TexasCHLforum.com

Special Feature: The Truth (and Doubts) about Gun Control

It's very long, so set aside some time to read it. But I found it one of the most even handed discussions of gun policy that I've ever read.

Great read. Thanks for posting it.

Maybe it gives the appearance of even handedness because of the language he uses, but then you see the charts he presents, including ones by MAIG.

It in an attempt at even-handedness by someone who clearly believes that "gun control" is a good idea. The talk of compromise throughout (if one side gives this, what should they expect to get in return) is interesting, but evades some basic issues that 2A advocates are quick to articulate.

The article was at least well-written, something most gun-controllers and antis never bother to do. However, something blatantly obvious was not pointed out, and it would change the "narrative" dramatically about firearm homicides in the USA. If gang violence was brought under control, then the numbers of firearms homicides would plummet. If you look at the numbers, the largest group of those who are being shot are young black males, almost guaranteed as a result of gang-related crimes. I won't violate forum rules and bring up broader social topics, but if someone refuses to see the impact of gang violence on the entire problem, they are being willfully ignorant and only care about the politics of the thing, in my opinion.

K.Mooneyham wrote:The article was at least well-written, something most gun-controllers and antis never bother to do. However, something blatantly obvious was not pointed out, and it would change the "narrative" dramatically about firearm homicides in the USA. If gang violence was brought under control, then the numbers of firearms homicides would plummet. If you look at the numbers, the largest group of those who are being shot are young black males, almost guaranteed as a result of gang-related crimes. I won't violate forum rules and bring up broader social topics, but if someone refuses to see the impact of gang violence on the entire problem, they are being willfully ignorant and only care about the politics of the thing, in my opinion.

The war on organized crime was so successful that now we are left with only disorganized crime.

JALLEN wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote:The article was at least well-written, something most gun-controllers and antis never bother to do. However, something blatantly obvious was not pointed out, and it would change the "narrative" dramatically about firearm homicides in the USA. If gang violence was brought under control, then the numbers of firearms homicides would plummet. If you look at the numbers, the largest group of those who are being shot are young black males, almost guaranteed as a result of gang-related crimes. I won't violate forum rules and bring up broader social topics, but if someone refuses to see the impact of gang violence on the entire problem, they are being willfully ignorant and only care about the politics of the thing, in my opinion.

The war on organized crime was so successful that now we are left with only disorganized crime.

Well they can either do something about gangs, or shut up about shootings, since the bulk of shootings are gang-related. That's all I'm getting at.

K.Mooneyham wrote:Well they can either do something about gangs, or shut up about shootings, since the bulk of shootings are gang-related. That's all I'm getting at.

I just checked on that. Gang-related homicides constitute less than 20% of the annual homicides in America. So they are part of the problem, but not the bulk of it. 48% of males and 65% of females arrested for homicide tested positive for illegal substances yet drug-related homicides only accounted for about 5% of the total. Just some factoids I dug up.

Middle Age Russ wrote:It in an attempt at even-handedness by someone who clearly believes that "gun control" is a good idea. The talk of compromise throughout (if one side gives this, what should they expect to get in return) is interesting, but evades some basic issues that 2A advocates are quick to articulate.

Part of the problem with the "even handedness" is the mention of compromise, as if it is we who should do the compromising. Sorry - we already did the compromising, and it didn't work, now it's time to "un-compromise."

baldeagle wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote:Well they can either do something about gangs, or shut up about shootings, since the bulk of shootings are gang-related. That's all I'm getting at.

I just checked on that. Gang-related homicides constitute less than 20% of the annual homicides in America. So they are part of the problem, but not the bulk of it. 48% of males and 65% of females arrested for homicide tested positive for illegal substances yet drug-related homicides only accounted for about 5% of the total. Just some factoids I dug up.

So, you're telling me that the constant occurrences of shootings in the known bad neighborhoods in large urban areas like Baltimore, Philadelphia, Chicago, Houston, etc. aren't somehow gang-related? Or is it that a lot of the shootings aren't solved, so they can't officially tie it to gangs?

Not one inch, no matter what.

And yes, I would feel the exact same way if it were one of my children who were shot in a school.

Gun-free zones are a crime against Natural Rights.

