“Greenwich Village, the birthplace of the U.S. gay rights movement, remained in shock on Sunday over the shooting death of a gay man by a gunman who police said uttered anti-gay slurs before targeting the victim.” Is there any group that might want to avail themselves of armed self defense more than gays and lesbians? Although they’ve found a much greater degree of acceptance in recent years, that doesn’t mean they’re not targeted for abuse, intimidation and armed violence. Just ask groups like the Pink Pistols. It’s becoming more frequent in the Big Apple, too. As reuters.com notes . . .
The attack marked the 22nd anti-gay hate crime in New York City this year, compared to 13 incidents at this time last year, New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said.
And those are just the incidents that are reported. Not that any of that cuts much ice with people like Michael Bloomberg, who views shootings like this as evidence that New York needs still more gun control laws.
He and his fellow big-city mayors are only too happy to use gays to advance their own careers when it’s convenient. But they wouldn’t dream of allowing Mark Carson – or any other New Yorker, for that matter – permission to exercise their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms in their gun-free utopias. That’s what the police are there for. Until they’re not.
From nydailynews.com:
The unidentified suspect fired a single round into Mark Carson’s head on W. Eighth St. near Sixth Ave. on Friday night, after he taunted the gay man who was walking with a friend, cops said….
But as they turned the corner, the suspect and one of his cohorts confronted the pair again and taunted them by shouting “f—-t” and “queer,” Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said.
One of the bigots got nervous and ran away as the suspect asked the two gay men, “Do you want to die here?” Kelly said.
Suddenly, the suspect whipped out a silver .38-caliber revolver and shot Carson in the face. The shooter ran away as Carson collapsed on the sidewalk.
No cop could have responded quickly enough to save Carson. Even if he’d been carrying a gun, Carson might not have been able to do anything to save himself from an attack like this. But he should at least have had the opportunity. The Constitution says he does. Mayor Mike disagrees.
Another senseless crime that would not have been prevented by gun control laws. Oh wait, the gun control laws and laws against murder and hate crimes were already in place. And of course kapo bloomberg will try to pass more meaningless laws.
If carson and his friend had been armed they may not have prevented the bad guy from shooting. But maybe if they had one or both been armed they would have carried themselves differently or responded to the taunts differently and the bad guy may have decided to hunt elsewhere.
And if the bad guy had decided to continue the attack he would have been facing 2 armed men and not 2 victims. The outcome may have been totally different.
Might, not may.
That said, a cop off to the side might have prevented this, but it’s unlikely.
There are a great many scenarios played out daily in which a firearm makes a positive difference. Bloomberg is an unholy admixture of Rockefeller and Stalin.
“an unholy mixture of Rockefeller and Stalin”
I’m quoting that
It’s especially accurate since Rockefeller was an early Progressive
Its hard to identify with a gay person other than to say he had the right to live. I’ll put away my nonsensical self for this one, Randy
Truly, it was all that was required of you as a person. To hint that there were extenuating circumstances that may have excused this violence is less than human. Thanks for keeping it human, sort of.
The motto of the Pink Pistols is “Armed Gays Don’t Get Bashed.” Bloomberg’s motto is “You’ll Get Bashed and Like It.”
Everyone no matter their color or sexual orientation should have the right to effectively defend themselves.
I’m of the opinion that if someone needs to die immediately, it should be the scumbag who starts the fight.
Personal Freedom does indeed start with personal security.
Wait a minute, this whole story must be a fake: Private ownership of guns is outlawed in NYC, and only politicians, big contributors to the politicians, publishers of the NYT, judges and rich lawyers can carry concealed guns. So I don’t understand how the perp could have been carrying a “silver .38-caliber revolver”. Unless the perp is the publisher of the NYT, or one of Bloomberg’s armed bodyguards?
Yeah, that must be it, because we all KNOW that strict gun bans like New York’s and Chicago’s are very effective at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals!
Still don’t understand a hate crime; what I mean is that hate is a “thought” not an action, so isn’t that protected under the first amendment? This is mildly amusing since the criminal committed a thoughtcrime. The only real criminal act was tell murder (and probably the gun).
What you don’t understand is how the legal system works. Any murder considers thought and intent, that’s how they break down Murder 1 from Murder 2. “Malice aforethought” is a precondition of murder vs. manslaughter. Hate crime laws are administrative, they don’t fundamentally change the crime, but often bump up the severity. Most things like assault, rape, threats and murder can get a hate crime attached.
