"Where there are more guns, there is more gun violence"

I read you post, and you make some good points, but it is far too long and complex to try to respond point by point.

To be clear I use "woke" to devalue the arguments that anyone or any group should be treated or processed differently. You infer that idea above a few times. DA's releasing people suspected of the crimes I mention above because others of his demographic may hav been treated unfairly in the past is counter-productive IMHO.

Here's a thought problem: More that 50% of murder victims are black and more that 80% of those were killed by another black. Does that suggest a possible path to make a large dent in the gun deaths problem?

 

My comment is directed precisely at your false analogy.

Moreover, to your point.....

Not necessarily. She is the director/founder of Project Unloaded, and her statement is a summation of studies which have broader scope. Your attempt to trivialize it ignores the breadth and scope of her project, by assuming that the OP was merely about the quote. The quote is just the starting point. Nor is it stupid as it is a direct counter to the oft made argument by gun advocates that more guns make us safer. The stats contradict this claim, which IS the point.

 

The observation you've presented touches on a sensitive and multifaceted issue that requires a nuanced understanding. If over 50% of murder victims are Black, and over 80% of those were killed by another Black individual, it's crucial to unpack the factors that contribute to these statistics rather than making overly simplistic conclusions. To address this issue effectively and reduce gun deaths, I believe we need to consider the following:

That it is essential to identify and address the root causes of violence in communities most affected by it. This often involves factors like poverty, lack of access to quality education, unemployment, and other systemic issues that create an environment where violence can flourish. Addressing these root causes can be a significant step in reducing gun deaths.

That community-based initiatives, such as mentorship programs, violence interrupters, and grassroots organizations, can play a crucial role in mitigating violence. Engaging communities in the solutions and empowering them to address violence from within can be highly effective.

That it's essential to consider policies that regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms. Implementing background checks, waiting periods, and other measures can prevent individuals with violent histories or intentions from obtaining weapons.

That the criminal justice system, in some instances, has perpetuated cycles of violence and recidivism. Reforming the system to focus on rehabilitation and restorative justice can help reduce violent incidents in the long term.

That in offering mental health services and support to individuals and communities affected by violence can help mitigate the long-term effects and potentially stop the cycle of violence

There are cultural and societal attitudes that sometimes glorify or normalize violence. Changing these narratives and offering alternative viewpoints can be part of the solution.

In many communities, there is a strained relationship between the police and the residents. Building trust and fostering positive interactions between law enforcement and the community can aid in reducing violent crime.

Utilizing data to understand patterns of violence can help law enforcement agencies be more proactive in preventing violent incidents.

I think it is important to note that interpreting statistics without context can lead to oversimplification and misconceptions. For instance, most violent crimes are committed by individuals who know their victims, regardless of race. Moreover, emphasizing the race of the perpetrator and victim without understanding the context can inadvertently perpetuate racial stereotypes.

So...while addressing the specific patterns of violence within the Black community is essential, it's only one part of a broader effort needed to reduce gun deaths in society. It requires a comprehensive, multi-pronged approach that tackles the root causes and provides the necessary resources to communities most affected, 'in my opinion'.

 

Or, a strong family structure, supported by community emphasis on acceptable behavior. Frankly, I don't believe the solution for this issue can come from outside the community itself. Heaven knows we've tried.

Absolutely.

Most of those are already in place. The problem historically is that the FBI NCIS system and others run by individual states are only as good as the input they get. Family members, and even professionals are sometimes reluctant to report individuals.

Hasn't that been tried?

That's been a rallying cry for many for decades. Good in theory but results are not impressive

Do I hear Sisyphus warming up? :cool"

Good point. Not sure how you're going to achieve it however.

I'm not sure LE is the appropriate action taker in this. Peer/community would have an advantage in this goal. IMHO.

Source of that statistic?

. With all due respect - jabberwocky. Sounds more like the conclusion of a Social Science Phd dissertation[/quote]

 

It's a stupid comment by the director.

If it was part of a broader study or additional information, it was a statement that was intended to establish superiority of her agenda... and the comment was stupid.

The statement did nothing to reinforce either the studies findings nor her agenda.

