Gun Control (Congress, stats, weapons, how much)

[Stockholmaren]

Originally Posted by LM1

Anecdotes are fodder for the weakest minds amongst us.
People who predicate their belief structure on anomaly, isolated circumstance, canards and stories are invariably stupid- no mater how dramatic the anecdote or occurrence may be.

Yes, the US has higher incidences of firearm homicides than any other nation on the planet. You don't have to scratch the surface very deeply to realize what glaring variable is responsible for it and what separates us from virtually every other 1st world nation on earth on this issue. .

From 1976-2005, blacks, who make up 12% of the population, committed 56.4% (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm - broken link) of all firearm homicides in the US. If you take that 56% out of the equation, it pars us with places like Finland, France, Austria, etc- countries that have relatively homogeneous populations. Consider that for statistical purposes, Hispanics are classified as "white" and it skews the stats even further, when examining the issue in terms of homogeny, race, crime and multiculturalism. The state of statistical disproportion has very little to do with "guns" and everything to do with "race", given that the corollaries between race and crime are just so stark. It's a large part of the reason that the one state with virtually no gun laws- Vermont- a state that doesn't even require a permit to carry a concealed handgun, has extremely low crime.

The reason it's forcibly made into a "gun issue" is because we aren't allowed to discuss unflattering, unfortunate racial truisms. If anything bad trends black, we're supposed either pretend it doesn't exist, focus our efforts into concocting bizarre rationalizations for it, or just unapologetically distract away from it, thus changing the subject.

Of course, I don't even know why I bother.
Anyone who is actually, genuinely so stupid as to support "banning guns" isn't the sort of person who can comprehend things like logic, fact and reason anyway. They're the sort of people who do everything based on "feeling" and "emotion" as long as it can be squeezed into a three second soundbyte.

Is it because of race there is high crime, or is it simply a correlation? Can it be because those cities have a higher percentage of poor people and gangs as another poster mentioned? Just because two statistics are correlated doesn't mean that one causes the other.

[odinloki1]

Originally Posted by Greatday

May I ask how you would propose, if guns were banned, to confiscate the weapons already owned by citizens and non citizens alike?

Thats a good point. Very similar to how would we round up 12 millions people who don't want to be found and send them out of the country?

[tinman01]

Originally Posted by odinloki1

Thats a good point. Very similar to how would we round up 12 millions people who don't want to be found and send them out of the country?

Allow states to punish employers and landlords of illegals. Allow employers to verify residence status. They will leave on their own.
Deny them banking, force all who send money transfer to have valid ID.
Kind of eliminates the avenues of escape.

[oz in SC]

I hope the Democratic candidates jump on this as a platform issue.

It will be quite helpful.

[TXboomerang]

Originally Posted by Stockholmaren

Is it because of race there is high crime, or is it simply a correlation? Can it be because those cities have a higher percentage of poor people and gangs as another poster mentioned? Just because two statistics are correlated doesn't mean that one causes the other.

There are more poor white people in America than there are black or hispanic. Its hard for most people to understand this because the media likes to rally around inner city poverty which is usually higher in minorities. Rural poverty is very much a white issue, and one that is largely ignored by media sensationalism.

I will say that its pretty likely that the correlation between blacks and inner city crime is a lot to do with population density. When you have people who are unhappy crammed into small, run down buildings full of other unhappy people, there is less room to feel any relief, and I would think that would make it easier for violence to breed.

[GregW]

IMHO - Urban poverty creates urban crime. Throughout our history the ethnicities that dominated the urban poor (Italian, Irish, Jewish, etc.) were the ethnicities associated with crime. In the cities the blacks and the Hispanics control the drugs. In rural areas whites control them. In either case the unifying factor is to escape from a system that has codified your poverty if you follow the rules. When given a choice between remaining poor or taking the chances on crime most people are intimidated enough to follow the rules and remain poor. A few are entrepreneur enough to take their chances and make better money with illegal commerce.

As all commerce requites rules and the illegal businesses cannot use the legitimate courts to enforce contracts the deals are enforced with violence. This violence is concentrated, like everything else, into the cities. Hence the higher urban crime rates and a false correlation with race. Poverty is the problem. Crime is the by-product and any racial correlation depends upon the time being considered.

If there is any racial component it is the primarily white established business society weeding out the black entrepreneurs by essentially forcing them into illegal trade because the access to legitimate trade is effectively blocked by the predominantly white people already there. As our small business economy contracts due to the assault of monopoly big business this exclusion will only increase as the need to follow the criminal path. Law enforcement selectively incarcerates the illegal entrepreneurs and distorts the racial perceptions. As more immigrants are imported to maintain poverty pressures on wages the ethnicity of the criminals will change to the latest group of poor people.

I believe it is the economics that are the determinant factor in criminality, not the ethnicity

[TXboomerang]

Originally Posted by GregW

IMHO - Urban poverty creates urban crime. Throughout our history the ethnicities that dominated the urban poor (Italian, Irish, Jewish, etc.) were the ethnicities associated with crime. In the cities the blacks and the Hispanics control the drugs. In rural areas whites control them. In either case the unifying factor is to escape from a system that has codified your poverty if you follow the rules. When given a choice between remaining poor or taking the chances on crime most people are intimidated enough to follow the rules and remain poor. A few are entrepreneur enough to take their chances and make better money with illegal commerce.

