Gov. Patrick signs bill updating state gun laws

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Gov. Patrick signs bill updating state gun laws

    BOSTON (AP) — Gov. Deval Patrick on Wednesday signed a sweeping overhaul of Massachusetts’ gun laws.


    The bill stiffens penalties for some gun-based crimes, creates a Web-based portal within the state Executive Office of Public Safety to allow for real-time background checks in private gun sales, and calls for the creation of a firearms trafficking unit within the state police.


    It also gives local police chiefs the right to go to court to try to deny firearms identification cards needed to buy rifles or shotguns to individuals they feel are unsuitable to have access to the weapons.


    Police chiefs currently have the right to deny ‘‘licenses to carry’’ to individuals they feel are unsuitable to carry handguns. The bill would retain that authority, but would require police chiefs to give written reasons for any applications they choose to deny. Their decisions would have to be based on public safety and could be appealed in court.


    Patrick signed the bill at a ceremony at the Statehouse.


    Another part of the bill mandates Massachusetts join the National Instant Background Check System, which requires the state to transmit information about substance abuse or mental health commitments to a federal database that police can use to review firearms applications.


    Patrick has praised the bill, despite the fact that lawmakers failed to include his proposal that would have limited individuals to the purchase of no more than one gun per month.


    The bill would also increase the penalty for carrying a firearm on school grounds; increase the punishment for being armed with a firearm while carjacking; create penalties for transporting firearms into the state for criminal activity or unlawful distribution; establish penalties for gun dealers who fail to report a lost or stolen weapon and mandate that an individual whose license to carry firearms has been revoked, suspended or denied must surrender all guns in their possession.


    Work on the bill began last year after the 2012 mass school shooting that left 20 children and six adults dead at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.


    Massachusetts already has some of the strictest gun laws in the country.


    Other portions of the legislation are designed to improve security for students and teachers.


    The bill would require schools have access to two-way communication devices with police and fire departments and mandate school districts provide two hours of suicide awareness and prevention training to school personnel every three years.


    Patrick also signed an economic development bill and a $1.9 billion, four-year environmental bond bill on Wednesday.


    Among the dozens of spending projects in the environmental bond bill is $100 million for the dredging of Boston and New Bedford harbors and another $100 million for the Department of Conservation and Recreation for the design, construction and preservation of forests, parks, harbor islands and other recreational facilities.


    http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2014/08/13/gov-patrick-sign-bill-updating-state-gun-laws/xFJfSsOOP9G38LlNHkNKhO/story.html?p1=ClickedOnBreakingNewsBox

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Gov. Patrick signs bill updating state gun laws

    " mandate that an individual whose license to carry firearms has been revoked, suspended or denied must surrender all guns in their possession."

    Hold on. Doesn't that conflict with the federal framework - that you can possess in home or in place of business with FID card even without a license? You just can't carry it, in operational state, outside either of those two locations....

     

     

    Anyway, it sounds like most of this is damaging for-show stuff, like increased penalties. Especially silly is the notion that increasing the penalty for having a gun while carjacking is going to make anyone safer.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Gov. Patrick signs bill updating state gun laws

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    " mandate that an individual whose license to carry firearms has been revoked, suspended or denied must surrender all guns in their possession."

    Hold on. Doesn't that conflict with the federal framework - that you can possess in home or in place of business with FID card even without a license? You just can't carry it, in operational state, outside either of those two locations....

     

     

    Anyway, it sounds like most of this is damaging for-show stuff, like increased penalties. Especially silly is the notion that increasing the penalty for having a gun while carjacking is going to make anyone safer.

    [/QUOTE]

    In MA one can't obtain/own a handgun without a handgun permit. An FID card is below a handgun license. One can obtain/own a long gun, like a shotgun or hunting rifle with an FID card but not a handgun.

     

    "Especially silly is the notion that increasing the penalty for having a gun while carjacking is going to make anyone safer."

    Does adding stiffer penalty for a hate crime make anyone safer?

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Gov. Patrick signs bill updating state gun laws

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:



    "Especially silly is the notion that increasing the penalty for having a gun while carjacking is going to make anyone safer."


