Like
the shooting of NYC cops after Ferguson, if this violence is tied to
race and Charleston, it blows my mind. I wonder what these shooters want
for their legacy, or what they want the public to take away from their
crimes. Maybe Flanagan's manifesto will shed some light, but his
atrocious actions pretty much invalidate anything insightful he may have
written.
Although racial violence is still vastly
disproportionately black victims and white perpetrators, events like
this may just perpetuate the stereotype that young black men are all
thugs and the black people you work with are unstable and could go off
on you any moment. Those perceptions of course do great daily harm to
African Americans as a whole - even if it's mostly subtle aggressions
that are imperceptible to non-blacks.
Showing posts with label murder. Show all posts
Showing posts with label murder. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 26, 2015
Virginia shooter and destructive payback psychology
Thursday, April 30, 2015
The staggering social costs of gun violence in the US
This was a good interview about a Mother Jones article on the indirect costs of US gun violence: http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/
The
author's team performed an established economic analysis to estimate
the total costs of gun violence - not just the direct costs of law enf.,
ER visit, and justice/penal system processing, but also lost
productivity and diminished quality of life from long-term disability,
incarceration, and death (affecting not just the victim but their
family, workplace, and community). The article estimates that of the
~30K gun murders each year, on average it costs America $500K each. Add
to that the ~80K cases/year of serious injuries from guns, and the total
price tag is over $200B/year. That is 1/3 the value of Apple's stock,
and more than US medicine spends on obesity each year. It's freaking
huge. But we're not talking about this because the NRA and others make the data so hard to access. And if people do try to study it (like the CDC and Harvard School of Public Health and Obama's recent nominee for Sgn. General), the gun lobby paints them as gun-control activists with a political agenda. Conservatives want to cut waste and spending left and right (social programs, research, etc.), but somehow the military and guns are exempt?
----
This is pretty heartbreaking stuff about the effects of violence on Oakland's youth:
http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/
For
a kid who turned 18 this year in Oakland, he or she lived through 111
kids getting killed in that city, not to mention the trauma that caused
for everyone else. At least Alameda County is deploying more mental
health resources for them now - but really this is an issue that no kid
should have to deal with. Especially if they're under 10, children often
can't deal with the difficult emotions generated from experiencing
violence, so their ability to learn is impaired and they may lash out in
negative ways.http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/
----
NPR did a story based on this article and the most persuasive outcome, to me, was that there needs to be science and data applied to this stuff. One of the guests was talking about the idea that if you even ask for data you are anti gun. That there is this all or nothing approach. Why wouldn't the dates show all the loves being saved if guns are great? Couldn't we also find that, for example, people with lots of gun training have better outcomes related to fun violence? It seems weird to assume data can only be anti gun.
----
Agreed. I guess it's like climate change and cop racism issues - if one side of the argument is confident in their position, they should have no problems whatsoever with full data transparency. When you are "trying to hide something" and suppressing info, that is a tell-tale sign that your argument has a problem. Actually if those folks really love gun rights and "freedom", then they should welcome data transparency to help improve gun use and gun culture in America (like a majority of NRA members favor better background checks, but NRA leaders don't). Or do they think that everything is OK? Don't they know that the most successful (legit) companies and gov'ts in the last 50 years are obsessed with data to help them succeed and improve?
Bottom
line, the gun industry/lobby's only goal is to sell more product. Gun
ownership in the US (as % of households) is on a huge decline since
WWII, partly driven by urbanization, less interest in hunting, and I
would like to believe social progress. But the # of guns in circulation
may have gone up, so someone is buying them. There are fewer gun owners
now, but they own more guns (and more deadly ones) per capita. Police
departments upgrade their guns more frequently, and lord knows where
their used guns go (I think there are accounts of cartels/gangs using
former US police firearms).