The thing that gets me about the whole hate crime thing is that it creates a class of “special victims,” which shifts the focus away from an actual criminal act toward who the victim was. It says in no uncertain terms that some victims are more important than others.
Ing, if Carson had been a hetero male would he have been murdered? Some crimes are based on hatred for who the victim is. Their religion or sexuality or race.
Carson wasn’t killed in a bungled robbery, he was killed because of who he was. Does recognising that fact create a special class of victims?
Yes, if the punishment for the crime is greater because of the motive.
I intentionally kill a man because he’s white and I hate white people.
You intentionally kill a man because he’s rich and you want his jewelry.
Why should the punishment be any different? The intention to murder, and the murderous conduct itself, are the same.
Because we as a society recognize that a murderer that’s out to kill people based on some creed is more dangerous (and is more likely to end with a bigger body count) than the one doing it for profit?
Baseless, and, in fact, wrong. But if we’re just making stuff up, sure, why not.
I understand the legal system perfectly; I just don’t understand how you can punish someone for a thought, that if written is legal. The action is still the crime. Intent is a crime too, but hate is an abstract thought, not an action.
It’s just a way for the politically correct powers that be to give privileges to the classes of persons they like.
I agree. I have always been of the opinion that if you can show me a “Hate Crime”, I can show you a crime who’s punishment is less that society wants/requires. Otherwise there would be no need to make a distinction between the two, unless you are implying that taking a life is a lesser crime that taking a life for whatever prejudices you may practice.
Taking a life is the top of the scale, or at least it should be.
This is one of the things the gay community is going to have to face.
They feel “safe” and “accepted” in known gay areas like this or the Castro District in SF but there’s a known problem: just as fishermen or hunters will travel long distances to get to a favored spot, gay-bashing bigots will come to a place like that to carry out violent attacks from up to hundreds of miles away. This has been very well documented. Worse, once they go back home catching ’em is difficult because they’re not know to anybody near the shooting/beating scene – they’re not from around there.
What the gays see as “havens” are seriously not any such thing.
Reminds one of gun-free zone.
generally one and the same.
Everyone has the right to protect themselves. Many of my gay friends however don’t feel welcome amongst the larger gun community, mostly due to the political association with far right politics that seeks to take away their rights.
The real enemy here is hate. Hatred led to the shooting in this incident, not the gun. Bloomberg and the gun grabbers’ hatred of guns leads them to infringe on our natural rights and Constitutional rights.
No, I don’t think so. Everyone except a saint harbors hatred of some kinds of people. And I can guarantee you that a lot of homosexuals bitterly hate certain people such as Mormons or any other traditional religious group. The question is what prevents most people from taking action against the people they hate? Telling human beings not to hate is like telling them not to breathe.
spoken like a hardened bigot. Thanks for illustrating why I can never get members of the LGBT community to properly learn to defend themselves from other armed bigots.
Why do you choose to censor these particular O.E. comments?
At least 2 have been removed.
He should be allowed to post his thoughts, we should have the opportunity to mock him and his warped brain.
He’s posted some crazy sh*t before, it wasn’t deleted.
Why now?
BTW, the video was hilarious. The first dude in the car looked like he could have been related to John Waters.
I got deleted for trying to mock him, twice. I think our new editor is on the job.
Usually, it’s for “flaming” someone, i.e., engaging in a personal attack. I haven’t seen other sorts of comments deleted.
Keeping the White Aryan Male down.
@JaxD: Its because I’m all of the above. The Minority Grabbers don’t like me getting in the way of their universal Toy Rights.
@jwm: I thought you were reaching out to me man, I feel confused and violated now 🙁
@MothaLova: Don’t try to put words in my mouth or make assumptions after I’ve been deleted.
He didn’t flame anyone personally, just made his feelings about gays clear. In his own special way.
Tue other was a 1950’s “educational” film, by the Inglewood, CA PD. Warning about the “mentally diseased” homosexuals stalking young boys. In parks, bathrooms, and under a pier. 10 minutes of 1950’s paranoia. How times have changed.
Ah yes, well, no debate about the morality of homosexuality is allowed anymore. As the Left knows, if you can force people to shut up, then you will win the argument by default, and ultimately public opinion will go your way.
And now he’s pulling the Oppressed White Man card. Being white is such a hardship these days.
The first deleted comment had a number of anti-gay slurs. It’s possible to discuss this without them. The second comment I zapped embedded a YouTube video which plays hell with the mobile interface.
