PDA

View Full Version : I think I'm going to be sick: US teen killed because he was gay


Zet
July 6th, 2011, 05:29 PM
A 17-year-old is on trial in California accused of shooting dead his classmate because the boy was gay.
http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2011/Jul/Week1/16025250.jpg
Accused Brandon McInerney (left), and victim Larry King (right)

The crime took place three years ago in 2008 when 14-year-old Brandon McInerney shot his then 15-year-old classmate, Larry King, twice in the back of the head.

The prosecution claims McInerney is a "white supremacist" and the killing of his classmate in an Oxnard school was because the dead boy's sexuality was against his ideology.

The defendant, however, says that was not the case, and he shot Larry King because of his unwanted advances.

McInerney does not deny the killing but argues that the crime was voluntary manslaughter, not murder.

While prosecutors argue the shooting was a straightforward hate crime, the defendant says he carried out the shooting "out of passion".

The defence dismissed the accusations of links to the white supremacy movement, saying Nazi literature he was found to have was connected with a school project.

Defence lawyer Scott Wippert told a Los Angeles courtroom that his client had reached emotional breaking point over King's advances.

"He did this out of heat of passion," the lawyer said. "These were two troubled young men and this was a tragedy."

But prosecutor Maeve Fox said that was not the case.

"The evidence in this case will prove to you that this killing was an execution," she told the jury.

The defendant is being tried as an adult and faces life imprisonment if found guilty.
source (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/White-Supremacist-Brandon-McInerney-On-Trial-In-LA-Over-The-Shooting-Of-Gay-Classmate-Larry-King/Article/201107116025213?lpos=World_News_Second_Home_Page_Article_Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_16025213_White_Supremacist_Brandon_McInerney_On_Trial_In_LA_Over_The_Shooting_Of_Gay_Classmate_Larry_King)

It's pretty disgusting how people can do this and just make something up to justify murder, and I'm pretty sure shooting someone in the head makes it murder, not voluntary manslaughter.

What are your thoughts on this?

Cherrim
July 6th, 2011, 05:34 PM
...I can't imagine this kid getting out of it. If there really were "unwanted advances" it's one thing to be uncomfortable with it, but another thing entirely to grab a gun and shoot the person in the head. Only someone highly disturbed would jump to that solution and I really hope he gets what's coming to him, since he doesn't seem to be going with any sort of mental deficiency defence. And I'm also glad he's being tried as an adult.

Kenshin5
July 6th, 2011, 05:37 PM
He knowingly took the other persons life, and doesn't deny it. His sexual orientation is against his ideology, which to me says hate crime. Regardless if it is a hate crime or not this was an intential killing of an individual and I think he should have the max penalty they feel like is necessary for this. All he had to say to Larry King was "I'm not gay, so don't ask me about this again because it's not going to happen."

Myles
July 6th, 2011, 05:42 PM
I'm pretty sure shooting someone in the head makes it murder, not voluntary manslaughter.

The crime occurred in California, so it's pre-determined = murder, otherwise = manslaughter.

Esper
July 6th, 2011, 06:28 PM
This is why people shouldn't have guns.

I remember when this first happened. I'm so, so, so distraught by the thought that it happened in the first place and that anyone could think they would be justified in shooting someone for anything as innocent as 'advances.' Being a raving, oversensitive homophobe isn't an excuse for anything like this. It should have been an excuse to put this kid in therapy where that horrible, unfortunate boy belongs.

Nameless.
July 6th, 2011, 07:11 PM
Unwanted advances? That's his excuse for shooting this poor young man? I am extremely disturbed by this case. Against your ideology, making unwanted advances... no excuse to take his life. You don't take a gun to someone's head for stupid reasons like that. In fact, don't take a gun to someone's head ever.

I'm glad he's being trialed as an adult. He deserves no grace for that... it's murder. Plain and simple. :/

Alli
July 6th, 2011, 07:13 PM
I'm wondering...had a girl made those unwanted advances on this young man, would he have shot her too? I too am disgusted with this. I agree with Katie above. He deserves being tried as an adult and is all too guilty, he's even admitting it. It is murder.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
July 7th, 2011, 12:39 AM
...So it's murder. I can't fathom what in the heck "unwanted advances" is supposed to mean but unless that means attempted rape it just seems petty.

But are we implying that any other murder victim deserves it any more? If not, why is it worse because he's gay? -_-'

Ephemeral Euphoria
July 7th, 2011, 12:44 AM
This is wrong whether the kid or anyone involved was gay or not, just saiyan.

groteske
July 7th, 2011, 02:12 AM
The only disturbing part is that the murderer was FOURTEEN and felt his actions appropriate.

People of non-hetero sexualities have been getting killed/raped/mugged/etc since the first person decided to try something different. Obviously I don't condone discrimination or violence of any sort but this is nothing new.

PokemonLeagueChamp
July 7th, 2011, 06:56 AM
Someone got murdered. Okay, try the killer and lock him up. Is there a reason this gets more attention then an "everyday" killing because the victim happens to be gay?

Esper
July 7th, 2011, 08:13 AM
But are we implying that any other murder victim deserves it any more? If not, why is it worse because he's gay? -_-'

Someone got murdered. Okay, try the killer and lock him up. Is there a reason this gets more attention then an "everyday" killing because the victim happens to be gay?
Not that other victims are more deserving, not at all, but that the apparent reason for this murder was only that the kid was gay, which is like saying someone killed someone else because they were black and for no other reason. It's all to do with the state of mind of the killer and how it's kind of shocking that he thought it was enough of a reason to kill someone. Compare that to murders where you have jealous lovers, gang members and so on and you can see where the mind of this kid differs from those other killers.

It's also getting attention because it involves kids and because it's a particularly horrifying example of what queer kids are facing today.

Townes
July 7th, 2011, 08:55 AM
Unlike many other Christians, I don't believe homosexuality is wrong, and even if it was, I would never consider execution- because that's what this was, an illegal execution- as a viable option. Jesus died for all people so that their sins may be forgiven- this is something that some of my own congregation don't seem to be able to grasp, the concept that Jesus didn't just die for Christians. I pray for every murder victim and every LBGT person who suffers under the yoke of a close-minded world of hypocrites and liars. I would rather die myself than kill another human.

FreakyLocz14
July 7th, 2011, 10:36 AM
This is a standard defense called the gay panic defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_panic_defense). It has legitmate uses, but it can be abused. It is used when the defendant goes into a psychological panic because something the victim did caused them to panic that they themselves might be a homosexual.

dante1w
July 7th, 2011, 10:42 AM
This makes me sick too. :( :( What if someone is gay huh ?? Does one choose if he's born gay or not ? Even if he does, what's wrong with it ?? If someone's gay, does it make him immoral, in-human, or not wourthy of life ? Damn it !!

How a person lives is not the buisness of other people. If everyone understands that, racism wouldn't exist. We could lie a fruitful and happy life where one's biology doesn't change his humanity. It's just disgusting how someone could kill another person just cause how he looks or thinks !!

Besides, only a crazy person would choose to do a horrible thing and live with it his whole life rather than just back off and live his own. :( :(

This really is sad. Murders and death os young children happens everyday, yet it remains depressing when a 15 year old is brutely slaughtered, regardless of the reason. :( :( :'(

Alinthea
July 7th, 2011, 10:46 AM
"He did this out of heat of passion," the lawyer said.

Right... if you say so. They will take any angle to win.

I hate to be a buzz kill, but people are killed all over the world daily because of their belief, sex, race, sexual orientation and so on. It is shocking we live in a world in which this all happens; it sickens me.

This is a sad story.

dante1w
July 7th, 2011, 11:08 AM
Right... if you say so. They will take any angle to win.

I hate to be a buzz kill, but people are killed all over the world daily because of their belief, sex, race, sexual orientation and so on. It is shocking we live in a world in which this all happens; it sickens me.

This is a sad story.



Yes it is. Very un-understandable how someone could kill another only for the way they think. Nothing, and i mean NOTHING, makes someone deserve death. That's why i'm the first person who would battle against death row's. Even if someone has cause a lot of death, it's god's job, and his job only, to decide who deserves death, not a 14 year old who hardly has any experience in life, then decides to kill his classmate cause he's gay.