So to accomplish their goal, the gun lobby has to oppose anything that would potentially hurt sales, and of course social costs data is a big threat. And when the costs are so obvious (even without hard data), they pull the freedom and liberty card. Sure guns are destructive, but the costs are "worth it" because we have to sacrifice to keep the communists from taking our freedoms. We have to tolerate the side-effects of guns because I need to protect my family from the bad guys. And when it's poor/black people shouldering most of the costs, it's easier to ignore - until incidents like Columbine and Sandy Hook happen, which affected affluent whites and jarred the nation.
So to accomplish their goal, the gun lobby has to oppose anything that would potentially hurt sales, and of course social costs data is a big threat. And when the costs are so obvious (even without hard data), they pull the freedom and liberty card. Sure guns are destructive, but the costs are "worth it" because we have to sacrifice to keep the communists from taking our freedoms. We have to tolerate the side-effects of guns because I need to protect my family from the bad guys. And when it's poor/black people shouldering most of the costs, it's easier to ignore - until incidents like Columbine and Sandy Hook happen, which affected affluent whites and jarred the nation.
Examples:
- "Chicago has strict gun laws, but they still have plenty of gang violence and murders, so gun laws don't work!" Because we don't have borders. Thugs just have to buy a gun 30 miles away in easier places like Indiana, and then drive back to the city to shoot someone.
- "Since the Brady Bill/Assault Weapons Ban expired, there have been fewer mass shootings, so assault weapons in the hands of 'the good guys' is an effective deterrent." Not enough sample size to assess a trend, and what defines a "mass shooting"? Public mass shootings are fortunately still pretty rare (it's much more common for someone to slaughter their family in a private residence). But Mother Jones and Harvard ran a statistical analysis to handle rare events, and they concluded that mass shootings are actually more frequent after the loosening of gun laws. Of course correlation is not causation, but it invalidates the pro-gun claim.
- "Guns don't kill people; people kill people - address the mental health and anger issues instead." But guns kill people A LOT more effectively than a knife or bare hands. Yes there will always be a baseline level of violence and murder intent in any society, but if you restrict access to the murder tools, people won't be able to carry them out as effectively. Look at AUS/UK vs. US. Fairly similar culture, demos, etc., but we have all the guns and murders. Canada is an exception (many guns, few murders), but there will always be outliers.
Saturday, June 7, 2014
The psychology and sociology of gun rights
I was reading a short exchange on gun rights on FB (yes, with a kid
now that is my only connection to the outside world LOL). I don't
remember all the
details, and either I or FB (or both) are too stupid to have comment
searchability, but my thoughts were:
Gun rights proponents often fail to consider how other parties are impacted by their stance. Yes, I suppose it is important that they feel that their rights to have the option to commit violence (in a patriotic, lawful manner of course) are not infringed, but does that supersede the rights of others to feel safe, or even to live? And what about all the extra costs imposed on society to try to safely manage gun ownership/use? Maybe pro-gun folks would say that any regulation is unnecessary then - so would they be OK with their neighbors owning artillery and doing target practice in the church parking lot? In a society where none of us is king, we make rights tradeoffs all the time. We have the right to be offensive jerks in most situations, but we don't, often because of the self-serving (and totally valid) reason that it is not prudent. Unless you are a guy like Rush who gets rich by being a jerk.
We practice self-restraint and self-censorship when it serves our interests, so why can't we do the same when it serves the greater social good? First of all, we're selfish. And that is the essence of the Prisoner's Dilemma: if you decide to be good and a team player, you may get taken advantage of and end up worse off than if you continued to be bad, because everyone else is being bad. Of course gov't incentives and regulations could resolve the dilemma fairly easily, but the 2nd Amend., NRA, and such make that nearly impossible.
So
who has the right to the option of violence in society? I remember in a
previous email thread, J said something like in orderly societies, the
state has a monopoly on violence. Otherwise you have Mad Max if citizens
are permitted to resolve disputes and settle scores with weapons. We
surrender some of our individualism and freedom to be part of society,
because society confers some benefits and advantages that we couldn't
get on our own. It's a good deal for many of us. Sometime we don't have a
choice; if we want to be a recluse in the woods, I think we still have
to file tax returns or the Feds may come after us. Maybe that is a
violation of our individual freedoms, but as far as I know, no human has
ever lived with absolute freedom (especially while having a family!).
