« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

The Real Gun Violence Problem

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  January 9th, 2013 at 10:52 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Piers Morgan has been in the news a lot lately with his interviews on gun control. He’s made it his cause of late. He interviewed my friend Larry Pratt a couple of weeks ago and really attacked Larry. The other night he interviewed that conspiracy crank Alex Jones and many conservatives and gun owners have lamented a perception that Alex Jones will become the face of gun owners.

The conversations have actually been fascinating. Piers Morgan isn’t the only one to engage in these, but he’s been one of the most prominent.

Unfortunately, the incident that set off all these discussions — the Newtown, CT tragedy — is causing policy makers and news figures to fixate on all the wrong things, or at least the things with the least amount of meaning.

The fact is the tragedy in Connecticut was terrible. But it is also not a common act. It is called a “random act of violence” because it is random.

After the shooting over the summer in Aurora, CO, the President and his team could have picked up the gun issue, but they chose not too because it is a political hot potato and hurts the Democrats. They are compensating in light of this new tragedy, but the discussed policy proposals thus far probably would do no good. Increasing gun free school zones and punishment for violating those zones will not stop a mass shooter.

Nonetheless, the policy makers want to focus on mass shooters and not every day shooters. They want to focus on rifles and not handguns. Rifles, interestingly enough, contribute to far fewer murders than knives, hands, feet, clubs, or hammers.

But the discussion will not move to handguns because handguns are pretty popular in this country. Many people own them — far more own them than own semi-automatic rifles. More so, handguns are used in vastly more crimes.

It is not, however, just handguns that must be discussed when discussing gun violence. This gets to why we cannot have a meaningful conversation in this country and never will. To do so will get you branded a racist.

“Blacks were disproportionately represented as both homicide victims and offenders. The victimization rate for blacks (27.8 per 100,000) was 6 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000). The offending rate for blacks (34.4 per 100,000) was almost 8 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000).”

“Males represented 77% of homicide victims and nearly 90% of offenders. The victimization rate for males (11.6 per 100,000) was 3 times higher than the rate for females (3.4 per 100,000). The offending rate for males (15.1 per 100,000) was almost 9 times higher than the rate for females (1.7 per 100,000).”

“Approximately a third (34%) of murder victims and almost half (49%) of the offenders were under age 25. For both victims and offenders, the rate per 100,000 peaked in the 18 to 24 year-old age group at 17.1 victims per 100,000 and 29.3 offenders per 100,000.”

These are all direct quotes from a United States Department of Justice report released by the Obama Administration in November of 2011.

Don Lemon on CNN had a discussion with left-wing commentator David Sirota on whether we should profile young white males because pretty much every mass shooting incident has involved young white males with mental health issues. But, again, these are far less likely to happen than a gang related drive by shooting. Just because acts of mass violence grab the spotlight and media attention does not mean we should set policy on these events, which are not rather common.

The profile of the typical murderer with a gun is a black male in a city under the age of 25. This is not to suggest we should profile young black men. We should not. But we should, if we really want to curb gun violence in the United States, start our conversation looking at this phenomenon. Interestingly enough, the DOJ report notes of murders by poison, 80.6% were by white offenders and just 16.8% were by black offenders. Murders by gun were 41.2% by white offenders and 56.9% by black offenders.

Gun violence in the United States is, over all, on a steady decline, something the chattering class and policy makers tend to ignore. Again, from the Department of Justice:

In 2008, black males age 18 to 24 years-old had the highest homicide victimization rate (91.1 homicides per 100,000). That rate was more than double the rate for black males age 25 or older (38.4 homicides per 100,000) and almost triple the rate for black males age 14 to 17 (31.4 homicides per 100,000).

Among black males age 18 to 24, the homicide victimization rate was much lower in 2008 (91.1 homicides per 100,000) than in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when it reached a high of 195.9 homicides per 100,000 in 1993.

Between 1980 and 2008, young adult black males had the highest homicide offending rate compared to offenders in other racial and sex categories.

The offending rate for black male teens peaked in 1993 at 246.9 offenders per 100,000 before declining. In recent years, the black male teen offending rate has increased from 54.3 offenders per 100,000 in 2002 to 64.8 offenders per 100,000 in 2008.

These are terrible statistics. In our urban areas — and gun violence happens much more in urban areas than anywhere else — young black men, often in broken families, are joining gangs and committing acts of violence against each other. There have been 24 people murdered with guns in Chicago since the Newtown tragedy (see here and here). Just look at the most violent neighborhood in Chicago with 202 murders since 2007. Look at the ages.

Banning guns tomorrow will not stop this. Focusing on handguns instead of rifles or with rifles will not stop this. A renewed assault weapons ban will not stop this. Until we figure out how to fix the family instability and educational problems within the inner-city (because the problem is ultimately about poverty more than anything else), any solution proposed in Washington will be a Potemkin village solution masking the real gun conversation we should be having.

But, because the issue is tinged with race and often viewed as lacking a solution, policy makers and the media often don’t want to make eye contact with the problem. Instead, they’ll be consumed by the headline tragedy urge to “just do something”.

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • cheesycon

    thats not a race issue, it’s a class issue. poverty is correlated to race because just because of historical reasons.

    you aren’t racist if you point out that most gun violence is committed by/upon black Americans, that’s just the data. The “why” of it is what distinguishes a racist from a normal person.

    it’s not conservatives who want to treat black Americans as inherently incapable of success without extra “help”.

  • kipling

    The purpose of “gun control” is not to end the violence or stop the next mass shooting. No one who examines the facts of the issue really believes that a few more laws and/or restrictions will bring an end to the violence. Even Piers Morgan and Mayor Bloomberg are not foolish enough to believe their own rhetoric. They may lecture the masses about the need to disarm but they do so from the safety of their armed security details.

    “Gun control” is motivated by leftist ideology and the snobbish elitism that comes with it. Leftist believe that force is the sole prerogative of the state and that the masses are not adept enough to defend themselves – just like we cannot decide on what to eat or provide our own healthcare. It is different for the elites who live safely behind armed guards and do not depend on the police as their sole means of defense.

    For many on the left, the ultimate goal of “gun control” is confiscation and an unarmed populace. All totalitarian regimes need an unarmed populace and we increasingly live in a totalitarian system. As European historian Robin Winks put it, totalitarianism is the “obliteration of the boundary between public and private life.” “The personal was political, and the state had the right and the duty to be everywhere: in government, of course, but also in education and faith, courtship and marriage, work and play, law and morals.”

  • DerKrieger

    “Truth isn’t mean, it’s truth”- Andrew Breitbart

  • joshinca

    I’d like to see someone do an analysis of black gun deaths in inner cities compared to black gun deaths outside of inner cities.

    My gut says that it’s not so much a black thing as a democrat run inner city thing.

  • joshinca

    Rifles, interestingly enough, contribute to far fewer murders than knives, hands, feet, clubs, or hammers.

    Here’s a confirming link from the FBI

    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20

  • eltuba

    Maybe less an inner city thing than a class/lifestyle thing. I’m pretty sure that low income, lack of education, broken family structure, drugs, and defective male role models are a common link between black and white criminal violence no matter where the perpetrators/victims live.

  • Bob

    They will go after the most spectacular looking guns first, the large capacity magazines, items most easily exploited to stir public sentiment. When this proves ineffective in controlling sociopaths and barbarians they will be back wanting to ban everything else.
    A total gun ban is their goal, and then they will start on knives with sharp points.

  • Bob

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4581871.stm

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/01/big-al-sharpton-knife-control-comes-next-after-guns-video/

  • rannan3

    I live in the Omaha, Nebraska area. Gun violence in areas of Omaha is a nightly news event. I would be safe in saying there is a daily reporting of at least one shooting and most of it involves blacks — either as the victim or the perpetrator.
    Finally, at last, black communities are organizing and trying to do whatever it takes to curb the gun violence . AND they’re NOT BLAMING the weapons !

    As concerned parents, they realize the gun is just the tool of expedience.

    The root causes must be addressed. And there are many………..

  • garret5

    http://www.justice.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf

    Toward the end (Conclusion):

    “For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual
    right to keep and to bear arms. Current case law leaves open and unsettled the question of whose
    right is secured by the Amendment. Although we do not address the scope of the right, our
    examination of the original meaning of the Amendment provides extensive reasons to conclude
    that the Second Amendment secures an individual right, and no persuasive basis for either the
    collective-right or quasi-collective-right views. The text of the Amendment’s operative clause,
    setting out a “right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” is clear and is reinforced by the
    Constitution’s structure. The Amendment’s prefatory clause, properly understood, is fully
    consistent with this interpretation. The broader history of the Anglo-American right of
    individuals to have and use arms, from England’s Revolution of 1688-1689 to the ratification of
    the Second Amendment a hundred years later, leads to the same conclusion. Finally, the first
    hundred years of interpretations of the Amendment, and especially the commentaries and case law
    in the pre-Civil War period closest to the Amendment’s ratification, confirm what the text and
    history of the Second Amendment require.”

