Hot off the presses!
The Economist article citing a Washington Post study that, indeed, gun violence is a bigger problem among blacks and urbanites than whites and bumpkins.
Gun suicide, otoh...
Well, I'm not really sure if we're arguing or agreeing anymore, but some of the articles that I read indicated that one-half of Louisiana's gun murders occured in New Orleans and one-third of Arkansas's occured in Little Rock.
And this LA Times article suggests that most Southern gun crimes occur in Southern cities.
So, yeah, cities are dangerous. What else is new?
We know gun crime is more common in urban areas. What is surprising (or, at least, flies in the face of the commonly-held conservative belief that states with tight gun control like New York and California are brimming with gun crime, while rah-rah-gun-rights states like Arkansas and Mississippi are made safer by their lax gun control) is that despite the way more heavily urban environment of states like New York and Illinois and California, heavily rural states like Arkansas and Mississippi still manage to pull off a higher per-capita gun crime rate.
In other words, if urban vs. rural is the only thing that mattered, we'd expect New York's per-capita rate to be leading the pack. But, instead, we have a cluster of conservative southern states with relatively non-existent gun control ahead of urban, liberal strongholds like New York.
Yeah, well, urban vs. rural seems to still be key. Cities in heavily rural states are still cities.
It does seem more reasonable to compare cities to cities. Unless you're suggesting that less gun control drives up the murder rate in rural areas, but doesn't change the rate in urban areas?
A cursory glance at murder rates in US cities on wikipedia doesn't seem to show much higher rates in red states.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The whole debate to me still sounds like a guy who's dying of cancer, and we stand around trying to be helpful and say, "dear God, we MUST do something about his hair -- the poor man will catch his death of cold!"
Gun violence is symptomatic of overcrowding, poverty, poor mental health and general support resources, a thriving illegal drug trade that seems to be actively encouraged by the so-called "war on drugs," easy availability of firearms.
Of those problems, fixing the first implies either population control (which I doubt anyone on the thread other than myself would advocate) or the ability to earn a comparable living outside of cities as compared to in them (which may become possible as electronic real-time communications continue to improve). Fixing the second might imply that we should look at the wealth gap a bit -- but nonviolent protestors now get pepper-sprayed and billy-clubbed wholesale for doing that, so that's a dangerous road to travel, I guess. Fixing the third requires more funding, but more than that, it means moving psychiatry out of the dark ages and fully into the larger field of neuroscience (in maybe 200 years we'll have a handle on behavior; now, we're basically beating on drums trying to scare off evil spirits).
Fixing the fourth would seem like a no-brainer, especially in light of the insanely high incarceration rates in the U.S., which continue to climb at a frantic rate, fueling a massive growth industry that is happy to consider urinating in your backyard a "sex crime" if that's what it takes to lock up a few more bodies. As a U.S. citizen, your chances of being locked up for some "crime," real or imagined or trumped-up, are literally two orders of magnitude -- 100x -- greater than your chances of being a victim of gun murder. And, personally, I'd rather be shot than put in prison. Spending our tax dollars on locking each other up, instead of using that money to ameliorate the other problems, is to me the height of insanity, but I don't have a lobby and the private prison corporations do -- and God forbid we look "soft on crime."
Fixing the fifth proximate cause (to my mind the least important, because fixing it doesn't fix anything else, unlike the other four) is what we turn to when we lack the resources or the will to address the more glaring causes.
Fixing the fifth proximate cause (to my mind the least important, because fixing it doesn't fix anything else, unlike the other four) is what we turn to when we lack the resources or the will to address the more glaring causes.
Fixing the fifth is the most straightforward, and easiest to accomplish. It is also single-issue - which is to say that fixing it is a direct response to gun violence, rather than a response to a higher-level issue (by way of comparison, fixing poverty addresses a bevy of problems, only one of which is gun violence).
There are good reasons why the push is being made on what you correctly identify as the most proximate of the five issues.
I'm really tired of the medical analogy. So here's the reverse medical analogy.
There is no "fever" disease. A fever is by definition a symptom of an illness. Yet a high fever can cause brain damage or death. So we treat the symptom with a fever reducer. It doesn't cure your illness, but it lets you live long enough to get better.
Also, roughly 5% of violent crime is perpetrated by those who are suffering from mental illness.
I am willing to talk about things like reducing poverty, but this isn't a thread about poverty. It's a thread about criminal access to guns. I would like to talk about reducing criminal access to guns. If you are opposed to that, please give me a reason why we should give criminals greater access to guns.
I'm really tired of the medical analogy. So here's the reverse medical analogy.
There is no "fever" disease. A fever is by definition a symptom of an illness. Yet a high fever can cause brain damage or death. So we treat the symptom with a fever reducer. It doesn't cure your illness, but it lets you live long enough to get better.