Even the cave men were restrained by the elements, hunger, and
predators. Even Adam and Eve couldn't eat the apple. So this bizarre
conservative fixation on absolute liberty as an attainable goal is
puzzling to me, especially since many of them have a fairly negative
view on human nature. Even the hardcore Marxists set limits on their
grand plans to collectivize everything. Gun rights proponents often fail to consider how other parties are impacted by their stance. Yes, I suppose it is important that they feel that their rights to have the option to commit violence (in a patriotic, lawful manner of course) are not infringed, but does that supersede the rights of others to feel safe, or even to live? And what about all the extra costs imposed on society to try to safely manage gun ownership/use? Maybe pro-gun folks would say that any regulation is unnecessary then - so would they be OK with their neighbors owning artillery and doing target practice in the church parking lot? In a society where none of us is king, we make rights tradeoffs all the time. We have the right to be offensive jerks in most situations, but we don't, often because of the self-serving (and totally valid) reason that it is not prudent. Unless you are a guy like Rush who gets rich by being a jerk.
We practice self-restraint and self-censorship when it serves our interests, so why can't we do the same when it serves the greater social good? First of all, we're selfish. And that is the essence of the Prisoner's Dilemma: if you decide to be good and a team player, you may get taken advantage of and end up worse off than if you continued to be bad, because everyone else is being bad. Of course gov't incentives and regulations could resolve the dilemma fairly easily, but the 2nd Amend., NRA, and such make that nearly impossible.
I know I am wading into philosophical territory where I am not knowledgeable enough to make much sense, but I hope you get my drift. Looping back on the "monopoly on violence" issue, obviously the risk is: what would happen to the poor citizenry if the gov't decides to abuse its monopoly and subjugate us? Well isn't that the whole point of political engagement and civic responsibility? Our gov't is of/by/for the people, so if we notice that it is descending toward tyranny, we take peaceful, proactive, corrective action. Relying on guns as a check on gov't abuse is like relying on surgery in medicine. Sure it may accomplish the goal, but there are plenty of less extreme, less risky alternatives that you can employ to fix the problem before ever needing to resort to the nuclear option. So gun patriots likely can do more good for their country and their loved ones by educating themselves, voting, and volunteering, instead of stockpiling more AR-15s and open-carrying them to Starbucks. But that is not glamorous enough I guess.
Obviously, the NRA and gun industry have pitched the "guns = freedom and defense of liberty" narrative pretty well, and plenty of politicians are echoing it. Now all of a sudden you are Capt. America if you buy a Glock (an Austrian product by the way). It's pretty intoxicating. Why go through the effort of doing all the boring, thankless work of being a good person/citizen when you can just arm yourself, and voila? It's like the choice between the unending discipline of healthy dieting and exercise vs. the one-off liposuction and surgery to look good. If you have the money, why not take the easier shortcut? It relates to the whole freedom argument - being good all the time is hard work; it cramps your style. I am not sure if this reflects the schizophrenia or genius of our system, but in order to ensure liberty and freedom for all, we have to sacrifice our freedom to diligently maintain it. Guns give us a lazy opt-out.
There
is the whole potency and self esteem angle too. Somewhat related to the
Rodger UCSB case, many men (and gun culture is overwhelmingly white
male) probably feel emasculated and minimized by society at times (try
being a woman, or an underprivileged minority then). That is partly due
to unrealistic and frankly juvenile expectations. Nearly omnipresent
messaging has told us that we are supposed to be "the man" with all the
wealth, power, women, etc. We're supposed to be winners who get our way
every time. Obviously that can't happen unless everyone's interests are
aligned, and then we are back to Marxist territory. And a society of all
alpha males is a scary thought to me (that is called frat row at USC).