Even if a fully sane grownup feels hatred towards someone because of his
belief, sex, race, sexual orientation

.. That's no reason to kill someone, nor gione the right to choose who gets to live and who doesn't :( :( :(

インフェルノの津波
July 7th, 2011, 12:01 PM
So in other words if you're gay and you make unwanted advances against someone who didn't want them they can kill you with a gun.

Excuse me while I go make a sign.

FreakyLocz14
July 7th, 2011, 12:19 PM
So in other words if you're gay and you make unwanted advances against someone who didn't want them they can kill you with a gun.

Excuse me while I go make a sign.

That's not what happens at all. Even if you successfully argue the gay panic defense, you don't walk free. All it does is argue that defendant did not premeditate the killing, so it becomes second degree murder or homicide depending on the circumstances.

Freedom Fighter N
July 7th, 2011, 12:24 PM
Made some sorta creepy advances?
Explain it to him that you're not his kind, go to a teacher or something.
He fails to understand it? beat it to him. No, don't throw something and leave him bleeding - something that will make him understand. I'm intolerant and completely anti-violent, but I did it to someone in middle school who tried to make who knows what on me. He did that to other people as well, so something good came out of it since he never bothered anyone again.
But killing? Ok, that's when you pass the line.

But seriously, OP and some people here make it sound worse than it should be.

インフェルノの津波
July 7th, 2011, 12:25 PM
No, I'm not saying he walks away free. I'd be surprised if he did.

G.U.Y.
July 7th, 2011, 12:35 PM
My thoughts on this is:

Why is this getting so much attention when gay people are routinely killed by governments around the world because they illegalize homosexuality and put a death sentence on it?

It's sad that this had to happen though.

FreakyLocz14
July 7th, 2011, 01:31 PM
No, I'm not saying he walks away free. I'd be surprised if he did.

If we walks, that's be due to poor evidence on the part of the prosecution.

My thoughts on this is:

Why is this getting so much attention when gay people are routinely killed by governments around the world because they illegalize homosexuality and put a death sentence on it?

It's sad that this had to happen though.

I wonder if those people could immigrate to more friendly nations as refugees. It's not our job to police the world, but I'd support refugee policies if the burden was shared so that it doesn't overwhelm any one nation.

dante1w
July 7th, 2011, 02:08 PM
My thoughts on this is:

Why is this getting so much attention when gay people are routinely killed by governments around the world because they illegalize homosexuality and put a death sentence on it?

It's sad that this had to happen though.

True, but then again those governments do it because of a common belief. Its still disgusting how they could actually think about it, but when it comes to a situation like this, it sickens me even more, cause this guy wasn't acting out of a group's common belief (not that that makes it right), he killed him cause he wanted to, and as NyxUmbreon said, may he BURN IN HELL !!

Sodom
July 7th, 2011, 03:14 PM
When I saw this thread title, I thought it had happened again, but yeah I remember this one particularly well, it was all over the news here in Australia. It's absolutely disgusting, and it's mindblowing that Larry has been gone for three years now... but the real reason I remember it is because Ellen DeGeneres did a particularly touching speech about it on her show.

KSE6kjJK6nc

dante1w
July 7th, 2011, 03:50 PM
When I saw this thread title, I thought it had happened again, but yeah I remember this one particularly well, it was all over the news here in Australia. It's absolutely disgusting, and it's mindblowing that Larry has been gone for three years now... but the real reason I remember it is because Ellen DeGeneres did a particularly touching speech about it on her show.

KSE6kjJK6nc

:( :( :'( :'(

That makes the story sound so much worse. Seriously I'm on the verge of crying for the first time in 3 years, and I'm not ashamed. As a matter of fact, I would be ashamed if I hadn't cried. :'(

Damn the evil parts of life, and the evil people at that. Damn them for they are what ruins our community. :( http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs23/f/2007/350/e/7/sadface_rvmp_by_bad_blood.gif http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs23/f/2007/350/e/7/sadface_rvmp_by_bad_blood.gif http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs23/f/2007/350/e/7/sadface_rvmp_by_bad_blood.gif

deoxys121
July 7th, 2011, 05:36 PM
It's quite simple here: You don't kill someone unless you have direct reason to believe they will kill you if you don't. Did he hold you at gun or knife point? NO! It makes it even worse that he killed him for "unwanted advances." One thing I heard about this (I never saw the actual story) was that it occurred around Valentine's Day '08, and the victim's "unwanted advance" was asking the killer to be his Valentine, not knowing he wasn't gay. My response to a situation like this would be "I'm sorry, but I'm not gay. I don't mind being your friend though." The fact that he killed him was totally uncalled for. Like I said, don't kill someone unless they are, right at that moment, going to kill you.

FreakyLocz14
July 7th, 2011, 06:33 PM
It's quite simple here: You don't kill someone unless you have direct reason to believe they will kill you if you don't. Did he hold you at gun or knife point? NO! It makes it even worse that he killed him for "unwanted advances." One thing I heard about this (I never saw the actual story) was that it occurred around Valentine's Day '08, and the victim's "unwanted advance" was asking the killer to be his Valentine, not knowing he wasn't gay. My response to a situation like this would be "I'm sorry, but I'm not gay. I don't mind being your friend though." The fact that he killed him was totally uncalled for. Like I said, don't kill someone unless they are, right at that moment, going to kill you.

The reasoning doesn't make it worse to me. Killing anybody is wrong, but if those advances really infuriated him that much, it's technically not premeditated.

If I were a prosecutor, I'd prosecute him for second degree murder.

Chiar
July 8th, 2011, 11:53 AM
I'm wondering if this thread would have existed if a muslim teen was killed instead of gay...

インフェルノの津波
July 8th, 2011, 02:35 PM
I'm not kidding, folks. Here's the link. (http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/religious-leader-shoots-4-year-old-boy-to-death-because-he-might-be-gay/news/2011/07/08/23361)

A religious leader in North Carolina shot to death his four-​year old step son because he thought the boy, Jadon Higganbothan, might be gay. The man, Peter Lucas Moses, 27, who also shot to death a 28-​year old woman, may face the death penalty.

Moses, whom police stopped short of calling a cult leader, lived in a one-​room home with nine children and three women. The 28-​year old woman, Antoinetta Yvonne McKoy, Moses killed had been beaten and strangled with an extension cord before Moses murdered her.

The day he did, she had escaped to a neighbor’s house and begged her to use her cell phone. The neighbor did not call police because she claims she thought the woman might be mentally disturbed. She witnesses Moses dragging her into the house, and still never called police.

Discuss.

Alley Cat
July 8th, 2011, 02:58 PM
For one, that religious leader has some seriously messed up problem. Shooting someone because they are gay? Not even that, because they MIGHT be gay, is just horrid. Not only that, it was his step-son, someone who was his child, just not biologically. How could you bring yourself to do that? I can't imagine what kind of hell it must have been in that house with someone like him living there. Not to mention 8 other children, and 3 women, one of them probably being mommy. In a 1 bedroom home. I can't say much on the living conditions, but things sound like they could have been pretty bad. Then it mentions that he beat and strangled a woman, and dragged her into the house something that the children were probably subjected to. Those children are better off now, though, that this happened, the woman too, perhaps they will finally get the help and support that they need.

The neighbors are pretty ridiculous too. They didn't call the police when the woman went to their house begging to use their phone? First of all, if someone came to my house begging to use my phone, the I would definitely let them. It said that she was beat and strangled, so I'm sure there was evidence of that, which would only give me more cause to let her use my phone. Then, it was even reported that the neighbors had saw the woman being dragged back into the house by the man, yet they still didn't call the cops. So they basically knew that some level of abuse was going on, yet they chose to do nothing about. That's not AS bad as committing the crime yourself, but it is still pretty bad. You could always step in help someone. Of course though, the crazy man next door had guns. So perhaps the neighbors were afraid for their own lives that if they got involved harm would come to them.

