[Cog]

Posted in its entirety. Hopefully you progressives and Democrats are paying attention. I doubt it.

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2016/01 ... has_4.html

America Doesn't Have a Gun Problem, It Has a Democrat Problem

Posted by Daniel Greenfield 18 Comments


America's mass shooting capital isn't somewhere out west where you can get a gun at the corner store. It's in Obama's own hometown.

Chicago is America's mass shooting capital. There were over 400 shootings with more than one victim. In 95 of those shootings, 3 or more people were shot.

2,995 people were shot in Chicago last year. Shootings were up, way up, in Baltimore. With an assist from Al Sharpton and #BlackLivesMatter, Baltimore beat out Detroit. But Detroit is still in the running. Chicago, Baltimore and Detroit all have something in common, they're all run by the party of gun control which somehow can't seem to manage to control the criminals who have the guns.

The murder rate in Washington, D.C., home of the progressive boys and girls who can solve it all, is up 54%. The capital of the national bureaucracy has also been the country's murder capital.

These cities are the heartland of America’s real gun culture. It isn’t the bitter gun-and-bible clingers in McCain and Romney territory who are racking up a more horrifying annual kill rate than Al Qaeda; it’s Obama’s own voting base.

Gun violence is at its worst in the cities that Obama won in 2012. Places like New Orleans, Memphis, Birmingham, St. Louis, Kansas City and Philly. The Democrats are blaming Republicans for the crimes of their own voters.

Chicago, where Obama delivered his victory speech, has homicide numbers that match all of Japan and are higher than Spain, Poland and pre-war Syria. If Chicago gets any worse, it will find itself passing the number of murders for the entire country of Canada.

Chicago’s murder rate of 15.09 per 100,000 people looks nothing like the American 4.2 rate, but it does look like the murder rates in failed countries like Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe. To achieve Chicago’s murder rate, African countries usually have to experience a bloody genocidal civil war.

But Chicago isn’t even all that unique. Or the worst case scenario. That would be St. Louis with 50 murders for 100,000 people. If St Louis were a country, it would have the 4th highest murder rate in the world, beating out Jamaica, El Salvador and Rwanda.

Obama won St. Louis 82 to 16 percent.

New Orleans lags behind with a 39.6 murder rate. Louisiana went red for Romney 58 to 40, but Orleans Parish went blue for Obama 80 to 17. Obama won both St. Louis and Baltimore by comfortable margins. He won Detroit’s Wayne County 73 to 26.

Homicide rates like these show that something is broken, but it isn’t broken among Republican voters rushing to stock up on rifles every time Obama begins threatening their right to buy them; it’s broken among Obama’s base.

Any serious conversation about gun violence and gun culture has to begin at home; in Chicago, in Baltimore, in New York City, in Los Angeles and in Washington, D.C.

Voting for Obama does not make people innately homicidal. Just look at Seattle. So what is happening in Chicago to drive it to the gates of hell?

A breakdown of the Chicago killing fields shows that 83% of those murdered in Chicago in one year had criminal records. In Philly, it’s 75%. In Milwaukee it’s 77% percent. In New Orleans, it’s 64%. In Baltimore, it’s 91%. Many were felons who had served time. And as many as 80% of the homicides were gang related.

Chicago’s problem isn’t guns; it’s gangs. Gun control efforts in Chicago or any other major city are doomed because gangs represent organized crime networks which stretch down to Mexico. And Democrats pander to those gangs because it helps them get elected. That's why Federal gun prosecutions in Chicago dropped sharply under Obama. It's why he has set free drug dealers and gang members to deal and kill while convening town halls on gun violence.

America’s murder rate isn’t the work of the suburban and rural homeowners who shop for guns at sporting goods stores and at gun shows, and whom the media profiles after every shooting, but by the gangs embedded in urban areas controlled by Democrats. The gangs who drive up America’s murder rate look nothing like the occasional mentally ill suburban white kid who goes off his medication and decides to shoot up a school. Lanza, like most serial killers, is a media aberration, not the norm.