    Even the DoJ has concluded that the SA is an individual right. The brief also says that the right has to do with purposes of standing up a militia and that the arms must be of such purpose that they may be used accordingly. In other words, no deer hunting. But rather self-defense and keeping an armed population for the purposes of a militia.

  • conservativeradical

    The left has been itching for a “crisis” to use for gun control sice Barack was elected.
    Http://conservativeradical.com

  • plf5403

    “Until we figure out how to fix the family instability and educational problems within the inner-city (because the problem is ultimately about poverty more than anything else)…” I’m afraid you’ve taken the liberal lie as bait. However you define “poverty”, would you say American’s in the 1930′s Depression were by-in-large in poverty? Have you looked at the crime rates back then? “Poverty” in and of itself is NOT the problem my friend. The problem is lack of moral character. Let me very honest here, the problem is lack of a moral foundation based on Christ and belief in the tenents of the Holy Bible. Material poverty, family instability and education problems are merely a symptom of this deficit. You can be poor and “good” or rich and “evil”. The difference is not your net worth, the difference is your belief system. America’s current welfare system, combined with an antagonistic media culture breeds a culture of hate, divisiveness, despondency and ultimately death. This is the problem more than anything else.

  • cbartlett

    Our police chief says there is a direct correlation between crime and poverty in our city. Race only enters the equation if you correlate the poverty with race. Just finished a 3-month term on Grand Jury – observation would definitely confirm that.

  • timcooper62

    Progressives are attacking our values plain and simple. Free people with the means of self defense are an anathema to the collective. We are losing our rugged individualism and are being assimilated. “Resistance is Futile” our Borg masters would have us believe. Gun ownership by law abiding individuals is the last stumbling block.

  • jiminga

    You’re right. When a TV show like “11 babies with 10 baby mamas” is seriously considered we have all the evidence we need to see the American family and moral values have become passe’. Elements of our society have no regard for human life, either in gangs or when visiting Planned Parenthood. Progressivism has created an entire class of savages and it’s too late to fix the problem.

    But the problem at hand is mass shootings by crazy people. It has not been widely reported that Newtown, CT had a mental health facility until three years ago. It was closed and the patients were given psychotropic drugs and trusted to take them. All this under the progressive idea that crazy people have rights too and should be mainstreamed into the general population.

    In anticipation of a progressive outrage over my use of the term “crazy people”, have at it. Since progressivism denies much of reality, the coming outrage will do nothing but prove their unwillingness to face reality. Can anyone deny a man who murders 20 children is crazy?

  • garret5

    Definitely the biggest hurdle of a stumbling block. A disarmed population is much easier to control.

  • timcooper62

    I wonder if the root cause of the violence is something deeper than that? I would bet that the Sandy Hook kid, the Aurora dude, and the other white shooters were all on some sort of drug like Ritalin as kids. Black kids deal with their angst by joining gangs.

  • garret5

    The UK already did that. Banned knives with pointy edges that is. There was an outcry from chefs all over, so they were allowed to keep their knives. But a non-accredited (presumably by the government) chef would have no need for a pointy knife. Or so sayeth the do-good machine anyway.

    The thing that will come shortly after an assault weapons ban, is the “call to do more, for the children” and there we will have the so-called Saturday Night Specials. That is to say, inexpensive firearms that are available to those less affluent but still wishing to be able to protect themselves.

    Why can’t we just ban gang-banging? Oh right, we did that. It’s illegal. However for some reason the various and sundry gangs are ever so prosperous and violent. Imagine that. Criminals not obeying the law. Surely, a 2 year added prison sentence for someone who has committed capital murder with a banned assault weapon, well that will make him think twice about pulling the trigger.

  • garret5

    This is obviously hitting the nail on the head. But I’m sure we can blame Bush for this somehow. What really amazes me is that social programs also seem to have very little effect on these demographics. Perhaps local churches and charities could do better? Oh wait, who am I kidding…

  • garret5

    I honestly have a hard time rationalizing that the lefties really yearn for a totalitarian state. I have to believe that they do believe in some sort of Greater Good. But I definitely don’t believe that they have their act together enough to be able to draw up their ideal society. They always go after the symptoms, never the cause.

    I would really like to see what a leftist Constitution would read like. It’d be an interesting comparison.

  • garret5

    Of course it does. We have a very violent society. It’s part of our history and part of our way of life. I’m not going to go off on violent video games and movies, although I am sure that plays a part in desensitizing ourselves.

    The Left often compares our violent behavior to those of the European countries and say that the crime rate is lower over there, so they must be doing something correctly. I submit that the Castle Doctrine is a prime exhibit in this. In America it is widely accepted that your home is your castle and no intruder who wishes you harm has the right to violate your home, family or property. However in the UK, the reverse is true. You are in danger of being convicted of a crime if you don’t grab your family and exit through a back door if your home is invaded. Of course there’s less violent crime if law abiding citizens aren’t only removed of their capability to defend themselves, but they are instructed to flee.

    Hardly the society I think any God fearing American would want.

  • bgmacaw

    It’s nice to read your entire thoughts on this without you being preempted by a lousy basketball game like you were on your radio show last night.

    I don’t expect anything to be done about the problem you’re describing though. The left has little motivation to deal with the problem. By incentivizing broken families and women’s dependence on government hand-outs they insure a solid voting bloc to get themselves reelected. Conservatives are labeled as “racists” or “insensitive” or “anti-woman” or something else along those lines for even pointing out the problem, much less doing anything about it.

    The bottom line is that the left could care less about what happens to the young men in the equation. They’re quite content for them to die young or to incarcerate them. Keeping them out of the picture means that the dependent women with 5-10-15 kids stay on government assistance and continue to vote for their meager gravy train.

  • swordofzorro

    All Americans should read this commentary. Unfortunately, those doing most of the killing probably can’t read or write.

  • http://www.mattmodleski.com mattmodleski

    A couple weeks back Eric advocated for the Republicans finding a voice (and a strategy) in the breakdown of family in America and all of it’s consequences. I beieve that is the right strategy but it requires thoughtful execution when it comes to tactics. Race isn’t the issue in the black community when it comes to violence, fatherless boys raised in a violent culture is the issue. I posted this FB entry last week at “The American Dream and what we Must Do to Secure Our Children’s Dreams”.

    I grew up with a Grandfather (Gramp Bemiss) who fed his
    family in the great depression by living off the land. He was a great fisherman
    and hunter and he taught us how to both love the outdoors as well as how to
    fish and hunt. We were also taught that we would eat whatever we hunted or caught
    while fishing.

    One day when I was a little boy more than 40 years ago, I
    was walking with Gramp and I used the word “kill” in reference to playing a
    game of some sort. He spun around on a dime and looked me right in the eye and
    said “Matty, I don’t ever want to hear you use that word in that way ever
    again. It is not funny, it is not to be joked about.” I am now more than 50
    years old and I never forgot my Gramp’s reaction to my language.

    Fast forward to this week. I had my older son and one of his
    friends in the car and my son’s friend was talking about a video game he’d been
    playing and he was talking about “killing this” and “killing that” and after
    about a minute of it I stopped him. I asked him, “have you ever actually killed
    an animal , do you know what it’s like to take the life of something and know
    that it’s never coming back to life. It’s not a game.” I wasn’t yelling, I was
    just asking this very good boy to think about what he was saying and what it
    really meant. I could tell he had never really thought about what it meant to
    take the life of another living being, and in the course of the conversation I
    hope I made a point that he will remember.

    I will teach my boys
    to hunt and fish and they already know whatever we kill we will eat. It is
    vitally important for boys (I don’t have any experience with girls in this
    arena) to learn from their Father or Grandfather that life is precious, all
    life. I believe hunting is primal, every young boy will have to learn what that
    means and how to deal with that reality. Boys will never forget the first time
    they take the life of another living being. If they are taught to do it as a
    survival skill, then there are many lessons that will help them navigate a very
    different world than the one my Grandfather helped me navigate. If he can see
    me typing these words, I’ll bet he’s proud that some of his wisdom stuck with
    his very wild Grandson:).

    God Bless,

    If we are afraid of entering the dialogue about the family, it’s breakdown and the consequences, we have already lost the argument. After 20 years of serving our country in the military if someone wants to claim I’m a racist for bringing those facts to light it doesn’t make me a racist, but it does make them something of a goofball and most people will see that.

  • garret5

    I really like your post. Especially, “should crazy people have rights?”

    First off, what is “crazy”? We often hear about how many grim and dark drawings we’ve found among the possessions of violent gun criminals. I ask, how many dark and grim drawings to we find among “normal” or “non-crazy” people? Perhaps we don’t even know because we don’t look for these types of things. Should a dark and grim picture automatically deem a person insane? Or what about deviant behavior, such as what I saw on TV the other day. They call themselves “furries” and dress up in cartoonish animal suits. Hardly what I would do, but is it crazy? Should they be Free to do this?