Also, roughly 5% of violent crime is perpetrated by those who are suffering from mental illness.
I am willing to talk about things like reducing poverty, but this isn't a thread about poverty. It's a thread about criminal access to guns. I would like to talk about reducing criminal access to guns. If you are opposed to that, please give me a reason why we should give criminals greater access to guns.
I think we've basically got it boiled down to, "Because reducing access to guns is an abridgement of rights, and this is an important right because tyrannical governments and foreign invasion."
It's not a very well-thought out reason, but I think we probably ought to concede that at the very least they tried.
This is supported by the guy earlier in this thread who found that nobody has even bothered to update our hilariously named militia law in over a century.
I just wanted to point out that this is because the Dick Act established the National Guard as the "organized militia", and other militia as "unorganized militia". Additional laws have been passed regarding the "organized militia" since then.
This part is strictly my opinion, but I suspect the reason no additional laws regarding the "unorganized militia" have been passed is because it's not significant or relevant any longer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are good reasons why the push is being made on what you correctly identify as the most proximate of the five issues.
Yes. Because both parties are united in the idea that the laboring population and the poor shall shoulder the burden of austerity.
Both parties are united in attacks on public education, closing down hospitals and mental health clinics in poor neighborhoods, and continuing the idiotic war on drugs. Both parties are united in spending something like $4-6 trillion in prosecuting imperialist wars instead of investing in, say, schools. Both parties are complicit in allowing the standard of living for the poor get so f@+#ing bad that for many ghetto residents the only chance of escaping grinding poverty is to sign up as mercenary muscle--either killing brown people abroad for Uncle Sam or killing brown people at home for a piece of the drug trade.
I looked at a variety of articles about violent and/or gun crimes and lists of "most dangerous cities" and it was amazing how many times phrases like "proximity to drug trafficking corridors" or "fueled by the drug trade" popped up.
You can dismiss it as "not very well-thought out" if you like, but, honestly, I believe ending the war on drugs would be an easier, and more humane, way to address gun violence than criminalizing a bunch of hick gun-nuts who want to own high-capacity magazines and/or AR-15s.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am willing to talk about things like reducing poverty, but this isn't a thread about poverty. It's a thread about criminal access to guns. I would like to talk about reducing criminal access to guns. If you are opposed to that, please give me a reason why we should give criminals greater access to guns.
I've got nothing for you, Citizen Irontruth. The Mafia has never had any problems getting their hands on Tommy guns or Uzis, even when they were illegal, so I don't know how you're going to prevent people engaged in the long-standing and proud American tradition of smuggling to get their hands on illegal weapons.
I doubt more laws and prisons is going to do it, though.
There's a difference between smuggling weapons into the country and having your cousin Steve drive over a state and buying a dozen guns to help outfit your crew.
The problem IMO is that something like 30% illegal of guns are purchased "legally". The transaction is only illegal if one side knows they will be used for a crime, but the law is set up to protect gun shops and gun purchasers from prosecution, so catching these illegal purchases is extremely difficult. The ATF can't look at the records unless they already have enough proof for probably cause, but they can't even identify who is breaking the law because they can't look at the records.
If Steve buys two or more guns from the same dealer in a 5 day period, it gets reported. But if Steve just goes to a different store, no report is triggered. Or if the dealer is just crooked and marks the gun sales as 5 days apart for each gun.
The law enforcement experts think that only about 8% of dealers nationwide are actively participating in the black/grey market for guns (others might be unwittingly, but they aren't my primary concern). These 8% are believed to be the source of the majority of handguns used in crimes.
Yes, some criminals will always get guns, but it will be harder to do so. I think making it harder to commit crimes is a good thing. In fact, that's what most of the effective crime prevention does. It raises the risk of getting caught, like adding camera's or street lights, or increased pedestrian traffic, can all reduce crime. Make it easier to shine some light on gun sales and the criminals will have to turn to different methods, methods they aren't using as much right now because they're harder to do.
I'm definitely not suggesting that longer prison sentences are the key. Our prison system is f+*+ed up and needs to both be scaled back and not be a private industry any more.
I want to see the War of Drugs go away too. Even if that happens though, I'm still going to want to see it made harder to buy guns illegally.
Gun owners often cite the fact that criminals have guns, so they need them too. That argument admits that criminals having guns is a problem. The OP in this thread is a study saying that 2.2% of all gun sales in the US are being funneled to Mexican drug cartels. I'm sure they aren't the only criminals getting guns, so the total percentage going to criminals would be higher than that.