It's frustrating and hard on the ego to compromise, feel disappointment, and get crapped on by others. So again, instead of doing the hard work of self-improvement, setting reasonable limits/goals, and strategic decision making so that we can feel happier and more successful, we lazily stay the course and blame everyone else instead if we're not living the perfect dream life. We buy a gun because the marketing tells us we'll be more of a man with it. And tragically, some of us may turn to that gun when things don't go our way, or we use it as a shortcut to get what we want unlawfully (or lawfully if you are in a Stand-Your-Ground state). That is one reason why guns are so dangerous - they channel all our internal insecurities, angst, and flaws into physical harm. Men just need Fight Club instead? But maybe that is why guns are so alluring too. They give some people an outlet to release all their baggage and demons to the world, and damn the consequences. Again, juvenile selfish thinking. Guns enable people, in their deepest moments of fearful desperation, to think they can employ violence to take back the power that society has unfairly deprived them.
It's frustrating and hard on the ego to compromise, feel disappointment, and get crapped on by others. So again, instead of doing the hard work of self-improvement, setting reasonable limits/goals, and strategic decision making so that we can feel happier and more successful, we lazily stay the course and blame everyone else instead if we're not living the perfect dream life. We buy a gun because the marketing tells us we'll be more of a man with it. And tragically, some of us may turn to that gun when things don't go our way, or we use it as a shortcut to get what we want unlawfully (or lawfully if you are in a Stand-Your-Ground state). That is one reason why guns are so dangerous - they channel all our internal insecurities, angst, and flaws into physical harm. Men just need Fight Club instead? But maybe that is why guns are so alluring too. They give some people an outlet to release all their baggage and demons to the world, and damn the consequences. Again, juvenile selfish thinking. Guns enable people, in their deepest moments of fearful desperation, to think they can employ violence to take back the power that society has unfairly deprived them.
So
what is the remedy? Sadly, enough data suggests that more killings
won't change our ways/laws, even if it worked in Australia and parts of
Europe. We can't expect lawmakers and bureaucrats will solve the
Prisoner's Dilemma for us. Unfortunately it has to start with each of
us. We have to visibly commit to the hard work of being a peaceful,
well-adjusted, engaged citizen (amidst all the dysfunctional messaging
that continually tempts us to do otherwise). Noblesse oblige: we
have to be happy and proud to give up some freedoms so that we can all
have more freedom and liberty (same thing applies to the climate change
and economic inequality issues, among others). That is why I personally
do not think mental health is the main driving force behind America's
gun violence epidemic. Most murders are fairly rational, which is the
problem. We have to change people's values and mental calculus so that
guns and violence are not the rational option. Of course changing minds
is hard, but it can be done (racism, smoking, gay rights, etc.). Every
revolution started with one person.
------
Amazingly, some gun
nuts are scary enough to even bully the NRA into submission! The Texas
Open Carry club was first criticized by the NRA for drawing unnecessary,
negative, risky attention to themselves and the gun rights issue (all true). But after an angry response from parts of the "gun base", they issued new statements supporting the right to Open Carry.
------
Jon Stewart on the intersection of Open Carry and Stand Your Ground (a.k.a. Perpetual Violence Machine):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
"You guys are idiots there are kids in here." - Chili's patron
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
Rodger and the UCSB murders
http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/
http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/
It seems like we have this conversation every few months. The press and social media are active as usual, with a WP commentator
even insinuating that Judd Apatow movies are to blame for Rodger's
unrealistic expectations for his sex life (like how video games were
behind Adam Lanza, and Marilyn Manson led to Columbine). http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/
Most people in society realize that they need to address grievances lawfully, and don't have the right to be judge and executioner over perceived injustices. Teaching kids to have grit is popular these days too. At a basic level, kids may have better life outcomes if they learn to handle adversity without having egotistical victim complex and homicidal vengeance like Rodger. That is obvious. So parenting and communication could have made a difference. And then there is the cultural angle, especially among college-aged people where hormone-driven sexual assaults are outrageously high. Young men are bombarded by ludicrous messages that they are losers if they do not bed hot babes every week, no means yes, it's always someone else's fault, and so on. Fortunately better judgment and morals usually win out in the public space.