    Second, punishment is a very biblical thing. Do a bad thing and the government (nee God) can do bad things to you. I personally think its fair that a person who has done something wrong be convicted by a jury of his peers. But is that really what people in general think these days? I tend to think that the national psyche has gravitated toward allowing the government to have more rights than The People and that its purpose is to define how to rule us and exact punitive measures upon us, rather than to champion our causes.

    Should it be illegal to be crazy? Assuming of course that we can correctly codify in law what is considered crazy and insane. Otherwise its a matter of what a doctor proclaims. In the GDR (East Germany) there were scores of people imprisoned because they were deemed crazy and incapable of leading normal lives. When the wall came down, many were released upon being deemed perfectly fit to lead normal lives. It turns out that the state had overreached (to put it mildly) to quell dissent.

    I have a bit of a problem with the NRA’s notion that there should be a National Insanity Database. I very much understand and appreciate the notion that crazy people shouldn’t own guns for the safety of themselves and others. But once that behemoth of a system is deployed, it is rife with potential for abuse. How about a president that disagrees with some part of the Constitution and decides to deprive people, by way of executive order, of other rights than those we retain with the Second Amendment? How about removing First Amendment rights from people who are deemed crazy? Alex Jones, watch out…

    Unless convicted of severe wrongdoing, there are certain inalienable rights we are endowed by our Creator: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Should the government be able to take any of those rights away from a person once labeled crazy?

    And finally, what if the presumption of innocence becomes subdued by the presumption of insanity?

  • eltuba

    It’s one of our little cultural oddities that violent behavior is considered to be normal behavior within certain groups. We (I include myself in this we) don’t really think its that weird when lower class people engage in intramural violence. Its just they those folks are.

    The Sandy Hook type killings are terrifying to us because they’re committed against us by one of us. People try to explain it and blame the gun or the perpetrators psychology. Then they try to fix things with a law…any law.

  • gscandlen

    FDR laid out his “leftist constitution” in 1941 in his Four Freedoms speech. Wikipedia summarizes –

    The Four Freedoms were goals articulated by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt on January 6, 1941. In an address known as the Four Freedoms speech (technically the 1941 State of the Union address), he proposed four fundamental freedoms that people “everywhere in the world” ought to enjoy:

    Freedom of speech and expression

    Freedom of worship

    Freedom from want

    Freedom from fear

    His inclusion of the latter two freedoms went beyond the traditional United States Constitutional values protected by its First Amendment, and endorsed a right to economic security and an internationalist view of foreign policy. They also anticipated what would become known decades later as the “human security” paradigm in social science and economic development.

  • funwithknives

    Yes, you are in large part, correct [IMHO]].
    But you should/might consider that continually, Progressives want to be the sole arbiter and Final Judge of what this hazy, ill-defined ‘Greater Good’ is to be. They’re most excellent at drive-by solutions, but as you note, seeing a cohesive,completed plan would be something to behold. [and I'm being really nice here]
    …and herein lies the gist of the conflict Freedom and Liberty Lovers have with Progressivism, Communitrianism, etc. If their ‘solution’ does not seem to/flat out does not favor Individuals as sovereign, self-owning Creations, then what is the point?
    Do they mean to be totalitarian ?? My personal jury says yes, but that might be ‘ just me ‘.
    Much of the evidence points to ‘yes’,and it just ain’t a coincidence…..

  • garret5

    Interesting. I think I need to read up more on FDR and his tenure as president. What if the “four fundamental freedoms” were actually properly annotated to mean what they say:

    Freedom of speech and expression, so long as the speech and expression doesn’t offend anyone.

    Freedom of worship, as long as it isn’t some sort of evil crusading Christian denomination.

    Freedom from want. A right of the government to define what you want and what you need. The government is obliged to remove those things that you want at its discretion.

    Freedom from fear, of being able to pay your rent. The government will determine your needs and apportion wealth from more affluent people to ensure you don’t have to be afraid.

  • funwithknives

    I’ve read your comment twice now and please pardon me if I start using this train of thought. It makes entirely too much sense and therefore is going into
    “my holster of drawn facts”.
    Thank you for your thoughts and your service. Get your son up on this line and I would be willing to inform him just how really lucky he is.
    Like a song you hear in the morning and hum all day long , this meme is gonna stick inside my ‘widdoe’ skull. So be it………

  • garret5

    I too like your sentiments.

  • garret5

    Very well put.

  • garret5

    Oh I agree with you. They think better than us, at least if you ask them. Therefore they are self-anointed arbiters of the Greater Good. I just don’t think they’re trying to be evil. They just don’t see anything beyond what it takes to mend that bleeding heart. And it is only that, a band-aid. I think the totalitarian thing is merely an unintended product of their actions, rather than a deep seated yearning for their utopia.

    In other words, totalitarianism is a means to an end. Not a goal in and of itself.

    Poor Liberals. It must be tough to do something very well intended only to see it grow into manure. Oh wait, they can always blame Bush if that happens and apply another band-aid.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    We’ve seen clowns like Piers Morgan before in our history. He is Jerry Springer with an accent- an artifact of absurdity, crown prince of Idiotville and master of all things contra-intellectual. He’s a tabloid journalist who was booted out of that vocation and moved to CNN so now he has…credibility. Excuse me while I break my back from laughing too hard.

    This is the liberals best…spokesman? Please be serious. I just lost 20 points off my IQ reading his remarks.

    I am frankly not certain why Morgan is taken seriously by anyone. Is he armed with any facts? Is what he states logical? Does he possess some special knowledge from which we can learn? Have we relegated our rights and liberties to Morgan, so he can speak on our behalf? Does he even have a basic understanding of our American culture?

    The answers are all a resounding- no.

    He is just another brick in the contra-intellectual liberal wall. And those bricks are obviously not very firm or well formed.

  • funwithknives

    No matter if it is Chicago, Flint, or Detroit, the largest driver of Death by Gun in this country is indeed, race-based. Insult me, Call me Racist, do your Damndest, it IS A Truth and Truth is what is needed here.
    As in TSA Terrorism checks, we know that if we as a Nation concentrated on Obvious Tells , we’d be safer, & flying would be more efficient and less stressful for a large majority of America. But this cannot happen because some would ‘feel targeted and offended ‘.
    This topic is another of those ‘untouchables’, where “offense” could be taken, and ‘targeting’ would be decried, most loudly.
    But if we’re to have a ‘Gun Control Conversation’, why would this large Driver of Deaths be shunted aside? You want to talk about the various side issues like 1-parent homes ,illiteracy ,lax education in many communities, employment opportunities,etc.? Bring them on. But bring a Truck-Load of Reality, if you please……
    Just yesterday, The Kresge Foundation announced here in Detroit, $150 Million Dollars over 5 years to “improve” Detroit and other foundations [Skillman, Ford and W.K.Kellogg are in this mix] are going to join this effort. Announced just a few days ago is yet another Detroit Strategic Framework plan for these Foundations to finance, that has up to 50 years look-ahead in it’s future.
    [See : Detroit News, today-1/10/2013, front page]
    I don’t know if re-arranging the chairs make much difference, but then, it ain’t my money. I do know we here have seen/heard this stuff countless times before and yet, our local reality is-as America sees it.
    So, call me cynical and worse {I’ve been called ‘much’ worse} , but dubious I remain. I see very few remedial solutions in these plans and color charts to venture a guess and until it gets fleshed out, ‘dubious’ is probably well chosen………..
    Where was I when this comment started…?

  • funwithknives

    They do not have to “try to be evil”.
    If it’s unintentional, intentional, unfortunate circumstance, or any other aside, to me it simply does not matter.
    To ‘not’ consider what you do in it’s totality is to be, at least,
    “somewhat evil “, especially our Republic and it’s Social Contract
    So, we know they’re evil, & ‘let’s we talk’ about how severe the infection is and if there is a possible cure….
    Like the adage to a mercenary of any sort, “.. we know you’re a whore, now we’re just negotiating the price…” This is how I personally view Progressives of any sort.
    ‘Clueless’ ain’t an excuse, it’s just deflection………..

  • jaykali

    I don’t understand why Piers Morgan has a show at all. I thought CNN was supposed to project the illusion that they are a politically center network. They have several hosts that are just liberal shills.

  • joehatfield37

    So you’ll be called a “racist”. So f**king what. This dialog needs to happen. Let the usual race-baiters scream and tear their hair out. The vast majority of the gun murders today are gang-banging black youths in the cities. It’s the truth.

  • sliverlining

    The use of the word tragedy has become a worn-out overstatement. In the case of little kids being killed it is appropriate of course, but, all those other times that it has been drummed into my head get in the way.

    Stepping back for a moment to reflect before making emotional decisions can be really hard for some people. But, they should really do it. Don’t let agenda-pushing opportunists get into your psyche and manipulate your very real feelings with their tripe.