I know, this is just an Internet forum. We're not policy experts, or law enforcement experts. I'm just tired of hearing zero solutions from gun rights advocates. All I ever hear is deflection and excuses for why we can't do things. If you don't want criminals to have guns stop deflecting and making excuses, because that is pretty much all that has come from the conservative side of the debate for the past 30 years.
To me, the personal accountability that is being missed is holding gun sellers accountable when they knowingly sell guns to criminals, or sell them to people who they know are turning around and selling on the black and grey markets. This isn't about the majority of gun shop owners, whom I'm sure would be angry if they knew a gun they sold was specifically bought for use in a crime. It's about the minority who don't care and just want to make their buck any way they can.
Gun owners often cite the fact that criminals have guns, so they need them too. That argument admits that criminals having guns is a problem. The OP in this thread is a study saying that 2.2% of all gun sales in the US are being funneled to Mexican drug cartels. I'm sure they aren't the only criminals getting guns, so the total percentage going to criminals would be higher than that.
You're probably right.
Andrew Feinstein Discusses the U.S. Domestic and International Arms Industries with Democracy Now!
U.S. Arms Sales Make Up Most of Global Market
Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With Aid From C.I.A.
and, just for comparison with what the liars in the Obama administration used to claim:
|
You can dismiss it as "not very well-thought out" if you like, but, honestly, I believe ending the war on drugs would be an easier, and more humane, way to address gun violence than criminalizing a bunch of hick gun-nuts who want to own high-capacity magazines and/or AR-15s.
Snipped a bunch of stuff that I think most of us mostly agree with, just wanted to say that I don't think the "not very well thought out" bit was aimed at anything you said. It was talking about fighting off Canada or the 1st Armored with our AR-15s.
Sadly, ending poverty and/or the War on Drugs isn't all that popular with a lot of people.
[Obligatory/] You're still a dirty commie, though. [/OBL]
I think the US supplying arms, directly or indirectly, all over the world has made a lot of situations worse than they were. We did a lot of harm in central and south america over the years. When people are angry and killing each adding more guns to the situation is never a good thing IMO.
I think ending the drug war would help disrupt their business model a lot, but it wouldn't end it over night. Ending prohibition didn't kill the mafia's.
Slowing the flow of guns is just one aspect of reducing the impact of crime while we implement solutions to deeper causes.
|
What I want to hear about is something we can do to reduce the sale of guns to criminals here in this country.
Right now in California, if you want to buy or sell a firearm, you have to do so through a licensed dealer, period. Further, the buyer has to go though the mandatory waiting period (in California, it's 10 days) before they can take possession of the purchased firearm; this is true even if the sale/purchase is a private party transfer (PPT). The transfer of ANY firearm must go through an FLL.
The only exceptions to this are: 1). The firearm is defined as a "Curio or Relic" or 2). The transfer of the firearm is between immediate family members (such as from father to son, or husband and wife, but not from say grandfather to grandson).
If this were implemented on a federal level, I would have little problem with such a law...
[Obligatory/] You're still a dirty commie, though. [/OBL]
Well, what's the point in being a commie if you have to stay clean?
What I want to hear about is something we can do to reduce the sale of guns to criminals here in this country.Right now in California, if you want to buy or sell a firearm, you have to do so through a licensed dealer, period. Further, the buyer has to go though the mandatory waiting period (in California, it's 10 days) before they can take possession of the purchased firearm; this is true even if the sale/purchase is a private party transfer (PPT). The transfer of ANY firearm must go through an FLL.
The only exceptions to this are: 1). The firearm is defined as a "Curio or Relic" or 2). The transfer of the firearm is between immediate family members (such as from father to son, or husband and wife, but not from say grandfather to grandson).
If this were implemented on a federal level, I would have little problem with such a law...
The same is true in NY, but if people want to they can just drive accross the boarder into PA and go to a gunshow.
|
|
The same is true in NY, but if people want to they can just drive across the boarder into PA and go to a gunshow.
One doesn't even have to go to a gun show. In many states, if a felon wants a gun, all they have to do is look in the newspaper (or online), find someone that is selling a firearm, call that person to set up a meeting, and make the transaction. There are no questions asked, and there is no paperwork involved... What's more, since there is no paperwork involved, the newly purchased firearm is still in the original purchaser's name (and not the felon's).
So if California's law (and apparently New York's law as well) is implemented on a federal level, then felons (and others who are not able to buy firearms legally) could not just cross state lines and buy firearms illegally...
I'd see that as a good first step. I think more would need to be done, but it would also be useful to just implement those changes and try to measure the effects.
|
|
I'd see that as a good first step.
No offence, but I thought as much... I knew even before posting that this would not be enough (but I'm glad to see that you'd be willing to at least to try and see if that would work).