Gun ownership rates are correlated with gun murders. The NRA would say causation is reversed - people need to own guns in those places because they live in dangerous places. But a reader on the KQED blog made a good point - instead of (or in addition to) the sheriff interviewing Rodger, could they check the database to see if he owns guns, and whether he bought them recently? For decades the NRA has blocked access to info like that, which has infuriated the public and law enforcement alike. Felons can't own guns, even if they didn't commit a violent crime. So why can a moody 14 year old, alcoholic, or a bipolar person legally own a gun? Some would argue that half of Rodger's victims died by knife. But that is just an anecdote - guns kill way more people than knives each year.
Sunday, July 14, 2013
The Zimmerman jury may have gotten it right, but now what?
Most of us probably believe that it was wrong for Zimmerman to
confront Martin in the way he did, and it was a tragedy that the boy
died. But in terms of a conviction, unfortunately there just wasn't
enough there to prove the strict definitions of 2nd degree murder and/or
manslaughter. It's not like he killed Martin outright... he first put
himself in dangerous proximity, and escalated into some sort of verbal
and physical altercation. He's misguided and showing poor judgment, but
not a murderer. Obviously he is a child killer, and yet a hero to many.
What about the trial's greater implications? Our culture,
racial policies, and gun laws were not on trial - but they are still
open issues for debate. Obviously after Oscar Grant, Martin, and many
other examples, I assume the black community and many other Americans
are tired of seeing young, lower income, unarmed people of color getting
beaten or killed, while the lighter-skinned, gun-toting perpetrator is
acquitted or given little punishment (in their opinion). Anger is high
and some may want to lash out violently. On the other side, Zimmerman
and his supporters may expect that. These folks probably favor
concealed-carry, stand-your-ground, unrestricted 2nd amendment, and
other legal provisions that enable firearms to be lawfully used for more
self defense and vigilante scenarios. So they may want to carry their
weapons more often, and may be even more paranoid when confronted by
others whose appearance scares them. That's a volatile combination of
circumstances.
Adding SYG to that, in incidents where conflict ensures and the shooter feels in danger, he/she can use deadly force as self defense and be legally justified. Premeditated malice and aggression aside, it barely matters how you got into the mess (especially when evidence is sketchy, if it's even relevant/admissible), as long as you can prove you were under attack - you have "a license to kill". Does that mean any moron can start shit with anyone else, and when they get in over their head and things go south, they can "kill their way out of trouble?" What if 2 armed people get into a fight? Whoever shoots first under threat will be the "winner". So will that incentive people in those states to be even more hasty and trigger-happy?
http://www.theatlanticwire.
Or another option is, "if you can't beat em, join em". Zimmerman opponents can start acting like him. Imagine if Martin was an adult and went through the necessary steps to carry in public. Once Zimm. was following him and starting stuff, he could have just killed Zimm. and the trial would have been inverted. It would have been even easier to argue self defense since Zimm. was armed, was the instigator, and his prior 911 call showed prejudice and intent to confront aggressively. With Mark O'Mara, the gun lobby, AND the NAACP defending Martin, no way he would be convicted (unless the FL justice system is truly racist). Maybe that is what is needed, legally armed black people fighting back and killing gun-toting racial profilers who mess with them? Obviously I'm being facetious here, but my point is: look at what these laws and culture could lead to. A nation where almost everybody has the legal authority to be armed in public (with ever more deadly weapons), and use those arms to lawfully kill in an increasing multitude of situations, is not a freer or better society. It's goddam Tombstone. And it won't make your suburb any safer, it won't protect your kids from a deranged school shooter (who likely outguns and outcrazies you), and it won't defeat Al Qaeda or our tyrannical socialist gov't.
So yeah, I would advocate the boycott approach before the Tombstone approach.
