[Archived] Gun Law Debate: Please keep posts civil and conversational

[Jeru tha Damaja]

I'm sure most of those living in "gangland America" would love to virtually eliminate their chances of getting shot and move out, but when a significant proportion of them are forced to work two or three minimum wage jobs just to keep their small apartments in crappy neighbourhoods I just don't think it's on the cards.

In Chicago, the city with arguably the biggest problem, around a quarter of the population lives in what the US government would term poverty. In Atlanta, another troubled area, the figure is 20%. I guess they're just going to have to live with the fact that they might get shot because they're too poor to move and we can't change the gun laws because the good people of Mohave County need completely unrestricted access to weapons so they can defend themselves against the violent criminals that apparently aren't there.

As for the drug problem, I just don't understand how the US could possibly still be suffering from that. I mean, the War on Drugs was launched a couple of decades back and having violated the sovereignty of Panama, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Colombia and Honduras you'd think there must have been some sort of result. Surely not all of the billions that Washington has spent on that particular crusade have been wasted on training and funding terrorists or propping up dictators, and the days of the CIA selling drugs to fund some of their more dubious activities almost certainly ended with Oliver North.

Ahh heck, I'm just glad the War on Terror is going so much better...

[dave birch]

Jeru, Without disagreeing with you too much, just how would you resolve the "problem", given that it's not "your" country, and that you don't have a vote there.

Surely, the voters of the US have the right to say how their country is run, no matter what the rest of the world thinks.

[Guest Norbert]

They do, just as we're perfectly entitled to say that this love of guns is a bit mental and unbalanced (that's almost a new slogan for Fox News).

[Steve Moss]

Most people would look at this and think you were mentally unbalanced.

Perhaps its a sign of my mental imbalance when I wonder why states such as Vermont, which have virtually no restrictions on firearms, have lower murder rates than England? I may be imbalanced in analyzing the data, but it appears to me that laws restricting (or not restricting) firearms have very little to do with murder rates and that other factors (such as poverty, mental health screening and treatment, and education) play a far greater role.

But then again attempting to employ rationale thought on issues of public policy is likely just another sign of my imbalance.

By the way Jim, do you have a link to your claim that a 116,000 children over 30 years (almost 4,000/year) have died due to guns in the USA? The closest data I can find supporting your number defines children as including adults (termed young people) up through 24 years of age and includes suicides (by far the biggest block). Which essentially means that to make the numbers work: 1) the criminal is being counted as the victim; and, 2) it's the guns fault that someone decided to kill themselves.

When it comes to actual children (as opposed to the inflated "young people" category), the death rate via firearm seems to be one every three days, which would result in a far lower number than your 116,000. Still horrific but not the exaggerated number you floated.

I look forward to your link so I can look at the numbers. I'm quite willing to be proved wrong on the issue, so please provide the actual source.

[jim mk2]

You presumably couldn't be bothered to look at the link to the Financial Times article.

[Steve Moss]

The link requires me to register, which I decline to do. However I can see the headline uses the word "young" not children, which implies that it is using those over 18 to get to the numbers you've suggested.

[jim mk2]

Sorry to disappoint you.

In the past 30 years, more than 116,000 children and teenagers have been
killed by firearms. That is 3,800 young people – or 190 tragedies such
as December’s attack at Newtown – each year. Another 15,000 are injured
annually.

You should subscribe to the FT. You might learn something.

[Mike E]

Sorry to disappoint you.

In the past 30 years, more than 116,000 children and teenagers have been

killed by firearms. That is 3,800 young people – or 190 tragedies such

as December’s attack at Newtown – each year. Another 15,000 are injured

annually.

You should subscribe to the FT. You might learn something.

While I agree with you Jim, there's no need for that last line.

[Steve Moss]

Sorry to disappoint you.

In the past 30 years, more than 116,000 children and teenagers have been

killed by firearms. That is 3,800 young people – or 190 tragedies such

as December’s attack at Newtown – each year. Another 15,000 are injured

annually.

You should subscribe to the FT. You might learn something.

I might.

I might also discovery that the only way you get to your number is if you include teen suicides and teen gang activity and you add up the last 30 years. As it stands now, the lat year recorded (2010) is the lowest year on record despite many states lifting their restrictions on firearm ownership, possession and carrying: http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/?q=node/174

Per the same data, a black teen is 22 times more likely and a hispanic teen is 9 times more likely to be the victim of a homicide than a white teen.