    Does adding stiffer penalty for a hate crime make anyone safer?





    Not all criminal laws are the same. All penalties do not share the same purpose.


    Some crimes punish evil intent. For example, assault with intent to rape and assault with intent to murder carry significantly worse penalties than assault. Another example - Conspiracy crimes are almost purely intent crimes.  And of course life without parole for murder 1 isn't just about deterrence; it's about keeping the person out of society forever. It's also somewhat about intent - premeditation, for example.


    One of the purposes behind hate crimes is to punish the evil intent.


     


     


     


    In contrast, gun laws are some of those whose purpose is simply to make us safer, not about punishing some evil intent.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Gov. Patrick signs bill updating state gun laws

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:



     

    [QUOTE]"Especially silly is the notion that increasing the penalty for having a gun while carjacking is going to make anyone safer."

     

     

    Does adding stiffer penalty for a hate crime make anyone safer?

    [/QUOTE]

     





    Not all criminal laws are the same. All penalties do not share the same purpose.

     

    Some crimes punish evil intent. For example, assault with intent to rape and assault with intent to murder carry significantly worse penalties than assault. Another example - Conspiracy crimes are almost purely intent crimes.  And of course life without parole for murder 1 isn't just about deterrence; it's about keeping the person out of society forever. It's also somewhat about intent - premeditation, for example.

     

    One of the purposes behind hate crimes is to punish the evil intent.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    In contrast, gun laws are some of those whose purpose is simply to make us safer, not about punishing some evil intent.

    [/QUOTE]

    So the harsher penalty for hate crimes doesn't make anyone safer? I asked about hate crimes not assault with intent to rape or murder. I get why those are different. Just like I get why manslaughter is different than 1st degree murder. Pretty simple stuff.

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Gov. Patrick signs bill updating state gun laws

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:


    So the harsher penalty for hate crimes doesn't make anyone safer?


    Deterrence is part of the goal of every law, so yes, part of the purpose of increased penalties in hate crimes is deterrence, and deterrence is supposed to make us safer.


    Is that purpose served with respect to hate crimes? I don't know. That would take an exhaustive analysis of the rate of what are now called hate crimes before and after hate crime laws went into place, controlling for other factors.


    I simply pointed out that unlike most gun laws, deterrence/safety isn't the ONLY purpose in hate crimes.


    I asked about hate crimes not assault with intent to rape or murder. I get why those are different.


    I was not saying they are different.


    Assault with intent to rape/murder are rather similar to hate crimes. They all punish evil intent in addition to the act committed with that intent


    Just like I get why manslaughter is different than 1st degree murder. Pretty simple stuff.


    Then just put it simply:


    Hate crimes punish the evil ("hate") intent with which the crime was committed, but you don't agree that they should do that.





     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Gov. Patrick signs bill updating state gun laws

    Gun control only limits the law abiding.

    hate crimes presuppose that crime is not an act of hate.  How is robbing a black person any worse than robbing a white person?

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Gov. Patrick signs bill updating state gun laws

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Gun control only limits the law abiding.

    hate crimes presuppose that crime is not an act of hate.  How is robbing a black person any worse than robbing a white person?

    [/QUOTE]

    It isn't....to a sane person

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Gov. Patrick signs bill updating state gun laws

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Gun control only limits the law abiding.

    hate crimes presuppose that crime is not an act of hate.  How is robbing a black person any worse than robbing a white person?

    [/QUOTE]

    It isn't....to a sane person

    [/QUOTE]

    So,if they are insane,then the hate stems from an irrational medical condition, not a predisposition to hate a certain group.

    crime is crime.

    "hate" crime is the great I equalizer in punishment.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Gov. Patrick signs bill updating state gun laws

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Gun control only limits the law abiding.

    hate crimes presuppose that crime is not an act of hate.  How is robbing a black person any worse than robbing a white person?

    [/QUOTE]

    It isn't....to a sane person

    [/QUOTE]

    So,if they are insane,then the hate stems from an irrational medical condition, not a predisposition to hate a certain group.

    crime is crime.