Either way, those children and those women need justice done. Let's hope the justice system doesn't fail them, as it has done people in the past.

Sodom
July 8th, 2011, 04:35 PM
I'm wondering if this thread would have existed if a muslim teen was killed instead of gay...

Ugh. There's always one.

In the weeks leading up to Spirit Day last year, which was intended to commemorate the lives of those involved in the then-recent plague of gay teen suicides, there were people posting on the Facebook event saying things along the lines of "People commit suicide all the time, why do these ones get a special day just because they're gay?"

My answer to them was "There are many reasons for people to commit suicide, but these people did it because they were bullied over something so insignificant it hardly even matters. This needs publicity, it needs to be brought to light so that we can stop it happening again. That's what Spirit Day is about."

My answer to you is that the murder of a gay kid because of his sexuality is more than tragic, and it is worthy of a thread. The murder of a Muslim kid just because of his religion is equally tragic and discussion-worthy and if you were really so invested in the plight of the religious minority you'd find a story about a murdered Muslim kid and make a thread about it yourself. But I guess it's easier to point out the hipocrisy in society than to do anything about it.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
July 9th, 2011, 06:32 AM
Not that other victims are more deserving, not at all, but that the apparent reason for this murder was only that the kid was gay, which is like saying someone killed someone else because they were black and for no other reason. It's all to do with the state of mind of the killer and how it's kind of shocking that he thought it was enough of a reason to kill someone. Compare that to murders where you have jealous lovers, gang members and so on and you can see where the mind of this kid differs from those other killers.

It's also getting attention because it involves kids and because it's a particularly horrifying example of what queer kids are facing today.

Given his excuse is ridiculously vague, it's kind of hard for me to judge. Does anyone know what unwanted advances is code word for? Because that could mean almost anything to me. -3-; That could seriously mean anything, though a stigma of it being sexual is blatantly there.

/All/ murder is a horrible, horrible thing though. It's a crime of such severity that no reasoning can hope to justify it. >~< Killing in general is an evil, terrible thing that is really only tolerated to any degree because the world isn't perfect.

On another note, I just noticed that the guy was accused of being a white supremacist simply because he owned "nazi literature" and not because of anything he did or said. Huh. So that's why there are quotes around it in the source! It's a lie being passed off as fact in the most legal way they can manage. D;

I'm not kidding, folks. Here's the link. (http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/religious-leader-shoots-4-year-old-boy-to-death-because-he-might-be-gay/news/2011/07/08/23361)

Okay... so a nutcase that happens to have his own obscure extremist religion kills his own daughter who happens to be gay.

I don't see how he's more significant than every other nutcase murderer. It's not as if you can intentionally murder someone whilst being right in the head to begin with. >.<

Doesn't leave me a whole lot to discuss besides why we care about him but not all the other murderers of no greater significance. ;(

Ursula
July 9th, 2011, 06:26 PM
The main topic is incredibly old news. National of Day of Silence 2009 and 2010 were both in memory of Larry King. It's absolutely awful that this occurred, though.
But, it just shows ignorance can come in all shapes and forms.

Mr. X
July 12th, 2011, 09:20 PM
If we walks, that's be due to poor evidence on the part of the prosecution.


Or the fact that he was 14, and it is a scientifically proven fact that at that age a persons brain in not developed enough to signifigantly consider the results of long term actions.

Just another crime that is only gaining attention due to the victim being of a diffrent sexual orientation.

Xyrin
July 13th, 2011, 06:21 AM
I'm disgusted. This kid is horribly messed up.


Ugh. There's always one.

In the weeks leading up to Spirit Day last year, which was intended to commemorate the lives of those involved in the then-recent plague of gay teen suicides, there were people posting on the Facebook event saying things along the lines of "People commit suicide all the time, why do these ones get a special day just because they're gay?"

My answer to them was "There are many reasons for people to commit suicide, but these people did it because they were bullied over something so insignificant it hardly even matters. This needs publicity, it needs to be brought to light so that we can stop it happening again. That's what Spirit Day is about."

My answer to you is that the murder of a gay kid because of his sexuality is more than tragic, and it is worthy of a thread. The murder of a Muslim kid just because of his religion is equally tragic and discussion-worthy and if you were really so invested in the plight of the religious minority you'd find a story about a murdered Muslim kid and make a thread about it yourself. But I guess it's easier to point out the hipocrisy in society than to do anything about it.

I agree it's sad that this kid was killed because he was gay. But gay killings always get more attention. What if somebody killed me because I'm Christian? Do you really think I would get this much attention? No. Because we are a high minority so everyone would assume it wasn't because of my religion!

Esper
July 13th, 2011, 10:03 AM
I agree it's sad that this kid was killed because he was gay. But gay killings always get more attention. What if somebody killed me because I'm Christian? Do you really think I would get this much attention? No. Because we are a high minority so everyone would assume it wasn't because of my religion!
If it wasn't known that you were hypothetically killed for being a Christian then, yes, it probably wouldn't get as much attention. If it were known, as in this case where it is known that he was killed for being gay, that you were specifically targeted (let's say your killer said specifically it's because you were Christian, that your killer was a Christian-hater) then you would probably get even more media attention.

FreakyLocz14
July 13th, 2011, 05:37 PM
Or the fact that he was 14, and it is a scientifically proven fact that at that age a persons brain in not developed enough to signifigantly consider the results of long term actions.

Just another crime that is only gaining attention due to the victim being of a diffrent sexual orientation.

This.

We're prosecuting kids younger and younger as adults just because of what race or sexual orientation the victim was. A 14-year old IS NOT AN ADULT. He's less mentally culpable than an adult.

Gothitelle.
July 13th, 2011, 06:40 PM
Or the fact that he was 14, and it is a scientifically proven fact that at that age a persons brain in not developed enough to signifigantly consider the results of long term actions.

Just another crime that is only gaining attention due to the victim being of a diffrent sexual orientation.
This.

And I hope that they dont use the victim's orientation to wrongly convict someone. :-/

Mr. X
July 13th, 2011, 07:20 PM
Well, at least the death sentence is no longer allowed to be used on child criminals, or those who commited crimes as children.

But then again, they are almost always given a 'death in prison' sentence (aka, life without parole)

That said, trying him as a adult is almost as stupid as this four year old who was tried for sexual harrasment for giving his teacher a hug.

Shadow_Angel
July 16th, 2011, 06:00 AM
This is just horrifying. To see people STILL can't accept gay's, that's just sad. I'm disappointed. And...he said he wanted...to give ''unwanted advice''? Haha. Accused people will do anything to win and just slip away, to get away with what they were accused of. Especially if it's true. It's sad to see what our society has grown to be.

twocows
July 16th, 2011, 07:45 AM
I'm not in the courtroom and thus can't know the specifics of the case, but I will say that if what he is accused of is true, that's pretty horrible. Of course, it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that what the defense says is true, as well. I'll let the jury decide.

Nuke
July 16th, 2011, 01:43 PM
Or the fact that he was 14, and it is a scientifically proven fact that at that age a persons brain in not developed enough to signifigantly consider the results of long term actions.

Just another crime that is only gaining attention due to the victim being of a diffrent sexual orientation.

Obviously a 14 year old's brain isn't fully developed but, if he couldn't see that this was wrong at that age then he probably deserves to do time or even better make his parents do time for such poor upbringing.

Maybe a 14 year old isn't responsible for all his or her actions but murder is something that a 14 year old should be responsible for.

Blue
July 16th, 2011, 02:18 PM
That's just wrong on every level, nobody should be judged for their sexuallity let alone killed.

Gothitelle.
July 19th, 2011, 06:19 PM
How can you be so apathetic? If someone is killed b/c they are gay, then make the punishment more severe to deter violent acts from other gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people. Looking at your other posts it seems like you have a religious vendetta against gay people, even though you are half black. Don't you think their should be hate crime laws for black people? Then why not gay people?

Furthermore, his parents or any other adult influences should be incriminated. They have created this homophobic monster. Gothitelle, think children should be educated about gay people now? So they don't kill gay people.