No, I exposed the fact what you consider to be slurs are infact used by Gays to identify with one another. I even reminded you that Blacks use the “N” word to identify one another.
This was all brushed under the carpet though.
Furthermore I also alluded to the fact that Gay activism is in matter of fact the nose of the pedophile under the proverbial arab’s tent. This comment too went missing.
It’s true. I used to live in a homosexual neighborhood and some – though hardly all – would use slurs against each other, sometimes lightly and sometimes seriously.
Aryan white male, you mean Nazi, right?
Like it or not O.E. should be allowed to post whatever he believes. There wasn’t any cursing, personal attacks. Just his thoughts. What are you afraid of?
Isn’t this The TRUTH about guns? This is part of the truth.
What does the “Truth about Guns” have to do with homophobia, neo-nazi racist bullshit?
…or is that a part of gun culture…?
No one has the ‘right’ to post anything here except the owner and operator of the site. If he or she doesn’t want to discussion going off into crazyland, more power to them.
Oh, you like your truth with a little sugar on top.
Truth is ugly sometimes.
Half the discussions here go off to crazy land.
It’s a shame our society doesn’t really give homosexuals a place outside of bath-houses and MSM jobs. The ancient Greeks handled them properly without murdering them or destroying normal reproductive marriage. Give em’ an official niche and move on.
Please stop.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHk9JoXoBMY
Insane idiocy of people who’s sole ideas of what it was like in the ancient world is based on some show on HBO or Showtime. Hell even Vikings seems to be trying to push this idea about threesomes and Vikings.
I never said they were a bunch of flaming queers. I said they found a way to handle it without looking like idiots.
I’ll vote for the Greek way. No problem. It means no made-up “same-sex marriage.”
They didn’t need a niche. Giving them a “niche” is just a polite way of keeping them separate from you.
I don’t see why people hate on gays. No one is forcing you to suck his dick. It never affects you.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=857_1304784782&comments=1
Your future utopia of unrestrained sexual deviancy.
What hate? Homos tend to have identity issues and suffer abuse because society never gives them a clearly defined space or role. More enlightened traditional cultures (like the ancient Greeks or certain indigenous tribes) afforded them esteemed and privileged roles within society. It certainly beats the twin evils of anti-gay violence *and* pride parades.
That’s always the excuse. It’s society’s fault. It couldn’t possibly be anything intrinsic.
It’s not always the fault of society. Maybe the genes involved in homosexuality cluster with those that increase susceptibility to mental illness. The point is that by structuring society a little differently we can avoid going full retard.
I see. You’re not taking the extreme position I sometimes hear.
I’m not going to pander to anyone to make them feel more ‘accepted’ for their sexual preferences.
You don’t need to “pander” to anyone. You just need to get out of their way and mind your own business. Your freedom ends where his nose (and bedroom) begins etc.
Riiiiiiight – because the Left isn’t forcing their view of sexuality on the rest of the country via government schools, colleges, television, and government lawsuits. They’re very willing to let people believe what they want – just so long as non-leftists don’t actually express their views out loud in school or anywhere else within earshot.
Its funny. Nothing about Melind McCormick being beaten and set on fire alive.
Nothing about the shootings by Nkosi Thandiwe who was mad that 2 white people were allowed to go to a meeting about “helping black people gain a equal footing in society,” so he decided to shoot 3 random white women. Who also happened to be Obama voters, hahahahahaha!
No no no no lets some how believe less than 1% of the population is the key to gun rights. Not white women savagely murdered in hate crimes by blacks, cause of course pointing out such stuff only is meant to spread “racism,” as cultural Marxist like you say, therefore lets sweep it under the rug and shed tears for a deviant.
So Chase, would you be protesting so strongly if it was a white man killing black women? Some commentors here would seem to have it in their minds that if we lived in a whites only society it would be crime free. I was raised in a place that was as close to whites only as you could get and guess what, we had crime of all sorts and varieties.
All this whole thing boils down to about calling out “hate” laws is a bunch of insecure white boys who need to blame someone else for their feelings of inferiority or percieved lack of success in life.
As for the morality of homosexuality, this ain’t puritan America so get a life and don’t worry about what the neighbers are doing in their own home.
I think it’s clear that Chase is calling for being level-headed and consistent. He’s opposed – as I am – to getting excited over the murder of a homosexual allegedly for being homosexual, while ignoring the murder of a white woman allegedly for being white.
