Panty thief says religion made him sick
Sung Koo Kim, the Tigard man who was sentenced yesterday to four years in prison and 18 months in jail for stealing more than 3,000 bras and panties, said "I lived all my life in isolation, in a lonely religious prison, deprived of friends, love, intimacy, and happiness."
Religion may have played a role in Kim's sickness, but there's a lot more to the story than that. In addition to the bras and panties, investigators found in Kim's home seven assault rifles and computers containing 40,000 images of women being mutilated, raped, and dismembered.
Seven assault rifles? Forty-thousand images of women being horribly abused? These are evidence not only of Kim's sickness, but of the sickness of society as a whole. Where did he get those rifles and those images? Why do those rifles and images even exist? We know one person who was sick enough to want to own them, but what about the people who created them? Aren't they just as sick, if not sicker?
Religion may have played a role in Kim's sickness, but there's a lot more to the story than that. In addition to the bras and panties, investigators found in Kim's home seven assault rifles and computers containing 40,000 images of women being mutilated, raped, and dismembered.
Seven assault rifles? Forty-thousand images of women being horribly abused? These are evidence not only of Kim's sickness, but of the sickness of society as a whole. Where did he get those rifles and those images? Why do those rifles and images even exist? We know one person who was sick enough to want to own them, but what about the people who created them? Aren't they just as sick, if not sicker?
posted by Editor at Large at 9:03 AM
10 Comments:
ON NO, SEVEN ASSAULT RIFLES?!
Pesky thing, that Constitution, allowing us to own those nasty evil guns that sneak out at night and kill people without any intervention from their owners.
Damn libtards.
Oh that's right - I forgot about that provision in the Constitution giving us the right to bear assault rifles...and rocket launchers...and bombs...and nuclear weapons. But you're right - assault rifles don't kill people, people with assault rifles kill people.
Or are they made for hunting deer?
Ah yes. The old "nuclear weapons" argument.
Get real.
Temporarily accepting the libtard definition of "assault rifle" to be any evil scary looking military-styled rifle, the rifles recovered weren't all "assault rifles". 3 of them were bolt-action hunting rifles, and one or two of them were shotguns.
But, we can't allow silly little things like facts to get in the way of our yellow journalism, now, can we?
Whatever happened to punishing people for committing a crime, rather than punishing them because they might commit a crime?
Given that more men commit rape than women, perhaps we legislate that all men are to make a sperm-donation (for reproductive reasons) at puberty, and then report for mandatory penis and testicle removal, since if they have a penis, they're capable of rape, and removal of the testicles will cease testosterone production, hence no more big bad evil male urges towards violence?
Or is that going to far?
Ah yes. The old "castration" argument. Unfortunately, it fails to address contraception of libtards, like us. Perhaps our brains should be removed when we become educated?
Since you're such a stickler for checking facts, you might want to re-read the blog entry in question. We never said Mr. Kim was - or should be - punished for doing something legal. Rather, we raised the question of why people in this society feel a need to create - and possess - such violent weapons and images. We don't buy the argument that it's all because of testosterone, because obviously, most men don't shoot people or mutilate, rape, or dismember women.
So why is it? And further, why do some people, such as yourself, view such violence as normal and acceptable, simply because it's legal?
Because I am pro-gun, and felt compelled to comment on the anti-gun spew posted here, I view violence as normal and acceptable.
Such a beautiful ad-hominem attack. I wondered when you'd pull that out.
You are very obviously (and irrationally) anti-gun. Your tone and your comments illustrate such.
You question why people feel the need to create and possess violent weapons and images.
Let me first say that I really don't have an answer for the whole violent images bit - I'm not debating that part of the matter. My tastes in pornographic material are of "normal" heterosexual and non-fetishist fare, so I cannot comment on why one person or another would prefer such content.
Per the firearms, or should I say, violent weapons, I enjoy shooting. It's fun. Why do people buy cars that they intend to use primarily for transportation, that have the capacity to exceed a speed of 75mph, knowing that there are few (if any) places that they can legally drive such speeds? Because they can, and because they're fun.
Obviously, there's a large group of people in this nation that believe that civilian ownership of firearms is something that is needed and should be preserved - I, of course, am one of these people, but it all keeps coming back to my personal enjoyment of the shooting sports.
I collect firearms. I regularly shoot them.
You say that you don't believe that testosterone is the cause of male violence, because most men don't shoot people, or mutilate, rape or dismember women.
I guess I need to ask why you're anti-gun, because, obviously, most gun owners don't shoot or kill people - with or without firearms.
Let's examine a bit of data here, quickly.
I'm going to use data from the year 2002 for my example, as it's easy to obtain quickly from Google, and the numbers aren't going to be too much off from current statistics.
The CDC (Center for Disease Control) shows that there were 30,242 firearms-related deaths in the United States in 2002.
This is inclusive of suicide, murder, accidental death and law enforcement-related deaths.
The United States Census Bureau shows an estimated population in the U.S. of 287,941,220 for 2002.
Without any tally of how many people were responsible for the 30,242 firearms-related deaths, let's assume a worse-case scenario of 1:1 (1 person responsible for 1 death), so 30,242 "bad people".
That means that a wee bit more than one-hundredth of one percent of the population of the United States was responsible for this violence.
According to National Institute of Justice statistics for 1994, 44 million citizens owned firearms.