    Give these kids and their parents, who really feel the tragic nature to their core, the full and clear attention they deserve. The remotely placed, comfortably seated talking heads are shameless salespeople. Best interests at heart are voiced by just about anyone BUT them.

    Sliverlining

  • garret5

    Point well taken. The absence of knowledge of wrongdoing doesn’t lessen the offense.

  • garret5

    Obviously, Bush.

  • kipling

    The left would never say they want a totalitarian state but their policies pursue that very objective. To create a new society and achieve the Greater Good, they need a strong central government that can make people follow their plans. Many of them think they are doing good but the end result is always the same – dictatorship.

    As to the growth of totalitarianism in the United States, look at it historically. In 1898 the average person only came in contact with the federal government through the postal service. In 2013 the federal government is involved in every aspect of our lives. There is no longer a private and a public sphere. All is public. As a challenge, can you give me one area of our lives in which the federal government is not involved?

  • joetexan

    As with any “solution” Democrats propose for anything, it has the following characteristics:
    1) It wouldn’t have prevented any previous incidents that prompted the “solution.”
    2) It won’t prevent any similar incidents in the future.
    3) It will affect only those people who are not part of the problem.

  • spolson

    The issue is not poverty and education, it is culture. We live in a culture of entitlement. Kids grow up with no sense of achievement. They are taught that Captains of industry are bad greedy evil people who took their money. But they never had any money. No one in their sphere of influence works or takes responsibility for them self. They live off of “entitlements”. They have a right to be taken care of. But people have more, ergo they are entitled to that too. They don’t know any way to get it but take it. Guns give them the power to do that. Clubs and knifes will work too. This not only gives them the things they want but a false feeling of respect they lack for never having achieved anything. This leads to huge displays of Jewelry (bling) huge shinny cars and clown clothes. My house has been robbed by the same black man 6 times. The one time I was home he displayed a revolver and pointed it at my face. The police said there is nothing I can do. If they catch him he will be let go because he is under 18. So it works. Attempted murder and robbery has no consequence. The tragedy in Newtown, my old home town, isn’t a gun control issue. It is a mental health issue. The liberals plan to “mainstream” mentally ill people out of compassion is at fault. Newtown has the biggest state mental hospital and it was closed decades ago. Liberals make emotional decisions with no thought for the outcome. They saw mental patients in the hospital confined and miserable looking and thought they would release them into the population and let the kindness of strangers make their lives better or something. They have a right to freedom. We decided that women had the right to work like men did. I doubt if women really were even thinking about working outside the home, the liberals maybe, but they still want to have families. So wait 3 months and put them in day care. Anyone who thinks that is the same as a loving parent is delusional. Yet here we are wondering why our children didn’t come out like we did. Why they move back home, why they riot about not having a job and blame the 1% and not their elected officials to stifle our economy with the highest corporate tax rates in the world and not their choice of a not job related education like Liberal arts or Women’s studies. They act like they were going to college as a favor to us. Emotional decisions should be left for the purpose they were intended, matters of Love. Gun control is not the answer. #1 it takes the guns out of the hands of the good guys. It is already illegal to kill people. Laws don’t stop law breakers. #2 statistics show that gun control doesn’t work. Connecticut already has very strict gun control laws. 56 million people were executed in Germany, Russia and China when they disarmed the population, leaders who disregarded the law or the land mowed them down. We have a leader who disregards the Law and constitution who wants to disarm the people after an emotional tragedy. I don’t want to see millions of people mowed down here.

  • Tbone

    Your police chief is a liar or a fool.

  • Tbone

    Read the EU Constitution and then you wouldn’t be the ignorant idiot you obviously are. Well, at least you wouldn’t be ignorant.

  • garret5

    The doctor orders knee surgery to cure a tooth ache. Classic.

  • Tbone

    The common denominator in mass shootings is anti-depressant drugs. Sue the **** out of the companies that make them.

  • joshinca

    The UK has a lot higher incidence of violent crime, especially in the last couple of decades, than the US does. Their murder rate is lower, but overall violence, rape, robbery, a&b etc are several multiples higher than in the US.

    Another thing about the UK murder rate is that they only classify a death as a murder when someone is convicted of the crime. So deaths without a conviction are not officially murders. Which makes thier murder rate appear much lower than it actually is.

  • joshinca

    “I honestly have a hard time rationalizing that the lefties really yearn for a totalitarian state. I have to believe that they do believe in some sort of Greater Good.”

    The observation that the road to hell is paved with good intentions has been around for several millennia.

  • joshinca

    The problem is lack of moral character. Let me very honest here, the problem is lack of a moral foundation based on Christ and belief in the tenents of the Holy Bible. Material poverty, family instability and education problems are merely a symptom of this deficit. You can be poor and “good” or rich and “evil”. The difference is not your net worth, the difference is your belief system. America’s current welfare system, combined with an antagonistic media culture breeds a culture of hate, divisiveness, despondency and ultimately death.

    I want to believe this, but the problem is that crime has been falling for decades at the exact same time that the general public has become increasingly immoral.

  • http://www.ajharaldson.com lakeworthcane

    Now, listen here.

    I fully support those federal politicians fighting courageously to eliminate firearms from our society.

    I think that, as a gesture of their sincerity and leadership, they should insist that the first people to surrender their firearms shall be all Secret Service personnel.

  • joshinca

    I think that our society definitely has a problem dealing with the severely mentally ill. The violent ones wind up committing senseless crimes and in prison and the non violent become the homeless.

    But the gun grabbers will use ‘mental health’ as a backdoor to gun control, if we let them. I’ve heard insane proposals like creating a no buy list that you can wind up if you’ve ever taken any psychotropic medication, ever seen a therapist or even by anonymous tip.

  • joshinca

    Strange that he never mentioned gun control at all during the presidential campaign, isn’t it.

  • mhorner

    The vast majority of gun incidents in my city are the result of Black drug dealers knocking off the competition and am quite confident in saying the same situation exists in all of the Urban centers across America. Don’t know of a single instance of a shootout in my City between Whites in many years. I guess I could be labelled racist for speaking the truth.

  • http://www.plumbbobblog.com Plumb_Bob

    This is wrong for the same reason that blaming guns is wrong. The random, exceedingly rare instances where an anti-depressant drug is involved in a mass shooting is drowned by the millions of instances where it is not. The drugs are not the cause any more than the guns are a the cause.

    The place to start looking for cures is in the proper identification and handling of the mentally ill. And the first step should not be a lawsuit, it should be a very careful analysis by experienced analysts who recognize the real danger posed by an overly-lax definition of mental illness, which the left has used elsewhere to suppress political adversaries.

  • mhorner

    I forgot to mention that almost none of the gun incidents involved law abiding citizens who purchased their guns legally.

  • http://www.plumbbobblog.com Plumb_Bob

    4) It will increase their political power.
    5) It will reduce the liberty of free, innocent people.

  • PowerToThePeople

    Poverty in itself does not correlate to crime. If that is what your Police Chief said, then not only is Tbone correct, he or she should be fired. It is a sad misconception, one that is used to blame away a criminals responsibility in court, that somehow one who is in poverty is destined to a life in crime. This is so far from the truth it is laughable.

    Many in poverty chose to commit crimes, but the vast majority do not. Same would apply to those above poverty, many chose to commit crime, most do not. In my own family, it was not the ones who were broke that broke the law, they worked hard day day until they pulled themselves right up into a comfortable middle class lifestyle. It was the son of my sister who broke law after law, dealing dope, using dope. breaking into homes, etc and he was from an upper class family who never said no to anything he wanted. Thank goodness he is now saved and preaching, but that is beside the point.

    You should look up real facts and set your Chief straight. That and help get him fired for stupidity.

  • plh

    In their minds, leftists believe that whatever they define to be the good of the collective far outweighs the interests of any individual. The totalitarian state, which allows them to persecute anyone who opposes them, is their ultimate means of achieving that end.

  • plh

    Exactly right. Just as the right to keep and bear arms exists not to protect hunting, target shooting, or gun collecting, but our ability to defend ourselves.

  • http://www.plumbbobblog.com Plumb_Bob

    “Should it be illegal to be crazy?”

    Goodness gracious, son, think this through.

    Nobody is saying mental instability should be *illegal.* The point is that many of the mentally unstable are unable to care for themselves properly, and create a danger to the rest of society when they are among us. In a more sensible era, they were identified and placed in care centers, where professionals kept them safe, and safely sequestered away from the rest of society. This was HUMANE.

    The left has mangled society in many ways, and this is one of them. By trumpeting the rights of the insane and ending sensible asylums for them, they created the homeless populations that live under the bridges and sleep on the grates in every major city. They have also created a nightmare for the families of such people, who cannot do anything at all about their raving family members until they actually do something genuinely horrible, or actively threaten to.