Considering that a white person is more than twice as likely to own a firearm as a black person (http://www.project.org/info.php?recordID=272), and that a conservative is twice as likely to own a firearm than a liberal (http://www.gallup.com/poll/160223/men-married-southerners-likely-gun-owners.aspx), there is a very clear indication that the reason for the greatly increased death rates amongst some demographics are attributable to factors other than gun ownership.

And here is an article on one city, Baton Rouge, homicide issue- http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/who-kills-who-dies-baton-rouge/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=who-kills-who-dies-baton-rouge.

Though it isn't politically correct to say so, it is about young black criminals killing other young black criminals. Here's an excerpt from the article:

"Last year, 83 people died by homicide in Baton Rouge. Of that number, 87 percent were black, and 87 percent were male. Two-thirds had been in trouble with the law before, and one-third had been in trouble with the law for drugs. The median age of victims: 26.

Of the perpetrators, the median age was 22. Get this: 96 percent of them were black, and 90 percent were male. Almost two-thirds had previous arrests. One out of four had a drug record."

I'd bet you a dollar that trend is similar in city after city. So if you want to cure the disease (and not simply rail ineffectively against the symptom) you're going to have to find another method of correcting the societal ills other than banning firearms.

[Steve Moss]

http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/15941-cdc-study-ordered-by-obama-contradicts-white-house-anti-gun-narrative

[Baz]

Wow, thats pretty one-sided rubbish.

If one were to exclude figures for Illinois, California, New Jersey and Washington, DC, the homicide rate in the United States would be in line with any other country.

[Steve Moss]

Baz- I believe the reference to those areas is a politically correct, side-ways effort to make two points:

1. DC, IL, CA, NJ, etc. have the most restrictive gun laws. Other areas, such as mine, have very permissive gun laws but have a homicide rate comparable to England, etc. So the primary factor in gun homicide is not the availability of guns or private gun ownership. If not guns, what is it?

2. Those "exempted" areas, CA, NJ, IL, DC, are all areas with very high minority populations living in drug infested neighborhoods controlled by heavily armed gangs fighting for turf.

I have always personally believed there are several ways to dramatically reduce the USA's homicide rate, none of which involve more gun regulation. Two off the cuff:

1) legalize drugs, which has the beneficial result of cutting the drug lords money completely off which will destroy the gangs power. Gangster No. 1 and Crew will be absolutely no match for the the Phillip Morris Co. or ADM. The downside is drugs will be more freely available and addiction may spread.

2) Send the National Guard into send the national guard into those areas of Chicago, Camden, DC, etc. controlled by the drug gangs. Gangster No. 1 and Crew may terrorize the locales with their crap Tek-9s, etc but they won't be able to compete against the National Guard, which will allow the police to come in and regain control of those neighborhoods. And it wouldn't be hard, as we know exactly where they are: https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=216156164598408986602.0004aa71120bfabde08d8 The downside is, of course, that politicians will be embarrassed that they had to deploy the military (even if only the National Guard) to secure American neighborhoods.

As a parallel option, we should be offering massive incentives, both educationally (much higher pay for teachers in those neighborhoods, better facilities, etc.) and financially in the way of personal and property tax breaks, to create incentives for the private sector to re-secure those neighborhoods.

[jim mk2]

_{Carry on Killing, a black comedy coming soon to a US street corner near you.}

_{http://www.ryot.org/deaths-from-gun-violence-since-sandy-hook-surpasses-us-soldiers-killed-in-iraq-war/190441}

[Steve Moss]

_{http://www.ryot.org/deaths-from-gun-violence-since-sandy-hook-surpasses-us-soldiers-killed-in-iraq-war/190441}

This quote from the article sums up the lack of candor from the anti-gun crowd "According to Slate‘s @GunDeaths counter, there is no similarities between those killed by guns as statistics range in gender, race and geographic location."

Only someone who hasn't looked at the data (or sacrifices truth at the altar of a political agenda) would make such an ignorant statement.

[thenodrog]

Only someone who hasn't looked at the data (or sacrifices truth at the altar of a political agenda) would make such an ignorant statement.

[Baz]

In my honest opinion, that article is as one-sided and politically motivated as they get. Its extremely selective in which statistics its revealing. Its basically saying less gun control (more guns) equals less gun related murder. Logically that doesn't add up.

I'd wait for the full report to be aired before deciding fully on the outcomes.

