Control criminals not guns

[deltecs]

Control criminals not guns

By Walter Williams

 Every time there's a highly publicized shooting, out go the cries for stricter gun control laws, and it was no different with the recent murder of Philadelphia Police Sgt. Stephen Liczbinski. Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, in a letter to the state congressional delegation demanding reenactment of the federal assault weapon ban, said, "Passing this legislation will go a long way to protecting those who put their lives on the line every day for us. … There is no excuse to do otherwise."

Gun control laws will not protect us from murderers. We need protection from the criminal justice system politicians have created. Let's look at it.

According to former Philly cop Michael P. Tremoglie's article "Who freed the cop-killers?" for the Philadelphia Daily News (5/8/08), all three murder suspects had extensive criminal records. Levon Warner was sentenced in 1997 to seven and a half to 15 years for robbery, one to five years for possessing an instrument of crime and five to 10 for criminal conspiracy. Howard Cain was convicted in 1996 on four counts of robbery and sentenced to five to 10 years on each count. Eric Floyd was sentenced to five to 10 years in 1995 for robbery, rearrested in 1999 for parole violation and later convicted in 2001 for two robberies. If these criminals had not been released from prison, long before they served out their sentences, officer Liczbinski would be alive today. So what's responsible for his death: guns or a prison and parole system that released these three criminals? Tremoglie cites other examples of criminals, with convictions for violent crimes ranging from robbery and assault to murder, who were paroled and later murdered police officers.

A New York Times study (4/28/06) of the city's 1,662 murders in 2003-2005 found that 90 percent of the murderers had criminal records. A Massachusetts study reported that on average, homicide offenders had been arraigned for nine prior offenses. John Lott's book, "More Guns, Less Crime," reports that in 1988 in the 75 largest counties in the U.S., over 89 percent of adult murderers had a criminal record as an adult.

A few days after the murder of Liczbinski, Governor Rendell told a news conference, attended by state elected officials and top law enforcement officials, "The time has come for politicians to decide. You have to decide whether you're on their side — the men and women who wear blue — or whether you're on the side of the gun lobby." Instead of saying "whether you're on the side of the gun lobby," Rendell should have said "whether you're on the side of the criminal and the courts, prosecutors, prisons and parole boards that cut soft deals with criminals and release them to prey upon police officers and law-abiding citizens."

If there is one clear basic function of government, it's to protect citizens from criminals. When government failure becomes so apparent, as it is in the murder of a police officer, officials seek scapegoats and very often it's the National Rifle Association and others who seek to protect our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. We hear calls for stricter gun control laws when what is really needed is more control over criminals.

There are many third-party liability laws. I think they ought to be applied to members of parole boards who release criminals who turn around and commit violent crimes. As it stands now, people on parole boards who release criminals bear no cost of their decisions. I bet that if members of parole boards were held liable or forced to serve the balance of the sentence of a parolee who goes out and commits more crime, they would pay more attention to the welfare of the community rather than the welfare of a criminal. You say, "Williams, under those conditions, who'd serve on a parole board?" There's something to be said about that.     

And NYC is suing gun brokers in other states for the crimes committed there.  What happened to "do the crime, do the time'?

[Tn Jim]

The NRA tried to get this message out several years ago with the "It's the criminals, stupid!" campaign. Libs didn't get it then, and they are even dumber now. The libs won't be happy until this country is 100% pure communist. Been their goal for years.

[deltecs]

The article was posted with the intent for readers to see the author.  Walt Williams is an economist and news correspondent, who coincidentally is black, and very conservative.  He is a product of Philadelphia's lower class, no insult intended to anyone.  Mr. Williams remarks and editorials are very lucid and enlightening.  He has major issues with Obama as President.  One only has to read his comments and decide for themselves if Obama has the qualifications to become President.  His comments on firearms is most enlightening when one considers the much higher percentage of blacks in prison for violent and gang related crime involving firearms.  His editorial still applies to all citizens and especially to those who refuse to submit to logic instead of emotion. 

[woodchukhntr]

There must be some kind of disconnect operating in the liberals mind.  Why is the connection between criminals and crime so difficult for them to see?  They seem to feel sorry for the criminals, that they were somehow forced by societal pressures into criminal activity, and they are not accountable for their actions.