    Yes, we need to write the laws carefully to prevent the vicious left from using the laws to incarcerate their political opponents. Yes, the left has used mental illness elsewhere to do exactly that. But we cannot let that prevent us from doing the right thing by the insane among us.

  • http://www.plumbbobblog.com Plumb_Bob

    What? Barack Obama is not who he said he was?

    Who knew???

  • rightlane1111

    There is a problem with your argument Bob. Was the man in Ct on anti-depressants or any other drug…(Y) or (N). There is no gray in the area. How about the Colorado shootings (Y) or (N).

    Many of the people on anti-depressant drugs are those that have been using illegal drugs that make it impossible to experience any “joy” in their lives because the illegal drugs deplete the brain of necessary chemicals such as Seratonin (sp) necessary to feel normal. We do have a major ILLEGAL drug problem in the country…and now we have legally permitted the sale of the gateway drug…pot.

    Now we come to your other argument about the analysis of mentally ill. With Obama as president…those who oppose him…in his mind…are MENTALLY ILL. Do you see where you cannot go down this road? The WH website has petition on its website to condemn the Catholic Church as a hate group because they oppose same sex marriage. Now…you have to think about mental illness in another light. Experienced analysts…you mean those coming out of our colleges..who because of a social degree probably have a PROGRESSIVE BIAS?

    There is a very, very bad PROBLEM with anti-depressants today. People can’t deal with a situation…go to the doc…he prescribes the anti-depressant rather than having the person..well for lack of a better choice…DEAL WITH IT. No…no…today we have to dumb down everything because of hurt boo boo feelings. If someone dies…you are supposed to feel bad..sad. If your house goes into foreclosure…you are not supposed to like it. Before you know it…the mortgage broker (via Fannie Mae, of course) will be handing out anti-depressants.

  • rightlane1111

    Why are we talking about who…instead of the Constitution. Let’s please not be as dumb as our current Republican Party. The Second Amendment is about our rights…not to shoot a deer…but to protect ourselves against OUR GOVERNMENT. At this particular time…have you ever seen more of an erosion of rights than under Obama. The NRA should not debate this with Biden…A Constitutional Attorney/Scholar should. They swore (the 3 branches of government) to uphold the Constitution. They are in default now.

    Another point…if gun bans were so great…why are there more murders by guns in Chicago than any other city and that city has very strict gun laws. People in NY..tell that to your mayor who has already decided what you can eat!!!

  • http://www.plumbbobblog.com Plumb_Bob

    The “very violent” American society is a myth.

    Statistics reporting violent crime in America show that in most places, America is well within the same range of occurrences as any other Western nation, and considerably less violent than some. Where violent crime is concerned, there are few places in the Western world that are safer than, say, rural Minnesota, Iowa, or Missouri (outside of St. Louis.)

    The reason for the US’ poor showing overall is the violence that occurs in a handful of very limited, somewhat predictable locations. The hot spots in the US are New Orleans, the District of Columbia, New Mexico (the reservations!), and Puerto Rico, followed by several major cities, where the violence is mostly related to gangs, and is mostly about drugs and turf.

  • sliverlining

    It’s funny. I almost put that in at the end : )
    Bush sure got around didn’t he? I still don’t know how he caused a hurricane. . .

  • rightlane1111

    Bob…get a copy of the agenda…and you will find out that there is an “Agenda” behind this entire thing and it is well documents. This is way before your itemized list of “fixes”.

  • boromax

    Tbone. There is no EU Constitution. There is the Lisbon Reform Treaty, which has “constitutional provisions” hidden within it.

  • edintexas

    He is repeating some of the propaganda from the International Association of Chiefs of Police, a group dedicated to increased Federal funding of local law enforcement, more laws and gun control.

    Oh, and he’s also a liar or a fool.

  • edintexas

    The problem is they never really “…see it grow into manure.” They always believe “it wasn’t properly implemented”, or “it failed only because it wasn’t properly funded”, etc. The base idea/program is never, ever faulty in any way.

  • http://bit.ly/b2OIJf bobmann101

    I still have not heard ONE person tell the public how gun control will stop mass murder or bring crime rate down. Never has..never will!!!

    A weapon, arm, or armament is a tool or instrument used in order to inflict damage, harm or death to enemies or other living beings, structures, or systems. Weapons are used to increase the efficacy and efficiency of activities such as hunting, crime, law enforcement, and warfare. In a broader context, weapons may be construed to include anything used to gain a strategic, material or mental advantage over an adversary. Any instrument/object when used to cause bodily harm is an assault weapon. Water, sound, electricity can be also used as a weapon to assault.

    There were weapons, murders and killings long before there were guns.

    A person could take 3 guns that hold only six rounds each and take out up to 18 people. How does banning assault weapons stop people from killing? It DOESN’T!!! All it does is cause a person to come up with another plan.

    Do people really think that banning what will be determined as assault weapons would have stopped the killers from accomplishing their task or obtaining a gun on the black market? Banning assault weapons will make the price go up on the black market. There are people who cannot buy a gun legally yet they still have then m or know how to purchase one.

    Realize how many of these mass killing are done by the mentally unstable, a person on drugs and end up killing themselves after their killing spree. So we blame the gun not the medication. Why not ban drugs that alter a person thought patterns.

    They have our kids on drugs, because there are people who cannot handle the trials and tribulations that go with parenting now that you are not allowed to disipline their children.

    I think every US citizen should have a gun and law enforcement classes to teach people how to use them.

    If the every teacher at the school had a gun and knew how to use them there would have been less people killed, because someone could have taken him out. If a person got the idea to go to a school and shoot people and he knew every teacher had a gun and was trained on how to use them I am sure he would pick another place where no one had a gun.

    Some say have an armed guard at every school. The guard cannot be at more than one place at a time. If the guard is at the front of the school and the shooter enters from the back or side door the guard cannot get to where the shooter is in time to stop him. Yes his being there will mean less children likked., but we 0 children killed. If you rely on law enforcement it takes them a certain amount of time to get to the crime scene.

    People ask the question: Why does a person need these type of guns. They have them because they want them and have the right to own them. Just because they own them does not mean they are going to go out and kill people.

    If assault weapons were were banned it would not have stopped him. Maybe slowed him down. A person does not need an assault weapon to commit mass murder!

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/07/aurora_shooting_how_did_people_commit_mass_murder_before_automatic_weapons_.html

    http://www.neontommy.com/news/2012/07/doing-math-guns

    To say banning assault weapons will stop mass murders or stopping a person from killing is ridiculous!!!

    So the guy wevil they will do evil with whatever method they can get their hands on. That is the reality of it.

    Do some people really believe if there were no, what is determined an assault weapon these sickos would not have killed people.

    BTW, did you know the ACLU prevented his mother from institutionalizing him.

    A Connecticut mental health bill was recently defeated, because the ACLU said the bill would infringe on patients’ privacy rights.

    That bill was defeated by the same vermin on the left who are trying to take your guns away.

    I do have to agree the mother knowing her son should be institutionalized should have not left her guns where Adam had access to them.

    There have been over 12 shootings within the past 4 years. Why all of a sudden is the number of shootings on the increase and the time frame getting closer together? Could it be these shooters were hypnotized, put into a trance or programmed to do what they did and to kill themselves after they accomplished the act.

    They were able to to capture Holmes.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/dark-knight-shooter-spent-months-planning-massacre-detectives-article-1.1236423

    I still want some one to explain how gun control will stop mass murder or bring crime rate down. YOU CAN’T!!!! Nor can I find anywhere ststing a sane gun owner went on a killing spree. I take that back. Janet Reno came to mind.

    I still want some one to explain how gun control will stop mass murder or bring crime rate down. YOU CAN’T!!!! Nor can I find anywhere ststing a sane gun owner went on a killing spree. I take that back. Janet Reno came to mind.

  • edintexas

    Bravo! This is almost true much later than the 19th century. As a young employee at the end of the Eisenhower Administration, the government was only concerned with me personally when I was paid (income tax, FICA tax), when I mailed a letter, when I registered for the draft and when I filed my tax return. In fact, it was possible to fail to file an income tax return and not be caught at it for years and years. If I was drafted, or volunteered for the Regular Army, I might interface with the VA. Might buy a VA or FHA guaranteed loan home. My SSAN was only used for SSA purposes (including FICA tax) and nothing else. And SSA would not voluntarily share any information with any other government entity.

  • Kyle-MI

    The difference between the 1930′s and now is the family instability part, not necessarily the poverty part. Actually the family instability leads to greater poverty, so poverty ends up correlating with crime and violence (today).

  • kipling

    I am going to go with mustaches. Did Lenin have a mustache?

    All kidding aside, you are 100% correct. All confiscated firearms to end any threat to their totalitarian rule. The similarities also go much deeper but we can save that for another post for another day.