As all commerce requites rules and the illegal businesses cannot use the legitimate courts to enforce contracts the deals are enforced with violence. This violence is concentrated, like everything else, into the cities. Hence the higher urban crime rates and a false correlation with race. Poverty is the problem. Crime is the by-product and any racial correlation depends upon the time being considered.

If there is any racial component it is the primarily white established business society weeding out the black entrepreneurs by essentially forcing them into illegal trade because the access to legitimate trade is effectively blocked by the predominantly white people already there. As our small business economy contracts due to the assault of monopoly big business this exclusion will only increase as the need to follow the criminal path. Law enforcement selectively incarcerates the illegal entrepreneurs and distorts the racial perceptions. As more immigrants are imported to maintain poverty pressures on wages the ethnicity of the criminals will change to the latest group of poor people.

I believe it is the economics that are the determinant factor in criminality, not the ethnicity

If it is color of skin that determines ones ability to move up out of poverty, why are there such large problems with white poverty? Sure, the concentration of black poverty is more evident, but there is a very steady number of whites that live in poverty in urban areas, and a very high and steady number of whites that live in poverty rurally.

I believe that family class has a lot to do with ones place in life. Sure a person born into poverty can become very wealthy. As can a person born into riches end up poor. But in general, people tend to stay relatively near the class that they were born into.

When you look at it from a long term perspective, it plays out logically. Rich white people came over to this land. They colonized it, fought for it, and made it a nation. Then more people continued to come over. While a lot of people came over that were wealthy, even more came over that were poor. There was a lot of opportunity to become wealthy when coming over, but not nearly enough for all poor people coming here to become wealthy. Many whites remained poor, while the rich whites were able to continue gaining wealth. Native Americans were not materialistic for the most part, but they were stripped of their lands and way of life and pushed to areas that would not support their culture or traditions. So much of their "culture wealth" was lost in the process, and their ways of living off the land was made much more difficult, effectively reducing them to poverty. Blacks came over as part of the slave trade. They were poor. They weren't free when they got here, so they weren't allowed the opportunities to gain wealth for a long period of time. There were some exceptions, but the general rule was poverty on arrival, poverty after arrival. Asians also came to this country in large numbers, a lot of them poor and the amount of Asian poverty was VERY high at one point in time. There is still a lot of Asian poverty, but they have been somewhat of an exception of minorities.

But overall, if you look at the past, it looks a lot like the present and is a good indicator of the future. More white people were rich upon arrival in this country, which, IMO is why there is still a lot more success in white America. When you see wealthy blacks come over from Africa, they tend to stay wealthy and their children do well. Same with Asians and Hispanics. Its easier to maintain than it is to move up.

[oz in SC]

I think people need to stop being that concerned with poverty in the USA.

Those poverty stricken people seem to live quite well considering.

Only in America are the poor driving cars,owning their own homes and having two or more TVs.

[Stockholmaren]

Originally Posted by tnbound2day

There are more poor white people in America than there are black or hispanic. Its hard for most people to understand this because the media likes to rally around inner city poverty which is usually higher in minorities. Rural poverty is very much a white issue, and one that is largely ignored by media sensationalism.

I will say that its pretty likely that the correlation between blacks and inner city crime is a lot to do with population density. When you have people who are unhappy crammed into small, run down buildings full of other unhappy people, there is less room to feel any relief, and I would think that would make it easier for violence to breed.

Unfortunately you are incorrect, you may want to check the following census data regarding the percentages living below the poverty line:

All races: 12.3%
White: 8.2%
Black: 24.3%
Asian: 10.3%
Hispanic: 20.6%

Historical Poverty Tables (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html - broken link)

As you can see, it's not a media thing that more blacks and Hispanic live in poverty. Where are you getting the figures that there is a higher percentage of whites living in poverty? There is no point in looking at the total numbers.

[TXboomerang]

Originally Posted by Stockholmaren

Unfortunately you are incorrect, you may want to check the following census data regarding the percentages living below the poverty line:

All races: 12.3%
White: 8.2%
Black: 24.3%
Asian: 10.3%
Hispanic: 20.6%

Historical Poverty Tables (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html - broken link)

As you can see, it's not a media thing that more blacks and Hispanic live in poverty. Where are you getting the figures that there is a higher percentage of whites living in poverty? There is no point in looking at the total numbers.

I didn't say there was a higher percentage. Its an overall higher number. Also, you can look at the national numbers to make a point, but it doesn't eliminate the fact that there are areas where the white poverty rates are very high percenatge wise (well above 50%).

My point about media sensationalism was pretty basic. Look at the media outcry about Katrina. All the disenfranchised inner city blacks were victims and its an outrage that this could happen in America. It was, and still is a talking point for the media. Yet every year tornadoes tear through the midwest, often destroying areas that are inhabitated almost exclusively by poor white people, especially trailer parks. But since trailer parks are full of ignorant rednecks who should know better than to live in trailer parks in tornado alley, we shouldn't pay any attention to them.


Also note that the Asian poverty rate is almost equal to whites, even though they are more in the minority than blacks or hispanics.