National murder statistics show that blacks are far more likely to be killers than whites and they are also far more likely to be killed. The single largest cause of homicides is the argument. 4th on the list is juvenile gang activity with 676 murders, which combined with various flavors of gangland killings takes us nearly to the 1,000 mark. America has more gangland murders than Sierra Leone, Eritrea and Puerto Rico have murders.

Our national murder rate is not some incomprehensible mystery that can only be attributed to the inanimate tools, the steel, brass and wood that do the work. It is largely the work of adult males from age 18 to 39 with criminal records killing other males of that same age and criminal past.

If this were going on in Rwanda, El Salvador or Sierra Leone, we would have no trouble knowing what to make of it, and silly pearl-clutching nonsense about gun control would never even come up. But this is Chicago, it’s Baltimore, it’s Philly and NOLA; and so we refuse to see that our major cities are in the same boat as some of the worst trouble spots in the world.

Lanza and Newtown are comforting aberrations. They allow us to take refuge in the fantasy that homicides in America are the work of the occasional serial killer practicing his dark art in one of those perfect small towns that always show up in murder mysteries or Stephen King novels. They fool us into thinking that there is something American about our murder rate that can be traced to hunting season, patriotism and bad mothers.

But go to Chicago or Baltimore. Go where the killings really happen and the illusion comes apart.

There is a war going on in America between gangs of young men who bear an uncanny resemblance to their counterparts in Sierra Leone or El Salvador. They live like them, they fight for control of the streets like them and they kill like them.

America’s horrific murder rate is a result of the transformation of major American cities into Sierra Leone, Somalia, Rwanda and El Salvador. Gun violence largely consists of criminals killing criminals.

As David Kennedy, the head of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control, put it, "The majority of homicide victims have extensive criminal histories. This is simply the way that the world of criminal homicide works. It's a fact.”

America is, on a county by county basis, not a violent country, just as it, on a county by county basis, did not vote for Obama. It is being dragged down by broken cities full of broken families whose mayors would like to trash the Bill of Rights for the entire country in the vain hope that national gun control will save their cities, even though gun control is likely to be as much help to Chicago or New Orleans as the War on Drugs.

Obama’s pretense that there needs to be a national conversation about rural American gun owners is a dishonest and cynical ploy that distracts attention from the real problem that he and politicians like him have sat on for generations.

America does not have a gun problem. Its problem is in the broken culture of cities administered by Democrats. We do not need to have a conversation about gun violence. We need to have a conversation about Chicago. We need to have a conversation about what the Democrats have done to our cities.

[Cog]

This is what happens when the Second Amendment is conflated with hunting or target practice. In many European countries, yeah you can have your hunting rifles or shotguns but they are kept locked up at a hunting club inaccessible to you except for the purposes of hunting or sighting in your gun. That is the type of gun ownership that the left envisions. Guns totally useless for the purpose of why the Second Amendment was created. Regarding guns for self-defense, forget about that entirely. New Zealand and Australia, as well as most European countries recognize no right to keep arms for that reason. Only for hunting or pest control.

Most states have well developed seasons and regulations for hunting various types of animals. The gun control people can easily make the argument that you don't need access to those guns unless its actually hunting season. Most if not all the Democrat candidates view gun ownership within the scope of hunting or target practice alone. Conceal carry or even ownership of guns for self-defense makes them quite queasy. Unfortunately Fudd gun-owners view gun ownership exactly the same way.

As much as I like the US Constitution and see it as a masterful work of organizing political power and recognizing our individual rights, its still just a piece of paper with writing on it. Ultimately the rights contained within can only be enforced by bearing arms. Some people trust police or the military as those agencies which protect rights. But history has shown its the people themselves who safeguard their rights and governments trample on them.

[Newfie]

Cog,

I don’t support much gun legislation, if at all, depending upon how you define it.

One thing I do support is requiring gun owners to be responsible for their own weapons. I’m thinking of those few irresponsible folks who buy then resell guns to otherwise ineligible folks. When the serial number is chased down to them they say the gun was stolen.

