This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Motivation to kill

Motivation to kill - Comments

Rich Wiltshir's Avatar Comment 1 by Rich Wiltshir

And these religions are worthy of respect?

Mon, 06 Jun 2011 07:17:24 UTC | #634591

josephor's Avatar Comment 2 by josephor

He told the police that his Bible would explain his motivation.

Yes indeed an "All caring and loving God" sent this particular fuckwit on a mission to kill people.

I find it morbidly ironic that the religious are generally considered to be “pro-life”. Their actions, whether actively killing people or just making it easier for other people to do so, is anything but pro-life.

Very well put. A nutjob on a mission from an imaginary friend rarely makes sense to rational people, but I'm sure he'll be a celebrity amongst his brethren like Paul Hill or James Kopp were.

Mon, 06 Jun 2011 07:49:56 UTC | #634604

zengardener's Avatar Comment 3 by zengardener

The Righteous can justify anything.

Mon, 06 Jun 2011 08:02:25 UTC | #634606

Peter Watkinson's Avatar Comment 4 by Peter Watkinson

Along the same lines as zengardener @ 3.

One of the things that frightens me most about mankind is man’s ability to justify whatever they want to do.

Peter

Mon, 06 Jun 2011 08:18:28 UTC | #634609

Stevehill's Avatar Comment 5 by Stevehill

The acid test here is whether the sentence he gets for planning this atrocity is equivalent to that which would be imposed on say a Muslim caught planning (but not carrying out) an equivalent act of terrorism.

If America is not prepared to say that Land is a terrorist, and will be treated as such, America has a real problem.

23 years seems about right.

Or possibly life.

Mon, 06 Jun 2011 08:47:48 UTC | #634617

Hammert1me's Avatar Comment 6 by Hammert1me

One can infer that perhaps the concealed firearms bill was pushed by medical professionals who are terrified of deluded self-aggrandised hypocrites. At least they can now defend themselves.

Terrorist? Unfortunately, in 1994 the US defined terrorism as "the unlawful use of force or violence, committed by a group(s) of two or more individuals, against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."

Two or more individuals.

The newer Patriot act states "(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."

So now a single person can be prosecuted alone. The challenge here is to prove that his actions were intended to shift the policy of the US population on abortion. He wasn't attempting to influence the US government. Coerce the civilians perhaps? I'm no lawyer.

Mon, 06 Jun 2011 09:31:47 UTC | #634626

Phen's Avatar Comment 7 by Phen

Terrorism; The act of murder and/or destruction, almost exclusively influenced by a particular religious doctrine.

That's what I think of when I hear the word terrorism, so it would be terrible if this guy got away with something like conspiracy to kill. It really amazes me how some fundamentalists are blinded to their own hypocrisy. I'd be interested to know what the general consensus is among the religious locals, are people disturbed by these occurrences dispite their disagreements or is this guy regarded as a martyr?

Mon, 06 Jun 2011 11:35:51 UTC | #634654

crookedshoes's Avatar Comment 8 by crookedshoes

how can you be pro life AND pro gun?

Mon, 06 Jun 2011 12:17:04 UTC | #634674

Stevehill's Avatar Comment 9 by Stevehill

how can you be pro life AND pro gun?

Withe Jesus, everything is possible!

Mon, 06 Jun 2011 12:24:56 UTC | #634678

Bishopess's Avatar Comment 10 by Bishopess

Lock him up forever for safety and LIFE of human beings. He is terrorist. Treat him as such.

Mon, 06 Jun 2011 12:48:12 UTC | #634691

Alexandreina's Avatar Comment 11 by Alexandreina

While this may not, unfortunately, be able to be prosecuted under terrorism laws one would hope it would be considered a hate crime. I personally think any time an act of violence is perpetrated in the name of religion it ought to be regarded as a hate crime and the additional punishments administered accordingly.

Mon, 06 Jun 2011 13:04:15 UTC | #634700

DocWebster's Avatar Comment 12 by DocWebster

Wow, a concealed weapon with no training. That's like making a four year old use a chainsaw, drunk. Something ugly is gonna happen quickly. I get it now though, it's the Republican's ham-handed attempt at population control. Make people desperate as hell, give them guns, then hole-up and wait for the dust to settle. When us peons finish killing each other out of rage the rich and wily will have all the leftovers.

Mon, 06 Jun 2011 13:52:31 UTC | #634726

Hellboy2's Avatar Comment 13 by Hellboy2

'Justifiable homicide' - only from the warped, evil minds of the insanely religious would you find a remark like that. How on earth do they reconcile 'Thou shalt not kill' with this sort of mentality?

I agree with Alexandreina (comment 11) - this should be regarded as a hate crime. But, again, religion holds all the 'get out of jail free' cards in regards these sort of matters....

Mon, 06 Jun 2011 14:52:36 UTC | #634764

skiles1's Avatar Comment 14 by skiles1

Number of times the Bible refers to abortion as a form of murder or a sin: Zero.

I think the abortion issue is just a way to organize Christians, to have them all voting alike. They wield more power that way. But it should be obvious that you can't murder something that doesn't have brain development enough to impel it's own heartbeat, if it even has a heart yet.

2nd Amendment issues are delicate. The right to bear arms is a part of our government's system of checks and balances. An armed citizenry might be able to overthrow a corrupt government, and that's why a right to bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights. However, "arms" could be anything from a penknife to a nuclear missile, so obviously you have to draw the line somewhere. I actually think the line is drawn at a good place with it being drawn at assault rifles.