[PaulS]

It is always going to be easier to control guns than it is to control criminals.
What people don't understand is that you can't remove guns from the hands of criminals by taking them away from law abiding citizens.
Passing gun laws only affects the main population. Criminals by definition are not obeying the laws we have - what makes someone believe that they will be the least successful in controlling crime when our only means of affecting our self defense is removed by the incorporations of more laws? Criminals are criminals because they don't follow the rules of law. More laws only affect the ones who will allow their only means of self defense to be removed. Criminals are NEVER going to turn in their guns.
Since they can't keep guns out of prison I doubt that they will ever remove guns from the criminals who are ouside the confines of jail.
I know I will always have mine - even if I have to make them!

[phalanx]

Listen to people who have been there.
http://transsylvaniaphoenix.blogspot.com/2008/05/british-called-they-want-their-guns.html

[deltecs]

Listen to people who have been there.
http://transsylvaniaphoenix.blogspot.com/2008/05/british-called-they-want-their-guns.html

Additional comments on this page from some people disregard the fact that the right to own, use, possess, and carry firearms is fundamental Constitutional right, not a privlege as suggested.  A writer had no objections to a person using firearms only after being trained and permitted or licensed to obtain this right like that of driving an auto.  This is not the subject.  Regardless of firearms rights as enumerated in the Constitution, it is not a privlege, which can be regulated to such an exent that the individual must be approved to exercise this right.  That is not a right, it is a privlege determined by the State or government to grant such to SOME, NOT ALL, of the people.  That is not what the Constitution intended, as iterated in documents from the time of the framers.  The use of violence or threat of violence in a burglary is enough in my mind, to warrant whatever force is needed to prevent my physical harm using firearms, as I consider myself in jeopardy and have no means of knowing what weapons the burglars possess or will use to commit the crime. 

[deltecs]

Update
This is an example of my reasoning.  Remember the elderly man in Texas that shot 2 illegal immigrants when he saw them leaving his neighbors window.   The burglars then confronted this man on his own property and he shot them.  Here is a news article on the outcome.

Texas Man Cleared of Shooting Suspected Burglars Next Door
Tuesday , July 01, 2008

Houston

A Texas man who shot and killed two men he suspected of burglarizing his neighbor's home was cleared in the shootings Monday by a grand jury.

Joe Horn, 62, shot the two men in November after he saw them crawling out the windows of a neighbor's house in the Houston suburb of Pasadena.

Horn called authorities and told the emergency dispatcher he had a shotgun and was going to kill the men. The dispatcher pleaded with him not to go outside, but Horn confronted the men with a 12-gauge shotgun and shot both in the back.

"The message we're trying to send today is the criminal justice system works," Harris County District Attorney Kenneth Magidson said.

Horn's attorney, Tom Lambright, said his client was relieved by the grand jury's decision and never wanted to hurt anyone.

"He wasn't trying to take matters into his own hands," Lambright said. "He was scared. He was not playing cowboy."

Horn did not speak with reporters Monday, and had a "No Trespass" sign blocking the path to the front door of his home.

Lambright said Horn believed the two men had broken into his neighbor's home and that he shot them out of fear for his life when they came into his yard and threatened him.

"He wasn't acting like a vigilante," Lambright said. "He was well within his rights to do what he was doing."

The men Horn killed, Hernando Riascos Torres, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30, were unemployed illegal immigrants from Colombia. Torres was deported to Colombia in 1999 after a 1994 cocaine-related conviction.

The episode touched off protests from civil rights activists who said the shooting was racially motivated and that Horn took the law into his own hands. Horn's supporters defended his actions, saying he was protecting himself and being a good neighbor to a homeowner who was out of town.

"I understand the concerns of some in the community regarding Mr. Horn's conduct," Magidson said. "The use of deadly force is carefully limited in Texas law to certain circumstances ... In this case, however, the grand jury concluded that Mr. Horn's use of deadly force did not rise to a criminal offense."

Lambright did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment from The Associated Press.

Texas law allows people to use deadly force to protect themselves if it is reasonable to believe they are in mortal danger. In limited circumstances, people also can use deadly force to protect a neighbor's property; for example, if a homeowner asks a neighbor to watch over his property while he's out of town.

It is not clear whether the neighbor whose home was burglarized asked Horn to watch over his house.

[woodchukhntr]

It looks like the only thing that Horn did wrong was to tell the dispatcher that he was going to kill the men.  We need more men like him.