It’s simple: oppose all murder equally. Equally.
I do oppose all murders equally. But when the cops and the courts handle a murder they try to find out why, what’s the motive? And in a country that is based on individual rights as we gun owners are always pointing out what motive can be more baseless and useless than race or sexuality?
In other words, you don’t oppose all murders equally.
America is not and has never been a White country. It has always been an act of venture capitalism.
Where are the white men trolling for black women?
The fact is, the last time the FBI did a study of rape victims and perpetrators by race, there was less than 10 white-on-black rapes.
Black-on-white rape however in total numbers is comparable to black-on-black rape. On top of that black-on-black domestic abuse is a huge problem and black-on-white domestic abuse is even worse.
But lets sweep it under the rug.
Obviously, the fact that white criminals are NOT trolling for black women is further evidence of white racism. Obviously.
You hit the white nationalist honeypot with this one, Dan.
Good thing he was murdered by a revolver, and not an evil semi-automatic carrying 8 rounds in the magazine… otherwise the shooter would have committed a crime NY cares about!
Indeed, indeed.
It is ironic that the murder of a gay man in San Francisco essentially launched the national career of Sen. Diane Feinstein:
http://guardamerican.com/index.php/blog/151-personal-self-defense/713-guns-and-the-politics-of-personal-destruction
Feinstein is the bigest threat to the US Constitution that exists in the US today, next to Obummer!
I have a plan about fixing some of this. But it’s secret. And can’t be spoken of yet… Exits mysteriously…
Next time you wonder why members of vulnerable communities find it hard to have an even-keeled, rational discussion on self defense: remember this thread.
It’s easier for them to want to disarm “gun people” as a whole, because this is what they see.
Truer words were never spoken.
+100
THIS is not what I had in mind when I recommend people to this blog, and this SURE as hell ain’t “hearts and minds” material…
It’s exactly like the thread about Kokesh’s march on D.C. Anyone who disagreed got labeled as a boot licker or unamerican.
I can’t help but wonder when grown folks acting like 12 year olds became the norm.
rtempleton:
That’s just silly. What any reader can see is that 100% of the commenters agree that the victim should have been allowed to carry a gun. 100%. No one here argued that a homosexual citizen has any less of a right to defend himself.
If someone wants to get angry that not everyone agrees with the Left’s position on sexuality, that shows his own narrow-mindedness and intolerance. But it says nothing about who gun owners are.
It’s a shame some people can’t respect the right of others to pursue there happiness whether it is a Straight , Gay , Lesbian or what ever someone chooses in life that doesn’t negatively impact others against their will. Now because of hatred two peoples lives are ended one permanently and the other will rot in jail for the majority of his life although hate crimes should poitentially carry the death sentence, in my opinion.
Bottom line is people should be allowed to defend themselves as this man now deceased had no chance of defensive retalliation, as an active Gun Enthusiast and Competitive Handgun and Rifle Shooter I too don’t have the right to CCW (Conceled carry Weapon) or open carry a weapon, but that doesn’t stop those that disrespect the law. And since self defense is enshrined in the US Constitution New York State is in Violation of Constitutional Law. Hell you can’t even have firearms in your home in some jurisdictions. That’s all society needs is a system that enables the Criminal element free reign for victimization of the law abiding citizen.
That is the same emotional appeal (it’s no argument) that was used to justify every other attack by the Left on marriage and the family: let people love each other; it doesn’t hurt anyone else. This appeal was used to justify no-fault divorce, adultery, and immediate gratification at just about any age or time or place. The result, of course – which was predicted by many and easily perceived by anyone who wanted to think about it – is that the majority of marriages don’t last, a substantial and growing number of couples are refusing even to enter into marriage (which then makes it even harder for them to stay together), two generations of children have grown up in broken homes, and many millions of once-married or never-married men and women are living much lonelier, sadder, and materially poorer lives.
So when the same appeal is used yet again to justify yet another attack on marriage and the family, it should set off an alarm for any thinking person who cares about parents and children. All our efforts at this point should be to strengthen marriage, especially if we care about minorities (since blacks and Hispanics have suffered from the family’s destruction all out of proportion to their population numbers).
My response was intended for Guy’s previous comment at 18:52, in which he stated: “It’s a shame some people can’t respect the right of others to pursue there happiness whether it is a Straight , Gay , Lesbian or what ever someone chooses in life that doesn’t negatively impact others against their will.”