According to the prosecution, this kid is a whire supremacist who hates gays. According to the defendent and the defense, he killed the guy because of his unwanted advances, in short a rage of passion to put it.

Right now, we don't know why he was killed. But what I meant by my statement is that I hope that they can prove with HARD EVIDENCE, not EMOTION, that this kid is indeed a white supremacist who killed the kid JUST because he was gay. If they can prove it to me, then I will belive it.

For now, we don't know if that's the case. Well I don't know depending on when the case was tried. But it seems like people are quick to say HOMOPHOBE! because all they see is a white, conservative, straight kid, and a gay kid who this guy shot for reasons unknown. I don't know why this kid was shot nor do I have any sources on why, however I am not quick to say homophobe.

Even if it was a gay guy who shot a straight guy, I'd still feel the same way. Prove to me that this guy was shot for the reason speculated.

As for your last question, yes I do think that some education is necessary. I'll leave it at that.

Åzurε
July 19th, 2011, 06:22 PM
Pardon, but I felt a need to put this out there.

How can you be so apathetic? If someone is killed b/c they are gay, then make the punishment more severe to deter violent acts from other gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people.
That's special treatment towards a social group being endorsed by the courts. Which, to my understanding, is a no-no.

Looking at your other posts it seems like you have a religious vendetta against gay people, even though you are half black.wat

Don't you think their should be hate crime laws for black people? Then why not gay people?Personally, I think there should be laws against hate crimes for human people. Not laws against hate crimes for black people, or gay people, or straight white conservative Christian people. Demanding equality is one matter, demanding elevated status is another.

Furthermore, his parents or any other adult influences should be incriminated. They have created this homophobic monster.So much of people's actions comes from their surroundings. I'll agree with you here, though to what extent they should be incriminated, I'm unsure. In the end, it was the boy's decision.

Gothitelle, think children should be educated about gay people now? So they don't kill gay people.Define "educated". Because, taken in the context of the other thread, it sounds a lot like government-sponsored efforts to convince students of a certain stance on a social issue. How about teaching something on human worth? So they don't kill people. Of course, in my opinion anything on that topic that has lasting substance to it wouldn't work to it's fullest in secular or multiculturalistic public schools, but that's another matter entirely.

Good debate topics rarely stay neatly in their boxes, neh?

Gothitelle.
July 19th, 2011, 06:30 PM
That's special treatment towards a social group being endorsed by the courts. Which, to my understanding, is a no-no.

Personally, I think there should be laws against hate crimes for human people. Not laws against hate crimes for black people, or gay people, or straight white conservative Christian people. Demanding equality is one matter, demanding elevated status is another.

Omg someone understands!

That's what I've been saying. I hope the courts make their decision on evidence not the victim's sexual orientation.

Åzurε
July 19th, 2011, 07:24 PM
Really? Motive is a MAJOR factor in a crime and the punishment!!! And yes it is evidence, duh!
He killed a gay person, therefore he killed the gay person because he hates gay people. Mmm... no. While it's certainly possible, probable even, people tend to lie in situations like these and it's worth examining the matter before deciding that it was, in fact, a hate crime.

If you think killing someone is all the same, then drunk drivers would be on death row! Motive is very important.
I think killing someone based upon the condition of their physical being is a hate crime. And from a very personal perspective, I'm of the opinion that we're far too lenient on certain sorts of criminals.

I think If gay people killed straight people for no other reason than the sexual orientations it is a hate crime. But you are implying that simply b/c he was gay that it may be called a hate crime. I don't think you understand a thing about legal processes!
I think what I don't understand here is your post. =/ Honestly, I'm getting lost. I would urge you at this time to take a chill pill. And conduct yourself civilly. I rather think the whole non-traditional sexuality issue is a personal matter for you, and it's understandable that you'd be passionate about it. Don't let that keep you from making a decent argument.

I'm not implying that it's a hate crime because he was gay. I meant what I said, and what I said is this: Doling out harsher-than-normal punishment on the killer because he killed a homosexual, rather than any other target of a hate crime, is unfair and demonstrates bias by the government for a social demographic.

Stop putting words in my text box.

Musician of Literature
July 20th, 2011, 05:48 PM
What the (fill in the blank)?!?!?!

This is just freaking ridiculous that people would kill someone over their own feelings. So a boy may have feelings for another boy. Cool with me (as long as I am not that boy), he lives his life and I live mine. It's sad that people do not respect the diversity of this world, ya know, the different cultures, beliefs, etc. and that instead, people decide to DESTROY all of the diversity in the world. You know, civilizations should be able to believe what they want and not be persecuted for it. All sorts of religions we learn about, and just because people didn't like the way others believed, they were killed. Now here it is again, a killing over a belief. Brendan McIenery can just rot with Hitler and Stalin in he**.

.Fenris
July 20th, 2011, 09:32 PM
Yeah, sure, the gun was already loaded, cocked, the safety off, and up against his head when he pulled the trigger... /sarcasm

At one point he had to realize he was preparing to kill another human being, so, I'd hit him with 1st degree murder.

Myles
July 23rd, 2011, 05:13 AM
Yeah, sure, the gun was already loaded, cocked, the safety off, and up against his head when he pulled the trigger... /sarcasm

At one point he had to realize he was preparing to kill another human being, so, I'd hit him with 1st degree murder.

But 'any murder' isn't the definition of first degree murder.

-ty-
July 23rd, 2011, 07:46 AM
This is why children need to be taught tolerance though the education system. Children like this are not taught tolerance by their parents, and may harm or bully others. Those who are bullied, assaulted, and killed are gravely affected by the lack of tolerance. The children who are bullying, assaulting, and killing others are gravely affected by their intolerance; they may face prison-time. I hope that those who advocate against educating students about tolerance of all people, including homosexuals, understand what the consequences of their actions are. A boy may face prison time, and another boy is dead.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
July 24th, 2011, 02:57 AM
it's kind of shocking that he thought it was enough of a reason to kill someone.

I honestly don't find it shocking, mainly because in my eyes it's pretty much a pre-requisite for a person to be mentally ill for them to try and justify murder to begin with.

This is why children need to be taught tolerance though the education system...

I can't help but find myself thinking of and agreeing with something Azure said earlier in the thread.

sounds a lot like government-sponsored efforts to convince students of a certain stance on a social issue. How about teaching something on human worth? So they don't kill people. Of course, in my opinion anything on that topic that has lasting substance to it wouldn't work to it's fullest in secular or multiculturalistic public schools, but that's another matter entirely.

-ty-
July 24th, 2011, 08:53 AM
I can see where you're coming from.

It's kinda like teaching children that, in our society, it is wrong to harass or it is wrong to murder, because legal authority deems it is wrong; they teach those two things to children through the educational system. In order for the children to function in society they need to know societal wrongs. Harassment or violence toward a person based off race, religion, or sexual orientation are specifically deemed wrong in laws. It is not forcing them to think homosexuality is correct; it is teaching them that harassing and violence to gay people is wrong, based off legal authority - not forcing a political view.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
July 24th, 2011, 09:09 AM
There's no reason to specifically target violence or harassment against homosexuals when you can target violence in harassment in general just as easily...

In fact, singling them out would probably just be counter-productive, just because of the way peoples minds work.

-ty-
July 24th, 2011, 10:04 AM
Well, when we are taught not to bully, harass, or harm other people in school, it is too vague. I do not think that all of the tolerances should be directed toward gay people exclusively. However, tolerance based off race, religion, gender, sexuality, weight, socioeconomic, physical/cognitive impairments, and any other verbal or physical harassment toward a person, motivated purely by where they are "categorized" in these categories. By telling kids, "Don't bully anyone," there is a lack of specifics, and therefore no real change will happen.

FreakyLocz14
July 24th, 2011, 04:07 PM
Obviously a 14 year old's brain isn't fully developed but, if he couldn't see that this was wrong at that age then he probably deserves to do time or even better make his parents do time for such poor upbringing.

Maybe a 14 year old isn't responsible for all his or her actions but murder is something that a 14 year old should be responsible for.

lolWUT? That's a pretty extreme view you have. We don't punish parents for the actions of their children.