As for legalising drugs, I cannot see a very conservative US doing that on any kind of grand scale (although i think some states already have medicinal drugs?).

I dont really understand your thinking on the financial incentives and how that would work.

[Steve Moss]

Hi Baz-

By way of example only, Chicago is known to have a minimum of 70,000 gang members. They control the streets of very poor, drug saturated neighborhoods. It's not politically correct to say it, but those areas are effectively outside the zone of normal civil service, as police and emergency service providers can't enter for fear of their lives. The schools are crowded, ineffective and dangerous, and business owners precariously survive by turning themselves into fortresses. There is an entire generation that has grown up there, knowing nothing better.

And by way of defining the problem, over 80% of Chicago's 500+ murders are gang related (and only 1 involved a legally acquired firearm). The same story is true in city after city.

If the Governor of Illinois and the President of the USA wanted to end it, at least temporarily, they could. The territory controlled by these gangs is not immense and has clearly defined ingress and egress points. It would not be hard to establish order via the National Guard, though it might be politically devastating. Once temporary order is re-established, what then?

That's when investment, both indirect (such as tax forbearance and benefits to motivate the private sector) and direct (lucrative teacher contracts, etc.) are necessary. A generation who has grown up surrounded by cruelty and indifference will not change over night. It will be a decades long commitment. But the investment is needed (after creating security) in order to save and give hope to the generation(s) on the horizon. The cycle has to be broken somehow.

That's what was meant, in part, by my reference to teachers.

[Steve Moss]

Wow, thats pretty one-sided rubbish.

And however one-sided you might think it, that "rubbish" provided a link to the actual CDC report. A CDC which is controlled by the Obama administration. Here's the direct link: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=

[Baz]

Obviously, thats quite a large document (thanks for the link), so i havent read more than the first few pages. Immediately though what I found is that it doesnt seem to be drawing any conclusions, only suggesting further research into specific areas. Thats strikingly different to the narrative of the article you posted earlier.

In terms of the Chicago example, are you saying that the area should be "stripped" of guns and criminals before the investment?

There probably isnt a correct answer, but I'd agree if its a bit of both (investment plus removal of criminals). Once there is a supply of cheap labour, and security of assets the free-market economy will ensure companies will move in. The status quo only suits the gang leaders.

[Steve Moss]

Stripped of criminals, being those idiots who decide to carry on selling drugs and intimidating the public despite the presence of a police officer, a platoon of National Guard infantry and an APC parked on every corner.

As I've said before, I rarely carry a weapon but don't care if you carry, just don't point it at me.

[Baz]

Ok read a bit more. My assertion above is correct, its a baseline doc for further research. If you want to see how biased that article is take a look at page 38 where it says one study shows that in areas of increased gun control, incidents are higher, but another research paper shows the opposite. The link only refers to one part of the same sentence.

The report is saying that the data is incomplete and has no statistical significance at present, so research and further data capture is the only way to delve deeper and make conclusions.(page 10)

However, i did note the following parts

Handguns are the weapon of choice in 87% of all murder or attempted murder... (And are rarely used for hunting.)

In 2005 the US government passed legislation agreeing that no computer database should be held of gun ownership, (for confidentiality). The reports says it should, even if made anonymous. Wonder who lobbied for this?

Only 7% of rapes involve guns.

Rich, rural living Pacific Island Women are statistically the least likely to kill you. :-)

[Steve Moss]

Rich, rural living Pacific Island Women are statistically the least likely to kill you. :-)

Valuable information for any bachelors out there.

[jim mk2]

This quote from the article sums up the lack of candor from the anti-gun crowd "According to Slate‘s @GunDeaths counter, there is no similarities between those killed by guns as statistics range in gender, race and geographic location."

Only someone who hasn't looked at the data (or sacrifices truth at the altar of a political agenda) would make such an ignorant statement.

Head still in the sand ? Here's more on the US's guns shame. About 21,680 people have died from guns in the United States since the Connecticut school shootings last December.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html

And more

http://resistviolence.com/connect/archives/tag/deaths-since-sandy-hook

Hope you're proud of your country.

[Steve Moss]

Hope you're proud of your country.

I'm extraordinarily proud of my country.

Most especially as we aren't so spineless to give up our civil liberties because of the actions of suicides and gangsters.

[Salgado Is A Hero]

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/20/justice/australia-student-killed-oklahoma/

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/20/us/georgia-school-gunshots/