    "hate" crime is the great I equalizer in punishment.

    [/QUOTE]

    WHOOSH.....

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Gov. Patrick signs bill updating state gun laws

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    How is robbing a black person any worse than robbing a white person?


    It isn't worse.


    That's why you need evidence that the crime was actually committed with a specific intent to harm a member of a specific minority. That's why these cases involve evidence, for example, that the perpetrators were overheard saying things like "let's get a <racial slur>" shortly before they went out and beat up someone of the race to which the slur pertains.


    By an large, opposition to hate crime laws seems to fall in two categories:


    1. A misunderstanding and/or rejection of the notion that the intent with which an act is committed is a valid consideration in determining appropriate punishment for an act - that was addressed above; or


    2. A largely unfounded opinion that white people are being unfairly victimized by hate crime laws.


    I have no doubt that someone could probably come up with a couple links to things charged at hate crimes that don't sound like they should have been. But then one could just as easily link to cases where the prosecution deliberately overcharged the defendant, and the response isn't going to be "ok, well, let's just get rid of those laws that were used in the overcharging".


     If I were presented with valid evidence of widespread abuse, I would agree to get rid of them. Otherwise, they're no different in concept than punishing assault with intent to rape or assault with intent to murder, or in punishing premeditated murder, more than malice murder, more than heat of passion manslaughter.


     


     


    In response to ronreganfan's comment:


    hate crimes presuppose that crime is not an act of hate.

    Hunting off season isn't a crime of hate.


    Robbery isn't a crime of hate.


    Manslaughter isn't a crime of hate.


    Negligent operation of motor vehicle isn't a crime of hate.


    OUI isn't a crime of hate.


    First degree murder, apart from on a felony murder theory, might somewhat be considered crimes of "hate".


    So, no kidding, hate crime laws presuppose that other crimes are generally not ones of "hate".

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Gov. Patrick signs bill updating state gun laws

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    How is robbing a black person any worse than robbing a white person?

     

    It isn't worse.

     

    That's why you need evidence that the crime was actually committed with a specific intent to harm a member of a specific minority. That's why these cases involve evidence, for example, that the perpetrators were overheard saying things like "let's get a <racial slur>" shortly before they went out and beat up someone of the race to which the slur pertains.

     

    By an large, opposition to hate crime laws seems to fall in two categories:

     

    1. A misunderstanding and/or rejection of the notion that the intent with which an act is committed is a valid consideration in determining appropriate punishment for an act - that was addressed above; or

     

    2. A largely unfounded opinion that white people are being unfairly victimized by hate crime laws.

     

    I have no doubt that someone could probably come up with a couple links to things charged at hate crimes that don't sound like they should have been. But then one could just as easily link to cases where the prosecution deliberately overcharged the defendant, and the response isn't going to be "ok, well, let's just get rid of those laws that were used in the overcharging".

     

     If I were presented with valid evidence of widespread abuse, I would agree to get rid of them. Otherwise, they're no different in concept than punishing assault with intent to rape or assault with intent to murder, or in punishing premeditated murder, more than malice murder, more than heat of passion manslaughter.

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:


    hate crimes presuppose that crime is not an act of hate.

    Hunting off season isn't a crime of hate.

     

    Robbery isn't a crime of hate.

     

    Manslaughter isn't a crime of hate.

     

    Negligent operation of motor vehicle isn't a crime of hate.

     

    OUI isn't a crime of hate.

     

    First degree murder, apart from on a felony murder theory, might somewhat be considered crimes of "hate".

     

    So, no kidding, hate crime laws presuppose that other crimes are generally not ones of "hate".

    [/QUOTE]

    Hate is always in their somewhere.  Or disrespect. Or stupidity.  Why focus on hate? Because it gives liberal elites yet another dimension to tell the black man how much they have big government looking out for them?

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Gov. Patrick signs bill updating state gun laws

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    How is robbing a black person any worse than robbing a white person?

     

    It isn't worse.