30,242 is almost seven-hundredths of one percent of the population. We know that the ownership of firearms has increased since 1994, but we should be able to agree that it hasn't doubled. Assuming that it has doubled, that would be a little more than three-hundredths of one percent of the population.
A microscoping percentage of the population is responsible for the violence and crime involving firearms.
It's been argued that any violence or death involving firearms is too much, and hence, we should ban private ownership of firearms.
Would you trade one form of violence and death for another form of violence and death that would yield more casualties and fatalities?
England has done so. Australia has done so.
Since banning or heavily restricting private ownership of firearms, violent crime rates have skyrocketed in these countries.
In Australia, they've been "forced" to ban swords and bladed "weapons", because violence-prone criminals have moved onto other means to commit their violence.
In England, they've bandied about banning long sharp knives with a point from everyone, arguing that there's not even a culinary purpose to some forms of knives widely used in the culinary industry - all in a misguided attempt to curb the violence that they've created by disallowing a person the best means by which to defend themselves.
With that in mind, why are you against private ownership of firearms? Do you have any logical reason whatsoever?
Right on, Editor. America's obsession with weaponry is a sad, unfortunate legacy of our pioneer past. It has no place in the modern world, which is why most civilized countries (all of Europe, Japan etc.) have strict gun laws. Oh, and now, San Francisco!
Nobody wants to take away your fun, gun nut. Shooting for sport can exist (there are plenty of gun clubs in the UK, for example) but if there is ever a serious Supreme Court challenge to the Second Amendment, I believe even a conservative court would support the people's right to restrict an individual's right to a firearm. Obviously, thousands of Western gun nutz agree - why else have they formed "state militias"?
Here's hoping the Court never restricts the right to collect (rightfully procured) lingerie, however!
I think Kim's sudden contrition will net him reduced sentences in the other counties. But, I don't feel comfortable at the thought of him back out in the general population at all. I believe that our fellow blogger Joseph Duncan has again proven sexual psychopaths don't lose their obsessions while they are prison. It is possible that Kim could be released a decade from now ready to act.
Alrighty...
First, I'll address "Zeroes and Ones".
Because the framers never anticipated advances in firearms technologies beyond what they had in those days, the 2nd Amendment only protects the right to bear muskets.
Alternately, we could examine speech clause of the 1st Amendment in the same light -
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Interpreted as your so-called "intellectually honest, consistent conservative" would, that clause protects nothing but the right to speak publicly or privately, or via a hand-operated paper printing press.
Because, they never say anything about automatic printing presses, radio media, television media or the Internet, or anything like that, so it follows that in the interest of public order, if Congress or the several states wanted to regulate free expression on any of these forms of media, they'd be free to do so up to the point that they infringe on public speaking or the use of a hand-operated press (and the distribution of it's product).
You tell me it does a disservice to anyone who's lost a loved one in a firearm-related death by minimizing the small percentage, the 30,242 people who died in 2002 from firearms.
How about your inferred minimization of the 45,579 deaths related to motor vehicles in 2002 (Once again, source is the CDC)? That's 66% MORE people who died by a motor vehicle than who died by firearms.
We can argue about the 2nd Amendment until the cows come home, but the one thing we can't argue about is the fact that there is absolutely no provision in the Constitution or any of it's Amendments that gives anyone a "right" to own or operate a motor vehicle. Motor vehicles killed 66% more people in 2002, yet, strangely, you don't propose heavy restrictions on their use, their ownership, their legality. There's no leftist legislation that would limit a car to a certain speed, a certain fuel-capacity, anything like that.
Oh, I'm sure you'll come up with some reason to defend the use and ownership of motor vehicles, and how it's oh-so-different than firearms, but the fact remains - they kill more people, there's no "right" to have them, and by your anti-fireams voice, your silence regarding motor vehicle deaths, and your apparent choice to ignore such, you minimize the deaths of those 45,579 people.
Now, to address the other "anonymous" poster:
You bring up these so-called "civilized" countries who have strict gun laws, but you ignore my comment of how some of those same countries have violent crime and murder rates higher than that of the US.
The UK Home Office commissioned "British Crime Survey", and information from the Australian Bureau of Statistics proves what I'm saying - yet, because those deaths and violence don't involve firearms like they do in the US, you ignore them, because it doesn't fit your flawed argument.
Oh, and don't even start on that "collective right" vs. "individual right" nonsense. You'd somehow apply a collective right to the 2nd Amendment, but refuse to apply such to the other amendments, which are all clearly an individual right. The "people" in the 1st Amendment are the same "people" in the 2nd Amendment, my friend.
Some nice arguments here...
Perhaps, just perhaps, the constitution does not apply to today, but the day it was written. Today we live under all kinds of laws in a reality that was unforseen by the writers of the constitutiuon. So we can assume they did not see todays situation of mass electronic media and retarded amounts of people with weapons? Maybe.
Regardless, places where there are a lot of guns, USA Columbia, Iraq etc, a lot of people die. Is living where a lot of people die a good thing?
1/3rd of the total fatalities from cars and guns can be eliminated if the admendments were simply seen as a relic of their day. In the future, we can try to get rid of the other 2/3rds as well.
http://www.nothingtoxic.com/media/1142521455/Family_Guy_Right_to_Bear_Arms
Post a Comment
<< Home