I also oppose hate crimes laws. One of our Founding Fathers said "We punish men for the crimes they commit, but never for the opinions they hold." A hate crimes charge is an enhancement attached to another charge that punishes someone more harshly because of the sociopolitical opinions that motivated the crime. Without punishing someone for their beliefs, there is still a murder charge which is very serious on its own.

Corvus of the Black Night
July 24th, 2011, 04:22 PM
This sounds like something my neighbours would support. Really.

Just to let you people from not inside the states know that there are areas here where pure hatred brews. I feel sick in this place.

Anyways I personally think its downright horrible but I agree with Freaky here; this is a MURDER we're talking about here. If you think about it almost all crimes are "hate" crimes in that there's some sort of hatred fueling it, whether it be hatred of a race, sexuality or gender or hatred of the fact that those keychains are ridiculously priced. I think its a foolish idea and should be getting the boot. Murder is murder and nothing else, if he murdered the kid for any other reason he should still get the same punishment.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
July 24th, 2011, 05:42 PM
I also oppose hate crimes laws. One of our Founding Fathers said "We punish men for the crimes they commit, but never for the opinions they hold." A hate crimes charge is an enhancement attached to another charge that punishes someone more harshly because of the sociopolitical opinions that motivated the crime. Without punishing someone for their beliefs, there is still a murder charge which is very serious on its own.

That's an interesting opinion. I've never thought about it that way before. Now that I do, I find myself agreeing with you.

It's my opinion that murder is one of the few crimes that can be punished with extreme prejudice. By that I mean all you need to know is whether they did it or not and you're ready to punish them to the maximum extent of the law. (See: Be able to prove it in court) The actual harshness of the punishment should be dependent on what degree it is and nothing more.

Well, when we are taught not to bully, harass, or harm other people in school, it is too vague. I do not think that all of the tolerances should be directed toward gay people exclusively. However, tolerance based off race, religion, gender, sexuality, weight, socioeconomic, physical/cognitive impairments, and any other verbal or physical harassment toward a person, motivated purely by where they are "categorized" in these categories. By telling kids, "Don't bully anyone," there is a lack of specifics, and therefore no real change will happen.

At the same time, singling them out is giving preference where none is deserved. (As if to say, these guys deserve it less than those other guys. That's the subliminal message that is being sent, believe it or not.) Doing such undermines the goal you're trying to achieve because it's failing to properly teach kids that violence and whatnot in general is wrong.

When I think about it, I honestly don't think our schools have what it takes to realistically fight this problem. Perhaps we simply need to consider other ways to fight the problem that might be more successful?

Myles
July 24th, 2011, 11:19 PM
Hate crimes can be against anyone as long as prejudice is involved. It's not singling them out because every crime against them isn't considered a hate crime, only ones that are motivated by prejudice. Someone could theoretically be prejudice against heterosexuals and perform a hate crime against them; the law would recognise this.

The actual harshness of the punishment should be dependent on what degree it is and nothing more.

The degree it is, is determined based on the person's motivations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_(United_States_law)#Degrees_of_murder_in_the_United_States).

U.Flame
July 24th, 2011, 11:24 PM
I just hope the law isn't exaggerated, like if someone commits a personal crime, and it's considered a hate crime. Hate crime laws are good for when it really is a prejudice motive.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
July 25th, 2011, 02:57 PM
The degree it is, is determined based on the person's motivations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_(United_States_law)#Degrees_of_murder_in_the_United_States).

Um. Your own article contradicts you. I mean you linked me straight to a small block of text that blatantly disagrees with you.

Nowhere in that article does it claim motivation to be a factor. It only mentions intent and level of premeditation.

Consider the fact that we punish people more harshly for killing someone with a "bad" reason (As if there are any good reasons.) and yet if someone kills someone for no reason it's not a hate crime and therefore is punished less harshly.

Yeah it seems pretty clear to me that hate crime laws are essentially just "reverse discrimination". It sickens me that such things are upheld by our courts.

-ty-
July 25th, 2011, 03:44 PM
Um. Your own article contradicts you. I mean you linked me straight to a small block of text that blatantly disagrees with you.

Nowhere in that article does it claim motivation to be a factor. It only mentions intent and level of premeditation.

Consider the fact that we punish people more harshly for killing someone with a "bad" reason (As if there are any good reasons.) and yet if someone kills someone for no reason it's not a hate crime and therefore is punished less harshly.

Yeah it seems pretty clear to me that hate crime laws are essentially just "reverse discrimination". It sickens me that such things are upheld by our courts.

Intent and motivation are essentially the same in the context. I do not see a contradiction.

Corvus of the Black Night
July 25th, 2011, 03:51 PM
I honestly think that the victim could care less for a person's motivations. I mean, assuming you were still sentient in death, you'd be the same amount of upset if you knew it was because "you were black/gay/Jewish/Hispanic/Asian/Martian" or not, because your life was ruthlessly taken away from you.

So why should we care about motive? Murder is murder, after all, whether its a "hate crime" or not.

-ty-
July 25th, 2011, 04:05 PM
That's an interesting opinion. I've never thought about it that way before. Now that I do, I find myself agreeing with you.

It's my opinion that murder is one of the few crimes that can be punished with extreme prejudice. By that I mean all you need to know is whether they did it or not and you're ready to punish them to the maximum extent of the law. (See: Be able to prove it in court) The actual harshness of the punishment should be dependent on what degree it is and nothing more.



At the same time, singling them out is giving preference where none is deserved. (As if to say, these guys deserve it less than those other guys. That's the subliminal message that is being sent, believe it or not.) Doing such undermines the goal you're trying to achieve because it's failing to properly teach kids that violence and whatnot in general is wrong.

When I think about it, I honestly don't think our schools have what it takes to realistically fight this problem. Perhaps we simply need to consider other ways to fight the problem that might be more successful?

It is not about who deserves more than the others by any means. Everyone falls into the categories I wrote in my comment. Everyone has an ethnic background, skin tone, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, gender, ect. There is not preference given to anyone.

I think that there are few other buffers, other than education, that are between children and parents. When a parent teaches racism to a child; who is going to help that child learn tolerance so that they can function in society? Although parents have the right to raise their children, they do not have the right to teach behaviors in which inhibit a child's progress in society. Like this skinhead family, who is to stop them from teaching their child that it is wrong to kill another person simply b/c he is gay, with the acknowledgment that his motive has yet been determined in court. If he did so, with that motive, why not educate him about tolerance, and the repercussions of intolerance?

I honestly think that the victim could care less for a person's motivations. I mean, assuming you were still sentient in death, you'd be the same amount of upset if you knew it was because "you were black/gay/Jewish/Hispanic/Asian/Martian" or not, because your life was ruthlessly taken away from you.

So why should we care about motive? Murder is murder, after all, whether its a "hate crime" or not.

Well, one thing you have to keep in mind is intent. If I am driving and dose off, and then hit a girl riding her bike, then I have killed someone. My intentions were to drive to work, and not hurt anyone. Should I face the same penalty as other murder.

More pertinent to your comment. If I am at the bar with my spouse, and a drunk guy tries to make-out with my spouse and will not listen. I might take a swing at him; if it becomes a physical altercation, I might cause the other guy internal bleeding, and death. My intents that night were to have a good time, not get in a conflict. Then they transformed into, I want to get this obnoxious person away from my spouse. however, I end up killing him. Should I face the same sentence as a person who pre-arranged another's death? Someone who truly intended to kill someone.

I think that in this case, it was purposeful, and pre-arranged. That is speculation though.

インフェルノの津波
July 25th, 2011, 04:15 PM
So why should we care about motive?

Because without it this wouldn't be a Hate Crime, it would be classified under other murders/manslaughter.

FreakyLocz14
July 25th, 2011, 04:18 PM
There is some misinformation going around here. Intent and motive are not the same thing. Intent is pretty much the difference between an accidental death and deliberate murder. Motive is the reason the crime was commited.