     

    That's why you need evidence that the crime was actually committed with a specific intent to harm a member of a specific minority. That's why these cases involve evidence, for example, that the perpetrators were overheard saying things like "let's get a <racial slur>" shortly before they went out and beat up someone of the race to which the slur pertains.

     

    By an large, opposition to hate crime laws seems to fall in two categories:

     

    1. A misunderstanding and/or rejection of the notion that the intent with which an act is committed is a valid consideration in determining appropriate punishment for an act - that was addressed above; or

     

    2. A largely unfounded opinion that white people are being unfairly victimized by hate crime laws.

     

    I have no doubt that someone could probably come up with a couple links to things charged at hate crimes that don't sound like they should have been. But then one could just as easily link to cases where the prosecution deliberately overcharged the defendant, and the response isn't going to be "ok, well, let's just get rid of those laws that were used in the overcharging".

     

     If I were presented with valid evidence of widespread abuse, I would agree to get rid of them. Otherwise, they're no different in concept than punishing assault with intent to rape or assault with intent to murder, or in punishing premeditated murder, more than malice murder, more than heat of passion manslaughter.

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:


    hate crimes presuppose that crime is not an act of hate.

    Hunting off season isn't a crime of hate.

     

    Robbery isn't a crime of hate.

     

    Manslaughter isn't a crime of hate.

     

    Negligent operation of motor vehicle isn't a crime of hate.

     

    OUI isn't a crime of hate.

     

    First degree murder, apart from on a felony murder theory, might somewhat be considered crimes of "hate".

     

    So, no kidding, hate crime laws presuppose that other crimes are generally not ones of "hate".

    [/QUOTE]

    Hate is always in their somewhere.  Or disrespect. Or stupidity.  Why focus on hate? Because it gives liberal elites yet another dimension to tell the black man how much they have big government looking out for them?

    [/QUOTE]


    Ok, so a weak dodge and no direct response. Again. Got it.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Gov. Patrick signs bill updating state gun laws

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    How is robbing a black person any worse than robbing a white person?

     

    It isn't worse.

     

    That's why you need evidence that the crime was actually committed with a specific intent to harm a member of a specific minority. That's why these cases involve evidence, for example, that the perpetrators were overheard saying things like "let's get a <racial slur>" shortly before they went out and beat up someone of the race to which the slur pertains.

     

    By an large, opposition to hate crime laws seems to fall in two categories:

     

    1. A misunderstanding and/or rejection of the notion that the intent with which an act is committed is a valid consideration in determining appropriate punishment for an act - that was addressed above; or

     

    2. A largely unfounded opinion that white people are being unfairly victimized by hate crime laws.

     

    I have no doubt that someone could probably come up with a couple links to things charged at hate crimes that don't sound like they should have been. But then one could just as easily link to cases where the prosecution deliberately overcharged the defendant, and the response isn't going to be "ok, well, let's just get rid of those laws that were used in the overcharging".

     

     If I were presented with valid evidence of widespread abuse, I would agree to get rid of them. Otherwise, they're no different in concept than punishing assault with intent to rape or assault with intent to murder, or in punishing premeditated murder, more than malice murder, more than heat of passion manslaughter.

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:


    hate crimes presuppose that crime is not an act of hate.

    Hunting off season isn't a crime of hate.

     

    Robbery isn't a crime of hate.

     

    Manslaughter isn't a crime of hate.

     

    Negligent operation of motor vehicle isn't a crime of hate.

     

    OUI isn't a crime of hate.

     

    First degree murder, apart from on a felony murder theory, might somewhat be considered crimes of "hate".

     

    So, no kidding, hate crime laws presuppose that other crimes are generally not ones of "hate".

    [/QUOTE]

    Hate is always in their somewhere.  Or disrespect. Or stupidity.  Why focus on hate? Because it gives liberal elites yet another dimension to tell the black man how much they have big government looking out for them?

    [/QUOTE]


    Ok, so a weak dodge and no direct response. Again. Got it.