 

1. The FBI’s 2020 Incident-Based (NIBRS) Data shows that just over half (50.1%) of the victims knew their offenders*1. Okay, half, but there's more....
2. The Bureau of Justice Statistics’ report on Criminal Victimization in 2021 also supports this claim2.
3. A study on child victimizers in State prison found that a significant majority of the offenders knew their victims before the crime3.
4. A report on crimes against older adults indicates that older adults are most commonly maltreated by family members or acquaintances4.
5. The National Institute of Justice has recognized a substantial overlap between victims and those committing offenses, especially for violent crimes5.
6. A study published in the Cambridge Journal of Evidence-Based Policing found a significant overlap between victims of violent crime and offenders6.
7. Springer’s reference work entry on “Commonalities and Overlap Between Victims and Offenders” also acknowledges the strong relationship between offending and victimization7.

*(each line and annotation links to the source)

So you're saying all Social Science PHD thesis conclusions are jabberwocky? Interesting, care to substantiate that one, or are you just shooting in the dark?

 

Given there is nothing robust, enlightening, evidentiary, or nothing remotely edifying about your comment, one could better levy the same charge against your comment.

 

Ok, and I'm expected to read every link with out a hint of what it's supposed to tell me?

 

have you figured out that there is only one valid argument for restricting honest people from owning guns? and that requires you to prove that doing so will make society fundamentally safer? and even if you can prove that argument (you cannot) that does not defeat the many valid arguments the pro-rights side asserts. Such as constitutional reasons, and the fact that there are many good reasons for honest people to be armed.

 

Nobody can deny that.There's always a certain amount of weirdos who cannot handle guns.

 

What it's supposed to tell you was expressed for you in each line. the links are there just there to back it up, in case you didn't want to take my word for it.

That's what links are for, someone once said, somewhere on the internet, once upon a time.

 

Nor can you argue: Where there are more people there is more violence, guns or not.

 

Then why did you make them links? Couldn't you have shown a quote from the link to indicate you weren't just trying to snow me in verbiage?

 

If that were true, with more guns than people in the US, we'd be the safest nation on earth. Since that's false, your premise is false.

But I will accept that there strong arguments both pro and con regarding gun control. I prefer the pro side.

Here's some good quality pros and cons, I'm sure you'll take the column on the right.

https://gun-control.procon.org/

 

Your question has been answered. Please review the prior comment.

 

find another argument that is legitimate when it comes to limiting our freedom.

 

I appreciate your perspective and understand the passion with which you defend the right to bear arms as a matter of personal freedom. However, I'd like to present an observation regarding the broader interpretation of 'freedom' as championed by many Republicans.

While the GOP often invokes the notion of 'freedom' in the context of gun rights, it's essential to acknowledge that there have been instances where the party has supported policies that seemingly curtail freedoms in other domains.

For instance, numerous Republican-led states have enacted what many consider to be voter suppression laws. In Georgia, the passage of SB 202 in 2021 raised concerns. Critics argued that measures like limiting the use of drop boxes and imposing stricter ID requirements disproportionately impacted minority communities and made voting less accessible. See: https://legiscan.com/GA/bill/SB202/2021

Similarly, when we look at women's reproductive rights, several Republican-led states have enacted stringent anti-abortion laws. A notable example is the 2019 Alabama law which bans nearly all abortions, without exceptions for rape or incest, and potentially criminalizes doctors who perform them. See: https://legiscan.com/AL/text/HB314/id/1980843

While I respect and value the necessity of a healthy debate on any issue, it's crucial to examine the concept of 'freedom' holistically. It seems contradictory to fervently champion freedom in one context, like gun rights, while potentially limiting it in others, such as voting and reproductive health.

I would gently urge you, Turtledude, to consider this broader perspective on freedom and recognize that a nuanced approach is required when discussing what truly constitutes a legitimate limitation on our freedoms.

