The National Post has a story about a tragic and bloody weekend in the city of Toronto, primarily focusing on the death of a twenty-four-year-old woman who was killed when a man opened up fire in a bar.
According to the Post,
Mayor David Miller spoke out yesterday, repeating his call for tougher gun control. He said despite this weekend’s violence, gun crime is down in Toronto from previous years.
I just don’t know what to say to that. Particularly when, earlier in the article, the man who opened fire in the bar was described thus:
Police yesterday issued an arrest warrant for second-degree murder for 24-year-old Kyle Weese.
Detectives told a press conference that Mr. Weese has an “extensive†criminal record and is well-known to the officers in the area.
“This is an extremely violent man with an extremely violent history,†Det. Sgt. Gary Giroux said. “My concern is not only for the citizens of the city but for our uniformed police officers… He should be considered armed and extremely dangerous.â€
I can only shake my head about this. Sadly, I see these kinds of stories at the Post time and time again. And it makes me wonder, just what can we do about it? Will we ever be able to dig past all the political BS and actually get somewhere where we learn to treat criminals as criminals and not merely as naughty toddlers? Don’t call me idealistic. Something must be done, and I don’t intend to stop mulling this over anytime soon.
But Frank…
How would gov’t penalties fix this man’s morals?
*runs and hides*
Maybe I’m not so much concerned with this man’s morals as I am with having some sort of system that would keep “well-known” “extremely violent” men with “extremely violent” histories off the streets.
And no, I don’t think prison is the answer. Think on that how you will.
I agree. I guess I’m wondering why you feel less inclined to apply the same conservative approach to economics, tho…
*going back into hiding*
Can hate be a crime?
Frank, you’re so idealistic.
“An oil company is legally blameless when it purchases an invention of a new type of energy in order to prevent its use. A food product manufacturer is legally blameless when he poisons his produce to make it last longer: after all, people are free not to buy it.”
I’m glad you feel so free to ignore my questions.
Fair enough, Mr. E. Fair enough.
I guess my answer depends on your definition of “hate” and “crime.” I promise to answer your question once we’ve settled on your choice of definitions.
As for the quote I posted, I’m gonna hazard this dangerously provocative statement: despite what the author says, the two examples given are criminal. The latter example may even be a capital offense, biblically speaking. What say ye?
Crime = an act punishable by the state.
Hate = what Jesus was talking about when he said that “hating your brother” is equivalent to breaking the sixth commandment.
I’ll disagree with you, but plead ignorance on what the Bible says.
Thanks. And I think those are excellent definitions to work with.
So: Yes, hate is a crime if it’s acted upon in ways the Bible prohibits.
I would contend that “[poisoning] produce to make it last longer” is a form of hate that a righteous judge should prosecute under criminal charges. Same goes for other practices of economic oppression.
I posted a big ol’ comment about how I think the Bible plays into all of this. Fate and random photons interfering with my computer processor seem to have conspired against my sophistry.
For the record, F, I was trying to agree with you when I wrote. My previous comment was entirely in jest.
Okay… I have the desire to move on to lighter fare. So one last thing which will hopefully clear the smog, considering the fact that my oblique arguments have prolly confused things.
Getting back to the original article, I completely and totally agree with Mr. Jason Frank Ewert about how righteous rulers have an obligation to prosecute criminals, regardless of their heart motives. Frank and I had a conversation offline about the Michael Novak quote that I mentioned a few comments up. I was arguing that law is necessarily moral, and therefore it is impossible *not* to legislate morality. I think Frank definitely agrees when it comes to violence (such as in this horrible situation in Toronto). Where I’m not sure he agrees is on the question of market “violence,” or injustice. I tend to believe that men can oppress other men economically, just as they do with physical acts of violence. And just like with acts of physical aggression, a righteous ruler will not, for example, allow a businessman to “poison his produce to make it last longer,” or any thing that harms his neighbor.
I’m guessing that Frank is more sympathetic to this than my confusing statements may have allowed. Mea culpa.
Hope that makes things a little clearer. Now I will post a video in penance.