My suggestion is to require gun owners to secure their weapons against theft. If someone repeatedly looses weapons to theft, let’s say 3 instances, then he has shown himself irresponsible and is barred from having weapons.

I would like your thoughts on this particular suggestion.

[Cog]

State laws vary. In my state I'm required to report a missing or stolen gun WHEN, I become aware of it. I thinks it's a fine or low level misdemeanor not to.

Securing guns is something a prudent gun owner does, especially around children. But any gun safe can be breached with pry bars and Sawzalls.

I'm ok with reporting a stolen gun. If it's used in a crime and recovered, it will trace back to you if you bought it at a FFL. Not a fan of charging people with a crime or taking their guns away because they had guns stold multiple times . Some people live in high crime areas. House break ins are common. I am for charging parents with criminal neligence if their kid accidently shoots himself with an unsecured gun though.

[evilgenius]

This is what happens when the Second Amendment is conflated with hunting or target practice. In many European countries, yeah you can have your hunting rifles or shotguns but they are kept locked up at a hunting club inaccessible to you except for the purposes of hunting or sighting in your gun. That is the type of gun ownership that the left envisions. Guns totally useless for the purpose of why the Second Amendment was created. Regarding guns for self-defense, forget about that entirely. New Zealand and Australia, as well as most European countries recognize no right to keep arms for that reason. Only for hunting or pest control.

Most states have well developed seasons and regulations for hunting various types of animals. The gun control people can easily make the argument that you don't need access to those guns unless its actually hunting season. Most if not all the Democrat candidates view gun ownership within the scope of hunting or target practice alone. Conceal carry or even ownership of guns for self-defense makes them quite queasy. Unfortunately Fudd gun-owners view gun ownership exactly the same way.

As much as I like the US Constitution and see it as a masterful work of organizing political power and recognizing our individual rights, its still just a piece of paper with writing on it. Ultimately the rights contained within can only be enforced by bearing arms. Some people trust police or the military as those agencies which protect rights. But history has shown its the people themselves who safeguard their rights and governments trample on them.

I think the reason why Europe is like that is because of their experience with charismatic populist leaders who have risen up in various countries, usually from a small power base. Violence was never far from those people's minds. Populist gun ownership would only feed that form of tyranny. Experience is their teacher. It's true that they don't see all sides of the situation, but they do see a valid side.

[Newfie]

Evil,

It’s interesting how your thoughts intertwine with Cog’s arguments.

Could make for an interesting night over a couple of 6 packs.

[evilgenius]

You want a gun registry accessible to the general public so people exercising their rights can be harrassed, fired, or intimidated? Gee, wonder why us gun owners might not embrace this?

Equal rights! For everybody, not just one particular faction. Any true patriot would embrace that.

Under that standard shouldn't every abortion be published on an easy to access webpage so that pro-life believers can avoid hiring or associating with these particular individuals?

I don't know. Does abortion rise to the same level of nondeterminism which we reach when we argue over silencers, or bump stocks? Just because each side has bedrock reasons for taking their position, and they are at loggerheads, doesn't necessary mean that the definition of the thing is indeterminable. Actually, it has a perfect set of definitions. It has two of them. How's that for referencing abortion and not getting into what I think about it?

So, not clouding the issue with my own take on the morality of it, we can see a difference. As I said, when I was introducing the idea, it's not about registering the obvious. No pistols or hunting rifles. This is about those things which can be fetishes for those who push this issue too far. Referencing abortion, in whatever way may be pertinent, it might well be like registering those who've been convicted of attacking an abortion doctor because they are the ones who take that issue as far as mass shooters take the gun issue. You might find out a woman's name because a protester attacked her at a clinic, but only because of the attack. It wouldn't be any kind of carte blanche affair. This is about listening to the people's fears. Trying to find a compromise which doesn't overreach.

I don't know that much good comes out of being afraid. We learn to avoid those things for which there is an experiential reason for us to avoid them. We also feel the same way about things we have no experience with. Trying to fill in the gap of knowledge, as to whether we should be afraid, is very hard. Go too far and you risk the very society you intend to protect.