Corvus of the Black Night
July 25th, 2011, 04:29 PM
Because without it this wouldn't be a Hate Crime, it would be classified under other murders/manslaughter.
So just "run of the mill" murder isn't as bad? So if Mr Joe killed you today just because he didn't like the colour of your socks opposed to the colour of your skin, it's different? Would it be different to you? Would you be a different kind of "dead"?

I think regardless of reason murder is a horrible thing to do. I mean, besides insanity, why the hell else would you be murdering someone if there wasn't any "hatred" involved? This "hate crime" thing is a pretty stupid definition if you ask me because you can't have most crimes without some sort of hatred involved, really. There ARE exceptions, like the man who steals to try to get food or quench his addiction to a substance, but most times you are going to be committing a crime against something because there's something about it that you hate.

-ty-
July 25th, 2011, 04:42 PM
There is some misinformation going around here. Intent and motive are not the same thing. Intent is pretty much the difference between an accidental death and deliberate murder. Motive is the reason the crime was commited.

I said that they were the same in the context used by a member who does not know legal rhetoric; they were essentially conveying a concept in casual jargon. I did not mean to say that they were the same within legal rhetoric however.

インフェルノの津波
July 25th, 2011, 04:50 PM
So just "run of the mill" murder isn't as bad? So if Mr Joe killed you today just because he didn't like the colour of your socks opposed to the colour of your skin, it's different? Would it be different to you? Would you be a different kind of "dead"?

I think regardless of reason murder is a horrible thing to do. I mean, besides insanity, why the hell else would you be murdering someone if there wasn't any "hatred" involved? This "hate crime" thing is a pretty stupid definition if you ask me because you can't have most crimes without some sort of hatred involved, really. There ARE exceptions, like the man who steals to try to get food or quench his addiction to a substance, but most times you are going to be committing a crime against something because there's something about it that you hate.

No. True, it is murder no matter how ways you see it, however Hate Crimes can be fueled by the suspect's relatives, friends, town, state, hell even country if it's strong enough. Hate Crimes are a completely different category of crime. "Mr. Joe" could not like my socks, I don't why, but it's a motive, a crazy one at that. Unlike a Hate Crime, your particular scenario would be viewed by the public a plain old crazy. They wouldn't support it/fight. They would want him to jailed, but that's it.

People can kill no reason. I could kill the next person who walked across my street, because I felt like it. Maybe there's something wrong with me. But it's not a Hate Crime. It's just murder. Hate Crimes are just...well Hate Crimes. They're usually targeted one minority/majority for a reason, which is hate. This guy could've gone on a Homosexual killing spree. Because he hated them, or just disliked them. If that was his motive, then we have to stop him, because his hate could spread.

Murder doesn't spread. Hate, however does.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
July 25th, 2011, 05:24 PM
why not educate him about tolerance, and the repercussions of intolerance?

It's just that for the reasons I said before I just don't think schools have what it takes to solve the problem. Perhaps in combination with other efforts, but simply making schools teach tolerance wouldn't make a significant difference, I don't think.

It's not that it's a bad idea. I'm just not sure it's the best solution to the problem.

-ty-
July 25th, 2011, 05:32 PM
It's just that for the reasons I said before I just don't think schools have what it takes to solve the problem. Perhaps in combination with other efforts, but simply making schools teach tolerance wouldn't make a significant difference, I don't think.

It's not that it's a bad idea. I'm just not sure it's the best solution to the problem.

I see what you mean. Do you have any other venues that are easily accessible to educate children about tolerance? Should there be parenting laws? I am just not sure what other choices we have to prevent these types of crimes. I think we all agree on the fact that we want to inhibit these types of crimes from happening. Anyone have any ideas other than the education of tolerance? Or a different way to utilize the education system to teach tolerance?

PkMnTrainer Yellow
July 25th, 2011, 05:38 PM
We as the people could make a stronger effort to educate through the media and in "real" circumstances. I honestly think that a strong effort from the people themselves is probably most likely to have the largest effect. I think that perhaps the core of the problem is either bad parenting -or- perhaps the hate is contagious, so to speak. Either way, I think that a strong effort by the people themselves is most likely to have the largest effect.

FreakyLocz14
July 25th, 2011, 05:58 PM
I said that they were the same in the context used by a member who does not know legal rhetoric; they were essentially conveying a concept in casual jargon. I did not mean to say that they were the same within legal rhetoric however.

Murder and hate crimes are legal issues, so it is appropriate to use legal rhetoric.

-ty-
July 25th, 2011, 06:16 PM
Murder and hate crimes are legal issues, so it is appropriate to use legal rhetoric.

well, if I say, this is just heinous. It may not be defined as heinous by legal standards, but as an informed person just trying to make a statement we shouldn't hold members to such a high standard to critique rhetoric. I think we should try focusing on the concepts. Oh, BTW do you have any ideas of how we can prevent heinous crime like this?

FreakyLocz14
July 25th, 2011, 09:12 PM
well, if I say, this is just heinous. It may not be defined as heinous by legal standards, but as an informed person just trying to make a statement we shouldn't hold members to such a high standard to critique rhetoric. I think we should try focusing on the concepts. Oh, BTW do you have any ideas of how we can prevent heinous crime like this?

Yes.

Lighten up on strict firearms laws. If more LGBT people were armed for self-defense, the assailants would know that the group they are targeting are ready and willing to exercise 2nd Amendment remedies to the problem.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
July 25th, 2011, 09:40 PM
Lighten up on strict firearms laws. If more LGBT people were armed for self-defense, the assailants would know that the group they are targeting are ready and willing to exercise 2nd Amendment remedies to the problem.

I don't find this argument making sense because they can already do that with current firearm laws.

FreakyLocz14
July 25th, 2011, 10:24 PM
I don't find this argument making sense because they can already do that with current firearm laws.

Not around here. You need a license to carry a firearm, and most counties have a no issue policy.

Esper
July 26th, 2011, 09:22 AM
Not around here. You need a license to carry a firearm, and most counties have a no issue policy.
I hope you're not suggesting we change things so that you wouldn't be required to have a license to have a gun.

I think schools are the perfect place to start to teach kids about tolerance and acceptance - two things that make people less hateful and less likely to commit horrible acts of violence. When I was in, I think, the 3rd grade we were taught a little about discrimination. Basically they said that in the past people who were different weren't allowed to go to the same schools and kids who would have been friends would never have met each other. I learned a little from that, and from things like it that throughout school. Some other ways I became more tolerant and accepting were through my school's allowing a GSA on campus and having some of the members talk to us in our 'human interactions' class, which is a kind of sex ed/tolerance building class. Getting a chance to talk more openly with someone in a safe environment probably did some good and took out some of the ignorance-based hatred that some of the kids had.

Corvus of the Black Night
July 26th, 2011, 10:51 AM
There's a problem with that though.

People just don't care enough to try to implement it.

Seriously, I was essentially a bully punching bag for all sorts of stupid reasons in early school years for example, and the people watching the kids, even though they could plainly see it, did nothing. Why? "Oh, that's just a kid thing, they'll grow out of it."

I think society needs a mentality change.

-ty-
July 26th, 2011, 11:00 AM
Yes.

Lighten up on strict firearms laws. If more LGBT people were armed for self-defense, the assailants would know that the group they are targeting are ready and willing to exercise 2nd Amendment remedies to the problem.

So now LBGT children can shoot back after their shot? Didn't lenient gun laws allow this to happen? Look at the statistics, the U.S. has one of the highest rates of homicide by gun with 2.97 people killed per 100,000 people. Australia has had many problems with gun homicide rates as well, rather than just allow people more guns for protection, they cracked down on gun laws and now their gun homicide rate is very low with .31 people killed by gunshot per 100,000 people. That is nearly 1/10 of the incidences we have. England, with much stricter gun laws has a rate of .12 killed per 100,000. Also, you cannot argue if gun violence goes down other types of murders go up. England's total homicide rate is 1.45 per 100,000 the U.S is 8.55 per 100,000. The United States has the highest rate of gun related injuries and deaths among developed countries, though we also have the highest rate of gun ownership and highest rate of officers. Should more people have guns?

FreakyLocz14
July 26th, 2011, 11:13 AM
I hope you're not suggesting we change things so that you wouldn't be required to have a license to have a gun.