  • rosenstern

    I am a conservative and I do not object to common sense restrictions being placed on guns and/or ammunition. The devil is in the details but I completely disagree that reasonable controls on weapons will result in a wholesale disarming of the American people, as others have argued. There are already a lot of laws on the books, perhaps these are sufficient but I would like them reviewed and rationalized. I would also like to better understand the perspective of law enforcement.

  • mogul264

    The liberals are like the Arabian nomadic proverb: “Never let the camel get his nose under the edge of the tent! Soon, ALL of the camel will be IN the tent!”

    With liberals, no matter how many times you reject them, they keep coming back, trying to break off a smaller piece than before.

    When enough small pieces are removed from the base, the top WILL fall! This is Communist Propaganda 101!

  • mogul264

    Poverty can be and has been overcome! Poverty, coupled with a lack of traditional family upbringing, such as a missing father, can lead to a disaster, life of crime, etc. It’s usually a combination of factors.

  • anonymouser

    It’s fun to bash the “liberals” isn’t it? All my liberal friends have no problem with guns and gun owners. So where are you getting your hate speeches from which makes you want to bash liberals? Oh, you watch FOX News and Listen to Shaun Hannity…Makes sense now.

    By definition liberals are more liberal that you are and therefore have a better viewpoint than you do.

    Nobody wants to take your guns away from you. But we sure in hell want to make sure you are qualified to be a gun owner. Do you realize the gun that was used last month would not have been purchased if the weapons ban would have been in effect? Would the perpetrator tried to use a different weapon? Possibly. But it was sure convenient for him to walk in and grab a man killing machine that was recently purchased by a person who should have failed a screening based in the occupants of her household.

  • http://twostepstotheright.blogspot.com/ D.T. Dickinson

    Another school shooting today, this time in my neck of the woods in California. It involved a student with a shotgun resulting in another injured student, and the suspect was taken into custody. No assault weapons, no high capacity magazines (suspect was reported to have a pocket full of shells), and I’m fairly sure a 16 year old (the age of the alleged suspect) isn’t allowed to own a shotgun in California.

    Not exactly sure how any of the proposed regulations concerning firearms would have altered this incident.

  • garret5

    It would likely have been an AR-15, without a muzzle break and a non-telescopic buttstock. Perhaps that would have compelled the perpetrator to not shoot innocent children?

  • wsg57

    The Progressive Left is NOT liberal – that word having at it’s root LIBERTY. In fact Liberty, FREEDOM and individual responsibility are blasphemy to the Progressives. AS for not wanting to disarm US citizens you are either ignorant to the multiple statements made by HGC Inc ( now Bradey ) founders and on up through numerous members of the Regime or you are lying through your teeth. Conn. gun laws are very strict and yet a psycho murdered anyway so how are more laws going to stop the next Adam Lanzer ? Evil does not give a warning so rational people do expect the government to save them when it appears. It took the cops 20 mins to go 2.5 miles in Newtown – please explain how that happened ??

  • http://www.bigcontrarian.com Jack

    “The purpose of gun control is to disarm the American people.”

    Yes, by all means, let’s reduce a legitimate policy disagreement between gun rights advocates and gun control advocates into conspiracy theory nonsense.

    That’ll make our side look totally sane, rational, and not at all as a group that can be dismissed.

  • garret5

    Actually I am in agreement with you in more ways than one. My comment was toward the legislative end, not whether we should care for the mentally ill. Because unless it is a law which Lady Justice can apply to each and every one of us, uniformly and without regard to creed or heritage, its very easy to imagine abuse. All it apparently takes is about ~5 years or so for the “spirit of the law” to have changed.

    I’m just pointing out that it should be difficult to deprive somebody of his or her rights. The government shouldn’t just be able to label you insane by way of a doctor entering you in some national database. With that I have not suggested that it is safe to let insane people own guns.

  • garret5

    He did by way of hanging chads in Florida. Clearly if we would have had Gore, the hurricane would never had happened.

  • http://www.bigcontrarian.com Jack

    That’d be neat. But that’s not what he said or advocated for.

  • garret5

    Are you of the opinion that the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights is outdated and should be repealed? I ask, because even “reasonable” gun control is an infringement on the rights bestowed upon us by the Second Amendment. If you are brave enough to suggest that you’re against the Second Amendment, I will respect your opinion even if I ultimately will disagree with it.

    But I will definitely respect you if you call for a repeal of the Second Amendment.

  • garret5

    I am all for eliminating guns from society, if we could be assured that guns are uninvented and that we really do rid ourselves and all the rest of the world of firearms. Anything less seems to suggest I should remain armed and at the ready.

  • http://www.bigcontrarian.com Jack

    By the same token though, many non-facist states have much stricter gun control laws than the US.

    So while an unarmed populace makes a totalitarian state possible, it doesn’t guarantee it.

    Still not a fan of the notion, but every time I see someone I otherwise agree with bringing up Hitler and Stalin, I cringe.

  • garret5

    Key word is _proper_ identification of the mentally ill. How do we ensure that we _properly_ identify them as opposed to labeling seemingly random people in order to instill gun control and possibly removing other rights as well?

  • wsg57

    If the poverty causes crime meme was correct then it follows the US 1930′s generation would have been the most criminal in US history. Obviously that was NOT the case. Your police chief is a dolt and is repeating the Progressive claptrap he has ingested.

  • rigdum

    no, he left the AR-15 in the trunk and used pistols, as I understand it. connecticut has among the strictest gun laws in the country. when will you fools learn that somebody who wants to find and buy a gun will always be able to.

  • rigdum

    it’s a black thing in the inner city.

  • rigdum

    on the far left are mainly anarchists and communists. the communists do believe that the greater good is what we would call a totalitarian state to enforce “from each according to his ability”, “to each according to his needs.” And if the human species were wired a bit differently, that might be a nice system–but it sure as hell does not work in real life.

  • garret5

    I suggest advocating that those who wish to do what the Second Amendment forbids, that is to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, actually come out saying that they want to repeal the Second Amendment. With whatever reason they have. That it only covers flint lock muskets, or that the militia is really the National Guard. Their reason doesn’t matter so much. The most important thing is to get them to admit they wish to repeal the Second Amendment.

    At least then the debate would be honest, rational and non-dismissable.

  • plf5403

    Let me reiterate the basic tenets of the Biblical laws as I understand them:

    Don’t lie, cheat, steal, lust after your neighbor’s stuff including his wife, honor your mother and father, honor God one day a week and love your enemies as yourself. If everyone strived toward this goal, how much smoother would our society work?

    As for the falling number of serious felonies, I believe demographics play a part as well as a huge increase in concealed carry permit holders as states have gone to a shall-issue model. John Lott has done sound scientific research on this topic and has found the ONLY remedy to random lone-wolf mass murders is a high concentration of concealed carry permit holders. See: http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/

  • garret5

    The NRA should accept the invitation from Biden and listen to what he has to say. It would be bad form to decline. If they don’t like what he’s saying, they should be vocal in telling The People that their Vice President is doing something that would do exactly that which the Second Amendment forbids: infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

    Simply declining and saying they don’t want to hear him out is bad politics and would allow the MSM to have a field day with the NRA.

  • rbdwiggins

    You are misinformed. According to Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance, the Bushmaster AR-15 was the primary weapon. He took his own life with one of two handguns. A shotgun of undisclosed type or manufacture was left in the car.

  • UpLateAgain

    There’s sufficient correlation between crime and poverty to demonstrate a relationship, but that relationship is not cause/effect. If that were the case, crime rates would have risen dramatically during the great depression…. and they did not. There are also demonstrable relationships between single-parenthood and poverty rates, as well as single-parenthood and crime rates, government dependency and crime rates, government dependency and poverty rates, etc, etc, etc.

    As with their approach to ‘science’, liberals tend to to rely on inductive reasoning… a totally unscientific approach where the first correlation that fits their agenda that presents itself is accepted as fact.

  • checkmate2012

    Why do you call this charade of Biden’s task force a legitimate policy disagreement? It’s not legitimate when you read and understand the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. I agree the goal is to disarm Americans and it’s insane not to see through this knee-jerk reaction to a tragedy to advance his Left agenda. Yet before the election, he was silent on Aurora, CO when he easily could have started the “converstion” then but that was inconvienent for his re-election. Now who is disingenuous?
    .
    The task force is described as a “gun violence task force”. If that was the case, their first stop before any photo-ops at the WH should have been to Chicago, where gun violence is prolific. If they found solutions there, then let’s have a national conversation.
    .
    Notice that on day 2 of the talks, Biden said O would issue executive orders among other actions. Does that sound like someone taking the advice of stakeholders seriously when the talks are on-going? The talks are a week or less and yet the recommendations will be given to the prez on Tuesday! Wow, that was quick when even the prez said it was a complex issue* less than a month ago.
    .
    Of course Hollywood is scheduled for Friday and just got huge tax breaks in the cliff and just gave a private showing of the “Penn Street” for the prez this week. Isn’t that nice….I’m sure there will be real tough words for those folks that pedal violence for revenue.
    .
    *http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/12/19/president-obama-words-need-lead-action-gun-violence

  • kipling

    You are confusing fascism and totalitarian. While all fascist states are totalitarian, not all totalitarian states are fascist. In my original post, I took the time to define a totalitarian state. According to that definition, I would argue that those states with strict gun control laws are very totalitarian. They may not be fascist but they are very totalitarian in that the government is involved in all areas of the life of the citizen.