I also stated when I introduced the idea that my faith in the gun lobby is actually strong. I trust them to fight overreaching. In fact, I suggested that as a result of their success doing that precedents may be set. Those precedents could have impacts upon other issues within society. I gave the example of how someone who gets fired for suddenly appearing on the registry may fight back and set a precedent that gay people could use to not get fired for suddenly being found out to be gay. Such is the power of an indeterminate issue. Their definitions are owned by so many groups within society, in vastly differing ways, that they make contact upon so many other spheres within society. Again, the bipolar issue of abortion doesn't do that. It's similar to the difference between an official and unofficial issue. Or, whether something rises to the point of becoming a new thing, like some new art style (complete with definitions), or staying fluid within the minds of the culture.

[Newfie]

Cog,

What’s up with this?
HR 5717

https://gunowners.org/na03302020/

[Newfie]

More than a dozen of these buyers (men and women) actually thought that since they filled out and signed everything, they could just walk out and go home with the firearm. Several actually said they saw how easy it was to buy a gun on TV and why did they have to fill out all these forms.

The majority of these first timers lost their minds when we went through the Ammo Law requirements. Most used language not normally heard, even in a gun range. We pointed out that since no one working here voted for these laws, then maybe they might know someone who did. And, maybe they should go back and talk to those people and tell them to re-think their position on firearms – we were trying to be nice.

We tried to look at just who the new firearm purchasers were and we believe that more than 60% of these individuals were first time buyers. I can’t describe the amount of fear in my staff as we had the buyers show proof of safe handling as part of the purchase process as required by law. You have never seen so many barrels pointed at sales staff and other customers. It was truly frightening. We had to keep stopping the process to give quick safety lessons. We are adding many more basic classes in the coming weeks and encouraged these buyers to please attend. We hope they do.

https://hotair.com/archives/jazz-shaw/2 ... -shopping/

In reality it is NOT funny at all. These are exactly the people who should not be running around buying guns.

Maybe it’s good that California mandates some kind of practical training in the use and handling of firearms. It’s not required in many states and you can just walk out with a gun.

Traditionally it’s not been much of an issue because guns were predominantly used for hunting and in most states you had to pass a hunting safety class. Most of us learned the skills and respect on our a Fathers knee but still had to go through the class. The last one I took with my Wife and Daughter, PA. It was a 2 day class and you were required to demonstrate gun handling skills and you also had to fire the weapon. They had a trap set up for that purpose.

Part of boot camp covers the same material, although it was pretty light for the Coast Guard.

We now have an entirely different situation where folks are coming from an urban environment where the main use of guns is for self defense. That is an entirely different matter. It’s one thing to shoot a rabbit or squirrel or deer, a human is entirely different I would imagine.

What would be totally ironic is if we end up restricting guns because of their use by unqualified Democrats.

[Ibon]

You rarely see me wandering into these topics that are so polarized and emotionally charged but I was thinking about something the other day that I might as well toss in here.

First of all somebody let me know if this is the main thrust of the argument against gun control: The infringement of the 2nd amendment. Not about hunting or even gun safety as much as it is that the right to bear arms as enshrined in the 2nd amendment. The reason the founding fathers enshrined this right was for citizens to be armed and able to form militias in case the state would become rogue or tyrannical. Is this the main argument? Please confirm or correct.

If this is the main argument than how is this reconciled today with the power of the state to use facial recognition software to spy on its citizens. You guys remember recently how the US killed that Iranian military commander with a drone strike. The state today has at its disposal tools that would be able to liquidate and terminate any armed militia no matter how many bunkers full of AK47's they would have squirreled away. It is obsolete to think that any militia could stand up to the government with the simple arsenal of semi automatic weapons when you consider the surveillance and drone capability the states has to squash any civilian militia.

An AK47 in your closet seems antiquated and quaint next to the arsenal the state has.

To make the 2nd amendment relevant to its original objective shouldn't we allow citizens to own armed drones so that they can defend themselves against state aggression?

Or just recognize the obsolescence of the original basis for the amendment and move on to allow gun control since no amount of fire power can repel a tyrannical state with the tools they have available today.

