Tag Archives: Criminal

News

New York Times editorial blames Americans for Boston Muslim terrorist attack

1 Comment

Mark Steyn takes a look at it in his National Review article. (H/T Doug Ross)

Excerpt:

Eight-year-old Martin [Richards] was killed; his sister lost a leg; and his mother suffered serious brain injuries. What did the Richards and some 200 other families do to deserve having a great big hole blown in their lives? Well, according to the New York Times, they and you bear collective responsibility. Writing on the op-ed page, Marcello Suarez-Orozco, dean of the UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, and Carola Suarez-Orozco, a professor at the same institution, began their ruminations thus:

“The alleged involvement of two ethnic Chechen brothers in the deadly attack at the Boston Marathon last week should prompt Americans to reflect on whether we do an adequate job assimilating immigrants who arrive in the United States as children or teenagers.”

[…]How hard would it be for Americans to be less inadequate when it comes to assimilating otherwise well-adjusted immigrant children? Let us turn once again to Mrs. Tsarnaev:

“They are going to kill him. I don’t care,” she told reporters. “My oldest son is killed, so I don’t care. I don’t care if my youngest son is going to be killed today. . . . I don’t care if I am going to get killed, too . . . and I will say Allahu Akbar!”

You can say it all you want, madam, but everyone knows that “Allahu Akbar” is Arabic for “Nothing to see here.” So, once you’ve cleared the streets of body parts, you inadequate Americans need to redouble your efforts.

It’s our fault that this happened. We didn’t supply Mrs. Tsarnaev with enough welfare money. We need to spend more on public schools and free health care and food stamps. At least, that’s how the left views it. That’s how the Obama administration views it. They would never deport people like the Boston bombers, because that would be “intolerant”.

Victor Davis Hanson explains how far the United States will go to avoid deporting welfare-collecting criminals:

Deportation is now politically incorrect, sort of like the T-word “terrorism” which the administration also seeks to avoid.

[…]Why were the Tsarnaevs granted asylum in the United States – and why were some of them not later deported? Officially, they came here as refugees. As ethnic Chechens and former residents of Kyrgyzstan, they sought “asylum” here from anti-Muslim persecution – given that Russia had waged a brutal war in Chechnya against Islamic militants.

Yes, the environment of Islamic Russia was and still can be deadly. But if the Tsarnaevs were supposedly in danger there, why did the father, Anzor, after a few years choose to return to Dagestan, Russia, where he now apparently lives in relative safety? Why did one of the alleged Boston bombers, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, return to Russia for six months last year – given that escape from such an unsafe place was the very reason that the United States granted his family asylum in the first place?

[…]What, exactly, justifies deportation of immigrants of any status? Failure to find work and become self-supporting? Apparently not. The Tsarnaev family reportedly had been on public assistance. This is not an isolated or unusual instance.

[…]Should those residing here illegally at least avoid committing crimes and follow the rules of their adopted country? Apparently not – given that Tamerlan Tsarnaev, a skilled boxer, was charged in 2009 with domestic violence against his girlfriend. His mother, Zubeidat, also back in Russia now, was reportedly arrested last year on charges of shoplifting some $1,600 in goods from a Boston-area store.

Meanwhile, skilled immigrants who come to this country and work for decades without getting so much as a speeding ticket can just go back where they came from. We don’t want them – we need to deport them. They are “bad” immigrants who need to go back where they came from. We want the welfare-collecting terrorist immigrants, instead. Like Mrs. Tsarnaev. She is a “good” immigrant who needs to be fast-tracked to permanent residency and citizenship.

Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security continues to ignore real terrorism and claim that white male gun owners are the real terrorists in their training material. Just like the FBI claims that pro-lifers are the real terrorists in their training material. The Obama administration isn’t serious about national security.

News

21-year-old man uses legally owned firearm to defend family from three criminals

1 Comment

From KHOU Houston.

Excerpt:

A 21-year-old man sprang into action to protect his family Thursday night when three suspects barged into their northwest Harris County home.

The young man was home with his mother and father in the 3900 block of Brook Garden when the armed men forced their way into the house around 8 p.m., according to Harris County Sheriff’s deputies.

The family was in the middle of baking a cake, when there was a knock at the door.

“I see a young boy and I think it is a friend of my son so I open it a little bit,” the father explained. “These guys push and out comes two more, they push me on the ground.”

After the father was down, the suspects went after the mother. That is when the son ran and got his dad’s gun. He opened fire and hit one of the suspects, who died in the back bedroom. The other two suspects fled the scene.

[…]Neighbors said the son was just doing what he had to do.

“People can’t go breaking into people’s homes and not expect some sort of consequence,” said Harry Moulder.

No charges were expected to be filed against the homeowner’s son.

Another day, another defensive gun use by a law abiding citizen to thwart a crime. When I read stories like this one, I ask myself this question: what’s the liberal alternative resolution to this scenario? They just want the law abiding people to submit to the criminals. The liberal alternative is to let the three people in the home die at the hands of criminals.