The references to compromise and terms like "gun violence" are indications of the author's premise that guns, in and of themselves, constitute a problem to be solved by "rational" people. These same "rational" people are quick to deny natural, God-given rights to individuals for the supposed good of society. To me, denying the rights of even one is not for the good of society.

As the Founders understood, the natural right of self-defense stems from our will to survive. As tool-makers, humans have fashioned devices to enhance our ability to project force, both for survival by taking game and for defense of ourselves and others. Denying the right to use such tools (if/where available at all -- even to an assailant) is an egregious injury to the person denied, and to society as a whole. The Second Amendment simply recognized this individual natural right to defend oneself as a right pre-existing government and that government therefore cannot take.

The gun grabbers argue that guns are a direct threat to their right of safety (presumably akin to the same innate right to defend oneself). It seems odd to me that inanimate objects are considered such a threat, yet these same folks aren't ensconced in protective bubbles from birth to death. I presume none of them walks on a sidewalk next to automobile traffic, or even goes near traffic (drunk-driver risk), ladders and stairs (falling), saws of any kind (just imagine the possible horrors), knives and scissors, doors (might pinch a toe or finger), train tracks, doctors and hospitals, boats, airplanes, etc....

From the gun grabbers' strawman position, it would seem appropriate to outlaw any of these "threats to their safety" and even to outlaw other people since we can't know what danger they may represent. Oops, I guess that means strawman is all alone and cannot be a social creature. Strawman will therefore need tools -- which pose a threat to SAFETY!! My brain hurts as strawman dies.

K.Mooneyham wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote:Well they can either do something about gangs, or shut up about shootings, since the bulk of shootings are gang-related. That's all I'm getting at.

I just checked on that. Gang-related homicides constitute less than 20% of the annual homicides in America. So they are part of the problem, but not the bulk of it. 48% of males and 65% of females arrested for homicide tested positive for illegal substances yet drug-related homicides only accounted for about 5% of the total. Just some factoids I dug up.

So, you're telling me that the constant occurrences of shootings in the known bad neighborhoods in large urban areas like Baltimore, Philadelphia, Chicago, Houston, etc. aren't somehow gang-related? Or is it that a lot of the shootings aren't solved, so they can't officially tie it to gangs?

Not me. The FBI and CDC. Watch The First 48. You will see homicide after homicide after homicide due to a drug deal gone bad or the settling of a beef between two people or a robbery. Nothing at all to do with gangs. Just abysmally bad social skills and atrocious behavior.

I have seen shows where a guy killed his "best friend" during a robbery when the best friend resisted. I've seen shows where an innocent man was killed during a robbery. I've seen shows where people were killed during a shootout between two guys who had a beef with each other. Yesterday I watched one that was between gang members in Miami fighting over turf.

I am NOT saying there are no gang-related homicides. It's obvious there are, and the statistics prove it. What I'm saying is that the highest incidence of homicide is drug related, not gang related. The statistics prove it. The most stunning thing about the show is how they mostly seem to kill people they know.

JALLEN wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote:The article was at least well-written, something most gun-controllers and antis never bother to do. However, something blatantly obvious was not pointed out, and it would change the "narrative" dramatically about firearm homicides in the USA. If gang violence was brought under control, then the numbers of firearms homicides would plummet. If you look at the numbers, the largest group of those who are being shot are young black males, almost guaranteed as a result of gang-related crimes. I won't violate forum rules and bring up broader social topics, but if someone refuses to see the impact of gang violence on the entire problem, they are being willfully ignorant and only care about the politics of the thing, in my opinion.

The war on organized crime was so successful that now we are left with only disorganized crime.

Gang related crimes are not a type of organized crime?

MeMelYup wrote:

JALLEN wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote:The article was at least well-written, something most gun-controllers and antis never bother to do. However, something blatantly obvious was not pointed out, and it would change the "narrative" dramatically about firearm homicides in the USA. If gang violence was brought under control, then the numbers of firearms homicides would plummet. If you look at the numbers, the largest group of those who are being shot are young black males, almost guaranteed as a result of gang-related crimes. I won't violate forum rules and bring up broader social topics, but if someone refuses to see the impact of gang violence on the entire problem, they are being willfully ignorant and only care about the politics of the thing, in my opinion.

The war on organized crime was so successful that now we are left with only disorganized crime.

Gang related crimes are not a type of organized crime?

Humor check! Humor check! Aisle 3!

Good grief!