Please comment.

Thanks

[Newfie]

Ibon;

I will defer to a cog because he is the master of this and a fair source of information. (wise cracks aside, which thankfully are diminishing).

Here is MY understanding.

FIRST - I think you state it about right, the populace is armed to make the government afraid of it.

SECOND - Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, etc. And if that does not convince ..... The War on Drugs, inner city ghettos.

And in all of that you need to realize there is a fairly clear “us vs them”. When it starts to go against Joe the Plumber not so much, Joes son is likely to be a Sargent or Officer.

But you ou are completely missing the entire point of the argument. Which is not surprising because of all the BS propaganda spewed by the MSM.

COMMON SENSE would tell you to identify that portion of the population where the problem lies and then try to fix that problem.

COMMON SENSE would tell you that if “they” are directing you to look elsewhere, at a relatively compliant and peaceful population, then something is amiss and needs to be looked into.

The US and various states have a huge number of very strict gun laws. The vast majority of guns used in criminal activities are obtained through illegal measures. The problem is not insufficient gun laws.

The primary problem is that the US has virtually abandoned a certain segment of its population. That is a thorny problem we have not come to grips with. Restricting guns will do nothing to fix that and only serves as a distraction from the real issues. A secondary problem is a lack of enforcement, and if you can’t enforce the laws you have more laws are not going to make it easier.

[Ibon]

Ibon;

I will defer to a cog because he is the master of this and a fair source of information. (wise cracks aside, which thankfully are diminishing).

Here is MY understanding.

FIRST - I think you state it about right, the populace is armed to make the government afraid of it.

SECOND - Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, etc. And if that does not convince ..... The War on Drugs, inner city ghettos.

And in all of that you need to realize there is a fairly clear “us vs them”. When it starts to go against Joe the Plumber not so much, Joes son is likely to be a Sargent or Officer.

But you ou are completely missing the entire point of the argument. Which is not surprising because of all the BS propaganda spewed by the MSM.

COMMON SENSE would tell you to identify that portion of the population where the problem lies and then try to fix that problem.

COMMON SENSE would tell you that if “they” are directing you to look elsewhere, at a relatively compliant and peaceful population, then something is amiss and needs to be looked into.

The US and various states have a huge number of very strict gun laws. The vast majority of guns used in criminal activities are obtained through illegal measures. The problem is not insufficient gun laws.

The primary problem is that the US has virtually abandoned a certain segment of its population. That is a thorny problem we have not come to grips with. Restricting guns will do nothing to fix that and only serves as a distraction from the real issues. A secondary problem is a lack of enforcement, and if you can’t enforce the laws you have more laws are not going to make it easier.

If the first part is right then my point about fire arms being antiquated against state aggression would seem about right since the state with the drone and surveillance technology would obliterate any militia. The state would use the terrorist designation as justification for this act if and when any militia would attempt to rise up against the state. So fire arms seem pitifully useless to instill fear in the state of armed citizens.

The 2nd part I understand. Existing laws not being enforced.

One of the ways you would think to begin to address the criminal use of illegal fire arms would be to have a national registry which you would think law abiding gun owners would accept since after all they are law abiding. Especially if they consider that their fire arms would be useless against state aggression as outlined above.

Criminal caught with an unregistered illegal fire arm, even without committing a crime, would have a mandatory jail term and stiff penalty. That is one way you address your point 2.

I think the main problem against a national gun registry is because again the 2nd amendment. Gun owners fearing the state do not want to have their fire arm on any government gun registry. Again, acknowledging that their bunker full of AK47's would be useless against the state intent on doing them harm one can conclude that the impediment of a gun registry is symbolic more than anything else for reasons I am stating here.

I am just thinking out loud. I actually have never dove into the whole gun debate much before.

[Newfie]

Ibon,

You seem to have missed about 80% of what I said.

The State, for all its fancy weapons is very ineffective against a determined and armed resistance. Try this, name one state that has been successful against a well armed and determined local force.