I contend that if we were to just enforce the laws that we already have on the books, instead of making yet more laws, and further complicating the system, that many of these problems we have concerning firearms would be solved...
That's something we hear a lot. What laws exactly aren't being enforced?
Yeah, there were multiple stand-offs between police and our local occupy movement over home foreclosures. I avoided those because I had a warrant for a long time.
I enjoy how every time you link something about MN politics, you get closer and closer to pinpointing my house.
I enjoy how every time you link something about MN politics, you get closer and closer to pinpointing my house.
The Commonwealth Party of Galt (M-L) has eyes everywhere...
I'd see that as a good first step.No offence, but I thought as much... I knew even before posting that this would not be enough (but I'm glad to see that you'd be willing to at least to try and see if that would work).
I contend that if we were to just enforce the laws that we already have on the books, instead of making yet more laws, and further complicating the system, that many of these problems we have concerning firearms would be solved...
Personally, I would like to see some of our state laws implemented on a federal level. Restricting sales to licensed dealers, mandatory waiting period for background checks, and I would add in verification that the person is licensed in their state of residence.
That is exactly what he proposed above.
I think those are good measures, but I think they're the bare minimum. I would like to see them implemented, but I don't think they will drastically alter the flow of guns. Something is better than nothing. These measures don't actually address the issue of straw purchases.
So do stairs, bathtubs, and swimming pools in the backyard.Given that having a gun in the house actually decreases your safety.
Name one useful thing a gun is designed for that doesn't involve hurting a person or animal, or threatening to do so.
I can think of a non-harmful, useful thing for everything you named.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is part of why I think the "enforce the laws we have" is kind of a joke argument.
I would love to see people start branding anyone opposed to helping feed hungry Americans as "soft on crime". I be we could feed everyone for less money than we spend imprisoning people on marijuana possession.
Although, I should say, one good thing about the sequestration cuts: the city of Nashua ran out of money to tear down the housing project that one of my friends lives in with his family.
Small blessings, I guess. I hope none of them develop cancer.
So do stairs, bathtubs, and swimming pools in the backyard.Given that having a gun in the house actually decreases your safety.
I'm curious as to why you would chime in with this. Do you personally find this to be a compelling counter-argument? If so, why? Do you still find it compelling even after thejeff pointed out the obvious problem with that counter-argument?
The whole f**@ing system is soft on crime: The Musical Interlude
Dollar for dollar, putting people on the moon was the most successful program for improving the lives of Americans in the past 100 years. I'm not saying it benefited everyone equally, but everyone did benefit from it.
There will always be people losing jobs as industries die. The only alternative is to stop inventing new technologies.
Wealth distribution in America.
We don't just need to raise taxes on the rich, we should give their accounts a hair cut.
That was a very good video; except for all of that bullshiznit about us not needing socialism.
Down with Obama!
Down with gun control!
Vive le Galt!
In conjunction with Citizen Irontruth's excellent video, I'd suggest reading this highly interesting article.
I was wondering who the hell this guy was, and did an interesting google search that ended here.
Workers revolution is the only answer.
So do stairs, bathtubs, and swimming pools in the backyard.Given that having a gun in the house actually decreases your safety.
Funny story. When remodeling my parents home and I needed to get permits for all of those. I had to apply and submit paperwork for my construction of a pool and the moving of my bathtub and stairs. I also had to build a fence of a specific height with certain safety gates around the pool and reinstall proper safety measures.
Oddly enough when I inherited my grandfathers shotgun I called my local police station and asked if I needed to file any paper work and they said nope.
This was in the Rodolfo Acuna article, but it bears highlighting:
Bill tying student performance to welfare benefits advancing in Legislature
Dunno if anyone posted this yet:
It caught my eye (a) because it's right up the street from where I was living until last October and (b) even in the words of someone who is against gun control, "as we saw a few months ago at the North Harris campus of the Lone Star College System, students already are carrying firearms onto our campuses."
I find it bewildering that all these firearms were of no use in thwarting a guy with a knife, but I wasn't there and don't have the whole story.
Dunno if anyone posted this yet:
It caught my eye (a) because it's right up the street from where I was living until last October and (b) even in the words of someone who is against gun control, "as we saw a few months ago at the North Harris campus of the Lone Star College System, students already are carrying firearms onto our campuses."
I find it bewildering that all these firearms were of no use in thwarting a guy with a knife, but I wasn't there and don't have the whole story.
It's also noteworthy for the disparity between mass stabbings in which a bunch of people are injured, and mass shootings in which a bunch of people are killed. Same thing happened with the mass stabbing in China the day after the Newtown massacre. Those complaining that guns aren't the problem because the criminals would just pick up knives instead have absolutely zero sense of perspective on the issue.