  • checkmate2012

    Great post EE. and may I just add, the Left can’t handle the truth! It’s inconvenient to face reality and easier to live in la la land.

  • arthurjake

    I have heard a few admit that it is a right and it needs repealed but a very few. Getting the majority of gun grabbers to admit that is next to impossible because they know that it would be next to impossible to change or do away with the amendment. They could never get enough states to ratify it. That is why they make the National Guard and musket arguments.

  • pookieamos

    There is a major economic collapse coming , they are coinciding “new ” gun laws with this collapse ! Doug Haggman writes at Canadafreepress.com some excellent articles on this . The only thing keeping us afloat is the massive printing of money . Doug’s insider at DHS says this collapse will come in March or April. Please beware and prepare in any way you can. Don’t believe money in any bank is FDIC protected because if it collapses , I don’t see the government bailing you out.

  • http://www.bigcontrarian.com Jack

    This is just a completely ridiculous post.

    Yes, it’s a legitimate policy disagreement. Biden’s main goal, as best I can tell, is to figure out which gun control measures they can get agreement on without causing a massive backlash, or baring that, which backlashes they think they’ll win. It’s the same type of “task force” or “high-level meetings” these guys always have whenever they’re putting together some type of national policy initiative. Figure out what you can agree on, what you can’t, and when all else fails, figure out how you win.

    The task force is described as “gun violence”, and it’s looking at guns and gun laws. It is not trying to solve the problem of the drug war or inner city poverty or gang violence. It’s “what laws do you think we can pass to restrict gun ownership”. Because they’re stupid enough to believe that’ll help reduce gun violence. It’s naivety, at worst.

    And yeah, Biden saying Obama could issue executive orders sounds exactly like something someone would threaten during a negotiation. “Either you work with us on the law we want, or you’ll get a law you don’t.” Nothing interesting there.

    And yeah, Obama saw a movie. Not sure how that’s relevant.

  • http://www.bigcontrarian.com Jack

    I sort of wish they were debating that. At least then it’d be an honest debate, and worthy of the rhetoric both sides are spewing.

    Let em try it, let it fail, and then let them figure out ways to actually solve the problem.

  • http://www.bigcontrarian.com Jack

    You don’t get to invent your own definition of totalitarianism. Australia is hardly a totalitarian state. Nor is the Netherlands. Nor Canada. They just don’t like guns as much as we do.

  • commonsenseobserver

    There is a legitimate policy debate. it’s just not about gun control. It’s about social breakdown and the violent crime it spawns. I agree with Erick.

  • avgjo

    I really couldn’t care less about your liberal friends.

    Learn how to spell ‘Shaun’ (Sean) and then maybe you’ll be taken more seriously. And please quit with the ‘hate speech’ garbage. That’s just a way for your lefties to try to say ‘you’re a big meanie’ without sounding QUITE as childish. It fails.

    Aside from your apparent difficulties with spelling simple names, you’re a Constitutional illiterate. There is nothing there that allows you or your liberal friends (the ‘we’ you referred to) to make that decision.

  • garret5

    Actually I don’t think its legitimate at all. Legitimate means that there’s a predetermined unspoken agreement that both sides have some sort of legal grounds to stand on in their arguments. In this case, I am a firm believer that “shall not be infringed” means exactly that. Pretending that the Second Amendment doesn’t say that, or says something completely different is asinine.

    It WOULD be legitimate if Biden proposed a Constitutional amendment to repeal the Second Amendment. He has the right to champion that cause. After all, Biden, Obama and all their followers think that they’re only going to hurt a handful of outdoorsmen. So its the Greater Good. I am not willing to trade any of my Freedoms for a minuscule if any sense of security.

  • garret5

    Violent society does not equate violent crime. We are fed daily with various levels of violence and gore by ways of movies, video games and all kinds of stuff. We like sex and violence on TV, its not a secret. I’m not prepared to blame this on the count of gun violence however, because as a Free man I am actually able to choose whether I watch that programming. Nobody is forcing me at gunpoint to watch violent movies.

    Europeans in contrast are very docile. Their exposure to sex is probably at the same level as our exposure to violence. They have sex talk shows on prime time television and promiscuity is a fact of life. That doesn’t mean they’re any better than us. In fact, I’ll argue that America is the one country in the world where you can work hard and hit it big. In Europe any entrepreneurism is punished by severe taxation.

    Europeans are very proud of the fact that they’re a huge collection of sissies and that they don’t work as hard as we do. Go figure.

  • garret5

    In other words, they blame Bush.

  • avgjo

    Cringe all you want. The question is whether or not the comparison is legitimate.

    I am not sure that any of those people (Hitler and Stalin), when confiscating weapons, faced the high rate of ownership of those weapons in their societies, such as we see in this country. In fact, I’d bet against it. They also had a much different culture with respect to the bureaucracies that are entrusted with confiscation efforts; the military and police in those countries tended to be much more compliant and regimented than ours. While I expect that a goodly number of those people would follow such orders here, I also expect at least an equivalent number to disobey them.

    In light of this, the end goal may be the same, but practical considerations may require a slower approach to that end.

    Given Obama’s associations with a terrorist like Bill Ayers, who belonged to a group whose plans included exterminations exactly like Hitler’s and Stalin’s, I’m not sure the mention of those names is that far off the mark.

  • avgjo

    I’m not sure about that, and I’ve seen some of the stats…I imagine there is big money (read: funding) in crime prevention, and that seems it might be awful tempting to fudge the numbers.

    I do know that when I was a boy, back in the 90s (not that long ago), you could pump before you pay. Now? Yeah, right!

    I also know we didn’t have metal detectors in schools, and kids still played outside.

    I also think, from what I’ve been told by older people, I’d feel more comfortable in a big city in the 50s than I would now.

  • checkmate2012

    Jack, you say my comment is completely ridiculous when in fact, your comment to me refutes what you said above and substantiates mine. I said it was not a legitimate task force/discussion since the outcome is pre-determined. You say it is since they’ll get agreement on whatever they can and if need be, do what they need to win. Win by who’s standards? The lawful citizen with a gun or the gov’t that wants to restrict our rights and trample the Constitution?
    .
    Your second point that the task force is looking at guns and violence and that my remark about Chicago isn’t relevant since the task force isn’t dealing with drug or inner city poverty/gang violence. That’s almost laughable if it weren’t such a serious problem in our country that SHOULD be the focus. Do you not consider gun violence in Chicago as a legitimate example of gun violence that needs solutions? If the task force was a serious attempt to fix real problems, then they’d start there but that’s not the purpose of the charade and there’s no mention of inner-city youth violence.
    .
    “Nothing interesting there.” on the threat of an EO? Really, since I thought the purpose of the talks was to find solutions from a variety of stakeholders. Not I’ll ram it down the throats of America regardless of what they have to say, which is exactly what he did by threatening and EO before the talks were finalized to hear all opinions. This isn’t a fiscal cliff negotiation when both parties have to compromise; this was to find SOLUTIONS to gun violence in America, not a contest of who wins and who loses.
    .
    Lastly, my comment about Hollywood and the film showing is so obvious but I’ll explain. O and his admin are as thick as thieves with the Hollywood elite, which means they won’t be asked to budge on their violent films/videos. Hell no, they give too much money to O Inc. and matter of fact, they already said today that they won’t change their ways. So their meeting is tomorrow but it’s just another photo op since their stance is pre-determined too. They’re above the fray with their armed guards unlike the regular citizens of this country that just want to protect themselves and their families without the gov’t interfering.
    .
    But I’ll gladly agree with you once Holder and his boys find all the 1,500+ guns still circulating and being used to kill innocents from Fast and Furious, since they admited it was a botched program and they didn’t really mean to lose track of all those guns. Yeah, I trust the gov’t to fix gun violence as much as I want a hole in my head.

  • edintexas

    That is correct. Early on the Drive By Media were reporting that the AR was left in the trunk, apparently based on helicopter blurry video of the shotgun being removed from the trunk. I’m surprised they didn’t find someone associated with the Tea Party with the same name to accuse.

  • edintexas

    The most common wish of those who support gun control is registration of firearms. If your position is that registration of firearms is not the first necessary step to firearms confiscation, you are on the wrong side of history. Say “It can’t happen in the US!”, you are still on the wrong side of history – NY City used registration records to enforce a complete ban on the City Council’s definition of “Assault Weapon”, something the City Council claimed would never happen when registration was first proposed. Of course those who didn’t register their weapons did not get a visit from the NYPD for failing to turn in.