For the second part, the problem is not guns or filing control. The problem is that the cities and states have failed the inner city ghettos and have done so wife forever. The problem just gets worse and worse and is now likely untenable. You need to remove drugs, find meaningful employment and reestablish family relations. In short we have nation building to do in all major cities within the USA.

If you don’t do this you could remove all guns and still have the ghettos and all their problems.

[Ibon]

Ibon,

You seem to have missed about 80% of what I said.

The State, for all its fancy weapons is very ineffective against a determined and armed resistance. Try this, name one state that has been successful against a well armed and determined local force.

For the second part, the problem is not guns or filing control. The problem is that the cities and states have failed the inner city ghettos and have done so wife forever. The problem just gets worse and worse and is now likely untenable. You need to remove drugs, find meaningful employment and reestablish family relations. In short we have nation building to do in all major cities within the USA.

If you don’t do this you could remove all guns and still have the ghettos and all their problems.

Yes I do understand your point and I get it.
Same issue here in Panama that has very strict gun regulations. The homicide rate using a fire arm hasn't changed much since they enacted the law specifically because of inner city gun violence that is mostly drug gang related. So if you don't address the inner city poverty you can't stop that gun violence from occurring. Drug cartels are specialized in contraband and have no problem bringing in illegal firearms.

I was curious if there was statistics or data around gun violence in Panama that could separate out inner city gun violence in order to see the impact of their gun regulation laws in other areas of society like domestic violence etc. and I could not find anything.

In case anyone is interested here are the steps in Panama to legally own a fire arm:

Since Panama has neither an army nor the equivalent of the N.R.A., gun ownership rules differ from U.S. regulations. To begin with there are no gun fairs... you can only purchase a gun from a handful of authorized dealers, and the choices are very limited - not to mention prices are about double what you would expect to pay. Unless you prefer to place a special order, which is going to delay the process by a number of months, you can purchase a gun under five minutes, the time it takes to process your credit card. This is however where the similarity ends... The gun(s) shall remain in the store's custody until you secure a permit - which in practice can easily take six to nine months. And this is where the fun begins: you'll have to provide a urine sample on the spot (to check for drug use) and later blood samples (to keep your DNA on file) not to mention fingerprints. Also you'll need to visit a psychiatrist to undergo a psychological evaluation. In the meantime, the store will ship the gun to the police, which will perform ballistic tests and keep all records on file, together with your full ID and address. The permit is valid for 5 years and must be showed prior to purchasing ammunition.

[Newfie]

Ibon,

My apologies for a late response. Thanks for acknowledging my point.

It’s a mess and I don’t know how to fix it. Maybe one way to look at it as just a symptom of our larger societal decay. The Predator lurking.

[Ayoob]

The 2nd amendment is there because the freedom of the State is built on the strength of our fighting force, which is ultimately the men, supported by the women. For the most part.

Disarming the men means our men lack basic marksmanship.

Also, disarming the people is stupid. Take the recent spree shooter in Canada. If you could count on the individual Canadian men as the self defense method against a spree shooter, the police could have broadcast the situation. Canadian men could have adopted a defensive stance at their homes and not let anyone in. Instead, the police broadcast that everyone should hide due to the spree killer and then went dark for 8 hours until THEY shot him.

I understand why your average citizen might not want to do that, but then again some might. That could give spree killers something to think about. It could also be the means of disposal of these type of characters.

[Newfie]

Ayoob,

What is your feeling on gun owner training?

[Ayoob]

Training should be available... but it already is. NRA qualified instructors tend to teach for free.

[Newfie]

Ayoob,

I was tending to think more along the lines of “required.”

I don’t think that will significantly impact gun murders. I feel it would impact some of the “accidental” shootings and maybe even some of the mass shootings.

Which just now brought up a new question, not to you but in general. I wonder if anyone has looked at the mass shooters to see their history with guns?

BTW, there was a small magazine I used to get and it had a column by a guy with the same name as you. Any relation?

[Ayoob]

Newfie,

No mandatory training. No mandatory conditions on a right. No poll tax, no poll reading comprehension test, no mandatory training for arms or freedom of speech or freedom of religion.

You might be one of those people uncomfortable with freedom.