    [/QUOTE]

    Sorry you don't see that as a direct response.  I think it is pretty direct.

    i guess if it doesn't suit your ideology, you pretend to not understand the point.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Gov. Patrick signs bill updating state gun laws

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Sorry you don't see that as a direct response.  I think it is pretty direct.

    i guess if it doesn't suit your ideology, you pretend to not understand the point.

    [/QUOTE]

    My, you are well practiced in accusing other people of doing what you are doing, even as you are doing it.

    Bravo.

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Gov. Patrick signs bill updating state gun laws

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Sorry you don't see that as a direct response.  I think it is pretty direct.

    i guess if it doesn't suit your ideology, you pretend to not understand the point.

    [/QUOTE]

    My, you are well practiced in accusing other people of doing what you are doing, even as you are doing it.

    Bravo.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I feel sorry for you. Stop being so angry and accusatory of everyone. It is not compelling.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Gov. Patrick signs bill updating state gun laws

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Sorry you don't see that as a direct response.  I think it is pretty direct.

    i guess if it doesn't suit your ideology, you pretend to not understand the point.

    [/QUOTE]

    My, you are well practiced in accusing other people of doing what you are doing, even as you are doing it.

    Bravo.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Honestly...if RRF doesn't understand the difference between a 'Hate Crime' and an average criminal offense, it's not worth having the debate. It's really a very easy concept to understand.

    You burn someone's house down because you don't like them? That's a crime.

    You burn someone's house down because of the color of their skin, their ethnicity or their religious beliefs? That's a hate crime.

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from xXR3S1NXx. Show xXR3S1NXx's posts

    Re: Gov. Patrick signs bill updating state gun laws

    In response to miscricket's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Sorry you don't see that as a direct response.  I think it is pretty direct.

    i guess if it doesn't suit your ideology, you pretend to not understand the point.

    [/QUOTE]

    My, you are well practiced in accusing other people of doing what you are doing, even as you are doing it.

    Bravo.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Honestly...if RRF doesn't understand the difference between a 'Hate Crime' and an average criminal offense, it's not worth having the debate. It's really a very easy concept to understand.

    You burn someone's house down because you don't like them? That's a crime.

    You burn someone's house down because of the color of their skin, their ethnicity or their religious beliefs? That's a hate crime.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Except when its black on white then it's just another crime. When its white on black then it's a hate crime. 

     

    Case in point. 

     

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/12/jesse-jackson-white-boy-bus-beating-its-hard-make-/

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Gov. Patrick signs bill updating state gun laws

    I think we'd need more of a systemic analysis to reach that conclusion...

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Gov. Patrick signs bill updating state gun laws

    In response to miscricket's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Sorry you don't see that as a direct response.  I think it is pretty direct.

    i guess if it doesn't suit your ideology, you pretend to not understand the point.

    [/QUOTE]

    My, you are well practiced in accusing other people of doing what you are doing, even as you are doing it.

    Bravo.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Honestly...if RRF doesn't understand the difference between a 'Hate Crime' and an average criminal offense, it's not worth having the debate. It's really a very easy concept to understand.

    You burn someone's house down because you don't like them? That's a crime.

    You burn someone's house down because of the color of their skin, their ethnicity or their religious beliefs? That's a hate crime.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    So, the person who burns your house down because they don't like you: no hate there?

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Gov. Patrick signs bill updating state gun laws

    Say "derp" louder.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Gov. Patrick signs bill updating state gun laws

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to miscricket's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Sorry you don't see that as a direct response.  I think it is pretty direct.

    i guess if it doesn't suit your ideology, you pretend to not understand the point.

    [/QUOTE]

    My, you are well practiced in accusing other people of doing what you are doing, even as you are doing it.

    Bravo.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Honestly...if RRF doesn't understand the difference between a 'Hate Crime' and an average criminal offense, it's not worth having the debate. It's really a very easy concept to understand.

    You burn someone's house down because you don't like them? That's a crime.

    You burn someone's house down because of the color of their skin, their ethnicity or their religious beliefs? That's a hate crime.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    So, the person who burns your house down because they don't like you: no hate there?

    [/QUOTE]


    Okay..I'll bite. There's a difference. Care to guess what it is?

