles (283), New York City (225) and even Vancouver (239).
What does that tell us? It's really too complicated to look at just one cause. But the fact that Canadians do not have ready access to guns certainly plays a large part.
A group of Americans, or pretty much anyone else for that matter, would have reacted the same way.
A tough case. Probably a singularity of of a heinous crime.
This is Canada- there is no death penalty.
They haven't had much time to investigate, so they don't have evidence of premeditation. Charging him with 2nd degree murder is the appropriate charge in this situation. They can always re-file the charges later, once the investigation is finished.
I don’t think Canada has the death penalty anymore. Probably the reason for the charge is that you don’t have to show premeditation or other special circumstances for second degree murder, and since the investigation just started they don’t know if those circumstances existed.
If they find evidence that lets them prove first degree murder, they can upgrade the charge at that time. It’s not a big difference anyway; it just determines whether or not the killer can be eligible for parole before 15-25 years (yeah, there’s no “life without parole” in Canada either).
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st176/
You will find it very interesting --- I fine it all very interesting, but I like #6 and #7 best.
Myth No. 6: Criminals mainly have guns in order to commit crimes.
The number one reason criminals acquire handguns is not to commit crimes but, like noncriminals, to protect themselves.52 Criminals keenly feel the need for self-protection because they associate with other criminals and are likely to be victims as well as victimizers. As Figure II shows:
• In a survey of imprisoned felons, 58 percent said protection was a very important reason for getting a handgun and 26 percent said it was a somewhat important reason.
• Only 28 percent cited use in crime as very important and 20 percent said it was somewhat important.
Myth No. 7: Killings and other violent crimes were prevalent in the Old West because guns were so plentiful.
There was violence along the frontiers, but most of it was related to clashes with Indians, bandits or foreign nations.
There was not a great deal of "ordinary" crime. From 1870 to 1885, the era of the Wild West when "everybody wore a gun," arrest rates per 100 residents were much lower in the West than in eastern cities.53 Moreover, "the Western frontier was a far more civilized, more peaceful, and safer place than American society is today."54 Contrary to the impression left by movies and Western novels, crime and homicides were rare. For example:55
• In 1880, wide-open towns like Virginia City, Nev., Leadville, Colo., and Dallas had no homicides.
• By comparison, Cincinnati had 17 homicides that year.
• From 1870 to 1885, the five Kansas railheads of Abilene, Caldwell, Dodge City, Ellsworth and Wichita had a total of 45 homicides, or an average of three per year - a lower homicide rate than New York City, Baltimore and Boston. • Sixteen of the 45 homicides were committed by duly authorized peace officers, and only two towns " Ellsworth in 1873 and Dodge City in 1876 "never had as many as five killings in any one year.57 "There was not much ordinary crime in the Old West, primarily because almost everybody was armed."
With a few legendary exceptions, law enforcement officers in the Old West were rather ineffective. Still, there were few robberies, thefts or burglaries in western towns, primarily because almost everybody carried or possessed firearms and was willing to resist. "The citizens themselves, armed with various types of firearms and willing to kill to protect their persons or property, were evidently the most important deterrent to larcenous crime," said one author.58 Unlike "Gunsmoke's" Matt Dillon, the much-heralded western peace officer actually faced fewer problems than his counterpart elsewhere. The westerner, said one student of the era, "probably enjoyed greater security in both person and property than did his contemporary in the urban centers of the East."59 "It's a fairly recent idea that guns aren't a good thing," says Jon Weiner, a professor of history at the University of California. "The image of the lone man defending his homestead . . . is deeply embedded in the American psyche."60
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.