[CLUE-Talk] Bowling for Columbine

[Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier]

On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Randy Arabie wrote:

*snip*

> IMHO, the "hate-crime" distinction is silly.  If someone commits a violent
> act against someone, there is probably already a law in place to handle
> the crime.  Why should there be another?  How is it different if you
> kill someone based on their political view as opposed to their sexual
> preference?  IOW, killing libertarian political candidates becuase they
> are libertarian would not be a hate crime, but killing gay men because
> they are gay would be a hate crime.  I don't get it.

Well, that's another debate altogether. I'm just refuting the idea that
being rude to gun proponents constitutes any kind of "hate-crime" by
the definition of the term.

Is it silly to have a law that makes it an additional crime to
commit violence against someone because of their race or sexual
preference, rather than commiting violence just because you don't
like someone's attitude or just because? Yeah, I think it is. It's
political correctness gone too far.

The motivation behind the crime shouldn't really matter. If you
murder someone, you should be punished for murder, period.

I understand the motivation behind the hate-crime laws, but we
really shouldn't need them. I agree, the existing laws should be
sufficient to cover violent crimes already.

But, we have a habit of trying to pass legislation anytime there's
a new societal problem that gets a bunch of people worked up.

Zonker
--
Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/