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Gov. Patrick signs bill updating state gun laws

    In response to miscricket's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Sorry you don't see that as a direct response.  I think it is pretty direct.

    i guess if it doesn't suit your ideology, you pretend to not understand the point.

    [/QUOTE]

    My, you are well practiced in accusing other people of doing what you are doing, even as you are doing it.

    Bravo.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Honestly...if RRF doesn't understand the difference between a 'Hate Crime' and an average criminal offense, it's not worth having the debate. It's really a very easy concept to understand.

    You burn someone's house down because you don't like them? That's a crime.

    You burn someone's house down because of the color of their skin, their ethnicity or their religious beliefs? That's a hate crime.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Respectfully I don't understand why one is just a crime and the other is a hate crime. In either case someone burned someone's house down. Why is one worse than the other? Why does the reason make it worse? Why should the punishment for burning my house down be less than burning a black persons house down? Is that black person more important than me? Maybe I'm dense and just don't get it....wouldn't be the first time : )

     

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Gov. Patrick signs bill updating state gun laws

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to miscricket's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Sorry you don't see that as a direct response.  I think it is pretty direct.

    i guess if it doesn't suit your ideology, you pretend to not understand the point.

    [/QUOTE]

    My, you are well practiced in accusing other people of doing what you are doing, even as you are doing it.

    Bravo.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Honestly...if RRF doesn't understand the difference between a 'Hate Crime' and an average criminal offense, it's not worth having the debate. It's really a very easy concept to understand.

    You burn someone's house down because you don't like them? That's a crime.

    You burn someone's house down because of the color of their skin, their ethnicity or their religious beliefs? That's a hate crime.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Respectfully I don't understand why one is just a crime and the other is a hate crime. In either case someone burned someone's house down. Why is one worse than the other? Why does the reason make it worse? Why should the punishment for burning my house down be less than burning a black persons house down? Is that black person more important than me? Maybe I'm dense and just don't get it....wouldn't be the first time : )

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    You are not dense..lol...far from it! I can see it from your point of view too...believe me.  It has to do with intent.and I think to some extent civil rights. If you burn a black persons house down because you don't like him as a person...that's a crime. But..if you burn a black person's house down simply because he's black, well that seems like an evil intent which should carry a higher punishment. I think this is why prosecutors are very careful to ascertain intent before they charge with a hate crime. In ordinary circumstances there is no difference...but when someone does something to someone based on the color of their skin, their religious beliefs etc. then there should be a higher punishment.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from hypertext. Show hypertext's posts

    Re: Gov. Patrick signs bill updating state gun laws

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to miscricket's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Sorry you don't see that as a direct response.  I think it is pretty direct.

    i guess if it doesn't suit your ideology, you pretend to not understand the point.

    [/QUOTE]

    My, you are well practiced in accusing other people of doing what you are doing, even as you are doing it.

    Bravo.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Honestly...if RRF doesn't understand the difference between a 'Hate Crime' and an average criminal offense, it's not worth having the debate. It's really a very easy concept to understand.

    You burn someone's house down because you don't like them? That's a crime.

    You burn someone's house down because of the color of their skin, their ethnicity or their religious beliefs? That's a hate crime.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Respectfully I don't understand why one is just a crime and the other is a hate crime. In either case someone burned someone's house down. Why is one worse than the other? Why does the reason make it worse? Why should the punishment for burning my house down be less than burning a black persons house down? Is that black person more important than me? Maybe I'm dense and just don't get it....wouldn't be the first time : )

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, there could be various differences. Arson has various "reasons". For example, one might burn down a property for insurance "reasons". One might burn down a house because their "reason" was that they hated the individual that resided in it. Another might burn down a house simply because they had mental "reasons" that had no baring on who the occupant was nor of any financial gain to be gotten.

    There is crime. And it's judged for various reasons with varying results/punishment. 

    Do you think that operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol/drugs should be judged by the same metric as an individual who simply doesn't know how to drive? No! There's a different judgement involved, isn't there? 

     

     

Share