Don’t believe me?

Take a look at this list of recommendations for victims of rape, which was put out by a liberal university.

Look:

  1. Be realistic about your ability to protect yourself.
  2. Your instinct may be to scream, go ahead! It may startle your attacker and give you an opportunity to run away.
  3. Kick off your shoes if you have time and can’t run in them.
  4. Don’t take time to look back; just get away.
  5. If your life is in danger, passive resistance may be your best defense.
  6. Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating.
  7. Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone.
  8. Yelling, hitting or biting may give you a chance to escape, do it!
  9. Understand that some actions on your part might lead to more harm.
  10. Remember, every emergency situation is different. Only you can decide which action is most appropriate.

That’s the best campus leftists can do for law-abiding victims of crime. Pee on yourself and maybe your rapist will go away. But you can’t own a gun, because guns scare criminals with their loud noises.

Related posts

News

Woman raped at gunpoint in “gun free zone” on university campus

4 Comments

CNS News reports.

Excerpt:

Recently, Revealing Politics released a video of Colorado Rep. Joe Salazar arguing that college women don’t need guns to prevent rape because they can use whistles, “safe zones”, and call boxes instead. His theory behind this was that just because women feel they’re going to be raped, doesn’t mean it’s actually going to happen.

On Wednesday, NRA News Radio Host Cam Edwards interviewed Amanda Collins, a woman who was raped at the University of Nevada at gun point in a gun free zone. The brave woman responds to the comments made by Rep. Joe Salazar.

“It is so frustrating. I wish I could sit down with each one of these policy makers and have a face-to-face conversation with them and tell them my story, especially the representative out of Colorado who made the comment that he did on Friday – I have it in front of me. He said, ‘It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have whistles.’ And, I can just go through and argue each one of those statements with the experience that I had.

“For one, all of these are just sentiments that give a false sense of security. In my experience, I know that. The university that I attended, the University of Nevada, Reno, they didn’t have any call boxes the night that I was attacked, they afterwards they installed them. I can tell you that a call box above my head while I was straddled on the parking garage floor being brutally raped wouldn’t have helped me one bit. The safe zones? Well I was in a safe zone and my attacker didn’t care,” said Collins.

Edwards asks, “What do you mean you were in a safe zone?”

“The campuses are designated as a safe zone, or as I take it, a gun free zone. All it does is ensure the perpetrator that they are going to be unmatched when they pick a victim”, Collins responds.

“You were attacked in what would be considered a safe zone, I’m assuming. You were within sight of the campus police department.”

“Right. I’m going to share something this afternoon that I haven’t shared before, and that is that knowing that I could see the police cruisers less than 50 feet away from me where from where I was being attacked- the moment I saw those cruisers I knew no one was coming for me”, she replied.

Here’s Dr. John R. Lott to explain why gun-free zones should really be called “helpless victim zones”.

Excerpt:

Contrary to public perception, Western Europe, most of whose countries have much tougher gun laws than the United States, has experienced many of the worst multiple-victim public shootings. Particularly telling, all the multiple-victim public shootings in Western Europe have occurred in places where civilians are not permitted to carry guns. The same is true in the United States: All the public shootings in which more than three people have been killed have occurred in places where civilians may not legally bring guns.

Look at recent history. Where have the worst K–12 school shootings occurred? Nearly all of them in Europe. The very worst one occurred in a high school in Erfurt, Germany, in 2002, where 18 were killed. The second-worst took place in Dunblane, Scotland, in 1996, where 16 kindergartners and their teacher were killed. The third-worst, with 15 dead, happened in Winnenden, Germany. The fourth-worst was in the U.S. — Columbine High School in 1999, leaving 13 dead. The fifth-worst, with eleven murdered, occurred in Emsdetten, Germany.

It may be a surprise to those who believe in gun control that Germany was home to three of the five worst attacks. Though not quite as tight as the U.K.’s regulations, Germany’s gun-control laws are some of the most restrictive in Europe. German gun licenses are valid for only three years, and to obtain one, the person must demonstrate such hard-to-define characteristics as trustworthiness, and must also convince authorities that he needs a gun. This is on top of prohibitions on gun ownership for those with mental disorders, drug or alcohol addictions, violent or aggressive tendencies, or felony convictions.

The phenomenon is not limited to school attacks. Multiple-victim public shootings in general appear to be at least as common in Western Europe as they are here. The following is a partial list of attacks since 2001. As mentioned, all of them occurred in gun-free zones — places where guns in the hands of civilians are outlawed.

Dr. Lott then lists about two dozen incidents – all occurring in gun free zones. The only reliable way to defend yourself against a criminal is to defend yourself yourself. The only people who oppose self-defense are the people who think that only criminals should have guns – not law-abiding citizens. Gun control supporters don’t care if law-abiding people are raped, killed, robbed or tortured. They are more concerned about criminals – they don’t want the criminals to be scared or hurt when they are raping, stealing and killing their law-abiding victims.