-----
Maybe you saw last night's Daily Show: http://www.thedailyshow.com/
For the record, they also compared SYG to Tombstone - but I
called it first. ;) They also showed footage of Zimm's brother
discussing how George would have to look over his shoulder for the rest
of his life because people may want to take matters into their own
hands. It was pathetic that the brother didn't grasp the irony. Also, CNN aired an interview with one of the anonymous jurors (who already landed a book deal, but it got cancelled after her interview aired since it seemed wrong to profit from what some see as a blatant injustice), a married middle-aged white female gun owner. http://www.youtube.com/watch?
http://www.npr.org/2013/07/16/
I think this trial did produce a conviction on US society. We are guilty of tolerating and perpetrating a culture of hostility, fearful stereotyping & over-reactions, shoot first, and "violence solves problems" that will continue to result in civil rights violations, misunderstandings, and tragedies (if not actual crimes).
-----------
From all objective legal accounts this couldn't have gone any other way. The judge instructed them that Z was within his legal rights, per Florida state law, to follow Martin, approach him, etc. And once a scuffle ensued if he felt threatened it would not be manslaughter to use his weapon. Florida does not require you to retreat as part of a self defense act. Given no other witnesses to the activity, relatively poor circumstantial evidence, etc how could someone not have a reasonable doubt that this was a legal act as opposed to manslaughter? Are we saying there is NO reasonable doubt that Z started the fight?
And the ethnicity thing is killing me. So all the women
were half hispanic? Is there some evidence somewhere that this was
motivated by race? Zim has previously stood up in city council to
berate a white officer whose son attacked a black homeless man. Not a
particularly racist thing to do. Profiling sure, i'll grant that, but
those aren't the same thing.
----------
I agree with you about the verdict - it's pretty much a slam-dunk actually, and the prosecution were morons for trying to pin him with murder 2. By the strict interpretation of the law, he was not guilty. I am not sure how the verdict would have changed in NY or CA. I never said that Z was a racist and I do think his actions were motivated mostly by a "civic duty" to protect his community from crime. But from a jury standpoint, it's hard to believe that race played zero role in their decision making process, even though the lawyers did their best to avoid the issue. Humans have biases, so if we can't remove them, at least we should balance them out and cancel them out. I'm not saying the jury was all racist either, but we tend to relate better to people who are similar to us. Isn't that why it's rare to have a very homogeneous jury? I don't know why it was only 6 instead of 12 people (maybe FL law?), but I think a mixture of backgrounds is often good to avoid tunnel vision and groupthink. Despite the racial makeup of the jury, 2 of them were initially favoring manslaughter for Z anyway, but were persuaded to change.
You'd think that harassing and brandishing a firearm to an unarmed minor on a public street would break some sort of US law (or it should, right?). I guess this trial did produce a conviction of US society. We are guilty of tolerating and perpetrating a culture of hysterical hostility, fearful stereotyping & over-reactions, shoot first, my gun is my freedom, and "violence solves problems" that will continue to result in civil rights violations, misunderstandings, and tragedies (if not actual crimes).
-----------
Listen to the 911 call and tell me about harassing him.
And no one has any factual reports that he pulled his gun anytime but
the last minute as far as i know.
He would be guilty for sure in ca or ny or any of the more narrowly defined self defense law states.
-----------
I have not been following the case closely, but while
Martin was on the phone with his friend, couldn't you hear him say
[presumably to Z], "Why are you following me?" That could suggest there
was harassment (and who knows what else happened that wasn't caught on
tape?).
Based on Z's initial 911 call and his motivation for being a "watchman", I think we can assume that he prejudged Martin and confronted him with the intent to run him out of the neighborhood (ostensibly to thwart a crime), possibly by intimidation/threat.