  • edintexas

    The problem isn’t firearms. The problem is people to whom the laws against doing all sorts of violence to others mean nothing (for whatever reason). And we have people on the political Left who do not wish to have these people incarcerated or hospitalized.

  • edintexas

    You forgot Fascists, or do you classify National Socialists as not being quite as far Left? Lest we forget, Mussolini was a Communist organizer before he implemented Fascism in Italy.

  • bobmark

    Interesting answers are here. This guy makes a lot of sense.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0

  • edintexas

    You must be new to the fight. The Left has been itching for crises (note the plural) since the early 1960s (think the Gun Control Act of 1968, only now they use euphemistic Bill titles, usually involving “Safety” and/or “Crime Control”).

  • edintexas

    Just a minor correction – “…the left could care less…” should be couldn’t care less (i.e. they don’t care at all now, so they couldn’t care less than they do now).

  • edintexas

    I might be mistaken, but I believe that particular interpretation came from the Bush DoJ. I would not rely on the current regime’s DoJ to adhere to that interpretation. They might not change it, given the SCOTUS decisions, but they won’t observe any restrictions on action to which that interpretation would lead.

  • bobmark

    You may want to rethink this position after you read this:

    http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/the-giant-gaping-hole-in-sandy-hook-reporting/

    My wife’s friend’s daughter was on these med (idk which exact one) and thought she was going crazy because she started having suicidal thoughts. If you read (or listen closely to the tv ads) the warnings for the meds they do list suicidal thoughts. Is it a stretch to go from killing oneself to taking others with you? Well yeah, but isn’t it a stretch getting to the suicide part in the first place?

  • odefogey

    If anyone does not understand the risks of the gun control movement, they only need read the article in Pravda in which the author fully recognizes the rarity and superiority of the institutional right of all people to bear arms- for their defense from their government.

    http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/28-12-2012/123335-americans_guns-0/#

    Let those that believe that the purpose of controls is not disarmament to believe that, but they have to accept that an unarmed population will eventually be the subject of tyrants who will have no fear of reprisal.

  • funwithknives

    Well, in fact, it IS all about Race and to dismiss it out of hand as you mightily seem to does this conversation Zero Favors.

    ‘The Culture’ you speak of is essentially Black Culture [such as it is] ,and that ain’t much to speak of. ‘Black Culture’ in my neck of the woods includes the famous [or infamous] CouncilPerson Jo-Anne Watson going on at some length about Obama ‘bringing home the bacon’, and so-forth.
    What we see in places like Chicago, Flint and Detroit is not Circumstantial
    [i.e. "...hard to explain otherwise." ] It is, as I commented, simply bored,underemployed, ill-educated, Governmentally Dependent youth doing what come naturally to those with busy hands :
    Doing what they ‘feel’ they Can Do with minimum effort. Seeing others get let go/lightly slapped for what they are considering and only encouraging others by personal examples and experiences.
    ** ‘Stop snitching’ pressures abound and there goes your policing arguments.
    ** Criminal Terrorism in neighborhoods prevents actual policing and many crimes are just never carried to prosecution.This is a by-product of Fear and Self-Preservation, by Victims and Witnesses
    ** Children see various initiatives named by acronyms and current slang terms and see that few, if any Citizens, ever get any up-close and personally-experienced positive results.

    In closing for today, I’ll bring up one more little ditty: You say/infer in your last para. that ‘aggressively attacking’ various culture aspects might/would be effective. Who is gonna’ do that, may I ask ?? In S/E Michigan if you’re White [or anything BUT Black] and you advocate this stuff you get immense amounts of Flak and are dismissed out of hand. Inside Eight Mile and Telgraph Roads you are Plantation Owners and much, much worse.

    If you’re ‘A Black Leader’, you might get 50 people, a small demonstration somewhere in 140 square miles, and little else comes of it, long-term.
    How many generations of ‘Aggressive Attacks’ will it take to start the tilt to something more productive?
    Clue all of us here ‘in’, when you figure that one out……

  • rightlane1111

    Garret…this is EXACTLY what the Dims want…the NRA talking about it and then they can rant on about pro-gun and change the subject.

    Either get one of our Congress people to open their mouths about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights…or get a Constitutional scholar to “educate” the public and this government about OUR RIGHTS. We get into the weeds about hunting and then we lose sight of the fact that the militia is allowed to be formed to protect the people from the government…and that includes guns. The fact that Lenin, Stalin and Hitler all took the guns from the people should be a lead in to why Obama (using the school for cover) is going to take yet ANOTHER RIGHT away from our supposed Republic.

  • Melody Warbington

    They’re not mutually exclusive. Perhaps you meant “and” instead of “or?”

  • cbartlett

    I don’t disagree with any of these discussions about cause and effect. And maybe “correlate” is the wrong term to use. The police chief was only making the statement about the locations and perpetrators of crime IN OUR TOWN (which he is obviously very familiar with) because he quite often hears people blame our crime rate on “minorities” (usually blacks). He said, in his experience, that crimes here are most often committed by people who think gang activity, selling drugs and robbery are their only methods of dealing with their poverty – regardless of their race. It is much more a function of the living conditions they were raised in – lack of good role models, family structure, education, training for jobs, etc. Yeah – those things can happen in more affluent homes too, but they sure seem to be much more common in certain areas of town. My recent experience on Grand Jury duty, where we only reviewed felony cases, certainly affirmed this. Sure – there were a few cases involving white, affluent-home-raised college kids, but there were hundreds of cases that were just the opposite. Sorry if I offended anyone.

  • soljerblue

    My only gripe with this post is that we should be differentiating between mass murderers and mad acts of slaughter, and shooters. To paraphrase LTC Dave Grossman: I am a shooter. I own and use firearms for competition, hunting, and — if it comes to that — defending my self and my family. Those like Loughner, Lanza, et.al. who enter gun-free zones like schools, college classrooms, malls and movie theaters to kill are not “shooters”. Let’s call them what they are, insane murderers. I will not have them classified with me and other law-abiding American gun owners as ‘shooters’. Let’s get that straight.

  • kipling

    Did you even read the post? I am not inventing my own definition of totalitarianism. I am giving you the standard political definition as expounded by an established European historian who has written extensively on the subject. All totalitarian regimes are not fascist. The Soviet Union and the Eastern European regimes were totalitarian and communist. To the extent that those countries have broken down the separation of the public and the private and involved government into all areas of life, they are totalitarian.

  • garret5

    Of course it did, but its published. Without redacting its still there.

  • Bill S

    Goodbye.

  • PowerToThePeople

    You did not offend me, simply stating the for a police chief to claim that poverty is a reason for crime is improper and not backed in facts. Poverty does not cause crime, and without the real factors being stated, people buy into that nonsense.

  • WmCraig

    This is a serious subject and I understand that. But taking the Democrats seriously is the wrong tactic. This move to ban guns by Democrats is a joke and needs to be met with ridicule. They can cause problems, and that is why we need to change our response. But they can’t CONTROL anything,

    They can’t, or won’t control the border, including human and contraband smuggling

    They can’t or won’t control drugs. (Actually they are just giving up trying now)
    They can’t or won’t control criminals, most murders are committed by repeat offenders.

    The idea that Democrats can pass a law that will control guns is laughable. And anyone proposing it should be laughed out. Responded to with Ridicule.

    The fact is the Democrats are focusing on the guns because they can’t control their spending, they can’t live within the means we provide for them, and they are loosing influence over President Obama. They want the spot light which he has stolen.

    The truth is, it is laughable to think that Democrats can do anything to protect us from violence when they won’t attack the main source of violence. As is pointed out in this article large urban areas suffer the highest rate of drug and gang violence. The highest rate of murders, most often by previously incarcerated criminals. They can’t control that, and as long as they can’t it is laughable to think that they can control anything else.

    So laugh at them. Ask them if they are in league with Capone’s airs to create a new market for the smugglers and gangs that enjoy the benefits of our porous borders by prohibiting guns. It was the last time Democrats tried prohibition that brought the Chicago Way to national prominence. Maybe the democrats have run out of legitimate businesses to shake down and are looking for some action in the gun smuggling business they want to start. It is the Chicago way.

  • WmCraig

    I am beginning to think that the purpose of gun control is so the Democrats can blame somebody else for the failure of big blue cities, like Philadelphia to prosper, protect and educate their population. It just a way of changing the subject. Especially this week when as drudge’s headline says, wait MY taxes went up?

    Besides they can’t actually control anything. Maybe they want to prohibit guns so they can go back to the Chicago way of generating kick backs from smugglers by prohibiting guns but not getting rid of gangs, smugglers, not closing the borders, and not controlling drugs.

  • nixonfan

    Gun-related violence is a criminal justice problem and can be solved by strengthening the sanctioning system for gun-related crime. The penalty for use of a gun in commission of a felony should be death. This would discourage the use of guns to commit crime and would completely eliminate the risk of repeat offenses.