 

If someone truly believes that a fetus is innocent human life-to them banning abortion is no different than those who want the government to prosecute those who assault or kill citizens. I was the libertarian chairman of a city's libertarian party and was that city's campaign Chairman for Ed Clark for President in 1980. I also was the ranking student in the political science department at the same time. I think my education in political theory and freedom is certainly as well developed as yours and since I also have a law degree where constitutional law was one of my main concentrations (as was the thirty years I spent as a trial attorney), I suspect I understand the bill of rights far better than you do. As to voting, a voting system has no validity unless only legitimate votes are cast. I would say the Democrats' desire to expand the franchise as far as possible, without any or substantial safeguards is more disrespectful of "voting rights" than anything the GOP is doing.

 

Ahh. Can't debate my points so this is how you retort. So typical.

She might as well said the ocean, lakes, and rivers contain the most fish, to which people would cheer?

 

I was conservative/libertarian in those days, and though I say I voted for Reagan, I would have, but I actually voted for Ed Clark, noting that one of the Koch Bros was the VP on that ticket. I never mention it because most people don't remember Clark, and I would have voted for Reagan, was going to vote for him, but changed my mind at the last minute.

But. note that that belief on 'abortion is murder' is a definite minority in America.

I'm 72, and I'm not going to bore you with my education, accomplishments, credentials, etc., because of the fact that on the internet debate forums, there are no experts and all that matters is the argument, especially in the field of political science, law, as there are as many varied opinions as there are 'scholars' on these subjects. Again, all that matters is the argument, the words on digital paper, nothing more, nothing less.

If you are as enlightened/educated as you purport to be, you should know this.

You do not gain any posture on an anonymous debate forum by flaunting your education and work experience. Anyone can say anything, so, unless you are willing to post your degrees and bar number and prove your claim (and you'd be a fool if you did), you are just a mere mortal, like the rest of us. I'd ask you to climb down from your lofty perch you claim you occupy, but since their really isn't one, it's a moot point.

 

Now you are projecting.

how about let's get back to the OP's subject matter. Got something you care to debate?

 

Provide a link and I will; I'm not interested in digging through your series of word salads to find which pertains.

 

These threads are like Aunt Edna's ass, they go on forever and never really change.

Gun ownership is settled law; The right for individual AmeriCANs to own guns in common use has been upheld by the Supreme's. And, by extension, the sale of firearms IS protected. <-period

So, while interesting, the first time, statistics about gun violence are only instructive and useful if used within the constraints of the Second Amendment.

After reading, degrading to perusing and then barely skimming the posts of this thread because the repetition had my eyes rolling back in my head. I came back to Post #11 because it touches on what can possibly be done, Constitutionally, to mitigate gun violence with the exception of addressing our broken society that, IMHO, is the root of the increase in random firearm violence that is so prominent in the news and is the fulcrum to create laws that take away the gun rights of AmeriCANs.

Actually 1, 2, and 3 are one thing, how to ensure responsible gun ownership by knowledgeable individuals that have been educated and have demonstrated that they, at the very least, know how to safely handle, use and store firearms. Number 4 is part of what I call our "broken society". There used to be a extensive support system for the mentally ill and those that were troubled. that doesn't exist anymore. And we do almost nothing to ensure people with mental and social problems are excluded from gun ownership.

We have been electing representation that, unless you're part of the privileged few, have consistently legislated against U.S. Good jobs that paid a living wage with benefits have disappeared overseas. Tax breaks for the wealthy are permanent, but only temporary for the rest of us. Government spending that benefits all of society has been marginal to the point our infrastructure is falling apart. The social safety net no longer exists, and when hard times come we bail out big corporations and the wealthy, while the rest of U.S. are left out in the cold. IMHO, that is THE major reason people have become hopeless and want to commit suicide by committing mass murder.

America needs to start investing in AmeriCANs, making sure as many as possible are employed in good jobs they can live on. We need to educate AmeriCANs so our nation remains competitive in a very challenging world. And States need to exercise their right to ensure the safety of their residents by ensuring gun ownership is dependent on the demonstration of gun knowledge, as we do with the use of automobiles.

 

You all keep harping on "safety of all community members" but in my community people are being robbed at knife and gun point, and the right to carry a firearm is extremely restricted. Homes are being invaded and cars jacked. Stores are invaded, their merchandise stolen en masse and their fixtures destroyed. People are feeling less safe in their communities and your answer is to disarm them further.

 

Sure.

Any circumstance that has more of an item will have more instances of both good and bad from the item.