I wasn't a witness obviously, but I find it doubtful that
Martin would just suddenly attack an adult stranger who
approached/followed him on a dark night. So I think it's plausible that Z
did something to scare/provoke Martin, and made the teen feel the need
to react and "defend himself" first. But that's the problem with
fighting... how do you differentiate between attack and defense, because
a punch is a punch? Even straddling and pummeling a person could be
defensive, if the purpose was to prevent the person on the bottom from
drawing a deadly weapon. Based on Z's initial 911 call and his motivation for being a "watchman", I think we can assume that he prejudged Martin and confronted him with the intent to run him out of the neighborhood (ostensibly to thwart a crime), possibly by intimidation/threat.
And just when you thought things couldn't get any more effed up in FL, this is another case where a jury (racial composition unknown) found a woman defendant ineligible for SYG protection. She is a PhD, mother of 3, with no prior record, and black. She previously took out a restraining order against her husband for abuse. During their latest alleged altercation, she retrieved a gun in her home and fired a warning shot (according to her) into the ceiling to keep him away. But the court decided that she could not prove she was in imminent danger, so instead she was sentenced to 20 YEARS. I am not sure what the charge was, possibly attempted murder of the husband and/or child endangerment (since their kids were present). This is because FL has mandatory minimum sentences for crimes involving guns (10 years if you have a gun, 20 if you fire it). Some have alleged that mandatory minimum sentences are immoral and maybe racist. So I guess FL enables "lawful" gun owners to have a lot of leeway, but throws the book at gun "criminals". Based on circumstance, economics, etc., one of those populations is predominantly darker skinned and poorer.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Gun show loophole
"60 Minutes" had a great segment on the gun issue tonight, and a lot of extra info on their site:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/09/60minutes/main4931769.shtml
Even as the stock market has plummeted, shares in Smith & Wesson have nearly quadrupled since November, and sales of guns are going through the roof. [...] Since November, the number of background checks nationally has jumped over 30 percent compared to last year. [...] People are stockpiling bullets. Three hours into [a gun] show, empty stock trays piled several feet high. Fear of Obama has actually created a national ammo shortage. -CBS
Based on 2002 stats, CA had 9.7 gun deaths per 100,000 residents. I wasn't sure if that was low or high, but you can imagine CA would have a lot of violence due to the gang conflicts in urban areas, as well as the drug trade on the border. Well, it turns out that ALL the Southern states have death rates that are higher. This of course correlates with their more lax gun purchasing laws.
They used VA as a case study, since it was home to the Cho-VT mass murder, and it has a bizarre gun show loophole. It is PERFECTLY LEGAL for a private citizen, who is not a registered gun dealer, to sell you or I an assault-style weapon at a gun show without a background check. 30 other states have the same loophole. Supposedly buyers are required to furnish an ID, but since these transactions go unnoticed/unregulated by the gov't, even that cannot be enforced. In an effort to expose and close this loophole, the brother of a VT victim bought an assault weapon at a VA gun show and refused to show his ID when asked. The seller said that was fine if he would throw in another $50 to the sale price. So as you would expect, people from many northern states (with stricter laws) migrate to VA gun shows to buy under these lax laws. Southern guns have been implicated in many crimes up north as well. Even with all the political momentum and public outcry after the VT slayings, the VA legislature failed to pass a law to close that loophole by 2 votes. The pro-gun side argued that Cho did not buy his weapons through this loophole, but the other side fears that the next Cho will.
Supposedly the NRA types are patriots who love America and will defend our freedoms (to bear arms). But why do they support a system where Mexican cartels or Al Qaeda terrorists can infiltrate the US and buy assault weapons no questions asked? Do they count on the diligence/racial profiling of the seller to refuse a brown-skinned buyer? And I guess we can't count on Washington to make much headway, because they are either pre-occupied with the economic crisis, or bought by the NRA. Many of the Dems who won seats from the GOP in the last 2 elections are just as pro-gun, if not more, and accepted contributions by the NRA. 60 House Dems wrote to Obama asking him to reverse his pledge to make the assault weapons ban permanent. But regardless of what Obama wants to do with this issue, it's clear that he won't have Congress' support in the forseeable future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)