There's nothing in the 2nd amendment which says that arms should or shouldn't be concealed, nor whether people should have training in how to use their arms. But to make it so that people need permits to carry concealed weapons and must have firearms safety classes doesn't necessarily infringe upon their right to bear arms, so I support such measures, so long as they are handled delicately, with much oversight by the general public.

If you really want a laugh, check out this recent video wherein Sarah Palin (GOP presidential candidate) explains that Paul Revere went on his famous ride not to warn Americans that the British were coming, but to warn the British that we weren't going to give up our yet nonexistent right to bear arms.

Mon, 06 Jun 2011 18:26:59 UTC | #634858

RomeStu's Avatar Comment 15 by RomeStu

pro-life right up until the moment of birth - then you're on your own.

And if the poor uneducated teenage mother, who never had any kind of sex-ed at her school, might need welfare to raise the poor child, well then she's just a damn sponger! And if the kid grows up to be anything other than a perfect god-fearing pseudo-christian ..... well, no surprise - he's the product of an evil single mom.

They make me sick with their hypocrisy and hatred.

Mon, 06 Jun 2011 20:21:05 UTC | #634951

RomeStu's Avatar Comment 16 by RomeStu

I perfer the right to BARE ARMS

Mon, 06 Jun 2011 20:24:06 UTC | #634955

Steve Hanson's Avatar Comment 17 by Steve Hanson

@Comment 8 by crookedshoes

how can you be pro life AND pro gun?

I'm not "anti-gun", although "gun" is technically an incorrect term. I own a rifle myself (an M1 Garand). I was once in the Army, and have a deep respect for firearms. I like shooting them (at targets) for fun. I have never hunted anything (unless you want to count humans, but that's not the best way of describing it). I collect swords and knives too. I believe in responsible ownership of these weapons. There are certainly plenty of firearms (and other weapons) that people simply do not need to own. There are a lot of NRA nuts that take it to a ridiculous extreme, who seemingly don't want any kind of precautions or legal protective measure whatsoever.

I do not think anyone like this guy should ever be allowed anywhere near a firearm. I think background checks should always be a must, no matter what kind of firearm it is. I think anyone who is going to own a firearm should go through a ton of safety training for it. I think the open carry law my state has is ridiculous. There is such a thing as responsible ownership of firearms, so let's not lump everyone together. Besides, there are times when lethal force is justified, namely in the defense of an innocent life (but only when necessary, a requirement some people seem to forget).

Mon, 06 Jun 2011 21:08:26 UTC | #634984

Scruddy Bleensaver's Avatar Comment 18 by Scruddy Bleensaver

Comment 8 by crookedshoes :

how can you be pro life AND pro gun?

The same way we have another amusing hybrid here -- the Christian capitalist. I don't think they've read their Bible much, or else they'd realise that both Free-market Jesus and mention of abortion are missing from that book.

Mon, 06 Jun 2011 23:14:33 UTC | #635057

Steve Hanson's Avatar Comment 19 by Steve Hanson

@Scruddy Bleensaver

That's true. The Jesus figure was definitely pro poverty, so they look to the Old Testament to justify their capitalist ideals.

Tue, 07 Jun 2011 02:01:48 UTC | #635120

crookedshoes's Avatar Comment 20 by crookedshoes

Steve Hanson, I agree with your post and think there are many many responsible gun owners. However, there is a faction that is so over the top pro gun that they want society to be like the wild wild west. I certainly do not lump all gun owners into any category. When the ones that are gung-ho gun nuts are also gung-ho pro lifers, I really find the hypocrisy palpable. They seem to see no problem with the contradiction. I do.

Tue, 07 Jun 2011 11:54:26 UTC | #635285

ste Weiler's Avatar Comment 21 by ste Weiler

Religion is far from worthy of respect!!if you aske me,i personally think they are all partially crazy,just some more that others!!i highly doubt anybody is fully sane that doesnt except the reality that deitys dont exist!!

Tue, 07 Jun 2011 22:44:26 UTC | #635678

Sparkasaurusmex's Avatar Comment 22 by Sparkasaurusmex

Pro life and Pro gun. The problem with seeing this as an oxymoron is that one has to assume that "gun" means "death" I love and respect life (and also a woman's right to choose) and own a shotgun, which I've used many times to shoot clay pigeons and tin cans. Guns are just things, not and end to life.

Wed, 08 Jun 2011 16:16:41 UTC | #636008

BeanSlap's Avatar Comment 23 by BeanSlap

Theres this weird pro-terrorist anti-abortion rights video thats about a Black man who goes around and shoots all these abortion doctors because he thinks abortion is trying to genocide out the Black population. The movie is titled, "Gates of Hell" and the director while caring oh so much about blastocysts and the like has no problem supporting stonings of homosexuals in Uganda. He says the Bible supports it and that its against multi-culturalism to oppose them stoning homosexuals to death. Of course if they were blastocysts he'd be opposed to it. I dont think the same dude would be thinking its against multi-culturalism to try and stop the terrorism of Christians in Muslim dominated parts of the world but thats what makes him a hypocritical monster of a loser. Also his movie FX are cheesy and corny sort of like Christian rock music.

Thu, 09 Jun 2011 15:42:28 UTC | #636437

educationsaves's Avatar Comment 24 by educationsaves

My sisters son had a T shirt that he used to wear when he was in Texas. I have to give a little background first , we live in Ontario Canada and here it is legal for a woman to go topless if she so desires - equal rights and all. In Texas it is legal to bear arms, so while living in Texas he wore a T shirt that said " The right to bear arms or the right to bare breasts - Where would you rather live?"

Wed, 15 Jun 2011 02:38:59 UTC | #638666