I think schools are the perfect place to start to teach kids about tolerance and acceptance - two things that make people less hateful and less likely to commit horrible acts of violence. When I was in, I think, the 3rd grade we were taught a little about discrimination. Basically they said that in the past people who were different weren't allowed to go to the same schools and kids who would have been friends would never have met each other. I learned a little from that, and from things like it that throughout school. Some other ways I became more tolerant and accepting were through my school's allowing a GSA on campus and having some of the members talk to us in our 'human interactions' class, which is a kind of sex ed/tolerance building class. Getting a chance to talk more openly with someone in a safe environment probably did some good and took out some of the ignorance-based hatred that some of the kids had.

I'm not an advocate for shoving sociopolitical beliefs down kid's throats.

So now LBGT children can shoot back after their shot? Didn't lenient gun laws allow this to happen? Look at the statistics, the U.S. has one of the highest rates of homicide by gun with 2.97 people killed per 100,000 people. Australia has had many problems with gun homicide rates as well, rather than just allow people more guns for protection, they cracked down on gun laws and now their gun homicide rate is very low with .31 people killed by gunshot per 100,000 people. That is nearly 1/10 of the incidences we have. England, with much stricter gun laws has a rate of .12 killed per 100,000. Also, you cannot argue if gun violence goes down other types of murders go up. England's total homicide rate is 1.45 per 100,000 the U.S is 8.55 per 100,000. The United States has the highest rate of gun related injuries and deaths among developed countries, though we also have the highest rate of gun ownership and highest rate of officers. Should more people have guns?

The United States =/= England and Australia.
The only people strict gun laws prevent from getting guns are law-abiding citizens. Criminals still have their avenues to get guns quickly. Cities with the strictest gun laws also have the highest rates of violent crime. These include Detroit, Chicago, D.C., and Oakland.

-ty-
July 26th, 2011, 11:42 AM
I'm not an advocate for shoving sociopolitical beliefs down kid's throats.



The United States =/= England and Australia.
The only people strict gun laws prevent from getting guns are law-abiding citizens. Criminals still have their avenues to get guns quickly. Cities with the strictest gun laws also have the highest rates of violent crime. These include Detroit, Chicago, D.C., and Oakland.

The U.S =/= England and Australia b/c of their fundamental differences about gun laws. The U.S. believes that giving more people guns to protect themselves will lower homicide rates, although it is the highest of "1st world countries", while Australia and England have low homicide rates (a tenth of the U.S) because they believe that guns are the cause of homicides.

Anyways, "criminals" and "felons" are not the ones behind over 12,000 gun homicides each years. According to the FBI statistics, "Within the period covered, twice as many women were killed by husbands or intimate acquaintances using firearms than were murdered by strangers using firearms, knives, or any other means." Another stat by FBI, "With one or more guns in the home the risk of suicide among women increased nearly five times and the risk of homicide increased more than three times." Another, "Family and intimate assaults involving a firearm were 12 times more likely to result in death than non-firearm associated assaults between family and intimates." ANOTHER, lol "The overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children aged 14 years and younger was nearly 12 times higher than among children in the other 25 industrialized countries combined." ANother, "The firearms homicide rate in the United States was nearly 16 times higher than that of the other 25 countries combined." Another, "The unintentional firearms death rate was 9 times higher than that of the other 25 countries combined." And a final one from the CDC, "Members of handgun-owning families were twice as likely to die in a suicide or homicide as members of the same age, sex, and neighborhood who had no history of handgun purchase."

Opinions are not as powerful as numbers, by credible sources like the FBI and CDC. Most deaths are not by "criminals"; they are by everyday-people who have domestic disputes.

Black Ice
July 26th, 2011, 02:12 PM
From reading that article alone it sounds like no one in this thread could possibly understand exactly what happened. It's pretty easy to twist the evidence and peoples' emotions around so that it seems as if the guy killed the other guy simply because he was gay. That may or may not be the case.

Imagine if the U.S. prohibited guns. Most citizens don't carry guns around with them all day anyway, so this wouldn't affect them in the slightest. There wasn't a student to stop VT from happening, or Columbine, or any other school shooting. And guns would be harder to obtain for the criminals. This is the big picture, and I don't see what's wrong with it.

Xyrin
July 26th, 2011, 02:24 PM
The United States =/= England and Australia.
The only people strict gun laws prevent from getting guns are law-abiding citizens. Criminals still have their avenues to get guns quickly. Cities with the strictest gun laws also have the highest rates of violent crime. These include Detroit, Chicago, D.C., and Oakland.

I agree with this. Criminals will be able to get their guns no matter if we put strict laws on them or not. If the citizens can get them easily there will be less shootings because the criminals will know that citizens can get them easily and have a risk of being shot.

(=Nemesis=)
July 26th, 2011, 02:30 PM
Someone got murdered. Okay, try the killer and lock him up. Is there a reason this gets more attention then an "everyday" killing because the victim happens to be gay?

It's kind of fashionable, I guess. In the last few decades it's been Jews and black people in the spotlight for hate crime targets, mostly. They still get attacked/killed for being Jews and black people. But since the Jews dare to fight back (Israel vs occupied territory fashioned as "Palestine") and since Obama's in the White House, obviously, according to the media, it's not a problem.

lahishendeeir
July 26th, 2011, 02:32 PM
the earth has a bad case of 'the humans'.

FreakyLocz14
July 26th, 2011, 03:01 PM
I hope you're not suggesting we change things so that you wouldn't be required to have a license to have a gun.

When you pass a background check and have no criminal history, but the county still won't issue a license because of pure politics, that's not right.

The U.S =/= England and Australia b/c of their fundamental differences about gun laws. The U.S. believes that giving more people guns to protect themselves will lower homicide rates, although it is the highest of "1st world countries", while Australia and England have low homicide rates (a tenth of the U.S) because they believe that guns are the cause of homicides.

Anyways, "criminals" and "felons" are not the ones behind over 12,000 gun homicides each years. According to the FBI statistics, "Within the period covered, twice as many women were killed by husbands or intimate acquaintances using firearms than were murdered by strangers using firearms, knives, or any other means." Another stat by FBI, "With one or more guns in the home the risk of suicide among women increased nearly five times and the risk of homicide increased more than three times." Another, "Family and intimate assaults involving a firearm were 12 times more likely to result in death than non-firearm associated assaults between family and intimates." ANOTHER, lol "The overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children aged 14 years and younger was nearly 12 times higher than among children in the other 25 industrialized countries combined." ANother, "The firearms homicide rate in the United States was nearly 16 times higher than that of the other 25 countries combined." Another, "The unintentional firearms death rate was 9 times higher than that of the other 25 countries combined." And a final one from the CDC, "Members of handgun-owning families were twice as likely to die in a suicide or homicide as members of the same age, sex, and neighborhood who had no history of handgun purchase."

Opinions are not as powerful as numbers, by credible sources like the FBI and CDC. Most deaths are not by "criminals"; they are by everyday-people who have domestic disputes.

People who commit acts of violence are criminals, so all of these cases do indeed involve criminals. They would then be given a sentence enhancement for using a firearm and would be banned from purchasing a firearm in the future.

When an attack happens, an armed victim that is legally able to shoot im self-defense once it is apparent that their assailants are armed and/or intend to harm them has a much better chance of survival than a defenseless victim.

-ty-
July 26th, 2011, 03:38 PM
When you pass a background check and have no criminal history, but the county still won't issue a license because of pure politics, that's not right.



People who commit acts of violence are criminals, so all of these cases do indeed involve criminals. They would then be given a sentence enhancement for using a firearm and would be banned from purchasing a firearm in the future.

When an attack happens, an armed victim that is legally able to shoot im self-defense once it is apparent that their assailants are armed and/or intend to harm them has a much better chance of survival than a defenseless victim.

So spouses should keep a gun for each of them under their bed?

As far as "criminals" go, yes AFTER they kill someone they are one. Prior to the fact, most people who commit homicide domestically do not have an extensive criminal record.

I see you have an opinion, but the facts say that having a gun in the home puts the family and other people at higher risk. The statistics show that our leniency toward gun control have led us to have the HIGHEST HOMICIDE RATE BY GUNS AND THE HIGHEST HOMICIDE RATE of ALL industrialized countries. So how to you suppose we lower the rate? Give everyone more and more guns?

FreakyLocz14
July 26th, 2011, 04:03 PM
So spouses should keep a gun for each of them under their bed?

As far as "criminals" go, yes AFTER they kill someone they are one. Prior to the fact, most people who commit homicide domestically do not have an extensive criminal record.

I see you have an opinion, but the facts say that having a gun in the home puts the family and other people at higher risk. The statistics show that our leniency toward gun control have led us to have the HIGHEST HOMICIDE RATE BY GUNS AND THE HIGHEST HOMICIDE RATE of ALL industrialized countries. So how to you suppose we lower the rate? Give everyone more and more guns?

You haven't shown the link between gun laws and gun violence, you merely stated that X country has strict gun laws and low violent crime. No causal link has been presented to connect the two. Also, you are referring to gun in the home, while I taking about public carry. Those are completely different things.

Black Ice
July 26th, 2011, 06:18 PM
I agree with this. Criminals will be able to get their guns no matter if we put strict laws on them or not. If the citizens can get them easily there will be less shootings because the criminals will know that citizens can get them easily and have a risk of being shot.
You miss the fact that America does not have strict gun laws and yet most mass shootings are not prevented by an everyday citizen with a gun. Either the police arrive or the guy kills himself.

-ty-
July 26th, 2011, 09:39 PM
You haven't shown the link between gun laws and gun violence, you merely stated that X country has strict gun laws and low violent crime. No causal link has been presented to connect the two. Also, you are referring to gun in the home, while I taking about public carry. Those are completely different things.

So why are the homicide rates so high in the U.S?(in comparison to other industrialized nations)

Why do we the highest homicide rate with firearms?(in comparison to other industrialized nations)


Do you think that if everyone had a gun for protection that crime rates would lower?

Are you suggesting that the boy who was shot could have protected himself by shooting the other boy first? Or that the boy who killed the other boy would be too scared to shoot the gay boy simply b/c he knows that he has a gun and that the LBGT community would seek revenge? If you answer affirmatively to the latter of the two questions, should we become vigilantes, and wage wars between races or sexuality?

I would appreciate it if you could please answer ALL of the SPECIFIC questions above, so I understand why you believe that there is not a causal link, rather than just state that there not a causal link.

I brought up domestic dispute statistics to debunk the false claim that these murders by guns are commited by those with extensive criminal backgrounds. Sure a gang member can illegal obtain a gun, but most of the people who commit gun murders do not have such connections.

Myles
July 26th, 2011, 11:13 PM
People who commit acts of violence are criminals, so all of these cases do indeed involve criminals. They would then be given a sentence enhancement for using a firearm and would be banned from purchasing a firearm in the future.

Okay, that's ridiculous. They are only criminals after the fact, not before. If you had to illegally obtain a gun beforehand, it would essentially remove non-premeditated murder by guns.

When an attack happens, an armed victim that is legally able to shoot im self-defense once it is apparent that their assailants are armed and/or intend to harm them has a much better chance of survival than a defenseless victim.

I'm sure you have sound evidence to back this up. Not to mention you can't have a concealed weapon so everyone isn't just standing around armed all the time, waiting for a murderer.

FreakyLocz14
July 27th, 2011, 01:07 AM
So why are the homicide rates so high in the U.S?(in comparison to other industrialized nations)

Why do we the highest homicide rate with firearms?(in comparison to other industrialized nations)


Do you think that if everyone had a gun for protection that crime rates would lower?

Are you suggesting that the boy who was shot could have protected himself by shooting the other boy first? Or that the boy who killed the other boy would be too scared to shoot the gay boy simply b/c he knows that he has a gun and that the LBGT community would seek revenge? If you answer affirmatively to the latter of the two questions, should we become vigilantes, and wage wars between races or sexuality?

I would appreciate it if you could please answer ALL of the SPECIFIC questions above, so I understand why you believe that there is not a causal link, rather than just state that there not a causal link.

I brought up domestic dispute statistics to debunk the false claim that these murders by guns are commited by those with extensive criminal backgrounds. Sure a gang member can illegal obtain a gun, but most of the people who commit gun murders do not have such connections.

Whether a gun is purchased on the black market or stolen from a friend or family member, it was still obtained illegally and deserves punishment. The person who padded a background check and legally registers his or her gun is under the protection of the 2nd Amendment. It is reasonable to require to the use of a trigger safety and to keep the gun unloaded while in the home to reduce gun-related domestic disputes.

While a hate crimes law might punish the bigot more harshly, it doesn't proect the victim's death beforehand. No one knows who would win in a gun fight, but with an armed bigot and an unarmed LGBT victim, the cards seem stacked against them. At lest under my proposal, they'd have a fighting chance.


I'm sure you have sound evidence to back this up. Not to mention you can't have a concealed weapon so everyone isn't just standing around armed all the time, waiting for a murderer.

Concealed carry is legal in California. Butte County (a red county) issued me a concealed carry permit for my 9mm pistol. I also have a hunting rifle and am looking into purchasing a semi-automatic assault rifle. The county decides who to issue to (if it will ossue any at all). This means that liberal counties like San Francisco won't issue them even if your record is cleaner than Jesus, while Orange and the more rural counties do issue concealed carry permits to those who pass a background check and register their guns with the police department or sherrif's office.

-ty-
July 27th, 2011, 07:41 AM
Whether a gun is purchased on the black market or stolen from a friend or family member, it was still obtained illegally and deserves punishment. The person who padded a background check and legally registers his or her gun is under the protection of the 2nd Amendment. It is reasonable to require to the use of a trigger safety and to keep the gun unloaded while in the home to reduce gun-related domestic disputes.

While a hate crimes law might punish the bigot more harshly, it doesn't proect the victim's death beforehand. No one knows who would win in a gun fight, but with an armed bigot and an unarmed LGBT victim, the cards seem stacked against them. At lest under my proposal, they'd have a fighting chance.



Concealed carry is legal in California. Butte County (a red county) issued me a concealed carry permit for my 9mm pistol. I also have a hunting rifle and am looking into purchasing a semi-automatic assault rifle. The county decides who to issue to (if it will ossue any at all). This means that liberal counties like San Francisco won't issue them even if your record is cleaner than Jesus, while Orange and the more rural counties do issue concealed carry permits to those who pass a background check and register their guns with the police department or sherrif's office.

The questions that I requested you to answer were ignored. I will not be able understand why you believe guns need to have less restrictions and should be dispersed and carried on everyone so that they can use them at any given time, and also the relationship between our high gun homicide rates and lax gun laws. If you respond I would greatly appreciate if you answer the questions from my previous post.

Black Ice
July 27th, 2011, 08:12 AM
Sounds like what you want is for everyone to be required to have a gun.

I'm sure that would be better.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
July 27th, 2011, 10:00 AM
Not around here. You need a license to carry a firearm, and most counties have a no issue policy.

What is a "no issue policy"?

...

I'm just going to assume that means most countries don't require licenses. I think that you're suggesting we remove the need for licenses. Seeing as that's a controversial topic in and of itself I think it deserves its own thread if anything.

Because I for one am certainly not willing to branch off into other controversial topics than the one I came to the thread for, simply because the new topic is not something I would've posted in to begin with.

FreakyLocz14
July 28th, 2011, 01:57 AM
What is a "no issue policy"?

...

I'm just going to assume that means most countries don't require licenses. I think that you're suggesting we remove the need for licenses. Seeing as that's a controversial topic in and of itself I think it deserves its own thread if anything.

Because I for one am certainly not willing to branch off into other controversial topics than the one I came to the thread for, simply because the new topic is not something I would've posted in to begin with.

A no issue county has a policy of not issuing concealed carru permits, no matter how upstanding your background check proves you are. San Francisco County is no issue, for example. These policies are motivated purely by partisan politics.